WATERSHED '93
Proceedings
WATERSHED '93
A National Conference on
Watershed Management
March 21-24, 1993
Alexandria, Virginia
Printed on fisoyded Paper
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
WATERSHED '93 Committees
Steering Committee
Jimmy F. Bates, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Ralph Brooks, Tennessee Valley Authority
Cynthia Burbank, Federal Highway
Administration
Philip Cohen, U.S Geological Survey
Trudy Coxe, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
James Geiger, U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service
Edward U. Graham, Montgomery County,
Maryland
Victoria Greenfield, Prince George's
County, Maryland
Peter Kumble, Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments
Ronald B. Linsky, National Water Research
Institute
Gary Margheim, USDA Soil Conservation
Service
William L. McCleese, USDA Forest Service
Robin O'Malley, Council on Environmental
Quality
Benjamin Radecki, U.S. Bureau of
Reclamation
Herbert Sachs, Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin
William Spitzer, National Park Service
Jack Sullivan, American Water Works
Association
Judith F. Taggart, Terrene Institute, Co-
Chair
Robert H. Wayland III, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Co-Chair
Andrew Weber, USDA Cooperative
Extension Service
Planning Committee
Blake Anderson, County Sanitation Districts
of Orange County, California
Fred Bank, Federal Highway Administration
Bern Collins, National Park Service
Paula Dannenfeldt, Association of
Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
Ellen Gordon, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
James Golden, USDA Forest Service
Charles Gregg, The Nature Conservancy
William Hansen, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers
Robert Klepp, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Steve Kokkinakis, National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
Peter Kumble, MetropolitanWashington
Council of Governments
Lee Langstaff, Council on Environmental
Quality
Kermit Larson, USDA Forest Service
Mark Luttner, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Morrie Mabbitt, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Bruce J. Newton, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Jill Parker, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jennifer Paugh, Terrene Institute,
Conference Coordinator
Janet Pawlukiewicz, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Conference
Coordinator
Michael Pawlukiewicz, Prince George's
County, Maryland
Robert Pryor, Tennessee Valley Authority
Richard Riegler, American Water Works
Association
Alan Roberson, American Water Works
Association
Mary Ann Rozum, USDA Cooperative
Extension Service
Jan Gallagher Shubert, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Stuart Schwartz, Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin
Ethan T. Smith, U.S. Geological Survey
Judith Troast, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Thomas Wehri, USDA Soil Conservation
Service
Cameron Wiegand, Montgomery County,
Maryland
Louise Wise, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Chair
Hi
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Contents
Foreword xvii
Acknowledgments xix
Letter from the Vice President of the United States xxi
The Honorable Al Gore
PLENARY SESSIONS
Watersheds: Integrating Human Needs with Ecosystem Management
Welcome 1
William H. Funk
Remarks 3
Robert H. Way land III
A Historical Perspective on Watershed Management in the United
States 5
Warren D. Fairchild
The Current State of Watersheds in the United States—Ecological and
Institutional Concerns 11
John Cairns, Jr.
A Charge to Conferees 19
John B. Waters
Addressing Multiple Interests
Remarks 23
G. Edward Dickey
Panel Discussion 25
Gail Bingham, Holly Stoerker, Gerald Digemess, Dale Pontius,
Neil dine, and Sharon Haines
Diversity of Approaches in Watershed Management
Remarks... 37
Cynthia J. Burbank
Bear Creek and the Origins of TVA's Clean Water Initiative 39
Ralph H. Brooks
The Chesapeake Bay: A Case Study in Watershed Management 43
Ann Pesiri Swanson
Stillwater/Truckee and Carson Rivers 47
Frank Dimick
-------
vi
Watershed'93
The St. Louis River: A Grass-Roots Approach to Protection 51
Michael J. Hambrock and Patty Murto
Visions for the Future: A National Satellite Videoconference
Panel Discussion 57
L. Gregory Low, Bill Frank, Jr., The Honorable Parris N. Glendening,
Jimmie Powell, Martha Prothro, and Steve W. Tedder
Summary of Small Group Discussions 69
L. Gregory Low, Bill Frank, Jr., Jimmie Powell,
Martha Prothro, Steve W. Tedder, and Louise P. Wise
Special Presentation •• 75
The Honorable Mike Espy
Special Presentation —• •• 77
TedDanson
Special Address 79
The Honorable Carol M. Browner
SPECIAL GUEST SPEAKER
Biodiversity, Rainforests, and BioParks 83
Michael Robinson
CONCURRENT SESSIONS
Historical Perspectives
Watershed Management in Historical Perspective: The Soil
Conservation Service's Experience 89
Douglas Helms
A Century of Evolution in Watershed Management in the U.S.
Forest Service 95
George Leonard
River Basin Management in the Tennessee Valley 101
Robert L. Herbst
Evolution of Watershed Planning and Management in National
Water Policy 107
Amy Doll
Legislative Issues
Public Law 83-566 and Water Quality 115
James R. Fisher
Utility Planning and the Endangered Species Act 119
Cis Myers
Baltimore County Regulations for the Protection of Water Quality,
Streams, Wetlands, and Floodplains 125
Janice B. Outen • '
Controlling Nonpoint Source Pollution: A Cooperative Venture 127
Ellen Gordon, Marcella Jansen, and Ann Beier
-------
Conference Proceedings
vii
Improving Boston's Watershed Protection Program in Response
to the Safe Drinking Water Act 131
Allen Adelman
The National Environmental Policy Act Process: A Tool for
Watershed Analysis and Planning 135
Shannon E. Cuniff
Catalysts for Watershed Management
The Greenway Chameleon 141
Anne Lusk
National Marine Fisheries Service's Involvement in Watershed
Management Through the Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection,
and Restoration Act of 1990 145
Timothy Osborn and Rickey Ruebsamen
New Federal Directions
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 149
USDA Forest Service 150
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 151
Jimmy F. Bates
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation 155
Leon Hyatt
USDA Soil Conservation Service 159
Gary A. Margheim
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 163
Mike Spear, Jill Parker, Richard O. Bennett, and John J. Fay
Council on Environmental Quality 171
Federal Highway Administration 171
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 171
National Park Service 172
Tennessee Valley Authority 172
U.S. Bureau of Land Management 173
USDA Extension Service 173
U.S. Geological Survey 173
Financing Watershed Management
How to Finance Watershed Protection and Design a Land
Acquisition Program 175
Sarah J. Meyland and Chris Cole
Financing of Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Projects
Through Ohio's State Revolving Load Fund : 181
Kevin C. Hinkle and Gary P. Jones
-------
viil
Watershed '93
Financing Storm Water Management: Maryland's Experience with
Storm Water Utilities 185
Jim George
Funding the Implementation of the Buzzards Bay CCMP: Searching
for a New Approach 191
Edwin H.B. Pratt, Jr., and Dennis Luttrell
The "Local Loan Fund"—A Solution to Many Watershed Pollution
Control Problems 199
Dan Filip
Identifying Priority Areas
Using a Geographic Information System as a Targeting Tool for
Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay Program 203
Veronica Kasi
The Colville River Watershed Ranking and Planning Project 211
Charles L. Kessler and Gordon L. Dugan
Watershed Simulation Modeling with GIS in Prince George's
County 217
Chris Rodstrom, Mohammed Lahlou, Alan Cavacas, and
Mow-Soung Cheng
Landscape Ecology
Biodiversity Considerations in Watershed Management 225
Kathy E. Freas, Janet Senior, and Daniel Heagerty
Ecological Perspectives on Silvicultural Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control , 229
Y. David Chen, Steve C. McCutcheon, and Robert F. Carsel
Forming Partnerships
Butterfield Creek Watershed Management: An Interagency Approach 237
Peggy A. Glassford, Dennis W. Dreher, and Robert M. Bartels
Watershed Management in Puget Sound: A Case Study 243
Katherine Minsch
Citizens Take the Lead: Elkhorn Creek Watershed Planning and
Action Through Consensus 249
Beth K. Stewart, Gregory K. Johnson, and Doug Nines
Partnerships for Regional Watershed Planning: The ORSANCO
Experience 253
Ed Logsdon
Watershed Protection—A Private/Public Issue 255
Tom Yoke and Preston Luitweiler
The Patuxent Estuary Demonstration Project: Partnerships Restoring
the Patuxent River 259
Susan M. Battle, Robert M. Summers, and Richard E. Hall
Building Local Partnerships 267
Loring Bullard
-------
Conference Proceedings
IX
Partnerships in Decision Making Within the San Francisco Bay/Delta 271
Thomas H. Wakeman III
Planning Approaches
The Conceptual Foundations of Multiobjective River Basin
Planning and Their Contemporary Relevance 277
David C. Major
Geographic Approaches to Environmental Management:
Bioregionalism Applied 281
Jonathan Z. Cannon
Managing a Desert Ecosystem for Multiple Objectives 287
William B. Lord
Community-Based Natural Resource Planning by Hydrologic Units 293
R. Wade Biddix
Establishing Goals
Watershed Planning and Management 299
Carolyn Hardy Olsen
Challenges in Watershed Activism—Changing Our River Legacies 305
Peter M. Lavigne
A New Philosophy for the Environmental Regulatory Process , ,.315
Michael Pawlukiewicz
Economic Modeling and Valuation
The Economics of Silvicultural Best Management Practices 319
George E. Dissmeyer
Preservation and Restoration of Wetlands: The Challenge of
Economic-Ecological Modeling on a Watershed Basis 325
Robert Gates, Alan Woolf, Steven Kraft, Roger Beck, Mike Wagner,
John Burde, and David Sharpe
Santa Ana River Reuse Optimization Model 331
Michael T. Savage and Mark R. Norton
Cost Analysis for Nonpoint Control Strategies in the Chesapeake
Basin 339
Lynn R. Shuyler
Cost-Effective Implementation of Management Objectives: Purpose
and Approach of the Analysis Team of North East Wisconsin Waters
for Tomorrow 343
Paul E. Thonnodsgard and David White
Watershed-Scale Total Maximum Daily Loads
South Platte Basin: Application of the Total Maximum Daily Load
Approach 349
Bruce Zander
Application of a Nonpoint Source TMDL Approach to a Complex
Problem of Mining Waste Pollution—South Fork Coeur d'Alene River 355
Geoffrey W. Harvey
-------
Watershed '93
A Status Report on Michigan's Comprehensive Water Quality
Plan for Sycamore Creek 361
John D. Suppnick
Development of the San Luis Obispo Creek Demonstration TMDL 367
David W. Dilks, Kathryn A. Schroeder, and Theodore A.D. Slawecki
Information Management and Geographical Information Systems
The Use of Geographic Information System Images as a Tool to
Educate Local Officials About the Land Use/Water Quality Connection 373
Chester L. Arnold, Heather M. Crawford, Roy F. Jeffrey, and
C. James Gibbons
Using Geographic Information Systems to Develop Best Management
Practice Programs for Watershed Management: Case Studies in the
Delaware River Basin 379
Wesley R. Homer and Thomas H. Cahill
Use of GIS Mapping Techniques to Inventory Potential Habitat
Restoration Sites in a Highly Industrialized Urban Estuary 391
C. Mebane and P.T. Cagney
Data Base Development for the Coeur d'Alene Basin Restoration
Initiative 399
William B. Samuels, Susan Eddy, Brian Wortman, and Sid Finley
Nonpoint Source Assessment and Accounting System NPS
Management and Evaluation Tool 407
Deborah G. Wetter, Joseph F. Tassone, Elise G. Bridges, and
Dawn M. DiStefano
Social and Cultural Issues
Impact of Jurisdictional Conflict on Water Resource Management,
Rosebud Indian Reservation, South Dakota 413
Syed Y. Huq
Lowering Barriers to the P.L. 83-566 Small Watershed Program on
the Navajo Nation 417
W. Wayne Killgore
Building Public Support
Managing Watersheds Through a Volunteer Teacher Network 421
Sandra W. Burk
Successful Grass-Roots Strategies for Public Education and
Participation in Watershed Protection Policy Making 425
Jeffrey Fullmer
OperationrFuture—Creating Tomorrow's Agriculture 431
Dennis W. Hall
Green Shores for Mississippi Headwaters 435
Molly MacGregor
Educating Youth About Watersheds: Options and Actions 441
Elaine Andrews
-------
Couferervce Proceedings
XI
The Save Our Streams (SOS) Program 447
Karen Firehock
The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative: A Local Partnership
at Work 451
Amy S. Johnson and Michael Stlfler
Public Survey and Pollutant Model for Prince George's County 459
Jennifer Smith, Stephen Paul, Cheryl Collins, Alan Cavacas, and
Mohammed Lahlou
The Missouri SALT Program: Local People Solving Local Problems 467
Steven K. Taylor
State Strategies
Clean Water Strategy 473
Arleen O'Donnell
A Statewide Approach to Watershed Management: North Carolina's
Basinwide Water Quality Management Program 481
Alan Clark
Minnesota's Comprehensive Watershed Management Initiative 489
John Pauley
A Problem-Solving Partnership 493
Doyle E. Williamson
Fifteen Years of Progress: Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program 497
Jim Baumann
Monitoring and Evaluation
Assessing the Impact of USDA Water Quality Projects: Monitoring 501
Donald W. Meals and John D. Sutton
Maryland's Targeted Watershed Project: Establishing Baseline Water
Quality 511
John L. McCoy, Niles Primrose, and Stuart W. Lehman
Watershed Project Monitoring and Evaluation Under Section 319
of the Clean Water Act 521
Steven A. Dressing, Jean Spooner, and Jo Beth Mullens
Multidisciplinary Approach to Nonpoint Source Nutrient Control 529
Gary J. Ritter, Alan L. Goldstein, Greg Sawka, Eric G. Flaig, and
Susan Gray
Using Field-Scale Simulation Models for Watershed Planning
and/or Evaluation ; ;..... 537
Ray H. Griggs and John D. Sutton
Urban Watersheds
Consequences of Urbanization on Aquatic Systems—Measured
Effects, Degradation Thresholds, and Corrective Strategies .....'.: 545
Derek B. Booth and Lorin E> Reinelt
-------
xll
Watershed '93
Use of Rapid Bioassessment Protocols to Evaluate the Effects of
Combined Sewer Overflows on Biological Integrity 551
James B. Stribling, Marjorie Coombs, and Chris Faulkner
Application of Nonpoint Source Loading Relationships to Lake
Protection Studies in Denver, Colorado 557
James T. Wulliman
Development of a Regional Framework for Storm Water Permitting
in North Central Texas 565
Robert W. Brashear, John Promise, George E. Oswald, and Alan H.
Plummer, Jr.
Ground Water and Drinking Water
Agricultural Watershed Planning over Shallow Ground Water 571
John Bischoff, Jeanne Goodman, and William E. Markley
Measuring the Drinking Water Impacts from Two Agricultural
Watershed Management Programs in the Midwest 579
/. Alan Roberson
Assessing Ground Water Contributions to Pollutant Loadings to the
Middle Fork of the Snake River, Idaho 583
Iris Goodman and Paul Jehn
Addressing Multiple Issues
The C-51 Basin: Evolution of a Single-Purpose Project to Achieve
Multi-purpose Water Resource Objectives in a Changing Public
Policy Arena 589
Tilford C. Creel, Len Wagner, Tommy Stroud, and Alan Hall
The Effectiveness of Environmental Mediation in the Relicensing
of Kingsley Dam and Keystone Diversion Dam 595
Michael T. Eckert
Umatilla Watershed Restoration: Success Through Cooperation 601
Antone Minthorn
Large-Scale Collaboration—Lessons Learned 605
Marcelle E. DuPraw
Mushing Watershed Projects Together in Iowa 611
Lyle W. Asell
Improving Local Efforts to Resolve Watershed Management
Problems 615
Kevin Campbell and Karl Niederwerfer
Complicated Questions, Creative Solutions 621
Frank Gaffney
Consensual Decision Making for Watershed Management 625
Trudie Wetherall and C. Mark Dunning
Identifying Problems and Implementing Solutions
Streams of Dreams: If You Restore Them, Fish and Wildlife
Will Come 631
David C. Frederick
-------
Conference Proceedings
xiii
Watershed Restoration Through Integrated Resource Management
on Public and Private Rangelands 633
Sid Goodloe and Susan Alexander
Multiple Objectives Planning at Portland, Oregon, for the Balch Creek
Watershed 641
Jean Ochsner and Tom Davis
The West Maui Algae Bloom and Watershed Management 651
Shannon FitzGerald and Clarence Tenley
Conserving a River Ecosystem: A Missouri River Partnership 655
Kent Keenlyne
Mitchell Creek Watershed: Nonpoint Source Pollution Implementation
Program 665
Maureen Kennedy Templeton
Protecting Estuarine Resources: An Integrated Framework for Land
Use Decision Making 671
Tim Vendlinski and Sam Ziegler
The Brandywine: Managing a Watershed in an Urban/Rural
Environment 677
David C. Yaeck
Market-Based Approaches
A Blueprint for the Future: Tradable Emissions Permits for the
Regulation of Agricultural Drainage in California's Central Valley 681
Chelsea H. Congdon and Terry F. Young
Point-Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Trading in the Stamford, Connecticut,
Watershed 687
Laurens van der Tak, Thomas Sadick, and Jeannette Semon
Point/Nonpoint Source Trading: A Discussion of Legal Requirements
and Implementation Issues 691
Esther Bartfeld
Rural Watersheds
Farmstead Assessments—A Voluntary Approach for Identifying and
Implementing Farmstead Practices to Prevent Pollution 697
Gary W. Jackson
Application of Watershed Index of Pollution Potential to Aerial
Inventory of Land Uses and Nonpoint Pollution Sources 705
Frank J. Sagona and C. Gregory Phillips
A Managerial Model of Nutrient Flow from Forests in the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed 713
Samuel H. Austin
Implementing a Watershed-Analysis-Based Approach to Timber
Management Planning in the Hoh River Basin, Western Olympic
Peninsula, Washington 719
Susan Colder Shaw
-------
xlv
Watershed '93
The Watershed Approach for Protecting Vermont's Water Quality 729
Richard J. Croft and Francis M. Keeler
Regional-Scale Assessment and Modeling
Watershed Assessment in the Albemarle-Pamlico Region 735
Randall C. Dodd, Patricia A. Cunningham, John P. Tippett,
Ross J. Curry, Steven Stichter, and Gerard McMahon
Monitoring Long-Term Watershed/Ecosystem Change for Preserved
Lands 743
Ray Herrmann
Statistical Modeling of Water Quality in Regional Watersheds 751
Richard A. Smith, Richard B. Alexander, Gary D. Tasker,
Curtis V. Price, Keith W. Robinson, and Dale A. White
Coastal Watersheds
The Role of Inland Water Development in the Systemic Alteration
of the Coastal Zone Environment 755
Michael A. Rozengurt and Irwin Haydock
Quantification and Control of Nitrogen Inputs to Buttermilk Bay,
Massachusetts 761
John D. Witten and Susan J. Trull
Application of the Hydrologic Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF)
Model to the Potomac River Basin 767
Ed Stigall, Lewis C. Linker, Anthony S. Donigian
Characterizing Pollution Sources in Coastal Watersheds: NOAA's
National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory Program 777
Daniel R.G. Farrow
Habitat Assessment, Protection, and Restoration
River Restoration Utilizing Natural Stability Concepts 783
David L. Rosgen
Streambank Stabilization Techniques: Nonpoint Source Pollution
Demonstration Project on Lower Boulder Creek, Colorado 791
Jay Windell, Chris Rudkin, and Laurie Rink
Establishment of Regional Reference Conditions for Stream
Biological Assessment and Watershed Management 797
Jeroen Gerritsen, James Green, and Ron Preston
Tailoring Requirements to Reality: The Santa Ana River Use
Attainability Analysis 803
James T. Egan, Gene Y. Michael, Max M. Grimes, Timothy F. Moore,
Steven P. Canton, and A. Paul Rochette
Resource Fair
Progress Report: Twenty Years of Watershed Planning in Southern
California's Santa Ana River Basin 811
Gordon K. Anderson
-------
Conference Proceedings
"It's All Connected".. . 813
Kathleen M. Bero
Alternative Selection Through Innovative Flood Hazard Management
Criteria 815
Michael J. Colgan, Malinda Y. Steward, and Mow-Soung Cheng
WTRYLD: A Computer Model for Simulating Watershed
Management 821
Samuel T. Combs, Donna S. Lindquist, and Ellen H. Yeoman
Balancing Development, Water Quality, and Wetlands Protection
in a Mid-Atlantic Watershed 823
Stephen Getlein, Randall S. Karalus, Art Springarn, and Fernando Pasquel
The Atlantic Region Riverkeepers Project: Building Community
Support for River Conservation 825
Elliott Gimble
Occurrence and Transport of Pesticides in the Mississippi River Basin 827
D.A. Goolsby and W.A. Battaglin
The Pawcatuck Watershed Education Program 829
Vicky J. O'Neal
A Watershed-Oriented PC Data Base for Managing Land Use and
Pollutant Data in the Albemarle/Pamlico Drainage ....831
John P. Tippett and Randall C. Dodd
Presenting a Water Quality Control Plan in an Electronic Format 833
Linda C. Garcia
Evaluation for Planned Wetlands: An Approach to Assessing
Replacement of Wetland Functions 835
Candy C. Bartoldus, Edgar W. Garbisch, and Mark L. Kraus
Cooperative Extension Service National Water Quality Information
Management Project Bibliography and Data Base 837
Catherine E. Burwell
From Grass Roots to Brass Tacks: Nontraditional Approaches to
Public Involvement in the Lower Colorado River Watershed 839
Richard Terrance Colgan, L. Kirk Cowan, John M. Gosdin, and
Nora Mullarkey
Reaching an Urban Audience: Using Mass Media to Enhance
Nonpoint Source Pollution Prevention 841
Karin E. Van Vlack
Integrated McKenzie Watershed Management Program 849
Kathi Wiederhold and Laurie Power
Watershed Protection—Tried and True: The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Clean Lakes Program ....851
Terri Hollingsworth, Susan Ratcliffe, and Howard Marshall
California's Feather River Story: Building a Collaborative Process 855
Donna S. Lindquist and Leah Wills
Million Points of Blight@ .857
Susan Macleod and Laurie Halperin
-------
xvi
Watershed '93
Baltimore County Waterway Improvement Program 859
Candace L. Szabad
Summary of Trinidad Lake North Land Treatment Watershed Project
in South Central Colorado 861
W. Kent Ververs
The Watershed Management Game 863
Susan V. Alexander
Lessons Learned from the Rural Clean Water Program with Selected
Case Studies of Local Nonpoint Source Control Projects 865
Jon A. Arnold, Steven W. Coffey, Jean Spooner, Judith A. Gale,
Dan E. Line, and Deanna L. Osmond
Forests and Water Quality 867
Gordon Stuart and Terri Bates
Storm Water Best Management Practices for the Ultra-Urban
Environment 869
Warren Bell
California's Rangeland Watershed Program Poster Summary 871
Mel George, Jim Clawson, Neil McDougald, and Leonard Jolley
Involvement of Citizen Volunteers in Watershed Management in the
Chesapeake Bay Basin 873
Kathleen Ellett, Cynthia Dunn, Scott Steffey, and Marcy Judd
Advance Identification 875
William S. Garvey
Watershed Screening and Targeting Tool 877
Leslie L. Shoemaker, Mohammed Lahlou, and Sigrid Popowitch
Environmental Protection Agency Mainframe for Water Quality
Analysis and Watershed Assessment 879
Phillip Taylor, Sigrid Popowitch, William Samuels, Sue Hanson, and
Tim Bondelid
Watershed Management in Tampa Bay: A Resource-Based Approach 881
Holly S. Greening and Richard M. Eckenrod
Storm Water Pollution Prevention in the Santa Clara Valley, California... 883
L. Donald Duke
The Baltimore County "100 Points of Stream Monitoring": Building
Partnerships and Public Support for Watershed Management Through
a Volunteer Water Monitoring Project 885
Abby Markowitz
Working Together to Reduce Irrigation-Induced Erosion, West
Stanislaus Hydrologic Unit Area 887
Mike McElhiney and Philip P. Osterli
Index of Presenters and Panelists 889
-------
WATERSHED'93
Foreword
By many accounts, WATERSHED '93: A National Conference on Watershed Management
was a watershed event. More than 1,100 people participated on-site over the 3 days of the
conference in Alexandria, Virginia. Hundreds more participated via satellite broadcast on the
final day of the conference. It was the first opportunity in many years for people with diverse
perspectives from a wide variety of disciplines to exchange ideas and information concerning
comprehensive watershed management.
These proceedings contain the presentations and discussions that took place during the
plenary sessions, including the satellite broadcast, as well as many of the papers that were
presented in 30 concurrent sessions. The first part of the proceedings includes all of the
plenary session papers and discussions. Part two highlights the remarks of the luncheon
speaker, Michael Robinson, Director of the National Zoo. The third section contains all of
the concurrent session papers that were submitted for publication, in the order in which the
presentations were listed in the conference final agenda. Finally, an index of all authors is
included so that you can easily locate a paper if you know the author's name.
The views expressed in the proceedings are those of the individual authors and should not be
construed as endorsements, recommendations, or the official positions of any of the agencies
that sponsored the conference.
xvii
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Acknowledgments
Numerous people deserve credit for the success of the conference. Special thanks go to the
Steering and Planning Committees and the conference coordinators. The speakers, modera-
tors, field trip planners and presenters, room monitors, and small group discussion facilitators
all spent time preparing for their portions of the program and their work is much appreciated.
The satellite broadcast could not have happened without the skillful attention of Janet Poley
and Cathy Bridwell of the USDA' s Extension Service, and Greg Low of The Nature Conser-
vancy deserves special mention for his role as Master of Ceremonies. Thanks also to Ken
Lanfear of the U.S. Geological Survey for producing attractive and informative maps of the
watersheds of the United States, including the image on the cover of these proceedings.
The conference logistics were superbly handled by Terrene Institute, and the proceedings
were prepared with the expert assistance of Tetra Tech, Inc. The editing team from the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency—Paula Monroe, Anne Robertson, Joan Warren, and lead
editor, Janet Pawlukiewicz—also deserve special recognition.
XIX
-------
-------
OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT
WASHINGTON
March 24, 1993
To the Participants of WATERSHED '93:
I commend all of you for your dedication to protecting our
Nation's water resources. Great strides have been made in
improving the health of the Nation's waters thanks to the efforts
of many people around this country — including many of you here
today.
However, as you all know, our waters are still in danger.
Today's threats such as nonpoint source pollution and habitat
degradation require new and creative solutions. With its
holistic approach, watershed protection provides a means by which
we can address and overcome the perils facing our waters.
I realize that for many, watershed management represents a
new way of thinking. This new approach will require major
changes in your current methods of operation. Adopting this
watershed protection approach will not always be easy and there
will be obstacles to overcome. Rest assured that you will not be
facing this challenge alone. As part of our economic stimulus
package, President Clinton and I proposed $47 million for
watershed protection efforts, including nonpoint source pollution
controls and wetlands restoration.
We are all keenly aware that our environmental efforts in
the decade of the 90s must succeed. We must ensure that we leave
to our children and grandchildren a healthy environment. Your
attendance at this conference demonstrates that you are ready to
take this challenge and make watershed protection work.
Sincerely,
Al Gore
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Welcome
William H. Funk, President
Terrene Institute and Co-Chair of WATERSHED '93 Steering Committee
Washington, DC
Good morning and welcome to
WATERSHED '93. The response to
this conference has been overwhelm-
ing! There are about one thousand of us
here today, and we're sorry to acknowledge
that we had to turn away quite a few
people.
What I think is most remarkable,
though, is the broad array of disciplines and
perspectives you all represent—citizen
activists, technical experts, public program
managers, farmers, industrialists, academics,
and many more. About a third of us are
from tribal, local, state, and interstate
organizations—27 states and 19 tribes are
represented. Another third of us are from
the more than a dozen federal agencies that
have sponsored the conference, including
scores of regional and field office personnel.
The balance of us represent business,
agriculture, and the not-for-profit sector. In
part this is due to the large variety of
sponsors for the conference, but primarily I
think it is in response to our very real
concern that cooperative, comprehensive
action must be taken to restore and protect
our valuable water resources.
Over the next few days, you will hear
directly from many of the sponsors, as they
introduce speakers, participate on panels, or
share information at their exhibits, or even
during casual conversations in the hall or
over meals. First, I have the honor to
introduce to you my colleague and co-chair
of the conference steering committee, Bob
Wayland.
-------
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
Remarks
Robert H. Wayland III, Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and
Co-Chair of WATERSHED '93 Steering Committee
Washington, DC
It is especially fitting that we should be
meeting at the onset of spring, the season
of renewal, because this conference is not
so much about the birth of ideas and
institutions as it is their rebirth. In one of
the most widely read texts about our global
environment, we are reminded that
Thanks in part to the scientific
revolution, we organize our knowl-
edge into smaller and smaller
segments and assume that the
connections between these separate
compartments aren't really important.
In our fascination with the parts of
nature, we forget to see the whole.
The ecological perspective begins
with a view of the whole. But this
perspective cannot treat the earth as
something separate from civilization.
We're part of the whole and looking
at it inevitably means looking at
ourselves.
I am sure few of us would disagree
with these words from the author of Earth in
the Balance, Al Gore. Our ancient fore-
bears, in virtually all lands and cultures
around the world, celebrated the connections
in ritual, music, folklore, and literature. If
they could see us, they would probably be
amazed at our ability to produce food,
transport goods and people, and fight
disease and prolong life. But the condition
of our natural world and modern society's
attempts to heal it would surely disappoint
them.
I hope that they might also under-
stand, if they could see a videotape over
time rather than a snapshot of 1993, that
when the modern effort to control pervasive
pollution began in the late '60s and early
'70s we attempted to break the problem
into solvable components. Much has been
accomplished, looking at individual
species, particular pollutant classes, or
pollution source categories. But we have
departed from what scientists would call
the "first principles."
So WATERSHED '93 is about
renewing our commitment to first principles.
I hope we can strengthen and build upon a
number of efforts to better integrate ecologi-
cal protection and resource management.
Specifically, we need to focus on efforts
within particular geographical areas (such as
Coquille Harbor estuary in Oregon, the Big
Springs region of Iowa, and the Chesapeake
Bay) and efforts to realign national and state
programs to integrate approaches that have
been separately directed to related problems
(such as water pollution, agricultural
production, fisheries management, wetlands
protection).
Madison Avenue has trained us to
think of one word when we're asked to spell
"relief," but the vocabulary of holistic,
integrated natural resource management
contains many nouns and more than a few
acronyms. Just think of a few—multi-
objective river corridor management,
TMDLs, habitat conservation plans, the
National Estuary Program, Last Great
Places. All of these are sound conceptual
starting places for policies and actions that
recognize connectedness. Many of us will
learn a lot more about some of these nouns,
perhaps we'll redefine them, and I hope that
we'll add to the vocabulary of watershed
management such terms as empowerment,
expansion, and action.
Thank you very much.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
A Historical Perspective on
Watershed Management in the
United States
Warren D. Fairchild
(Retired)
Consultant and Former Water Resources Planning Specialist, World Bank
Former Director, Water Resources Council, Alexandria, VA
I am honored to have been invited to
participate in this very timely and
significant conference on watershed
management. I commend the sponsors of
the conference for holding this workshop,
which can be an important "springboard" for
appropriate follow-up actions. It isn't as if
the topic of watershed management has not
been thoroughly discussed, studied, and
analyzed before, but implementing desirable
approaches has been "ad hoc" and margin-
ally successful.
In my letter of invitation to speak
today, it was encouraging to read the
position taken by the prestigious Water
Quality 2000 consortium on watershed
management. Its stated position calling for
taking a comprehensive, holistic approach to
water management is a "breath of fresh air."
It is a concept that I enthusiastically support
and an endeavor to which I have devoted
much of my professional life. Achievement
of the Water Quality 2000 concept will
prove to be difficult and illusive because no
institutional arrangement exists to efficiently
implement it and there are powerful forces
that find such an approach conflicts with
their self-interests. Many of you in atten-
dance today may, wittingly or unwittingly,
fall into this latter category.
The toughest part I had to fill in
during preparation of this presentation was
the third line of the title block. For the first
time in my professional life, I have no
official title. I am simply "Joe Smoe." This
situation has its advantages. Unlike most of
you, I represent no one but myself. I did not
have to clear my remarks with anyone.
Hence, the views expressed are mine alone,
for which I am entirely responsible.
To many of you my name and
background are most likely unknown
because I have not been associated with
domestic water resource programs for the
last 16 years, during which time I was
working on international water programs
with World Bank. I
am in a similar _^___^^_
situation. As I look
out over this confer-
ence, I recognize few
participants—what a
change for me from
the early 1970s when I
would have known
most of the attendees
on a first-name basis.
Very briefly I
would like to highlight
some of my past 45
years of water resource """"""""~~"~~
experience as a basis
for my message today to show that I have
more knowledge on the subject than my title
"retired" may suggest. I started my profes-
sional career in the late 1940s with the Soil
Conservation Service in Nebraska doing soil
surveys; preparing farm conservation plans;
laying out terraces, grassed waterways,
erosion control and irrigation structures; and
designing grassland, forestry, and other
conservation measures. In 1956, in the
Gage County Soil and Water Conservation
District, which I headed, there were six
watersheds constitute the
most sensible hydrologic unit
within which actions should
be taken to restore and
protect water quality."
—Water Quality 2000 Final
Report, November 1992
-------
Watershed '93
wWater by its nature is
universal.... It is essential
to programs in all sectors,
whether the objective is
economic development, social
well-being, or environmental
enhancement.
watershed projects. These are excellent
examples of micro-scale watershed manage-
ment schemes requiring 75 percent land
treatment prior to the installation of larger
infrastructural measures.
While I was head of the Nebraska Soil
and Water Conservation Commission, the
first comprehensive State Water Plan was
prepared. Two of the most memorable
actions in my professional life ocurred
during this tenure—enactment of the
Natural Resource District (LB #1357) and
Flood Plain Management (LB #893)
legislation. The Natural Resource District
legislation is "one of a kind" in the United
States, and the Flood Plain Management
program was a nonstructural approach to
reducing flood damages. During this time, I
also served on the Nebraska Water Pollution
Control Board.
During the early 1970s, as Assistant
Commisioner for the Bureau of Reclama-
tion, among other
__^«_^^__— things I was respon-
sible for the compre-
hensive Westwide
(water) Study for the
11 western states. It
was during my tenure
as Director of the
U.S. Water Resources
Council that the now
well-known Prin-
ciples, Standards and
Planning Procedures
were initially imple-
___________ mented by all federal
water resource
agencies. These procedures emphasized the
two planning objectives of economic
development and environmental enhance-
ment. Also at this time the Second National
Water Assessment was carried out.
In 1976,1 became associated with
World Bank on water resource matters in
South Asia and the Middle East. Even
though I headed numerous appraisal
missions involving investments in excess of
a billion dollars, my most rewarding
activities related to preparing water master
plans for such countries as Pakistan,
Bangladesh, and Yemen. These challenging
planning efforts were heavily oriented
toward policy and institutional reforms and
adoption of natural resource management
plans compatible with the physical environ-
ment, as well as the cultural background and
technical capabilities of the people and their
governments. My last significant World
Bank activity was initiating a program
leading to preparation of a strategy covering
multisectoral water issues in the Middle East
and North Africa (World Bank, 1992). This
strategy is now being implemented.
As you can note from the above
resume, much of my professional career has
been devoted to comprehensive water
resource planning. I wish I could assure you
that all of these endeavors have been
successful, but I can't. In many cases there
have been strong individuals and powerful
groups who saw such programs as threats to
their vested positions. It is not unusual to
find rational planning and wise management
decisions falling victim to expedient
political action where the "squeaky wheel
gets the grease." Quite frankly, I wince at
the extravagent and unfounded statements of
vociferous individuals and groups, which
many times are reported as fact by the news
media eagerly awaiting the opportunity for
sensational reporting. However, there have
been a sufficient number of successful
comprehensive watershed management
programs carried out to be encouraging.
With the clout of groups like Water Quality
2000 and the stated interest of the new
administration in this field, the time may
now be ripe for a breakthrough. Hopefully,
this interest by the Clinton administration
will not be misguided.
Water by its nature is universal and
fortunately it is a renewable resource. It is
essential to programs in all sectors, whether
the objective is economic development,
social well-being, or environmental en-
hancement. Unfortunately, there is no
overall entity responsible for the total
management of water and other natural
resources. In most countries, as in the
United States, the administrative organiza-
tion of government is not conducive to
sound and holistic watershed planning and
management. For the most part, govern-
ments are organized along functional lines,
(e.g., agriculture, transportation, health and
human services, environment, energy).
Water management is further fragmented
by layers of government at the federal, state
or provincial, and local levels. Thus, a
major obstacle to achieving comprehensive
and holistic management of natural re-
sources is the lack of institutional
arranagements that can efficiently facilitate
such an approach.
Water became a national concern long
before many of the current priority govern-
mental programs were instituted. Federal
-------
Conference Proceedings
involvement in most programs was delayed
because of the constitutional issues concern-
ing the federal role, vis-a-vis the role of the
states, local jurisdictions, and the private
sector. For example, the states retain a very
significant water role because of their
regulatory authority over water use and
rights. This is particularily evident in the
arid western states.
The first federal water programs began
in 1824 with congressional enactment of the
General Survey Act, which authorized the
Corps of Engineers (COE) to. make surveys
and estimates on schemes deemed to be of
national importance (USDA, 1972).
Planning authority was not included in this
act, but was authorized in 1826 in the first
omnibus Rivers and Harbors Act. These
early acts were limited to navigation. A
major objective of these and other early
federal mandates was to facilitate westward
migration of settlers.
It was not until the mid 1800s that the
Corps became involved in flood control. In
1879, the U.S. Geological Survey published
a survey on the sparsely settled dry lands of
the West. This report sparked government
action to reserve right-of-way for irrigation
canals on public lands west of the 100th
meridan and paved the way for the 1902
Reclamation Act. In 1891 Congress enacted
national forest legislation with flood control
as a major consideration.
As the values and priorities of the
country shifted, additional natural resource
assignments were made and new agencies
were established. For example, the Forest
Service was established in USDA in 1905.
Beginning in 1912, the Public Health
Service was authorized to study and
disseminate information on the public health
aspects of water pollution. However, it was
not until 1948 that it became actively
involved in water pollution abatement. The
Federal Power Commision began function-
ing in the 1920s, and the Tennessee Valley
Authority was created in 1933 (USDA,
1972). Following the disastrous "dust bowl
era," the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
was established in 1935; however, it was not
until 1956 with enactment of Public Law
83-566 that SCS had a significant watershed
operational program. Environmental
programs were strengthened considerably in
the 1970s with enactment of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), estab-
lishment of the Environmental Protection
Agency, and passage of the Endangered
Species Act.
The above list of water assignments is
not exhaustive, and quite frankly there is a
void in my knowledge of such programs
during the last 16 years because of my
international service. Even so, the above
recounting indicates the evolution of federal
water agencies, as well as the specificity of
their assignments as the Congress and
executive branch strove to be responsive to
evolving values relating to natural resource
issues. Similar institutional arrangements
were developed in the states—partially
reflecting need but also to take advantage of
any federal largess that could be forthcom-
ing. Simultaneously, or even preceeding the
establishment of these executive agencies,
was the formation of vested interest groups
and congressional oversight committees—
hence, the development
of a strong triad (i .e., ————
congressional commit-
tees, federal agencies,
and related user or
lobbying groups) to
protect and enhance
specific activity with
inadequate consideration
as to how such activities
affect water programs in
other sectors or what is •—————
most important in the
national scheme. This arrangement worked
well in earlier times when water was in
surplus and new land remained to be settled.
Many outstanding works completed under
such arrangements have had significant and
overall positive impact on our nation's
development. However, this approach is
entirely outmoded in today's environment of
conflicting uses for scarce and dwindling
resources.
Unfortunately, the United States does
not have a well-articulated and comprehen-
sive natural resource policy. The policy that
it does have is scattered in a myriad of
legislative acts, administrative orders, and
regulations that have evolved over time.
Not too surprisingly, there are gaps and
conflicts in these documents. Benefit-cost
analysis for federally assisted water projects
began in the 1930s. Also in the 1930s some
effort was directed at cost-sharing arrange-
ments. However, for the most part these and
other policy-related issues were secondary
and largely ignored by the agencies. They
had little congressional support and were
actively opposed by most user groups.
Probably the first effort to coordinate
water resource activities was the appoint-
Unfortunately, the United
States does not have a
well-articulated and
comprehensive natural
resource policy."
-------
Watershed '93
ment of an Inland Waterways Commission
by President Teddy Roosevelt in 1908.
However, little came out of this and subse-
quent activities until 1993 when President
Franklin Roosevelt created a National
Planning Board as part of the "New Deal."
Its charge was to prepare a program of
public works including water works. Many
of these schemes were implemented under
the Public Works Administration (PWA).
Also included in the Board's reports was a
program calling for multiple-purpose
reservoirs for 10 river basins based largely
on COB river planning documents known as
308 reports. This resulted in construction of
such dams as Grand Coulee, Parker,
Bonneville, Shasta, Fort Peck, and Wheeler.
Thus the era of multipurpose reservoirs
came into being—a first step toward holistic
watershed management. However, multi-
purpose development should not be con-
fused with the all-encompassing holistic
watershed management approach as
envisaged today.
The National Planning Board and its
successors never had much support in
Congress, and in 1943 Congress abolished it
as part of its continuing battle with the
executive branch over control of water
programs. At about this time the responsi-
bility for coordinating water planning was
assigned to the Bureau of the Budget
(BOB), which in my estimation was and
continues to be a mistake. BOB's position,
and that of its successor the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), is based
on biases reflecting perceived impacts on
the federal budget and little else. This
"short changes" natural resource programs
and the totality of their impact on society.
Following World War II a series of
actions and institutional arragements were
instigated to facilitate sound planning and
coordination of water resource agencies. In
1952, BOB issued the A-47 directive to
water agencies precribing planning stan-
dards they were to follow. With the
dissolution of the Natural Resources
Planning Board, Agriculture, Interior, War,
and FPC entered an agreement to coordinate
their separate responsibilities in preparation
of basin surveys. This agreement estab-
lished the Federal Interagency River Basin
Committee—better known as "firebrick—
which, in turn, set up interagency commit-
tees on specific river basins. Provision was
made for state participation. Some River
Basin Interagency Committees carried out
very extensive programs, as exemplified by
the "Pick-Sloan Plan" on the Missouri
River. "Firebrick" issued the "Green Book"
covering economic analysis of river basin
projects, but the Bureau of Reclamation and
COB did not fully accept it for their
projects.
Under the Eisenhower administration
"firebrick" was reorganized with members
at the subcabinet level to include the
Department of Health, Education and
Welfare with the Departments of Commerce
and Labor to serve as associates. This
interagency committee for water resources
can best be remembered by the moniker "ice
water." "Ice water" did not make any policy
recommendations; however, a Presidential
Advisory Committee on Water Resources
Policy did make policy recommendations to
Congress on planning, which were cooly
received.
There were a myriad of executive
and congressional water study commis-
sions and committees established in the
1950s; however, for the most part the
reports and recommendations of these
bodies were ignored as the struggle
continued between the executive and
legislative branches over control of the
water programs. An exception was
recommendations of a "Select Committee
on National Water Resources," chaired by
Senator Kerr, which resulted in enactment
of the Water Resources Planning Act (P.L.
89-80) in 1965.
Primarily, the Water Resources Plan-
ning Act provided for (1) establishment of
the Water Resources Council (WRC);
(2) organization of Federal/State River Ba-
sin Commissions; and (3) financial assis-
tance to states for water planning. Having
served as a Director of WRC, it is my opin-
ion that this act and initiatives coming from
it were significant, and given the political
environment at that time, it was about as
comprehensive a piece of legislation as
could have been enacted. WRC was only
as strong as its members desired or permit-
ted. At times this was a distinct weakness
when proposed actions came into conflict
with the programs of a member agency.
WRC was successful in promulgating the
"Principles, Standards and Procedures" for
water resource planning, completing two
important National Water Assessments, and
organizing six River Basin Commissions.
These Federal/State River Basin Commis-
sions completed some very sound inter-
agency plans, which have come as close to
the concept of holistic basin (watershed)
-------
Conference Proceedings
management as we have achieved in our
nation. Financial assistance to the states
led to the preparation of many fine State
Water Plans, which for the most part were
consistent with the holistic concept.
WRC and the River Basin Commis-
sions were inherently weak because they
had few stalwart clients. They had no
hardware to sell. As WRC tackled hard
policy issues on cost sharing and planning
procedures envisaging tougher economic
analysis or environmental enhancement, it
found itself in conflict with OMB and
Congress. In many ways OMB saw WRC
as usurping its water policy and coordina-
tion roles. At that time, Congress wanted
little executive branch action in these areas
because it could interfere with congressional
flexibility in providing projects and pro-
grams to constituents. I still remember
some of the testy "Hill" hearings on these
subjects.
Another WRC weakness was requir-
ing its eight members to be at the Cabinet
level. Cabinet members are busy people,
and it is difficult to get them together for
meetings. This was rectified during my
tenure by designating subcabinet members
(generally Assistant Secretaries) as Associ-
ate Members authorized to take action in
name of their respective members. The
Associate Members met quite regularly. A
high point during my WRC career was when
OMB officials walked out of a meeting of
WRC members during discussions on cost
sharing associated with a congressionally
directed section 80 study. WRC members
wanted to increase cost sharing over time,
while OMB wanted high levels immedi-
ately.
Five years after I left the Council, it
met an inglorious death at the hands of
Secretary of the Interior James Watt, who
was of the mistaken opinion that all water
resources programs could be coordinated
out of the Department of the Interior.
Agencies will not tolerate coordination of
their assigned functions by another agency.
In conclusion, it is my opinion that the
two keys to achieving a satisfactory level of
holistic watershed management are
(1) rational comprehensive planning and
(2) compatible institutional arrangement to
facilitate implementation. This will require
some reorganization within both the
executive and legislative branches. I do not
have much hope for success for such an
initiative unless there is a committee in
Congress that has overall responsibility for
actions related to comprehensive watershed
management.
Within the executive branch it would
be folly to expect reorganization of all water
agencies into one federal department.
Politically, I doubt if such a reorganization
could be accomplished, and there remains
merit to governmental alignment along
functional lines. However, there is good
reason to believe that an umbrella organiza-
tion could be established with comprehen-
sive natural resource policy and planning
responsibilities. Among other things, it
could be charged to prepare an appropriate
policy framework for watershed manage-
ment. This
arragement should ^_^—i^_^_i^__
afford opportunity
for input from the
various federal
agencies and provide
for state participation
plus input from
various interest
groups. Comprehen-
sive and holistic
watershed manage-
ment plans could
then be developed ~~~~"^""1
for each major basin
and/or region by an interagency federal/
state commission. Once an agreed-upon
watershed management plan has been
produced, individual agencies, organiza-
tions, and the private sector could be called
on to implement portions related to their
appropriate roles.
In essence, I am suggesting that you
take another look at the Water Resource
Planning Act (P.L. 89-80). Most likely you
will find something of value in it. With a
little revision, it may serve as a vehicle or
guide for meeting your lofty and desirable
goals of sound watershed management.
As for planning, it is a continuing
process. Sound planning procedures must
be articulated and followed. Macro plan-
ning should be heavily policy-oriented and
provide for sustainable benefits. The
totality of the natural resource base must be
fully considered. Alternative plans must be
displayed so that decision makers can
understand the options available and the
trade-offs involved in their decisions. Plans
must be designed to be compatible with the
physical environment and reflect social
values. All plans should be subject to
stringent economic analysis while providing
appropriate environmental safeguards. It is
two keys to achieving a
satisfactory level of holistic
watershed management are
(1) rational comprehensive
planning and (2) compatible
institutional arrangement..."
-------
10
Watershed '93
my view all regulatory measures should be
similarity tested. If found uneconomical or
environmentally unsound, a strong justifica-
tion on other grounds should be presented if
a proposal is to go forward to higher-level
decision makers.
Again, thank you for inviting me to
appear on your program. The issues to be
discussed by you during this conference are
extremely important and the manner in
which they are addressed will have a
profound effect on our nation's future. I
welcome the opportunity to visit again with
professional colleagues on significant
significant watershed management issues. It
is good to become so involved once more.
I wish you well in your deliberations.
References
USDA. 1972. A history of federal water
resources programs, 1800-1960.
Miscellaneous Publication no. 1233.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, ERS,
Washington, DC. June.
World Bank. 1992. A strategy for manag-
ing water in the Middle East and
North Africa. EMTWU, World Bank.
December.
-------
WATERSHED'93
The Current State of Watersheds in
the United States: Ecological and
Institutional Concerns
John Calms, Jr.
Department of Biology and University Center for Environmental and
Hazardous Materials Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, Virginia
The significant problems we face cannot be solved at the same
level of thinking we were at when we created them.
—Albert Einstein
Reason and free inquiry are the only effectual agents against
error. —Thomas Jefferson
The National Research Council (1992)
book Restoration of Aquatic Ecosys-
tems: Science, Technology, and Public
Policy recommends restoration of entire
systems. This volume espouses restoration
at the landscape level, which means restor-
ing aquatic ecosystems per se and also the
drainage basin that so strongly influences
the character of any ecosystem. The book is
divided into the traditional freshwater
aquatic ecosystem compartments of rivers,
wetlands, and lakes because the academic
profession commonly compartmentalizes
aquatic ecosystems in this manner, and,
consequently, knowledge is organized in
these compartments despite the fact that all
are merely components of a hydrologic
cycle that includes clouds, ground water,
and water in vegetation. All this compart-
mentalizing illustrates that adopting a
systems- or landscape-level perspective has
consequences that have not received the
attention they deserve. Some illustrative
examples follow.
At best, only a primitive understanding
exists of whole-ecosystem or landscape-level
management, but we do know how to do
restoration and can continue to learn!
Most articles in prestigious ecological
journals focus on populations (or other
specific aspects) rather than on systems.
Harte et al. (1993) provide a fascinating
analysis relevant to this situation:
If we turn to the current journal
literature in ecology and conservation
biology, we will not get as much help
as we would like. Figure 7 [adapted as
Figure 1 in this discussion], based on
our survey of all the articles appearing
in some recent volumes of leading
journals, illustrates the 'Pluto Syn-
drome' that afflicts ecology today. It
shows that most research in ecology
might just as well have been carried
out on the planet Pluto—climate and
the chemical and physical properties of
the soil, the water, and atmosphere of
Earth were irrelevant to the research.
Even in the 22% of the articles that
mentioned at least one of these factors,
the reference was generally made as
part of a site description and played no
role in the interpretation of results. In
none of the papers surveyed were the
interactions among these factors even
mentioned.
At present, robust examples of effective inte-
grated, landscape-level management are rare.
In short, the institutional focus is on
components of whole ecosystems, such as
wetlands, lakes, rivers, etc., and not the entke
system, although sometimes lip service is
11
-------
12
Watershed '93
Soil
Soil
Atmosphere
and
Climate
78%
Atmosphere
and
Climate
Atmosphere
Water and
Climate
Soil
Water
Water
22%
Figure 1. Results of a survey of the recent journal literature in ecology, indicat-
ing the dominance in ecology of research that ignores the influence of climate,
soil, water, and air on species interactions. All 285 articles in four consecutive
issues during 1987-1988 of the journals Ecology, American Naturalist,
Oecologia, and Conservation Biology were surveyed.
given to this. Many cases are concerned
with a primary purpose (e.g., flood control)
or a primary species (e.g., cattle or deer).
Current efforts to stress watershed manage-
ment are still focused on components (such
as water quality).
Present regulatory measures and agency
policies, which focus predominately on
components of whole systems (bottom-up
approach), most likely cannot be modified to
produce a scientifically justifiable whole-
ecosystem management plan.
A new policy then must be articulated.
Two general approaches have been used to
evaluate the ecological risk associated with
various human activities (Norton et al.,
1988). A bottom-up strategy emphasizes
laboratory experimentation and modeling to
provide information with which to predict
the fate and effects of different anthropo-
genic stressors that may be introduced into
the environment. Ideally, such protocols are
arranged in a tiered fashion (e.g., Kimerle et
al., 1978), proceeding from relatively simple
and inexpensive laboratory screening or
rangefinding tests to predictive and
confirmative tests (carried out in both
controlled laboratory and field test systems)
and, finally, the surveillance of natural
receiving systems to validate the
degree of risk estimated in the
experimental tiers of testing.
Each tier culminates in a deci-
sion-making process, which is
used to determine the amount and
nature of testing required at
successively higher, and inevita-
bly more costly, tiers.
It is virtually certain that a top-
down management approach
(starting with the entire system
and sometimes working down to
components) will be a necessary
replacement of the bottom-up
approach (starting component by
component and sometimes
intending, but usually failing, to
work up to the entire system).
Agencies and programs are
also organized in bottom-up
sequence; in addition, many
agencies have narrowly trained
people because their agencies are
so narrow. Most professionals
are specialists trained to work
with a component of a system,
even though the profession may
suggest that they are accustomed to systems-
level activities. For example, most ecolo-
gists are actually population biologists and
not systems-level ecologists, although they
may purport.to be systems scientists in
theory.
The bottom-up approach works well only
when a low-density, low-energy society "lies
lightly" on the ecosystem it inhabits.
The component-by-component
approach is not as effective when a dense
population with high per capita energy
consumption is competing for an ever-
diminishing natural resource base.
When the United States was first
settled and the population density was trivial
compared to today, cities were small and
widely dispersed so that substantial amounts
of relatively undisturbed ecosystems
separated them. Even on rivers after the
Industrial Revolution began, the discharges
were usually small in volume, relatively
rapidly degradable, and relatively nontoxic
compared to those of today. Therefore,
dilution frequently solved the problem, and,
even when it did not, the river had an
opportunity to recover because of the
spacing and relatively low impact of the
discharges. In one Industrialized area, I
-------
Conference Proceedings
recently counted 28 discharge pipes on both
sides of the river and even from an island
that contained industrial buildings in a
distance of less than a half mile. It was
impossible to separate the effects of each of
the discharges in the river itself because of
their proximity, toxicity, and volume. If
they had all come from a single industry or
municipality, the problem could have been
resolved by a single collection and treatment
system for the wastes, but they were from
multiple industries and one municipality.
Had the waste discharges been widely
separated, it would have been possible to
determine the ecological effects in the
receiving system (in this case a river), and it
would have been possible to determine a no-
observable-effects level by toxicity tests,
followed by validation of the predictions in
the receiving system itself. When aggregate
effects occur in a relatively restricted area, a
component-by-component approach simply
will not work. A top-down management
system to determine the acceptable aggre-
gate effect of all of the discharges on the
receiving system must be designed, and a
strategy must be developed for allocating
beneficial nondegrading use of the river so
that all dischargers get some benefit but
none can continue present practices if they
lead to biological impoverishment.
A protocol for selecting the best possible
waste disposal option (air, land, or water
disposal) must involve comparisons of waste
impact in ecologically dissimilar ecosystem
compartments.
The information base must include the
effect not only on the compartment into
which the waste is initially placed, but also
the impact on the entire system into which it
is placed. Toxicity tests at single-species
levels will not be particularly useful in
making decisions at the landscape level
because they represent totally different
levels of ecological organization—extrapo-
lation from lower to higher levels cannot be
done with sufficient precision. Determining
the best possible waste disposal option or
considering multiple use of a limited natural
resource will both involve trade-offs.
Obviously, trade-offs require more skillful
negotiations and almost certainly more
robust information than the simple "go" or
"no go" decisions characteristic of the past.
There is always uncertainty about environ-
mental outcome. The industrial group
could, and probably should, gather more
evidence, but there will never be enough to
predict an outcome with absolute certainty.
Therefore, when the evidence of no effect
seems scientifically justifiable (and 100
percent certainty is never scientifically
achievable), financial bonding to repair
ecological damage may satisfy both the
environmental organization and the regula-
tory authorities. If, in fact, some damage
not predicted by present evidence occurs,
ecological repair will be carried out.
Despite the enormous reluctance of the
general public and their legislative represen-
tatives to admit this, there is no zero risk
action for any developmental activity.
Neither is zero environmental impact
possible even if zero discharge is achieved
because recycling requires energy and
generally generates some waste products,
both of which will have an environmental
impact somewhere. It is possible, of course,
that the environmental impact may not be
where the products are generated, but rather
elsewhere where fossil fuels are obtained,
nuclear power materials are stored, or
electricity is generated.
Opportunity-cost analysis should replace
the traditional cost/benefit analysis used in
most environmental decisions because the
question should become: How can limited
economic resources be used most effectively
in landscape-level management?
Management at the systems level
requires a "common currency" that allows
comparison of the societal benefits of a
proposed alteration or use of one part of
the system with overall system benefits
and costs. Such a strategy would provide
both (1) a basis for policy decisions and
regulatory measures at the systems level
and (2) a means for arbitrating disputes in
multiple use of a single resource or the use
of one resource that damages another
resource. Shabman (in press) provides
more information on the rationale for
opportunity-cost analysis. An early paper
on the theory of developing value mea-
surement tools was written by Batie and
Shabman (1982). A concomitant compo-
nent of opportunity-cost analysis is
adaptive management (e.g., Lee and
Paulsen, 1990).
A "common currency" must be developed
for optimizing trade-offs and comparing
long-term sustainable use benefits to short-
term benefits.
As already mentioned, in the optimal
disposal option selection or any other
-------
14
Watershed '93
multimedia decision, comparisons between
ecosystems with quite different attributes
will become inevitable. Although ecolo-
gists are understandably reluctant to make
such comparisons, particularly when
practically all their experience has been in
a limited array of ecosystems, such
decisions must inevitably be made. In
addition, it is essential to provide a means
for comparing long-term (or sustainable
use) benefits to short-term benefits, which
might either impair long-range benefits or
require costly corrective management
when the alteration no longer serves its
original purpose. An example of this
situation would be a dam behind which silt
has accumulated (especially sediments
with a heavy burden of persistent toxic
materials). The dam may no longer hold
the pool of water that matches the original
storage capabilities, and the water may
contain fish and other wildlife with
dangerous body burdens of hazardous
materials that pose a threat to both the
biota and human health. The common
currency most suitable for such compari-
sons is ecosystem services, which are
defined herein as those functional at-
tributes of natural systems perceived as
valuable to human society. Illustrative
ecosystem services include maintenance of
the atmospheric gas balance, maintenance
of water quality, maintenance of an array
of species (some of which may provide
chemical models for human drugs), or
maintenance of a species suitable for
aquaculture. Mitigation for impaired or
lost ecosystem services would require
restoration of some part of the larger
system in compensation for these services
lost to society or, alternatively, when
possible, substituting continually operating
technological systems to provide compa-
rable services. In this way, sustainable use
of natural systems is ensured because there
would be no net loss of ecosystem ser-
vices.
This approach would require a major
readjustment of the federal structure, but
this is already underway as part of the
deficit reduction and other initiatives of the
new administration. However, manage-
ment of systems, if skillfully carried out, is
always more efficient than management of
components of the system, particularly
when intense (and not always compatible)
use results in continual conflicts that are
difficult or impossible to resolve at the
component level.
Ecosystem Services and
Human Population Size
If ecological destruction continues at
its present rate, it is virtually certain that no
sizable, relatively undisturbed ecosystem
will remain, even if the world's oceans are
included. In addition, abundant evidence
indicates that fragments of ecosystems
cannot maintain viable populations of many
species, and, with a few notable exceptions,
these populations cannot be maintained in
zoos at a cost acceptable to human society.
Similarly, if the human population continues
to grow at its present rate, the quality of life
will almost certainly deteriorate below
present levels, which even now are not
satisfactory to much of the world's existing
population. Even in an affluent society such
as the United States, many parents realize
that their children will be unable to live at
a level of affluence comparable to theirs.
Human society has been able to reach its
present level of affluence and population
density by exploiting a one-time bonanza
of ecological capital, including old-growth
forests, fossil fuels, metals and minerals,
biomass of harvestable species, and fossil
water, to mention a few examples. How-
ever, sustainable use of our ecological life
support system requires that we focus on
the services of ecosystems that can be
utilized without destroying ecological
capital. Developing policy at the land-
scape level will depend on integrating
water and land management, and most of
the assumptions and recommendations
apply equally to both. The policy recom-
mendations that follow are based on these
four assumptions:
1. Ecosystem services are important to
the survival of human society in its
present form.
2. The continued destruction of
ecosystems and the concurrent rapid
increase in human population size
are serious threats to the delivery of
ecosystem services.
3. The rapid global loss of species
intimately connected with the loss of
habitat will also impair the delivery
of ecosystem services.
4. Healing damaged ecosystems
will enhance both the quality and
quantity of ecosystem services.
There are five basic policy options
regarding the relationship of ecosystem
services and human population size and
affluence:
-------
Conference Proceedings
15
1. Continue ecosystem destruction and
population growth at their present
rates and see what happens before
any action is taken. This would
mean dramatic erosion of ecosystem
services per capita in the near future.
2. Adopt a policy of no net loss of
ecosystem services—a balance
between destruction and repair must
be achieved at all times. This would
still mean a decline of ecosystem
services per capita but less rapidly
than option 1.
3. Exceed a no net loss of ecosystem
services—develop a policy of
healing or restoring ecosystems at a
more rapid rate than their destruc-
tion. This would still mean a loss of
ecosystem services per capita at the
present rate of population increase.
4. Stabilize human population growth
and exercise option 2. This would
maintain the status quo on ecosystem
services per capita.
5. Stabilize human population growth
and restore ecosystems at a greater
rate than damage. This would
improve ecosystem services per
capita.
If we decide to restore ecosystems at a
rate equal to or greater than their rate of
destruction, these basic elements should be
part of a national and global restoration
strategy: restoration goals and assessment
strategies should be set for each ecoregion;
principles should be established for priority
setting and decision making; and policy and
programs for federal and state agencies (or
the United Nations) should be redesigned to
emphasize ecological restoration.
The National Research Council (1992)
had the following illustrative goals for the
United States for restoring aquatic ecosys-
tems between now and the year 2010:
(1) wetlands—restore 10 million acres (out
of 117 million impaired or destroyed since
the year 1800); (2) rivers and streams—
restore 400,000 miles (12 percent of the
3.2 million miles presently considered im-
paired or damaged); and (3) lakes—restore
2 million acres (out of 4.3 million acres
presently degraded). Although precise repli-
cation of predisturbance condition will
rarely be possible, achieving a naturalistic
assemblage of plants and animals of similar
structure and function to the predisturbance
ecosystem should be possible in most cases.
However, if one adds the attributes of self-
maintenance and integration into the larger
ecological landscape in which the damaged
patch occurs, both the temporal and geo-
graphic dimensions of the study area in-
crease substantively. If exploratory restora-
tion projects are added in each ecoregion,
then the number of acres and the percent or
actual size of the restored aquatic ecosys-
tems just given do not appear excessive.
The recent World Scientists' Warning to
Humanity (Union of Concerned Scientists,
1992) states "Human beings and the natural
world are on a collision course." Ecological
restoration is a means of buying more time
for human society to develop lifestyles less
threatening to natural systems and for ecolo-
gists to develop more robust methods for
restoring the earth's damaged systems.
Societal Integrity vs.
Ecological Integrity
Ecological integrity can be defined as
the maintenance of the structural and func-
tional attributes of a particular ecosystem,
including natural variability and such tempo-
ral processes as succession. The events in
Somalia and Yugoslavia, as well as the
equally dramatic (but, thus far, more peace-
ful) events in eastern Europe and what was
once the USSR, have focused world atten-
tion on societal integrity. Our present hu-
man society globally has reached its level of
affluence and density because of two life
support systems—one technological and the
other ecological. However, the events since
the beginning of the Industrial Revolution
clearly indicate that most human societies
place far more value on the technological
life support system than on the ecological
one. In the last few decades, the shift has
been toward a recognition of the duality of
the life support system and an attempt to
give more value (frequently in religious or
mystical terms) to the ecological life support,
system. In the United States, the lumbering
of the old-growth forests in the Pacific
Northwest, of which only 10 percent remain,
has dramatically focused attention on this
issue. Arguably, the Clinton administration
has given more attention to this particular
ecological problem by a high-visibility visit
to the area. Some groups still advocate
continued lumbering of the remaining 10
percent of the old-growth forests in order to
maintain the social integrity of the towns and
industries that are benefiting financially
from timber harvesting and sales. In some
cases, even the realization that harvesting all
-------
16
Watershed '93
remaining old-growth forests would main-
tain the societal integrity for only a few
more years does not deter some people from
the position that the societal integrity is
worth the loss of the old-growth forests.
Although emotions are strong in the small
towns in the region dependent upon the
logging of old-growth forests, a substantial
number of citizens in the country as a whole,
perhaps even a majority, want the ecological
integrity maintained close to its present
level, even if this means retraining loggers
and the logging industry for some other
economic activity. The government might
subsidize this retraining to some extent, as is
likely for military bases where an old tech-
nology is being replaced by a newer one.
Although the economic advantages of
societal integrity of the technological life
support systems have been appreciated by
human society for generations, the benefits
of ecological integrity as part of the societal
life support system have not. Perhaps eco-
system services will enhance our under-
standing of the crucial and necessary balance
between technological and ecological life
support systems. Even if this balance is
achieved by global society, it will almost
certainly not be enough to heal the damaged
ecological life support systems and to main-
tain them in a robust condition.
Going Beyond Ecosystem
Services
I regard the relationship between hu-
man population size and the maintenance of
ecosystem services as extremely important.
However, the quantity of ecosystem ser-
vices, and possibly even the quality, might
not be diminished even if many species now
inhabiting the earth were lost. If the concept
of ecosystem services is interpreted nar-
rowly (i.e., excluding attributes other than
those necessary for human survival), then
human society might forego preserving as
many as possible of the species with which
we share the planet. If broadly interpreted,
ecosystem services might well include the
honking of geese flying overhead, the mat-
ing dance of the whooping cranes, or just
knowing that the snow leopard still exists
even though most of us will never see one in
its native habitat.
I have espoused the idea of preserving
ecosystem services in the hope that enlight-
ened self-interest of human society will
arrest or, better yet, reverse the environmen-
tal destruction that marks the end of this
century. However, human society has an
ethical responsibility that should go well
beyond self-interest to assumptions of fair-
ness, equity, and the common good of all the
species on our planet. It is, of course, im-
possible for all of us to develop a feeling of
kinship with each of the more than 50 mil-
lion species estimated to inhabit the planet at
present. It is not beyond our grasp, however,
to feel a kinship with the habitats and natural
systems upon which the survival of our
fellow species depends. To do this, we must
develop an ethos, or guiding belief, in both
the government and its citizens. The re-
spected Athenian leader and general Pericles
noted that the chief safeguard of his society
in 431 B.C. was that citizens obeyed the
customs and the laws "whether they are
actually on the statute book, or belong to that
code which, though unwritten, yet can not be
broken without acknowledged disgrace"
(Thucydides, book 2, Chapter 6, 37). The
development of an ethos and fairness toward
our fellow species will not by itself be
enough unless accompanied by a widespread
improvement in environmental literacy.
Acknowledgments
I am indebted to Luna B. Leopold,
who started his magnificent Abel Wolman
Distinguished Lecture, given in February
1990 at the National Academy of Sciences,
with a reminder to us of Pericles' address to
the citizens of Athens following the end of
the first year of the Peloponnesian War. It
was refreshing, in this litigatious era in the
most litigatious society on earth, for a re-
spected scientist to begin a discussion of wa-
ter resources utilization by discussing equity
and fairness. I am also indebted to my col-
league B.R. Niederlehner for comments on
an early draft; to Teresa Moody for tran-
scribing a number of drafts of this manu-
script, as well as entering alterations on the
word processor; and to Darla Donald for fi-
nal editing of the manuscript. I appreciate
the assistance of Dianna Freeman in the edi-
torial office of the Society of Environmental
Toxicology and Chemistry for locating the
source of the Thomas Jefferson quote.
References
Bade, S., and L. Shabman. 1983. Estimat-
ing the economic value of wetlands:
-------
Conference Proceedings
Principles, methods and limitations.
Coastal Zone Management Journal
10(3):255-277.
Harte, J., M. Torn, and D. Jensen. 1993.
The nature and consequences of
direct linkages between climate
change and biological diversity.
In Global warming and biodiversity,
ed. R. Peters and T.E. Lovejoy.
Yale University Press, New Haven,
CT.
Kimerle, R.A., W.E. Gledhill, and G.L.
Levinskas. 1978. Environmental
safety assessment of new materials.
In Estimating the hazard of chemical
substances to aquatic life, STP657,
ed. J. Cairns, Jr., K.L. Dickson, and
A.W. Maki, pp. 132-146. American
Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, PA.
Lee, B.C., and C.M. Paulsen. 1990.
Improving system planning in the
Columbia River Basin: Scope,
information needs, and methods of
analysis. Discussion Paper QE91-07.
Quality of the Environment Division,
Resources for the Future, Washington,
DC.
National Research Council. 1992. Restora-
tion of aquatic ecosystems: Science,
technology, and public policy. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Norton, S., M. McVey, J. Colt, J. Durda, and
R. Hegner. 1988. Review of ecologi-
cal risk assessment methods. EPA/
230-10-88-041. National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA.
Shabman, L.A. In press. Making watershed
restoration happen: What does
economics offer? In Ecological
restoration: Reestablishing a partner-
ship with nature, ed. J. Cairns, Jr.
Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
Union of Concerned Scientists. 1992.
World scientists, warning to humanity.
Cambridge, MA.
-------
-------
W A T E R S H E D '93
A Charge to Conferees
John B. Waters, Chairman
Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN
Wen I was asked to speak at this
pening session, I was told, "You
/on't have to say much ... just
inspire the audience to greatness during the
course of the conference." Of course they
did not tell me about the "inspiration" and
"greatness" parts until after I had agreed to
speak.
Frankly, I do not feel all that comfort-
able about trying to inspire such a distin-
guished group. But I do feel comfortable
about discussing greatness because I think
we can get a head start on achieving it
before this week is out.
This is the first national conference
devoted to a total watershed approach, to
pollution prevention, and natural resource
management. History may well look back
on this conference as a watershed itself—a
watershed event in our nation's struggle to
deal with sustainable resource development.
Some of our nation's first attempts at
watershed management amounted to
exploiting the land and water and then
working to reclaim them. Later, the
Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) and
other organizations used another approach—
large-scale projects to tame the rivers.
Today, like many of your organizations,
TVA is facing new and different challenges
in watershed management, and we are
working to find the best way to meet those
new challenges. Let's take a closer look at
each of these approaches to watershed
management.
I come from east Tennessee. Like
folks in some other parts of the country,
Tennesseans have seen watershed develop-
ment in its earliest and worst forms. In the
southeastern corner of Tennessee, there is a
large bowl-shaped valley surrounded by
mountains. I suspect many of you are
familiar with it. It is called the Copper
Basin. Gold seekers began exploring the
Copper Basin in the 1800s. They did not
find much gold, but they found something
almost as valuable—copper. '
The first copper smelter was built in
1854 when miners heated the ore over open
fires fueled by timber from the surrounding
forests. By the turn of the century, virtually
all the forests within hauling distance had
been cut, and sulfur dioxide fumes from
these early smelters had destroyed the area's
remaining vegetation. The land was bare.
Erosion was hauling off soil at a rate of 2 to
'3 inches a year. Streams filled with silt, and
the acids and heavy metals killed the fish
and other aquatic life.
Then came the blast furnaces with tall
stacks to send sulfur dioxide fumes across
the state line into north Georgia. Naturally,
the people in Georgia were pretty upset
about this devastation spreading into their
land. Georgia filed a lawsuit against the
Tennessee Copper Company, which
controlled all the copper smelters. They
were suing to stop the acid rain, although
nobody called it "acid rain" back then.
Georgia took the case to the United
States Supreme Court in 1907 in one of the
first major environmental lawsuits in this
country, and Georgia won. The Tennessee
Copper Company was forced to recover
the sulfur dioxide fumes; and when they
did, they discovered an amazing thing.
The sulfur dioxide they had been spewing
into the air was valuable. They could turn
it into sulfuric acid, which was badly
needed to make fertilizers. In fact, once
the company started producing sulfuric
acid, it became their leading product and
copper was a secondary item. That
stopped the exploitation of the Copper
Basin, but that was not the end of the
Copper Basin story.
When TVA came along in the early
1930s, the land was worse than useless.
19
-------
20
Watershed '93
our old model of
exploitation and reclamation
just doesn't work."
Gullies were so deep you could hide a
bulldozer in them. Fifty square miles of
countryside had become a moonscape. The
Ocoee river, which runs through the Copper
Basin, was a river of silt. TVA, the Soil
Conservation Service, the Tennessee Copper
Company and its successors, and others
went to work on the problem. They plowed,
they planted, and they fertilized for genera-
tions. And finally, all the hard work began
to pay off.
In recent years, thanks to a combina-
tion of hand planting and aerial seeding and
fertilizing with
—-^————- helicopters, the land is
coming back to life.
Three-quarters of the
original 50 square
miles have been
restored. The barren
land of the Copper
^— Basin used to be a
familiar landmark to
astronauts orbiting the earth. Today it
supports a broad variety of hardwoods,
shrubs, and grasses and provides a habitat
for wildlife. The scars of the Copper Basin
are healing. They are becoming invisible
not only to the astronaut but also to the
motorist on Highway 68 driving through the
heart of the basin from Copperhill to
Ducktown. I am telling you this story about
the Copper Basin because it may well be
America's foremost case of watershed
destruction. The Copper Basin shows us
that our old model of exploitation and
reclamation just doesn't work.
A more recent model for watershed
development is found in the roots of the
organization I represent—the Tennessee
Valley Authority. Sixty years ago this
nation began a great experiment when
President Roosevelt proposed this new
approach to watershed management. He
asked Congress to charge TVA with "the
broadest duty of planning for the proper use,
conservation, and development of the
natural resources of the Tennessee River
drainage basin for the general social and
economic welfare of the nation."
It was a marvelous challenge, and
TVA set about meeting it by building dams
and developing the river. The dams
controlled the floods that ravaged the
bottomlands and towns every spring. The
new lakes created a navigation channel that
opened up the region to trade with the rest
of the Nation. The dams also provided
electric power that attracted industry into the
valley, creating jobs and bringing light and
comfort into people's lives. It was a great
vision and it worked magnificently; but the
era of large-scale water-development
projects, for the most part, is over.
The emphasis of national water
management policy has shifted. Today we
are focusing on water quality, water
conservation, and managing resources to
meet a wide range of demands. Develop-
ing water resources was the easy part
Today's challenge is learning how to
manage those resources after they have
been developed. To succeed, we must
have a new framework, a new way of
managing resources, a new model or
paradigm that meets today's needs. What
we need today is a paradigm shift in the
way we view watersheds.
Paradigm shifts occur when we
discover a revolutionary way of looking at
the world, a vision that changes our old way
of seeing, that opens up new horizons. A
classic example is the change in the way we
view the solar system. The ancient Greeks
saw the solar system as revolving around the
earth, but the 16th century Polish astrono-
mer Copernicus realized mat the solar
system revolves around the sun. This
change in perception was a paradigm shift,
and its impact was felt far beyond the field
of astronomy.
At TVA we are taking the first steps
toward a new model of watershed manage-
ment. We have moved beyond the old
engineering model of large-scale develop-
ment, and in its place we are substituting
environmental principles, integrated
resources planning, partnerships with other
agencies and organizations, and public
participation.
Recently, TVA completed the first
major assessment in 50 years of the way
we operate the Tennessee River system.
As a result of this reassessment of the river
system, water quality and recreation now
stand alongside navigation, flood control,
and power production as the major factors
determining how we operate our dams and
lakes. We are also setting up river-action
teams that work with individuals, commu-
nities, and corporations in each of the 12
major watersheds that drain into the
Tennessee River. The river-action teams,
made up of scientists and engineers, help
solve water quality problems in each
watershed.
TVA also has helped set up lake-user
groups made up of interested citizens around
-------
CorvfexewLe Proceedings
21
several of our lakes. The various lake-user
groups get involved in local issues, such as
pollution control and land use, that affect
the lakes. TVA also publishes an annual
state-of-the-river report called RiverPulse,
which describes with colorful graphics the
water-quality conditions of each of the lakes
in the TVA system.
Three years ago I made a 10-day
inspection tour of the Tennessee River.
About 1,000 state and local leaders and
other interested citizens rode with me on
portions of our journey down the river. We
talked about such issues as developing urban
waterfronts, protecting scenic natural areas,
managing wastes, and controlling nonpoint
source pollution. It was an opportunity for
all of us to learn more about the river and to
see it from different perspectives, and it was
in keeping with TVA's efforts to increase
public awareness and involvement.
Now I do not mean to stand up here
and tell you that TVA has come up with the
all-purpose answer to watershed manage-
ment. We have not, but we do have a piece
of the answer, and we are building on it
every day. And TVA is
certainly not the only one
here that is working on a
new model for watershed
management. Many
other organizations have
great ideas to share, and
many of you are bringing
those ideas to this
conference.
I want us to share
those ideas and to
combine the best of
them into a new model, •~~~~"—"""•"""
a new paradigm, of
watershed management. This is my
challenge to you during the next 4 days. I
am convinced that the information needed
for a new model of watershed management
is here in this very room. We have a
remarkable opportunity with all this
knowledge, all this expertise, and the
willingness to share ideas and experiences.
We have the critical mass. All we need to
do is put our ideas and energies to work.
Answering the challenge is up to us.
We have moved beyond
the old engineering model
and we are substituting
environmental principles,
integrated resources
planning, partnerships, and
public participation.
-------
-------
WATERSHED1 93
Remarks
Addressing Multiple Interests
G. Edward Dickey, Ph.D.
Acting Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
Washington, DC
Before I introduce our notable panel
this morning, I want to share with
you a few of my own perspectives on
watershed management.
I've had the pleasure of being associ-
ated with the Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) Civil Works program since 1973, so
I've witnessed an enormous evolution in the
program and, indeed, in federal programs
generally. Certainly, as we look at the COE
Civil Works program today, we realize that
it is the manager of an enormous inventory
of completed waterway projects and multi-
purpose reservoir systems—projects that
have a replacement value of $125 billion.
Now these typically very large
projects, especially the multipurpose
projects, have enormous flexibility in how
they are operated. One of our challenges is
to respond to evolving demands and values
in the operations of those reservoirs. That
in itself is a very complex planning process
and in many cases very controversial. For
example, now we are reviewing the opera-
tion of our Missouri River reservoir system,
our largest system, and the regional interest
in that is quite notable. There are signifi-
cant trade-offs involved and everyone
awaits COE's analysis as the beginning of
the dialogue for choice.
We also administer the Clean Water
Act section 404 regulatory program and in
that arena work very closely with people
who are engaged in watershed planning.
Those of you who have participated in
advanced identification know that there is
much mat can be done with the regulatory
program to put it in a larger watershed
context.
Having made those few observations,
let me say a few things about the watershed
planning process—points that others may
have made but which I believe are well
worth repeating because they are often too
easily forgotten.
The first is that you must follow a
disciplined planning process. You must
systematically consider alternatives includ-
ing scale. Planning is a very complex pro-
cess. Unless you do it systematically, you
won't be able to articulate the rationale for
the plan and defend it against critics. In-
. deed, no matter what the planning process
is there will be critics because there are im-
portant trade-offs—important societal
choices to be made.
Second, you need to relate whatever
you are doing in the watershed to a larger
context That may be a basin context, an
estuary system, or the economic system.
Whatever we are considering, whether it be
environmental or economic, we are dealing
with complex interactions and we must
relate our smaller planning efforts to a
larger context.
Third, you must continually involve
the public. I think COE has been among
the leaders in federal agencies developing
the theory and practice of public participa-
tion. We are really quite proud of our pro-
cess because we recognize that unless you
do involve the public your plan will not be
relevant. In part, COE has been forced to
involve the public because of cost-share
requirements that there be nonfederal spon-
sors of projects.
Fourth, you need to involve decision
makers. If there is any lesson to be learned
from past efforts at comprehensive plan-
ning it is that unless you involve the
decision makers—the politicians—you
have no assurance of implementability.
Existing institutions have to be recognized
and where there are not adequate institutions
23
-------
24
Watershed '93
they must be created. In any case, working
with existing or newly created institutions
requires the political process in the very best
sense. These are social choices, they are
governmental choices, and they involve
politics. Unless you involve the political
actors from the beginning, you have missed
an opportunity to ensure that your plans will
be followed and implemented.
Finally, to the extent that you look for
assistance from federal programs you need
to understand those programs—understand
their requirements and respond to them in
your planning process. We are all experi-
encing very limited resources. Program
priorities are very important, and those who
respond to those priorities are most likely
to receive funding.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Panel Discussion
Addressing Multiple Interests
On the second day of the WATER-
SHED '93 conference, a panel repre-
senting a diversity of interests met to
discuss their perspectives about integrated
watershed management.
Gail:
The need and potential for reconciling
and integrating the various interests con-
cerned about how water and watersheds are
managed is central to the very reasons why
many of you came to this conference.
With regard to the format of this panel,
we are going to try something a little differ-
ent—rather than present formal remarks from
the panelists, we are going to try to create a
dialogue among us to highlight the diversity
of interests that must be addressed to achieve
improvements in how watersheds are
managed in this country.
We are going to focus our discussion
around three broad questions:
1. What are the priorities for which
watersheds should be managed?
2. What are the key issues that need to
be resolved if those priorities are to be
met?
3. What are the opportunities that our
panelists see for addressing these
interests and issues?
For each question, we're going to re-
peat the same sequence. First each of the pan-
elists will give brief introductory thoughts on
the question, and then the panel will discuss
the question with one another. I will attempt
to integrate written questions from the audi-
ence into the discussion of each question.
Jerry will speak first. Jerry, from your
perspective, what are the priorities for which
watersheds should be managed?
Jerry:
As a dairy farmer who is also living
within an area that has been carrying out a
small watershed project under P.L. 83-566
for 40 years, I have a good idea of what I
want to see happen in that watershed and
also what we as a town want to see. We
want clean, high-quality water for our
individual use. We want our land to be
productive. We also want fish in the
streams, and we want other recreational
areas to be available. And we also want
industry to thrive in that same watershed.
When it comes to managing water-
sheds, we need to look at the whole system.
Small watersheds can facilitate cooperation
because individuals look after each other.
We know when something is wrong and can
take care of it. Small watersheds give us a
chance to operate in the most efficient
manner because we're doing it ourselves—
there's not somebody else coming in and
doing it for us. Conservation districts
throughout this
country have been
operating on a small
scale for 50 years, and
we think it's a good
way to operate.
Nell:
In southern
California, we have a
lot of people and not
enough water. This
was true in the early
days when our
community was settled
and remains true
today. The five major
agencies that manage
the resources of the
Santa Ana River,
which is the largest
river in southern
California, sued one
another for almost 36
years (we pay attor-
<3ritj0f Vice-president for;;£
'
? , Riv&rsicfe, Ci
,
eot5 1'ntemitianai
"
25
-------
26
Watershed '93
neys by the hour there), and they finally
agreed after three decades of litigation to
share the meager water supply provided
there be some sort of watershed water
quality program put together.
Today we have 4 million people who
depend on a combination of our local water
and imported supply. The imported water
constitutes about 60 percent of the water
that is used, but is not reliable. Half our
water comes from the Colorado River, and
in the near term the State of Arizona is
going to confiscate about half of that. So we
are looking forward to a loss of water from
the Colorado River. For the northern
California supply, which constitutes the
other half of our imported water, we have a
contract for about 2 million acre-feet. But,
last year the state was able to deliver only
about one-tenth of that. With new environ-
mental rules and the continuing battle over
water supply, it looks like the best we will
get from the state is less than half of that.
This puts an emphasis on managing our
local supply in an optimal fashion.
The local supply is drawn primarily
from ground water that is recharged from
the Santa Ana River and its tributaries, but
the ground water is threatened by contami-
nation from a hundred years of agricultural
activity. Currently, right in the middle of
our watershed we have the largest concen-
tration of dairy cattle outside of Holland—
about 300,000 head of cattle on 11,000 acres
sitting astride the Santa Ana River. Remem-
ber that one cow is equivalent to about nine
unsewered people, so we have about 2.7
million unsewered functions going on right
in the middle of our water.
Our fundamental interest in watershed
management is to optimize the available
supply to provide successive beneficial use.
The competition for water is intense and will
continue to intensify. The agencies that
fought each other for over 30 years and then
formed the organization I work for are about
to enter another law suit—not over the fresh
natural runoff, but over the sewage that is
discharged into the Santa Ana River. So we
need water and we need to manage it in a
way that will minimize our costs and protect
the health and welfare of our people from
both a health and an economic standpoint.
Sharon:
From the perspective of forest
industry, one of our major needs is water for
our facilities. As many of you probably
know, paper making uses large quantities of
water and in the past we've had a high use
of hydroelectricity as a source of power.
This has changed somewhat because we
now have more cogeneration of power and
we've also had some process changes that
make more efficient use of water. But, the
use of water remains very important to our
facilities.
Our larger landowners also have a
substantial interest in recreation on their
properties so it's extremely important to
have clean water for fishing, canoeing,
boating, rafting, etc. We also benefit from
clean streams and streamside areas that are
aesthetically pleasing to the public that uses
our lands.
Obviously, another key need for us
from a watershed perspective is to be able to
manage our forests to supply fiber. We
firmly believe that it is possible to do this in
a way that meets our needs economically as
well as protects environmental quality. One
of the advantages of watershed management
is that it more nearly reflects the interrela-
tionships that exist among biological
systems. This is true in both unmanaged
and managed systems. The process of
watershed planning may offer us a good
opportunity for striking a balance between
economics and environment.
Dale:
I am here representing American
Rivers, a national conservation organization
whose goal is to preserve and restore
America's rivers and to foster a river
stewardship ethic in this country. In that
respect, I guess I am representing the
nonconsumptive users of our watersheds.
We focus on three basic issues:
• Protect, and where necessary restore,
the headwaters. These areas that
recharge our systems are for the most
part in Federal ownership, so we
focus on national policy to protect
headwaters.
• Restore and protect the flows of
rivers that have been endangered
over the years by development
practices. The fish and wildlife in
our rivers are in jeopardy. As many
reports and scientific studies have
shown in recent years, the decline in
aquatic species is much more rapid
than in terrestrial species, so we see a
need to protect in-stream flows and
biodiversity.
• Restore and protect riparian zones.
These areas have been severely
-------
Conference Proceedings
27
degraded, especially in the western
states, and they are key elements in
the watershed ecosystem. They filter
out contaminants and sediments and
provide essential habitats for many
species that are river- and watershed-
dependent.
If you look at the alarming statistics in
recent years, you'll see why organizations
like American Rivers exist. The rivers in
this country are in serious decline, and we
think that the most important role we can
play is to see that the river systems are
managed and our water policies are re-
formed to deal with the restoration of
biodiversity and to ensure that
nonconsumptive uses are considered on an
equal footing with consumptive uses.
Holly:
I'd like to answer this question from
the perspective of a participant in the
management of the upper Mississippi river
system. I think my views may be applicable
to other large inland river systems in this
country. I think it's fair to say that our goal
is to sustain the river system for multiple
purposes. In the upper Mississippi there are
four main areas of concern: water quality;
fish and wildlife habitat protection; water-
based recreation; and commercial naviga-
tion.
To the extent that the watershed
approach is comprehensive and holistic and
integrated and multiobjective and multipur-
pose—and—to the extent that it is based on
partnerships at different levels of govern-
ment and among different interests, then I
think that the concept has substantial appeal.
However, I think our definition of watershed
is rather sloppy if indeed that is really all
that the concept suggests to us. My impres-
sion has always been that the watershed
approach had associated with it a landscape
component, that is, in addition to all of the
process components that I just described, the
watershed approach also put these processes
in a geographical context.
I would suggest to you that a
watershed approach is very conducive to
water quality and fish and wildlife protec-
tion. On the other hand, I find water-based
recreation and commercial navigation far
less amenable to a watershed perspective.
I don't mean to be the only skeptic at the
table, but I think we need to think not only
in terms of watersheds but in terms of river
systems for issues such as navigation
development.
Gail:
Thank you, Holly. Now, before I take
the first question from the audience, do any
of you have any questions for one another to
launch this conversation?
Dale:
Being from Arizona, I harbor a bit of a
resentful comment on the stealing of Colo-
rado River water. I should respond that
those water rights were won fair and square
in the Arizona share of the Colorado River.
However, that points out an important water
policy issue in the West—the institutional
restrictions on the free transfer of water to
higher and better uses. Agriculture, as you
know, has dominated most of the water use
of federal water
projects over the years ™~"~~~""™~~~
and now we see
increasing demands by
municipal users and for
fish and wildlife needs,
but there are still a lot
of institutional barriers ij_^m__m^__iimmm
to transfer that water.
Arizona's reclamation project is in serious
financial trouble currently. Lots of people,
including environmentalists, are starting to
talk about the need to free up that water for
people in California and using some of the
proceeds of that water, if they can be
transferred in a water marketing sense, for
restoration of streams, for fish and wildlife
needs, and to pay off the debt on the
Arizona system.
Call:
This illustrates the challenge we have.
The initial remarks have highlighted some
of the priorities for water management, and
most believe that watershed management
may be a better tool for satisfying more
interests—but that doesn't mean the
interests aren't in conflict. One of the
questions from the audience is pertinent
here—"What's different about watershed
management that makes us believe that more
of these interests could be satisfied?" The
flipside of the question might be "What are
the barriers today to achieving better in-
stream flow, to obtaining the water supply
for a growing population, to provide for
navigation?"
Dale:
I'll take a shot at some of the barriers.
There are institutional barriers in the current
system for how we plan for federal land; for
*our goal is to sustain the
river system for multiple
purposes."
-------
28
Watershed '93
^Personal responsibility and
private property rights are
key issues . . . ."
example, different agencies may do different
plans, sometimes inconsistent plans, within
the same watershed.
There are barriers from past practices.
Again referring to the West, as values
change toward more recreational uses,
toward more habitat conservation and
aesthetic uses of our watersheds, it's
difficult to find the water to sustain those
because it's all spoken for in prior rights.
As I said before, we
"•~™~~~~~~™~~~ need mechanisms to
free up some of the
water rights through a
market system,
through government
action, or through
local action. And that
can probably be most
effectively accomplished on a watershed
basis.
Call:
Holly, in your work with the Upper
Mississippi have you seen any opportunities
to deal with institutional barriers?
Holfy:
I think our challenge is to invigorate
our institutions and create incentives so that
people want to manage their water needs on
a watershed basis. Many of the sessions I
sat in on yesterday dealt with water quality
issues. And this panel is broaching other
issues, such as water supply. I think that in
order to be really effective watershed
management will need to incorporate a wide
variety of water management issues.
Call:
Jerry and Sharon, because you
indicated in your opening remarks that you
are particularly concerned with the way that
the land around the water is used, perhaps
you would like to respond to this question:
"Property owners do not want to be told
what they can or cannot do with their land
even though cumulatively their activities
may affect others. Industries are subject to
regulations—why not private property
owners, too?"
Jeny:
Well, that's a major issue for people
like me who manage thek land as a re-
source. It comes down to the philosophy of
watershed efforts. I see that a lot can be
accomplished through education. Helping
people to understand that what they are
doing is important in that watershed. We
can't possibly have enough regulators to
watch that every person is doing the right
thing, but if people feel a duty—if they
recognize that they are part of the problem
and they play a part in the solution—then I
think that we can make some headway.
Sharon:
I think that we should view regulation
as a last resort. Regulation is much less
economical and equitable than voluntary
methods. In terms of land management, in
the West the forestry industry is subjected to
regulation through state forestry practices
acts. In the South, most states do not have
formal forestry practices acts. I would hope
that there is still the opportunity for enough
innovation and cooperation that we do not
have to resort to forest practices acts
everywhere. Personal responsibility and
private property rights are key issues,
especially when you are looking at water-
sheds that encompass a broad number of
uses and large number of owners. I believe
private landowners clearly have a responsi-
bility to manage the resource properly.
Private ownership has to be balanced with
public good, and we are struggling with that
across the entire country on a range of
resource-related issues.
Dale:
I just came back from looking at a
situation where private property rights and
lack of governmental regulation had a long-
term devastating impact on a watershed.
Colorado approved a large gold mine
(Summitville mine in the San Juan Moun-
tains) 4 or 5 years ago without adequate
regulatory oversight. Obviously, people
focused on the short-term economic benefits
of providing jobs. Now the site is costing
taxpayers $33,000 a day because the owner
has gone bankrupt and, as a result of poor
mining practices, has left a $40 million-$60
million clean-up job. This is an example of
land use at its worst in a watershed. I think
the largest failure of this country, in terms of
the protection of our watersheds, has been
the lack of adequate land use regulations at
the local level and at the federal level.
Call:
We have already begun to answer our
second question, but let me state it now:
"Given the different priorities for beneficial
uses in our watersheds, what are the issues
that need to be resolved in order to make
-------
Proceedings
29
progress?" Obviously, some interests and
concerns are more compatible and others
more challenging to resolve. I'd like to step
back and ask our panelists, from thek
perspectives, what issues will be the most
challenging to resolve.
Holly:
I see five major issues.
The first is scale. Most of the success
stories I heard about in yesterday's confer-
ence sessions, from my perspective, were
relating experiences of watershed manage-
ment on a small scale. When you'think
about the upper Mississippi basin, we're
talking about 120 million acres of land, a
huge chunk of the United States. The second
issue, which is related to scale, is defining
units of analysis. We need to have units of
analysis that can incorporate economic and
other interest "trade-offs" in meaningful
ways.
The third issue is a nasty one—
hydrologic versus political boundaries. That
is a fundamental incongruity that seems to
have plagued the watershed approach for
some time. Again, I think it is partially
linked to questions of scale (as you get
larger you have more institutions to deal
with), but I think there are some other
complexities. In the upper Mississippi, for
example, the river not only defines the
watershed but is a state border so the river is
an edge of a political jurisdiction and not at
the center of what the people think of as
thek sovereign domain.
The fourth issue is the linkage
between planning and management. When
you start to move to the real challenge of
implementation, you encounter a host of
knotty problems linked with the dilemma
found between hydrologic and political
boundaries.
That reminds me of the discussion of
scale vis a vis planning and management
functions in the Water Quality 2000 report.
Water Quality 2000 recommends a nested
hierarchy approach to watershed manage-
ment in the country and points out that
larger-scale watershed efforts would carry
out relatively more planning functions than
implementation, whereas the smaller
watershed efforts nested within larger ones
would emphasize implementation. That
seemed intuitively attractive to me, yet the
more I thought about it the more I wondered
whether it defies what we claim to be the
success of the watershed approach—that it is
locally based.
Dale:
We're all struggling to try to define
the management unit, and I think it varies
from place to place. There are definitely
areas that need large-scale watershed
management. For example, the Vkgin River
watershed includes land in three states. The
water has not yet been allocated among
those states. Different divisions within each
federal resource agency have responsibility
for different parts of the watershed. If you
look at the Rio Grande, you're not only
talking about Colo-
rado, New Mexico, _______^^__
and Texas but also
Mexico. There are
enormous problems
along the border with
impacts on human
health resulting from
using the river as a ^^^^^""°™""""™"^
waste disposal system.
Clearly, these situations suggest a need for
some sort of interstate and international
compacts.
As we look for models, people talk
about the Northwest Power Planning
Council as a model fjDr large-scale watershed
management (Columbia and Snake Rivers).
But that entity, as I understand it, is pretty
much in gridlock over resolving the tough
questions because it is part of the political
process.
So, that is one of the key questions if
we think watershed management is the
way to go. It's easy to tell the federal
agencies to manage thek lands on a
watershed basis, and that can probably be
accomplished if it becomes national
policy. But when you go beyond federal
lands, it is very difficult to define the
proper management unit.
Again, I think the lack of effective
land use controls aggravates our watershed
problems and will have to be dealt with
sooner or later in this country—carried out
at the local level with encouragement from
the federal government.
Sharon:
My list includes a number of issues
akeady mentioned—the scope or extent of
the watershed, the scale at which actions are
to be taken, the level at which decisions are
to be made, and the level at which account-
ability comes into play. We've already
talked about the balance between private
property rights and public good—respon-
sible management. An equitable balance
lack of effective land
use controls aggravates our
watershed problems .'. . ."
-------
30
Watershed '93
"There must be a way—
through education, action or
example—that we can begin
to trust one another . . . ."
among all of the uses that are legitimate
within watersheds is another key issue that
needs to be resolved, and the resolution will
not be the same in every watershed.
One of the things that concerns me
most is that many people perceive that wa-
tersheds have to be left undisturbed in order
to provide good-qual-
——————• ity water in adequate
quantities. Properly
managed forests can
also provide adequate,
high quality water.
Anyone who owns
large tracts of forest
lands will feel threat-
.^_^^___^^_ ened if they are con-
sidered to be the solu-
tion to the problem and their options are
limited. We need to avoid jumping to regu-
lation; we need time for innovation to work.
Nell:
I think the issues are scale and control,
money and trust.
Everyone has discussed scale so I
won't elaborate on that too much. I do
feel, though, that in order to be effective—
to initiate a national policy—we should
think small, not large. But it comes down
to a matter of control. In organizing any
kind of a watershed management activity,
ultimately somebody has to be in control.
There is a traditional conflict between po-
litical control and technical control. We
who are in the water business feel that wa-
ter is too important—we ought to keep the
politicians out of it That isn't necessarily
celebrated by the political elements in our
community. But water is a technical is-
sue—water supply, water treatment, water
collection, water protection—these are all
technical matters and frequently they are
inconsistent with political agendas. So
there is this push and tug that makes water
management a real challenge. Better,
more comprehensive watershed manage-
ment requkes the creation of new institu-
tions or methods to integrate existing insti-
tutions, and that won't be easy.
Another massive challenge is money.
To begin watershed management you have
to define the problems, and to begin to study
the problems you need resources. Then you
need to pay for any mitigation or implemen-
tation of the plan that is derived. That may
requke reallocation of resources.
Another challenge is trust. We do
have the resources and intellect to resolve
these problems, but we don't always trust
each other. There must be a way—through
education, action, or example—that we can
begin to trust one another because if we
don't trust each other we'll never get there.
Watershed management will requke a
commitment from government agencies,
from landowners, and from the taxpayers we
all serve that we agree to work together in a
watershed unit. It makes sense. Psychologi-
cally, humans tend to gather around water-
sheds. All the great cities of the world
began on a river somewhere, and typically
the people shared the river but didn't like
the people on the other side of the hill. We
need to find a way that we can work with
our neighbors.
Jerry:
I think the major issue is education.
We spend a lot of time worrying about
whether there is money to do things, but I
think a lot can be done if we just bite the
bullet and start forward. People need to
know how the activities associated with
raising livestock and crops can affect water
quality. People need to know what happens
when they put too much fertilizer on the
lawn or dump a little oil or antifreeze on the
ground or down the storm drain.
We need to consider all the activities
in a watershed and plan for total resource
management. Rather than arguing over
who's to blame, we need to give everyone a
chance to be part of the solution.
Call:
Thank you.
The challenges that we've high-
lighted so far are process issues. I'd like to
play devil's advocate for a minute. My
whole career is based on the assumption
that people can work together and resolve
differences. I'd like to get you to address
the tough substantive issues—the real
conflicts that create stalemate.
Dale, you mentioned the attempt to
reconcile interests in the Columbia/Snake
system. Separating out the process difficul-
ties that you already identified, what are the
tough substantive issues that need to be
resolved in that situation?
Dale:
Well, in the Columbia/Snake system
over 100 salmon stocks are seriously
threatened and more than that are already
extinct. Salmon is a cultural part of the
Northwest, a way of life for all people who
-------
Conference Proceedings
31
live there. There is very strong public
support for protecting and restoring the
salmon, but there doesn't seem to be an
institutional ability to deliver. It is
complicated by the system of dams that
were built, without the salmon in mind, for
the purpose of supplying power. People
rely on that cheap power, and politicians
have to make tough decisions about raising
rates to pay for water releases to support
the salmon. Despite polls that indicate that
the public is willing to pay the price,
politicians are typically unwilling to make
those decisions. People at the local level
have to buy into what they want for the
watershed—the values that they want to
protect. Then, you can get political
support but you still need an institution
that is responsive.
Call:
Holly, we have a question from the
audience for you: "Commercial barge
traffic, maintenance, and proposed improve-
ments to the navigational channel of the
Mississippi River system have severe
impacts on backwater and other habitats.
Given that adequate alternative transporta-
tion systems exist on land, how do you view
the compatibility of navigational and other
uses of the river?"
Holly:
The fundamental dilemma on the
river system, for as long as I've been
associated with it, is navigation and fish
and wildlife habitat. There are definitely
impacts of navigation on the environmen-
tal integrity of the system. I think there is
compatibility—in fact, there are real
opportunities to creatively manage the
system for dual purposes. I think we frame
the question in the wrong way, a way that
is not conducive to coming up with
solutions that will be mutually satisfying.
In other words, if we simply think of the
problem as the impact of navigation on
habitat, then we have neglected to think in
terms of operations that might be altered to
support both navigation and fish and
wildlife.
Gall:
That's an important point. One of the
principles of integrating interests in conflict
resolution is to ask ourselves whether we've
asked the question in the most productive
way—whether refraining the question will
open up opportunities.
Sharon:
Holly, how do the impacts of in-
creased navigation compare to the impacts
of increased use of terrestrial transportation
systems?
Holly:
You can look at it in lots of ways. But
if you consider one kind of environmental
impact, such as spills, you find that the
railroad corridors still leave the river very
vulnerable because the
rails parallel the river '
c^aiTbokTtitfrom *we need to Sive everyone
a multimedia view-
point; for example, air
pollution from truck
traffic. Again, this ____________
brings into the ques-
tion the use of the watershed as a unit of
analysis when considering transportation
trade-offs.
Call:
On an different issue, Neil, would you
like to answer this question from the
audience? "The panel has focused on
surface waters, at least implicitly, and the
role of ground water and its protection has
been overlooked, as it often is in watershed
discussions. Shouldn't there be a priority
for restrictive land uses over ground water
recharge zones?" There are obviously some
competing concerns there.
Nell:
Ground water is an extremely impor-
tant component of our nation's water supply
and it must be protected. In southern
California we seem to be fighting an uphill
battle. The agricultural producers that
worked the land before it was heavily
urbanized used a lot of fertilizers, so we now
have nitrates that are working their way to
our ground water supply. A recent study
revealed that, by employing a ground water
recovery method that desalts or demineral-
izes impaired ground water, the Metropoli-
tan Water District will have access to about
200,000 acre-feet annually, about 10 percent
of the water supply for southern California.
Had we recognized the threat posed by
human activities earlier, we probably would
have managed our land a little better.
If I may add a thought about setting
national policy, the danger as I see it is that
very well-intended national policy can go
awry and create dreadful problems for local
a chance to be part of
the solution."
-------
32
Watershed '93
need to spend more
money on water if we are
going to continue to provide
the service that people
expect."
operators. I'd like to give an example—
share the misery with you—if I might. His-
torically, the Santa Ana is an intermittent
stream. During periods of heavy rain, water
flows quickly from the mountains to the sea,
and during the summer there is significant
percolation to the subsurface and the stream
comes to the surface hi different locations.
As our communities have developed, more
and more cities return water to the river,
including some that never came from the
Santa Ana, so now we have a perennial
stream composed of
- treated sewage efflu-
ent. The national
regulations on water
quality for a perennial
stream require us to
bring the Santa Ana to
the quality required for
a trout stream. It
never was a trout
stream, but by national
-^——i^—— standards we have to
convert it to a trout
stream except for temperature. Well, our
local sewage treatment plant operators look
at this policy and say it is way too expen-
sive. We would have to treat our water
extensively and put it back in the river.
There wouldn't be any trout in it, but the
people downstream would get very high
quality water at our expense. So we're not
going to do that. We're going to divert our
water someplace else. It's cheaper for us to
pump water for agricultural uses or out into
the desert for other uses. In terms of water-
shed management that is exactly the oppo-
site of what you want to happen because
people downstream rely on the water supply
being there. So any national policy has to
take into consideration regional differences.
Dale:
I agree with Neil.
Sharon:
I agree, too. Some of our faculties are
required to discharge water that is cleaner
than the water we started with, and we don't
get any credit for that.
Date:
I'd just like to add a thought about
ground water. There is a need to address
ground water as part of the basin and
account for the hydrological connections
between ground water and surface water.
Especially hi the West, we have lost streams
and cienegas due to overpumping. The need
to protect riparian zones for recharge
purposes and the need to protect ground
water from contamination, because of the
tremendous cost to clean it up, are real.
Call:
That's a nice segue into a question
that has come up in many forms: How do we
pay for watershed management? How
much? What are the mechanisms, for
example user fees?
Neil:
Excuse me for speaking very parochi-
ally, but in southern California the average
person's attitude about water is that it comes
from under the house. And they expect it to
be in copious quantities, of high quality, and
at no cost. This is a real problem. The
water in southern California is inexpensive.
We need to spend more money on water if
we are going to continue to provide the
service that people expect. The Metropoli-
tan Water District of Southern California
will likely double water rates in the next 10
years. There is immense political resistance
to increasing rates, as you might expect. On
the other hand, when you compare typical
household water bills to monthly cable TV
bills, you find water is less expensive. So,
over the next decade or so, we need a
change in public priority.
Holly:
I would like to throw out a general
(and maybe fallacious) assumption that I
operate under when I think about watershed
management, and that is that much of our
investment is an up-front investment in
better development of data systems and
enhancing our understanding of watershed
dynamics. Many of the implementation
functions will use techniques that are less
expensive than some of the measures that
we have already put in place; for example,
point source treatment plants.
Dale:
I agree that water is too cheap and
people have had it too easy for too long.
In the West, in particular, we have subsi-
dized water so in reality people live on
cheap water at the expense of federal
taxpayers.
There are two ways to address this.
One is to put a surcharge on water to bring it
closer to market value. This would require
educating people about the real costs of
-------
Conference Proceedings
33
water—you have to internalize the cost to
the environment to the production of the
resource and to the maintenance of it for the
future.
Another way is to open up markets.
Agricultural producers have extremely low
cost water that they could sell to municipali-
ties. This would bring water up to its
market price, diminish the need for new
water projects, and encourage conservation.
People would profit from it, and so would
the environment.
Hydropower is another subsidized use
of the river. Hydropower projects that are
up for relicensing over the next 30 years
produce power worth $10 billion using
public resources, the river, for free. That
should be taxed. Owners of dams should
pay for the use of rivers, and the money
derived should be used for environmental
protection.
Jerry:
Sometimes we make political deci-
sions on perceived notions. Here's a good
example concerning water rights from my
home watershed. Under a proposed law,
people would have to use their wells at least
once every 5 years. So, we have people who
are pumping water onto saturated ground
just to protect their well rights. We need to
prevent these misperceptions. We need to
avoid passing laws that do not work at the
local level, and that is why I feel strongly
that we need to empower the local level to
make judgment calls and use our resources
wisely.
Sharon:
I want to make two points.
First, we do not learn from each other.
For example, in the extensively farmed area
of south Georgia, where I live, people
believe that ground water is an inexhaustible
resource. They have not listened to what
has happened in other areas. They do not
understand the dire consequences of poorly
managing ground water.
Second, there is a lot of research that
is providing us information on cumulative
effects and other processes that are function-
ing within water systems. We have to find a
better way to communicate—to more
quickly apply new data in the decision-
making process.
Gail:
Several people in the audience are
asking about the specific tools to make
voluntary actions effective and also the
limits to voluntary action—in other words,
what problems can't be solved through
voluntary action.
Sharon:
The forestry industry has been
involved in the development of best
management practices that allow us to use
the land while protecting the water. In some
cases these have been codified in forest
practices acts, but in other places they
remain voluntary. I
think this is one of the —•^———
contributions that
forestry has to make to
the entire process of
watershed planning.
We need to remember
that best management
practices are not a
"one-shot" deal, but
are an iterative
process: as you learn, -~^~~•"—^——
you modify your
practices. We should have the opportunity
to make a voluntary process work before
moving to legislation. But, if you give me
the opportunity to do it right voluntarily and
I don't measure up, then regulations are
warranted.
Gail:
Our third general question is "What
opportunities do each of you see to success-
fully address these issues, and what contri-
butions can each of your organizations make
to those solutions?" But someone in the
audience phrased it this way: "Would each
of you rephrase your opening remarks in
order to cast the potentially opposing
interests as not being between current uses
and needs, but rather how water is being
managed today and how we want to be able
to use water in the future?"
Holly:
I would like to refer to the remarks
that Warren Fairchild made in the opening
session when he invited us to revisit P.L.
89-80, The Water Resources Planning Act.
It was 1965, when we had the Water
Resources Council (WRC) and River Basin
Commissions. I think there are concepts
from that act that we may want to resurrect,
even if we don't want to resurrect an
institution.
There are two concepts that I took
away from Warren's remarks. First, we
**We should have the
opportunity to make a
voluntary process work
before moving to
legislation."
-------
34
Watershed '93
could create a system, for coordinating
national water policy separate from any
federal agency (like WRC). Presently, I see
a danger with having federal agencies jump
on the watershed bandwagon and having
each define what watershed management
means to them in ways that are useful to
their own missions and purposes, so that we
lose a more holistic federal perspective. We
need to be able to define what the federal
perspective is in watersheds. Perhaps that
doesn't mean we need to reconstruct WRC,
but I would like to think that there is a way
that the federal government could get its
house in order.
Second is the concept of River Basin
Commissions. There is an opportunity to
build on what we have. Those Basin
Commissions were officially terminated in
1982, but they didn't just whither away and
die. They went through a metamorphosis—
they changed their function, mission, and
composition. In many regions of this
country, people struggled to keep some
remnants of those institutions alive because
they saw utility in being able to think on a
regional and watershed scale.
My suggestion would be to revisit
some of those ideas and learn from them.
Neil:
This is obviously a very complicated
institutional issue. The fact that there are
about 1,200 people at this conference from
many different kinds of organizations shows
that watershed management is an Important
concern for many people, and we want to
learn from each other. I think that this is
positive—that some progress is possible.
Therefore, we need to have more gatherings
of this type so that we can find better ways
to work together.
We think that we have a rather
successful water management process on the
Santa Ana River. As I mentioned, this is
organized by people who sued each other
for about 36 years (and they are about to sue
each other again, this time with a smile).
The key has been regional planning on a
fairly manageable scale (there are 2,800
square miles within the watershed) con-
trolled by local interests that make a
commitment with one another to cooperate.
I'm not sure if our situation could be
modeled on a national basis.
Within the State of California, we
have a very effective and efficient way of
monitoring water quality control. The State
is divided into nine regions, each developing
a regional approach with local control. We
sometimes struggle with big issues, but we
have a process and it seems effective.
I believe that whatever institutional
evolution might occur, it should not be
organized like EPA. EPA does many
wonderful things, but if you have trouble
with EPA, there is no public body, board of
directors, or process to help you. You're
dealing with a staff that can become
amorphous, which becomes very difficult
for the local operators. If there is a public
body that you can go to, to which this new
agency or even EPA is accountable, it would
be much more effective because you would
have two-way dialogue. It would eliminate
the system of policies being made some-
where, never where you are, by the federal
government — policies which become law
that you are told by some functionary to
follow.
In the State of California, when you
have difficulty with the Water Quality
Control Board, you can talk to their board
of directors, who are selected from a cross
section of the public. If you don't like
their decisions, you can appeal to the state
board, which is also a public body. So the
institution has an exchange of ideas with
the people who have to abide by the regu-
lations. Perhaps our country is too vast to
implement that type of mechanism, but I
believe we need to institute some type of
process like that. I don't mean to knock
EPA. They have their job and they do it
very well. But, if I do disagree with their
policies, then it's "lights out." I think
that's why there is this fear that if we get
some kind of ground water regulation or
national watershed regulation, that there's
going to be somebody from the outside
telling you how to solve your problem.
People don't like that.
Jerry:
There is a tremendous opportunity to
move forward. But everybody needs to be
involved—from Washington, DC, down to
my dairy farm in the State of Washington.
Our organization, the National Association
of Conservation Districts, through our
Conservation, Information and Technology
Center, was recently involved in organizing
"Know Your Watershed."
Our goal is to take this process right
down to the local level, and we want to
build alliances with a number of organiza-
tions. Our goal is to reach and inspire every
individual land occupier—from apartment
-------
Conference Proceedings
35
dwellers in the city, to suburban families, to
farmers. We can bring a lot of energy and
talent to this campaign to protect our
watersheds, and I would like to invite the
panel and the audience to be a part of this
campaign. I think we can have some very
positive results.
Sharon:
Coming from the forestry perspective,
I think one of the things that we have to
bring to watershed planning is the fact that
our business is a long-term business. We're
used to planning on a long time frame,
which is important as far as watershed plan-
ning is concerned. We're used to dealing
with things on a large scale. We're the
source of clean water. We have good expe-
rience in best management practices in terms
of development, implementation, and revi-
sion as new information becomes available.
It's important to realize that it's going
to take time to develop an equitable solu-
tion, especially when you consider the
diversity of viewpoints that we've covered
today and are apparent in any given water-
shed. We've already heard about the need
for dialogue and building trust. As a veteran
of a recent consensus-building exercise, I
can tell you that it takes some time to
develop that trust. You have to give
everybody the opportunity to have their say
and begin to see what's in it for everyone
before you can even begin to think about
developing an effective consensus. In my
mind, consensus is not a dirty word; it's not
compromise. Consensus is creative solu-
tions as far as I'm concerned.
It is also critical for us to identify the
success stories. We must ask ourselves:
"What are the successful models that
worked someplace, and why did they
work?" We must publicize those techniques
to the point where the successful ones can
be extrapolated to other circumstances and
used. The same thing obviously doesn't
necessarily work in different places, but if
we publicize things that work in some area,
variations of that may be useful elsewhere.
Dale:
I think that there are some bright spots
in the future, some of which the new
administration has exposed. I'm hopeful
that the forest meeting in the Northwest in a
few weeks will produce some kind of
consensus. I have my doubts, but it is good
to bring people together to resolve some
differences. I think the administration's
approach with respect to ecological planning
and biological surveying of our resources is
an excellent start toward this kind of
movement.
We need to move forward (in a
watershed sense). It's important because we
have stressed our watersheds to the point
where we all recognize that we can't keep
doing this. We can't keep using them as
waste conduits. We can't keep adding
people and pressures on the resource.
Therefore, there must be planning and
commonly shared goals regarding how we
are going to live on a particular watershed as
far as what we're going to develop and what
the objectives are.
I was in the Rio Grande watershed
recently, and I found it interesting that three
or four different groups have come from
different areas trying to solve this problem.
I assume that eventually they will get
together to talk about elements of that
watershed and what needs to be done. There
is a group in the middle part of the Rio
Grande dealing with what to do about the
future biological integrity and management
of the Bosque along the river for about 150
miles. These are people concerned about
the entire watershed from an academic and
biological perspective. People are starting
to form committees and groups to address
these problems. Hopefully, it will get
beyond the think-tank stage.
As an organization, I think we have
to think about the current discussions of
new policies and try to promote some of
the things that we have discussed. Focus-
ing on biological surveys and watersheds
is a good place to start because that's
really where all of the biological treasures
are located. The Clean Water Act, to focus
on biological criteria of watersheds, has
not been mentioned much in the past but is
very important. Mining law reform is an
essential ingredient for watershed protec-
tion in the future. In terms of headwaters
of watersheds, the Wild and Scenic River
System, which is 25 years old, could be
doubled with any kind of congressional
effort in the next 2-4 years. There are
many rivers out there that are eligible for
designation as Wild and Scenic Rivers. So
those are a few ideas.
Call:
Thank you.
One of my jobs as moderator is to
manage time, and we need to finish up now.
But, I would say that we received more than
-------
r
36
Watershed '93
Additional Questions from the Audience
Do you feel that our knowledge of watershed science' and water-"-*
shed processes is well enough understood, or '
importance of watershed-based planning? ~ °, .
Is ft truly possible to make progress on addressing 'multiple °"
-------
WATERSHED'93
Remarks
Diversity of Approaches in
Watershed Management
Cynthia J. Burbank, Chief of the Environment Analysis Division
Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC
I appreciate this opportunity to tell you a
little bit about the Federal Highway
Administration and its role in watershed
management. We are one of the sponsors of
this important conference, and yet, if you
look at a list of the sponsors, we are a little
different. Unlike many of the others, we do
not directly sponsor watershed management
or protection programs. However, we do
have a strong interest in this area. And I
think it is very appropriate that we serve as a
bridge, if you will, between the earlier panel
on the diversity of interests in watershed
management and the next panel on diversity
of approaches because we represent one of
those diverse interests and pursue some of
those diverse approaches.
The Highway Administration's
raison d'etre, of course, is ensuring that this
country has effective and efficient transpor-
tation to serve the economic and social
needs of the Nation. Together with our
sister agency, the Federal Transit Adminis-
tration, we administer a $150 billion
program of assistance to states and metro-
politan areas to build and, increasingly, to
operate transportation systems.
Over the past 20 years, the linkage of
our program to the environment has grown
stronger as people have become more aware
of the impact of transportation decisions and
operations on the environment, as well as
the importance of building environmental
sensitivity into the construction, manage-
ment, and operation of transportation
systems.
Our interests include everything from
ensuring that new highways avoid or
minimize impacts on wetlands, to control-
ling water runoff from highways, to looking
at the linkage between land development
and transportation and trying to figure out
which is the chicken and which is the egg—
still an issue of research and debate.
Over the 20 years that our environ-
mental awareness has grown, we have
realized that our responsibilities go beyond
the two "e's" of efficiency and effectiveness
of transportation to environmental compat-
ibility, protection, and, indeed, enhance-
ment.
Just over a year ago new legislation
was enacted for federal surface transporta-
tion programs, which provides the $150
billion that I mentioned earlier. Certainly,
this is a substantial amount of money, so
when we talk about the greening of the
Federal Highway Administration we are
talking not only about the growing environ-
mental philosophy but also the growing
funding not only for transportation but for
environmental protection. Our funding
programs now have much greater eligibility
for wetlands protection, wetlands planning
management activities.
Not only do we bring to this confer-
ence an interest in environmental protection
in carrying out our mission and greater
eligibility of funds to carry out watershed
planning and management, we also bring
experience in comprehensive, holistic
planning. We call it the "three C process"
for comprehensive, continuing, and coopera-
tive planning. We have been using it for
more than two decades for multiobjective
transportation-related planning in communi-
ties around the Nation. Many of the issues
are the same as those you have been talking
about for watershed management. For
example, it involves reaching around
37
-------
r
38
Watershed '93
political boundaries to more functional
boundaries, involving decision makers and
citizens in the process, creating or shaping
institutional champions for more compre-
hensive planning, and finally, it involves
embracing and balancing multiple objec-
tives.
I can't say that there are any secrets to
success. I can say that comprehensive
planning takes a certain stubbornness—to
keep at it in the face of many challenges. It
particularly requires an insistence on
keeping the various parties talking to each
other and working together, not letting them
leave the table. And, as Mr. Dickey said
this morning, it takes a lot of discipline.
It is our privilege to be one of the
sponsoring agencies today, and I hope we'll
be able to contribute in the future to the
further evolution of watershed management
and to be part of the process of making
comprehensive watershed management real.
-------
W AT E R S H £ O '93
Bear Creek and die Origins of
TVA's Clean Water Initiative
Ralph H. Brooks, PhJX, Vice President, Water Management
Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN
If you heard Tennessee Valley
Authority's (TVA) Chairman, John
Waters, speak yesterday at the opening
session, you know that TVA is working on a
new model for watershed management. We
call it our Clean Water Initiative, and we're
convinced that it will provide the framework
that our region needs to turn the Tennessee
River into the cleanest, most productive
commercial river system in the Nation by
the year 2000.
Why are we so confident? Because
we've experimented with a lot of different
approaches to river cleanup, and we've
found one that really works. It works
because it includes two key elements:
increased public awareness of water
resource problems and cooperative problem-
solving.
If I had to pick one project that shaped
our Clean Water Initiative more than any
other, I would choose a project that began in
1985 when Congress provided funding for
TVA to restore water quality in the Bear
Creek Floatway in northwest Alabama. The
river below Bear Creek Dam flows through
a beautiful gorge and offers Whitewater
rapids that attract rafters and canoeists from
a wide area. But in 1984 the floatway was
closed to recreational use because of high
fecal conform concentrations. Aerial
photographs and targeted monitoring
showed that the main problem was lack of
adequate animal waste management on
many small farms.
The rest of the story is a prime
example of how agencies and individuals
can work together to preserve the quality
of our natural resources for future genera-
tions. I'd like to show you a short video-
tape so that you can hear about the project
firsthand from our project partners. Then I
want to talk a little bit about some of the
lessons we learned, and how we're
applying them in our Clean Water Initia-
tive.
The Bear Creek Floatway—A
Story of Renewal
(Transcript)
From high over the textured landscape
of northwest Alabama, you can see where
Bear Creek begins. It flows northwest
through Marion and Franklin counties for
more than 40 miles. It then turns north, is
joined by Cedar and Little Bear Creeks, and
empties into the Tennessee River. For
generations, there have been many stories
about Bear Creek. And no wonder. In
places, sheer cliffs create a feeling of cool
remoteness and mysterious gloom. In
others, the creek is open to the sky and
warm and inviting sunlight dances on the
water.
Only recently has the natural and
uncommon beauty of Bear Creek been
seen by many more people than only those
living nearby. In the 1970s, TVA built
four earth dams—one each on Cedar and
Little Bear Creeks and two on Big Bear.
Their purpose was to provide for flood
control, to create dependable water
supplies for nearby communities, and to
open up new opportunities for recreation.
Besides new areas for camping and
picnicking, the project included develop-
ment of a 25-mile floatway between the
two dams on Big Bear Creek. Water could
be stored during heavy spring rains, then
released throughout the summer to make
39
-------
Watershed '93
the creek much safer and suitable for
floating. This part of the creek provided
canoeists with some of the best and most
challenging water in the mid-South.
But just as people were beginning to
discover and to fully enjoy the floatway,
surveys revealed that the water was heavily
contaminated with fecal coliform bacteria.
Frustrated officials posted signs warning
people that the water was unsafe, and
disappointed boaters were turned away. The
part of Bear Creek that had promised so
much was closed Indefinitely. By 1985,
sampling plus aerial photography, which has
become extremely useful in similar situa-
tions, had identified livestock on farms as
being the main source of the bacteria.
Although some of the livestock were being
kept directly on the creek, most of the
contamination was originating in dozens of
hollows and along many very small streams
in the Bear Creek watershed. Further
surveys revealed some surprising and
sobering statistics. Each year, hog, poultry,
and cattle operations were creating about
40,000 tons of manure. That's equal to the
same pollution load produced by a city of
15,000 people. Much of it was draining into
Bear Creek.
Identifying the problem was one
thing. But solving it was quite another.
Many farmers, already under economic
stress, either didn't have the money to make
needed changes or didn't want to change
management methods that seemed to work
well for them.
One of the farmers most affected was
Dale Baker:
"Got a letter from somebody, some
government official,... wanting all the
farmers or people that was on the creek to
meet at the college to discuss the pollution
on the creek. So naturally I went. I went
with the intentions of doing what I could
to get on to the fellows doing the polluting
as strong as I could. I know that I don't
have much influence, but I think I could
put my two cents worth in anyway. I got
up there and found out I was the one doing
it. I wanted the creek cleaned up and it
was to my benefit. So I agreed to quit half
of my hog operation. I quit my finishing
process and agreed to just sell feeder pigs
if they would help me build this farrowing
house that's behind us here for that
purpose. It works real good. My children
is all gone from home. It's just me and
this farrowing house is all I can handle and
it don't help me all that much with the
number of pigs per sow but it helps a
tremendous lot with labor. It is only a
fourth of the labor it would be compared to
the way I was doing it before."
As more farmers learned of the
problem, they were increasingly willing to
do what they could to make Bear Creek
fulfill its potential. After all, an important
part of the local economy was at stake. And
that affected everyone. Even more impor-
tant, the Soil Conservation Service and the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation
Service joined with TVA in a cost-sharing
program to help landowners pay for
installing animal waste management
systems.
About 130 farms were identified as
having livestock that were creating waste
problems. About half of those farms were
responsible for most of the waste. Those
were the ones targeted for needing the most
help in installing waste management
systems. Each system was specifically
designed to meet the needs of the particular
farm. On some farms, that meant building
confinement housing and waste treatment
lagoons. On others, feedlots and grazing
areas were relocated so that runoff would be
filtered and purified naturally in vegetated
areas rather than running into streams.
Regardless of what methods and systems
were used, the goal was the same-r-to
efficiently isolate livestock and their waste
from ponds and streams.
The waste management systems
installed to reduce contamination of Bear
Creek cost $1.2 million, and the results are
very impressive. The amount of waste
entering Bear Creek from treated farms has
been reduced by 20,000 tons per year.
Water quality has been restored, and the cost
was only about one-fifth of what would
have been required to treat the same amount
of municipal or industrial waste. Yet, all of
this has been accomplished not with
chemicals but by simply providing ways for
nature to cleanse and purify.
This experience also has emphasized
again that prevention is the wisest and far
less expensive option. Once again, Bear
Creek is a recreational and economic asset.
That's possible only because of planning,
hard work, and sacrifices by everyone
involved.
The story of Bear Creek is one of
renewal—a story of what has and remains to
be done to protect a small but very special
bit of America's natural heritage.
(End of transcript)
-------
Proceedings
41
As far as we know, this was the first
time that a stream, closed because of
bacterial contamination, has been reopened
to recreation following successful cleanup
of nonpoint source pollution. We learned a
lot from the Bear Creek experience, and
we're beginning to apply these lessons on a
larger scale, working with an entire water-
shed at once, as part of our Clean Water
Initiative.
One thing that was very clear in cleaning up
the Bear Creek Floatway was the effective-
ness of a watershed approach.
The quality of water resources
primarily is affected by human activities on
the land that drains into each stream, river,
and lake. And often the most significant
problems are nonpoint sources of pollution.
This certainly was true on Bear Creek.
So, as part of our Clean Water
Initiative, we are assigning river action
teams to work in each of the 12 major
watersheds that drain into the Tennessee
River. A river action team is a group of
TVA experts in environmental science and
engineering and other disciplines who work
with others in the watershed to protect the
ecological health and maintain appropriate
human uses of Valley water resources.
Their job is to identify the root causes of
water resource problems and bring together
the people and organizations necessary to
find solutions and carry them out.
Another lesson from the Bear Creek project
is that it takes more than monitoring to
determine water management needs.
Monitoring is important, which is why
we've developed the most comprehensive,
long-term water quality monitoring program
in the Nation. TVA scientists now monitor
conditions at key locations on most of the
35 lakes in the Tennessee River system and
on major streams. Our monitoring program
combines conventional water quality
monitoring and ecological monitoring. We
keep tabs on a broad range of physical and
chemical variables in sediments, fish, and
water. And we monitor the organisms that
live in the water. These organisms provide
clues that can help identify chronic low
levels of pollution or intermittent pollution
episodes that otherwise might not be
detected.
But, in addition to monitoring the
water's ecological health, you also need a
complete inventory of pollution sources.
Aerial photographs of the Bear Creek
watershed transformed a dispersed, areawide
concern into a defined, site-specific prob-
lem. More importantly, the aerial inventory
made it possible to target those operations
suspected of having the greatest impact on
water quality. There were many pollution
sources impacting the Bear Creek Floatway.
But the ones addressed were those sources
that were directly related to the project's
objective—reducing fecal coliform contami-
nation.
The list of problems, issues, and needs
in a watershed is potentially endless. So,
instead of looking at everything, our new
river action teams will work with our project
partners to set priorities and develop
corrective actions that reflect the value of
the resource, the severity of the impact on
the resource, and the probability of solving
the problem.
Another important lesson from our Bear
Creek experience is that controlling non-
point source pollution depends on coopera-
tive partnerships and public support.
It took a cooperative effort to clean up
the Bear Creek Floatway. TVA provided
expertise in water quality monitoring, aerial
photo analyses, and targeting priority sites.
The Soil Conservation Service provided
expertise in working with livestock opera-
tors to design and install the waste manage-
ment facilities. The Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion and Conservation Service provided
expertise in developing contracts with the
operators, and arranging for payment of
cost-share monies. The Bear Creek
Floatway Advisory Committee provided the
guidance for educating the operators and
inspecting installed systems. And, finally,
the participation of the landowners was
needed to ensure the pollution sources
would be cleaned up and maintained.
At the front end of the project, the
cooperating agencies realized that the
education of the polluters, the public, and
local leaders was important to gain support
and participation. As you heard on the tape,
many of the polluters did not realize that
they were contributing to the nonpoint
source problem. This was addressed
through individual meetings with local
farmers, and by distributing pamphlets on
nonpoint source pollution—what causes it
and how to fix it.
We have taken this lesson to heart in
our Clean Water Initiative. We are con-
vinced that our success will depend, more
than anything else, on our ability to build
-------
42
Watershed '93
partnerships. The top priority for river
action teams will be getting agencies,
communities, leaders, and the public to
work together to find and carry out solutions
to river clean-up problems.
The first step is to improve the
communication of information about the
health and problems in the watershed. That
is why TVA publishes RiverPulse, an annual
report on conditions in the Tennessee River
system. RiverPulse takes our monitoring
results and tells river system users what they
want to know: Where is it safe to swim?
Are the fish safe to eat? Are conditions
adequate for aquatic life?
We published the first issue of
RiverPulse last summer. It was a milestone
for us because it was the first time complex,
technical information about TVA lakes has
been presented in a format that is easy to
read and understand. RiverPulse is impor-
tant because it helps people who are
interested in water quality set river clean-up
goals and track progress toward meeting
them. If we want river system users and the
public to get involved in river cleanup,
we've got to make sure that they know what
the problems are.
We know from Bear Creek that it also helps
to offer incentives to encourage people to
participate.
The offer of cost-sharing assistance
clearly made a difference in the number of
landowners willing to install animal waste
management systems. Financing pollution
cleanup, however, is the responsibility of all
partners. TVA will provide financial
assistance if necessary, as we did in the Bear
Creek project. But the key accomplishment
of river action team members is to persuade
the public and project partners that solving
the river clean-up problem in their area is
important to meeting their own economic,
social, and environmental needs, and the
needs of the community in which they live.
Finally, we learned from Bear Creek that
follow-up is essential to the long-term
success of a nonpoint source program.
To maintain restored water quality in
the Bear Creek Floatway, we helped to
implement a program to provide follow-up
inspections on installed systems, operation
and maintenance training, and troubleshoot-
ing for potential problems. We also
recognize the need for a program to ensure
adequate pollution control for future growth
and development.
This is an important point. It will take
patience and a long-term commitment to
establish the partnerships we need to clean
up the Tennessee River. But, in my view, it
is the only way we can get the job done.
TVA alone doesn't have the workforce or
funds to carry out all the needed improve-
ments. Nor do we have any regulatory
authority over water users in terms of setting
pollutant limits or enforcing standards for
discharges. That is up to the individual
Valley states. Besides, many of the remain-
ing pollution problems aren't regulated.
That is why our Clean Water Initiative
emphasizes communication, education, and
coalition building. Time will be required
for these efforts to produce the results we
desire—the cleanup of the river, section by
section. But the solutions developed this
way will have staying power because they
will be based on common understanding and
lasting relationships.
Thank you.
-------
WATERSHED'93
The Chesapeake Bay: A Case Study
in Watershed Management
Ann Pesiri Swanson, Executive Director
Chesapeake Bay Commission, Annapolis, MD
First and foremost, I would like to thank
you for this opportunity to provide you
with an overview of our approaches to
restoring Chesapeake Bay. As the executive
director of the Chesapeake Bay Commis-
sion, I am often asked to travel to faraway
places and explain how we have "done it":
How have we coordinated such a massive
clean-up program, and how have we
measured our success? In my brief time
before you this morning, I'd like to give you
a feeling for just how this massive program
of ours works and an overview of some of
the lessons that we have learned.
I had hoped to begin my presentation
with slides. However, with three general
assemblies in session and the recent loss of
our assistant director, my schedule simply
did not permit this. Indulge me, then, for a
moment while I paint a background picture
of Chesapeake Bay for those of you who are
not familiar with this mighty resource:
• The bay is a special place. It is
considered to be the largest and most
productive estuary of the 850
estuaries in the United States. Its
ecological and economical worth is
surpassed by none.
• The Bay basin is 195 miles long,
stretching from the entrance of the
Susquehanna River in Havre de
Grace, MD, to Norfolk, VA. Its
watershed spans some 64,000 square
miles, including six states and the
District of Columbia.
• The Bay's 150 major rivers and
streams support some 295 species of
firifish, 45 species of shellfish, and
2,700 species of plants.
• The Chesapeake is home to 29
species of waterfowl and is a major
resting ground along the Atlantic
migratory bird flyway. Every year, 1
million waterfowl winter in the
Bay's basins.
And so you may find yourself
wondering, "With bounties like these, why
have I heard so much about its decline and
about efforts underway to restore it?"
At this point, if I had slides, they
would quickly switch from pictures of
nesting birds, fish harvests, and wetlands to
images depicting people—and, of course,
their impacts.
The Bay has 5,600 miles of shoreline
(more than the entke west coast) and a
surface area of over 2,300 miles, a figure
that doubles with the inclusion of its
tributaries. The opportunities for living
and working adjacent to the Bay or its
rivers are phenomenal. Factories, urban
and suburban communities, transportation
corridors, and agricultural operations all
hug the shoreline.
With this proximity come the Bay's
problems. Declines in the Bay's health
became apparent in the mid-1900s. The
changes have been dramatic. For example,
in 1890, billions of oysters filtered the
Maryland portion of the Bay in only 4 days.
Currently, the population is so small that
about 480 or more days are required.
Causes of their decline are many, but are
certainly attributed to a decline in water
quality, loss of habitat, and disease. These
are all issues that have been the focus of our
restoration efforts.
In my mind, the Bay restoration effort
can be boiled down to its eight basic
strengths. By examining these strengths, you
can learn many of its greatest lessons—
lessons that concern its players, its pro-
cesses, its structure, and to some degree its
politics. Let's give it a try.
43
-------
44
Watershed '93
First and foremost, I would identify
the Bay Program's greatest strength to be its
leadership and the goals that they have set.
The Bay's leadership occupies the highest
levels of government. This leadership—
which includes the Chairman of the Chesa-
peake Bay Commission (representing the
legislative branch); the Governors of
Maryland, Virginia, and Pennsylvania; the
Mayor of the District of Columbia; and the
Administrator of EPA (on behalf of all
federal agencies)—adopted a set of strong,
specific, and comprehensive goals that are
unmatched nationwide. These goals cover a
comprehensive array of issues including
water quality, living resources, growth
management, access, public information and
education, research, and monitoring. They
include such specific goals as achieving a 40
percent reduction in nitrogen and phospho-
rus by the year 2000 and eliminating fish
blockages throughout Chesapeake Bay.
In sum, the first rule of success is to
establish clear, strong, specific, and
comprehensive goals and to have those
goals embraced by the highest levels of
leadership in your region.
The second rule of success lies in the
diversity of the participants. Cleaning up
Chesapeake Bay has involved countless
players representing all levels of govern-
ment, the private sector, scientists, and
citizens. Beyond the three governors, the 40
Congressmen, and the 10 federal agencies
that are involved, more than 700 citizen
groups are involved in its restoration.
Together, these players bring immense
political leadership and financial support to
the program. The formal, U.S. Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (EPA)-coordinated
Chesapeake Bay Program has established 50
and 60 subcommittees and workgroups to
ensure that all of these interests are repre-
sented and the goals of the program are
ultimately achieved.
The third rule of success is that you
have to have money. The active involve-
ment of EPA and other federal agencies has
leveraged hundreds of millions of state and
local dollars. The Chesapeake Bay Program
was started by Congress and EPA in the late
1970s and early 1980s. That attention
culminated in the signing of the 1983
Chesapeake Bay Agreement, the establish-
ment of the EPA liaison office and a federal
commitment of nearly $10 million to the
states. Federal assistance to the Bay region
has substantially grown since that time; it
now amounts to more than $20 million
annually. This money, however, is dwarfed
when compared to the hundreds of millions
of dollars that have been expended by the
combined efforts of the Bay states. Still,
when you consider that the economic value
of the Bay to the States of Maryland and
Virginia combined is $678 billion, it's a
small price to pay.
Fourth, I must mention the strength
of the community as a whole—The Bay's
lay people. The citizenry of the Bay
region is remarkably knowledgeable.
Survey after survey reveals their over-
whelming support for the restoration
efforts, with many indicating a willingness
to make additional financial sacrifices
toward the cleanup. For example, Mary-
land initiated a Chesapeake Bay license
plate as a way to raise Bay funds. Origi-
nally, a goal was set to sell 100,000 plates
in a 2-year period. In the same period of
time, 430,000 were sold, with 100,000
selling in the first 3 months.
Fifth, and mandatory to any honest
environmental clean-up effort, is a willing-
ness of the players to constantly reassess. In
the Bay region, we use our living resources
as our bottom line. They are our canary in
the mine shaft. If they are not doing well,
then we are not doing well. Frequently, new
information leads to improved ways of
controlling pollution, managing fisheries, or
restoring habitat. Regardless of the commit-
ments that we have made in the past, the
leadership in the Bay community has
demonstrated an ability to regroup, to
realign, and to pick up the pieces when a
mistake has been made and move forward in
a new, and more accurate, direction. I
cannot emphasize enough how difficult this
is to do politically.
Sixth, the direction of the Bay Pro-
gram is guided by state-of-the-art scientific
research. In this way, our regulations and
policies are based on defensible science,
something that is difficult with which to
argue.
Seventh, the Bay Program's approach
demonstrates balance. In a program that
spans the gamut from land use policy to
fisheries management to recreational
boating and air toxics, a diversity of
implementation tools is critical. In the Bay
region, we have clearly learned that no one
approach works best. We have three states,
more than 3,000 local governments, and
northern and southern orientations. As a
result, our tools range from legislative
mandates to voluntary efforts. Strong laws
-------
Conference Proceedings
45
and regulations ensure effective pollution
control and resource stewardship in the
region, while broad public education and
technical assistance programs provide
incentives.
Finally, let me say that the success of
any program rests in its abilities to demon-
strate results. The Bay Program was
officially launched in 1983. Since that time,
its efforts have held the line on nitrogen and
have achieved a 19 percent reduction in
phosphorus in the Bay. Successful phos-
phorus reductions are due to a region-wide
ban on phosphate detergents, improved
municipal treatment, and soil erosion
controls. Nitrogen fertilizer use is down by
30 percent, and seven cities in the region
now remove nitrogen from their sewage
discharge. Compliance with point source
pollution limits is well above the national
average, making the Bay Program a model
for compliance.
Sure, the Bay has its problems. The
14 million people who live in its watershed
will see to that. And our "to do list" is far
longer than our "accomplishments list." But
certainly our efforts constitute a substantial
beginning. The Chesapeake Bay was the
first in the Nation to be targeted for restora-
tion as a single ecosystem. Its probbms are
not unlike those of your area. Unfortu-
nately, its problems are symptomatic of
those of our globe. We can learn from the
Chesapeake experience.
I hope this presentation has helped
you to do just that. Thank you.
-------
-------
WATERSHED1 93
Stillwater/Truckee and Carson Rivers
Frank Dimick, Liaison Officer
Mid-Padfic Region, U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Sacramento, CA
Mark Twain, who got his start in
writing in Virginia City, Nevada,
during the gold mining era, said,
"Whiskey is for drinking and water is for
fighting." I guess that kind of set the stage
for Nevada.
Today, I'm going to talk about the
Carson and Truckee Rivers—two rivers that
are completely within one closed basin in
Nevada. They are very small systems (the
two drainage areas encompass only 3,500
square miles), and yet they have all the same
characteristics and almost all of the same
problems that a big system, such as the
Chesapeake Bay, has. The main problem,
though, is water quantity. (This is due in
part to the fact that Nevada is the most arid
state in the Nation, receiving less than 8
niches of precipitation a year. Many
agricultural areas receive only about 5
inches per year.) But the problems we face
in the Carson and Truckee watersheds also
reflect the wild West history of Nevada.
In the Great Basin in northern Nevada
is Lake Tahoe, which straddles the Califor-
nia and Nevada state line and also sits on top
of the Sierra Nevada Mountains. Flowing
out of Lake Tahoe is the Truckee River; it
flows north and then it turns east, through
the City of Reno. Then it turns north again
and ends up in Pyramid Lake, within the
Pyramid Lake Indian Reservation. Pyramid
Lake is the terminal lake, or evaporation
pond if you would, for the Truckee River.
South and west of Lake Tahoe is the
beginning of the Carson River. It generally
flows northeast and ends up in the Carson
Sink area, which is the Stillwater Wildlife
Refuge area and again serves as a terminal
or an evaporation pond area. Further south
is the Walker River, which we will not talk
about today because it hasn't had quite the
problems. But it again begins in the Sierra
Nevada Mountains, flows easterly, and then
turns south and goes into Walker Lake,
which again is an evaporation area.
These are three of the four major
rivers in northern Nevada. There is only
one other river, and it happens to flow from
the eastern boundary of Nevada into the
western part, and also evaporates. So we
have these very short rivers—each about
100 miles long—yet, they have every
conceivable problem that has ever come to a
human's mind.
Essentially all of the water that enters
the Carson and Truckee Rivers comes from
the snowpacked mountains of California.
The Truckee River produces about 600,000
acre-feet of water per year, and the Carson
River produces about 300,000 acre-feet of
water per year. That's not a lot of water for
that area, but it used to be sufficient to meet
our needs.
In the mid 1800s, the lure of mining
brought people to Nevada. Back then,
Virginia City was a thriving metropolis of
35,000 people. The settlers built a large
wood-stave pipeline—a large siphon—to
carry the water from the Sierra Mountains
through the Washoe Valley and back up
again to Virginia City.
Later, to support the mining industry,
small fanning communities were established
along the valleys of the Truckee and Carson
Rivers. These were used to provide local
areas with goods because any shipment,
either across the Sierra Nevada Mountains
or from the east through Utah, was very
difficult.
By the late 1890s to the 1900s, all of
the water in the system was used by the late
fall each year. Back then as now, an
average of 60 percent of the water in the
system flowed in April, May, and June,
while only 10 percent flowed during July,
August, and September, the prime growing
season (see Figure 1).
47
-------
r
48
Watershed '93
Thousands of Acre-Feet
300
250
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
Month
Figure 1. Average flows for major rivers—northern Nevada.
To help, the federal government built
large irrigation projects, and the private
sector followed suit, building their own
large irrigation projects. For example, the
Newland's Project diverts water from both
the Carson and Truckee Rivers through a
system of canals and irrigates about 60,000
acres of land near the terminus of the Carson
River, near the Carson Sink. The primary
crop of that area is alfalfa. Again, this area
receives on average just 5 inches of precipi-
tation per year.
Over time, cities in the area grew,
bringing new demands for water. The city
of Reno, for example, is located in the
beautiful valley along the river. City
dwellers want to take advantage of
recreational opportunities along the Carson
and Truckee Rivers. Rafters want water
released from the dams in order to have a
nice leisurely float down the river. And
those who own summer homes and
condominiums also demand a share of the
lakes and rivers.
Figure 2 gives you an idea how the
water use along the Carson and Truckee
Rivers has changed. The shaded bar is
population growth from 1940 to 1990.
The solid black bar is agriculture, and you
can see that agricultural use is declining as
population centers are taking over the
agricultural land. The white bar is urban
water growth. We are experiencing a
transfer in the water-marketing system-
transferring agricultural water to municipal
water.
As a result, areas
of Nevada that normally
had water have begun to
dry up. Pyramid Lake is
now reduced in size and
has a large mud area
around it. This lake is
home for both an endan-
gered and a threatened
species of fish. They are
river spawners and must
get out of the lake and
into the river in order to
reproduce. As the lake's
water level has lowered,
fewer and fewer fish
have been able to get
into the stream to spawn;
consequently, the species
are in very serious de-
cline.
In addition, some
of the wetlands that were
located in the Carson Sink area, in the
Stillwater Wildlife Management Area, lost
much of their water and became mud areas.
Eventually, they completely dried up.
So, as you can see, we have a lot of
problems.
One of the original solutions was to
file lawsuits. They started around 1900 and
haven't work too well—they've been in the
courts ever since. Paying lawyers by the
hour, you can imagine what has happened
since we started in 1900. Several cases
focused on the adjudication of water rights.
For example, the adjudication suit on the
Truckee River was filed in 1914. It was
finally settled in 1944, 30 years later. If that
wasn't bad enough, the adjudication suit on
the Carson River was filed in 1925 and
finally settled in 1980, 55 years later. That
cost a lot of money.
The government tried building more
dams, which helped solve some of the
problems for a while. We looked at ground
water as a possible solution. The State of
California has no ground water laws, while
the State of Nevada has very strict ground
water laws. So we have a problem between
the two states in areas that have a common
ground water basin when it comes to
determining how much ground water can be
pumped.
In 1967, the government started to
issue what they called Operating Criteria
and Procedures (OCAP) for their major
irrigation project, the Newland's Project.
These criteria and procedures limited water
-------
Conference Proceedings
49
Acre-Feet (Thousands)
Population (Thousands)
230
210
170
130
1940
I Population
diversion from the
Truckee River to try to
provide additional water
for the endangered
species of fish. They
continued to issue those
interim OCAP until
1988, when they issued a
final OCAP, which
requires the district to
increase the efficiency of
its delivery system and
thereby reduce water use
by about 20 percent, to
provide water for the
fish. This relieved some
of the pressures on the
endangered species, but
it really only solves one
piece of the water
quantity problem.
In 1987, U.S.
Senator Harry Reid
decided to tackle water
issues in a comprehen-
sive manner. He tried to get everybody to
the table. In 1990, his efforts resulted in
the passage of Public Law (P.L.) 101-618,
which sets up the framework for resolving
the problems along the Truckee and
Carson Rivers. The act provides for the
following:
. First, it allocates the water between
California and Nevada. Although the rivers
start in California, California receives about
10 percent of the water and Nevada receives
about 90 percent. I don't know why that
happened, but I'm glad because I live in
Nevada.
Second, the law established the
requirement for an operating agreement for
the Truckee river. The operating agreement
calls for all entities that take water from the
river to negotiate how they will operate
within the confines of existing law and
judicial decisions.
It also provides for multiple use of the
water, including a municipal and industrial
supply for the cities of Reno and Sparks, at
least for the next 20 or 30 years, and water
for the assistance of fish, including the
dedication of a 226,000-acre-foot reservoir
for the sole purpose of promoting the fishery
in Pyramid Lake. The latter will provide
enough water to support sufficient flows in
the river for fish to spawn during years that
nature may not provide enough.
In addition, it provides settlement of
many of the litigation efforts that were on-
1969
1985
1990
Year
I Agricultural
Durban
Figure 2. Water use in Nevada—Truckee River.
going. Finally, it provides help for the wet-
lands by permitting the purchase of water on
the market for Lahontan Valley wetlands.
Other potential solutions to the water
supply problem are being examined by all
parties involved. Under consideration is the
potential for wastewater re-use and in-
creased irrigation efficiency.
Although water supply is the primary
problem in the Carson and Truckee water-
sheds, water quality is also an important
issue. The mining industry, for example,
polluted the Carson River to the point that
nearly the entire river is a Superfund site for
mercury, which was used to extract gold. If
you eat fish that you catch in the Lahontan
Reservoir, you can only eat one per month;
if you're pregnant, you can't eat any.
As a result of P.L. 101-618, we have
been able to form a coalition of all the
people who have an interest in the issues.
Just to give you an idea, representatives
from the U.S. Department of Justice, U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Indian Affairs,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
.Pyramid Lake Tribe, Fallon Tribe, State of
California, State of Nevada, Sierra Pacific
Power Company (a local water and power
purveyor), counties, cities, water use
groups, and groups such as The Nature
Conservancy, Wetlands Coalition, Envi-
ronmental Defense Fund, and others, are
now sitting around the table developing
-------
50
Watershed '93
the actions that will be required to resolve
these issues.
As I said before, P.L. 101-618 set
forth the framework by which we can do
this. The Bureau of Reclamation has taken
one of the major roles in accomplishing this,
but it is a very difficult situation. Trying to
negotiate an agreement when you have
about 100 people sitting around the table is
hard, and everybody will admit that. But it
is a doable thing. We are working within
the framework, and we are meeting our
objectives bit by bit.
I appreciate the opportunity to talk to
you today. I recognize that the basins I
have discussed are very small, but that
doesn't make the problems on them any
smaller than they are anywhere else. It
does give us a great opportunity to study
within a closed basin all the problems that
exist within open basins. Thank you very
much.
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
The St. Louis River: A Grass-Roots
Approach to Protection
Michael J. Hambrock, Deputy Director
Arrowhead Regional Development Commission Staff Director, St. Louis River Board
Patty Murto, Vice Chair
St. Louis River Board and Carlton County Commissioner
Duluth.MN
In the remote peat and spruce bogs of
northern Minnesota, over 175 miles from
its marriage with Lake Superior, Seven
Beaver Lake sits majestic, the source of the
St. Louis River. Rowing as a small wander-
ing stream, the pristine river flows through
the Superior National Forest. As it emerges
from that sanctuary, the St. Louis River is
still profoundly natural. But now it be-
comes more vulnerable to the uses and
potential abuses of people. Mining compa-
nies on the Mesabi Iron Range divert water
to manufacture taconite pellets. Further
downstream, an occasional farm lends a
bucolic perspective to the forested river
corridor.
About 70 miles downstream, the
Whiteface River, having traveled about 80
miles through mainly wild lands, joins the
St. Louis, increasing its flow by one-third.
Another 25 miles downstream, the river's
flow is again increased by a third, as the
pristine Cloquet River tumbles into the St.
Louis over a long stretch of Whitewater.
Just downstream, at the City of Cloquet,
the St. Louis flows past mills of the forest
products and paper industries. Flowing
over a series of hydroelectric dams, the
river works to produce electricity for the
nearby cities of Cloquet and Duluth.
Traveling with reduced flows, due to a
hydroelectric diversion, the river traverses
the spectacular gorges of Jay Cooke State
Park and plunges over the Fond du Lac
Dam to the still water of St. Louis Bay and
the mightiest and cleanest of the Great
Lakes, Superior.
The rivers are elegant and largely
unspoiled but ripe for economic exploita-
tion, especially from housing developments.
Development pressure is intense but so is
local grass-roots concern about the future of
these rivers—so much so, in fact, that a
major local initiative has been underway for
several years to ensure that these rivers are
protected and preserved for future genera-
tions. This paper endeavors to tell the story
of this grass-roots movement.
The Rivers
The St. Louis River watershed is
drained by three major rivers: the St.
Louis River and its two major tributaries,
the Whiteface River and Cloquet River.
The watershed is one of the largest in the
state, draining about 3,600 square miles,
most of which are hi St. Louis County.
The river system also drains part of Lake
County (Cloquet River), Carlton County,
and Aitkin and Itasca Counties. From its
source at Seven Beaver Lake near Hoyt
Lakes in St. Louis County, the St. Louis
River flows over 175 miles and drops
1,100 feet to its mouth in Lake Superior.
The Cloquet River is 99 miles long,
originates at Cloquet Lake in Lake County,
and drains about 750 square miles. The
Whiteface River originates at the outlet of
the Whiteface Reservoir and flows
southwesterly about 80 miles and drops
about 430 feet to its confluence with the
St. Louis River near Floodwood.
Timber wolves, bobcats, lynx, beaver,
otter, bald eagles, and osprey are occasion-
ally sighted along the St. Louis. Big game
sighted include moose, black bear, and
white-tailed deer. Walleye, northern pike,
and bass are the principal game fish.
51
-------
52
Watershed '93
66.
Channel catfish are also a popular catch in
the Floodwood to Brookston reach.
The Cloquet River is one of the most
primitive rivers in Minnesota even though
several large storage reservoirs are located
on it. These reservoirs regulate stream flow
for the operation of hydroelectric generating
plants downstream. From its source at
Cloquet Lake in Lake County, the Cloquet
flows southwesterly to join the St. Louis
River after a 99-mile course, dropping about
300 feet. The upper Cloquet River lies
almost entirely within the Superior National
Forest.
•The Whiteface is a fairly large river
below Whiteface Reservoir with an average
discharge of over 300 cubic feet per second.
The river flows through a largely undevel-
oped and wild area in the Cloquet Valley
State Forest.
The river is subject to severe water
level fluctuations due to the operation of the
Whiteface Reservoir outlet structure which
is heavily forested. Fish and wildlife
species are identical to those of the Cloquet
River; moose, black bear, otter, white-tailed
deer, bald eagles, and osprey inhabit the
river corridor. Development is limited to
the Indian Lake-Island Lake area, but
significant development potential exists,
especially in the lower reach between Island
Lake and the St. Louis River.
Why We Need a Local, Grass-
Roots Plan
In recent years, all three rivers, but es-
pecially the lower reaches of the Cloquet
and St. Louis Rivers, have been subjected to
<^_^___ increasing development pres-
sures. Minnesota Power, a
The public demanded larse electric utiuty serving
northeastern Minnesota, owns
large tracts of undeveloped, un-
___^_ spoiled land that has, up to
now, been managed for mul-
tiple-use purposes, including hunting, fish-
ing, canoeing, and forestry. Within the last
several years, Minnesota Power has begun
to sell small, isolated parcels, primarily to
adjacent property owners. During 1989-
1990, however, a tract of land south of
Brookston (220 acres) was sold to Taylor
Investment, Inc. Taylor Investment also
holds options on larger tracts of Minnesota
Power land (1,300+ acres). Since the river
planning process has begun, Minnesota
Power has reacquired the land it sold to Tay-
a balanced plan
lor Investment Corporation and has agreed
to withhold future land sales pending
completion of the plan.
In 1990, the St. Louis County Plan-
ning Commission was asked to review and
approve a subdivision proposal on a 24-acre
parcel (8 lots) south of Brookston on the
Taylor holdings. This particular proposal
raised considerable concern throughout the
area, and concern was especially strong in
the surrounding townships and from the
nearby Fond du Lac Reservation. This
involved several issues: suitability of the
area for development, potential water
quality impacts, potential visual impacts,
and increased demands on the townships to
provide and maintain roads. More signifi-
cantly, however, concern was expressed
about the potential for additional, similar
proposals throughout the lower reaches of
these rivers.
This particular proposal quickly
solidified public interest in the future of
these rivers and exemplified the tremendous
development pressure that exists. Most
lakes in Carlton and southern St. Louis
County are already heavily built-up. These
unspoiled, beautiful rivers are located in
close proximity to the Duluth-Superior
urbanized area and are a relatively short (3-
hour) drive from the Minneapolis/St. Paul
metro area. These rivers, therefore, are
choice areas for new permanent and second
homes. Because of the large amount of
privately held land, the unspoiled nature of
these rivers, and the significant development
pressures upon them, it was extremely
imperative that a river management plan be
crafted while there was still an opportunity
to protect these rivers.
Concern is broadly based at the local
level. A series of public meetings held early
hi the planning process indicated that the
average citizen is very interested in the
future of these rivers. Over 200 people
attended these meetings and called for a plan
that would incorporate a combination of
strict development standards and outright
public ownership/purchase of scenic
easements on various sections of these
rivers. The public demanded a balanced
plan—one that protects the rivers, present
property values, and land uses and allows
for reasonable development where the river
environment is compatible with such
development.
Strong sentiment was also viewed
about the need for the plan to be developed
locally. The Minnesota Department of
-------
Conference Proceedings
53
Natural Resources, over 10 years ago,
attempted to propose a plan for the
Cloquet River. Even though attempts were
made to seek public input, the effort failed.
It failed because it was viewed as state
government interference in local affairs.
The highly successful Mississippi Head-
waters Board, Big Fork River Board, and
North Shore Management Board planning
efforts have convinced local government
and state agency officials alike that a
grass-roots planning initiative can result in
a strong and enforceable management plan
that provides solid resource protection and
is strongly supported by local citizens.
Such a plan will truly make a difference in
how these rivers look 10, 20, and 50 years
from now.
It was decided that a locally based
plan would provide protection of these
rivers through zoning, public ownership,
and scenic easements. Such a plan will
provide certainty to property owners, local,
state, and federal officials, and developers,
alike, concerning the location and nature of
future development. Such a plan would:
• Stabilize property values and the tax
base.
• Allow for new development within a
carefully planned structure.
• Identify critical and sensitive areas
worthy of the full protection of
public ownership or scenic ease-
ments.
• Identify important cultural and
archeological sites.
• Identify sensitive/critical fish and
wildlife habitat.
• Identify needed recreational areas,
sites, and opportunities.
• Ensure land use practices that protect
and/or enhance water quality in the
river system.
St. Louis River Steering
Committee
In response to significant concern
about the future of these rivers from the
public, township and county officials, and
Fond du Lac tribal officials, agreement was
reached in September 1990 to form an
organizational steering committee. This
committee made recommendations to
affected local and tribal governments about
the formation of a joint powers board to
develop a St. Louis River plan (including
the Cloquet and Whiteface Rivers).
Joint Powers Board
The St. Louis River Board was
formally established as a Joint Powers
Board in March of 1991. The purpose of
the St. Louis River Board as defined in the
approved Joint Powers Agreement is to
formulate a comprehensive management
plan for the environmental protection and
•wise use of the St. Louis River watershed,
including the St. Louis, Cloquet and
Whiteface Rivers, and adjacent lands from
their headwaters to the Fond du Lac Dam in
Carlton County. The scope of the plan
includes standards and criteria for the
following:
• Wise use, protection, and appropriate
development of adjacent lands.
• Recreational use of the rivers and
adjacent public lands.
• Donation or public purchase of
critical lands or interest in land in the
public interest.
• The sound management of public
lands along these rivers.
• Strong cooperative planning and
management agreements with the
Fond du Lac Reservation Business
Committee for the wise management
and protection of lands within its
jurisdiction.
• The identification of significant
historical and archeological sites
along the rivers.
The membership of the Board
includes elected officials appointed by
each member
county and town in —^————
accordance with
the following
distribution: Lake
County, one
member and one
alternate; St. Louis
County, three
members and three
alternates; Carlton
County, two ^™^~™~•"""•"•"""•
members and two
alternates; and town, a total of six town
representatives and six alternates repre-
senting 53 affected townships. Alternate
members are also elected officials and
serve with voting privileges in the absence
of the member. The Fond du Lac Reserva-
tion Business Committee (RBC) is
included on the Board by formal, written
agreement between the Board and the
RBC.
**a locally based plan would
provide protection of these
rivers through zoning, public
ownership, and scenic
easements.
-------
54
Watershed '93
Public Meetings/Issues
Addressed in the Plan
Numerous public meetings were held
at the onset of the planning process. The
major issues identified at these meetings
were:
1. Land use management, development
proposals along the river corridor,
lot sizes, setbacks, erosion, and
agricultural and forest practices.
2. Water quality sedimentation,
mercury, and various point source
problems.
3. Recreation, canoe areas, campsites,
litter at access and campground
areas, use of the river for hunting,
fishing, and camping, and the need
for additional recreational facilities
and opportunities.
4. Fish and wildlife habitat protection.
5. Archeological/historical/cultural
significance of the river and need to
identify critical areas/concerns.
Another issue raised was the impor-
tant need to coordinate the St. Louis River
planning effort with county water planning
activities, implementation of the revised
Statewide Shoreland Management regula-
tions, and the St. Louis River remedial
action plan.
As a result of the scoping process and
the public meetings, the following major
issues are being addressed in the St. Louis
River plan:
1. Land Use Management.
a. Zoning (lot sizes, structural
setbacks, frontage requirements).
b. Land use practices (principles and
policies that govern future land
use along the three river corri-
dors).
c. Sewage Disposal.
2. Forest management practices.
3. Agricultural practices.
4. Recreation.
5. Fish and wildlife.
6. Cultural archeology/history.
Citizens Advisory Committee
The first action of the River Board
was to appoint a Citizens Advisory Commit-
tee (C.A.C.). The C.A.C. is responsible for
assisting the Board in developing the plan.
The C.A.C. is now in the process of devel-
oping specific policies, guidelines, best
management practices, and/or standards for
each of the major issues. After each section
is completed in draft form, it is sent to the
River Board for approval to be included in
the public review draft of the plan. The
advisory committee receives staff adminis-
trative assistance from the Board's hired
professional staff from the Arrowhead
Regional Development Commission.
The advisory committee is composed
of 27 members representing a variety of
interests from throughout the watershed.
The interest areas represented on the
committee are as follows (each interest area
has two representatives, except for the
"other" category, which includes seven at
large representatives:
1. Logging industry
2. Environmental
3. Developers
4. Tourism/Industry
5. Industry
6. Agriculture
7. Recreation
8. Sports groups
9. Riverfront property owners
10. Fond du Lac Reservation
11. Other
Staffing
Staff support for this planning
project has been purchased by the St.
Louis River Board from the Arrowhead
Regional Development Commission
(ARDC). ARDC provides primary staff
support services to the St. Louis River
Board for the following:
1. All necessary administrative,
professional planning, and facilita-
tion services to the St. Louis River
Board and its Citizens Advisory
Committee, including:
a. All intergovernmental coordina-
tion activities.
b. All public and media relations,
press releases, press conferences,
public meetings, and preparation
of public informational materials.
c. All meeting schedules, mailings,
agendas, duplicating, printing,
and meeting minutes (except
printing of final plan, and maps).
d. All meeting facilitation for Board,
advisory, and public meetings.
e. Under die direction of the Board,
represent the Board before local,
state, and federal governmental
bodies.
-------
Conference Proceedings
55
f. Assist the Board.
with funding
proposals and
applications, and in
pursuing the
resources for priority
needs as directed by
the Board.
2. Serve as fiscal agent for
the Board, providing
for the fiscal manage-
ment of Board funds,
with all funding
decisions to be made by
the Board.
3. Assist the Board and its
advisory committees in
the preparation of the
management plan.
In addition to staff
services purchased from the
ARDC, the professional
resources are being contributed
by the local units of govern-
ment and RBC. This includes planning,
zoning, legal, natural resources, forestry,
highway, and other relevant local govern-
ment, and tribal professional staff. State and
federal agencies actively involved in
development and resource management
activities within the St. Louis River water-
shed also provide technical assistance to the
Board. Minnesota Power has also offered
technical support and assistance with
various aspects of this project.
Results
Funding
The River Board's planning initiative
is being funded from a $297,000 grant from
the Minnesota State Legislature through the
Minnesota Department of Natural Re-
sources. The funds come from the Minne-
sota Environmental Trust Fund, the source
of which is state lottery proceeds. The
funding was made possible primarily
through the efforts of the geographically
broad-based St. Louis River Board and the
legislative delegation from northeastern
Minnesota. The chief sponsor of the River
Board's funding proposal was Representa-
tive Willard Munger, the most senior
member of the Minnesota Legislature.
The River Board's funding proposal
was broadly supported by local units of
government and concerned grass-roots
citizens throughout the 3,600-square-mile
St. Louis River, Minnesota.
watershed. The support was shown through
numerous public meetings and with over-
whelming cooperation of local officials,
state legislators, and state and federal
resource agencies. The River Board also
clearly demonstrated that these rivers were
worth protecting and that they were threat-
ened from heavy development pressures.
The tremendous grass-roots momentum to
protect the rivers was the critical factor in
obtaining the funding and will be, we
believe, the reason this effort will succeed.
Major Milestones
The River Board and its C.A.C. have
completed major components of the plan,
including identification of major issues to be
addressed, goals and objectives, classifica-
tion system, land use principles and policies,
and land acquisition criteria. Yet to be
developed are zoning standards, forest
management practices and standards,
agricultural practices and standards, and
implementation strategies.
Results so far indicate that the Board
and its Committee are developing a strong
protection plan for these rivers. This is
evidenced by the Board's goal statement,
which reads in part:
The River Board has a special
responsibility to represent the best
interests of all the citizens of this state,
with regard to planning for and
-------
56
Watershed '93
managing this watershed. The river
system's natural beauty, environment,
and cleanliness should be protected.
Also, a key land use principle found in
the draft plan reads:
The principles and policies of this plan
are intended to guide local, state, and
federal actions, plans and ordinances
to promote the protection, preserva-
tion and proper and orderly manage-
ment of the St. Louis, Cloquet and
Whiteface Rivers and their adjacent
shoreland environments.
Land Acquisition Opportunity
As indicated earlier, Minnesota Power
had proposed to start selling riverfront
parcels to private individuals in 1989.
Minnesota Power owns approximately
22,000 acres of prime riverfront property
along all three rivers and has made a
corporate policy decision to sell. Minnesota
Power has been fully cooperating with the
Board as it develops its plan and has two
representatives on the C.A.C. Minnesota
Power has agreed to stop individual land
sales of riverfront lands until the planning
process is completed. In addition, the St.
Louis River Board has initiated a major
effort to obtain state funding to acquire
environmentally important lands for state
ownership (to include but necessarily be
limited to, those parcels for sale by Minne-
sota Power). These lands, if acquired by the
state, will afford an unprecedented level of
protection for these rivers.
Conclusion
The mission of the St. Louis River
Board is to develop a strong, grass-roots-
driven plan to protect the St. Louis, Cloquet,
and Whiteface Rivers for generations to
come. The Board and its C.A.C. are actively
engaged in a difficult, yet productive and
positive common sense process that will
accomplish this mission. The St. Louis
River Board organization represents a group
of more than 50 hard-working people who
have committed thousands of volunteer
hours to the protection and preservation of
these beautiful rivers. These people are
indeed an inspiration to us all and will truly
make a difference for our children and their
children.
-------
WATERSHED '93
Panel Discussion
Visions for the Future
On Wednesday, March 24, WATER-
SHED '93 presented a national
videoconference. The sessions
were broadcast live from the hotel ballroom,
and interaction among panel members, the
live audience, and downlink sites through-
out the Nation was made possible through
satellite communication technology.
Greg:
Good morning. I am very pleased to
be the host for this nationally broadcast
portion of WATERSHED '93. Our sessions
today will focus on Visions for the Future of
watershed management.
I'd like to propose that there are four
primary goals that should drive us and
empower us as we think about a vision for
watersheds.
First (and this reflects my Nature
Conservancy biological bias), we must think
about maintaining ecological processes of
watersheds and we must preserve the
biological diversity of aquatic ecosystems.
Second, we must ensure an adequate supply
of usable water for public consumption.
Third, we have an obligation for public
health and safety to maintain excellent
quality of our ground and surface waters, all
of which are influenced by their watersheds.
Fourth, we have a very important objective
of providing for compatible economic
development within watersheds so that
people can live and prosper in harmony with
nature. We need to come up with plans and
programs that provide for the sustainable
human use of lands and waters and natural
resources within watersheds.
Now, a watershed is a physical reality.
You know, we joke that it is really simple to
plan because water runs downhill, but water-
sheds really are the proper geographical
context within which we must plan because
water does run downhill. The human activi-
ties within these geographical areas give us
both the charge and the necessity to go
ahead with watershed planning.
Watershed planning and manage-
ment can vary greatly in scale. Some
efforts are necessarily vast in scope,
concerned with watersheds that encompass
several states. Others are concerned with
very small watersheds at a local level. So
we need to provide
for watershed plan-
ning at many scales
from local to regional.
Watershed man-
agement, of necessity,
must involve all levels
of government—fed-
eral, regional, state,
tribal and local—as
well as private land-
owners and businesses
and all the other stake-
holders who care
about the quality and
quantity of water as
well as the biological
resources of the water-
shed. Because com-
prehensive watershed
management requires
the active and well-
coordinated participa-
tion of all levels of
government, as well as
numerous other parties
with a stake in the out-
come, our panel today
is carefully con-
structed to provide
viewpoints from local,
tribal, state, and fed-
eral governments.
We're going to be re-
57
-------
58
Watershed '93
... we need to have both
protection of the water and
the watershed and also a
viable economy."
lying on you, the audience, to provide other
points of view.
Before we get started with the
speakers, I'd like to welcome our partici-
pants from satellite downlink sites across
the Nation. People
_mmm^..__ are tuning in from
more than 30 down-
link sites. These
folks are concerned
about places such as
the Connecticut River
watershed (in Ver-
mont, New Hamp-
^^_^^__^^^ shire, and Canada),
the watersheds
contributing to the
Gulf of Mexico, the Upper Rio Grande (in
Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas), and
the upper Columbia River (in Idaho,
Montana, Washington, and British Colum-
bia).
The U.S. Geological Survey put to-
gether wonderful maps to help us understand
more about where our broadcast audience is
coming from, in more ways than one. Let me
just focus in on one of them, the Puget Sound
(see Figure 1). The shaded relief enlargement
of the subregion gives you a feel for the lay of
the land out there—pretty mountainous. The
white line delineates the USGS subregion;
each white dot symbolizes 10,000 people, so
you can get a feel for the population in the
area. Also included is textual information on
land use in the subregion.
When folks begin calling in later,
we'll put up their subregion information as
they speak so that we'll all know a little
more about their part of the country.
We are going to try to keep today's
panel session as flexible and interactive as
possible. I only ask that we keep our
discussion within a three-part framework:
• Vision-—what we are trying to
achieve.
• Barriers to achieving that vision.
•. Strategies or actions that we need to
take.
Figure 1. Example of image on screen as callers posed questions.
-------
Conference Proceedings
Now each of the panelists will take a few
minutes to tell us about their vision for
watershed management.
Pauls:
First, let me say that it is the vision of
Prince George's County and the State of
Maryland that we need to have both protec-
tion of the water and the watershed and also
a viable economy. It is a false dichotomy, I
think, to say that we'll end up with either
one of the other. If we do that, invariably
the environment loses because people need
jobs. We're trying to develop a program
that will bring people together to say we're
going to be successful with the economy
and we're going to be successful in protect-
ing the environment
Second, we must recognize that it
will come from the bottom up. It must
involve people; it must involve commu-
nities. People must have an ownership
of the program. We, who manage
watershed programs, simply cannot
begin to deal successfully if the people
who live in the watersheds are not
involved themselves. Think of the
number of small tributaries that run into
the streams, that run into larger rivers,
that run into the Chesapeake Bay. To
think of a government program that
handles all of that is almost staggering,
and certainly beyond our cost abilities.
We're trying to take an approach
that will involve people—to help them
understand their roles and responsibili-
ties and the connections within the sys-
tem. For example, showing them that
storm water drains are part of the whole
system for the watershed and that what
they put down the drains will affect the
health of the waterbody—in our case,
the Chesapeake Bay.
Watershed management really needs
to be a full governmental approach. All
levels of government have key responsibili-
ties. In terms of leadership, the federal
government needs to set overall policies.
More specific plans should be handled by
the state governments. We have quite a few
of them, including the Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area Commission, which have been
working very successfully. But implemen-
tation really comes down to the local level.
The approach has to be one which is meshed
together as a system. It can't be a higher
level of government mandating without
funding—saying that a local government
must do something just because they think
that it needs to be done. Instead, we need a
cooperative system, where we each have our
own niche—system where we mobilize the
energies of the community, and where we
say we're going to do something well, and
have a viable community at the same time.
That's the vision I have.
Billy:
What I've done my whole life is live
on the watershed—the Nisqually watershed.
I continue to drink out of that river today.
All of the other watersheds in the
Northwest are not in that same condition.
Look over to the Snake River and the
Columbia River. There are endangered
species there that are now affecting every-
thing that is happen-
ing —the economy, —————
the electricity, the
agriculture. Also,
there is gridlock as the
debate over these
issues continues. ^^^^—^^^^—
What's happening on
that watershed is not a scientific problem—
it's a social problem.
We have to make some social changes
as well as institutional changes in order to
address watersheds. We need to teach
people coming out of universities how to
approach a watershed. You cannot approach
an old growth tree by looking at it in board-
feet. That's what they've been taught to do
because it translates into money. An old
growth cedar or fir, which is a few hundred
years old, should be looked at as part of the
watershed. We need to realize that either
the watershed is clean and breathes, and it is
healthy, or it is sick.
As people, we have to do something
about watershed protection. People move
inside a watershed. Eventually, if you do
not protect the watershed, you have a
watershed similar to the ones we have on the
east coast. We in the West should be
learning from what happened on the east
coast, but we haven't learned a thing. And
now it has come to a point where the federal
government will make decisions that
nobody likes. Then the U.S. Congress will
write a law that nobody likes. In the end,
there will be no flexibility for people at any
level of government to work on ameliorat-
ing the problems in the watersheds.
We have to stop the debating and start
to find solutions. The timber industry,
agriculture people, hydroelectric people are
all writing reports that place blame on
Let the watershed
99
breathe....
-------
60
Watershed'93
The approach is ecologically
sound and scientifically
valid.... it is also very
politically achievable...."
others. We have to be able to admit that we
made a mistake and start moving on from
this day to overcome the mistakes of the
past and back off the watershed. Let the
watershed breathe and let it start healing.
It's going to take 100 years for some of
these watersheds to heal. We have to look
at the people and address the people
problem. And we have to address the
economy. But we have to back away and
look into the next 100 to 200 years. Other-
wise, we're not going to be here.
Steve:
We have implemented watershed
planning statewide. This approach to water
quality management is
not only important, it
is essential. Water-
provided us the ability
to integrate programs
to a level that we've
never done before. It
allows us to educate
the citizens about the
"""—•"———• issues and needs
within basin areas.
The walls are starting to break down, and
we're starting to work together. It gives us
the ability to evaluate the issues for each
specific area of the state. This is important
because each one will have different
problems and, therefore, different solutions.
From a state perspective, we realize
that we have limited resources, and basin-
wide management allows for more effective
use of resources. Additionally, it allows for
more effective plans being put into place,
more public awareness, and more consis-
tency, which is something the public has
demanded for years.
It also provides us a mechanism to
allocate resources—an equitable and
systematic mechanism. It puts us in a mode
where we can stress predictability. There-
fore, the regulated community knows what
to expect from public agencies.
The approach is ecologically sound
and scientifically valid, which are two very
important aspects. But what we have found
is that it is also very politically achievable,
whether we're talking about a small area, a
state, or a combination of states. For the
first time, we're starting to see a reduction in
the fragmentation of programs. State,
county, and local governments are all work-
ing to break down the fragmentation. But,
most importantly, it is publicly supportable.
Martha:
Speaking as someone who has worked
in government on the environment for many
years, as I know much of the audience has, I
think we need to look at our own house to
see if it is hi order before we can deal
effectively with the watershed approach. I
want to talk about how we can get our
government institutions together to deal
with a more holistic approach.
At the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), we have a wonderful
mandate. The Clean Water Act is perhaps
the best of the environmental statutes, which
is not to say it's perfect. It gives us a great
deal of flexibility, and it does set forth as a
holistic goal the protection of the biological,
chemical, and physical integrity of our
nation's waters.
However, we have focused only on
certain aspects of that act over the years.
We tried a watershed approach in the 1960s
and early '70s. We found ourselves tied up
in a lot of debate and disagreement. We
didn't have the science or technology to
allow us to be holistic, so we broke the
issues apart and became specialists to solve
the most obvious problems. We became
specialists in chemistry, industrial technol-
ogy, funding, enforcement, permits, and
law. We all became such specialists that we
quit talking to each other. We separately
learned more and more about less and less,
and we missed the point.
I liked Billy's description of water-
sheds as living, breathing organisms. We
government implementers might be com-
pared to medical specialists looking at only
one part of the patient. We need to sit down
with that patient and deal with the patient as
a whole human being, with respiratory
problems, circulatory problems, muscular-
skeletal problems, or whatever problems
there may be. We also have to deal with the
spiritual side of things. Our watersheds are
not going to be protected in the long run
unless society learns to treat them with
dignity, love, and respect. That's part of the
healing process we have to go through.
We see ourselves at EPA as providing
leadership and advocacy for some water-
sheds, especially where there is an interstate
interest or a national concern. But we can't
be the only leaders. Not only do we recog-
nize this fact, but we don't want to be the
only leaders. Leaders have to be identified
in each of our watershed areas. They're
going to come from all levels of government
and from many different agencies, as well as
-------
Conference Proceedings
from tribes and the private sector. Partner-
ships are great, but we can't just become
people who talk to one another. We have to
move forward and take action.
/immie:
Last October was the 20th anniversary
of the Clean Water Act. In the first 20
years, we made a lot of progress controlling
point source pollution— sewage treatment
plants and industrial facilities that dis-
charged into the waters. That was possible
with national legislation and national
regulation. You can identify technologies
and give instructions nationally.
The challenge for the next 20 years is
principally nonpoint source pollution—the
runoff from farms and city streets. I think
Congress will be interested in watershed
planning for three reasons. First, the
strategies to control nonpoint pollution must
be designed locally. It's hard to direct
progress from the federal level, so a local
element to the Clean Water Act is necessary
to make progress.
The second reason involves resources
and energy. The amount of dollars available
at all levels of government is short these
days. In 1987, when Congress last ad-
dressed the Clean Water Act, it created a
program called the National Estuary
Program. Seventeen communities across the
country have written or are writing compre-
hensive plans for their estuaries, which is
exactly the kind of watershed planning
we're talking about today. Without expect-
ing it, Congress released a lot of energy in
those communities. People love their
streams, lakes, and bays. They don't
necessarily love permits, regulations, or
even the Clean Water Act. If we can tap the
energy they have for their own water
resources, we have a chance to make
progress in the next 20 years.
The third reason is ultimately practi-
cal. The Clean Water Act now focuses on
sources of pollution, principally chemical
agents that cause that pollution. However, it
doesn't focus on the natural resource—the
water within its watershed. We've come to
a point where we need to address the biggest
risks. We can't continue to spread our re-
sources evenly across the country and ex-
pect progress. The only way to find the big-
gest risks is to go to the local level and find
out why a watershed has problems and what
must be done hi order to restore its bounty.
Congress is likely to be interested in
revising the Clean Water Act for three
reasons: to control nonpoint pollution, to
release the energy of the people at the local
level, and to reorganize the Clean Water Act
so that the precious resources that we have
are focused on the greatest risks.
Greg:
I hear a fair amount of commonalty
regarding your visions for watershed
protection and management. The common
vision includes environmental conservation
and compatible economic development. It
includes looking at watershed protection as
a social problem. It includes a systematic
approach that involves all the different
levels of government. It absolutely requires
local participation to succeed.
We will take questions from the
audience shortly, but first I would like to ask
the panelists if any of them would like to
talk about the barriers that they run into
when trying to use a watershed approach.
What are the barriers that keep us from
being able to accomplish this intergovern-
mental cooperation, local involvement,
ecological and economical protection while
dealing with the social issues at hand? What
hurdles do we have to cross?
Pauls:
I've spent 10 years now as County
Executive and 8 years on the Chesapeake
Bay Critical Area Commission, so I have a
few points to make on this issue. First,
we're talking about human activity, which
in many cases is the major point of
disruption. So, in an urban setting, we're
trying to protect things like habitat,
drainage area, tributaries, and at the same
time allow for a tremendous amount of
human activity. When we put our law
(Critical Areas legislation) together, we
mandated that in critical areas along the
waterways of the Chesapeake Bay
watershed, a buffer portion of 100 feet
from mean high tide could not be
disturbed. You would have thought that
we declared the entire east coast to be off
limits! And yet we were just trying to
move human activity back a relatively
small amount. People say the water is
there for the purpose of human activity and
all is well. So that is a real challenge
facing us.
I also think that when a problem
appears to be complex, we want to study it,
then study it again, then form a task force.
Meanwhile, the deterioration continues to
occur.
-------
62
Watershed '93
Finally, given the fiscal pressures right
now, the federal government seems to prefer
to solve a problem by mandating that a
lower level of government solve it. Then
the next lower level of government, the state
governments, say they will solve the
problem by mandating that a lower level
does it. So instead of recognizing that local
governments also have limited resources,
the government's higher levels keep on
passing us the work. To be successful in
meeting environmental mandates, local
governments need more freedom, not just
nationally uniform methods determined by
the federal level. For example, we're
finding that in the Chesapeake Bay air
pollution is a major source of water pollu-
tion. So we're looking at the Clean Air Act
to help us resolve this problem. I believe
the policy behind the Clean Air Act is
absolutely correct, but we are required to
take certain actions by 1997, even though
there isn't any money to help us. So those
are some of the barriers we see every day at
the local level.
Questions from audience, including
call-in questions:
Q: Regarding visions and barriers, the City
of Annapolis has a watershed management
program, but our scale is very small—we
are local. We have capital project funding
to improve our watersheds. Because we're
87 percent developed, it's pretty much the
drainage ways that are going to be stabi-
lized. We have state and EPA grant money.
We have everything lined up to go to meet
this vision of watershed protection. One of
the barriers we have is the Clean Water Act
section 404 program managed by the Corps
of Engineers—We can't get our permits
from them. I'm not criticizing them;
instead, I'm saying that they might be so
institutionally overburdened with this
program that they can't get things out. They
are paper-heavy.
Martha:
I think there are some improvements
that we can see in the 404 process, and I
don't want to blame the Corps of Engineers
because the process is rather complex.
Currently, about 95 percent of all permits
are approved and the vast majority are
approved within 6 months. Nevertheless,
there are some improvements that can be
made that we are working on right now. I
think one of the keys is to support compre-
hensive wetlands planning and management,
with advance identification of the areas to be
protected. We need to get the state and local
governments involved with that process up
front.
Q: As a representative of local government,
my question regards Clean Water Act
reauthorization. What would you predict
would be the minimum population for
municipalities to be under the future storm
water management regulations?
flmmle:
Congress will address storm water
when the Clean Water Act is reauthorized.
Currently, cities with populations above
100,000 have submitted their permit
applications and the states are now review-
ing those applications.
In the future, I see the program
splitting into two directions for cities with
populations under 100,000. In large
metropolitan areas where the primary city
has already planned and received a permit
for its storm water program, I expect that all
cities within the metropolitan area will be
required to participate in the metropolitan
area storm water permit effort. Where cities
are isolated (that is, not part of a metropoli-
tan area), I expect that Congress will require
a nonpoint source-oriented watershed
approach, rather than permits. Under this
approach, the storm water controls that
apply to a small city would depend upon the
whole watershed plan.
Q: Looking at all the federal agencies
involved in the water management area—
the Geological Survey, EPA, the Department
of Agriculture, the Bureau of Reclamation,
etc.—shouldn't watershed management
reorganization start at the top? In many
ways, states appear to more organized for
internal cooperation than the federal
agencies.
Steve:
There will have to be some changes in
structure. When I look at the Clean Water
Act, I don't think it's broken. But we have
to recognize how it is administered—section
by section. A water program in any one
state may be dealing with multiple grants
with multiple purposes—all water grants—
but involving a tremendous amount of
bureaucracy and red tape. Dealing with the
paperwork takes experts away from solving
problems.
-------
Conference Proceedings
63
I'm sure many people here can
identify similar administrative problems. I
call it tunnel vision. Our approaches to
section 106 of the Clean Water Act and
section 319 have become so tunnel-visioned
that we have forgotten the rest of the water
program. Basin-wide protection pulls all of
those programs together. That is the key.
Let's throw out the red tape and get down to
business solving problems.
Jimmie:
Looking from the top down, it's really
difficult to know which part of the local
government is going to solve a problem. In
the various watersheds, the problems are
different. If we're ever going to control
nonpoint sources of pollution, these sources
are going to have to deal with agencies with
which they are familiar and trust—farmers
with the SCS, foresters with state forestry
agents, developers with city and public
works departments, and so on. In organiz-
ing a watershed plan, one of the challenges
is identifying the various agencies that
should be involved and finding the right
local agency to organize this activity and to
bring it to a conclusion. I think that argues
for a bottom-up rather than a top-down
approach to watershed planning.
Q: Do you see a role for computer modeling
to predict the economic and environmental
impacts of policies and actions set for our
watersheds?
Pants:
We do and in fact we have used some
of these techniques in our work for the
Critical Area Commission and other
projects. Computer modeling helps us to
project the effects of alternative approaches.
One of the biggest challenges is the avail-
ability of data on a watershed basis. We
tend to collect data for different purposes
using political jurisdictions, often county or
census tract and so on. So there is a lot of
opportunity to improve our information
base.
I would also recommend that people
try not to get too wrapped up in computer
modeling. I have seen programs that
produce models and studies of those models,
and analyze alternative approaches on those
models, and nobody ever does anything on
the ground. So as a supporting technique,
yes there is some promise in computer
modeling, but we should make sure that it is
not a substitute for real action.
Q: The Confederated Tribes have success-
fully used their treaty rights in Oregon to
find solutions and to leverage federal
agency actions to restore fisheries and
watersheds. Comparatively, they have
done this on a small scale. This primarily
results from pressuring federal agencies to
fulfill their trust responsibilities. In some
federal agencies, this results in enhanced
congressional and public support. Will
other federal agencies, such as EPA, the
Army Corps of
Engineers, and the '
Forest Service, take
advantage of treaty
rights to use their
responsibilities to
implement changes in
watershed restoration
and protection?
'one of the challenges is
identifying the various
agencies that should be
involved...."
Billy:
What we're
doing for our watershed is similar to what
the Confederated Tribes are doing. We see
our water disappearing, we see our animals
disappearing, we see our medicines gone.
We see all the problems that people are
talking about here—people problems.
We have treaties that we signed
around 1855. But, when you go to the
agencies, they don't take advantage of the
treaties to take action. The State of Wash-
ington is just now taking advantage of the
agreements found within treaties that were
signed and incorporated in the law of the
land. I think that through education we can
make it happen more often.
You have heard this today in this
room—the problem is that the people do not
have any faith in their government anymore.
The government doesn't have a constituency
out there. The State of Washington has
$17 billion in their annual budget and only
3 percent goes toward natural resources—
3 percent! There aren't going to be any
natural resources left if they don't start
putting money into solving problems.
Natural resources can work with the
economy if we make it happen.
We have to take the children of our
land—and all of you in this room are
children of the land—and start educating
them on environmental issues. We have to
start with the children.
We have to change laws. We are in
gridlock right now. We have to move out of
-------
64
Watershed '93
We need to look into
leveraging and combining
resources.
that gridlock and start moving forward with
a comprehensive plan. We need leaders to
start providing leadership. Politicians need
to start leading this group of people toward
education and a comprehensive watershed
plan. And we need federal agencies, states,
counties, cities, and people to be involved in
coalitions to take us forward. Otherwise,
we're not going to get anywhere.
Q: Watershed councils are necessary in
order to work holistically with all the
stakeholders. We need funding for these
watershed councils. What is EPA going to
do with their grant programs to give such
councils long-term abilities to enact their
major policies and priorities? Right now
federal agencies are designed around
specific programs and funding is not
targeted for watershed programs. Do we
have to overhaul the entire budget process?
What should we do?
Martha:
Realistically, EPA is not going to be
, the source of funding for all watershed
projects across the
——^————— country. And we can't
expect funding
increases to be
dramatic over the next
few years with the
fiscal problems the
^____^^_ federal government is
facing. There will
need to be many parties coming to the table
to help fund these efforts.
We are, however, increasing our help
for watershed protection. President Clinton
has asked for significant increases in our
nonpoint source program in his economic
stimulus plan. He has requested that $47
million hi additional funding for this fiscal
year go toward what we call "green" or
"natural" infrastructure to help promote
watershed integrity and to create jobs.
In the out years, the President's plan
would double the funding for nonpoint
source program. This funding would go to
the states and could be used to support
watershed programs. We're also encourag-
ing the states to increase use of other
existing funds for watershed planning,
which many are doing.
We need to look into leveraging and
combining resources—pooling our efforts
and using what we already have more effec-
tively. To do this we need to educate our-
selves, to turn away from our specialties
long enough to look at the entire picture, and
to work together more in partnerships. I
think that we all have been guilty of being
too "turfy," including EPA. It's going to
require a new attitude, which I think could
be even more important than new legislation.
Partis:
I think one of the real challenges is to
get all of the entities to work in a far more
flexible approach. Part of the problem
stems from Congress, where they have a
tendency to micromanage. They give a
specific amount of money to a specific
program on a state-by-state basis when the
river basins not only face different problems
from one another, but are also multi-state.
I look at the success of the Potomac
River Basin. Everyone had a common
direction there; it was almost a national
mission adopted in the sixties. Now it's
almost impossible to have that same sort of
flexibility.
In Prince George's County, we im-
posed a dedicated storm water management
property tax specifically to meet some of the
challenges we were facing. It was a flexible
funding approach. To the best of my knowl-
edge, we were one of the few local jurisdic-
tions to do that. But when we try to match
that with other money sources, we find that
they are very narrowly restricted. And we
run into serious problems when we try to
say that we are going to direct these funds to
clean up a little river, such as the Anacostia.
I would rather see us create more
flexibility in the application of these funds
than have the tight management coming
from above—the purpose of which might be
well-intended, but the practical application
is very difficult.
Q: My question is about the Chesapeake
Bay and the 100-foot buffer requirement.
We live in a coastal plain region and,
consequently, our storm water does not
sheet-flow through the buffer. Rather, it is
discharged by a ditch or a storm drain. I
can understand a buffer in the northern part
of the Bay watershed where there are steep
slopes and various soil types. But at the
coastal plain regions, perhaps a relaxing of
the 100-foot buffer and additional perfor-
mance standards at the outfall systems
would be more prudent.
Parrts:
I understand the issue and the
different topographies. But in all candor,
-------
Conference Proceedings
65
even on the coastal areas, we find that 100
feet of either tree or grass buffer does a lot
of filtering. To have trees and even
grasslands as a filter for the runoff going
into the waterways, according to every
indicator, has worked. I find it difficult to
believe that a 100-foot buffer creates an
insurmountable problem.
I recognize that buffers do not alter
runoff water that flows through ditches and
storm drains in the coastal plain. How-
ever, not all the water flowing from the
land is routed through drains and ditches
and, consequently, I believe that it is
appropriate to apply buffers in all areas of
the watershed, both upstream and down-
stream. In other words, we should have
both storm drains and ditches and buffer
strips in the coastal plain, not just one or
the other.
Greg:
Parris, as I understand the Maryland
law, the 100-foot buffer applies to the urban
areas, but not agricultural areas. Yet, we
know that agricultural pollution is one of the
major problems in our watersheds. Can you
clarify the buffer requirements for me?
Parris:
Even in the agricultural areas, we
have a buffer requirement. In some cases
the agricultural buffer is only 25 feet, but
there is still a buffer requirement there.
We're trying to literally back up agricul-
ture from the water's edge. In the eastern
shore of Maryland where the land is very
flat, it is fairly common to farm right up
to the water's edge. We're trying to
reestablish a small buffer, even a 25-foot
buffer with natural grasses to serve as a
filter.
Our agricultural community is very
cooperative in this effort, and we're trying
to combine buffers with some best manage-
ment practices to keep fertilizers and
pesticides away from the water.
Q: In many areas an important component
of watershed management is the use of best
management practices (BMPs). Many
localities are hoping to use regional EMPs
instead ofon-site BMPs, especially when
they're looking at it from a programmatic
point of view versus a site-by-site point of
view. Is there acknowledgment on the part
of EPA that many localities wish to use
regional BMPs? How does EPA anticipate
responding to this issue?
Martha:
First of all, I'm not aware of any
group that has been formally established to
look at this issue. We have recently issued
guidance on BMPs under the Coastal Zone
Management Act. I'm only speculating, but
perhaps there is a question as to whether
regional BMPs would satisfy the require-
ments of the Act. It would be a legal
question.
Our philosophy generally is that you
need to do what you need to do for water
quality on a site-specific basis. You need to
design your BMPs according to the prob-
lems that you are facing in your particular
watershed. In some cases the regional
approach is desirable, but in other cases you
have to deal with specific sites that need to
be controlled.
Q: Billy mentioned the need to address the
people problem and to redirect training to
be more sensitive to other values, but that's
more of a long-term approach. How do we
do something in the short term to give
people ownership, and do you have any
examples that you 've dealt with in breaking
this gridlock?
Billy:
In some of the models in the North-
west, we started the watershed approach by
bringing in all of the people in the water-
shed: industry, hydroelectricity providers,
tribes, farmers, private landowners. It took
us about 4 or 5 years just to get these people
together to talk about watersheds.
There were sensitive areas of concern
for many people. We had lawsuits. For
example, my tribe sued the utilities for the
lack of water flow on the river for our
salmon. But during that time, we were
slowly bringing people together—educating
them on the watershed.
You have to be very committed to
putting a watershed council together. You
have to have patience. You have to change
your attitudes—you have to look at govern-
ment and agencies as tools. You also have
to look at your neighbors as positive tools.
You have to involve the leadership of the
area, whoever they are—farmers, Republi-
cans, or Democrats.
You have to bring these people into
the fold and make them feel good about
taking part in the watershed. They have to
feel proud of taking part in protection of the
living, breathing watershed. You have to
address all the interests and somehow
-------
66
Watershed '93
balance how you're going to bring it back to
life if it's unhealthy. If it's healthy, you
need to address ways to keep it healthy.
It's a long, hard job and it's going
to take 100 years to do it. So put into
your mind that it's going to take 100
years. But who's going to do it?
Nobody's going to do it unless we do it.
We're the only ones who can do it. The
courts can't do it. The legislation can't
do it. The U.S. Congress and all the
money in this country can't do it. We
have to do it. We need to get more miles
for our dollars and we need to be positive.
There are models all over our country—
we've heard them right here. People are
coming here with concerns that we have
to protect our watersheds.
Q: Soon, P.L. 566, a watershed protection
and flood protection act, will be 40 years
old. It has had great success in providing
flood control, water supply, fish and wildlife
quality, recreational quality, and land
treatment in watersheds. Why not expand
the authority and funding of this program,
which has had a good track record, instead
of starting up new federal watershed
programs under the Clean Water Act?
Steve:
In regards to P.L. 566, you can use it
or the 1985 and 1990 Farm Bills, or any of
the other provisions that some of the non-
point source agencies have been working
with for many years, with a good deal of
success. I think part of the problem is that
these successes have been the best-kept se-
crets known to man. Nobody knows where
the successes are. The overlays that we talk
about in our own governmental programs—
the bureaucracy, the refusal to work to-
gether—are worse in some of the agricul-
tural agencies than in state government as a
whole.
So we're not necessarily trying to
create something new in the Clean Water
Act, but to set a framework for coordinating
existing programs. I'd like to see some of
the agricultural agencies come together and
share information on those successful
projects. I think we will be pleasantly
surprised at the progress that we have made
with nonpoint source pollution issues and
solutions if can ever get our hands on the
information.
Q: There are thresholds to growth and
development, beyond which ecological
processes and diversity decline. Water
supply and quality are adversely affected.
When do we say that there have to be limits
on growth and development in order to
sustain the integrity of watershed ecosys-
tems? Also, how will transportation
planning play into a vision for the future
for our watersheds and the attempt to heal
them? More specifically, will walking and
riding a bicycle ever be considered a
BMP?
Pauls:
As a practical matter, we ought not be
in a growth versus no growth frame of mind.
First of all, unless we're going to come up
with all kinds of answers ranging from
economic growth to population control,
immigration, and a variety of other issues,
there's going to be growth.
I think the debate should center
around directed growth. Where is the
growth going to be and where is it not
going to be? We should be concerned with
stopping this low-density sprawl that is
consuming every acre of open space that
we have.
Instead, we should concentrate growth
in a way similar to the European model,
which makes much better use of land than
we do in the United States. We have the
attitude here that everyone has the right to
build whatever we want on our land because
it is our land. As a result, we forget the
common interest.
There's another side of that coin that
most of us are not willing to admit. If we're
going to take a growth management ap-
proach, than we must have nodes of higher-
density growth. What happens is that
everybody says they don't want the low-
density sprawl eating up the land, but they
also want to own their own 1-acre lots. You
can't have 1-acre lots everywhere and
contain growth in certain areas.
Additionally, we have to get away
from a reliance on the automobile as our
main source of transportation. It is clear that
air pollution leads to water pollution.
I teach at the University of Maryland.
One day I saw a paper that said 97 percent
of our national transportation dollars goes
toward roads. Less than 3 percent goes
toward mass transportation. That is encour-
aging the use of automobiles.
I was testifying for our legislature a
few weeks ago for low-emission vehicle
regulations. I believe we must have those.
Yet everybody is saying that it's going to be
-------
Conference Proceedings
67
the end of the economy if we do that.
Nonsense! We clearly should start shifting
our priorities.
In Prince George's County we have
started a hiker-biker trail network that
connects every subway station together so
that you can travel from one community to
the next without an automobile. That ought
to be part of our national policy. There
should be requirements and funding to go
with that as well.
Q: We work on a high-quality watershed
with high-quality resources. We see a
barrier in working with federal and state
programs to provide funding at the local
level for pollution prevention in these high-
quality water resources. How can we
overcome this barrier in the future? It is
important to do so because remediation
programs are much more expensive than
pollution prevention.
Martha:
At EPA, we agree that pollution pre-
vention is high priority—better than trying
to clean up the mess later. People who live
in the Great Lakes area may appreciate this
more than people anywhere else hi the coun-
try. While we do need to remediate sedi-
ments, for example, that have been contami-
nated from past discharges from industrial
activity, we also need to prevent such con-
tamination in the future.
I agree that most federal and state
programs have not focused on pollution
prevention. That is a result of our focusing
on the most obvious and pressing problems
during the past few decades, which mainly
consisted of ongoing discharges. Now that
many of those discharges have been brought
under control, we can see what problems
remain and we know that we have to deal
with prevention.
I think there are some opportunities
in Clean Water Act reauthorization in
terms of better regulating industry. But the
primary way we're going to deal with
prevention is through public education.
We must look at the effects of our own
lifestyles and think about how our actions
relate to the environment—the way we
fertilize our lawns, the paints we use, and
the use of the automobile. As we change
our lifestyle, we must pass our new ethic
on to our children.
You've hit on one of the most
important issues for the future of the
environmental protection effort in the
United States and one that I think EPA has
recognized and is dedicated to pursuing in
the next few years.
Q: In on agency I worked with in the past,
only 3 people out of a staff of 120 were field
data collectors or biologists in charge of
data collection. I have heard that modeling
has been called a substitution for man-
power. What do you see as a solution to our
manpower problem in the future?
Jimmle:
I do think there is a barrier here.
Understanding what works and what doesn't
work to protect watersheds is a complex
question that demands quality information
up front. In many cases, we don't have
high-quality data.
If you take the analogy of the Clean
Air Act, and take the modeling for urban
airsheds—meaning federal urban air stan-
dards—the one lesson we've learned over
20 years is that our data isn't good enough
and our modeling isn't good enough. EPA
does have the responsibility to provide re-
sources and tools—dollars—so people can
get that data before they begin the process of
sitting around the table so they know the
mechanisms by which the watershed works.
There isn't any substitute for good informa-
tion in that respect.
Martha:
I hope Jimmie will help us get the
funds appropriated!
We need to bring funding from every
sector of our economy into these watershed
programs. I don't think EPA or any other
agency, state or federal, can do it alone.
We need a mix of good monitoring data
and good modeling techniques. You can't
completely depend upon one or the other.
You're not going to always pick up every-
thing you need to pick up when you are in the
field. You might not turn over the correct
rock. So you need good models as well as
representative monitoring data.
We need to be out there more, looking
more at the natural resources and under-
standing more about what we're doing
instead of blindly implementing bureau-
cratic programs.
Greg:
We started out this morning hearing
from each of the panelists their visions for
watershed management. We then opened up
the discussion, and as a group we have
-------
68
Watershed '93
identified quite a few barriers—hurdles we
need to overcome. Here are a few that I
heard:
• There is a lack of confidence in our
government institutions.
• Some federal programs need to be
more flexible.
• There are many successful actions
being taken around the country, but
we have not yet found ways to share
our own success stories.
• Changes in personal lifestyle may be
necessary to achieve water quality
protection.
• We need to find the right balance
between regulation—which is
necessary to some degree to protect
the commons—and voluntary action
with citizen involvement.
As you move into your small work
groups, I'd like you to consider these three
questions:
• What is the most important point that
was made today?
• What is the most important point that
was not made today?
• What are the next steps we need to
take?
The panelist's visions were really quite
similar, and I would not be surprised if there
is a strong common viewpoint among us all.
If we can focus on the commonalties, we can
leave here today with the beginning of a
strategy for achieving our vision. Good luck.
-------
Summary of Small Croup Discussions
Visions for the Future
The Visions for the Future panel
discussion was followed by breakout
sessions—small group discussions held
at the conference site and throughout the
country. After the breakout sessions, the
on-site discussions were summarized by
Louise Wise of the U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency. L. Gregory Low of The Na-
ture Conservancy moderated an additional
discussion and live questions and answers
involving the panel, the live audience, and
participants at the satellite downlink sites.
Louise:
First, I want to congratulate everyone
on the fine work that you have just com-
pleted. In a record-breaking 2 hours you all
got lunch, broke out into small discussion
groups, and with the help of very talented
facilitators came up with great information
on our common vision and recommenda-
tions for action steps! It's really remark-
able how similar the responses of all the
small groups were.
Now I'm going to try to summarize
our findings, and I may need your help. I
want to start by listing some of the key
words or concepts that were stressed:
• Adaptive management or flexibility.
• Coordination.
• Local empowerment and involve-
ment
• Nontraditional approaches.
• Pollution prevention.
• Education.
Here are some of the points that were
most agreed with:
• Let the watersheds breathe.
• Change individual lifestyle—with
regard to everything—the way we
commute, the way we farm, the
number of children we have.
• Educate the young.
• Take into account economic consid-
erations.
• Need national leadership.
• Need to have both a bottom-up and a
top-down approach.
Here are some of the points not made:
• Need political will to act.
• Need information about systems—
both economic and scientific.
• Need to understand that private
property rights carry a responsibility
with them.
Most people focused on next steps. I
have a nice long list:
• Develop a
mechanism to
coordinate fed-
eral, state, and
local efforts,
using federal
leadership.
• Educate
everyone from
the President
on down about
what an
ecosystem
consists of.
Get people out
into the
environment.
• Define
problems using
a longer-term
vision or
horizon.
• Recognize that
every water-
shed has a
carrying
capacity.
• Take steps to
control growth
,
at^
^^
.
HlrjfQ^>:S-^:^-^-
69
-------
70
Watershed '93
and urban sprawl. Develop environ-
mentally-sensitive land-use controls.
• Improve the scientific foundation
and the flow and organization of
information.
• Set national goals and milestones for
watershed restoration.
• Set up a clearinghouse. Use a 1-800
number (actually, a 1-900 number so
we can take those profits and put
them toward our efforts).
• Use existing programs, such as P.L.
566 and others that work on a
watershed basis.
• Organize a national watershed
forum—like the Wetlands Forum—
to jump start and solidify some
policy directions for the watershed
approach.
And one group voted for a constitu-
tional amendment for watershed protection!
Greg:
Thanks, Louise. That's a challenging
agenda for us to tackle. Let's see if we can
stress solutions this afternoon. How can we
achieve the vision of watershed protection
through these measures and others that
might be suggested?
Q: I had the opportunity to participate in
the Futures Project, which was sponsored
by EPA and examined trends taking place in
society and where they will lead us in the
future. One of the things that came out in
those discussions is that our society is
organized around a culture of materialism
and consumerism—everything is geared
toward producing and consuming things.
The group decided that we need to change
that culture to include a greater spiritual-
ism, a greater respect for the environment
and a better stewardship ethic. How do you
think that might be brought out?
Billy:
I think that we have to make that
change, and it is a social change. The
Indian people throughout the Nation have
a lot to offer to the American society. We
should listen and try to figure out how
these principles can be injected into this
society.
We can't continue to make paper
cups and use them every day, then throw
them away. We have to change now, in
the next generation and for generations to
come. This Earth will heal if we give it a
chance.
When we talk about watersheds in
1993, this should be a very positive time in
all of our lives. You heard this talk about
a new policy that's going to take place
from the President on down and through-
out all our communities, and you heard
that we have a chance. But we're running
out of time, so we should take advantage
of opportunities today. We have to do it.
Nobody else is going to do it besides our-
selves.
Q: My group discussed and proposed that
we needed a constitutional amendment so
that it was every citizen's right to a clean
environment. It would deal with some of
the private properly right issues that we
have so much debate over. Is this too
outlandish and radical an idea to happen
in this century? Is it a totally impractical
idea?
flmmte:
I have a surprising answer: It's the
foundation of our common law. We have a
tort system that is based on the nuisance
notion. I've talked to people from South
America, where they don't have English
common law. There isn't a fundamental
notion of nuisance and the right to a safe
and clean environment. So, they've had to
enact it from the top-down and try to
implement it recently. My view is that our
system is already built on that notion.
Greg:
I know that Florida has passed a state
constitutional amendment that gives a fairly
high priority to environmental conservation.
Q: It appears that we're not likely to find a
large amount of new resources. It seems
like we're going to have to do things
differently given the amount of resources we
have. It appears that some traditional
programs such as effluent programs,
permits and standards will have to change.
Jlmmle:
The congressional view is that the best
technology standards, the permits, and the
provisions for water quality standards that
have been built over the last 20 years have
been very successful.
There is the problem, as we look to
the future. The law expects that waters
should be fishable and swimmable. The
only sources we can now regulate through
federal law are the point sources. Those in-
-------
Conference Proceedings
71
dustries that have those permits are facing a
rationing effect—constantly tighter permits.
I think there are a lot of people in
industry who look at watershed planning as
a way to break out of that mold. They look
at the nonpoint sources and say it's time for
them to contribute to the solution. So it's
not so much backing away from the success
of the current tools as it is adding other tools
to deal with the whole picture.
Q: Reauthorization of the Endangered
Species Act is overdue. Do you hear
anything on the Hill about possible revi-
sions to the Act that might help us address
endangered species and preserve
biodiversity in general, from a watershed
perspective?
Jimmie:
That's a really good question. The act
is overdue for reauthorization and, along
with wetlands, is one of the most controver-
sial environmental issues in Congress right
now. I think the most promising thing that
we've heard is that we should restructure the
law toward advanced planning so that we
don't get to the point where we list species.
Instead, we should anticipate problems and
manage the ecosystems that support those
species long before we need to activate the
legal trigger, that is, listing. I know that
Chairman Baucus and ranking minority
member Senator Chafee (on the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee)
are working on legislation that would try to
move the Endangered Species Act in that
direction.
It's a huge controversy and you can't
promise that Congress can deal immediately
with things that are controversial. But there
are some promising suggestions,out there.
Martha:
EPA is very supportive of the act and
also of Secretary Babbitt's new initiative to
look at species diversity and ecosystem
approaches as being the best way to protect
species—both endangered and otherwise.
We hope to be partners working on that
together.
Q: I'm involved with the Kootenai Basin.
One issue that you have not addressed is
cooperation on an international basis and
international standards for watershed
management. We feel that more coopera-
tion and standardization from a continental
view, rather than a political boundary, will
A final panel discussing their "visions for the future": from
left, Greg Low, Louise Wise, Bill Frank, Jr., Steve Tedder,
Martha Prothro, and Jimmie Powell.
help alleviate the bulk of the northern
border's pollution problems.
Martha:
There are some good precedents for
approaching international problems.
Although we may not have always done it
the best way, we have learned a lot from our
experience in the Great Lakes region.
Perhaps other watershed programs could
learn from experiences there.
We're also working hard on the
Mexican border, which I'm sure our friends
along the Rio Grande are familiar with. It's
a very difficult situation. What are our
responsibilities there? Do we have our own
act together? You talk about standardization
on the international level, but in many ways
we don't have standardization within our
own country. We have different water
quality standards from state to state. In the
Great Lakes region, we're going to propose
new water quality standard guidelines for
the states in the Great Lakes Basin in an
attempt to move toward standardization.
But I think we will make more progress on
the international front when we get our own
house in order—allowing for some of the
flexible management that we need, but with
some consistent approaches and principles
that we can stand tall with when we deal
with our international neighbors.
Q: How do you figure to factor out the
interagency "turf" battles that have
historically impeded substantive progress in •
moving forward on environmental issues?
Greg:
Speaking as a staff member of a
private conservation organization, I have
seen more cooperation in recent months
-------
72
Watershed '93
among federal agencies than I have seen in a
long time. So, I think we have a promising
envkonment here to break some of these
turf barriers.
Q: One of the images that I'm going to take
home from this conference is the abundance
of people in this nation that are doing real
good \vorh I'm wondering if it's appropri-
ate for federal and state agencies to
recognize and celebrate all the great things
that are going on and, in fact, have helped
to cause other kinds of positive action.
Greg:
Thank you. Let's give ourselves a
round of applause!
Q: I think I'm one of the few citizen groups
here, which worries me. One of the con-
cerns I have is that citizens have a lack of
faith in the system. They don't think that
they can impact the system. Since we've
talked about how imperative it is to have a
bottom-up mechanism for implementing
watershed planning, how can we get people
at the grass-roots level involved?
Greg:
There are many success stories in
local communities where citizens have
secured some important watershed gains. I
think we discussed earlier the need to
share information and successful case
studies among ourselves. The word
communication has been brought up time
and time again.
The private conservation organiza-
tions are committed to working at the local
level. I hear a renewed commitment at the
state and local level to work together.
Hopefully, we can reinvent government and
make people feel that they do have a voice
and do have a say in making things happen.
Louise:
There is one item I forgot to mention
that the groups voted for: Everyone in this
conference should go home and invite
another agency or individual to join the
circle so we can multiply the knowledge and
efforts. We should take individual responsi-
bility for getting the word out.
There are five notions of reinventing
government: government should be
community-derived, customer-driven,
enterprising, anticipatory, and decentralized.
I think we have heard that today, which is
really interesting.
Greg:
I would like to add that we have
rapidly changing and improved technology.
We can link people together from all over
the country. This conference would not
have been possible just a few years ago.
Q: In the Upper Arkansas Initiative, and
regarding private property rights, local
citizens are very concerned, very skeptical,
and even fearful of government offering
them an opportunity to participate in
decision making. They're fearful of the
word planning. They consider it to be a
threat to their private property rights, and
especially private water rights. It seems
like it's going to take a long time to
overcome some of that mistrust.
Steve:
The North Carolina basin project has
probably been the most well received pro-
gram we've ever done—politically, legisla-
tively, and publicly. We have tried to de-
scribe the problems and solutions of the
basins. We've identified which goals are
short-term and which are long-term, so
people will not expect miracles overnight.
You have to put it all on the table for ev-
eryone to understand. But the concept
itself has been very well received by the
public.
Q: In the West, mining has some very large
impacts on the land. Currently, the Mining
Act is not for environmental protection but
instead for the purpose of advancing min-
ing. Consequently, there are no avenues to
regulate old mining sites. What is the fu-
ture for refining the mining law?
flmmle:
That's an issue that's been before
Congress for 4 or 5 years now. I think that
with the new administration, and with
Secretary Babbitt's commitment toward
reforming the law, changes are likely to be
made soon.
Several environmental statutes are up
for reauthorization: Clean Water Act,
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
Superfund, etc. But I think that the real
progress in Congress for the next couple of
years will be on the resource questions—
on mining, the way irrigation water is
used, on timber sales, on offshore oil and
gas drilling, etc. Congress is likely to be
more active on those issues than on
traditional pollution laws. This is the
-------
Conference Proceedings
73
period where we are likely to see big
changes on the resource side.
Q: With regards to strategies for implemen-
tation and sharing our successes perhaps
EPA could set up an electronic data base on
which we can share our successes. One of
the issues thai was brought up in session is
that local governments need the "know-
how" and technology to solve individual
problems. Perhaps the federal government
could help us establish that data base to
share success stories.
Martha:
We've done it. We have it. Bruce
Newton over there can tell you how to
access it.
Bruce:
We have established a watershed
restoration Special Interest Group within the
Nonpoint Source Bulletin Board.1 There is a
display at the conference.
Q: The panelists discussed the need for
more effective coordination in watershed
planning, particularly at the local level.
What can I do as a high school student to
promote watershed improvement?
Martha:
You might want to get involved with
citizen monitoring programs. You can help
organize citizen monitoring of the watershed
1 For voice information, call Elaine Bloom at 202/260-
3665; to logon to the NFS BBS, call 301/589-0205.
The telecommunications parameters are no parity,
8 bits, 1 stop-bit (N-8-1).
in your area. EPA and states provide
information about how to monitor and
collect data, which could be used by
planners and regulators to help in protecting
those waterbodies.
We've also talked about lifestyle
changes and good land stewardship. That's
something everyone should do. Take the
steps that you can—recycle, walk or ride a
bike instead of driving—all of these things
help to set examples and encourage lifestyle
changes among your peers.
Billy-
You can go to your state legislature
and start the movement within the state.
There are many tools out there that you can
use. You have to take a negative and turn
it into a positive—and never think nega-
tively. That relates to changing your
attitude. You can be a leader in your high
school. You can gather information from
agencies at all levels of government and
help spread the message that we have to
change, and we have to do it now.
Greg:
I would encourage you to join the
Nature Conservancy or another environ-
mental group. Take action through the
private sector. There are many conserva-
tion organizations doing many things at the
local level. Get your hands duty, so to
speak. Find a real project to work for.
Find a real stream to do citizen monitoring
on; find a natural area that needs to be
saved in a particular watershed. We've had
schools where students have raised tens of
thousands of dollars for natural-area
projects in their watersheds. Make it
tangible. Find a project to work on and
good luck!
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Special Presentation
Visions for the Future
The Honorable Mike Espy, Secretary
U.S Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC
W am pleased to have the opportunity to
I address this conference focused on
Midentifying and solving natural resource
problems with a watershed approach. I
can't help but think about the logic of
watershed management—the logic of taking
a holistic approach to address our conserva-
tion and environmental concerns. It is the
logic of coordination and cooperation. We
coordinate the agencies; we reduce paper-
work and regulatory burdens. Ultimately,
we make our operations more user-friendly.
USDA has used the watershed
approach for many years, to the benefit of
our fanners and ranchers, both large and
small, in our urban and rural communities.
There can be no doubt that under the
leadership of President Clinton there is a
renewed commitment on the part of USDA,
the Department of the Interior, and EPA to
work together to solve resource management
problems instead of creating new problems.
Basically, I believe the watershed
approach makes sense in three ways:
• First, it mokes good managerial
sense that is good for government as
well as the private sector. The
watershed approach is not guided by
a particular agency's program, but
by the problems that need to be
solved and problems that need to be
prevented.
• Secondly, the watershed approach
makes good environmental sense.
Water resource problems and water
management systems transcend
individual farms and other land
management units. We need to be
using a watershed approach as well
as a one-on-one approach with the
land user. This kind of approach
makes good sense when you
consider the nature of nonpoint
source pollution. You can't point to
a pipe. You can't go to the edge of a
stream and point to the problem. But
you can measure the impacts of
nonpoint source pollution, you can
target your efforts to a specific
watershed, and you can get the
people in that watershed working
together on solutions.
• Thirdly, the watershed approach
makes good sense for rural America.
It involves all the people and helps
them to understand their impact on
their environment. It also helps rural
communities protect their natural
resources in a coherent, economic
way, empowering them to take steps
to solve problems.
Although the watershed approach to
natural resource management has been in
place for a while, there is still much work,
coordination, and education needed to be
done. In government, we need to work
together. We need to develop complemen-
tary programs, not competing programs.
I have asked USDA agencies to take a
close look at their programs and to redirect
them where necessary hi order to ensure
compatibility with what we're trying to
achieve in water quality and water conserva-
tion. Agencies must work together and
coordinate. The public doesn't have the
time, the money, or the patience to tolerate
rivalries between government agencies or
between government and the private sector.
Further, we have to let sound science
and good economics, not a particular
program, drive the solutions. We have to
keep our programs and delivery systems
flexible. We have to set priorities and build
new partnerships. We have to be creative
and flexible with existing programs and
budgets.
75
-------
76
Watershed '93
We need to develop
complementary programs,
not competing programs.
As Secretary of Agriculture, I strongly
believe that the farmer is one of the greatest
friends of the environment. I plan to work
closely with farm and ranching groups to
ensure that they do not harm the environ-
ment. But I also want
_^^^__^_^ to ensure that environ-
mental regulations do
not harm them under
the watershed ap-
proach. I think we can
all make headway if
we keep this in mind.
——— We can have
landowners take an
ecosystem approach by addressing all the
resources—soil, water, air, plants, and
animals. We can learn how all the pieces of
this environmental "puzzle" fit together.
If we are going to use holistic ap-
proaches to solving problems on the land,
we have to have more holistic legislative
initiatives. We need to challenge our
lawmakers to help us get beyond incremen-
tal, piecemeal legislation. As we all know,
we can all help frame this debate on the
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act.
I believe we have to target our water
management activities to critical watersheds,
with state and local governments having a
role.
Finally, for all our resource analysis
and economic analysis, we must not fail to
recognize where politics and consensus
building fit in. We have to involve local
leaders. We have to work out our agree-
ments between national and state govern-
ment, and we have to identify their roles.
I hope this conference is just the
beginning of our dialogue on this watershed
approach. We certainly need everyone's
ideas. Thank you, and have a good day.
-------
WATERSHED '93
Special Presentation
Visions for the Future
Ted Danson, President
American Oceans Campaign
Hello to all the participants of the
WATERSHED '93 Conference. We
at American Oceans Campaign
believe that watershed management and
entire ecosystem approaches are critical to
maintaining and restoring the health of our
planet.
For too long we have been looking at
the environment as a big jigsaw puzzle,
where different agencies, levels of govern-
ment, and interest groups try to snap
together all the different pieces—one at a
time. What often happens is that we run
out of money or the project is not com-
pleted for one reason or another. Some-
times we find that agencies have been
working at cross purposes while trying to
solve the same problems. We will likely
face many frustrations until we learn that
it's all one big picture and in order to make
the most efficient use of our time and
resources we have to start working
together differently.
The time has come for us to see the
environment and the individual resources
we enjoy as being interconnected. The new
leadership in the administration provides us
with an unparalleled opportunity to forge
ahead at protecting our environment by
looking at these issues in a comprehensive
manner.
American Oceans works hard at
explaining that the world's oceans are all
connected—and that what we do on the land
ultimately affects our oceans, bays, estuar-
ies, rivers, and streams. The problems
affecting these watersheds are often related,
and so must be the corrective actions we
take to restore these precious resources.
I am sorry that I can't be there to learn
from you all in person. Tonight we are
celebrating American Oceans Campaign's
fifth anniversary; otherwise, I would love to
join you. I send my congratulations for your
commitment and look forward to continuing
our work together.
77
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Special A ddress
Visions for the Future
The Honorable Carol M. Browner, Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
I appreciate the opportunity to be here
with you all this afternoon. It's really
quite an honor.
These are issues that are of great
concern to me and, I think, some of the most
interesting and challenging issues that we
deal with in our responsibility for environ-
mental protection.
I am also pleased to be part of this
nationwide videoconference. I think this is
truly remarkable. The planning for this has
been going on for almost a year now, and it
seems that the conference is very successful
and I think we owe a round of thanks to the
organizers of such a successful event—an
event that was able to reach out to a broader
audience than otherwise could have been
involved.
I come to this job from my job in
Florida, as head of the Department of
Environmental Regulation. I was in charge
of a number of projects in Florida to expand
environmental regulation to ecosystem
protection. I found in my job in Florida
that, if you narrowly applied the environ-
mental regulations, while fixing a specific
problem and meeting a specific standard you
frequently failed to deal with the broader
system that you were addressing. I am very
committed to moving beyond narrow
application of standards and adding to that
ecosystem protection.
One of the other products of my
experience in Florida, and one of the
important things that I learned there, is the
importance of consensus building—
coalitions with business, environmental
groups, government agencies, local citizens
groups. And I'm very pleased to see that
people here today, and those of you joining
us from around the country, come from a
variety of backgrounds. I think that it is
only by bringing all affected parties to the
table that we will ultimately be able to
achieve what we all know we need to
achieve in terms of environmental protec-
tion—that is, ecosystem protection.
I know that some of the things that I
am proudest of in my work in Florida, in the
Everglades, in central Florida in the wet-
lands, involved bringing all parties to the
table and working out very complicated so-
lutions to the problems, allowing growth to
occur where appropriate and recognizing
that there are instances
where growth and its ^^—————
impacts were not com-
patible and that the
system had to come
first, it had to be pro-
tected.
I look forward to
the opportunity at EPA
to bring a variety of
parties to the table to
solve the very difficult """^^~™^^^~"
problems ahead of us.
The interesting thing about this
conference, in addition to the fact that you
represent so many different groups, is the
role that technology can play, and the fact
that we are all joined together through
technology. More and more we need to
bring technology to the work that we do.
That technology can help us to both under-
stand systems and seek ways to protect
systems. We can use technology to educate
ourselves, to understand why we need to do
things in a certain way.
In 1993, our approach to environmen-
tal protection involves change and innova-
tion. In preserving our water resources, we
must understand the unique characteristics,
the unique problems, and the unique set of
actions that exist in different watersheds.
Right before I came up to the podium, I was
**! am very committed to
moving beyond narrow
application of standards and
adding to that ecosystem
protection."
79
-------
r
80
Watershed '93
Carol M. Browner,
EPA Administrator
looking at a map of the various
locations that are joining us by
satellite today. And what was so
fascinating was that it didn't high-
light particular states or counties—
here's Florida and here's Georgia
and here's Alabama and here's
Maine. It highlighted watersheds,
systems—here's the Platte River
basin, here's the Upper Rio Grande,
here's the Kootenai. I think that's an
important consideration, to think
about it as systems with individual
interests as opposed to political
jurisdictions.
In addition to our work at the
Environmental Protection Agency,
there is also work that will be done at a
variety of other agencies as we move away
from a narrow application of the regulations
that are so important to the protection of our
environment to a broader understanding of
systems. And I might just point out a
number of things that are going on in other
agencies.
At the Department of the Interior,
Bruce Babbitt has already announced that he
will adopt an ecosystem approach to the
protection of endangered species, and he is
putting in place a process to look at the
Endangered Species Act that goes beyond
the narrow parameters of that law and looks
more broadly. Secretary Babbitt has also
proposed a biological survey. The nice
thing about that is that it draws upon the
activities of several other agencies, includ-
ing those at EPA such as EMAP [the
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program]. If you look at all of the resources
that are being brought to bear across the
country, in terms of understanding ecosys-
tems and categorizing biological treasures—
everything that's happening from the local
government on up to the federal govern-
ment—you can begin to see that if we
brought all of that together in a coordinated
manner, our ability to understand and to
monitor and map what is happening to these
resources would be doubled if not tripled. I
really have to applaud Secretary Babbitt for
taking a lead and saying it's time—let's
bring all of this together, let's bring all the
resources together so that we can get the
best use of our money and the best informa-
tion needed for long-term protection.
Another agency getting involved and
trying to look at ecosystem protection is the
Department of Agriculture. Secretary Mike
Espy has announced plans for ecosystem
protection for his responsibilities with the
forest system. And again, we look forward
to working with him and the Department of
the Interior and the Department of Com-
merce in their efforts to make sure that our
environment is protected, that our missions
are integrated, and that the goals of each of
our agencies are ultimately reached.
As we move forward over the next
several years, we're going to have many
opportunities to take the work that you have
begun in this conference and apply it to
every single thing that we do. One of the
first opportunities will be during the
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act.
Hopefully, during the reauthorization
process there will be an opportunity to talk
about watershed protection—to bring the
experiences that those of you at the local
level, particularly, have gained in terms of
looking at the system as a whole. This is
something that we have already found
members of Congress to be very receptive to
and I'm hopeful that we will be able to
develop proposals that will be included in
the Clean Water Act reauthorization.*
I think what is important about what
we're doing, and what we have to work to
educate Congress and the public about, is
that we are going to move beyond just
looking at the trees and look at the forest.
We are going to continue our responsibili-
ties in terms of making sure that the stan-
dards are being met. But, when we are
developing comprehensive plans, we are
going to look at how those plans impact the
whole system and not just look narrowly, in
the way that perhaps we have in the past.
We are going to move beyond the pollutant-
by-pollutant, medium-by-medium approach,
that has been very, very successful. We are
going to add something to that. We're
going to add our recognition of ecosystems.
We're going to add our recognition of the
need to protect systems as systems.
The responsibility that all of us will
have as we continue in the work that we all
do is, I think, very significant. We'll have
to take the knowledge that we gain as we
deal with the watersheds that we are
focusing on now and expand it to deal with
the large number of watersheds that we are
going to want to deal with.
* Editor's note: The administration's position on
Clean Water Act reauthorization is available through
NCEPI, 11029 Kenwood Road, Building 5,
Cincinnati, OH 45242. Ask for President Clinton's
Clean Water Act Initiative.
-------
Conference Proceedings
81
It was very exciting yesterday. I was
in Michigan. I visited with the National
Wildlife Federation group up there that has
done a great deal of work with the Great
Lakes. I think there are many more models
like that across the country, and we need to
take the experience gained from those
projects and apply it to all those watersheds
that we recognize as being so significant and
in need of attention.
I think that inevitably when you seek
to do something of this magnitude, it is a
change and change never comes easily. But,
when we can point to the successes that we
already have in terms of this approach, it
will make the change that much more
acceptable to those who may not be initially
inclined.
The other value of this sort of ap-
proach is that no two systems are alike, that
no two systems face the same problems.
That inevitably brings us to an inherent
tension that exists in the work that we do
that can be resolved on a site-specific basis.
The tension I refer to (and those of you who
are here from the business community
certainly appreciate this) is their need for
certainty, for clarity, for consistency; and
sometimes that can bump up against the
needs of a particular system.
And so we have to make sure that as
we develop plans for individual ecosystems
we are mindful of the needs of the economic
system—of those people who are creating
jobs, of those municipalities that have
responsibilities in terms of how much they
are going to charge their citizens for the
services they provide. But, at the same time,
we must be mindful of the needs of the
natural system. That sometimes means a
more complicated process, but one that in
the end has much greater returns than some
of the other avenues that we may go down.
Finally, I think the significance of this
conference is that it presents a challenge to
all of us who care about watersheds. There
is a need for change—change in the way we
manage our businesses, change in the way
we run our programs. There is a demand for
innovation—for new ways of thinking about
the environment and new ways of prevent-
ing pollution.
Let me tell you that at EPA we've
started down that path. I think that there is
a lot of very good work that has begun.
And I am very committed to being a part
of that and to working to make sure that
we are able to do all that we seek to do,
that we are open to change and innovation,
and that we will meet the unique chal-
lenges posed to us as a national agency by
America's watersheds.
We are very interested in emphasizing
technical and financial support to state and
local governments. I would say to those of
you who are here from state and local
governments that you have in me someone
who has a great appreciation for the roles
that state and local governments can play in
these very difficult
challenges that we —>^—_^^_
face. And I believe
that you are very
significant players in
dealing with these
kinds of issues,
particularly watershed
issues. .
We're also, at
EPA, going to work to streamline and
coordinate our programs to eliminate
duplication and overlap so that we can get
about the business of doing that which we
really want to do, which is protecting our
natural resources.
And, we want to continue to improve
our communications with our partners both
inside and outside of government—to bring
to the table all of those who are affected by
the decisions we make so that we can build a
consensus and put aside some of the
animosity and adversarial relationships that
may have existed historically. I don't think
anyone believes we gain when we end up in
those sorts of positions, whichever side we
may take. And our resources ultimately are
much better spent protecting, restoring the
systems than fighting each other in court or
whatever other venue we may choose.
And, finally, I am committed (and I
say this recognizing the difficulty), but I
absolutely am committed to expanding the
number of people who work at the Agency
on these issues, and also to bringing others
into this fold, including not just state and
local governments but the business
community, farmers, landowners. I think
that there are an awful lot of people who
can benefit from this sort of approach who
need to be part of it, to see the rewards,
and feel like they contributed to making a
difference.
I want to close by sharing with you a
statement that I read about the Florida
Everglades, which has probably been the
most significant natural resource affecting
me in my lifetime. I grew up very close to
the Everglades and I watched it slowly
two systems are alike
... no two systems face the
same problems."
-------
82
Watershed '93
athis conference has been
about... a fully integrated
perspective of watersheds."
(well, in some instances, not so slowly) be
degraded and impacted to such an extent
that there is cause for alarm in terms of the
future productivity of that system. I am sure
that those of you here from Florida and
those listening from Florida are continuing
the very good work to restore that system
and view it once again as a system instead of
all the various parts that
^———i— it had become.
I want to share with you
this thought from
William E. Odum
(BioScience, October
1982): "The ecological
integrity of the Florida
~~"~~~^~^~ Everglades has suffered,
not from a single
adverse decision, but from a multitude of
small pin pricks." I think that's true of
many watersheds. If you went back and
asked what was the problem, you would find
that there wasn't one decision that created
the problem. It was a series of actions that
when taken together made us realize that we
had a very significant problem, one that will
be very, very difficult to solve but one that
we have to solve.
"One key to avoiding the problem of
cumulative effects of small environmental
decisions lies in a holistic view of the world
around us." I think that's what this confer-
ence has been about. It has been about a
holistic view, about a fully integrated
perspective of watersheds. I'm confident
that as we leave here today we can carry this
view with us in the work that each of us
does, and we come from many different
perspectives with many different areas of
responsibility. But I think that if we can
remember that we are trying to protect
systems, we can be guided in our work in a
more meaningful way and we will be
rewarded in the work that we do in a much
more meaningful way.
Some of you know this about me, that
I have a 5-year-old son, and I have done this
sort of work—environmental work—for
over 10 years now. But the commitment
with which I do this work was radically
changed when my son was born 5 years ago.
I realized then that, if we didn't make some
really significant changes in how we
manage our resources in this country and
how we respect these resources, my son
would not be able to enjoy the natural
resources in this country in the same way
that I have enjoyed them—that the Florida
Everglades would not be there for him, nor
many of the other natural resources of the
country. And so I think that we not only
have to think of the ecosystems that we seek
to protect, but also remember that we do this
not only for ourselves but for our children
and our children's children, so that they can
have the same quality of life and the same
experiences that have shaped so many of us.
Thank you very much.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Special Guest Speaker
Biodiversity, Rainforests, and
Michael Robinson, Director
National Zoological Park, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC
Today, I hope to set the environmental
context for what is happening at this
tail end of the 20th century—to
explain what is happening in the tropics,
what is at stake, and what we may be able to
do about it. It is relevant to all of you,
because what is happening in the tropics is
part of the universal problem that everybody
faces in every watershed.
This century has been truly spectacu-
lar in terms of change. There's never been
anything like it in the history of civilization.
Think of it. In this century human popula-
tions have tripled, our use of fossil fuels has
increased by 12 times, and the world econ-
omy by 29 times since 1900. The economic
expansion has been so spectacular that in
one year alone, between 1988 and 1989, the
increase in the world economy—not the to-
tal but the increase—was equal to the entire
value of the world economy in 1900. If you
want a really ludicrous example of how our
efforts have proliferated, the pet food indus-
try in the United States is more valuable in
terms of money and labor involved than the
entire economy of medieval Europe. Just
for dogs and cats. That's an amazing fact.
This year and next year, 3 billion
people will be added to the reproductive
potential of the world—they'll become
mature at puberty. So we have this efflores-
cence of human effort, and in the tropics it is
confronting the richest ecosystems on earth.
So I'd like to argue that the most significant
occurrence in the 20th century is not the end
of communism, not the end of the cold war,
not any political change, but the impact of
one species, Homo "so-called" sapiens, on
the living world. We are using 40 percent of
the primary productivity of this planet. One
insignificant naked ape has proliferated to
that extent.
So let's go quickly through what is at
stake. For something like 2 million years
human populations were at about at the
5 million level and then, just 10,000 years
ago, with the invention of agriculture, we
started this upward movement until we are
at nearly 6 billion now. The growth of the
human population in the tropics has put
terrible pressures on the forest. People burn
it down for agricultural land to grow crops
to sustain the population. The smoke pene-
trates the cloud layer, creating a phenom-
enon that is both spectacular and horrifying.
This is not the hyperbole of some wild-eyed
ecologist. It's real. What we are affecting is
the richest ecosystem on earth.
We human beings in the North did the
same thing many, many hundreds of years
before we started on the tropics. In the
16th century a hundred ships took part in
the great Battle of Lepanto in the Mediter-
ranean between the Muslim south and the
Christian north. Each of the ships was
made of timber, and it took 650 trees to
build one ship. The Italian shipbuilders had
to go all the way to Spain to find trees that
were straight enough. So even in those days
the Mediterranean had been deforested.
The same thing happened on this great
continent. In what is now the United States
back in 1620 there were 170 million hec-
tares of forest. In 1920, the remaining forest
covered only 30 million hectares. We did it
here for exactly the same reasons that they
are doing it in the tropics today.
What's at stake? In 1982 we thought
there were 1.5 million species on earth.
Then Terry Erwin at the National Museum
83
-------
84
Watershed '93
of Natural History here in Washington went
down to Brazil and Panama and Colombia
and studied the number of insect species in
the canopy of the rainforest. The canopy is
the area 150 to 200 feet above the ground
that receives all the energy from the sun—an
area difficult to get to. What Erwin did was
to fire an insecticidal fogging machine up
there, fog the canopy with a knock-down
insecticide, cover the forest floor with
plastic sheets, and wait for the insects to rain
down. Then he did what all good biologists
do. He had his graduate students pick the
insects up and he identified how many new
species of insect they found for each species
of tree that they sampled. We know roughly
how many species of trees there are in the
tropics and you can calculate the total
number of species on earth very simply
from that calculation. He came up with a
new estimate of the number of species on
earth—15 to 30 million species instead of
1.5 million. That is as if we had discovered
10 or 20 totally new planets. It's really
quite remarkable that we should find that
many new species.
The most recent estimate, published in
1992 in Science by Paul Erlich and E.G.
Wilson, is that Erwin may have been way
off. It may be 100 million species, and
nearly all of those are tropical. That makes
the tropics the Fort Knox of biology, or the
Louvre and the National Gallery and the
Prado all rolled into one—the richest place
on earth. So what we did in the north
temperate region when we moved west or
into the battles in the Mediterranean was
insignificant compared to what's going on
now.
In the tropics there are many, many
species interacting for the great majority of
each year. There is no winter to shut down
the theater of life—it's always active. Many
of you probably know the glorious Bruegel
painting called Children's Games. It is a
wonderful metaphor for life in the tropics.
In the painting you can identify more than
300 children playing more than 70 recogniz-
able games. Just imagine the games that
animals and plants play when there are 30
million of them and they have all year every
year to play them.
Here are some examples of these
complex games.
Bats proliferate in the tropics. There
are more species of bats in Panama than in
all of North America as far north as Alaska.
They eat pollen, they eat fruit, they catch
fish. There are fishing bats that I used to see
fishing in the locks of the Panama Canal at
night. To catch fish at night you need a
special sense, you need the equivalent of
down-looking radar. The bat actually
bounces ultrasound off the surface of the
water and distinguishes the ripples that fish
make. But, if the bat plunged in to catch the
fish in its mouth it would drown. So, it has
a huge spur on its hind leg for gaffing fish.
Now that's an incredible specialization.
The next one is even more incred-
ible—the frog-eating bat. This bat travels
about 60 miles an hour in a power dive
toward its prey. Frog-eating bats could exist
only in the tropics. In Washington, DC,
there are frogs around for only a few months
of the year. The rest of the time they're
doing what all sensible things do, keeping
warm elsewhere, hibernating (a good motto
for bureaucrats).
Just consider this. The frog-eating bat
finds its frogs by listening for their song,
their vocalization. And interestingly
enough, only male frogs sing. So this is the
ultimate feast of sexual preference. And not
only is it only male frogs that sing, but they
only sing to attract females—when they are
in the height of erotic arousal. So just think
of the penalties.
Now, I hope you're getting a picture
of the complexity in the tropics. The frog
that frog-eating bats most often eat is a little
tiny frog, an inch and a half long, which as
you might now expect has the most compli-
cated song of any frog on earth because it's
a tropical frog. It has a two-part song
consisting of a whine and a chuck, and each
frog adjusts its song when other males are
singing nearby. If one male is singing alone
it whines, "peow, peow, peow." If there are
two males, each of them adds a chuck, so
they sing "peow chuck, peow chuck, peow
chuck." (I hope you realize that my main
specialization is spiders, and I'm not called
upon to vocalize very often.) Three frogs
add a second chuck, "peow chuck chuck,
peow chuck chuck, peow chuck chuck," and
four or more frogs add a final chuck, "peow
chuck chuck chuck."
The questions any good scientist
asks are "Why do they vary the song?" and
"Which song is most attractive to the
female?" You can test that by playing the
frog calls over a loud speaker. That allows
you to do all kinds of crazy things. You
can speed the tape up and produce a
falsetto frog or slow it down and produce a
bass frog or play it backwards or add as
many chucks as you like because you can
-------
Conference Proceedings
85
splice the tape, Watergate style. It turns
out that the most attractive song is "peow
chuck chuck chuck." But males alone do
not sing it because there is a penalty for
singing such a complicated song—it's easy
to locate and, therefore, a frog singing a
complicated song is more likely to be
eaten than satisfied.
Here's another example of complex-
ity (Figure 1). The famous army ants of the
New World tropics are incredible creatures.
Up to half a million of them form a swarm.
They never build a nest; they march day by
day by day, and they bivouac at night hi a
great heap. They feed on insects as they
march across the forest floor. As the ants
walk there are some insects that escape by
flying upward, and there are flies that hover
over the battlefield like fighter planes
zapping the insects that escape, and above
them there are bkds that zap the insects.
Those birds are so specialized that there are
seven species that are found only with army
ants and no where else on earth. They are
totally dependent on the ants acting as
beaters to trigger the flight of the prey. If
you hear bkds singing close to the ground in
the tropical rainforest, you know that army
ants are nearby.
But even more complex and special-
ized are the camp followers of the army.
During the Napoleonic wars, Napoleon's
army was surrounded by thousands of camp
followers of varying degrees of morality.
The army ant camp followers are small
insects and invertebrates—some of the most
specialized creatures on earth, for example,
a mite found only on the jaws of army ants.
As the ant sinks its jaws into its prey the
mite sips the juices that escape. Another
Figure 1. Army ants. The swarm raids across the forest floor, killing and eating insects. Some escape
and are eaten by ant birds. Some are parasitized by flies hovering over the swarm. A, B, C, and D are
guests of the ants that are attached to workers. A and D are mites. A lives on the jaws of the ants; D,
on their feet.
-------
86
Watershed '93
mite is found
only on the soft
soles of the ant's
feet. What a
specialization that
is! Sipping softly
from the soft sole.
An alliteration.
Audit's thought
that that particu-
lar mite increases
the traction of the
ants as they run
along. The
Reebok.
Here's
another case. The
three-toed sloth is
a wonderful
creature. There
are 2,500 of
them on a little
island in the
middle of the
Panama Canal—slow-moving, gentle
creatures without anything but grinding
teeth. Their fur is grooved and little green
plants, unicellular algae, grow in the fur
helping to camouflage the slow-moving
sloth. Amongst the hairs there are moths—
up to 200 on an individual sloth. Sloth
moths.
What do sloth moths do on sloths?
They are tied to the inexorable process of
the sloth's digestive system. Sloths eat
leaves and leaves are full of cellulose,
extremely difficult to digest. No human
being has a digestive juice to digest cellu-
lose (that's why we can use it as a laxative),
but sloths do it by keeping the food in the
intestinal tract for up to 10 days at a time.
All the bacteria in the gut ferment the
cellulose down to starch and sugar. But that
affects the toilet habits of sloths. They
defecate just once every 7 to 10 days.
Imagine being a sloth nurse and having to
fill in that chart at the end of the bed:
"Bowels moved—no, no, no, no ...."
Finally, that blessed moment arrives when it
descends the tree, digs a hole in the ground,
defecates, and covers it up. And the sloth's
moths have been waiting for that once-in-a-
while event because the feces of the sloth
are the food resource for the next generation
of moths. So the moths fly off the sloth, lay
their eggs on this leaf debris, and fly back.
A formerly independent moth has become
tied to this host just for that degree of
specialization. Sloth feces are the moth's
spinach baby food, both in appearance and
function.
Here's a floral specialization—the
famous Amazonia lily with leaves up to 8
feet across, which you occasionally see
pictures of children standing on as if
they were boats. When people in Britain
built the Crystal Palace for Victoria's
jubilee, they modeled the engineering
structure of the roof after the venation of
the underside of the Amazonia lily leaf
because it supports such a large area
with such small structures. The flower
secretes an odor that smells like decom-
posing animals. It attracts beetles.
When beetles fly in, the flower closes
around them and traps them for the
night, during which time they mill
around and get covered with pollen. In
the morning, the flower opens up and
liberates the beetles dusted all over with
male cells. Then the beetles enter
another flower and get trapped again.
So, they pass pollen from one flower to
another.
My favorite specialization—because
I'm a spider person—is a tarantula-like
spider mat builds a sheet web. Often found
sitting on top of its head, looking a bit like
a crown or a wart, is another spider of a
totally different family. My student, Fritz
Volrath, worked out what the little spider is
doing, and its a wonderful story of living
together. Spiders don't eat solid food.
They digest their food, insects, outside their
bodies by spreading digestive juices on the
prey and then sucking in the digested
"bouillon d' insect" that is created. So the
little spider is waiting for the host to digest
its prey, and then it will climb down its
host's face like a rock climber and slurp up
the "bouillon d' insect" that the host
produced. There wasn't even a name for it
in technical scientific language. We got
into the literature, past an editor who
wasn't really attentive, a new term,
dipsoparasitism, the drinking parasite. Just
marvelously specialized.
Now, I want to highlight the impor-
tance of the tropics to human beings.
Because of all the specialization and
interlinkage, the tropics are the most
complex pharmaceutical factory on earth.
The struggle for life—the battle for exist-
ence is intense, with all the species involved.
It is there that we should look for new
compounds.
Consider the marvelous tactics of the
leaf cutter ant. The ant cuts semicircular
-------
Conference Proceedings
87
sections of leaves, carries them back to its
nest, chews them up, ferments them down
into a compost, and then grows fungus on
the compost. It's a mushroom-growing ant.
It feeds its young and itself on the fruiting
bodies of the fungus. They even take the
old compost out and dump it in a trash
dump. A nest of leaf cutting ants can be the
size of the stage I'm standing on. In the nest
we have at the zoo you could see all these
processes. Eventually, the ants found their
way out of the nest through a crack and
were dumping their trash down the air-
conditioning duct.
Interestingly, 'some leaves are carried
back to the nest and others are rejected. The
ones that are rejected have been found to
contain fungicides that would kill the fungus
garden. These fungicides were not evolved
by the plants to kill ant fungus gardens, but
to kill the fungus that grows all over every-
thing in hot, wet climates. Because there are
more species of fungus in the tropics than
anywhere else in the world, it's there that
you would expect to find a broad-spectrum
fungicide. They tested one of these leaves
from a plant called Hymenia, and it kills
more than 30 different pathogenic fungi.
We might have the cure for athlete's foot as
a result of studying tropical ants.
This is my last story of complexity.
The moth called Eurania looks like a
butterfly, but it's a day-flying moth. It
migrates across the Isthmus of Panama in
enormous numbers every few years'. My
colleague, Neil Smith, found out why it
migrated. It feeds on a jungle vine, the
leaves of which the caterpillar eats. After
three generations of caterpillars have fed on
the vine, somehow or other the plant
counterattacks and makes something in the
leaf that kills the caterpillars. So, the moth
has to pick up its population from where the
leaves are toxic and fly to a place where
they are not toxic. A biochemist at Kew
Gardens who studied the toxic leaves found
an alkaloid of great potential value
(DMDP), a molecular mimic of sugar. It
has a hexagonal molecule just like sugar, but
it is not a hydrocarbon. It is currently being
investigated for its action in the treatment of
diabetes. It also is being investigated as a
suppressant for feeding in insects. If it is
successful in locust control, millions of
people who now die of starvation following
locust plagues might live. And, because
viruses have on the outside of their bodies
complex protein coats that pick up sugars,
it's being tested in the treatment of AIDS.
Now just think. An academic study of a
moth in Panama could lead us to all those
things. And if you studied leaves from the
same plant in areas where the plant had not
been attacked by caterpillars, this compound
would not be present. So, if you go out
prospecting for pharmacological com-
pounds, you need the insight to look where
they are most likely to occur.
So, what can we do about saving the
tropics? There are many different zoo
programs that attempt to save individual
species and then maintain them in zoos or,
where possible, reintroduce them in the
wild. At the National Zoo, we also use the
techniques of in vitro fertilization, specifi-
cally embryo transplants, to save species.
We experimented with domestic cats and
have been successful with tigers. The
process allows us to affect wild populations
where there are genetic problems. In other
words, through in vitro fertilization we can
increase the gene pool.
In addition to these technical, species-
oriented approaches, though, we need to
educate people to understand ecosystem
concepts and the importance of healthy
ecological communities. We need to
educate people to care. That is the responsi-
bility of zoos, natural history museums,
arboretums, botanic gardens, and anthropol-
ogy museums. I am suggesting that the time
has come to replace the zoological park,
where you just see animals, with biological
parks where you can learn the biology that
every person will need to survive in a
democratic society into the 21st century.
Biological literacy, I would argue, is as
important to this stage of human existence
as theology, Latin, and Greek were in the
-------
r
88
Watershed '93
Renaissance. We
really need in-
formal education
systems.
At the
National Zoo, our
new cheetah
exhibit describes
the problems facing
cheetahs. It in-
cludes a cheetah
trail where kids run
along and pretend
to be cheetahs. At
the end of the trail
they can play the
cheetah "Wheel of
Fortune," where
they're asked if
they caught their
prey or not. This is
based on real-life
statistics—how
many times a
cheetah chases prey and how many times it
succeeds in catching the prey. It is sobering
if you dial the wheel and it comes up "Yes,
you caught an impala, but while you were
away a lion ate your cubs." That happens,
and people should learn about it.
We also built a new rainforest exhibit,
Amazonia. The Amazon is the biggest
watershed on earth. It pours 11 times more
water into the Atlantic Ocean than does the
Mississippi/Missouri River system. It is an
enormous river with 2,500 fish species alone
and 90 million people living in the sur-
rounding rainforest. Those people are
destroying the rainforest at an alarming rate
and changing the whole climate of South
America. At the Amazonia exhibit you can
view the environment underwater and then
go upstairs to see what the terrestrial
rainforest looks like. You develop an
understanding of the whole ecosystem.
To finish up, I'd ask you to think
about the Bruegel painting again. If you
destroyed wantonly that great work of art—
slashed it—it would be a crime against
humanity. But somebody, a good art
student somewhere, could paint a reproduc-
tion of it that would satisfy 999 people out
of 1,000 and perhaps even convince the one
who was an expert. But if you eliminate an
animal species like a jaguar, nobody
anywhere can ever put it back.
I'd argue that we are on the verge of
eliminating beautiful, glorious, important,
wonderful, significant animal species on the
biggest scale since the Mesozoic when 60
percent of all life disappeared. We can't
afford to do it! We have only about 10
years to reverse the trends. When I see a
meeting like this, packed with people
concerned about the environment, I think
there's hope. But there's only going to be
hope if you act very, very quickly indeed
not just to save the glories of this country,
but the other 99 percent of life on earth
that's in the tropics. It's in our hands.
Dr. Robinson was introduced by
William Spitzer, Chief of Recreation
Resources Assistance, National Park
Service, Washington, DC,
-------
WATER-SHED ',93
Watershed Management in
Perspective: The Soil Conservation
Service's Experience
Douglas Helms, National Historian
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
sarly recognized the watershed as the
logical unit for organizing one's efforts
to deal with natural resource problems. This
paper will focus on the lessons from SCS's
operation of the Small Watershed Program
authorized in the Watershed Protection and
Flood Prevention Act of 1954. However,
the genesis of ideas about watershed
management or protection, as it relates to
erosion, runoff, sedimentation, and other
watershed environmental issues, goes back
to the origins of the SCS. Some understand-
ing of this context is needed.
Hugh Hammond Bennett, a soil
scientist in the U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, became convinced that soil erosion was
a threat to future food productivity, and
determined that he would work for a
national program to address the problem.
His crusade to convince farmers to use soil-
conserving practices resulted in the creation
of a temporary New Deal agency, the Soil
Erosion Service, in September 1933, and
then the creation of the Soil Conservation
Service with the passage of the Soil Conser-
vation Act on April 27,1935. Earlier, in
1929, he had convinced Congress to fund
soil erosion experiment stations to research
the nature of soil erosion and to devise
means for controlling it.
When Bennett received funds and
some Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC)
camps for labor in 1933, he decided to
concentrate on watersheds near the erosion
experiment stations, where he might use
the results of the research. The significant
lesson is that from the beginning, the early
soil conservationists were concerned with
the cumulative effects of soil conservation
practices on the entire watershed. One of
the more comprehensive of these demon-
stration projects was located in Coon
Valley, Wisconsin, near the erosion
experiment station at La Crosse. The
experience there illustrates the early efforts
in watershed management. Between the
fall of 1933 and June 1935, 418 of the 800
farmers in the valley signed cooperative
agreements. Many of the agreements
obligated the SCS to supply CCC labor as
well as fertilizer, lime, and seed. Farmers
agreed to follow recommendations for
stripcropping, crop rotations, rearrange-
ment of fields, and the conversion of steep
cropland to pasture and woodland. Alfalfa
was a major element in the stripcropping.
Farmers were interested hi alfalfa, but the
cost of seed, fertilizer, and lime to estab-
lish plantings was a problem during the
Depression. Another key erosion-reducing
strategy was improving the soil's water-
absorbing capacity by increased use of hay
and longer crop rotations. A typical 3-year
rotation had been corn, small grain, then
hay (timothy and red clover). Conserva-
tionists advised farmers to follow a 4- to 6-
year rotation of corn and small grain, and 2
to 4 years of hay (alfalfa mixed with clover
or timothy).
Grazing of woodlands had contributed
to increased erosion. Trampling soil and
stripping ground cover reduced the forest's
capacity to hold rainfall and increased
erosion on fields down the slope. Most of
the cooperative agreements provided that
the woodlands would not be grazed if CCC
crews fenced them off and planted seedlings
where needed. SCS also tried to control
gullying, especially when gullies hindered
89
-------
90
Watershed '93
farming operations. While the conservation
measures on cropland would ultimately
reduce sediment being washed into Coon
Creek, streambank erosion was still a
problem. The young CCC enrollees built
wing dams, laid willow matting, and planted
willows to stabilize streambanks.
At the time the Soil Erosion Service
began work, Aldo Leopold was on the
faculty of the University of Wisconsin and
had only recently published his classic,
Game Management. He convinced the Soil
Erosion Service to hire a biologist, Ernest
Holt, to improve the wildlife habitat in the
watershed. Some feeding stations were
established, but generally the schemes to
increase wildlife populations were of a more
enduring nature. Gullies and out-of-the-way
places where the use of farm machinery
ranged from inconvenient to impossible
were prime planting areas for wildlife.
Some farmers agreed to plant hedges for
wildlife that also served as permanent
guides to contour stripcropping. Insofar as
possible, the trees selected for reforested
areas were species that provided good
wildlife habitat (Helms, 1985).
Silting had reduced the creek's
capacity, and sediments during overflows
had been deposited on the flood plain. Early
in the planning stage SCS requested the U.S.
Geological Survey to place instruments on
the stream to collect data on how the land
treatment measures in the watershed were
influencing runoff, erosion, and sedimenta-
tion.
Conservation management measures
throughout the United States varied accord-
ing to the type of agriculture, land use, and
climatic and geographical conditions. But
the Coon Valley project gives us an impres-
sion of what we might generally call
watershed protection in a farming commu-
nity where a variety of measures are used to
retard runoff, enhance infiltration, and
control the movement of water. The term
currently used is total resource management.
Flood control structures were added later at
Coon Creek after SCS received the authori-
ties and funds to build them.
After the passage of the Soil Conser-
vation Act of 1935, SCS began searching
for a method of reaching all of America's
farmers and settled on the conservation
district as a mechanism to bring federal
conservation technical assistance to all the
Nation's farmers. Thereafter much of the
effort of the SCS work was with individual
farmers who had become convinced of the
value of conservation. There was less focus
on concentrating efforts in selected water-
sheds.
But there were engineering works
SCS wanted to install which were too
costly for individual farmers, and which
often benefited a group of landowners.
For instance, the Agency wanted to
provide flood control to agricultural lands
in the upstream tributaries. SCS had also
assumed responsibility within the U.S.
Department of Agriculture for giving
technical advice to farmers on irrigation
and drainage. While the plans were being
approved in Congress for large flood
works such as the Pick-Sloan plan, the
agricultural forces led by the National
Association of Conservation Districts and
the SCS argued for a program of flood
control in upstream small watersheds. The
concept combined structures for flood
control with the idea of reducing erosion,
runoff, flooding, and sedimentation. This
was the "watershed protection" part of the
program (Helms, 1988).
The Watershed Protection and Hood
Prevention Act of 1954 established a
mechanism for SCS to work on small
watersheds of no more than 250,000 acres.
The act originally authorized works for
flood control, but it was quickly amended
to make other objectives eligible for
government financial assistance. As of
March 1993, 1,538 small watershed
projects have been authorized for installa-
tion. Keeping in mind that many projects
involve more than one objective, the
current total figures for purposes are flood
prevention 1,324, drainage 303, irrigation
89, rural water supply 5, recreation 274,
fish and wildlife 96, municipal and
industrial water supply 169, and watershed
protection 236. The major objectives of
watershed protection projects are distrib-
uted among erosion control 156, water
quality 61, and water conservation 9. The
SCS often provided technical assistance
including engineering design. The local
groups had to be organized in a legally
recognized body which could sign agree-
ments with the federal government.
Federal cost-sharing for some aspects such
as floodwater retarding structures might be
as much as 100 percent, while local groups
might have to provide some of the cost-
sharing for other purposes. Typically,
local groups were required to provide land,
easements, and rights-of-way and to
maintain and operate the project.
-------
Conference Proceedings
9i
Local Involvement
Experiences in this program may
well provide some lessons for people
currently interested in watershed manage-
ment, especially to those interested in
water quality. First, the requirement of
local contributions which are necessary for
the project to become operational virtually
guarantees that the local people have to
perceive some value in the project. If this
is the case, then the project also benefits
from the donated time, effort, and re-
sources, financial and otherwise, of the
local community. Decades of debate over
cost-sharing rest on this notion that the
beneficiaries should help pay if indeed
they do benefit.
Understandably, plans for watershed
projects which addressed perceived local
needs were more acceptable than those
written without sufficient attention to local
desires. One recent example from the
Midwest illustrated how watershed planning
teams had best stay in touch with the
clientele. In several cases, SCS found that
local sponsors rejected designs for dams
which, in their opinion, inundated too much
of the valuable agricultural land. The local
sponsors did accept smaller structures that
provided a lesser degree of flood control,
but did not require as much cropland for the
reservoir areas.
In watersheds with a high percentage
of poor people, it is often difficult for the
residents to provide their share of the costs;
therefore, participation would be low,
negating the objectives of the project. In
recognition of this fact, SCS's sociologist
developed a procedure to justify higher cost-
share rates to low-income communities
(SCS, 1991).
Working in smaller watersheds also
has the benefit of making it easier to identify
the beneficiaries of project measures. A
small watershed also makes it possible to
identify those who may contribute lands,
easements, and other goods and services
without reaping benefits. This recognition
does not always resolve disputes, but it at
least helps to clarify the issues involved.
Multidisciplinary Planning
The Hood Control Act of 1936
announced for the first time that assistance
in flood control was a proper role for the
federal government. To try to avoid the
pork barrel odor of congressionally autho-
rized projects, the act stipulated that
"benefits to whomsoever they may accrue
are in excess of the estimated costs." The
ramifications of this provision could hardly
have been foretold, and one of the criticisms
of the act has been that Congress provided
no guidance (Arnold, 1988).
After the passage of the act, social
scientists, especially economists, became
involved in developing analytical proce-
dures. Overall the "cost-benefit" require-
ment meant that some planning, not just
engineering design, had to be involved. It
could easily be argued that earlier planning
teams within SCS might have been more
multidisciplinary than they were, but this
method at least set up the framework to
which other disciplines were added later.
The environmental movement and the
environmental impact statements under the
National Environmental Policy Act also
worked to broaden the disciplines involved
in planning. Other disciplines have become
increasingly involved in planning, such as
plant scientists, landscape architects,
biologists, and sociologists. One of the
results of multidisciplinary planning is that
the planning team is better structured for
working on multipurpose projects.
The addition of beneficial social and
environmental justification in project
approval, where monetary benefits are not
significant, has broadened the possibilities
of innovative watershed projects.
Watershed Interactions
The operation of the small watershed
program has been important in the history of
SCS and the development of soil and water
conservation technology in that it forced the
Agency to look at the interactions of natural
and agricultural systems on the whole
watershed. From the beginning, SCS did a
great deal of research on processes involved
in erosion and the movement of water.
Formulating the watershed protection and
flood control programs made the Agency
begin to examine the interactions of the land
use activities with the natural environment.
Initially, there was much concern with water
and sediment movement. With passage of
the National Environmental Policy Act and
the Clean Water Act, the watershed-based
planning began to incorporate biological and
chemical concerns. While the early con-
cerns were about agricultural land, the
-------
92
Watershed '93
development of expertise in small water-
sheds made it possible to develop hydrology
programs for urban storm water manage-
ment which have been adopted by many
small communities.
Flexibility
Public programs such as the small
watershed program need both flexibility and
accountability. Through the nearly 40 years
of the small watershed program, the
watershed has remained the basic unit upon
which to organize. Over this time, the
objectives of projects have changed due to
the nature of problems as well as the
perceived needs of the public and individu-
als. During the early stages of the program,
farmers often wanted flood control, drain-
age, and irrigation. Rural communities and
towns desired flood control as well as
municipal and industrial water supply. The
1960s war on poverty and rural develop-
ment placed a higher priority on projects
that provided jobs, such as those involving
recreation. Some of the purposes added to
the small watershed legislation, such as
wetlands, fish and wildlife enhancement,
and water quality, clearly have benefits
outside the watershed. One of the lessons of
40 years of operating the program is the
desirability of multiple-purpose projects.
Such projects are favored for approval over
single-purpose projects because they address
more needs; fit the idea of holistic, compre-
hensive, or total resource planning; and are a
better investment of public funds. Obvi-
ously multiple-purpose planning in water-
sheds addresses not only the movement of
soil, water, and chemicals, but also the
economy of the watershed and the whole of
the biological resources in the watershed.
As a practical matter, such projects draw the
support of a larger number of project
sponsors, both within and outside the
watershed area. This point is especially
pertinent to the current interest in water
quality. Multiple-purpose projects are more
likely to get the support of the local land-
owning public.
Another lesson from the small
watershed program is that a wide variety of
project purposes is needed to address
resource problems nationwide. Earlier
emphasis on flood control, especially on
agricultural land, gave preference to certain
areas of the country and often excluded
communities.
Assessment and
Accountability
By formulating a project plan, it is
possible to establish a means of assessing
whether watershed projects do indeed reap
their planned benefits. Nonetheless govern-
ment agencies have been criticized for
seldom, if ever, examining in detail whole
programs or individual projects to ascertain
the results of their actions and the expendi-
ture of public funds. The criticisms pertain
to natural resources areas in general and to
flood control projects in particular (White,
1988). There may be several reasons for
this attitude. Within the SCS, the main
reason has probably been the pressure to use
funds on projects rather than audits.
The fact that watershed planning
activities focus on a problem and its solution
should give us a good opportunity to
evaluate individual projects and the program
as a whole. Learning in the technical and
engineering areas in the SCS has come from
safety inspections, investigations of struc-
tures after major storms, and investigations
of problems. Indeed many advancements in
the engineering and hydrologic discipline
within SCS are closely related to operating
the watershed program. Thus experience
results in program revision, but the evalua-
tion we should look at is more in the area of
retrospectively assessing the costs and
benefits.
As part of the environmental move-
ment there has been a closer look at the
assumptions and actions of federal agen-
cies and a general call for assessment of
programs. The Soil and Water Resources
Conservation Act of 1977 directed SCS to
assess the performance of its programs as a
basis for improvement and for planning
future conservation activities. In 1987,
SCS made the most thorough evaluation to
date. Based on a random selection, the
evaluation captured a reflection of the
watershed program's wide sweep as well
as its success. The evaluation revealed
that actual costs exceeded planned costs by
22 percent, while estimated benefits
exceeded planned benefits by 34 percent.
Rural community benefits exceeded
planned benefits by nearly 200 percent.
The evaluation also included assessments
of the recorded, environmental and social
benefits, which are generally considered
nonquantifiable (SCSf 1987). Evaluations
should be an ongoing aspect of program
administration. The 1990 farm bill directs
-------
Conference Proceedings
93
SCS to carry out evaluations as part of the
program.
There is a clear lesson here for the
current emphasis on water quality. At one
time the claims of famine, soil erosion, and
flood control commanded the public's
attention and goodwill. Expenditures in
these areas went basically unquestioned.
Later there was a demand that public
expenditures in these areas be examined and
justified. Given the complex nature of water
quality and the difficulty of establishing
cause and effect, it is reasonable to expect
future skepticism. Thus one lesson of the
watershed program is to provide a means of
evaluating your program benefits early.
Small watersheds provide a means of
examining intricate problems and devising
innovative solutions. Part of that planning
process should include consideration of the
historical experience of nearly 40 years of
operating the small watershed program.
References
Arnold, J.L. 1988. The evolution of the
1936 Flood Control Act. U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Washington,
DC.
Helms, D. 1985. The Civilian Conservation
Corps: Demonstrating the value of
soil conservation. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 40:184-188.
. 1988. Small watersheds and the
USDA: Legacy of the Flood Control
Act of 1936. In The flood control
challenge, ed. H. Rosen and M. Reuss,
pp. 53-65. Public Works Historical
Society, Chicago, IL.
SCS. 1987. Evaluation of the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention
Program. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, DC.
. 1991. Determining cost-share
rates for watershed protection
projects. Social Sciences Technical
Note no. 1. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Washington, DC.
White, G.F. 1988. When may a post-audit
teach lessons? In The flood control
challenge, ed. H. Rosen and M. Reuss,
pp. 53-65. Public Works Historical
Society, Chicago, EL.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
A Century of Evolution in
Watershed Management in the
U.S. Forest Service
George Leonard, Associate Chief*
U.S. Forest Service, Washington, DC
Origins of Watershed
Management in the
U.S. Forest Service
The U.S. Forest Service began as a
watershed protection agency some 102
years ago. I'd like to share some of
our experiences as managers of 8 percent of
this nation's land base with you today.
From hotly-contested debates of the
1860s in Albany over whether forest lands
in upstate New York should be protected
from the wanton logging and burning of the
times came future leaders of the conserva-
tion movement in America. Two million
acres in the Adirondacks were legislated
into state park status where logging permits
would be required and water supply
watersheds were to be strictly regulated.
Other early conservationists were well
aware of these events and undertook the task
of protecting as much of the western federal
timberlands as possible. There was recogni-
tion that scientific forestry could help
protect domestic water supplies and ensure a
steady supply of water from the mountains
for commercial navigation in rivers of the
valleys below and for irrigation and milling
purposes.
Forest Reserves
Congress debated and rejected many
forestry bills until enacting the Creative Act
in 1891, which authorized the President to
proclaim forest reserves from the public
*Retired since the Watershed '93 conference.
domain. President Harrison acted quickly
to sign the act on March 3 and less than
4 weeks later proclaimed the first forest
reserve, adjacent to Yellowstone National
Park. Soon afterward, the commissioner of
the General Land Office directed field
agents to seek out recommendations for
more forested watersheds suitable for
reserve status. The agents' activity was to
serve as public notice of the intent to
establish a forest reserve. When succeeding
Presidents ignored this crucial public notice
in 1897 and 1907, Congress reacted by
stripping the President of his authority to
proclaim new reserves and nearly canceling
the existing ones.
In the Organic Administration Act of
1897, Congress provided authorization to
move beyond simple protection of the forest
reserves from fire, unregulated logging, and
trespass to a more proactive administration.
This act defined three purposes for which
reserves could be established: securing
favorable conditions of water flows,
providing a steady timber supply, and
improving and protecting the forest within
the reserve boundaries. Congress rejected
language that would have given water use
priority to farmers and corporations,
choosing to delegate broader powers to
regulate land occupancy and use instead.
The reserves were put under the
supervision of a federal officer according to
rules and regulations established by the
Secretary of Interior. Congress transferred
the forest reserves in 1905 from Interior to
Agriculture. The reserves were renamed
national forests in 1907. The rules and
regulations for managing the forests were
95
-------
r
96
Watershed '93
contained in the "Use Book," first issued in
1907. Every ranger and supervisor was
expected to carry out its directions. The
legacy to this day is "Use but don't abuse"
the national forests.
Reclamation Era
The Forest Service had early influence
in shaping the Bureau of Reclamation.
J.W. Powell's 1878 report on arid lands
recommended that the west be divided into
grazing and irrigation districts coinciding
with natural watershed boundaries. Within
those districts, local residents would
exercise full control over all the natural
resources for their benefit. Many dams and
canals would be built. His report did not
receive much support, but in 1888 Congress
gave him the task of surveying potential
reservoir sites and irrigable lands in the arid
west. Before his survey could be completed,
overwhelming opposition by proponents for
creating federal forest reserves and collapse
of the Johnstown dam in the spring of 1889
resulted in its termination by Congress.
This allowed Congress to focus debate on
creation of forest reserves.
Fifteen forest reserves containing over
13 million acres existed by 1893 when a
severe depression stopped irrigation
development dead in its tracks and with it
the call for any more forest reserves.
Further water development had to wait for
congressional passage of the Reclamation
Act in 1902.
Good relationships between foresters
and reclamationists assisted the new
Reclamation Service in quickly reserving
40 million acres in the West, much of it
adjoining the forest reserves. To control the
headwaters of the West's streams, and to
control its remaining reservoir sites was to
control water development. It was a sure
way of blocking speculative water filings
that could have crippled the national
reclamation program in its infancy. Officers
in the Reclamation Service also feared
livestock interests would monopolize the
national forests as they had the public
domain, so they helped forest officers
regulate livestock use. In 1906, the Forest
Service began charging stockmen grazing
fees that were considerably lower than those
charged on private lands or Indian reserva-
tions. The Chief Forester negotiated
contracts with livestock advisory boards as a
means of cutting administrative costs,
ensuring better compliance with grazing
regulations and retaining needed support of
stockmen. Cooperation between the two
agencies suffered in 1908, however, over
Forest Service support of sheep grazing on
drought depleted ranges. The Reclamation
Service wanted sheep removed for water-
shed protection. The former friendship
ended with passage of the Weeks Act in
1911 and the Clarke-McNary Act in 1924,
which shifted monies from arid land
reclamation in the West to purchase of
denuded watersheds in the East for national
forests for flood control, navigation, and
hydroelectric power.
Hydroelectric Projects Era,
1905-1920
These were also the formative years
for the hydroelectric industry, as dam after
dam was built on western rivers to serve the
growing population and demand for
electricity. The Forest Service had to very
quickly develop relationships with busi-
nesses which sought to control water and
hydroelectric power sites for their profit.
The high gradients of mountain rivers were
highly prized by the power companies, but
to build hydroelectric facilities the compa-
nies had to obtain special use permits from
the Forest Service to occupy and use forest
lands needed and pay a modest fee. Fees
were based upon a formula that used the
benefit of the natural flow of the rivers and
their fall, measured in kilowatt hours of
energy metered at the powerhouse. Compe-
tition for valuable waterpower sites was
intense. Before a special use permit could
be issued, the ranger had to report on the use
fees the company should pay as well as
decide necessary stipulations for protection
of any roads, trails, or other improvements
in the project's path. The Forest Service
hired hydropower engineers to help judge
the validity of proposed projects, help
choose the best among them, and suggest
options that promised greater public benefit.
O.C. Merrill was the Forest Service's
chief engineer during the World War I era.
He was the government's foremost expert
on hydroelectric projects and one of the
primary authors of the Federal Power Act of
1920. He insisted that approval to build a
project should be based on the public
benefits to be derived, that preference be
given to municipal or federal applications
that could equal or better private ones, and
-------
Conference Proceedings
97
that a Federal Water Power Commission be
established to improve coordination among
federal departments. As a result, water
developments on a larger scale than previ-
ously practicable could be considered.
Proper management of water resources
located on the national forests was a priority
for the quasi-regulatory Forest Service of
that period.
The Civilian Conservation
Corps Era
The national forests were largely
ignored by the American people until
creation of the Civilian Conservation Corps
(CCC) program by President Roosevelt in
1933. By design, the CCC worked on
projects that were independent of other
public relief programs, which made the
national forests and grasslands ideally suited
for hosting them. The CCC men fought
fires; completed insect and disease control
work; built telephone lines, lookouts, trails,
roads, bridges, tree nurseries, camp and
picnic grounds, and ranger stations; sur-
veyed and mapped; installed soil erosion
and flood control measures; and cleared
streams of debris. In return, the Forest
Service provided men vocational training,
high school and college courses, a paycheck,
and sometimes a career. The_CCC program
generated much goodwill/long-lasting
benefits still found on the public lands, and
local jobs.
Mandates for Cooperation.
1950-1970
The Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act of 1954 directed federal
agencies to cooperate with states and local
entities to plan ways to minimize erosion,
flood, and sediment damage through use of
soil and water protection measures. Many
cooperative river basin planning efforts
ensued and a number of flood control
reservoirs were designed by the Soil
Conservation Service and built by local
sponsors with cost-share monies.
The 1960 Multiple Use-Sustained
Yield Act directed that the National Forest
System be managed for outdoor recreation,
range, timber, watershed, fish, and wildlife
purposes in a multiple use manner for the
sustained production of their goods,
services, and values. The Forest Service
was authorized to cooperate with interested
groups, state and local agencies in the
development and management of the
national forests. During the 1960s and
1970s the Forest Service hired about 300
hydrologists to help make multiple use
surveys and environmental assessments at
the ranger district and forest supervisor
levels. Watershed restoration, streamflow,
and water quality monitoring efforts were
greatly expanded by the energetic cadre of
hydrologists.
Many of these hydrologists were
trained on barometer watersheds where
multiple use activities occurred in basins of
30-100 thousand acres and impacts on water
yield and quality were measured by net-
works of instruments. Intended as applied
research on a watershed scale, the most
significant result of the barometer program
was development of the water yield increase
guides. These guides were used to plan
future timber harvest operations, constrained
by the projected increases in runoff from
past and present logging, road building, fire,
or other changes in forest cover; the inherent
stability of the channels; and how many
acres were available to be in an "equivalent
clearcut condition." This tool was used on
many western national forests for project
and forestwide planning efforts in the 1970s
and 1980s.
Planning Conies of Age
in the 1970s
The Resources Planning Act of 1974
(RPA) directed the Forest Service to assess
the nation's renewable resources on all
forest and range lands and to make compre-
hensive, long range estimates of present and
future uses, demands, and supplies of these
renewable resources. The current RPA
Strategic Plan, prepared in 1990, calls for
the Forest Service to emphasize recreation,
wildlife and fisheries resource enhancement,
environmentally acceptable commodity
production, improved scientific knowledge,
and responsiveness to global resource issues
like climate change.
The long-term strategy for the
management of water, soil, and air resources
on the 191 million acres of national forests
and grasslands is to improve current
resource conditions and protect resource
values. Nonpoint sources of pollution are to
be controlled through the use of best
management practices on all projects and
-------
98
Watershed '93
through restoration of degraded watersheds.
Of the 3,128 watersheds comprising the
National Forest System, 38 percent were in
excellent condition in 1989, 45 percent
required no restoration but were sensitive to
impacts from major storms, and 17 percent
needed capital investments to restore thek
conditions. Our goal by the year 2040 is to
have 53 percent in excellent condition,
40 percent in the sensitive-to-storm impacts
category, and only 7 percent needing
investments.
The National Forest Management
Act amended RPA in 1976 to require
preparation of comprehensive 10-year
plans, using public input, for allocation of
national forest and grassland resources to
various uses for production of goods,
services, or values. The first set of plans
are finished for all 156 forests. Some
forests are already starting on revisions
and amendments. As a result of this major
effort, many thousands of citizens became
involved in forest planning to an unprec-
edented extent; interdisciplinary teams
became a standard way of doing business;
analytical tools improved; and important
relationships with citizens, local officials,
agencies, and tribes have been formed.
We learned that accounting for goods,
services, and environmental quality
produced within watersheds is a very
sensible approach. We identified changes
in expectations, public involvement,
process, and implementation of plans that
are needed to make planning better. I
think other federal and state agencies could
greatly benefit from the last 15 years of
Forest Service planning. We would be
happy to share our learning experiences
with you!
Watershed Research
When the Forest Service was first
established, all of its units were expected
both to manage the land and do research as
part of "scientific forestry." In 1908, the
first Forest Service experiment station was
created at Fort Valley, AZ. It was not long,
however, before the conflict inherent in each
unit trying to accomplish the dual missions
was evident. All research activities were
consolidated into a Branch of Research
under the Chief in 1915.
The first watershed studies were
initiated in 1910 and were on the effects of
cutting forests on streamflow at paired
watersheds at Wagon Wheel Gap in Colo-
rado and in the White Mountains of New
Hampshire. During the 1920s and 1930s,
researchers evaluated techniques for
rehabilitating watersheds previously
degraded by overgrazing and poor logging
practices. Major objectives of these studies
were erosion control and sediment yield.
Other experiments were designed to test
ways to increase the amount of runoff that
could be achieved by altering tree cover in
mountain watersheds.
Much later, watersheds located on the
Forest Service's experimental forests
became the focus of integrated studies
which developed from collaborations of
Forest Service and university scientists.
These studies combined the work of
scientists from a variety of fields, including:
ecology, hydrology, geomorphology,
ground-water geology, fisheries and wildlife
biology, limnology, and remote sensing, to
mention a few. The initial impetus for many
of these multidisciplinary efforts was small
watershed investigations of various land
management practices on water quality.
These experiments were attractive to
researchers interested in ecosystem pro-
cesses because:
• Monitoring nutrients carried in
streamwater from the study water-
sheds provided an integrating
"bottom line" for many linked
processes over the whole landscape,
including soil chemistry, plant
uptake, and ground-water move-
ment. This work became the nucleus
of many nutrient cycling studies.
• Whole watersheds could be manipu-
lated and the effects compared with
similar, control watersheds.
This combination proved to be very
useful scientifically because it provided a
new way of answering questions about the
response of ecosystems to management
practices. At the same time, the use of
undisturbed reference watersheds gave
insights into natural processes and thek
effects on the system. This allowed treat-
ment effects to be separated from natural
variability.
In the late 1970s, the National Science
Foundation (NSF) sought to establish a
system of long-term ecosystem studies
throughout the country. It examined a
number of ecological studies and chose as
its model the integrated watershed research
being done at Forest Service Experimental
Forests at Hubbard Brook in New Hamp-
-------
. Conference Proceedings
99
shire, Coweeta in North Carolina, and
H.J. Andrews in Oregon. NSF has subse-
quently established a network of 17 Long-
Term Ecological Research (LTER) sites
nationwide, with 5 sites located on the Ex-
perimental Forests, including the 3 original
integrated watershed study areas. This has
been a new approach to funding environ-
mental research for the NSF because this
program requires a commitment of at least
20 years. However, this kind of commit-
ment was not new to Forest Service Re-
search. Several of our watersheds have been
studied continuously for over 30 years,
some in excess of 50 years.
The value of such long records of high
quality data to understanding natural trends
and processes is immense, attracting
scientists from many fields to our studies.
The long record of stream water and
precipitation chemistry at these sites now
provides an excellent basis for judging the
effects that gradual alterations such as
global climate change and acid rain are
having on our forests and streams. The
concentration and integration of so many
studies hi the same watersheds has created a
synergistic effect, resulting hi literally
thousands of scientific papers. The scien-
tific productivity and relative cost-effective-
ness of these focused watershed studies
convinced the NSF to adopt them for the
LTER model.
The Forest Service's integrated
watershed studies have some notable
achievements:
• At Hubbard Brook in New Hamp-
shire, 1960s' studies of the cycling
of nutrients through a watershed led
scientists to measurements of the
chemical inputs to a watershed via
precipitation. As a result, the first
long-term evidence of acid rain hi
North America and that long
distance pollutants can be trans-
ported from a source were docu-
mented.
• Research at the H.J. Andrews Forest
in Oregon led to understanding of
many of the watershed processes and
unique features of the old-growth
forests of the Pacific Northwest,
including effects of timber harvest-
ing on these ecosystems. It has been
a testament to the credibility of our
research scientists that their work has
been cited by all sides in the recent
controversies over the cutting of old-
growth forests and the listing of
salmon species in the Pacific
Northwest.
A number of landmark studies have
been made since the 1930s at
Coweeta in North Carolina showing
how road construction practices,
various conversions of forest
vegetation, and forest succession
affect the quantity and quality of
water in southern Appalachian
streams.
Challenges for the 1990s
Recently, the Forest Service formally
adopted an ecological approach to achieve
multiple-use management of the national
forests and grasslands. We will blend the
needs of people and environmental values in
such a way that these lands represent
diverse, healthy, productive, and sustainable
ecosystems. Since forest ecosystems change
over time whether managed by people or
not, our management and care is essential to
providing clean air and water, wildlife and
fish habitats, and many other values. To
make this approach work, the Forest Service
pledges to:
• Actively seek out and incorporate
your views in our decisions.
• Expand conservation cooperation
with state and local officials, the
private sector, conservation
organizations, or interested indi-
viduals.
• Strengthen land manager/research
scientist teamwork to ensure the best
science is being applied in manage-
ment decisions.
This new policy on ecosystem
management will include four basic prin-
ciples for management of the National
Forest System:
• "Take Care of the Land" by protect-
ing or restoring the integrity of its
soils, air, waters, biological diver-
sity, and ecological processes.
« "Take Care of the People and then-
Cultural Diversity" by meeting basic
needs of people who depend on the
land for food, fuel, shelter, recre-
ation, livelihood, and spiritual
renewal.
• "Use Resources Wisely and Effi-
ciently to Improve Economic
Prosperity" of communities by cost-
effective production of natural
resources.
-------
100
Watershed '93
• "Strive for Balance, Equity, and
Harmony Between People and Land"
across interests, regions, and
generations by sustaining the land
community and meeting resource
needs now and for future genera-
tions.
A second challenge for watershed
management will be securing the instream
flows needed for resource management of
the national forests in the western states.
We are involved hi eight active water right
adjudications at this time and have been
filing instream flow and consumptive use
claims in all of them. While preparing,
filing, and defending many thousands of
claims in each basin is costly to us, very
time consuming for our hydrologists and
fishery biologists, and the results quite
uncertain, I believe it is essential work to the
mission of the Forest Service.
Closely related is the need to mitigate
endangered salmon, steelhead, and sea-run
cutthroat trout runs on the Pacific coast.
Many of these fish stocks depend upon
streams with origins in the national forests.
The challenge is to devise effective land
management strategies and practices which
will enhance and protect the habitats needed
for recovery of these endangered fish
species. The Forest Service strategy
includes designation of key watersheds
providing habitat critical for "at risk" fish
stocks, identifying and correcting problem
riparian areas, maintaining habitats currently
in good condition, and restoring degraded
watersheds.
In Conclusion
We are primarily land managers, not
water managers. For a century now, we
have learned that how we administer the
national forests and grasslands does have a
large influence on water quality, quantity,
and sometimes availability. We continue to
practice "Use, but don't abuse the water-
shed" management for the long run. We
think our new emphasis on ecosystems is
both timely and necessary for getting the
latest and best scientific understanding of
watershed processes applied on the ground
hi resolving resource issues.
We want to collaborate with other
members of the federal family, the states,
local agencies, universities, conservation
groups, and the public to resolve water use
issues and make our institutions more
responsive to the public's strong, abiding
interest in the environment. We are halfway
toward our goal of having Forest Service
liaison staff at all U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency regional and headquar-
ters offices. We are active cooperators with
state and federal agencies on many policy
and scientific issues, but more can still be
accomplished. Let's do it!
-------
WATERSHED '93
River Basin Management in the
Tennessee Valley
Robert L. Herbst, Washington Representative
Tennessee Valley Authority, Washington, DC
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
is honored to share our experience in
river management with you. TVA is
recognized as one of the most successful
experiments in developing, managing, and
conserving regional resources in the world.
I sincerely hope that you may benefit from
our experience.
Let me make my point right up front.
TVA's accomplishments stem from one
guiding principle: promoting integrated
water resource management to provide the
most benefit... to the largest number of
resource users ... over the long term
consistent with environmental excellence in
partnerships with people.
Integrated water resource management
is not just a technical exercise. It requires
taking a broad view of all the resources in a
river basin, sharing data, and providing a
mechanism for involving the public in water
resource decisions. It involves managing
conflict in constructive and creative ways.
My purpose today is to tell you about
some of the ways TVA has learned to
maximize water resource benefits and
manage conflicts.
TVA is one of the world's most
famous dam building agencies. Some might
say that it has even become a model or
inspiration for other agencies around the
world pursuing prosperity and development.
Having this reputation and history brings
with it the burden and responsibility to
allow others to benefit from our accumu-
lated experience and knowledge, and to
speak out when asked to give some insight
or advice.
TVA has a long history, but it is
complex, with successes, failures, and some
unresolved questions. TVA has been an
experiment, but the high purpose of being
the first such experiment should be to help
others.
The main message of my being here
today is to argue that we should never be
afraid to reassess our plans. Development is
a complex process, and it is always evolv-
ing. A paradigm, or way of looking at
things, which made perfect sense in the past
is bound to be outdated and superseded by
new realities and scientific knowledge. So,
there should always be a time to review the
past with the critical eye of the present and
concern for the future.
Let me give you a little background on
TVA. TVA is responsible for developing
the resources of the 106,000-square-
kilometer region drained by the Tennessee
River—the fifth largest river system in the
United States, This region encompasses.
parts of seven southeastern states.
We built or acquired 36 dams on the
main river and its tributaries, which we
operate primarily for navigation, flood
control, and hydropower production—the
three priorities established by the TVA Act.
This water control system tamed the
Tennessee River's unpredictable flow,
which once varied from a trickle of about
130 cubic meters per second to a torrent of
over 13,000 cubic meters per second. It also
opened a 1,050-kilometer navigable channel
that links the Tennessee Valley ports, by
way of an inland waterway system, with
ports in 21 states and ultimately with ocean
ports leading to countries around the world.
And, of course, the system helped generate
electric power for industrialization and rural
electrification. We are one of the world's
largest producers of electricity.
We also try to serve a wide range of
secondary objectives—for example, lake
level fluctuations for mosquito control,
101
-------
102
Watershed '93
minimum flow targets near major cities for
assimilative capacity, and improved lake
levels for recreation. In addition, we protect
many rivers which have not been developed.
Development is not always necessary or
desirable.
Water plays a pivotal role in our
region. Our people need and expect an
ample supply of good quality water. And in
my view, they have a basic right to it.
Water is our most valuable natural resource.
It is needed for agriculture, industry, and
homes. We use it for many forms of
recreation. Most important it is life—life for
the tiniest of microorganisms to humankind
itself.
In the Tennessee Valley, water
resource managers face a major challenge to
make sure there is enough water in the right
place at the right time to meet everyone's
needs. Sometimes this causes conflict and
the need to assess priorities. It also means
that somebodies of water—rivers in-
cluded—need not be developed but left free
flowing. Most rivers provide drinking water
supplies, fishery opportunities, recreation,
boating, and many other uses. Depending
on our management, we can provide these
many uses or we can adversely affect one or
more uses.
In the Tennessee Valley, upstream
regions complain that downstream areas get
most of the benefits from TVA's reservoir
operations. Community leaders in upstream
areas—in North Carolina, for example—
want TVA to hold summer lake levels
higher to promote tourism and recreation.
Downstream areas—such as in Alabama—
want minimum flows for good water
quality. And they are opposed to water uses
that interfere with TVA's production of low-
cost hydroelectricity. I will talk later about
how TVA managed to resolve these con-
flicting needs through a process of public
involvement
Transfers of water from the Tennessee
Valley to other regions are small, but the
trend is growing. A major study is under-
way to the south of us to determine how the
city of Atlanta, which will host the 1996
Olympic summer games, can be assured an
adequate long-term water supply. I would
not be surprised to see them look to the
Tennessee Valley for help. But if we
provide water to Atlanta, it will be more
difficult to allocate water in the Tennessee
Valley.
In addition to water supply, people in
our region are becoming more concerned
about water quality and the ecological health
of the water resource. Human activities
affect water quality in the Tennessee Valley
as they do in your area. Animal wastes,
fertilizers, insecticides, soil erosion, and
other agricultural sources plus leachate and
eroding soil from abandoned mining lands
are significant sources of pollution affecting
our lakes and downstream areas. Municipal
and industrial pollution can cause problems,
too, even though these sources are con-
trolled by state and federal regulations.
The Tennessee River is like a common
thread tying together the almost eight
million people who live in the watershed. It
gives the Tennessee Valley its common
identity. But, as you may know, the
Tennessee Valley is a diverse region. It's
divided into 7 states and 125 counties. And
it varies widely in topography, as well as
rainfall and runoff. These political bound-
aries and physical differences obviously
cannot be ignored. And I want to briefly
describe some of the institutional arrange-
ments that have helped TVA overcome
them.
When TVA was established in 1933, it
was charged with a broad mission in serving
the needs of the region. The people who
wrote the TVA Act understood the intimate
connections between the river, the land, and
the economy of the region. One of TVA's
first Board members, David Lilienthal, had
this to say about TVA's purpose. It was, he
said, to develop the Tennessee River Valley
"in that unity with which nature herself
regards resources ... the waters, the land,
and the forest together ... a seamless web
... of which one strand cannot be touched
without affecting every other strand for
good or ill."
TVA's underlying philosophy is that
resources should be developed, protected,
and used wisely to meet present needs, but
they also must be conserved to be passed on
to future generations. A controlling
principle of TVA operations is the concept
of multiple-use management—use of a
resource to meet more than one objective.
Established by an act of Congress in
1933, TVA is not part of any other depart-
ment or agency. It is a separate govern-
ment-owned corporation, combining many
powers of the federal government with
much of the flexibility and independence of
a private business. TVA has broad regional
authority, which makes us an effective agent
of change for developing and managing
resources across state and local political
-------
Conference Proceedings
1O3
boundaries in the Tennessee Valley region.
The TVA Board decides on major programs,
organization, and administrative relation-
ships, which allows us to modify our
organization and to redirect our efforts
quickly as new problems and needs arise.
One of TVA's most important
responsibilities is to maximize the benefits
of the region's water resource. We have
direct responsibility for managing the water
control system on the Tennessee River. But
jurisdiction over other water resource issues
in the Tennessee Valley is shared by many
different federal, state, and local government
entities. TVA does not—and cannot—
dictate change. We must accomplish our
management objectives and our water
resource development projects through
cooperative partnerships with other govern-
ment agencies, businesses and industries,
private organizations, citizen groups, and
individual water users.
TVA's cooperation with others has
been expanded to include interactions before
and during investigation of potential
problems as well as after problems have
been defined. Before undertaking any major
monitoring, analysis, planning, or manage-
ment programs for an area, TVA now first
conducts an issues analysis to determine
what information is already available from
other agencies or organizations and to
determine local perceptions of problems.
This helps avoid needless duplication of
effort and often saves valuable time. It also
directs attention to problems that might
otherwise go unnoticed. An issues analysis
usually begins with interviews of officials of
State and local environmental agencies,
public health agencies, and planning
organizations. These interviews seek to
identify recent data from various sources,
assess local perceptions of water quality
related to local use patterns, and identify
local organizations and individuals who may
have concerns or information about poten-
tial problems. Many problems can be
addressed and resolved before a project
takes place in just this way. And in some
cases a decision is made not to build
facilities or even to halt construction of
facilities once started (often additional facts
are uncovered).
However, sometimes analysis and
planning before development of a major
project is not enough. Major water develop-
ment projects have the potential for having
significant impacts on social, economic, and
environmental aspects of a community.
Those impacts need to be assessed both
before and during the construction process
itself.
Let me give you an example of where
TVA involved the public to the enormous
benefit of all involved. The public is able to
give us more ideas, than we have, document
additional facts, and give us their views on
values and wants. In reassessing our
"reservoir operating plan," it was decided to
apply the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA) process to this study. The
NEPA process is the law hi the United
States that requires all federal projects to be
assessed for their social, economic, and
environmental impacts and to involve the
public in the review. But using the process
for reassessment was our own decision.
It was decided at the outset to apply
the NEPA process to this study, so an
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was
prepared in concert with the reevaluation.
This decision immediately became a cause
of great concern, and understandably so
since many decision-makers traditionally
have felt that environmental impact assess-
ments required by NEPA are more a
hindrance than a help.
However, TVA's experience hi
reassessing our reservoir operating plan
(which we named the Lake Improvement
Plan) under NEPA rules demonstrated that
the Act helps administrators make better
decisions and can strengthen an agency's
relationship with the public it serves. By
getting all interested parties involved in
the process of identifying relevant issues
and evaluating alternatives, NEPA pro-
motes creative problem-solving and
increases public support for resulting
decisions.
This represented a remarkable
turnabout. Conventional wisdom had held
that additional water quality and recreation
benefits could only be provided at great
sacrifice to navigation, flood control, and
particularly, hydroelectric power produc-
tion. As things turned out, this was not the
case.
It is unlikely that the excellent results
obtained from this exercise would have been
realized without following NEPA proce-
dures and by vigorously incorporating
public input in the entire planning process.
In this case, the value of NEPA was in the
creation of a "level playing field" on which
all participants had an equal chance to voice
their arguments and review and challenge
the arguments of opposing interests.
-------
104
Watershed '93
The interests of all who use the river
system—including TVA's own management
interests—were considered systematically
and openly. The Lake Improvement Study
was conducted in four phases of decision
analysis. In each, alternatives were identi-
fied, evaluated by TVA staff, and appraised
by TVA management and representatives of
river system beneficiaries and user groups.
The scope of inquiry in each phase nar-
rowed gradually to focus on key consider-
ations of importance to the decision-maker.
The results of each phase guided the study
team in the next phase.
Phase 1 identified major issues to be
addressed, which included involving the
public as well as TVA's internal analysis.
Phase 2 focused on development of
alternative strategies for reservoir opera-
tions. Minimum flows were identified that
would help ensure improved aquatic habitat
while achieving desked lake level improve-
ments. Various schemes for extending
higher summer lake levels were investigated
to determine what effects these would have
on hydropower costs. A key finding was
that costs did not increase in a precise, linear
way when reservoir drawdowns were
delayed until late summer and fall. How-
ever, it was found that if summer draw-
downs were delayed until September or
later, it would be much more expensive than
if lake levels were maintained only until
August 1.
Phase 3 fully evaluated the effects of
the various alternatives on water releases
and lake levels. During Phase 3, a newspa-
per was distributed to the public summariz-
ing the results of the public meetings and
internal analyses along with other findings
from the first two phases of the study.
Additional comments were also solicited.
Phase 4 clarified the decision basis—
internally with TVA staff and management
and externally with the public. Significant
effort was expended to get a clear under-
standing of the values held by the various
stakeholders.
The draft Lake Improvement Plan, in
the form of a preliminary draft EIS, was
then issued for public review in January
1990. This was accompanied by a newspa-
per that summarized the draft statement;
reported preliminary study results in clear,
nontechnical terms; and explained how
various factors were balanced to select
preferred options and reject other options.
This newspaper also announced 12 public
meetings at which the public could provide
their comments on the draft EIS directly to a
top TVA executive (in most cases, a
member of the TVA Board).
When the final EIS was completed, a
fourth newspaper was published to explain
the decisions that had been reached, point
out changes made since the draft was
reviewed, and thank those who participated
in the review.
Following the mandatory 30-day
waiting period, the TVA Board formally
approved the plan in February 1991. Hearty
applause by citizens attending the meeting
greeted the decision. Another less vocal
indication that the NEPA process had
worked extremely well is found in the fact
that most newspapers ignored the announce-
ment of the Board's action, or relegated it to
a small notice on an inside page. In other
words, the controversy that surrounded the
issue at the beginning of the study had
dissipated; it was no longer news.
This outcome could hardly have been
predicted three years earlier when the study
began. Based on previous TVA experience,
it was more likely that internal stalemate or
public controversy would have caused the
study to be aborted or would have resulted
in a finding that preserved the status quo.
Because the NEPA process was
employed so aggressively, the agency's final
decision was rendered virtually "bullet-
proof." The process had provided numerous
opportunities for all relevant interests to
express their views—and challenge the
views of others—as the decision base was
being constructed. This iterative decision-
analysis process strengthened both the
quantity and quality of the information base,
minimizing the chance that critical issues
might be overlooked. Too, it allowed for
mid-course corrections and kept the focus of
the study upon the issues most likely to
affect the decision. Conflicts were resolved
before documents were prepared and
decisions made. Finally, because people are
more likely to support a decision in which
they were involved, the final decision was
readily accepted.
Why was TVA able to use the NEPA
process successfully in reviewing its
reservoir operating priorities?
• First, the NEPA process was not an
add-on to the decision-making
process, but was fully integrated into
it. Alternatives were developed in
concert with all interested river
system user groups, and this creative
exchange of ideas was used to
-------
Proceedings
105
develop alternatives which met the
needs of the greatest number of river
users without risking unacceptable
impacts on the system's original
operating objectives: flood control,
navigation, and power production.
True, the TVA study took 41 months
to complete, but the time required
for so far-reaching a decision was ,
much shorter than it would have
been had NEPA not been applied at
the very beginning of the planning
process. Agencies often spend much
time identifying and evaluating
alternatives before they implement
the NEPA process.
• Second, the TVA study addressed all
environmental, economic, and social
issues rather than avoid the conflicts
inherent in these issues. Voluminous
and confusing EISs are a symptom
of conflict avoidance rather than
conflict resolution. The TVA study
team focused on addressing and
resolving conflicts and presenting
findings clearly and succinctly in the
EIS. In reviewing its lake operating
policies, TVA went beyond the
minimum requirements of NEPA.
The emphasis was put on external
communications, involving the
public, and the four-phase decision
analysis process.
Since implementing the Lake Im-
provement Plan, TVA has carefully moni-
tored results and has found no significant
problems.
The lake improvement plan is an
excellent example of a project that was
already operating and functional and was
tremendously improved by educating the
public to the issues and involving them in
the analysis, review, and decision-making
process. As a result, the new reservoir
operating plan not only benefited more
people in more ways, but also unproved the
goodwill of the public and insured that
future projects would run much more
smoothly.
What I've described is a relatively
new role for TVA and it requires some new
skills. We've finished developing the water
resources of the Tennessee Valley. And
now our job is to manage the water control
system we have put into place.
Where planners and engineers once
dominated the agency, now we're relying
more and more on experts in facilitation,
conflict resolution, and management, and we
use the advise of outside organizations and
even create advisory groups.
In water resource situations, the
playing field is inherently unbalanced. That,
is, the many different groups with a stake in
the water resource do not have equal
opportunity to participate in the decision
making process. Some interest groups find
it hard to get a hearing because they are up
against existing laws or because they lack
resources or expertise. As a result, change is
extremely difficult, and the decision makers
do not always make the best decision. At
TVA, we've found that creating a level
playing field—giving everyone an equal
hearing—is crucial to maximizing water
resource benefits.
I realize that much of what I've said
here today isn't new to you. You under-
stand how water connects people and the
land. And you know that conflicts among
competing uses cannot be avoided in
managing a river basin for multiple pur-
poses.
But I hope you'll take this message to
heart. It's based on TVA's 60 years of
experience. Water resource conflicts can be
solved. There are solutions out there where
everyone wins—solutions that maximize
benefits for all river system users without
degrading the resource or sacrificing
anyone's opportunity to use it. They aren't
easy to find. It takes time and controversy is
inevitable.
But we have been successful at TVA
because we have a regional scope of
operation and perspective. We have the
technologies necessary to manage water
flows. We have data from a fully integrated
water quality and aquatic biology monitor-
ing system. We have a solid framework for
working cooperatively with the Valley states
and other federal agencies. And we're
getting better at building the coalitions—the
partnerships—necessary to solve today's
water resource issues with our citizens.
Recently, after 6 years of comprehen-
sively monitoring the water resources of the
Tennessee Valley, a colorful and informa-
tive publication—RiverPulse— has been
published to report on the water quality and
current status of the entire Tennessee River
system annually.
RiverPulse includes an overview of
the river's health, answering basic ques-
tions: "Is the water safe for swimming?
Are the fish safe to eat?" "How healthy is
this lake or stream?" Release of the first
issue of this report in July 1992 generated
-------
106
Watershed '93
a great deal of public interest with over
1,000 telephone requests for copies in the
first 2 weeks after the initial release, and
over 60,000 copies being distributed
around the Valley, to lake users, marinas,
and recreational areas. The publication
also contains discussions of some of the
concerns facing river managers, such as
aquatic plants and zebra mussels, as well
as operation information on navigation,
flood control, and the benefits of hydro-
electric power. TVA's past Chairman
John Waters described the effort as
representing a milestone in river manage-
ment. At a recent briefing he said, "With
the kind of information in the RiverPulse
report, agencies and individuals will be
able to form grass-roots coalitions and
partnerships to take the actions necessary
to keep the river healthy and clean."
Looking to the future, we are planning
to build an international campus where
scientists, business and political leaders, and
land managers among others can come to
study, learn from each other, and work
together to resolve common environmental
and economic problems. We hope it will be
an institution and process others will want to
replicate.
Our biggest challenge is to facilitate
management in the gray area between
technical feasibility and political reality.
That involves flexibility, sharing data,
public participation, and a cooperative, open
decision process. This is the most important
lesson I can share with you from TVA's
experience. I think it's vital to overcoming
inertia and to creative problem solving in
the water resources field.
Let me offer you TVA's assistance. If
you think our experience might be useful,
we would be happy to help you meet your
region's water resource needs or send you
additional information.
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
Evolution of Watershed
and Management in National
Water Policy
Amy Doll, Policy Analyst
Apogee Research, Inc., Bethesda, MD
National water policy initiatives over
the last 100 years have considered
watershed planning and management
as an approach to improve our nation's
water programs. Watershed planning and
management can occur at a range of
geographical scales, from the drainage
basins of major river systems to small urban
or rural watersheds. At the largest scale, the
river basin approach has been an important
concept hi the evolution of national water
policy beginning with the Progressive Era
from 1890-1920. Numerous commissions
established to study national water policy
have recommended a comprehensive,
multipurpose, river basin approach to water
planning and management along with
improved interagency and intergovernmen-
tal coordination. During the period from the
mid-1930s through the 1960s, however,
Congress acted to authorize many large-
scale water resources development projects
often justified primarily for navigation or
flood control.
The federal government began to
implement a river basin approach to water
resources planning under the Water Re-
sources Planning Act of 1965. River basin
planning activities under the act, however,
focused primarily on water resources
development at a time when public concerns
were shifting to water quality and environ-
mental protection. Although the 1980s saw
the demise of federal river basin planning,
the multiple-objective planning procedures
developed to implement the act have
continued to evolve and influence federal
water resource agencies' programs and
policies. The sections below provide an
overview of the history of the comprehen-
sive multipurpose river basin approach to
watershed planning and management.
1890s-1920s—Emergence of
the Concept of a River Basin
Approach
The concepts of comprehensive
multipurpose river basin planning and
interagency coordination were first intro-
duced by several reports under the adminis-
tration of President Theodore Roosevelt at
the height of the conservation movement
during the first decade of the 20th Century
(Holmes, 1972; Shad, 1989). The 1908
Inland Waterways Commission report and
the 1909 National Conservation Commis-
sion report recommended comprehensive
water resources planning for all purposes
(including water pollution control) and
creation of a National Waterways Commis-
sion to coordinate among all federal
agencies involved hi water resources
activities. A 1912 report issued by the
National Waterways Commission made
recommendations for coordinating federal
water resources development programs,
which were never implemented. The 1917
Newlands Act authorized a waterways
commission to develop multipurpose water
resources development plans; however, the
commission was never created primarily
because of World War I. Meanwhile,
persistent problems with flooding on the
lower Mississippi River led Congress to
authorize federal funding for levee construc-
tion to control flood damages.
107
-------
108
Watershed '93
The great 1927 flood in the lower
Mississippi River Valley spurred reconsid-
eration of the earlier congressional policy to
rely on levee construction for flood control.
The 1927 Rivers and Harbors Act autho-
rized the Corps of Engineers (COE) to
conduct surveys of most navigable streams
in the United States, which became the basic
river planning documents for the next
several decades. Known as the 308 reports,
these basinwide plans addressed hydro-
power, navigation, flood control, and
irrigation potential and defined benefit-cost
analysis for evaluation of proposed water
resources development projects. The 308
reports reflected the shift in emphasis to
engineering control of whole river systems
rather than targeting flood control measures
to the location of flood damages (Rosen and
Reuss, 1988).
1930s-!960s—An Era of
Large-Scale Water Resources
Development
Under President Franklin D.
Roosevelt, comprehensive development of
river basins was seen as a means to promote
social and economic change as exemplified
by the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA).
Roosevelt created the National Resources
Committee and its successor, the National
Resources Planning Board to develop a
comprehensive river basin planning and
development program (Holmes, 1972; Shad,
1989). These efforts were circumvented,
however, when the great floods of 1935 and
1936 in the northeastern United States again
turned congressional attention to flood
control. The 1936 Flood Control Act
established a national water policy focused
on structural flood control measures, which
were the accepted practice at the time, and
began an era of dam building by COE
(Rosen and Reuss, 1988).
Tennessee Valley Authority
Under the Tennessee Valley Authority
Act of 1933, Congress created TVA during
the first 100 days of President Franklin D.
Roosevelt's New Deal (Holmes, 1972).
TVA was authorized as an independent
water management agency with broad
powers to manage water resources for
navigation, flood control, and hydropower
and a mission to promote regional economic
development in the Tennessee River Valley.
TVA built 20 multipurpose dams on the
Tennessee River and its major tributaries by
1953. Although many regarded TVA as a
success in promoting regional economic
development, attempts to create similar
authorities for other river basins in the
United States (most notably for the Missouri
and Columbia River Valleys during the late
1940s and early 1950s) were unsuccessful.
Flood Control Act of 1936
In a declaration of policy, the Flood
Control Act of 1936 stated that flooding is a
problem of national significance and
recognized that flood control on navigable
waters or their tributaries is "a proper
activity" of the federal government in
cooperation with states and localities. The
act authorized construction of flood control
projects by the federal government, if "the
benefits to whomsoever they may accrue are
in excess of the estimated costs." Responsi-
bility for flood control improvements on
rivers and waterways was given to COE and
responsibility for flood control improve-
ments in watersheds to the United States
Department of Agriculture, with no mecha-
nism for coordination between the two
agencies. The act authorized over 200
projects, primarily from the 308 reports,
with most projects justified for the single
purpose of flood control. Even so, by the
mid-1930s, federal agencies also considered
navigation, hydropower, and irrigation as
accepted purposes for federal water re-
sources projects. Cost-sharing requirements
specified in the act called for non-federal
interests to pay for up to one-half of project
costs. To implement the act, COE began
applying benefit-cost analysis to estimate
the net national economic benefits of project
alternatives and made recommendations to
Congress about water projects based on the
criteria of "national economic efficiency"
(Rosen and Reuss, 1988).
The 1938 Flood Control Act autho-
rized additional projects and removed the
cost-sharing requirements for flood control
reservoirs and channel improvements.
Consequently, local interests could obtain
federal funds for water resources develop-
ment projects under an almost 100 percent
federally funded construction program. The
1941 Flood Control Act restored the cost-
sharing requirements for channel improve-
ments, which in effect gave local interests a
bias toward reservoir plans. The Flood
Control Act of 1944 authorized numerous
-------
Conference Proceedings
tO9
additional projects, including 11 watershed
programs as authorized under the 1936 act.
The 1944 act also broadened the purposes of
federal water resources projects by estab-
lishing recreation as an appropriate purpose
of COE reservoirs, authorizing contracts for
the sale of surplus water for municipal and
industrial use, and placing irrigation use of
water from COE reservoirs under federal
reclamation law. The Water Supply Act of
1958 declared a federal policy to provide
storage for municipal and industrial water
supplies as a purpose of federal reservoirs.
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of
1958 established fish and wildlife manage-
ment as appropriate concerns of federal
water resources management. Although
projects could consider multiple purposes,
they were not formed or evaluated within an
established framework for comprehensive
river basin planning and management.
Additional major authorizations of flood
control projects occurred periodically
through the late 1960s (Rosen and Reuss,
1988; Holmes, 1972).
In response to concerns about the
costs of federal water resources develop-
ment projects and the lack of a comprehen-
sive federal water policy, many efforts were
made during the late 1940s-1950s to
establish a national water policy. The first
Hoover Commission in 1949 proposed
combining almost all of the federal water
resources programs into a single cabinet
department to minimize conflicts and.
centralize decision making. President
Truman's Water Resources Policy Commis-
sion in its 1950 report proposed interagency
river basin commissions with participation
by the states that would develop programs
for comprehensive water resources develop-
ment. This report also prompted the Office
of the Budget to develop Circular A-47,
which was issued in 1957, outlining
standards for evaluating water projects.
President Eisenhower created a Presidential
Advisory Committee on Water Resources
Policy that issued a 1955 report calling for
the President to appoint a water resources
policy coordinator and an independent
review board to evaluate water resources
project and basin plans, which would be
prepared by basin-level committees. The
1955 report of the second Hoover Commis-
sion recommended creation of a water
resources board in the Executive Office of
the President to coordinate agency planning
and to establish intergovernmental, inter-
agency river basin commissions. In the
1950s, Congress generally resisted efforts
by the Eisenhower Administration to
increase cost sharing by local beneficiaries
of water projects and curtail federal spend-
ing for water resources development
programs. Also during the 1940s-1950s,
geographers and some other water profes-
sionals argued that federal flood control
projects along with the trend to greater
urbanization had encouraged floodplain
occupance and actually led to increases in
annual flood damages since the 1936 Flood
Control Act (Holmes, 1972; Shad, 1989).
1960s-1970s—The Federal
Government Attempts to
Implement a River Basin
Approach
In response to concerns about the
fragmented nature of federal water resources
programs, the Senate created a Select
Committee on National Water Resources to
establish a basis for national water policy. A
report to the Committee on water pollution
control needs by the Public Health Service
introduced the concept of water quality
management as a way to meet water
quantity needs. The Senate Select
Committee's 1961 report recommended that
the federal government prepare and keep up-
to-date plans for the comprehensive devel-
opment and management of water resources
for all major river basins, improved coordi-
nation among federal water programs,
periodic assessments of water supply-
demand relationships for all major river
basins, and grants to the states to stimulate
their participation hi water programs. In
1961, President Kennedy submitted to
Congress a water resources planning bill
based on the Senate Select Committee's
recommendations and created an interde-
partmental committee to study policies,
standards, and procedures for formulation
and evaluation of water projects. The
interdepartmental committee's 1962 report,
published as Senate Document 97, directed
that project plans should consider multiple
purposes and be formulated within the
framework of a comprehensive river basin
plan (Holmes, 1979). After 4 years of
debate, Congress enacted the Water Re-
sources Planning Act of 1965 and the
federal government began to implement a
river basin approach to water resources
planning and to develop multiple-objective
planning procedures to guide decision
-------
110
Watershed '93
making for federal water resources pro-
grams.
Water Resources Planning Act of
1965
The Water Resources Planning Act of
1965 established the Water Resources
Council (WRC) to implement a national
strategy for planning for water and related
land resources in 21 water regions (Holmes,
1979; NWC, 1973). The act authorized
some of the steps outlined in the Senate
Select Committee's 1961 report, including
preparation of a national assessment of
regional water supply and demand, studies
of mechanisms for improving coordination
among federal water resources programs and
policies, and state planning grants. The act
began the most notable of the federal
attempts to implement a river basin ap-
proach to water resources planning under
the Title II River Basin Commissions and
directed the WRC to establish principles,
standards, and procedures for federal
participation in river basin planning and for
formulation and evaluation of water
projects.
The Water Resources Council
The WRC was established within the
Executive Branch and the statutory members
consisted of the cabinet secretaries relevant
to water resources development—the
Secretaries of Interior; Agriculture; Army;
and Health, Education, and Welfare and the
Chairman of the Federal Power Commis-
sion. Under the Department of Transporta-
tion Act of 1966, the WRC was expanded to
include the Secretary of Transportation. In
addition to these statutory members, WRC
regulations provided for associate members
that could participate in WRC meetings, but
their concurrence was not required for WRC
decisions. Associate members included the
Secretaries of Commerce and Housing and
Urban Development, and the Administrator
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Attorney General, Chairman of the
Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ),
Director of the Office of the Budget, and
Chairmen of the Tide II River Basin
Commissions often participated in WRC
meetings as observers. Most of WRC's
work was conducted by a council of
representatives designated by the statutory
members; the WRC staff; administrative and
technical committees with representatives of
members, associate members, and observer
agencies; and special interagency task forces
(Holmes, 1979).
In implementing the act, WRC's river
basin planning and federal policy coordina-
tion efforts generally focused on federal
agency water resources development
activities. However, as noted in the 1973
report of the National Water Commission
(created by the National Water Commission
Act of 1968 to conduct a 5-year study of
National Water Policy), many policy makers
during this period were emphasizing the
need for a shift in focus from water re-
sources development to water quality and
environmental protection. Political support
for WRC activities was adversely affected
by the environmental movement of the
1960s-1970s, which questioned the justifica-
tion for major federal water resources
development projects. The National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA),
which required preparation of an environ-
mental impact statement on every major
federal action, brought increased attention to
environmental quality concerns in federal
water resources project planning. In
addition, while the Water Resources
Planning Act encouraged direct participation
by state representatives in the planning
process (including Title II River Basin
Commissions), lack of representation from
local governments and the private sector
made it difficult to develop strong local
political support for WRC's planning
activities. In the 1970s, the number of WRC
meetings declined as well as the political
support of the Secretary of Interior, who
served as Chairman. With the 1980 budget
proposal, President Reagan eliminated
funding for the WRC.
Title II River Basin Commissions
Title II of the Water Resources
Planning Act authorized the establishment
of federal-state regional institutions called
river basin commissions (Holmes, 1979;
NWC, 1973). The Title II River Basin
Commissions had no authority to own,
construct, or operate projects; to regulate or
manage river flow; or to regulate or manage
water supply, water quality, or shoreline
land use. Consequently, river basin com-
missions created under the act were plan-
ning institutions with no direct powers to
implement plans once they were developed.
Lack of authority for water management
distinguished Tide II River Basin Commis-
-------
Conference Proceedings
sions from other river basin commissions
created by federal-interstate compacts (e.g.,
the Delaware River Basin Commission,
which was created in 1961) and interstate
compacts (e.g., the Interstate Commission
on the Potomac River Basin, which was
created in 1940).
The President established Title II
River Basin Commissions by Executive
Order upon written request of the WRC or
a state. The act required the concurrence
of WRC and at least half of the states in
the area, basin, or group of basins involved
before establishment of such commissions.
If either the Upper Colorado River Basin
or Columbia River Basin were to be
included in a river basin commission, the
act required concurrence of at least three of
four specifically named states in the basin.
The President appointed the members of
Title II River Basin Commissions, which
included a chairman, representatives from
each federal department or independent
agency with substantial interest in the
work of the commission, representatives
from each state and any interstate compact
agencies in the basin, and U.S. representa-
tives from any international treaty organi-
zation with jurisdiction in the basin
(Holmes, 1979).
Seven Title II River Basin Commis-
sions were established: the Pacific North-
west, Great Lakes, Souris-Red-Rainy, and
New England in 1967; the Ohio in 1971;
and the Missouri and Upper Mississippi
River Basin Commissions in 1972. Thirty-
two states were members of one or more of
the seven Tide n River Basin Commissions.
While the Souris-Red-Rainy River Basin
Commission disbanded after completing a
comprehensive plan, the other six commis-
sions were active until President Reagan
eliminated funding for Title II River Basin
Commissions hi 1981.
Under the act, the statutory duties of a
Titie n River Basin Commission were to
serve as the principal agency for coordina-
tion of federal, state, interstate, local, and
nongovernmental plans for water and related
land resources development in the basin; to
prepare and keep up-to-date a comprehen-
sive, coordinated, joint plan for develop-
ment of the water and related land resources
of the basin, including an evaluation of
alternative means of achieving optimum
development and recommendations with
respect to individual projects; to recommend
priorities for data collection and analysis
and for investigation, planning, and con-
struction of projects; and to foster and
undertake studies necessary to prepare its
comprehensive plan.
Title II River Basin Commissions
were required to submit their comprehensive
plans to the WRC, which reviewed them and
developed recommendations that were
forwarded along with the plan to the
President. The President reviewed WRC's
recommendations and the comprehensive
plan, and transmitted them to Congress with
his recommendations. The comprehensive
plans typically placed a heavy emphasis on
federal water resources development
projects.
Principles and Standards
In 1968, under section 103 of the
Water Resources Planning Act, the WRC
began to develop principles and standards
for planning for water and related land
resources, which became effective in
October 1973. Known as Principles and
Standards (P&S), the principles were
intended to provide a broad policy frame-
work for water resources planning activi-
ties and the standards to provide for
uniformity and consistency in formulating
alternative plans and in evaluating the
beneficial and adverse effects of alterna-
tive plans. Initially, federal water re-
sources agencies (e.g., die Corps of
Engineers, Bureau of Reclamation, and
Soil Conservation Service) and federally
assisted programs (including the Tide II
River Basin Commissions) were given die
responsibility to develop procedures within
die framework of P&S.
President Carter's water policy
initiatives of 1978 called for reforms hi
agency planning because of growing
concern about inconsistent use of economic
analyses among federal water resources
agencies and a lack of attention to environ-
mental values in die planning and evaluation
of federal water resources programs and
projects. A July 12, 1978, Presidential
Memorandum directed die WRC to conduct
a thorough evaluation of agency practices
for preparing benefit-cost analyses and
publish a planning manual that would
ensure accurate and consistent analyses
among federal agencies as well as compli-
ance with P&S. The memorandum also
required emphasis on water conservation
and consideration of nonstractural alterna-
tives, which reflected a general shift in
accepted flood control practices toward a
-------
112
Watershed '93
greater balance between structured flood
control projects and nonstructural manage-
ment. The shift to increased nonstructural
water resources management in national
policy had begun early with the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968, which
required communities to adopt floodplain
regulations to be eligible for federal
insurance. The WRC developed planning
guidance to assist states and communities in
regulating flood hazard areas under the 1968
act Other changes in policy direction
occurred with the Water Resources Devel-
opment Act of 1974, which directed all
federal agencies to consider nonstructural
alternatives when considering any project
involving flood protection. President
Carter's Executive Order 11988, issued hi
1977, provided for federal agency leadership
in floodplain management for federal lands
and facilities, federally assisted programs,
and federal water and related land resources
planning. Floodplain management, how-
ever, is largely a local program (Rosen and
Reuss, 1988).
The 1973 P&S was revised during
1979 to integrate water conservation into
project and program planning, to require
preparation of at least one primarily
nonstmctural plan whenever structural
project or program alternatives were
considered, to revise the major decision
criteria to place national economic develop-
ment and environmental quality objectives
on a comparable basis, and to incorporate
revisions to ensure that benefits and costs
were estimated with the best current
techniques. In 1980, the WRC made
additional revisions to P&S to define
environmental quality objectives more
specifically. The WRC's environmental
quality evaluation procedures for water
resources planning integrated into P&S the
requirements of section 102(2)(b) of NEPA
(which required that previously unquantified
environmental amenities and values be
given appropriate consideration in decision
making by federal agencies) and CEQ
NEPA regulations.
P&S was based on multiple-objective
planning techniques developed by agency
and academic water professionals during the
1960s-1970s (ACIR, 1992; Holmes, 1979).
Multiple-objective analysis allowed for
evaluation of trade-offs among four ac-
counts: National Economic Development
(NED), Environmental Quality (EQ),
Regional Economic Development (RED),
and Other Social Effects (OSE). These
accounts would allow for systematic
evaluation of the estimated beneficial and
adverse effects on each objective of each
project alternative and the "without project"
alternative using monetary measures
wherever possible. The decision criteria in
P&S proposed an explicit trade-off between
the NED and EQ accounts. In practice,
trade-offs within the scope of economic
objectives could be defined by monetary
values through benefit-cost analysis, similar
to the traditional analytical procedures used
for economic justification of projects
beginning with the 1936 Flood Control Act.
However, it was difficult to evaluate trade-
offs for environmental and social objectives
in a manner similar to economic objectives
because of inherent analytical problems in
assigning accurate monetary values to
environmental and social resources with no
market value upon which to base decisions
on benefits and costs.
1980s-1990s—New Directions
in Water Resources Project
and Program Planning
Under President Reagan, P&S was
rescinded and replaced by Principles and
Guidelines (P&G). Published in 1983, P&G
is the analytical method currently used by
COE in evaluating alternative water
resources projects (ACIR, 1992). P&G calls
for various alternative plans to be formu-
lated in a systematic manner to ensure that
all reasonable alternatives are evaluated.
Like P&S, four accounts are established to
facilitate evaluation and to display the
effects of alternative plans: the NED
Account, the EQ Account, the RED Ac-
count, and the OSE Account. However, the
trade-off between NED and EQ under P&S
was replaced by maximization of net NED
benefits "consistent with protecting the
nation's environment." P&G has been
criticized for placing disproportionate
emphasis on national economic develop-
ment relative to the protection or develop-
ment of environmental and social resources.
Despite the analytical methods
developed for water resources planning
under P&S and P&G, some argued that cost-
sharing requirements had a greater impact
on the planning process. Projects and
project purposes tended to be planned and
costed to maximize federal costs, in effect,
minimizing non-federal costs. These
concerns led to efforts to reform cost-
-------
Conference Proceedings
113
sharing requirements beginning in the 1950s
that culminated in the Water Resources
Development Act of 1986. Policies estab-
lished under the 1986 act for COE require
greater responsibility for cost-sharing by
non-federal interests for both planning and
construction of projects.
The Water Resources Development
Act of 1990 marks a significant change in
policy direction for COE (Nichols, 1991).
Section 306 of the act establishes environ-
mental protection "as one of the primary
missions of the Corps of Engineers in
planning, designing, constructing, operating
and maintaining water resources projects."
In response, the Corps is redefining its
mission to give environmental resource
restoration equal budget priority with the
more traditional navigation and flood
control purposes of its water resources
projects and programs. Accomplishing
more environmentally sustainable water
resources development will necessitate
project planning comprised of multiple
objectives, the ability to establish regional
and national environmental resource
priorities, and a mechanism to make
defensible trade-offs among economic,
environmental, and social objectives as well
as among different objectives within these
categories. Because multiple purposes and
multiple-objective planning were an integral
part of federal efforts to implement a river
basin approach, policy makers charting new
directions in national water policy have
much to learn from examining the history of
comprehensive multipurpose river basin
approach to watershed planning and
management.
References
ACIR. 1992. Intergovernmental
decisionmakihg for environmental
protection and public works. Commis-
sion Report A-122. U.S. Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental
Relations. November.
Holmes, B.H. 1972. A history of federal
water resources programs, 1800-
1960. Miscellaneous Publication no.
1233. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Economic Research Service. June.
. 1979. History of federal water
resources programs and policies,
1961-70. Miscellaneous Publication
no. 1379. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Economics, Statistics,
and Cooperatives Service, Natural
Resource Economics Division.
September.
Nichols, B. 1991. Corps of Engineers charts
new course. Water Environment and
Technology, January 1991, pp. 43-46.
NWC. 1973. A summary-digest of the
federal water laws and programs.
National Water Commission. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, DC.
Rosen, H., and M. Reuss, eds. 1988. The
flood control challenge: Past, present,
and future. Public Works Historical
Society, Chicago, IL.
Schad, T.M. 1989. Past, present, and future
of water resources management in the
United States. In Water management
in the 21st century. AWRA Special
Publication no. 89-2. American Water
Resources Association, Bethesda, MD.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Public Law 83-566 and Water Quality
James R. Fisher, Watershed Programs Specialist
National Watershed Coalition, Lakewood, CO
Miny are familiar with how success-
ful the Small Watershed Program
(P.L. 83-566) has been over the
years addressing flood prevention problems
across our country. The Small Watershed
Program has been used since 1954 to reduce
or eliminate severe damages to our rivers
and streams by floodwaters, erosion, and
sediment loading. However, there are many
other ways to use this unique authority to
address all sorts of water resource problems.
Public Law 83-566 is one of the most
diverse authorities available to us to
accomplish watershed management. It
provides an opportunity for water resource
development and management under today's
environmental and economic climate. And
it is more workable than many other federal
water resource programs.
First, the program looks at natural
resources on a watershed basis (some might
say "hydrologic unit," but it's the same
thing). We call P.L. 83-566 the small
watershed program because it is limited to
treatment of upstream watersheds less than
250,000 acres (390 square miles) in size.
Many projects are designed for watersheds
much smaller than that. This fact alone
makes it a valuable tool for solving nonpoint
source water quality problems. These issues
are more properly addressed on a smaller
scale. They are next to impossible to treat
on an entire river basin system.
P.L. 83-566 provides authorization to
give technical and financial aid to local
organizations for planning and carrying out
their water resource projects. This is
probably the strongest feature of the
program. It is a locally sponsored and
developed program, not a federal program
where government engineers come in and
tell the local people what they need. Local
people, usually led by the soil conservation
district serving the area, initiate a project
only after they have determined they have
common water resource problems, and have
joined as project sponsors to request
assistance to solve these problems. Being
locally sponsored, corrective measures can
be installed voluntarily. The program does
not use regulatory authority to get things
done.
Under the small watershed program,
an interdisciplinary team of technical
specialists works closely together to help the
local entities develop a total resource plan.
They gather data, identify problems, and
offer alternative solutions to all identified
sources of water resource problems within a
watershed area. Soil conservation districts,
in cooperation with the Soil Conservation
Service at the state, regional, and national
levels, maintain close working relationships
with federal and state agencies and special
interest groups. This is helpful to project
sponsors in getting all the "players" together
early in the planning so there is a balance
between developmental and environmental
solutions.
When sponsors have selected the
alternatives that best meet their objectives,
P.L. 83-566 is one of the best programs
available to provide financial assistance for
implementing a broad range of water
resource problems. Even for those alterna-
tives that cannot be addressed through the
authority of P.L. 83-566, the coordinated
planning process identifies other available
sources of funding.
Although the program has been
around for nearly 40 years, it is not an
obsolete or outdated program. It has
evolved over time with changes made to
improve its workability as the nation's
priorities have changed. Over the years,
planning for development under P.L. 83-566
has included more and more features
addressing environmental concerns. In fact,
115
-------
116
Watershed '93
today P.L. 83-566 projects are being
planned where wetlands are being created or
enhanced for the benefit of wildlife.
P.L. 83-566 has had a beneficial
impact on water quality for many years
because of the extensive land treatment
applied in upstream watersheds. More
recently the program has been used as an
excellent tool to specifically address
nonpoint source pollution that causes water
quality problems. In the 1990 Farm Bill,
water quality was added to the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act,
providing another primary authority to
support water quality improvements.
Although the small watershed pro-
gram may have historically focused on flood
and sediment control structural measures,
the program also offers a variety of
nonstructural solutions. These opportunities
deserve increased consideration in resolving
land and water management problems.
Nonstructural Measures for
Water Quality
Among the most pressing watershed
management needs today are actions to
restore water quality and prevent further
degradation of surface and ground water.
Pollution from nonpoint sources has been
shown to be the major cause of reduced
water quality. Agricultural activities have
been identified as a significant source of
nonpoint water pollution nationwide.
Erosion, contamination by pesticides and
excess nutrients, and runoff from feedlots
are primary factors causing degraded water
quality.
The small watershed program offers
opportunities to address these problems by
installing structural measures in combina-
tion with conservation practices when these
alternatives will provide the least costly way
to improve the water quality of a stream or
lake.
However, today water quality im-
provement watershed projects are also being
designed and implemented using land
treatment conservation practices with no
associated structural measures. These are
"watershed protection" projects, as indicated
by the tide of the P.L. 83-566 act. (In the
past, watershed protection usually meant
applying conservation land treatment mea-
sures to the uplands to prevent sedimenta-
tion of project structural measures to be
constructed downstream.) With this non-
structural opportunity provided under the
broad authority of the program, P.L. 83-566
is well suited to address the critical needs to
improve the quality of our nation's waters.
P.L. 83-566 and Conservation
Districts
The nearly 3,000 soil and water
conservation districts across the country
play a leading role in this activity. The
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act requkes land users to apply to their
local soil and water conservation district for
assistance in developing conservation plans.
These plans are developed in cooperation
with and approved by the soil and water
conservation district in which the land is
located. They set forth the types of on-farm
conservation measures (some might call
them "best management practices") to be
applied to the land in order to reduce
pollution to acceptable levels.
Since problems and terrain will vary
from farm to farm, the plan for a particular
farm is prepared in cooperation with the
land user. Alternatives are explained and
the land user voluntarily selects the ways
that will best meet his or her on-farm
objectives and reduce the contribution to the
overall problem.
Over the years, soil and water conser-
vation districts have provided this kind of
on-farm assistance to land users to prevent
soil erosion and protect the resource base.
There are many success stories about the
accomplishments resulting from this land
treatment in rural America. The same types
of land treatment measures also prevent
sediments and related pollutants from
reaching streams and lakes improving the
water quality.
After approval of the watershed
protection project plan, the act provides for
financial cost-sharing assistance to land
users to encourage them to apply the
identified land management systems needed
to reduce erosion and runoff from their
lands. Usually adequate treatment requires a
combination of conservation practices.
Land users are asked to enter into a
long-term agreement with one of the
project sponsors, usually the soil and water
conservation district, to install the planned
conservation system. Under the agree-
ment, the land user also promises to
maintain the practices. Periodic reviews
are carried out by the district to determine
-------
Conference Proceedings
117
if additional measures are needed to meet
the overall objectives of the watershed
protection plan.
We believe that this proven program
is an excellent tool for meeting today's
challenges in watershed management and
water quality improvement. There are soil
and water conservation districts in nearly
every county in the Nation. They are
eager to provide the assistance needed to
reduce nonpoint source pollution of our
waters.
It seems that, whenever a new national
concern surfaces, there is a clamor for
creating a new program or authority to
address it. But you can't beat the experience
we've gained over the years using the many
and varied authorities available through
P.L. 83-566. The National Watershed
Coalition maintains that we would be hard
pressed to devise a more workable and
versatile program than P.L. 83-566 to meet
our watershed management needs, today and
in the future.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Utility Planning and the Endangered
Species Act
Cis Myers, Environmental Coordinator
Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, TX
The Lower Colorado River Authority
(LCRA) is a self-supporting public
utility created by the Texas Legislature
in 1934 as a conservation and reclamation
district covering 10 counties along the
Colorado River. The LCRA harnesses the
river for hydroelectric, coal, and gas-
powered generation and provides flood
control through a series of dams on the
Highland Lakes above the City of Austin.
Because the Colorado is a major source of
drinking water, LCRA works with local
governments and volunteers to improve
water quality and water conservation
practices.
Revenues are generated by wholesale
electric and water sales and user fees. The
LCRA provides electricity to 44 wholesale
customers including 33 cities and 11
cooperatives. These customers serve over
1,000,000 Central Texans and 42,000
businesses and industries over all or part of
55 counties. The river supplies the water
necessary for the operation of LCRA power
plants, the Southwest Texas Nuclear Project,
and more than 100 municipalities, water
districts, and private water systems. It also
is the source of irrigation for rice growers in
Matagorda, Colorado, and Wharton Coun-
ties.
The wide variety of topography, soil
types, and rainfall rates in the LCRA service
area produces a diversity of habitat types
ranging from the Cross Timbers and Prairies
vegetation area in north central Texas to the
Gulf and Marshes vegetation area on the
Gulf coast. The federal Endangered Species
Act (ESA) affects almost every operational
aspect from electric operations to the acqui-
sition, disposition, or use of land assets.
This is true not only of major new construc-
tion projects but routine maintenance and
operations of electric transmission and
distribution facilities, substations, hydro-
electric facilities, parks, and open space
areas. Under the leadership of a new gen-
eral manager, the LCRA faced the fact that
the ESA had basically, up until that time,
been ignored and compliance action would
have to be initiated immediately. It was
quickly decided that virtually no acquisition,
disposition, or manipulation of LCRA assets
could occur without consideration of the
ESA and all activities were frozen.
A senior staff person was assigned to
head a team to assess compliance options
and prepare a work plan for implementation.
The first thing that occurred was a hurried
trip to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) Regional Office where mercy and
assistance were requested. Numerous key
players and participating agencies in the
process were identified in order for LCRA
to be fully informed and effective. An
assessment of the potential impact of all
LCRA proposed and ongoing activities on
threatened and endangered (T & E) species
and their habitat was initiated by LCRA
staff biologists, land managers, and project
engineers. This was not going to be a quick
and easy task.
It was determined that both a short-
term and long-term approach would be
necessary. The short-term strategy of
compliance on a project-by-project basis
would facilitate the continuation of day-to-
day operations. Projects which were already
ongoing or immediate in nature were
identified and a priority assigned for habitat
surveys to be conducted beginning in April
1991. The top-priority projects were those
which occurred in geographical areas
identified as warbler and vireo breeding
habitat due to the time constraints associated
119
-------
120
Watershed '93
with the breeding season (February through
June). Contacts were made to identify
procedures akeady approved by FWS in
order to facilitate immediate survey needs.
A wildlife biologist was hired and an
outside services contract executed for
additional support to relieve the immediate
logjam of required surveys. Project employ-
ees have been added as needed. It must be
noted that due to the number of projects to
be evaluated, this was no small task in the
time allotted.
The process of "project-by-project"
evaluation appeared deceptively simple
because none were found to be in violation
of the ES A. But, realistically, because of
the numerous T & E species in the LCRA
service area, development of a long-term
comprehensive approach to habitat manage-
ment is necessary. Using short-term project
reviews as building blocks, a reliable and
current data base is being developed based
on systematic biological assessments. After
thorough analysis of this biological data, a
determination will be made of various
species specific regions and their natural
geographic boundaries. Management
practices will be identified and implemented
to restore, enhance, or create biological
ecosystems that prevent, when possible,
further species extinctions and assist in
recovery of designated and endangered
species while nourishing existing flora and
fauna. It is intended that LCRA will treat
T & E species survival and recovery as an
integral component of all ecological assess-
ments and habitat management plans, rather
than as an isolated issue. Such practices not
only contribute to the quality of life but are
a vital component in the cost/benefit analy-
sis of future LCRA business activities. It is
estimated that these objectives can be
completed by Fiscal Year 1999 in conjunc-
tion with Austin Ecosystem 2000.
The concept utilized by LCRA to
implement thoughtful and integrated habitat
management was the establishment of an
Environmental Assessment (EA) Team to
take the lead on coordinating and tracking
projects. This team is composed of wildlife
biologists, geologists, archaeologists,
hazardous materials experts, and other
environmental staff who become involved
depending on the particular project charac-
teristics. A consultant works with the EA
Team hi order to conduct the biological
assessment of the LCRA service area in a
shorter period of time. In addition, a basic
survey document concerning an individual
project is now required to be submitted by
the project manager to the EA Team as part
of the planning process of every new
project. This document provides baseline
environmental information which is
reviewed and field verified by the EA Team.
To date, no LCRA activities have required
an ESA permit; however, since February
1991 LCRA has consulted with FWS on the
numerous projects—some were cleared and
some required modifications but none were
stopped. In addition, LCRA has worked
with FWS to develop procedures for routine
and overhaul maintenance of then: transmis-
sion and distribution lines and procedures of
emergency operations when life threatening
or system emergencies occur. The LCRA
endangered species program has been under
development for several years now and is
focused on the main goal of conducting
business in such a manner that an incidental
take is never required.
The T & E species that are currently
listed within the LCRA service area are
numerous. The most famous Central Texas
T & E species are the black-capped vireo
and golden-cheeked warbler. The black-
capped vireo is widely distributed as a
breeding bird within the LCRA service area,
nesting in brushland usually dominated by
deciduous shrub and tree species ranging
from 1-10 feet with foliar cover to ground
level. This type of scrubland habitat
generally occurs on poor, rocky soils,
slopes, gully edges, ravines, and floodplains
of usually dry washes. The black-capped
vireo primarily nests in rights-of way
(ROW) in western Travis County and
adjacent areas. Removal of vegetation in
known or suspected vireo habitat is strictly
prohibited during the breeding season—late
March through September. Minimal
disturbance of potential habitat during other
times of the year, when the vireo is absent,
may not pose a serious threat but large-scale
activity is generally avoided.
The golden-cheeked warbler primarily
inhabits late successional Ashe juniper/oak
woodland on broken terrain including steep
hillsides and canyons in a number of
counties west of Interstate 35. Any activity
that removes vegetation or introduces edge
into habitat during breeding season (Febru-
ary-June) is assumed to have a detrimental
effect on the warbler and is avoided.
There are many other T & E species
throughout the LCRA service area. There
are four plant species—Texas wild-rice,
Texas snowbells, Tobusch fishhook cactus,
-------
Conference Proceedings
121
and Navasota ladies' tresses. The greatest
threat to these T & E plant species occurs
from the clearing and construction of
Transmission and Distribution ROWs, ROW
maintenance, removal of slope vegetation
producing slope erosion and undercutting
tree roots on slopes potentially providing
habitat, pesticide/herbicide use, and addition
of sediments and pollutants to existing water
courses. A single Tobusch fishhook was
located in a survey for a transmission line
and, through an informal conference with
FWS, agreement was reached to cage the
cactus during construction and mark it for
future identification. Also, our general
approach to nonpoint source and integrated
pesticide management prevent flora damage.
There are five T & E cave-inhabiting
arthropods—Tooth Cave pseudoscorpion,
Tooth Cave spider, Tooth Cave ground
beetle, Kretschmarr Cave mold beetle, and
Bee Creek Cave harvestman—which are
restricted to limestone caves developed in
the vicinity of Austin. Removal of vegeta-
tion above a known cave is avoided,
vegetation removal in areas of cave-
producing geologic strata minimized, and
use of pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers
prohibited in these areas. Construction was
recently completed of the new general office
complex located in west suburban Austin on
the lake. A sink hole existed on the site that
had to be checked. A cave digging special-
ist was employed who found a cave at a
depth of 18 feet, but the fissure for entry
was not to be opened short of dynamiting.
That seemed counterproductive so the cave
was baited. Only fireants came to eat and so
it was determined the project could proceed.
Three endangered fish species also
occur in the LCRA service area—San
Marcos gambusia, Fountain darter, and
Clear Creek gambusia—all restricted in
range to spring-fed headwaters of streams or
rivers. Runoff from construction sites,
potentially increasing water turbidity and
carrying material toxic, to fish life, is a
potential hazard to these species. Clearing
of vegetation in the floodplain near the
headwaters of these river or streams should
be avoided. Of course, when nature decided
to bless us with the Christmas Flood of
1991—which was the worst weather event
in the history of the river, managing the
headwaters of rivers and streams was
virtually out of control relative to endan-
gered species.
The Houston Toad is located in a
limited number of counties but local impacts
from planting improved grasses, small-scale
clearing, or highway traffic have long-term
detrimental effects on the species. One
solution employed by the Department of
Transportation (copied from an English
concept) is a toad tunnel. Two endangered
salamanders—the Texas blind salamander
and the San Marcos salamander—inhabit
subterranean aquatic environments under the
City of San Marcos in the vicinity of the
headwaters of the San Marcos River. The
Concho water snake, which inhabits the
Colorado and Concho Rivers, is vulnerable
to sedimentation and pollution. The
American alligator resides only in Colorado
County and the wetland areas supporting
alligator habitat. In most cases, these
habitats are spanned or avoided when
situating electric transmission lines and
structures. One endangered mammalian
species, the ocelot, may range into the
LCRA service area in Karnes County where
it inhabits dense, thorn-scrub thickets.
Winter T & E visitors to LCRA are ,
the whooping crane, piping plover, interior
least tern, and Arctic peregrine falcon which
occasionally nest or forage in ROWs or
along the coastlines on beaches, mudflats,
islands, or sandbars. In addition, sometimes
the larger birds collide with transmission
lines. Experimentation with different types
of line markers is being evaluated to see if
flying fatalities can be decreased. Bald .
eagles nest in southern counties, migrate
throughout the service area, hunt primarily
over aquatic habitats, and construct nests
near water. Electric transmission facilities
are routed to avoid bald eagle nests. The •
Attwater's prairie chicken inhabits tall and
midgrass coastal prairie, and potentially
occurs in six counties. Habitat loss is the
main contributor to their decline as it is
converted to urban uses, cropland, or
"improved" rangeland. The red-cpckaded
woodpecker may occur as a year-round
resident along LCRA wholesale customer
lines and pinelands in Montgomery County.
Nest cavities are excavated in living pine
trees and the pine sap flows from the hole.
This leaves gummy extrusions of sap below
the nest identifying its location. Clearing .
and construction activities have been
avoided around trees with nest cavities.
Should the existence of any of the ,
above T & E species and their habitat be
confirmed and project requirements not be
suitable for modification, an incidental
"take" (a take related to the incident or oc-
curring as a result of proceeding with the
-------
122
Watershed '93
project) will most likely occur. Then, and
only then, will the permitting process be ini-
tiated and the following options considered:
1. Cancel or relocate any project
requiring a "take" and avoid permit-
ting process.
2. Continue on a project-by-project
basis utilizing federal involvement
for section 7 permits when possible
and otherwise avoiding an incidental
take.
3. Pursue section 7 permits when
federal involvement, and use section
10(a) permit for any remaining
projects which must be completed.
4. Pursue one section 10(a) Regional
Permit for entire service area.
5. Pursue several Regional 10(a)
permits which are species-specific.
6. Participate in a proposed habitat
conservation plan with the appropri-
ate governmental entities and utilize
a combination of section 7 and
section 10(a) permits for the balance
of the service area.
There are several practical problems which
are under consideration in the long-term
planning process. These collateral questions
will need to be discussed with FWS before
LCRA develops a final comprehensive
habitat plan. The problems include:
1. Most of LCRA's excess lands are
located in Travis County and consist
of warbler and vireo habitat. These
lands would not likely be available
to offset an incidental take of toad
habitat or other species habitat.
2. Since most of the excess land is
located in Travis County and Travis
County may be included within a
separate regional 10(a) application, it
is not clear whether such land would
be available to LCRA to offset
activities conducted in warbler and
vireo habitat outside of Travis
County. Conservation guidelines,
published by FWS state that indi-
vidual permits located within the
boundaries of a regional conserva-
tion habitat plan expire upon
adoption and approval of the
regional plan. Hopefully, this
restriction is limited to LCRA land,
if any, actually included in the
regional conservation plan and does
not extend to all land encompassed
within Travis County. Under the
most advantageous interpretation,
however, LCRA would not be able
to include land encompassed within
the regional conservation plan in its
own individual 10(a) permit.
3. For those activities involving electric
utility lines or other lands which
LCRA does not own in fee simple,
only mitigation of such activities can
be provided. Such land can not be
included hi a conservation plan since
we cannot guarantee that the lands
will be "managed" by the fee simple
owner or third parties unless we
acquire conservation easements from
the landowners, or they agree to
participate directly in the permit
application. Therefore, if mitigation
of our transmission line activities is
not sufficient, additional acquisition
of species specific habitat may be
our only practical alternative.
4. In the event that LCRA designs a
permit application area large enough
to encompass the activities of its
customers, some consideration will
need to be given as to how LCRA
should propose to guarantee mitiga-
tion of such activities if it does not
have a property interest in the land
where the activity occurs. The
mitigation requirement may be
satisfied through submission of an
agreement between the customers
and LCRA, or it may require
participation by LCRA customers in
the permit application.
Of major interest to LCRA is the
beneficial water quality aspects of the ES A.
Ground and surface water quality can be
protected and enhanced by a comprehensive
regional plan as it provides protection from
nonpoint source water pollution. For
example, the region identified as being
critical habitat in Travis County includes
part of the Barton Creek watershed which is
not protected by either LCRA's Non Point
Source Pollution Ordinance or the City of
Austin's Watershed Ordinance. Regional
plans could provide an opportunity for
protecting larger areas of land under Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) guidelines.
Mitigation is a requirement of both
section 7 and 10(a) permits. Various
creative strategies have been developed by
the Environmental Assessment Team should
either permitting process become necessary.
Such strategies include one for one land
swaps, cash to purchase replacement habitat,
habitat enhancement on other land parcels,
research on T & E species such as botanical
-------
Conference Proceedings
123
farming, artificial insemination, comprehen-
sive recovery techniques, and public
awareness and education activities.
Another major effort was obtaining
support for the tenets of the ES A from
LCRA field crews and staff. Most of the
crews would just as soon shoot a T & E
species than worry about it—particularly
little bugs and two birds. One method that
was used was to sponsor an Endangered
Species Forum for the general educational
purposes of LCRA staff and wholesale
customers. Over 23 nationally recognized
authorities in this area spoke at the Lyndon
Baines Johnson Auditorium on the Univer-
sity of Texas campus, over 600 attended,
and open public debate occurred on ESA
and HCP strategies, mitigation alternatives,
and other policy alternatives. The Proceed-
ings of this Forum have been published and
distributed. The next step was to provide
staff awareness training to increase sensitiv-
ity to the general principles of habitat
management. This has been somewhat
accomplished by conducting orientation
sessions presenting general concepts of
habitat management and identification of
threatened and endangered species at field
crew locations. An educational manual and
videotapes are used on public TV, in public
presentations, and staff training for LCRA
and other organizations.
In conclusion, implementation of the
federal ESA requires vision and leadership.
It requires LCRA to work with other
community leaders in order to advance the
issues to a higher level of public debate and
to aggressively move to combine our
endangered species problem with other
related issues such as a comprehensive
regional water quality plan and the provision
of recreation and open space.
Some view the ESA as a conspiracy to
stop economic growth while others truly
believe that biodiversity and balanced, well-
managed ecosystems are the key to survival.
The latter see the ESA as one of the purest
statements of the environmentalist ethic and
a powerful weapon against further ecosystem
destruction. There are some problems which
will require a series of compromises. The
ESA affects fundamental property rights,
contains inconsistencies, and has not always
been uniformly enforced. Like many other
environmental laws, it has its good points
and bad points.
The position LCRA has chosen to take
is that the ESA provides an extraordinary
opportunity to serve as a catalyst for creating
a world-class model of economic growth,
prosperity, and environmental protection.
The LCRA has made it a point to create
partnerships with FWS and the Texas Parks
and Wildlife Department in order to meet the
challenge of ESA. All it takes is time and
money, and these are certainly scarce in
today's economy, but it is a unique opportu-
nity to provide significant protection in the
water quality of several areas of hydrologi-
cally and ecologically critical western
watersheds, all of which have tremendous
scenic and recreational value.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Baltimore County Regulations for the
Protection of Water Quality, Streams,
Wetlands, and Floodplains
Janice B. Outen
Department of Environmental Protection and Resource Management
Baltimore County, MD
Baltimore County has 1,000 miles of
streams that drain to three reservoirs
and the Chesapeake Bay. To protect
streams in new developments and to restore
streams in existing communities, the county
enacted legislation in 1991 requiring the
reservation of stream system corridors. The
legislation is called Forest Buffers and
protects the stream, its associated wetlands,
floodplains, and nearby erodible slopes.
These forest buffers serve many purposes:
filtering nutrients and toxics; reducing
erosion and sedimentation; stabilizing
streambanks; infiltrating storm water;
maintaining base flow of streams; provid-
ing organic matter for the aquatic food
chain and energy flow; cooling streams;
providing wildlife habitat; providing scenic
value and recreational opportunity; and
minimi /.ing water resource expenditures.
Furthermore, the legislation also requires
correction of existing stream pollution and
degradation problems.
Four aspects of the stream protection
legislation are distinctive or innovative.
First, the concepts contained in this
legislation were developed over a 2-year
period by the Baltimore County Water
Quality Steering Committee through a
process of negotiation and consensus
building. The steering committee consisted
of representatives from the engineering,
homebuilding, and environmental commu-
nities, and from county agencies. Second,
the standards for forest buffers apply to all
streams, including intermittent, unmapped
streams. Baltimore County is probably
unique in requiring protection of even its
smallest streams. These smaller streams
are essential to the ecological health of
river systems, and forest buffers are most
effective when applied to small streams.
Third, the degree to which forest buffers
are applied to a site is dependent on the
environmental sensitivity of that site.
Buffers are determined for each stream
ranging from a minimum of 75 feet from
the stream to as much as 300 feet from the
edge of wetlands (see examples A and B on
the next page). Finally, this legislation is
integrated into Baltimore County's overall
strategy for water quality management.
125
-------
126
Watershed '93
SITE CONDITIONS
SMALL, SECOND ORUER STREAM
USE H (TROUT) STREAM
WETLANDS EXTEND BEYOND 100'
HIGH SCORE ON SLOPE ANALYSIS
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUFFER / SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
MEASURE FROM CENTER OF STREAM
100* BUFFER
WETLAND BOUNDARY PLUS 25'
EXPANSION TO 1301
25' SETBACK
35' SETBACK
THE GREATER
OF THESE IS THE
REQUIRED BUFFER
STEEP SLOPE OR ERODIBLE SOIL
•ASSUMED TO 86 25' FOR THIS EXAMPLE
*v» MEASURED FROM THE CENTER OF STREAM
Example A
SITE CONDITIONS
LARGE, THIRD ORDER STREAM
USE I (NOT TROUT) STREAM
FLOOOPLAIN EXTENDS BEYOND 75'
HIGH SCORE ON SLOPE ANALYSIS
PROPOSED COMMERCIAL
PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL
BUFFER / SETBACK REQUIREMENTS
MEASURE FROM STREAMBANK
75' BUFFER
FLOODPLAIN BOUNDARY PLUS 25'
EXPANSION TO 00'
25' SETBACK
35' SETBACK
THE GREATER OF THESE
IS THE REQUIRED BUFFER
SLOPE ADJUSTMENT
STEEP SLOPE OR ERODIBLE SOIL
•ASSUMED TO BE 45' FOR THIS EXAMPLE
100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
MEASURED FROM STREAMBANK
Example B
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
Controlling Nonpoint Source
Pollution: A Cooperative Venture
Ellen Gordon, Program Specialist
Marceila Jansen, Technical Assistance Coordinator
Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD
Ann Beier, Program Analyst
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
In November 1990, Congress, in response
to water quality problems evidenced by
beach closures, shellfish harvesting pro-
hibitions, and the loss of biological produc-
tivity, determined that special protection for
coastal waters was necessary and passed
section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reau-
thorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA)
(codified as 16 USC 1455b). Section 6217,
applicable to the 29 states and territories
with coastal zone management programs
approved by the National Oceanic and At-
mospheric Administration (NOAA) under
the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA),
requires states to submit Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs (coastal non-
point programs) to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and NOAA for
approval. The goal of these programs is to
restore and protect coastal waters.
The statute and legislative history
make clear that a central purpose of section
6217 is to strengthen the links between
federal and state coastal zone management
and water quality programs in order to
enhance state and local efforts to manage
land use activities which degrade coastal
waters and coastal habitats. The state
coastal nonpoint programs are to build upon
and integrate existing state and local
authorities and expertise. They will employ
initial technology-based management
measures throughout the coastal manage-
ment area, to be followed by a more
stringent water quality-based approach,
where necessary, to address remaining water
quality problems. Section 6217 also
requires some insurance, in the form of state
enforceable policies and mechanisms, that
nonpoint source controls are actually
implemented.
Congress mandated extensive coop-
eration between NOAA and EPA, an
extraordinary step that is actually working.
The two agencies have, in a joint effort,
provided guidance to the states on how to
shape their programs to obtain federal
approval. This guidance is entitled Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program:
Program Development and Approval
Guidance (January 1993). In addition,
guidance was provided to the states on the
management measures which will be used to
address the major sources of nonpoint
pollution in coastal waters. This guidance is
entitled Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution
in Coastal Waters (January 1993). NOAA
and EPA are also jointly responsible for
approving the state programs.
Under CZARA, Congress required
EPA, in consultation with other federal
agencies, to develop guidance specifying
management measures that reflect the best
available economically achievable methods
to control nonpoint pollution in coastal
waters. The measures are designed to reflect
the greatest degree of pollutant reduction
achievable through the application of best
available technology, siting criteria, operat-
ing methods or alternatives.
The management measures guidance
includes a chapter for each of five major
categories of nonpoint pollution:
127
-------
128
Watershed '93
• Agriculture.
• Forestry.
• Urban (including new development,
septic tanks, roads, bridges and
highways).
• Marinas and recreational boating.
• Hydromodification.
Also included is a chapter describing
ways that wetlands and riparian areas can be
used to prevent pollution from a variety of
sources. Each chapter sets forth the man-
agement measures with which state pro-
grams must be in conformity. In addition,
each chapter describes management prac-
tices that may be used to achieve the
measure, activities and locations for which
each measure may be suitable, and informa-
tion on the cost and effectiveness of the
measures and/or practices.
The management measures are
described in terms of management systems
rather than individual best management
practices (BMPs). Many of these systems
include actions that reduce the generation of
pollutants—a pollution prevention ap-
proach—as well as actions to keep the
pollutant from reaching surface or ground
waters. Measures range from traditional
activities such as erosion control to more
comprehensive strategies such as watershed
planning to help minimize urban runoff.
The program guidance describes what
must be contained in each state program in
order to be approved by EPA and NOAA.
States will have.to address such issues as:
• Where the program will operate
geographically.
• How the management measures and
the associated practices should be
selected and implemented.
• How the program should be coordi-
nated with other state, local and
federal programs.
As directed by section 6217(a), the
geographic scope of each state coastal
nonpoint program must be sufficient to
ensure implementation of management
measures to restore and protect coastal
waters. State coastal zone management
programs already have established geo-
graphic boundaries based on existing
requirements and authorities needed to
address the purposes of the CZMA. How-
ever, Congress recognized a potential need
to revise those boundaries to better address
the control of nonpoint sources of pollution.
Accordingly, NOAA, in consultation with
EPA, was directed to evaluate the existing
state coastal boundaries and determine, on a
state-by-state basis, how those boundaries
compare to the management area necessary
to meet the intent of CZARA.
As a starting point for its evaluation,
NOAA selected coastal watersheds (as
defined by the U.S. Geological Survey
Cataloging Units) adjacent to the shore and
extending inland along estuaries to encom-
pass the head of tide. Based on nationally
available data, NOAA has determined for
each watershed whether significant indica-
tors of coastal nonpoint source pollution
occur within the existing coastal zone
management boundary, between the coastal
zone boundary and the coastal watershed, or
inland of that watershed. In coastal water-
sheds where an area less than the coastal
watershed captures most of the significant
indicators of nonpoint source pollution,
NOAA may recommend a lesser area for
management. In the program guidance, this
area is known as the 6217 management
area. A state may respond to this recom-
mendation by either modifying the coastal
zone boundary to implement NOAA's
recommendation or by identifying other
state authorities to implement the coastal
nonpoint program throughout the 6217
management area.
NOAA will soon be making its
boundary review recommendations. States
will make initial decisions this year (1993)
as to how they will respond to this recom-
mendation and craft a rationale for any
modifications. Once a state has identified
gaps in the authorities to implement mea-
sures, it must develop a strategy for filling
those gaps. States also need to evaluate how
to make improvements where the authority
appears adequate, but the implementation
inadequate.
State coastal nonpoint programs must
ensure the implementation of management
measures in conformity with those specified
in EPA's management measures guidance.
In general, the presumption is that states will
implement all management measures for the
source categories (e.g., agriculture, urban)
specified in the management measures
guidance throughout the 6217 management
area. However, states have the opportunity
to exclude certain nonpoint source catego-
ries or subcategories in limited situations.
States may exclude certain sources if they
can demonstrate either:
• The source is neither present nor
reasonably anticipated in an area or
• That sources do not, individually or
cumulatively, present significant
-------
Conference Proceedings
129
adverse effects to living resources or
human health.
It is anticipated that exclusions will need to
be demonstrated on a watershed or localized
basis.
States will also have some flexibility
in that they may adopt either the manage-
ment measures specified in the technical
guidance or alternative measures to better
meet local conditions, provided that the
alternative measures are as effective as those
found in the guidance in controlling coastal
nonpoint pollution.
Coastal nonpoint programs must also
provide information on how the state will be
implementing the measure. States will need
to ensure the implementation of manage-
ment measures through the use of enforce-
able policies and mechanisms. Section
306(6)(a) of the CZMA defines enforceable
policies as:
... State policies which are legally
binding through constitutional
provisions, laws, regulations, land use
plans, ordinances, or judicial or
administrative decisions, by which a
state exerts control over private and
public land and water uses and natural
resources in the coastal zone.
States can design a coastal nonpoint
program that uses a variety of effective
regulatory and nonregulatory approaches.
Nonregulatory approaches must be backed
by enforceable state authority which ensures
that the management measures will be
implemented. States will need to demon-
strate that they have the authority to take
enforcement actions where incentive or
other programs do not result in implementa-
tion of the management measures, or where
significant harm to coastal waters is found
or threatened.
The selection and design of enforce-
able policies can be tailored to specific state
or local circumstances. The approaches
states choose should take into account the
nature of the activity and existing institu-
tions and authorities. States may also want
to evaluate the costs and benefits of various
approaches.
Enforceable policies may be estab-
lished through state, regional, or local
authorities. Where implementation occurs
at the regional or local levels, the state must
be able to exert or retain authority to ensure
local implementation in accordance with the
federally approved coastal nonpoint
program.
Effective implementation of the
enforceable policies and mechanisms will be
aided by programs to educate the public
about the importance of the management
measures and to provide technical assistance
to local governments and the affected
interests. While public education and
technical assistance programs alone may not
be used to fulfill the requirement for
enforceable policies and mechanisms, these
programs can enhance the success of both
regulatory and nonregulatory programs.
As an integral part of the coastal
nonpoint program, the goals of the public
involvement and education program should
be defined by the state before it begins to
develop its coastal nonpoint program. The
public will need to be involved as early as
possible in the development and implemen-
tation of the program, and the process
should seek to promote and maintain the
public's long-term commitment to the
program. Each state must demonstrate that
its coastal nonpoint program has undergone
public review and comment prior to
submittal to NOAA and EPA for approval.
States are now in the earliest stage of
developing their coastal nonpoint programs.
Most have begun analyzing existing
authorities to implement the management
measures, and have begun establishing
mechanisms for coordinating program
development work between the coastal and
nonpoint programs. During this next year,
states will be identifying land uses that
cause or are likely to cause nonpoint source
pollution affecting coastal waters. In
addition, states will be identifying the real or
potential nonpoint sources of pollution
generated by those land uses.
The timeline for preparing the state
coastal nonpoint programs and gaining
federal approval is short. By statute, states
have 30 months from the publication of
EPA's management measures guidance
under section 6217(g) to submit their
programs to EPA and NOAA for approval,
i.e. July 1995. States that fail tp submit
approvable programs will be subject to a
loss of federal funds under both section 306
of the CZMA and section 319 of the CWA.
These penalties begin with a 10 percent
reduction in fiscal year 1996, and increase to
a 30 percent reduction in fiscal year 1999,
and each year thereafter.
Despite state concerns about the diffi-
culties involved in developing this program,
Congress is looking toward broader applica-
tions for this nonpoint pollution control
-------
130
Watershed '93
program. Efforts to reauthorize the Clean
Water Act are expected this year, and there
has been considerable interest in extending
this program to encompass all states, not just
coastal states and territories. Although it is
too soon to demonstrate any success, the
innovative nature of this program, its call for
interagency cooperation, and its emphasis
on building on existing state and local pro-
grams may prove an irresistible lure to a
Congress deeply involved in reducing the
federal deficit.
-------
WATERSHED '93
Improving Boston's Watershed
Protection Program in Response to
the Safe Drinking Water Act
Allen Adelman, AICP, Project Manager, Water Supply Planning
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
which governs the quality of water
produced and delivered by cities
throughout the Nation, was amended in
1986 to provide stronger safeguards against
potential causes of waterborne diseases.
This led EPA to establish a number of new
drinking water quality regulations, including
the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR),
which specifies criteria for deciding which
systems must employ filtration. Generally,
the SWTR requires systems to filter unless it
can be shown that source water quality is
extremely high and the watersheds are very
well protected.
By requiring unfiltered systems to
"establish and maintain an effective water-
shed control program" as one of the condi-
tions for avoiding filtration, the SWTR has
generated renewed interest in the value of
watershed protection, especially in many
cities that have depended on unfiltered
supplies. In Boston, this interest has already
yielded tangible benefits: better information
has been developed on conditions and
pollution threats within the watersheds;
increased resources have been committed to
strengthen the watershed protection pro-
gram; and crucial legislation has been
passed to establish 200-foot and 400-foot
buffer zones along all tributaries.
Background on the Water
System
More than 2 million persons in Boston
and 45 neighboring communities are served
by a regional system delivering water from
three sources located 30 to 80 miles west of
the city. Since 1985, two state agencies
have shared responsibility for the quality
and safety of the drinking water produced
by this regional system. The Metropolitan
District Commission (MDC) is responsible
for managing and protecting the reservoirs
and watersheds, while the Massachusetts
Water Resources Authority (MWRA) is
responsible for treating the water to meet
regulatory standards and distributing it on a
wholesale basis to the customer communi-
ties. The MWRA reimburses the MDC for
the annual watershed program budget. •
The three surface water sources have a
combined watershed area of 400 square
miles and are capable of safely yielding 300
million gallons of water per day. Twenty-
six communities, most of which are not
users of the metropolitan supply, have land
within the watersheds.
Nearly half of the supply originates at
the Quabbin Reservoir, which was con-
structed in the 1930s. Its large watershed
area consists mostly of open forest and rural
land, with 55 percent of the land area held in
ownership by the MDC for supply protec-
tion purposes. The Wachusett Reservoir is
the system's oldest active water source. Due
to its proximity to urban centers, significant
portions of the Wachusett watershed have
become heavily developed and populated
over the years. An intake on the Ware River
also allows additional water to be diverted
into the Quabbin Reservoir on a seasonal
basis.
The Quabbin and Wachusett Reser-
voirs are operated in series, as all water
moving east from Quabbin flows into the
131
-------
132
Watershed '93
Wachusett, and from there the blended water
is transported eastward to the metropolitan
area. Three small communities to the west
also withdraw water directly from the
Quabbin Reservoir through an aqueduct
connection.
Regulatory Guidance
The published regulations of the
Surface Water Treatment Rule provide only
general guidance on what constitutes an
"effective" watershed control program. The
regulations state that, at a minimum, the
program must:
1. Characterize the watershed hydrol-
ogy and land ownership.
2. Identify watershed characteristics
and activities which may have an
adverse effect on source water
quality.
3. Monitor the occurrence of such
activities.
Furthermore, the water system must
demonstrate that watershed lands are owned
and protected in ways that control human
activities that may have an adverse effect on
the microbiological quality of the source
water.
The Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection (DEP) has
provided additional technical guidance on
the material and information required to
receive consideration for a filtration
exemption. In addition to identifying,
assessing the risk of, and mapping a broad
range of threats and activities, water systems
are required to develop specific measures
and implementation schedules to control all
identified threats.
Planning for Compliance with
theSWTR
With responsibilities for the water
system split between a special-purpose
authority and a state agency, compliance
with the SWTR poses a unique institutional
challenge. The agency responsible for
meeting drinking water quality standards
and treatment requirements, the MWRA,
doesn't have regulatory authority within the
watersheds, nor does it have direct control
over the watershed protection program.
Because the actions of the MDC could have
a direct bearing on the required level of
treatment to be provided by the MWRA, the
MWRA commissioned a study in 1990, to
be conducted jointly with the MDC, to ,
evaluate the adequacy of existing watershed
protection measures and to recommend
improvements that would hopefully satisfy
the filtration avoidance criterion.
At the time it was obvious that the
MDC's watershed protection program was
lacking. The watershed division of the
MDC had been hit hard by several consecu-
tive years of state budget cutbacks, Staffing
levels had dwindled, key positions were
unfilled, fewer dollars were available to
carry out necessary programs, and pollution
problems in the watersheds were mounting.
By documenting these deficiencies, the 2-
year study laid the groundwork for develop-
ing suitable watershed protection plans for
each of the two reservoirs.
The actual conditions in the water-
sheds were evaluated in accordance with
water resource protection guidelines put
forth by the state DEP. Existing and
potential pollution threats were identified
and mapped, and rated in order of severity.
The Quabbin and Ware watersheds were
found to be in the best condition due to the
relatively low level of development and
the high proportion of land owned by the
MDC. Recreation, road runoff, gravel
mining, and animal populations were cited
as the primary issues of concern in these
areas.
The Wachusett watershed was found
to be in a much more degraded condition
due to years of unchecked urban growth,
particularly in areas adjacent to rivers and
streams flowing into the reservoir. The
major problems identified were pollution
from inadequate septic systems, contami-
nated land due to improper hazardous waste
handling, leaking underground storage
tanks, storm water runoff, risk of an
accidental spill near the reservoir, overuse of
herbicides and pesticides by private land-
owners, and bacterial loadings from gulls
and geese on the water surface.
The study process culminated in the
preparation of two Watershed Protection
Plans: one for the Quabbin/Ware watersheds
and one for the Wachusett Reservoir. The
plans proposed specific actions needed to
remediate existing pollution sources and
prevent future threats. The plans also
identified the resources needed by the MDC
to successfully carry out the recommended
actions. It was determined that the water-
shed division needed 220 full-time staff and
an annual budget of $10 million, compared
-------
Conference Proceedings
133
with the present levels of 120 staff and an
operating budget of around $6 million.
Improving the Watershed
Protection Program
The Watershed Protection Plans,
which were completed in 1991, are now
being implemented by the MDC with
assistance from the MWRA. Although the
MDC's staffing and budget levels have not
yet reached the recommended levels,
progress is being made. The wave of
cutbacks affecting the watershed division
has not only been stemmed, there has been a
distinct reorientation of the state's priorities
relative to watershed protection. The MDC
has been authorized to gradually fill
additional positions and the Governor's
budget proposal for the upcoming fiscal year
includes $10 million for the watershed
division.
Most importantly, actions are being
taken to clear pollution sources from the
watersheds and prevent future problems, in
accordance with the central objectives
established in the Watershed Protection
Plans. These objectives are:
• Preservation of the most sensitive
lands.
• Promotion of wise land use and
development decisions.
• Appropriate control of recreation and
public access.
• Resolution of problems associated
with septic systems.
• Remediation of contaminated land
sites.
• Reduction of risks from hazardous
substances and wastes.
• Management of forests and wildlife
in an ecological manner.
• Expansion of inspection, surveying,
and monitoring efforts.
Preservation of sensitive lands will be
achieved through increased land acquisition
and new state legislation restricting land
alteration along the banks of tributaries.
The MDC's landholdings in the watersheds
presently total around 82,000 acres, which is
nearly one-third of the total land area. In the
next 10 years the MDC will purchase an
additional 20,000 acres, mostly in the
Wachusett watershed. After 6 years of
debate, a law was enacted in 1992 to
prohibit any land-disturbing or polluting
activities in areas within 200 feet of MDC
water supply tributaries, and to restrict
development and other activities between
200 and 400 feet from tributaries. The
MDC is also authorized by this legislation to
adopt necessary enforcement regulations.
Local land use decisions by the
watershed communities will be influenced
and assisted through new programs offering
education and technical advice to local
officials. While these suburban and rural
towns retain strong home-rule powers and
generally do not want their futures dictated
by the needs of the metropolitan water
system, there is much opportunity to
promote environmentally sound develop-
ment that can benefit the towns as well as
the water sources. For instance, many of the
pollution threats that are of concern to the
MDC are also within the recharge areas of
local wells.
One of the most serious problems
facing the watersheds is the prevalence of
inadequate and failing septic systems near
the Wachusett Reservoir. A range of
solutions is being explored, including
constructing replacement sewers and
providing financial assistance to affected
homeowners to help pay for repairs. It is
estimated that improvements costing more
than $20 million may be necessary to correct
this situation.
The MDC and the MWRA will step
up pressure on responsible state agencies to
clean up several sites contaminated by
hazardous wastes. Prevention of future
spills will be one of the MDC's highest
priorities. Industrial facilities will be
inspected more frequently to view equip-
ment and procedures. All underground
storage tanks will be inventoried and the
information maintained on a regional data
base. Roads and railways traversing the
watersheds and reservoirs will be upgraded
to minimize the risk of accidents and to
contain spills should they occur.
Special efforts will aim to reduce the
populations of birds, especially gulls,
attracted to the reservoirs. High coliform
bacteria levels in the source water are
attributed to the bird population. Measures
to be used include advanced harassment
techniques and limiting nearby food sources,
such as open landfills.
The maps generated during the study
process will continually be updated using
geographic information systems (GIS).
These maps were instrumental in focusing
attention to problem areas and are expected
to be useful tools in tracking progress and
new developments.
-------
134
Watershed '93
Protection Objectives Relative
to Filtration
Due to the proven high-quality water
at the Quabbin Reservoir, the relatively
clean condition of the surrounding water-
shed, and the high level of land ownership
maintained by the MDC, the state DEP has
determined that the Quabbin Reservoir
meets the SWTR criteria for continuing as
an unfiltered source of supply. Successful
implementation of the Quabbin/Ware Wa-
tershed Protection Plan will help keep this
determination in effect for as long as pos-
sible. This will ensure that the western
communities that rely on water taken di-
rectly from Quabbin will continue to be
supplied with some of the best unfiltered
water found anywhere in the Nation. In
addition, all users of the system will benefit
from the maintenance of high-quality water
at the Quabbin source.
The Wachusett Reservoir, however, is
in a more precarious condition. To date, its
source water quality has not been shown to
meet the criterion for filtration avoidance.
The MDC and the MWRA are not certain
that water quality can be upgraded and
maintained through implementation of
additional protection measures. Thus a
dual-track planning approach is being
pursued. One track is proceeding with
facility designs under the assumption that a
filtration plant will have to be in operation
by 2001. The other track consists of
aggressive watershed protection and water
quality modeling to focus near-term efforts
on the major pollution sources affecting
reservoir water quality. This second track,
which could lead to filtration avoidance,
gives the MWRA valuable planning
flexibility at a time when capital invest-
ment dollars are limited.
Conclusion
The development of the Watershed
Protection Plans in response to the
SWTR and the public debate on the
buffer zone legislation worked together
to raise awareness of the relationship
between watersheds and drinking water
quality. Now the value of watershed
protection is more widely understood
and appreciated throughout Massachu-
setts, and support for necessary action is
more readily available. Regardless of
the ongoing debate about the appropri-
ateness of some of the treatment require-
ments mandated by the SDWA, there is
no doubt that these regulations were key
factors in the rejuvenation of Boston's
watershed protection program.
-------
WATERSHED1 93
The National Environmental Policy
Act Process: A Tool for Watershed
Analysis and
Shannon E. Cunniff, Team Leader
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Implementation of the National Environ-
mental Policy Act (NEPA) during the
last two decades stands as one of the
most successful elements of the federal
government's commitment to environmental
protection. Despite this success, NEPA
holds even greater promise to improve the
Nation's environment. Recognizing the
mutual goals of NEPA and watershed
planning, the NEPA process can facilitate
watershed planning and management in a
manner that will bring us closer to realizing
the lofty goals articulated by Congress
nearly 20 years ago when NEPA was passed
into law. Using the NEPA environmental
impact assessment process as a bridge,
individual federal actions and responsibili-
ties can be linked with comprehensive
watershed planning.
Using the flexibility inherent in the
NEPA process, innovative, integrated
watershed planning that advances environ-
mental risk reduction goals can be achieved
with full public participation. The flexibil-
ity of NEPA, as well as its potential to
achieve a number of objectives, is often
overlooked. Broadly focused NEPA
documents—those that go beyond site-
specific, single-purpose proposals—can
serve to integrate the variety of issues (e.g.,
floodplain encroachment, wetland losses,
nonpoint source pollution, point source
pollution, recreation, and soil erosion) that
directly or indirectly relate to watershed
management. In addition, through this
flexibility, NEPA can provide:
• A forum for long-term watershed
planning.
• A process for consideration of new
policy directions and research.
• A framework for analysis and
disclosure of site-specific environ-
mental impacts of individual
projects.
• An opportunity to assess cumulative
effects and analyze management
areas.
Federal, state, and local entities can
use the NEPA process more effectively to
provide the integrated resources analysis
and planning required for comprehensive
watershed initiatives. Federal actions
triggering NEPA responsibility cover a
wide range of actions and involve a variety
of federal agencies. For example, Corps of
Engineers' (COE) flood control and
regulatory activities, Bureau of
Reclamation's (BOR) water supply and
management activities, Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission's (FERC)
hydropower licensing, and Federal
Emergency Management Agency hazard
mitigation actions all trigger NEPA
analyses. Consequently, agencies and the
public should view NEPA as an opportu-
nity to initiate early and creatively inte-
grated, multi-objective planning within the
context of environmental impact assess-
ment.
While watersheds may define the
appropriate spatial boundaries for environ-
mental, economic, and engineering plans,
NEPA provides an appropriate framework
upon which to organize analyses, planning,
and management commitments for water-
sheds. Through the project and site-specific
NEPA analyses typically performed by
federal agencies, their expertise, funding,
and commitments can be brokered into a
broader watershed plan. Where the federal
135
-------
136
Watershed '93
project's purpose and need can be articu-
lated in a broader sense, the NEPA process
can serve to identify and address an ex-
panded spectrum of issues and alternative
solutions.
Use of the NEPA Process in
the Context of Watershed
Planning
The NEPA process allows agencies
considerable flexibility to determine the
appropriate scope of analysis, and therefore
can often broaden that scope to a watershed
level. Accordingly, it is most appropriate to
prepare NEPA documents that look at
watershed level impacts when: (1) the
agency is evaluating a policy or program;
(2) a series of similar or related actions are
expected to occur within 10 or 20 years; or
(3) several activities are occurring within a
single watershed and need to be coordi-
nated.
The basic components of the NEPA
procedure—alternatives analysis; assess-
ment of direct, indirect, and cumulative
impacts; mitigation; and public involve-
ment—are appropriate tools that can be
utilized to realize:
• Integration of watershed planning
and management within the broader
context of water quality, natural
resources protection and enhance-
ment, and other social issues.
• Integration of cross-media,
nonstructural, structural, and
environmentally enhancing solutions
to watershed issues.
• Multi-objective management of
watershed features that address
multiple problems (e.g., flopdplain
management, recreation, and
wetlands protection).
• Assessment and establishment of a
watershed's natural and beneficial
uses and values.
• Integrated risk reduction.
• Integrated and coordinated federal,
state, and local planning and
resource management.
At a minimum, NEPA documents
should be used to assess and establish a
watershed's baseline conditions, natural and
beneficial uses and values, and the potential
for changes in those conditions and values.
Thus, in its most traditional use, NEPA is an
appropriate vehicle to promote early
involvement in planning and risk reduction.
However, NEPA can also provide for a
much broader assessment of watershed
planning issues.
Integrating All Levels of
Government Through the
NEPA Process
The NEPA process, particularly when
broadly focused, facilitates coordinated
implementation of multiple federal and state
programs affecting a watershed and brings
together appropriate federal, state, and local
officials into a cooperative effort to address
common goals. The NEPA process could, at
best, be the framework or, at least, be one of
the pillars supporting the watershed plan
development process that integrates federal
actions with other national, state, and/or
local goals of water quality improvement,
habitat protection, environmental risk
reduction, recreation, and aesthetics.
The Council on Environmental
Quality's (CEQ) regulations on the imple-
mentation of NEPA require that all reason-
ably foreseeable future actions be included
in impact analysis so that decision-making is
based on the total probable future condition
of an area (CEQ, 1978). This requkement
for a cumulative impact analysis links a site-
specific proposal to broader watershed
management issues. Through this analysis,
local citizens and public officials are
provided an opportunity to assess long-term
trends, develop policies to address the
desirability of such trends, assess their
compatibility with other local goals, and
develop means of coordinating local
objectives.
Involvement of local jurisdictions in
the NEPA process is crucial for develop-
ment of meaningful evaluations and to
determine those societal benefits that are
desirable and those societal costs that are
acceptable. For the NEPA process to work
to its fullest potential, local jurisdictions
should use the NEPA document to publicly
indicate their capacity and willingness to
implement measures to offset environ-
mentally or socially unsatisfactory
impacts.
Other Advantages of the NEPA
Process
Other practical reasons exist to
promote the use of the broadly focused
-------
Conference Proceedings
137
NEPA document. Watershed-scale NEPA
documents can enhance public participa-
tion in a comprehensive planning process
which can encourage "buying into" or
committing to an overall program. Fur-
thermore, such NEPA analyses can
facilitate addressing site-specific actions
through subsequent abbreviated impact
analyses and permitting procedures, saving
government agencies and developers time
and money.
Federal, state, and local agencies may
need encouragement to utilize NEPA to its
fullest potential. Agencies may resist
broadening the scope of analysis, taking a
narrow approach that only addresses the
specific federal action; the additional
analyses may be seem as superfluous to the
issue to be resolved. For a variety of
reasons, federal regulatory agencies may
resist programmatic NEPA analyses that do
not directly relate to the immediate federal
action. Although it is important to recog-
nize that regulatory agencies are often
burdened by a lack of staff resources,
considerable time and effort savings needed
for subsequent NEPA analyses can be
realized through comprehensive planning.
These attitudes, coupled with the lack of
credit assigned to federal agencies for
voluntarily undertaking programmatic
efforts, limit comprehensive planning and
regional issue resolution.
Another very practical reason for
utilizing the NEPA process is the advan-
tages gained from utilizing federal expertise.
Furthermore, if a federal action triggers
NEPA, and the federal agency chooses to
facilitate watershed planning through the
NEPA process, the federal government will
be financially contributing, at least, to the
impact analysis and development of
alternatives solutions phases. If the federal
government proceeds with its action, which
presumably is consistent with the watershed
plan, the federal government may be
funding an aspect of the overall solution and
may be contributing funds to monitoring
efforts required to assess the success of the
plan.
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Office of Federal Activities
will be working to remove these barriers
through active solicitation of federal
agencies' support for a broadening of a.
single-purpose NEPA document or the
development of programmatic documents to
address comprehensive, integrated issue
identification and resolution.
Federal Involvement in
Watershed Planning and the
NEPA "Trigger"
Numerous federal statutes, executive
orders, and policies exist that can be
interpreted as affecting federal participation
in watershed planning. Clearly, there has
been long-standing congressional support
for federal assistance in watershed planning.
Moreover, Executive Order 11988, Flood-
plain Management, encourages federal
agencies to provide leadership and take
action in aspects of watershed planning and
management. When federal participation
can be secured, the NEPA process may be
"triggered" (i.e., there is a federal action that
requires the preparation of a NEPA docu-
ment) and watershed planning can be
advanced. Agency involvement in these
activities provides the necessary NEPA
process trigger. A sampling of federal
authorities follows:
• Section 1 of Public Law 87-639
(September 5, 1961) authorizes the
Army (i.e., COE) and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
to make joint investigations and
surveys of watershed areas and
prepare joint reports on those
investigations and surveys when
authorized by Congress.
• Section 22 of Public Law 93-251
authorizes COE, in cooperation with
states, to prepare comprehensive
plans for "the development, utiliza-
tion and conservation of the water
and related resources of drainage
basins."
• Public Law 566, the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act
(August 4, 1954), authorized USD A
to cooperate with states and other
public agencies in works for flood
prevention and soil conservation.
• COE must consider in its planning
process all practicable and relevant
alternatives applicable to sound
floodplain management, without pre-
judging one alternative as superior to
any other (US Army, 1989).
• COE may participate in the planning
of wastewater management facilities
or systems. COE is authorized to
provide advice or assistance to local
or state agencies engaged in area-
wide waste treatment planning at the
request of such agency (US Army,
1989).
-------
138
Watershed '93
Therefore, state and local agencies and
the public interested in utilizing the NEPA
process in watershed planning may use these
and other authorities to identify opportuni-
ties for involving federal agencies in
watershed planning.
Examples of Use of the NEPA
Process and Watershed
Planning
There are numerous examples where
NEPA has facilitated a watershed planning
effort. Listed below are some more recent
examples that show the range of activities
incorporating the NEPA process and
watershed planning:
• In COE's St. Paul District, all
regulatory permit processing along
the Red River of the North, in North
Dakota, has been suspended until a
programmatic impact analysis is
conducted. Presumably this analysis
will identify cumulative impacts and
facilitate development of a regional
plan for certain activities within the
watershed.
• In BOR' s Mid-Pacific Region, BOR
is working with the State of Califor-
nia to develop a San Joaquin River
Water Resources Initiative. This
study will identify means of return-
ing some of the environmental
values lost within this watershed in
part due to dam operations, water
withdrawals, and agricultural
practices.
• In the Pacific Northwest, a myriad of
federal and state agencies are
working together to address the
decline of salmon fisheries.
In addition to these examples, EPA's
Office of Federal Activities is currently
involved in two issues that present unique
opportunities for leveraging broad NEPA
analyses to facilitate watershed planning.
The first involves FERC relicensing and the
second involves water supply contracts. By
1999, 335 FERC licenses expire for existing
hydropower projects on 105 rivers in 24
states. These FERC licenses set environ-
mental and operational conditions on hydro-
power projects for a 30- to 50-year period.
Significant environmental problems (i.e.,
impacts to water quality, wetlands, fisheries,
wildlife habitat, migratory birds, water-
based recreation, and ecosystem integrity)
have occurred from project construction and
operation and will continue under status quo
conditions. Similarly, over 200 long-term
water supply contracts issued by BOR are
expected to expire within the next 15 years
in California. In both of these circum-
stances, we will be encouraging broad-scale
NEPA analyses that seek to examine im-
pacts from a watershed perspective.
Conclusion
The flexible nature of NEPA lends
itself to use as a vehicle for accomplishing
watershed analysis and planning with full
public participation. A comprehensive
NEPA document on a watershed scale
assists in the problem identification and
resolution process—moving participants
from a general knowledge of what needs to
be done, to identifying what can be done,
and finally to obtaining desired results.
Used to its fullest potential, a well-executed
and documented NEPA process can provide
a communication framework and action
agenda long after the federal activity
initiating the process has been approved.
The comprehensive federal NEPA docu-
ment, performed on a watershed scale, can
result in federally-coordinated but locally
autonomous actions with respect to other
facets of the watershed plan. NEPA
represents a valuable tool that federal, state,
and local entities can utilize more effec-
tively to realize significant benefits to both
local watershed management and environ-
mental protection.
EPA will be doing more to foster
cooperation among the agencies to ensure
better integration of watershed management
within the broader context of water and
natural resources protection and enhance-
ment. The EPA's NEPA oversight responsi-
bility stems from both NEPA and section
309 of the Clean Air Act, which requires
that EPA review and comment on the
environmental impact of any matter relating
to the duties and responsibilities of the
Administrator (including air quality, water
quality, ecosystem protection, hazardous
materials, and waste management). EPA
uses its NEPA review responsibilities to
encourage creative planning through the
development of alternative analysis and
mitigation measures to enhance environ-
mental quality and/or reduce environmental
risks.
EPA believes that it can utilize its
NEPA review authorities to encourage
-------
Conference Proceedings
139
federal agencies to take a holistic review of
the problems facing a given watershed. The
agencies also should review their authorities
and policies and promote, or at least
participate in, watershed planning and
management. However, EPA and other
federal agencies cannot succeed in this
effort alone. Strong local recognition of the
value of such integration is necessary to
encourage effective multi-objective flood-
plain management.
References
CEQ. 1978. Regulations for implementing
the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act.
40 Code of Federal Regulations, Parts
1500-1508. Council on Environmen-
tal Quality.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1989.
Digest of water resources policies and
authorities. EP 1165-2-1.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'95
The Greenway Chameleon
Anne Lusk, Vice Chair
American Trails, Stowe, VT
'MM'ow come we haven't done it? How
••• come we haven't developed an
.M. ^interconnected system of watersheds,
streams, greenways, and paths in this
country? Partly because the combination of
these practices is a new theory, but hey, our
forefathers told us about the possibilities and
then even built examples for us to follow.
How come it's taken us so long? And now
that we see and understand what to do, will
we do it?
In 1865, Frederick Law Olmsted
developed the greenway concept when he
created the college grounds at Berkley.
Later he perfected the idea in Boston's
Emerald Necklace.
In 1929, Benton MacKaye described
his design of the Appalachian Trail. Not
just a hiking trail, it was also to be a giant
dam and levee system for the entire. Eastern
Seaboard, the ultimate water and trail
greenway.
In 1959, William Whyte coined the
word greenway and wrote about the concept
in Securing Open Space for Urban America
(Whyte, 1959). In the chapter titled "Link-
age" in his book The Last Landscape, he
further advanced the concept of greenways
(Whyte, 1968).
In 1977, Christopher Alexander with
his partner authors wrote about the need
for common and connected spaces for
children and a network of bike paths in his
book A Pattern Language (Alexander et
al., 1977). He wrote, "Lay out common
land, paths, gardens and bridges so that
groups of at least 64 households are
connected by a swath of land that does not
cross traffic. Establish this land as the
connected play space for the children in
those households."
And then in 1987, The Report of the
President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors recommended greenways
(President's Commission, 1987): "Commu-
nities would establish greenways, corridors
of private and public recreation lands, and
waters to provide people with access to open
spaces close to where they live, and to link
together the rural and urban spaces in the
American landscape."
We now have books sitting on shelves
for referencing, examples that we can study
in person, an appreciation of multiobjective
river corridors, wetlands policies, and new
money for bicycle and pedestrian facilities.
If it's assumed we're primed and ready, the
next step is to decide how, this time, we're
actually going to succeed at creating a
multiobjective river corridor system with
greenway components that interconnect all
across the country.
Let's, just for the heck of it, look at
another system in the United States, the
interstate highway system. This system is
now complete. How did that happen? After
World War II, President Eisenhower tried to
drive from the East Coast to the West Coast.
He couldn't. He realized that, for national
security reasons, this country needed to be
connected so he could drive troops from one
coast to the other. He decided to create the
interstate highway system and he put Al
Gore's father in charge of it. Money was
appropriated, federal and state agencies were
organized to oversee the work, and a goal
was set.
For the interstate highway system,
land was purchased, either through willing
seller/willing buyer or by condemnation.
The rationale was—it was for the public
good. The group overseeing this endeavor
was the federal government, a sort of big
brother who could look out over all the
landscape, acquke the necessary land, and
join the segments together.
The land issues related to watersheds
and greenways are more complex and in
141
-------
142
Watershed '93
today's climate taking land by condemna-
tion is not viewed favorably, even by Con-
gress. It's difficult to identify one overseer
because even the Administration is loathe to
control people's lives and their land. We
must use different tacts.
First, we need to institutionalize the
theories. Greenways and watersheds must
become mainstream and common practice
for homebuilders, federal agencies, local
communities, and land conservationists.
We need to make sure greenways fit
everywhere, everyone knows about them,
and all create them. Watersheds and
greenways need to be household words
like Kleenex and household practices like
cleaning.
Second, citizens must be the leaders
in developing this interconnected system
of watersheds, greenways, and paths.
They know their land and watersheds
better than anyone and they are the most
qualified, at the grass-roots level, to
oversee the work.
Third, approval for this citizen lead
movement must come from the Administra-
tion. They have the money and the regula-
tory process. Without their support, the
cause will be just slogans on discarded
placards.
/. How do we Institutionalize
watersheds and greenways?
For starters, we need to speak at each
other's conferences and not just at our
own. Greenway leaders need to speak at
watershed conferences. Watershed
speakers need to speak at homebuilders
association conferences. Bikeway leaders
need to speak at wetland conferences. We
need to swap quality speakers as if we
threw speaker references into a big pile,
and every conference organizer had to
blindly select a bunch.
We need to have rules, regulations,
and planning documents that reflect wise
watershed and greenway management.
Rivers should resemble their natural state.
Walkers should be allowed access the length
of the river. Connections from stream to
bike path should be coordinated.
Staff should all be trained in this
watershed/greenway new thinking. There
should be no hesitation on their part to "do
the right thing." They should be repro-
grammed often so they can automatically
put into practice the most environmentally
sensitive solution.
2. How do we motivate the citizens
to be the leaders?
We help them organize. We give
them all of our secrets. We applaud their
work. We flatter them with praise. We go
out on the road and cheerlead.
Each state should have an aggressive
organization which encourages watershed/
greenways and seeks to find the money to
complete the work. This group should focus
locally and statewide, but also have connec-
tions nationwide. The group should work
closely with property owners. Unlike the
interstate highway system, land should not
be taken by condemnation.
Quality citizens should be cultivated.
High caliber people attract high caliber
people who do high caliber work. They are
also respected in the halls of government
and have connections to land and money.
Rather than just saying, the grassroots
should be mobilized, the adage should be—
the grass roots will be mobilized with
talented leaders in the midst.
3. How do we gain approval
from the administration for
institutionalizing watersheds
and greenways and cultivating
quality leaders?
Because they hold the money and
oversee the regulatory process, they cannot
be left out of this scenario.
We have to first get into the White
House and see that the theories are commu-
nicated to them for acceptance. We need
also to develop ways for them to participate
that don't cost a lot of money and produce
identifiable results.
Congress needs to be given well
crafted suggestions for legislation. If there
are federal roadblocks, those should be
eliminated or lessened. Money should be
made available to produce a tremendous
return for the investment. A good case for
the expenditure of these funds must be
developed in light of the deficit.
We could do it. We could be the
generation that realizes the dreams of our
forefathers. We could be the ones to
correct the environmental damage done by
our immediate predecessors. We could
make this wet greenway a chameleon that
fits in deserts, forests, and city settings—
changing the color and shape of America
to more closely resemble our original
country.
-------
Conference Proceedings
143
References
Alexander, C., et al. 1977. A pattern
language. Oxford University Press,
New York, NY, pp. 346-347.
President's Commission on Americans
Outdoors. 1987. Americans outdoors:
The legacy, the challenge. Island
Press, Washington, DC.
Whyte, W.H. 1959. Securing open space
for urban america. Monograph
published by the Urban Land
Institute.
. 1968. The last landscape.
Doubleday, New York, NY. (See
Chapter 10, "Linkages.")
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
National Marine Fisheries Service's
Involvement in Watershed
Management Through the Coastal
Wetlands Planning, Protection, and
Restoration Act of 1990
Timothy Osborn, Fisheries Biologist
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD
Rickey Ruebsamen, Branch Chief
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Baton Rouge, LA
The State of Louisiana contains 40
percent of the coastal wetlands in the
coterminous United States, but is
experiencing 80 percent of the Nation's
coastal wetlands loss. The current loss rate
is estimated to be about 25 square miles
annually. For several years there have been
numerous attempts to enact legislation to
create a national program to support wetland
restoration in Louisiana. These efforts
resulted in passage of the Coastal Wetlands
Planning, Protection, and Restoration Act of
1990 (CWPPRA, P.L. 101-646, November
29, 1990) which, coupled with state legisla-
tion creating the Louisiana Coastal Wetlands
Trust Fund, provides the mechanism and
funding to implement a program to restore
degraded wetlands. CWPPRA is unique
because it enables a comprehensive wetland
conservation planning effort and provides
significant funding to implement wetland
restoration projects.
The passage of this act created an
opportunity for all coastal states to develop
and apply for funding to implement wetland
conservation programs. It also specifically
required the development of a long range
plan for restoring, conserving, and enhanc-
ing wetlands in coastal Louisiana. To
implement the program in Louisiana,
CWPPRA formally established a Task Force
composed of representatives of the Secretary
of the Army (Corps of Engineers (COE));
Departments of Commerce (DOC), National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA), Interior (Fish and Wildlife
Service, Minerals Management Service,
U.S. Geological Survey), and Agriculture
(Soil Conservation Service); the Administra-
tor of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; and the Governor of Louisiana
(represented by the Governor's Office and
Department of Natural Resources).
As required by the act, the Task Force
annually identifies and prepares a prioritized
list of coastal wetland restoration projects in
Louisiana to provide for the long-term
conservation of such wetlands and depen-
dent fish and wildlife populations. Priority
ranking is based principally upon the cost-
effectiveness of such projects in creating,
restoring, protecting, or enhancing coastal
wetlands, with due allowance for small-scale
projects necessary to demonstrate the use of
new techniques or materials for coastal
wetlands restoration. Priority lists are
submitted annually to Congress. To date,
two project lists have been submitted to
Congress and a third is being prepared.
To ensure the success of this program,
Task Force agencies agreed that citizens and
user groups of the coastal basins must
become "stakeholders" in the restoration
effort. Thus to assist in this planning effort,
145
-------
146
Watershed '93
the Task Force established the Citizens
Participation Group as an advisory body.
This group is composed of local government
representatives and a variety of user groups,
such as landowners, the petroleum industry,
commercial and recreational fishing inter-
ests, and environmental organizations. In
addition, during the first 2 years of planning,
numerous public meetings were conducted
by Task Force agencies to encourage public
involvement and solicit wetland concerns
and restoration recommendations within
each of the nine coastal watersheds.
The Task Force will also prepare a
Restoration Plan to identify wetland
restoration projects. Like the Priority List,
the Plan is to be focused on cost effective-
ness in creating, restoring, protecting, or
enhancing coastal wetlands. The Restora-
tion Plan is to be completed within 3 years
of passage of the act. The purpose of the
plan is to develop a watershed and coast-
wide comprehensive approach to restore and
prevent the loss of coastal wetlands in
Louisiana. The Plan is to coordinate and
integrate coastal wetland restoration projects
to ensure the long-term conservation of
Louisiana's coastal wetlands.
CWPPRA requires an evaluation of
the Restoration Plan to be prepared by the
Task Force and submitted to Congress not
less than 3 years after the completion and
every 3 years thereafter. The Task Force
must also provide annual reports to Con-
gress containing a scientific evaluation of
the effectiveness of the coastal wetlands res-
toration projects carried out under the Plan.
National Marine Fisheries
Service's Role in CWPPRA
Activities
The NOAA Restoration Center (RC),
located in the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS), has been designated as the
national coordinator for NMFS involvement
in CWPPRA activities. The RC, Southeast
Regional Office (SERO), and Southeast
Science Center (SEC) will provide wetlands
restoration expertise. CWPPRA goals
should fully complement NMFS's priorities
and programs (NMFS Strategic Plan, 1991).
As a member of the CWPPRA Task
Force, NMFS assists in the development of
the long range watershed conservation plans
to protect, enhance, and restore Louisiana's
coastal wetlands. Fulfilling this objective
requires the determination of problem areas
and restoration opportunities, reviews of
wetland site selection and potential restora-
tion, conservation or enhancement options,
and the development of monitoring criteria.
During 1992, a comprehensive monitoring
plan was completed as a guide to developing
scientific evaluations of each funded
restoration project. As provided in the act,
economic analysis is performed for deter-
mining the benefits and costs of various
restoration or conservation measures.
For NMFS, this objective provides an
opportunity to help develop the long range
plan to protect Louisiana's wetlands consis-
tent with its own priorities in habitat
protection. It also provides an opportunity
for NMFS to work more closely with its
fishery/wetland constituents and build upon
existing relationships.
Project Development
As a member of the CWPPRA Task
Force, DOC/NOAA shares responsibility for
identifying coastal sites to be considered for
possible restoration or protection. Generally,
the following steps are involved:
• Identifying restoration opportunities.
• Conducting field investigations to
gather preliminary information on
potential restoration sites.
•. Developing project proposals offering
possible restoration alternatives and
related costs.
• Conducting wetland value assess-
ments and economic analyses to
determine the ecological value of
the wetlands and project cost effec-
tiveness.
If selected for funding by the Task
Force, the following actions are required:
detailed site investigations, landowner
agreements, permit applications for the
restoration, permit review and comment
(e.g., NEPA and Clean Water Act compli-
ance), advanced planning and engineering of
the restoration project, actual restoration
construction activities, long-term mainte-
nance, and restoration site monitoring.
In fiscal year 1992, NMFS investi-
gated 17 sites in Louisiana for possible
restoration projects. Field investigations of
wetland sites have required contractual
assistance. The RC has assumed the role of
contract manager for field investigations to
be performed under the day-to-day direction
of SERO. This provided an opportunity for
the RC to develop contracting and manage-
-------
Conference Proceedings
147
ment expertise, while the SERO focused on
planning and permitting activities.
Advanced planning and restoration
engineering require engineering and wet-
lands construction expertise. Such resources
may be provided by other Task Force
members (e.g., COE). However, engineering
and construction oversight will likely require
the use of private contractors to support the
RC and SERO. The RC has developed the
necessary contractual and agency coordina-
tion to provide engineering support neces-
sary to facilitate successful restoration
efforts. Involvement in this activity provides
NMFS an increased expertise in restoration
project planning and implementation.
Contractual support, when properly overseen
by the SERO and the RC, will increase
NOAA's wetlands protection and restoration
capabilities.
Monitoring within the development of
a long range plan and in actual restoration
cases is critical to evaluating the success of
the program. A standardized monitoring
protocol based on project types (e.g.,
sediment diversion or hydrologic restoration)
has been developed by a Task Force working
group. This effort provided an opportunity
for the RC and SEC to emphasize the need
for comprehensive monitoring of all restora-
tion cases.
Priority List Projects
In 1991 and 1992, NMFS, as lead
agency, was awarded funding for five proj-
ects. Three were hydrologic restoration
projects at Point au Fer, LaCache, and
Fourchon. Two were projects to enhance sed-
iment delivery and distribution to the lower
Atchafalaya River delta (Louisiana Coastal
Wetlands Conservation and Restoration Task
Force, 1991, 1992). The projects are within
three coastal Louisiana watersheds. Total
area benefited by the five projects, once they
are fully implemented, is approximately
14,000 acres. For informational purposes, a
synopsis of two of the projects follows.
Lower Bayou LaCache Hydro/ogle
Restoration
Site Description
Since 1932, at least 12 mineral access
canals have been dredged into or across the
project area from Bayou Terrebonne (to the
east) and Bayou Petit Caillou (to the west).
This has resulted in saltwater intrusion into
the low-salinity, interior marshes of the
project site. Additionally, the banks of Bush
Canal at the north border of the area have
largely disappeared resulting in the conver-
sion of about 70 percent of the northern
third of the project area to open water. Tidal
exchange rate appears to have changed from
north/south flow at restricted velocities to a
rapid flow-through pattern throughout most
of the area. Tidal scouring appears to have
contributed to significant marsh erosion.
Proposed Restoration Activities
The intent of this project is to restore
natural north-south tidal exchanges and
salinity gradients and to reduce flow
through the dredged canals by constructing
shell-reinforced plugs at the mouths of each
of nine canals along Bayou Petit Caillou and
six canal plugs along Bayou Terrebonne.
This should reduce saltwater intrusion and
tidal scouring occurring through the series
of access canals. The project will enhance
habitat conditions in 4,500 acres of wetlands
and slow the loss of an estimated 256 acres
over the next 20 years.
Status
The completed cooperative agreement
was approved by DOC in November 1992.
Implementation of Phase I of the project
will begin following State signature of the
cooperative agreement.
Projected Cost
The cost of this project is estimated to
be $1.1 million, with the federal contribu-
tion being approximately $825,000.
Big Island
Site Description
Big Island, located near the mouth of
the Atchafalaya River, was created with
dredge spoil from the Atchafalaya River
navigational channel. Although no spoil has
been deposited on the island since the mid-
1980s, the location and size of the island
prevent the river delta from prograding and
creating new wetlands along the western side
of the river's main channel. Due to dredging
for navigation and other alterations, this
segment of the Atchafalaya River delta
complex has ceased to grow despite enor-
-------
148
Watershed '93
mous sediment inputs from the river.
Combined with the erosional problems in the
area, an estimated 2034 acres could be lost
through natural deterioration over 20 years.
Proposed Restoration Activities
A channel with a bottom width of 500
feet and a depth of 6 feet is to be dredged at
a 45 degree angle through Big Island. This
will allow water and sediment to flow
around a series of delta lobes, to be created
with the material from dredging the channel,
and thus allow the delta to prograde.
Dredged material deposition is expected to
create 300 acres of wetlands during con-
struction and 1,200 acres are expected to
accrete naturally over the life of the project.
Projected Cost
The total cost for this project is
approximately $4,100,000 with the federal
portion being $3,075,000.
Coastal Restoration Plan
The priority projects approved by the
Task Force and to be undertaken by NOAA
and other Federal agencies represent readily
implementable actions to address individual
wetland loss problems or enhancement
opportunities. These projects essentially
represent stopgap measures to be imple-
mented while comprehensive watershed
plans are being completed. The watershed
restoration plans wiU provide a framework
for wetland restoration within each basin,
will identify projects critical to and support-
ive of successful watershed restoration, and
will be coordinated among the different
coastal basins to ensure a holistic approach.
Restoration plan development has
involved NOAA and other Task Force
agencies, the Citizens Participation Group,
the academic community, and the public at
large. This effort was initiated through a
series of public meetings intended to
provide information about CWPPRA and
solicit comments, concerns, and recommen-
dations pursuant to requirements of the act.
Subsequently, open forum workshops were
held during which pertinent information on
each watershed was presented and dis-
cussed. Each workshop resulted in a written
summary of environmental conditions; a
concise problem statement; and conceptual,
alternative restoration plans for each basin.
Utilizing information gathered and
developed as a result of the public meetings
and workshop deliberations, Task Force
subcommittees are preparing watershed
restoration plans for each coastal basin.
These plans will identify problems and
opportunities, specify critical and supporting
restoration projects, and provide information
to allow a ranking of projects based on cost-
effectiveness and other criteria. Combined
in a comprehensive restoration plan, the
watershed plans will be subject to agency
and public review and comment prior to
submission to Congress. Once submitted,
the restoration plan will become the basis
for selecting future projects for funding and
implementation under the CWPPRA.
Summary
CWPPRA provides an opportunity for
DOC, NOAA, and NMFS to participate in a
federally sponsored program with COE and
other parties to restore, conserve, and en-
hance coastal wetlands in Louisiana. NMFS
currently is planning the restoration of ap-
proximately 14,000 acres in the coastal zone
of Louisiana and actively participating in the
development of a statewide comprehensive
restoration plan. Through NOAA's involve-
ment a better understanding of and emphasis
upon wetland restoration, protection, and
conservation efforts in the Louisiana coastal
zone can be applied to other restoration op-
portunities throughout the United States.
References
Coastal Wetlands Planning, Protection and
Restoration Act of 1990 (CWPPRA).
Public Law 101-646.
Louisiana Coastal Wetlands Conservation
and Restoration Task Force. 1990.
Coastal wetland conservation and
restoration draft plan (fiscal year
1990-91). Baton Rouge, LA.
. 1991. Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection and Restoration Act
priority project list report. New
Orleans, LA. November 18.
. 1992. Coastal Wetlands Planning,
Protection, and Restoration Act, 2nd
priority project list report to Congress
(fiscal year 1992). New Orleans, LA.
November.
National Marine Fisheries Service. 1991.
Strategic plan. Washington, DC.
-------
WATERSHED '93
New Federal Directions
Mmy federal, state, and local
igencies are taking an increasingly
integrated approach to watershed
management in an effort to focus on whole
ecosystems, tailor their actions to local
needs, and make the best choices using
limited resources. Some of the federal
agencies involved in setting new directions
for watershed management (the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the
Forest Service, the Army Corps of Engi-
neers, the Bureau of Reclamation, the Soil
Conservation Service, and the Fish and
Wildlife Service) participated in a panel
discussion that reviewed some of the efforts
underway. Other agencies (conference
sponsors) provided brief written summaries
describing how they are developing and
implementing new approaches to watershed
management within their agencies and in
partnership with others. These summaries
are included along with the papers from the
panelists in this section of the proceedings.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA)
recognizes the need for
comprehensive, holistic
approaches to address today's
challenges—significant water
pollution from nonpoint and
nontraditional sources,
maintaining safe drinking
water supplies, and habitat
restoration and protection.
EPA encourages and advances
watershed efforts at all levels
of government and is actively
involved in many watershed
partnerships.
EPA has years of
experience in partnership
programs such as the National Estuary
Program, the Clean Lakes Program, the
Rural Clean Water Program, the Great
Lakes Water Quality Initiative, the Gulf of
Mexico Program, and the Chesapeake Bay
Program. These programs illustrate that
successful watershed protection efforts
have three key elements: broad stake-
holder involvement, risk-based problem
identification, and integrated actions
tailored to needs.
Through the Watershed Protection
Approach, EPA has recently intensified
efforts to support watershed management.
EPA programs may provide regulatory,
technical, and financial assistance in such
areas as nonpoint source pollution abate-
ment, water quality assessment and monitor-
ing, water quality criteria and standards,
wetlands protection, effluent discharge
permits, wellhead protection, underground
injection control, comprehensive state
ground water protection, and drinking water
protection.
149
-------
150
Watershed '93
USDA Forest Service
During the spring of 1992, the
USDA Forest Service unveiled a new
management philosophy and direction—
"ecosystem management"—to achieve the
multiple-use goals of the National Forests
and Grasslands. This philosophy will also
be actively promoted in cooperative
relationships with state and private forestry
organizations and in forest research
activities. Ecosystem management is the
skillful, integrated use of ecological
knowledge at a variety of scales to produce
desired resource values, products, services,
and conditions that will sustain the
ecosystem's diversity and productivity.
Like the ecosystems themselves, manage-
ment on an ecosystem basis is evolving as
new knowledge and experience come to
light.
This commitment and shift in philoso-
phy come at a time when the demand by a
very diverse public for a wide range of
goods, services, and values is at an all-time
high. This new direction initiates the Forest
Service's holistic watershed management -
approach, which exhibits a greater sensitiv-
ity to all environmental values in our
nation's forests.
-------
WATERSHED '93
US. Army Corps of Engineers
Jimmy F. Bates,* Chief, Policy and Planning Division
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
Since the early 1970s, the emphasis of
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) has shifted from development
to the improved operation of existing
projects, with special concern for impacts on
the environment. Today, Corps funds
budgeted for the operation and maintenance
of existing projects exceed those budgeted
for new construction.
As a result of legislative and policy
changes, environmental restoration is now a
"high-priority" mission in the Corps's
budgeting process along with the more
traditional missions of navigation and flood
control. The Corps can now participate in
the modification of existing projects for fish
and wildlife habitat restoration.
As has occurred historically, these
changes in the Corps's water resources
development program reflect changing
national preferences and desires. The
Corps's study process begins with an
authorization by Congress for a specific
project or program investigation, most often
initiated by a request from local interests.
The study and implementation process then
includes a partnership with nonfederal
interests and input from the public. Follow-
ing are examples to illustrate some of the
new directions the Corps is taking in
watershed management.
Kissimmee River
Restoration Study
Authorized by section 116 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1990,
the Kissimmee River Restoration Study is
one of the largest environmental restoration
studies in which the Corps has participated
*The views expressed are those of the author and not
of the Department of the Army or the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers.
to date. The objective of the restoration
plan is to restore the Kissimmee River
ecosystem in central Florida to more natural
conditions. Although restoration plans are
being developed for both the Upper and
Lower Basin areas, this discussion is of the
Lower Basin plans, which are more com-
plete. In fact, funds have been included in
fiscal year 1993 to begin implementation of
the Lower Basin phase of the project.
Prior to channelization, the Kissimmee
River meandered approximately 103 miles
across a 56-mile and 1- to 2-mile-wide
fioodplain. The river meandered very
slowly, with velocities averaging less than 2
feet per second. Overbank flows appeared
periodically. In 1961, in response to a
request from the State of Florida, the Corps
began a far reaching flood control program,
including channelization, that brought major
ecological changes to the river and its
floodplain.
With channelization, about 21,000 of
the original 35,000 acres of floodplain
wetlands in the Lower Basin were drained,
covered with dredged material during canal
construction, or converted to channels.
Most of the broadleaf marsh, wetland shrub,
and wet prairie communities that once
dominated the area are now converted to
pasture. Maintenance of stable water levels
has also reduced plant communities within
the remaining inundated portions of each
canal pool.
River channelization, drainage, and
other modifications to wetland plant
communities have had wide-ranging
ecological consequences. These include loss
of fish and wildlife habitat, and the virtual
destruction of a complex food network that
the floodplain wetlands once supported.
Since channelization and the loss of wetland
prairie habitat, wintering waterfowl and
wading bird populations have decreased
significantly.
151
-------
152
Watershed '93
Components of the recommended plan
include backfilling about 29 miles of
existing channels; excavating about 11.6
miles of new river channel; and extensively
modifying and removing weirs, levees, and
other channel features. Plan outputs will
include restoration of approximately 55
miles of river and 29,000 acres of wetlands,
restoration of fish and wildlife habitat, and
unproved water quality. Wetlands acreage,
habitat values, and wading bird populations
are projected to be restored to more than 80
percent of historical conditions, and
waterfowl populations to approximately 100
percent.
As with the Corps's traditional
missions, partnerships with nonfederal
sponsors are integral to the success of
environmental restoration programs. In the
case of the Kissimmee, the South Florida
Water Management District is the
nonfederal sponsor and will share equally
with the Corps in the cost of project
features, estimated at $280 million, based on
1991 price levels. Nonfederal interests will
also provide locally preferred features at an
estimated cost of $147 million and annual
operation and maintenance. Although the
South Florida Water Management District is
the official nonfederal sponsor, it is not the
only other partner in the process. Numerous
other federal, state, and local agencies,
organizations, institutions, and interested
individuals participated throughout the
problem identification, planning, and
evaluation efforts.
Section 1135 Program
For smaller projects, section 1135 of
the Water Resources Development Act of
1986, as amended, authorizes the modifica-
tion of existing Corps projects to provide for
fish and wildlife habitat restoration. This
can occur if the Corps project contributed to
the degradation or if the restoration can
most effectively be accomplished through
the modification of an existing Corps
project.
Under the section 1135 program, total
project costs cannot exceed $5 million and
cost sharing with nonfederal partners is
required. For fish and wildlife habitat
restoration, the federal share is typically 75
percent of the construction costs. The
nonfederal share is 25 percent for construc-
tion, and they also provide operation and
maintenance. The section 1135 program
received initial funding in fiscal year 1991.
To date, 44 project modification studies
have been initiated.
During 1992, the first 1135 project
was completed—the closure of New Cut, in
Savannah Harbor, Georgia. This project
will restore approximately 4,000 acres of
freshwater marsh and will provide habitat
for a naturally recurring striped bass
population in the back river system. The
Board of Commissioners of Chatham
County is the local sponsor with funds
provided by the Georgia Port Authority.
An example of a section 1135 project
currently in the feasibility stage of study is
the Galilee Bird Sanctuary Salt Marsh
Restoration. The project is also being
considered as a Demonstration Project in the
Coastal America Initiative Program. The
Sanctuary contains about 130 acres of salt
marsh and former salt marsh, and it is
located in Narragansett, Rhode Island. It is
listed in the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture of
the North American Waterfowl Manage-
ment Plan, attesting to its importance to
black ducks and other waterfowl.
Over the years, filling with dredge
material and constrictions in tidal flow,
partially resulting from road construction,
have resulted in significant losses of
saltwater marsh habitat. Approximately 75
percent of the former salt marsh is now
dominated by common reed and other
upland vegetation. Soil and water salinity
levels need to be increased, by reintroducing
tidal flows, if this vegetation is to be
eliminated and the salt marsh restored.
The restoration plan under study
includes installing one or more culverts
through an existing road; constructing a
system of channels to convey tidal water
throughout the marsh system; reconfiguring
or removing existing dredged material; and
constructing additional features, such as tide
gates or dikes, a wildlife observation
platform, and wildlife habitat features. It
would restore approximately 80 acres of salt
marsh, increase the tidal range to the 50
acres of existing salt marsh, and improve
waterfowl habitat.
The Rhode Island Division of Fish
and Wildlife is the local sponsor. Other
participants include the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service; the Rhode Island Depart-
ment of Transportation; the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency; the University of
Rhode Island, Department of Natural
Resources Science; Ducks Unlimited; and
the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation.
-------
Conference Proceedings
153
Upper Mississippi River
System Environmental
Management Program
Authorized by section 1103 of the
Water Resources Development Act of 1986,
the Upper Mississippi River Environmental
Management Plan, or EMP, is another
example of the Corps's commitment to the
protection and restoration of the Nation's
environmental resources. The EMP is a
long-term program designed to protect and
balance the resources of the Upper Missis-
sippi and to guide future river management.
Congress placed federal management
responsibility for the program with the
Corps. In implementing the program, the
Corps actively coordinates with the U.S.
Department of the Interior; the Upper
Mississippi River Basin Association; and the
five states of Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota,
Missouri, and Wisconsin. The public also
plays a central role in the EMP.
The Environmental Management
Program consists of five components:
habitat rehabilitation projects, long-term
resource monitoring, recreation projects, a
study of the economic impacts of recreation,
and navigation monitoring. Approximately
97 percent of the EMP's authorized funding
is targeted for habitat projects and for long-
term resource monitoring. In the past, lack
of information on the Upper Mississippi
River has made it difficult for federal and
state agencies to manage the river for
competing resources. The long-term
resource monitoring component of the EMP
is addressing this problem through data
collection and analysis. Sedimentation is
widely considered to be the most severe
environmental problem on the river.
Agricultural activities and residential and
highway construction have contributed to
excessive erosion and sedimentation.
Commercial navigation and recreational
boating also contribute to these problems.
The habitat projects are addressing these
types of adverse changes by restoring and
protecting high-value fish and wildlife
habitat areas.
To date, 93 potential habitat projects
have been identified. Of these, 18 have
been completed or have construction
underway and 36 are in various stages of the
design and review process. Through fiscal
year 1992, approximately $52 million had
been allocated for habitat projects.
An example of a completed EMP
habitat project is the Island 42 Backwater
Restoration and Waterfowl Enhancement
project in Minnesota. Installation of a
culvert and channel provides water flows
to a semi-isolated backwater area to
alleviate low dissolved oxygen problems.
In addition, the backwater area was
deepened by dredging to improve 95 acres
of fish habitat. It is estimated that fish
production in the improved areas will
increase by 50 to 75 pounds per acre.
Because the restoration was on lands of the
National Wildlife and Fish Refuge, 100
percent of the implementation costs were
federally funded, with the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service assuming the operation
and maintenance responsibilities.
Another completed EMP project is the
Blackhawk Park Restoration Project in
Wisconsin. Here, approximately 7,000
linear feet of channels were excavated to
improve dissolved oxygen levels for fish
habitat. The improvements should yield
annual production increases of approxi-
mately 20,000 fish from these backwaters.
This project was cost-shared with the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
sources, on a 75 percent federal and 25
percent nonfederal basis.
Other Activities
As illustrated in the above examples,
effective watershed management requires a
partnership effort. The Corps participates in
various partnership programs with other
federal and state agencies to promote
beneficial resource management.
Previously mentioned was the Coastal
America Initiative, a coordinated,
multiagency effort addressing environmen-
tal problems along the Nation's shoreline.
Coastal America demonstration projects,
such as the Galilee Bird Sanctuary Restora-
tion Project, will serve as models for
effective management of coastal resources.
The North American Waterfowl
Management Plan is an international plan
designed to reverse the downward trend in
North America's waterfowl populations by
protecting and improving waterfowl
habitats. Department of the Army support
for the Plan is set forth in an agreement
signed with the Department of the Interior in
1989. Many Corps projects contribute
directly, or indirectly, to the habitat base for
the Nation's waterfowl. Corps participation
in this partnership contributes to achieving
the Plan's long-term goals.
-------
154
Watershed '93
The Corps also cooperates with the
National Marine Fisheries Service in The
Marine Fish Habitat Restoration and
Creation Program. This is a national
program for fish and shellfish habitat
restoration and creation. The goal of the
partnership is to increase marine fish and
shellfish productivity and to advance habitat
restoration technology in conjunction with
the Corps's civil works program.
The National Estuary Program is an
interagency program that is developing
plans for estuaries designated as nationally
significant by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. The program helps
coordinate federal, state, local, and private
action to protect and restore estuaries and
their surrounding wetlands. The Corps
participates in the management and techni-
cal advisory committees of the estuaries
being studied.
The Corps also conducts research and
special studies in support of water resource
management responsibilities. For example,
the new administration has made equal con-
sideration of environmental and economic
factors, through sustainable development, a
central theme in all areas of national
policy—from foreign affairs to health care
and job creation. An integral concept in
this theme is the use of market-based ap-
proaches to resource management and envi-
ronmental problems. While these concepts
are new to many, the Corps is no stranger
to market-based concepts in its water re-
source planning program. The Corps has a
long tradition of cost-benefit analysis. The
cost sharing reforms of the Water Re-
sources Development Act of 1986 provide a
true test of partners' willingness to support
improvements not only for traditional de-
velopment, but also for environmental res-
toration. Current efforts in developing the
policies and technology for wetlands miti-
gation banking, for evaluation of environ-
mental investments, for incremental cost
analysis, and for risk and uncertainty analy-
sis are examples of the Corps's continuing
commitment to the exploration and, where
appropriate, application of market-based
concepts to the Nation's resource problems
and opportunities.
-------
WATERSHED'93
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
Leon Hyatt, Acting Director, Technical Services
Assistant Commissioner - Resource Management
Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO
This opportunity to reflect with you on
the new and changing directions of the
Bureau of Reclamation is appreciated
and welcomed. To do so, we need to discuss
two particular ideas. The first is the Strate-
gic Plan of the Bureau of Reclamation for
the next 10 years. The second idea we
should talk about is Public Law 102-575,
signed into effect in November 1992. This
bill is the first omnibus bill given to Recla-
mation for many years. It certainly has
many titles that will help shape the future
direction of the Bureau of Reclamation. We
can and should discuss this area, but first let
me set the stage with some background
information. To do this, I have referenced
(with his permission to do so) several
comments made by Donald Glaser, presently
the Acting Assistant Secretary for Water and
Science in the Department of the Interior, at
the Upper Missouri Water Users Association
meeting held in the winter of 1992.
Back in 1987, top management at the
Bureau of Reclamation took a hard look at
the program direction of the agency. A
thorough assessment was made of the
traditional development role and a need to
refocus the emphasis of the agency's
mission in the future to that of management
of water resources. Over the past several
years, under Dennis Underwood's leader-
ship, we have been trying to focus this
vision for the agency throughout the West.
Let me read the Bureau of
Reclamation's mission statement: To
manage, develop, and protect water and
related resources in an economically and
environmentally sound manner in the
interest of the American public.
This mission statement is predicated
upon a recognition that future water resource
management in the West must be based upon
wise and balanced multipurpose use of our
limited western water supply. Water
demands are growing in the West, and the
supply of water is finite. The drought
conditions we have seen in the last 6 years
demonstrate clearly how narrow the margin
of reserve between water development and
water demand is throughout the West.
One thing we have found is that every
action or objective seems to make sense if
taken one at a tune, and yet taken together
they may make no sense. For that, we need
a more comprehensive focus to test indi-
vidual actions against.
We are working at instilling in staff
throughout the Bureau of Reclamation a
passion for public service—that is, a desire
by every Reclamation employee to make
each individual decision to achieve a
common focus to our mission and consider
the larger public interest.
As a part of the effort to do this, we
have taken the 1987 Assessment of our
program and expanded it forward into a
Strategic Plan. This Strategic Plan was just
finalized and released in June 1992. It is
intended to be the broad framework to carry
us into the future. The cornerstone of this
plan is founded on working and investing
together to build better coalitions through
partnerships.
The plan is divided into five major
categories, which include:
1. Managing and developing resources.
2. Protecting the environment.
3. Safeguarding the public's invest-
ment.
4. Building partnerships.
5. Fostering quality management.
These categories have 25 separate
program elements that address specific
programs and objectives. We are presently
working on implementation plans for these
25 elements.
Illustrative examples of these program
elements would include:
155
-------
156
Watershed '93
Water and power operations.
Water conservation.
Drought management.
Land resources.
Recreation.
Fish and wildlife resources.
Water quality.
Instream flows.
Wetlands and riparian habitat.
Facilities maintenance.
Dam safety.
Recovering the federal investment.
Assisting other nations.
Organizational excellence.
These in-depth plans state specific
goals and time frames for achieving goals
over the next 10 years. Specific implemen-
tation plans are reasonably well defined at
the present time for 10 of the 25 elements,
and these plans are under review in a rather
open public forum. The other 15 implemen-
tation plans will be completed in the next
few months and will receive a similar
review process. We welcome comments on
any of these plans from you or other
interested parties.
We have also completed an Accom-
plishments Report that shows you, our
customers, just how we have served you
from 1989 to 1991. And, we will be issuing
a 1992 Accomplishments Report in the
future. We believe that it is important to let
you know what we are doing to prepare for
the future, and the new directions the agency
is taking.
This preparation for a refocused future
is going to be very important given the
general sentiment in this country toward
change. That is clearly evident in the recent
elections. I will discuss issues relative to
Reclamation projects that are very likely to
develop in the upcoming months.
Traditional water development is very
unlikely in the future. Rather, conservation,
water transfers, water reclamation and reuse,
and multiple uses of water will be the
emphasis. Irrigation drainage and agricul-
tural runoff as they relate to water quality
are issues we will need to address.
As it relates to Reclamation projects,
water pricing will be a major issue. Cur-
rent agency water pricing practices are
generally viewed as poor business prac-
tices that encourage misuse of limited wa-
ter resources.
Double subsidy issues will become a
focus as they relate to Reclamation
projects. It is our belief that this will be
dealt with from the Reclamation water
pricing perspective as opposed to the price
support side.
Perpetual rights to water from
Reclamation projects will also come under
review. This is clear, given the recent
amendment passed in Title XXXIV of
Public Law 102-575 limiting the contract
terms of the Central Valley Project in
California to 25 years upon renewal.
Most important is the fact that
Reclamation projects will be managed to
recognize the interests of a much broader
constituency. They will become much more
multipurpose in the future. This will result
in new partnerships and coalitions for
Reclamation that are different from those in
the past.
Throughout the West, conflicts are
developing between historic coalitions.
These include agriculture and urban water
users, flatwater and white-water
recreationists, recreational fishing and
white-water recreationists, and advocates for
exotic fish like the rainbow trout and for
native fish (endangered species) like the
chub or sucker. These apparent conflicts can
cause discord as well as windows of
opportunity. In our future directions we
hope to seize upon these as opportunities for
better water management.
As we look to the future direction of
the Bureau of Reclamation, special attention
has to be given to Public Law 102-575,
entitled the Reclamation Projects Authoriza-
tion and Adjustment Act of 1992, signed by
former President Bush on October 30,1992.
The law has 40 titles and is a very signifi-
cant piece of legislation. This bill gives
insight into the congressional perspective
for new direction for the Bureau of Recla-
mation on several western water issues.
For example, Title II, the Central Utah
Project Completion Act, generally provides
for completion of the Central Utah Project
by increasing the amount of funds to be
appropriated for construction of authorized
project features. However, one specific
provision of the title that is of interest
provides for 10 percent of full cost of water
charged for the production of any surplus
crop. This is similar to a requkement of the
Garrison Reformulation Act of 1986. In the
case of Garrison, this amounts to a sur-
charge of $65.00 per acre-foot.
Tide XVI, Reclamation Wastewater
and Groundwater Studies, gives the Interior
Secretary broad authority to investigate and
identify opportunities for reclamation and
reuse of municipal, industrial, domestic, and
-------
Conference Proceedings
157
agricultural wastewater and naturally
impaired ground and surface water West-
side. It also gives demonstration and
construction authority.
Title XVII, the Grand Canyon
Protection Act, places legislative operating
conditions on the Bureau of Reclamation's
Glen Canyon Dam and Powerplant to
benefit the downstream cultural, environ-
mental, and ecological resources.
Under Title XXX, the Western Water
Policy Review, the President is directed to
undertake a comprehensive review of
federal activities in the 19 western states that
directly or indirectly affect the allocation
and use of water resources, whether surface
or ground water. An Advisory Commission
has been appointed to assist the President in
this effort.
Title XXXIV, the Central Valley
Project Improvement Act for California, is
an extensive title authorized to provide for
the protection, restoration, and enhance-
ment of fish, wildlife, and associated
habitats in the Central Valley and Trinity
River basins of California. It is intended
to achieve a reasonable balance among
competing demands for the use of Central
Valley Project water, including require-
ments of fish and wildlife, agricultural,
municipal and industrial and power
contractors. To this end, the act provides
for the following:
1. Limits agricultural contract renewals
to 25 years.
2. Encourages water transfers from
agricultural to urban uses by
changing authorized uses of water
and the project service area.
3. Directs that all renewals and future
contracts must provide for metering
water deliveries, both urban and
agricultural.
The bill also provides for tiered pric-
ing. The first 80 percent of water contracted
for will remain under the current cost of ser-
vice pricing structure, while the next 10 per-
cent will be priced halfway between the cur-
rent pricing structure and full cost. Finally,
the last 10 percent contracted for will be at
full cost. Water charges will be based upon
actual water delivered.
In addition, the title stipulates that all
increased revenues go to a fund for fish and
wildlife restoration. Finally, the title sets
aside 800,000 acre-feet of project water for
the purpose of fish and wildlife restoration.
What does the Bureau of Reclamation
understand the impact of Public Law 102-
575 to be on our agency?
1. If we fail to resolve environmental
and economical conflicts such as
those associated with Glen Canyon
and the Central Valley Project,
Congress will legislate resolution.
2. In the case of the Central Utah
Project and the Central Valley
Project in California, water pricing
and double subsidy may be treated in
the future through water pricing.
3. The western water policy review
authorized by Public Law 102-575
can produce a significant impact
affecting each person who lives in
the 19 western states.
4. Title XVI provides broad new
authority and, therefore, opportunity
to look at naturally and humanly
impaired ground and surface water in
the 17 western states.
5. The environmental values of the past
two decades are now mainstay public
values, and these values are here to
stay. Our future direction needs to
fully incorporate them into our
programs.
6. Last, and most important to us, are
our efforts over the past couple of
years to refocus our mission objec-
tive through our Strategic Plan to
ensure better water management
objectives are fully in accord with
the desire of the public.
Our challenge in the Bureau of Recla-
mation, and as federal agencies as we move
forward into the future, is to follow a course
and direction that develop solutions to the
emerging issues I have mentioned. We need
to evoke a thoughtful balance of water use so
as to ensure sustained economic growth and
the protection and enhancement of the envi-
ronment. This is our challenge. The stakes
are too high not to succeed. I wish us all
success in this endeavor.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
USDA Soil Conservation Service
Gary A. Margheim, Deputy Chief for Programs
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC
I appreciate this opportunity to provide
you an overview of the Soil Conserva-
tion Service's (SCS) new initiative for
providing leadership in water resource
management activities. We have just
completed an agency-wide strategic
planning process that includes a water
management component. We have
involved nearly 300 employees and
representatives of several organizations
and agencies in developing the new
strategic initiatives to improve our service
as a lead national water management
agency.
During our water management
strategic planning process, we listened to
leaders of many national organizations and
other agencies interested in water resource
issues. We heard a common theme from
you and from a large public representing our
customers. We heard that national water
management programs must have:
• Strong local, state, and federal
partnerships.
• Local grass-roots participation and
leadership in addressing water needs.
• A watershed-based approach to
water management.
• An integrated approach to water
management that addresses all water
and related ecological concerns.
This common theme set the stage for our
strategic thinking and the development of
our plans for a new direction for the
administration of our water programs.
Our water management mission is to
assist people to manage water quality and
quantity to meet society's evolving needs in
sustainable ecosystems. To accomplish this
mission, SCS will provide technical leader-
ship in the implementation of a nationwide
water management assistance process that
builds on the following principles and
concepts:
• Provide water management assis-
tance on a watershed basis.
• Promote local, state, and federal
partnerships.
• Build on the existing local conserva-
tion district delivery system.
• Ensure public involvement
• Apply integrated resource planning
and management concepts.
• Utilize and build on existing data
bases.
• Provide interdisciplinary planning
assistance.
• Apply appropriate best available
technology.
• Protect, enhance, and restore natural
resources to sustain productive
capability.
• Ensure snared responsibility for
system implementation.
• Achieve effective use of all available
financial assistance.
Our water management strategic plan
has four primary components that provide a
format for action in response to an array of
water resource issues. This plan uses the
word "watershed" to describe a planning
area that is defined using hydrologic
boundaries and is adjusted as needed to
accommodate ground water conditions and
other ecosystem needs. We are using the
phrase "water management" to include
actions needed to conserve, distribute,
develop, protect, restore, and use water in an
integrated resource management setting to
achieve the optimal conditions for a specific
watershed.
The first component of our strategic
plan is a leadership initiative that will
strengthen our performance as a national
leader in water management. SCS adminis-
ters many national programs that provide
assistance in addressing water management
needs. These programs are delivered in
159
-------
160
Watershed '93
partnership with conservation districts to
ensure local and federal coordination. We
work with many federal agencies to assist
state and local agencies and individuals in
meeting their responsibilities for water
management. Actions that will be taken to
clarify SCS responsibility and strengthen
our leadership role include:
• Strengthen our work with state soil
and water conservation and water
quality agencies and conservation
districts In leading the establishment
of and participation in statewide
coalitions of local, state, and federal
agencies and groups interested in
water management.
• Evaluate potential changes in
existing and proposed legislation to
strengthen SCS water management
programs.
• Develop cooperative strategies to
strengthen program implementation
partnerships with other lead federal
agencies.
• Identify emerging national water
resource management issues and
develop specific plans of action to
address needs.
• Develop a plan to address the
operation, maintenance, and rehabili-
tation needs of the SCS-assisted
components of the Nation's water
resource infrastructure.
• Improve water management assis-
tance to Native Americans and
limited resource individuals.
The second component establishes a
water management assistance process
through which SCS will provide water
management assistance through integrated
resource planning and management on a
watershed basis. Water resource problems
and water management systems transcend
individual farms and other land manage-
ment units. Future water management
assistance will address the interrelated
resource needs that exist within water-
sheds, including aquifers. Water manage-
ment problem identification, planning,
evaluation, and solutions will be formu-
lated on a watershed basis and will
emphasize coordination among federal,
state, and local agencies and organizations
and conservation districts. The delivery
system to individual water users, groups,
and local communities formulated in
partnership with conservation districts is
the unique assistance process that has
made our work so effective. This concept
is embodied in all soil and water resource
programs that SCS administers and
supports. SCS must work closely with
other federal agencies and local and state
organizations in enhancing this assistance
process and strengthening its application in
water management. Through this assis-
tance process, SCS will:
• Implement SCS water management
technical assistance through a
nationwide system of watersheds
that is being established.
• Provide base water management
assistance on integrated resource
planning and management concepts.
• Work with other federal, state, and
local agencies to reach agreement on
a national delineation for watershed
boundaries in each state as the basis
for providing water management
assistance.
• Commit SCS resources to encourage
the development and implementation
of water management plans irrespec-
tive of agency or program.
The third component outlines actions
SCS will take to use, develop, and transfer
appropriate technology to provide water
management assistance. SCS, in coopera-
tion with a variety of organizations, must
continue to develop a variety of water
resource technology including measurement,
evaluation, water quantity and quality model
development, forecasting, standards, design,
construction, and maintenance of facilities.
The extensive technical capability of
SCS must now be directed to the implemen-
tation of new comprehensive initiatives to
meet current water management needs. We
will accelerate the development of technol-
ogy to address emerging needs and share
our knowledge with water users and other
professionals involved in water manage-
ment. The actions planned here will help
ensure a cadre of professionals who have the
knowledge, skills, procedures, and technical
tools to successfully address water manage-
ment needs and ensure timely implementa-
tion of management systems.
• Develop and execute a comprehen-
sive SCS and conservation district
employee development program in
water management.
• Develop training partnerships with
universities, private corporations,
and agencies such as the U.S.
Geological Survey, U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Agricul-
ture Research Service, and the
-------
Conference Proceedings
t<51
Cooperative Extension system to
evaluate the fate and transport of
agricultural chemicals in water.
• Accelerate the development of
technology and automated systems
to evaluate and program efficient
water use.
• Improve technology to identify,
describe, and evaluate social,
cultural, economic, and other factors
in water management issues.
• Advance technology in wetlands
delineation and mapping wetlands
restoration and enhancement, and
evaluation of wetland functions and
values.
The fourth component proposes
organizational and staff changes for
enhanced water management policy devel-
opment and program delivery. Every SCS
program impacts water resource concerns at
some level. SCS organizational field
structure emphasizes individual technical
assistance. Significant changes may be
necessary to facilitate the coordinated
national delivery of total resource planning
and management assistance on a watershed
basis. Planned actions include:
• Organize activities to provide
technical and financial assistance by
watersheds, concentrating our efforts
to address critical needs in each
watershed, based on national and
state priorities.
• Organize water management
responsibilities to ensure integration
of water quality initiatives and water
resource project activities.
• In cooperation with conservation
districts, evaluate the field office
structure to identify needed organi-
zational changes.
The SCS watershed program,
authorized in 1954 by the Watershed
Protection and Flood Prevention Act (P.L.
83-566) has assisted hundreds of rural and
urban communities with multiple-purpose
small watershed projects to promote better
land use, reduce water resource problems,
and improve the quality of life. These
"small watershed projects" provide for
resource development and help solve
resource problems that are too big to be
handled by individual landowners, but not
extensive enough to be supported by large
federal and state projects for water
resource development. These projects
have had a wide variety of objectives,
such as flood control, land treatment,
drainage, municipal and industrial water
supply, rural development recreation, fish
and wildlife enhancement, and water
quality improvement. The program,
currently about $200 million, represents
about one-third of the SCS budget. The
breadth of the watershed project authori-
ties provides flexibility to address
priorities.
In recent years, our watershed
measures and projects have been redirected
to those that enhance wildlife habitat and
improve water quality. More than 55
percent of the project plans completed in the
last 2 years have been for water quality
improvement.
SCS state conservationists are
currently preparing water management
action plans to guide our work in each state
in support of this new direction. We look
forward to working with our partners to
provide maximum public benefit through
the administration of our programs in this
new and challenging national water
management arena.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
US. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mike Spear, Assistant Director
Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Jill Parker, Fish and Wildlife Biologist
Ecological Services, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Richard O. Bennett, Deputy Assistant and Regional Director
Fisheries and Federal Aid, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
John J. Fay, Chief, Branch of Listing and Recovery
Endangered Species, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Washington, DC
Introduction—The Endangered
Species Act
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) has many programs and
authorities that address conservation
and restoration of fish and wildlife and
their habitats on an ecosystem or watershed
level. None compels us to take an ecosys-
tem perspective as strongly as the Endan-
gered Species Act.
Over 700 U.S. species are now
protected under the Endangered Species
Act, with an additional 3,000 candidates
under evaluation for listing. As the list
grows, so do the ramifications for landown-
ers and land managers. Once a species is
listed as threatened or endangered, any
federal activity affecting that species
requires consultation with the Service. The
federal government frequently appears to
work at cross purposes with itself when the
Endangered Species Act is invoked to
protect species under current or proposed
management regimes on federal land. Too
often federal land management has focused
on doing the minimum necessary to prevent
a high-profile species from being listed, or
when one is listed, on doing the minimum
necessary to avoid triggering jeopardy.
Predictably, management aimed at the
minimum and focused on glamour species
does not serve well the purposes of ecosys-
tem conservation.
Section 7(a)(l) of the Endangered
Species Act (act) exhorts all federal
agencies to employ their authorities in
furthering the purposes of the act, and yet
this authority is rarely invoked. A reason-
able interpretation of this duty would
include management to forestall environ-
mental losses before they reach the point at
which the full range of the act's protective
measures become necessary—a point at
which some of the options for efficient
management commonly have been lost.
There is an opportunity for all federal
agencies to head off crises by considering
all the elements of systems as early as
possible hi planning processes.
In reality, cumulative impacts to
watersheds have gone unmeasured and
unchecked as each of multiple jurisdictions
overseeing public and private lands take
parochial approaches to managing pieces of
the whole. In the Pacific Northwest,
logging, grazing, and mining have reduced
salmonid stocks to the point that three
chinook and sockeye salmon stocks have
been listed as endangered, many stocks have
been extirpated from their range, and a
staggering 200 additional stocks are
considered to be depleted. The fish are only
the most recent in a progression of species,
most notably the Northern spotted owl and
the marbled murrelet, that are signaling to us
that something is seriously wrong in the
Pacific Northwest.
We have to stop working indepen-
dently of one another and start taking an
integrated management approach to saving
these resources. In the Pacific Northwest,
163
-------
164
Watershed '93
we are headed in the right direction with
the Northwest Forest Plan that has gathered
all the players together to address compre-
hensively the economic and environmental
issues that we allowed to reach the crisis
stage.
While we must continue to support
species that are already endangered or
threatened, and while we must commit
ourselves to dealing with the backlog of
candidates and protecting those that require
it, it is of vital importance that we seek ways
to steward our resources so that ecosystems
and species do not continue to be put at risk.
We should not manage resources so that we
produce and then react to an endless series
of crises.
It is impossible to plan and imple-
ment the recovery of individual species
if we look at each listed species and its
habitat in isolation from the ecosystem
or watershed in which it 'exists. The Ser-
vice is now looking at listing and recov-
ery of endangered species and habitat
conservation planning for species on an
ecosystem basis, addressing simulta-
neously all the vulnerable species and
the factors pressuring them in a given
ecosystem. Secretary of the Interior
Bruce Babbitt extols the virtues of eco-
system-based management, managing
for the biodiversity of entire ecosystems,
intervening early, and preventing what
he calls "national tram wrecks."
Unfortunately, we have many ex-
amples of train wrecks. In the last 100
years, nearly half of North America's
freshwater mussels have become endan-
gered, are candidates for federal listing
as endangered, or have gone extinct.
The introduction and spread of the
nonindigenous zebra mussel threatens to
wreak even greater havoc on native mus-
sel species. As freshwater mussels are
sensitive indicators of environmental
change, they are the first signal that an
aquatic ecosystem is failing. Unfortu-
nately, the decline is well-advanced, and
it may be too late to restore the full
breadth of aquatic biota in many of our
streams.
In Texas, it took a court case to get
pumpers using the Edwards Aquifer to
take conservation measures to avoid the
unlawful taking of several endangered
species. Examples abound of inaction
by resource users and managers until
forced to respond by the Endangered
Species Act.
So far it has taken train wrecks and
the weight of the Endangered Species Act
to get us all to the table. To avert these
crises, we must manage a watershed as a
single entity and involve federal, state, and
local agencies, tribes, conservation groups,
private landowners—everyone who has a
part to play. We really have no choice
unless we choose to wait, invoke the
Endangered Species Act, and considerably
reduce our options.
Species-conservation problems that
are predictable based on current trends are
appropriate targets for planning that seeks to
avoid having conditions deteriorate to the
point at which endangered-species protec-
tion is needed. The Atlantic Striped Bass
Conservation Act has been extremely
effective at bringing resource agencies to the
table. In a truly cooperative effort between
states, federal agencies, and the Atlantic
States Marine Fisheries Commission,
harvests were severely restricted. As a
result, the striped bass population has shown
signs of recovery and a limited fishery is
open again.
Opportunities for this kind of planning
were missed in the past with respect to
species like the spotted owl and the desert
tortoise, but similar opportunities present
themselves today in areas where urbaniza-
tion and other development are altering
natural habitats. This kind of planning has
the potential to allocate conservation
resources more efficiently and to husband
the strong medicine of the Endangered
Species Act for the species and situations
that truly requke it.
I would like to discuss some programs
and some success stories, where the Service
is beginning to manage by watersheds,
working with partners and implementing ori-
the-ground conservation and restoration
measures. Many of our watershed-based
partnerships have arisen either as recovery
programs for endangered species or as a way
to avoid ever having to list a species as
endangered or threatened.
Biological Basis for Decisions
in the Watershed
A solid scientific foundation is
needed to underpin the management of
endangered and threatened species as
well as to predict future trouble spots
and see that they are dealt with effec-
tively. Managing living natural re-
-------
Conference Proceedings
165
sources without reference to good sci-
ence guarantees future disappointment
and failure. To help forecast problems
and measure our successes, the Service
has initiated several national resource
inventory, interpretation, and monitoring
efforts.
One of our newest efforts is the
Biomonitoring of Environmental Status
and Trends program, or B.E.S.T., which
monitors and responds to environmental
contaminant problems associated with
fish and wildlife, concentrating on Na-
tional Wildlife Refuges. Information is
systematically gathered throughout tar-
geted watersheds to provide decision
makers with the information necessary
to remedy contaminant problems and
identify future contaminant issues long
before they become acute problems.
The Service is also an active
participant in the U.S. Geological
Survey's National Water-Quality
Assessment program. We provide the
biological component to the description
of our nation's surface and ground-water
resources for targeted watersheds and
ground-water basins. A scientific
understanding of the factors affecting
water quality is useful to policy makers
at all levels.
The Service's National Wetland
Inventory (NWI), established 15 years
ago, has mapped nearly three-fourths of
the wetlands in the lower 48 states and
one-fourth of Alaska. NWI has provided
detailed wetland maps to the public and
to federal, state, and local agencies to
facilitate wetland management and
protection decisions. Many of these
maps have now been digitized for use in
other geographic information systems.
NWI also conducts periodic status and
trends analyses of our nations' wetlands.
These analyses are critical tools for
measuring the success of wetland
protection programs.
The Service also is proposing a 1994
initiative to monitor the status and trends of
fishery populations as a significant step to
better managing all fisheries, particularly
native stocks. Emphasis will be on devel-
oping a compatible sampling and reporting
system in cooperation with other fisheries
agencies to integrate available fisheries and
habitat data into a repository from which
the Service will report national status and
trends information. Interactive participa-
tion by the states, tribes, other federal
agencies, and .the private sector is critical to
the success of a national fisheries monitor-
ing program.
The Long-Term Resource Monitoring
Program for the Upper Mississippi River
System is being implemented by the
Service in cooperation with the States of
Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, and
Wisconsin with guidance and overall
program responsibility provided by the
Corps of Engineers. The program provides
decision makers with the necessary infor-
mation to maintain the Upper Mississippi
River System as a viable nationally
significant ecosystem and a commercial
navigation system.
In the interests of better and more
efficient science and analysis, Secretary
Babbitt is proposing a National Biologi-
cal Survey that will consolidate research
and monitoring within the Department of
the Interior. Although many of the
Service's inventory and monitoring
programs may be .transferred into this
new National Biological Survey, the
Service will continue to analyze baseline
data needed to target species and habi-
tats in peril, recommend restoration and
protection measures, and monitor the
success of restoration projects.
Integration of Partners in the
Watershed
Effective watershed conservation and
restoration requires a comprehensive
approach between committed partners. I
would like to discuss several areas of
Service authority that use partnerships
within an ecosystem to protect or restore the
ecosystem.
Regulatory Activities
Our responsibilities under the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act and the National
Environmental Policy Act have involved us
for many years in water project review,
cumulative impact assessment, and coordi-
nation and negotiation with multiple parties
in the reduction or avoidance of impacts to
fish and wildlife resources within water-
sheds. Our approach to conserving fish and
wildlife while facilitating balanced develop-
ment of the Nation's transportation network,
forest products resources, and energy sup-
plies involves careful consideration of the
cumulative impacts of such development.
-------
166
Watershed '93
Indeed, a major theme of ongoing
sessions between the Fish and Wildlife
Service and the Federal Energy Regula-
tory Commission is "How can we better
mitigate cumulative impacts when
numerous hydropower development
projects occur in the same river basin?"
The Service has an important role
in establishing license conditions for
new and renewed hydropower licenses,
under the Federal Power Act. The
Service provides the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission with prescrip-
tions-to protect and enhance fish and
wildlife resources when flows within a
watershed are altered. Because hydro-
power projects are licensed for 30 to 50
years and the bulk of the Nation's
projects were built 30-50 years ago, the
number of projects requiring relicensing
is expected to rise from 990 in 1993 to
over 1,500 in 1995. This gives the
Service a tremendous opportunity to
redress the significant impacts hydro-
power projects have had on fish and
wildlife resources within many water-
sheds.
Sections 402 and 404 of the Clean
Water Act, our traditional means of
addressing point source discharges and
wetlands loss, focus on specific sources
of pollutants and were not designed to be
comprehensive. In order to fully meet
the Clean Water Act's goal of restoring
the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of our nation's waters, regula-
tory agencies have also begun taking a
broader, more basin-wide approach.
The Service participates in the
Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) watershed-based process of
identifying wetlands generally suitable
and unsuitable for development. This
identification of wetlands in advance
enhances predictability in the permitting
process while at the same time consider-
ing an entire watershed as a functioning
ecosystem.
For example, we are partners with
EPA on an advance identification of
wetlands in the Verde River watershed in
Arizona. Our task will be facilitated by
the recently-formed Verde Watershed
Commission, composed of local commu-
nity members as well as state and federal
agencies, whose aim is to balance the
protection of resources with human
growth in a watershed threatened by
ground-water depletion.
Private Lands/Partners for Wildlife
The Service has established a Partners
for Wildlife program that works with
private landowners to restore habitats
valuable to fish and wildlife. Stemming
from the 1985 and 1990 Farm Bills,
Partners for Wildlife has grown to include
actual habitat restoration and improvement
projects as well as technical assistance to
private landowners.
In identifying project restoration and
improvement opportunities, the Service is
beginning to take a watershed approach,
having realized that most habitat degrada-
tion problems can be resolved only if a
healthy ecosystem is in place.
An excellent example of the Partners
for Wildlife's riparian program is a series of
projects on streams that are home to
endangered freshwater mussels, where the
Service is working with private landowners
to fence cattle out of streambeds. Although
the recovery programs are targeting endan-
gered mussels, the protective measures will
allow all species that depend on the stream
to recover.
The Clinch River in Virginia histori-
cally has been a sanctuary for freshwater
mussels: 37 species are found there, 26 of
which are globally rare. Partly as a result of
nonpoint source pollution from neighboring
cattle farms, 13 of the mussel species have
been listed as endangered and a dozen more
are proposed for listing. The Service, in
cooperation with The Nature Conservancy,
the Tennessee Valley Authority, Tennessee
Technological University, Virginia Poly-
technic Institute, Department of Agriculture,
EPA, and local landowners, is restoring
riparian habitat with fences and buffer
strips. An education and outreach program
is an integral part of this restoration effort,
persuading landowners to participate
willingly before the river deteriorates to
such an extent that recovery becomes
expensive and time-consuming. Similar
restoration measures are underway on other
streams in the Upper Tennessee River
watershed.
North American Waterfowl
Management Plan
Through the North American Water-
fowl Management Plan (NAWMP), the
Service has entered into joint ventures
throughout the country to restore waterfowl
habitat. As is true in the Partners for
Wildlife restoration programs, the partners
-------
Conference Proceedings
167
in the NAWMP have come to recognize
that restoration must be on a watershed
basis to be effective. For example, in the
Heron Lake watershed in Minnesota, the
Service cooperated with the Minnesota
Department of Natural Resources, The
Nature Conservancy, and the North Heron
Lake Games Producers Association to
develop an integrated, watershed-based
strategic plan, paving the way for improved
sewage treatment facilities, better water-
level management, and other habitat
improvements for fish and wildlife.
Interjurisdictional Rivers
The Service launched its
Interjurisdictional Rivers program to correct
the effects of past land management
practices, recognizing that all parties have a
stake in what others are doing throughout a
given watershed. The Service and the
numerous cooperators recognize that the
conditions from mountain top to sea dictate
the productivity of streams that connect the
two. Three examples demonstrate the
success of this program.
On the Trinity River in northern
California, the Service cooperates with a
multitude of partners to restore and conserve
imperiled stocks of Pacific salmon and
steelhead. Restoration efforts include
establishing with land managers best
management practices on logging, grazing,
road-building, and recreation. The program
also restores degraded spawning and rearing
habitat within streambeds.
In 1991, the Secretary of the Interior
signed a decision document that dramati-
cally improved flows in the Trinity River.
This flow change is the result of 2 years of
multi-agency cooperation initiated by Native
Americans, based on sound biological and
hydrological data collected and analyzed by
the Service and the California Department
of Fish and Game, and resolved by a
negotiation team representing the Bureau of
Indian Affairs, the Bureau of Reclamation,
and the Service. The key to the success of
the Trinity River program is that it fixes the
root problems that have affected fish and
wildlife 0and use practices and flow
reductions), and it manipulates habitat to
hasten recovery. The Service recognizes
that manipulating disturbed habitat without
concurrently eliminating the source of the
perturbation is a waste of time and money.
The Service has undertaken a new
initiative on the Missouri River entitled a
Missouri River Partnership. Over the last
50 years, the river has lost 95 percent of its
wetlands, 90 percent of its sandbars, and
nearly all of its riparian woodlands, as a
result of reservoirs and channelization.
Without action, further degradation will
continue, accompanied by increasing losses
of fish and wildlife. The river is already
host to 9 federally-listed endangered
species, 41 species under federal review, and
39 species on state lists. The goal of this
new program is to facilitate, in cooperation
with interested governmental, tribal, and
private parties, the recovery of the environ-
mental health of the Missouri River ecosys-
tem. The Missouri River Partnership will be
a basin-wide effort with coordination among
the States of Wyoming, Montana, North
Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Iowa,
Kansas, and Missouri, federal agencies,
Native American tribes, local governments,
private organizations, and the public.
Another river program that employs
the concept of ecosystem management is the
Mississippi Interstate Cooperative Agree-
ment (MICRA). Along the Mississippi
River Basin's mainstem and large tributar-
ies, man-made reservoirs and hydropower
projects have altered flows, hydroperiod,
temperature, and sediment carrying capac-
ity, causing many native species to become
extirpated from their natural range. The loss
of spawning habitat and blocked migration
runs are a major problem for many impor-
tant riverine species, as is the spread of ex-
otic species. The Service is assisting 28
states in assessing the Mississippi River
drainage fishery resources and habitat re-
quirements to protect, maintain, and enhance
interstate fish species in the basin. A draft
Comprehensive Strategy Plan has been pro-
duced establishing basinwide goals, objec-
tives, and tasks. All 28 states have signed
on as participants in MICRA, along with the
Bureau of Reclamation, the Tennessee
Valley Authority, and two Native American
tribes, the Chippewa-Cree of Montana and
the Chickasaw Nation of Oklahoma.
There are many other examples—the
Colorado River, the Klamath River in
California and Oregon, the Central Valley
and the Russian River in California, the
Chehalis River in Washington, the Con-
necticut River—where the Service is
working with multiple partners on a
watershed-wide basis to avert ecological
crises and restore endangered species or
prevent their listings. Restoration programs
include enhanced flows on the Colorado
-------
168
Watershed '93
River for endangered fish, restoration of
fish passage at dams and other blockages
on the Connecticut River and in the
Chesapeake watershed, restoration of
spawning habitat in streams affected by
logging in the Pacific Northwest, bank
stabilization on the Chehalis River, and
restoration of stream flows and water
quality through agricultural and urban areas
in California's Central Valley and in the
Trinity River basin.
National Wildlife Refuges
The Service is also planning new
refuge acquisitions using a watershed
perspective and in consultation with our
many partners. The boundaries of the
proposed Canaan Valley National Wildlife
Refuge in West Virginia are the origins of
the headwaters of the Blackwater River.
The Service does not own all the land in the
watershed but is an active member of the
Canaan Valley Task Force, which is
composed of local residents and state and
federal agencies and strives to balance
human use with the protection of the
valley's natural resources.
The Service is now working through-
out the country with local landowners to
protect aquatic habitats on national wildlife
refuges that are affected by activities outside
refuge boundaries.
Bay/Estuary Program
Our coastlines, with about 10 percent
of the land mass, support one-third of the
U.S. population. That population is
projected to double by the year 2010.
Nearly half of the federally-listed
endangered species depend on coastal and
estuarine habitats; 30 percent of North
America's waterfowl whiter on the coast;
and coastal commercial fisheries are worth
$20 billion a year. Urban, industrial, and
agricultural activities cumulatively threaten
to overwhelm our coastal and estuarine
ecosystems.
The Service's Bay/Estuary program
was designed to address high-priority
coastal watersheds as a preventative and
restorative way to avert the need for listing
under the Endangered Species Act. The
program explicitly recognizes that restora-
tion or conservation of these resources
cannot be achieved by one agency alone, but
requires extensive cooperation and partner-
ships with the full array of interests within
each watershed. Consequently, our Bay/
Estuary programs actively seek collabora-
tion with other federal, state, and local
governments and the private sector to
identify and prioritize fish and wildlife -
resource problems, develop strategies to
resolve the problems, and form partnerships
to implement on-the-ground solutions.
The Service's Bay/Estuary Program is
now established hi nine critical coastal
watersheds around the country. On-the-
ground watershed projects include restora-
tion of fish passage on over 200 miles of
stream in Chesapeake Bay and Albemarle/
Pamlico Sound, restoration of critical
intertidal habitats along the Snohomish and
Duamish Rivers and Hood Canal in Puget
Sound, and restoration of 800 acres of tidal
marsh habitat hi Galveston Bay. These
projects were made possible by our partner-
ships with other agencies and local inter-
ests.
The common thread running through
all our resource'management efforts is
public involvement. Successful manage-
ment requires a common goal, or vision, for
the watershed. This is not always easy to
obtain and requires a commitment by
everyone, mutual understanding, and mutual
learning. Federal legislation often forces
people to come to the table. But public
perception that laws are being wielded
without their participation quickly becomes
counterproductive. We are only too aware
of the impact the Endangered Species Act is
having on timber communities in the Pacific
Northwest. The public is more willing to
participate hi an open process, where trust
and ownership become the framework for
consensus and compromise. With early,
open participation we can be more effective
hi achieving a shared vision.
Future Service Directions
A new administration and the pending
reauthorization of the Clean Water Act and
the Endangered Species Act make this an
opportune time to reevaluate existing
policies and consider new alternatives.
We must work to strengthen the Clean
Water Act and the Endangered Species Act
to emphasize the importance of an ecosys-
tem or watershed-wide focus and more
comprehensively address the loss, fragmen-
tation, and degradation of wetlands and
other important ecosystems. A number of
proposals have been made to amend the
-------
Conference Proceedings
169
Clean Water Act to better address point and
nonpoint source pollution from a watershed
perspective. Incentives may need to be
provided for individual landowners and
local governments to join with federal and
state agencies in addressing watershed-wide
issues.
A broader, more ecosystem-based
approach to the Endangered Species Act
would mean intervening in threatened
ecosystems before they reach a crisis stage
and species become endangered.
In reality, the legislation exists to meet
our needs—we simply need to implement it.
As mentioned earlier, federal agencies have
the authority to manage for biological diver-
sity to forestall further endangered species
listings, but they rarely do. Until they begin
to manage more aggressively, their options
will continue to be curtailed by intervention
by the Fish and Wildlife Service.
The National Forest Management Act
and the Federal Land Policy and Manage-
ment Act both provide strong support for
management on a good deal of the federal
estate to sustain ecological systems and
native species. Vigorous compliance with
these statutes will go a long way toward
heading off the need to continue listing
species that inhabit federal lands.
Other federal laws, such as the Clean
Water Act, Clean Air Act, Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, Federal Power Act, and
the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act contain authorities that
could be applied more aggressively than
they have been up until now in conserving
native species and natural systems.
The proposed Missouri River Basin
Fish and Wildlife Restoration Bill, which
has broad constituency support, may be
introduced in this session of Congress.
Legislation will provide a higher profile,
promote the establishment of partnerships,
and authorize the appropriations needed to
adequately implement the initiative.
The Service has proposed a Fisheries
Stewardship Initiative to begin in fiscal year
1994, to reverse the continuing decline of
valuable fishery resources. The initiative
was developed with the belief that piece-
meal and reactive approaches to the conser-
vation of the Nation's river resources have
not been effective. The Stewardship
Initiative will focus on interjurisdictional
and anadromous coastal species, interjuris-
dictional rivers, and nonindigenous species.
The Interjurisdictional Rivers
program will emphasize two rivers in
1994—the Missouri River and the Lower
Mississippi River. The Service will take
the lead in bringing state and local
governments, federal agencies, Native
Americans, environmental groups, user
groups, and private citizens together to
develop conservation and restoration
plans for entire ecosystems. The initia-
tive will focus on results. It is intended
to reverse or minimize habitat degrada-
tion, thereby reducing the probability
that species will decline to threatened or
endangered status. The Service antici-
pates funding the restoration of at least
100 miles of riparian and instream
habitat in each river basin per year.
The Service has also embarked on
a comprehensive initiative to address
growing concerns about the deteriorating
fish and wildlife resources of the Great
Lakes. In 1990, the Great Lakes Resto-
ration Act was enacted to coordinate all
parties toward restoring these valuable
resources. Service field offices through-
out the Great Lakes are coordinating
with the states, provinces, and tribes to
improve fishery habitat, with plans so far
to develop and implement a lake trout
health assessment on Lake Superior and
to initiate restoration of Lake Superior
brook trout, lake sturgeon, and walleye.
Conclusion
Effective conservation efforts require
a shift from reactive to active management
and the realization that ecosystem manage-
ment must replace single-resource manage-
ment. A watershed must be treated as the
sum of all its uses and functions, including
its support of living resources.
We are beginning to acknowledge
that resource management in this country
involves reliance on science as well as a
greater coming together of individuals,
groups, and organizations to achieve
sustainability in natural systems.
The Fish and Wildlife Service can
play a key role in interpreting natural
resource information and providing the
biological expertise and field presence
needed in any well-rounded conservation or
restoration program. We have many
ongoing programs, and many proposed
programs, working to restore or maintain
healthy ecosystems, keep species off the
Endangered Species list, and reduce the cost
and the need for regulation.
-------
170
Watershed '93
All levels of government must work in
harmony within watersheds, considering all
tools and integrating solutions. The Service
recognizes the need to forge new partnerships
with a greater diversity of partners—local in-
terests, the tribes, states, other federal agen-
cies. We know what we get when we do not:
endangered species, declining fisheries, con-
taminated ecosystems, drained wetlands.
Management by watershed takes a lot
of effort, but in the long run it takes less
effort and less money to do it now than it
does to wait. The advantages are many:
increased wildlife, better recreation, cleaner
water, reduced pollution, and decreased
flood control costs.
We extend a challenge to the other
federal agencies at this conference to work
together as one federal effort with the state
and local agencies to avert the crises, and
build a vision of sustainability in our
watersheds for future generations.
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
New Federal Directions:
Other Agencies Involved in
Watershed Management
Council on Environmental
Quality
Lseated in the Executive Office of the
President, the Council on Environmen-
tal Quality has long been a strong
supporter of interagency and intergovern-
mental cooperation and collaboration on
environmental issues.
In recent years, the Council has
emphasized conserving biological diversity
and ecosystem management, with a focus on
sustainable development. Watersheds
provide ecologically sensible units for
management and planning, and the Council
is pleased to cosponsor a conference that
explores the promise of an approach to
incorporate the diverse concerns of natural
resource conservation, water quality, and
economic development.
Federal Highway
Administration
The Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA) does not directly sponsor water-
shed management or protection programs.
However, FHWA provides an important
benefit to state and local transportation agen-
cies by protecting water quality and other
watershed values through area-wide project
planning, mitigation, and enhancement.
The Intermodal Surface Transporta-
tion Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)
emphasizes the environmental aspects of
transportation decision making and can lend
support to watershed protection and man-
agement activities. The ISTEA requires each
state to establish procedures for statewide
and metropolitan transportation planning.
These procedures must consider the eco-
nomic, energy, environmental, and social
effects of highway and other transportation
improvement planning decisions.
The program also provides incentives
for concurrent environmental efforts such as
funding contributions to regional wetland
conservation and mitigation plans. Under
the Transportation Enhancement provisions,
the ISTEA provides funding to mitigate
water quality impacts resulting from storm
water runoff. Funding is available to lessen
the impacts of highway sources on overall
watershed water quality problems.
National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
In 1972, Congress recognized the
national interest in wise management of the
country's coastal resources by passing the
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).
The CZMA established a federal/state
partnership dedicated to comprehensive
management of the Nation's coastal re-
sources to ensure their protection for future
generations while balancing competing
national economic, cultural, and environ-
mental interests.
The 1990 passage of the Coastal Zone
Act Reauthorization Amendments (CZARA)
authorized an important new element—
section 6217—designed to restore and
protect coastal waters through the develop-
ment and implementation of a Coastal
Nonpoint Pollution Control Program
(CNPCP) by each coastal state. These
CNPCPs must consist of economically
achievable, best available management
measures that address all significant sources
of nonpoint source pollution within many
coastal watersheds.
171
-------
172
Watershed '93
The Office of Ocean Resources
Conservation and Assessment (ORCA)
provides data, information, and knowledge
for decisions affecting the environmental
quality and natural resources of the Nation's
estuarine, coastal, and oceanic areas. Since
the early 1980s, ORCA has used watersheds
to gather information and produce assess-
ments and atlases. However, over the last 5
years, ORCA has increased efforts to
characterize and assess watershed resource
use status and conflicts. Programs such as
National Status and Trends (NS&T) and
components within the Strategic Assess-
ments Program (e.g., National Estuarine
Inventory, National Coastal Pollutant
Discharge Inventory, National Shellfish
Register, Estuarine Living Marine Re-
sources Program, and the new Estuarine
Eutrophication Survey) use the watershed as
the basic spatial unit to organize and analyze
data.
ORCA's new Coastal Assessment
Framework (CAP) is a set of digital bound-
ary files that define more than 140 major
estuarine watersheds draining the Nation's
marine and Great Lakes coasts. It will serve
as the spatial basis for further NOAA efforts
to improve the agency's national estuarine
assessment capability and is available to
users upon request. As federal and state
regulatory and management programs
increasingly adopt a watershed approach,
ORCA will continue to expand its use of
watersheds as the fundamental spatial unit to
organize, analyze, and present coastal
resource information.
ORCA and EPA are jointly conduct-
ing, monitoring, and assessing programs in
coastal watersheds. EPA's Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program
(EMAP) emphasizes indicators of ecosystem
health, while ORCA's National Status and
Trends Program focuses on the presence of
chemical contaminants and contaminant
effects in mussels, oysters, fish, and sedi-
ments at almost 300 sites in U.S. coastal
waters. A major step in developing a
comprehensive, unified EPA-NOAA
program to assess the condition of the
Nation's estuarine resources is being
initiated in the Carolinian Province begin-
ning this summer.
National Park Service
Through the Rivers, Trails and
Conservation Assistance Program (RTCA),
National Park Service staff help public
agencies and citizens assess their natural,
recreational, and historical resources;
promote citizen planning; develop compel-
ling visions and realistic plans; promote
partnerships; and find the resources needed
to achieve conservation results.
The scope of this assistance is being
shaped, in part, by the watershed protection
movement. Recently, RTCA has helped
communities expand their local river
corridor projects to promote a broader
watershed vision. RTCA has also taken on
the challenge of fostering grass-roots
conservation projects in large metropolitan
areas, where urban stream restoration will
likely be a major component in future
efforts.
In both metropolitan and rural areas,
RTCA-assisted state and national river
assessments will generate valuable informa-
tion for organizations and public agencies
preparing watershed plans. As RTCA moves
from corridor projects into broader land-
scape protection efforts, the challenge
remains the same—how to ensure that the
needs and desires of local communities
shape resource protection.
Tennessee Valley Authority
Cleaning up the Tennessee River is an
ambitious goal. But by expanding coopera-
tive efforts with other government age'ncies,
individual citizens, and private organiza-
tions, the Tennessee Valley Authority
(TVA) thinks it can be done.
TVA' s Clean Water Initiative is a
partnership approach to preventing and
cleaning up pollution. TVA works with
others to identify pollution problems and
find and carry out solutions. TVA contrib-
utes to this effort by monitoring water
quality conditions, assigning teams of water
resource specialists to targeted watersheds,
and helping to develop new ways to protect
water quality without limiting the river's
use.
TVA has developed the most compre-
hensive monitoring program hi the country.
TVA scientists monitor conditions at key
locations on most of the 35 lakes in the
Tennessee River system and check the water
flowing in from major streams. This
information, combined with data collected
by others, is used to draw attention to
pollution problems, set clean-up goals, and
measure the effectiveness of water quality
-------
Conference Proceedings
173
improvement efforts over time. TVA also
monitors aquatic plant and mosquito
populations around its lakes to help target
management efforts.
Multidisciplinary teams of water
resource specialists are beginning to work in
the Tennessee River's major watersheds.
They look at all sources of pollution
affecting lakes and streams in the area,
taking special note of unique and valuable
resources that need protection. They
pinpoint problems, identify effective
solutions, and bring together the people and
organizations necessary to improve the
health of the water resources in each
location.
As river action teams identify specific
water quality problems, TVA scientists
work to develop new solutions. They are
constantly looking for more efficient and
'effective methods to control pollution and
manage aquatic plants and mosquitos.
U.S. Bureau of Land
Management
The U.S. Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) is moving to an ecosystem-based
approach to multiple use management of
natural resources on public lands. This
approach involves the integrated manage-
ment of resources based on consideration of
values and uses within an ecosystem.
Management is accomplished under the
concepts of multiple use and sustained yield
as established in the Federal Land Policy
and Management Act. In accordance with
this new approach, management programs
are presently undergoing significant
revision.
As a part of this effort, BLM currently
employs three national strategies to improve
riparian/aquatic management efforts. All
three strategies recognize and emphasize
integrated watershed management to achieve
their goals. The first, under the PACFISH
initiative in the Pacific Northwest, is a
watershed-driven approach that emphasizes
the maintenance and restoration of salmon
stocks. Management activities in specially
designated riparian areas are permitted as
long as they are compatible with objectives
developed for those sensitive areas. The
second strategy, "Bring Back the Natives,"
is a national effort to restore the health of
entire riverine systems and their respective
native aquatic fauna. Both of these strate-
gies include the recovery of water quality
and stream health as the true standard of
overall watershed restoration. The third, the
riparian/wetland initiative, recognizes the
special importance of these ecosystems
within watersheds and establishes their
management and improvement as a priority
for the BLM.
USDA Extension Service
The USDA Extension Service (ES)
works cooperatively with 74 land grant
universities in 50 states and six territories. It
provides education and promotes voluntary
adoption of water quality practices through
16 USDA demonstration projects and 74
Hydrologic Unit Area projects that focus on
agricultural watersheds.
Education programs are conducted in
many EPA estuaries such as the Chesapeake
Bay. ES also funded Farm*a*Syst, which
assesses rural wellhead protection in 40
states. A national data base of watershed
instructional materials can be accessed
through Purdue University, and an assess-
ment of youth instructional materials has
just been completed through the University
of Wisconsin.
U.S. Geological Survey
In 1991, following a 5-year pilot
effort to test and refine assessment concepts,
Congress appropriated funds allowing the
U.S. Geological Survey to begin a multiyear
transition to a fully operational National
Water Quality Assessment (NAWQA)
program. Program goals are (1) to describe
the status and trends in quality of a large
representative part of the Nation's ground
and surface water resources and (2) to
develop an understanding of the natural and
human factors affecting the quality of these
resources.
This information provides sound,
nationally consistent water-quality informa-
tion on which governments can base water
resources decision making. The program
will integrate water-quality information on
local, regional, and national scales. In 60
key areas, rotating.investigations of the
surface and ground water resources of major
regional hydrologic systems will be con-
ducted. In 1991, assessment activities began
in 20 areas. Assessment activities are
planned in 20 additional areas in 1994 and
1997.
-------
174
Watershed '93
The NAWQA program will address a
wide range of major water-quality issues.
One concern—to be addressed nationally
during the program's early years—is the
relation of pesticides to agricultural
management practices, factoring in
climate, geology, and types of soil. This
information will be useful to land and
water resources policymakers and
managers.
-------
WATERSHED '93
How to Finance Watershed
Protection and Design a Land
Acquisition Program
Sarah J. Meyland
National Campaign for the Environment, Massapequa, NY
Chris Cole
Texas Campaign for the Environment, Dallas, TX
Water Resource Management
Is Fragmented
The waters of the Nation are regulated,
monitored, extracted, and discharged
within a complex web of federal, state,
and local programs. Rarely are the Nation's
waters approached holistically, with
recognition of their values and contribu-
tions:
1. Their natural value within local,
regional, and continental hydrologi-
cal and ecological systems.
2. Their economic worth as community
water supplies.
3. Their waste treatment capability to
accept and assimilate pollutant
loadings.
4. Their intrinsic relationship with the
surrounding watershed that often
dictates both the quality and quantity
of the resource.
The programmatic compartmentaliza-
tion of water resources management is
rationalized in many ways:
• The bureaucratic justification.
Large organizations need to simplify
complex systems in order to regulate
them.
• Financial considerations. Programs
are organized around funding
allocations.
• Historical precedent. Certain
aspects of water resource manage-
ment, such as land use in watersheds,
have been considered the prerogative
of local government and landowners
and therefore outside the purview of
major bureaucracies.
The arbitrary breakdown of water
resources into distinct subsets (e.g. surface
water, ground water, coastal water, waste-
water, etc.) makes it difficult to reassemble
the resource, programmatically, into a
whole. This problem is compounded
because, overall, water has no generally
agreed upon economic value. This means
that the effort involved in protecting and
managing water is motivated by the "com-
mon good" rather than by economic forces
that may ultimately be more effective and
efficient.
Water Should Have Some
Basic Economic Value
Reflected in Its Price
Under current practices, those who
take the Nation's water, generally, take it for
free. The economic value of water is based
upon the various costs associated with
treating and delivering the water to the
consumer. By comparison, oil producers
pay royalties to oil field owners, so from the
beginning of the extraction process, oil as a
commodity has a quantifiable economic
value.
In order to gauge the size of the task
involved in comprehensive water resource
management, one can begin by looking at
the financial needs associated with the two
major water programs: drinking water and
wastewater treatment. A substantial gap
175
-------
176
Watershed '93
exists between the capital needs of these two
major programs and the funds likely to be
available in the near term. Nationally, the
capital needs for just drinking water and
wastewater treatment for the years 1993-
2000 are estimated to reach $167 billion.
Projected available funds for these years are
approximately $88 billion, creating a $79
billion shortfall. (America's Environmental
Infrastructure, 1990). These projections do
not begin to address the other aspects of a
comprehensive water policy such as
watershed protection or nonpoint pollution
programs.
It is now time to begin to rethink
how to manage the Nation's water in a
comprehensive way and to develop a new
system for paying for this comprehensive,
integrated approach. One idea receiving
attention is the concept genetically known
as "green taxes." These are usually user
fees added to commodities and practices
that encourage those who pay to do the
right thing, environmentally, while also
generating much-needed new revenue to
pay for environmental initiatives. Just
such a concept was discussed in a recent
New York Times article, "Cheapest Protec-
tion of Nature May Lie in Taxes, Not
Laws" (New York Times, Science Section,
November 24, 1992, C-l, C-8). The Times
article points out that".. . taxes that
penalize polluters could make the
economy fitter and leaner, even as it makes
the envkonment cleaner." However, the
article also notes that
... what works well on a black board,
however, may not work as well in
practice.... Externalities are often
hard to measure ... and... even
harder to assess. That explains, in
part, why the political impulse is to
regulate away externalities rather than
to ask offenders to internalize the cost.
... It should not be surprising, then,
that America's sweeping environmen-
tal laws governing air, water, solid
waste ... leave little room for market-
based environmentalism. Standards
are generally set according to what is
deemed safe, aesthetic, and techno-
logically feasible. And, they are en-
forced with civil and criminal sanc-
tions intended to deter, not to offer the
polluter a chance to pay and play.
The selling and trading of "water
rights" in the American West is one
example of a market-based system that
rigorously allocates the water resource.
But under the doctrine of "use it or lose it,"
this approach has not fostered water
conservation or protection. Even when the
market is applied to water, the thing of
value is the "right" to the water, rather
than the water itself. By this example, we
see that a valueless commodity is naturally
wasted.
The way we use water would inevita-
bly change if we placed some value on this
essential resource, On the extraction side,
by pricing water in a way that better
reflected its value to us as well as the true
cost of protecting and managing it, we
would slowly improve our ability to fund
protection efforts and also create a financial
incentive to use water more wisely. On the
discharge side, making those who pollute
pay a fee that reflects the benefits received
and the damage created is a sensible one.
The polluter pays approach is already
embodied in both the Clean Air Act of 1990
and in solid waste landfilling practices. In
both cases, the waste discharger pays a
discharge fee based upon the volume and
the dangerous nature of the waste loaded
into the environment.
Using Pricing to Fund Better
Water Management: The New
York Plan
In New York State, the issue of
comprehensive water resource management
has been examined in detail by the state's,
Water Resources Planning Council. From
this .effort, a legislative proposal has been.
generated which attempts to address water
holistically by applying a market-based
approach to create financial incentives for
wise water use. The goals of the program
include:
• Adequate funding for all state
agencies involved in water resource
management..
• A steady stream of revenue not tied
to the state budget fluctuations.
• A system that creates financial
incentives for decreased water use
and cleaner discharge.
• A funding stream going back to local
governments and industries to meet
specific water-related needs like
sewage treatment plants, drinking
water supply, pollution abatement,
and toxic use reduction.
-------
Conference Proceedings
177
• Money for infrastructure expansion
and maintenance.
• Watershed planning, management,
and protection, including land
acquisition.
• Incentives for water conservation.
• Nonpoint source pollution funding.
• Basic and applied research on water
and wastewater issues
• Computerization of the state's water-
related data base using GIS technol-
ogy.
• A strategy to gradually improve
water quality and reclassify
waterbodies as they recover.
• Funding to remediate severely
impacted waterbodies.
• A system which will eliminate
certain persistent toxics from the
waste stream using periodic escala-
tion of discharge fees that internalize
the costs of specific toxic discharges.
• A program for funding of infrastruc-
ture projects that can create jobs and
boost local economies.
The Water Resources Management
and Protection Act, proposed in New York
State, will generate revenue for a dedicated
fund derived from fees on pollutant loadings
and water use surcharges. The fee system
will be pursued in conjunction with the
existing regulatory structure of the NPDES
and water supply permit programs. Thus, a
permitted discharge or water withdrawal
will remain constrained by the conditions of
the permit but the affected user will have to
pay for the mass of pollutants discharged
and the quantity of water used.
Justification of the fund is threefold:
1. The ultimate goal of the Clean Water
Act was, and continues to be "... to
restore and maintain the chemical,
physical and biological integrity of
the nation's waters." Existing water
quality standards and effluent
requirements were to serve as
interim guidelines, not ultimate
goals. This fund represents another
tool to be utilized toward the
achievement of the ultimate water
quality goal.
2. The discharge of wastewater, in
effect, employs the receiving
waterbody as a final treatment
process, thus, a fee represents a bill
for services rendered.
3. Water is an essential and limited
resource that must be conserved for
all uses and users, and the fees
represent part of the costs associated
with maintaining and protecting that
resource.
Above and beyond the environmental
and economic benefits to be derived, the fee
system would be vastly more equitable with
respect to funding of water programs. To
date, the majority of funding for water
resource protection has been derived from
general revenue funding and, as a result,
fails to reflect the relative benefits received.
Under this proposal, the funding would be
derived from those who benefit from and/or
abuse the resource, and the charges would
be proportional to the benefit and/or the
abuse. In a sense, this is an attempt to
extend the premise of the "responsible party
pays."
The fund would be produced by a fee
system comprised of two major components.
1. Water withdrawal. The water
withdrawal fees consist of a base fee
applicable to any withdrawal greater
than 62,000 gallons per day and one
million gallons per year, and a
conservation surcharge fee on
consumptive or unaccounted-for-
water uses.
2. Pollutant loading. The pollutant
loading fees are levied on significant
major discharges and will be based
upon the mass loading and toxicity
of the compounds released. A list of
regulated discharges is created and a
loading fee allocated to each loading,
mainly based upon the toxic weight
assigned to the discharge. Persistent
toxics and those most damaging to
the environment have the highest
toxic weights.
The water withdrawal fee, based on
the most typical water use, public water
supply, is set at 6 cents per 1,000 gallons.
This fee in conjunction, with fees collected
from other users, will produce approxi-
mately $150 million annually. The cost
impact on the consumer is about $2.00 per
person per year more than current water
bills. Extrapolating this approach nationally,
the Clean Water Council projected that a
water user fee of 14 cents per 1,000 gallons
could generate over $17 billion during the
1993-2000 period. The Council estimates
that, based upon per capita consumption of
105 to 140 gallons per day, such a fee would
increase a household water bill annually
between $13.41 and $17.89.
The wastewater loading fee would
generate about $120 million annually in the
-------
178
Watershed '93
early years and would gradually decline as
high-cost discharges are eliminated. This
fee would increase the average citizens
sewage discharge bill by about $11 annu-
ally. Using a slightly different approach,
based just on volume, the Clean Water
Council projected that a national fee on
wastewater discharges at the rate of 35 cents
per 1,000 gallons could generate an addi-
tional $37 billion over 8 years.
The revenue generated from the fee
system will be bonded over a 15-year period
to produce a $400 million per year program.
The funds will be used for the following
activities:
1. Water supply and wastewater
projects, through low-interest loans,
estimated at $270 annually.
2. Water resources remedial action
plans, through 50/50 cost-share
grants, estimated at $180 million
annually.
3. Watershed protection projects,
including planning, management and
acquisition, estimated at $90 million
annually.
4. Research projects including a
statewide GIS system, estimated at
$1 million annually.
5. State program administration aid
totaling about $30 million annually.
6. Nonpoint source pollution program
to be developed and funded, esti-
mated at $6 million annually.
Making the Most of
Watershed Acquisition Funds
for Water Supply Protection
One of the most important aspects of
water resource protection is addressing the
management of the watershed. A model
program for watershed management has
been developed in Suffolk County, Long
Island, NY. This program was the most
ambitious land acquisition program at the
local level ever undertaken in this country.
Funded by a sales tax of 1/4 of a cent, it was
intended to purchase up to 20,000 to 25,000
acres of land for ground-water protection on
a revenue base of $300 million. A shortfall
in revenue produced the purchase of
approximately 7,000 acres of land from a
revenue base of $135 million. As part of the
program, a model for how to develop an
effective watershed acquisition program was
created. This model can be replicated
statewide once the statewide Water Re-
source Management and Protection Act is
adopted.
The Suffolk County Land Acquisi-
tion Committee reviewed the approaches
used in other areas and eventually rejected
a numerical scoring approach for deciding
which land to buy. Instead, the Committee
identified over 1,000 candidate parcels
within the legal buying area identified in
the program. The privately held candidate
sites along with existing public holdings
were painstakingly mapped with a GIS.
Recognizing the unique qualities that were
often distinctly different from one area of
the county to the other, the Committee
designated 17 "sub-watersheds" within the
larger watershed protection zone. In
formulating a specific purchasing strategy,
the Committee defined six guiding prin-
ciples:
1. Identification of watershed acquisi-
tions strictly, or solely, upon a
parcel-by-parcel basis must be
avoided. Rather, delineations of
specific, critical sub-watershed
regions must be the primary task.
2. Since high-priority watershed
regions will be located in areas of the
county that are distinct from each
other with respect to hydrology,
ecology, land use, population, water
supply infrastructure, real estate
markets, and other factors, no
evaluation scheme can be endorsed,
however intuitively appealing, which
compares individual parcels in one
watershed region with those from
other regions.
3. Comparisons among the subwater-
sheds must focus upon watershed-
level attributes.
4. Candidate parcels within an indi-
vidual sub-watershed should only be
compared against their "peers" (i.e.,
other parcels within that sub-
watershed).
5. Criteria used to select strategic
parcels within sub-watersheds will
vary from one sub-watershed to
another. In all cases, the overriding
goal is to ensure the best possible
protection for the sub-watershed.
6. The establishment of sub-watersheds
provides a land evaluation methodol-
ogy:
a. To clearly separate regional from
local criteria (i.e., uses informa-
tion at different spatial scales
properly).
-------
Conference Proceedings
b. To permit qualitative and quanti-
tative information to be combined
without artificial numerical
conventions.
c. To make subjective values and
judgments explicit.
d. To yields results which are easily
presented, understood, and
discussed.
By using the sub-watershed approach,
the committee was able to maximize the
available land for purchase within an
organized system that understood which
parcels were necessary to achieve total or
majority protection of a particular sub-
watershed. This avoided a shotgun ap-
proach resulting in a number of parcels that
did not fit within any particular protection
scheme. The sub-watersheds reflect the
patchwork reality of the present-day
landscape: variable-sized open space tracts
within a matrix of predominantly developed
land. As such, they represent the best
remaining assemblage of opportunities for
building large, contiguous, protected tracts
of watershed lands in the county. Within
each sub-watershed, one or more "keystone"
parcels can be defined. Keystone parcels are
those sites which are crucial to making a
sub-watershed work. They may be single
parcels or a collection of several contiguous
lots which, when taken together, secure the
essential features of the sub-watershed.
The selection of sub-watersheds is
reflected by which keystone parcels are
secured. In some cases, the size of the sub-
watershed is sufficient to permit several
keystone choices. In small sub-watershed,
the loss of the keystone may cause the loss
of the entire sub-watershed. Thus, choices
of ultimate keystone acquisitions reflect
policy, resources and availability factors that
will converge when making the protection
of sub-watersheds a reality.
A program for addressing water
holistically, especially utilizing market
forces as incentives and having a clear
strategy for watershed protection, as well as
land acquisition, can make the waters of the
Nation clean once again.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Financing of Nonpoint Source
Pollution Abatement Projects
Through Ohio's State
Revolving Loan Fund
Kevin C. Hinkle, Environmental Specialist
Gary P. Jones, Environmental Specialist*
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus, OH
In 1987, when Congress reauthorized
the Clean Water Act, it established a
state-level revolving loan fund (SRF)
program to finance not just construction of
municipal wastewater treatment projects,
but also two new areas: the implementa-
tion of nonpoint source (NFS) pollution
management programs, and the develop-
ment and implementation of estuary
conservation and management programs.
Additionally, authority was established to
provide loans to individuals for these types
of projects. Nationally, however, states
have had difficulty finding a mechanism to
provide this financial assistance.
At the state level, the Ohio Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), Division
of Environmental and Financial Assistance
(DBFA), has been developing the ability
for Ohio's SRF, The Ohio Water Pollution
Control Loan Fund (WPCLF), to fund
NFS pollution control projects. The
WPCLF is administered jointly by DEFA
and the Ohio Water Development
Authority (OWDA). We believe that we
have found an effective mechanism for
financing NFS pollution control projects
through the use of a linked deposit
concept. This financing mechanism may
have applicability in other state SRF
programs.
*Currently, Assistant Manager, Buckeye Lake State
Park, Millersport, OH.
Project Development
The continuing outcry for better
funding and more responsive aid for NFS
problems encouraged Ohio EPA staff
working in the WPCLF program to identify
NPS projects that could be funded through
the program. Ohio's multi-agency section
319 grant selection committee, composed of
representatives from Ohio EPA's Division
of Water Quality Planning and Assessment
(DWQPA), the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS), and the Ohio Department of Natural
Resources (ODNR) recommended the
Killbuck Creek watershed, based on need
and the local support a project would
receive in that watershed. This project is
serving as a pilot for developing a NPS
funding component for the WPCLF.
The Killbuck Creek watershed
(Figure 1), located mainly in Wayne and
Holmes counties, is 310 square miles in area
and is situated on the gently rolling Western
Allegheny Plateau, an area highly conducive
to dairy fanning and general agriculture.
Dairy farming is the main agricultural
activity in this watershed, which is first in
Ohio and fourteenth in the Nation in terms
of livestock density. As a result of its ability
to support farming, the watershed has been
greatly affected by nonpoint agricultural
pollution sources. Problems with manure
handling and livestock watering in the
streams are the main sources of agricultural
nonpoint pollution in the watershed.
181
-------
182
Watershed '93
II CONSERVATION SSRVIC
~——/£.__
' j NONPOINT SOURCE ASSESSMENT
OF OHIO'S STREAMS
19 (1707)
K1UBUCK CREEK WATERSHED
COSHOCTON, HOLMES. MEDINA
AND WAYNE COUNTIES
OHIO
Figure 1. Killbuck Creek watershed.
The project was identified as a good
candidate for WPCLF financing as some
work had already been done in the water-
shed by other agencies. This effort to
implement a watershed plan in the Killbuck
Creek area has attracted other agency funds
and mobilized greater local participation in
the project. The primary basis for initiating
this project was Ohio's Nonpoint Source
Assessment report, which
identified stream segments
in the watershed as either
impaired or impacted by
nonpoint source pollution.
Stream littering violations
were being issued by the
local game protector to
farmers in the watershed at
the time we were informed
about the project.
Locally, the focal
point for developing and
implementing a watershed
management plan to control
agricultural pollution is the
Soil and Water Conserva-
tion District (SWCD)
boards in Wayne and
Holmes counties, along
with their associated SCS
staffs. Assistance in project
planning is also being
provided by the Ohio State
University Extension,
ODNR, and Ohio EPA, as
well as local health depart-
ments, county governmental
and planning representa-
tives, teachers, and various
other agricultural groups in
the area.
We are currently
developing a watershed
management plan in
conjunction with these
groups. This watershed
management plan will:
• Define the problems
in the watershed.
• Identify the types of
improvements that
will work best to
address the problems.
• Define the develop-
ment and approval
process for projects.
• Define how project
construction and
implementation will be
administered.
• Define how the watershed will be
monitored to determine the success
of the funded improvements in ad-
dressing water quality problems.
There will also be an education and informa-
tion component in this process to inform
farmers about the water quality problems in
the watershed and how their farming prac-
-------
Conference Proceedings
183
tices contribute to these problems, as well as
the availability of WPCLF linked loans.
Once the watershed management
plan has been completed, farmers in the
watershed interested in receiving financial
assistance will, with SCS technical
assistance, develop conservation manage-
ment plans for their farms which are
consistent with the watershed management
plan. The conservation management plans
will establish schedules for implementa-
tion of improvements. The farmers will
enter into long-term agreements with SCS
to comply with the conservation manage-
ment plans. After approval of the conser-
vation management plans by the SWCD
boards, cooperating farmers will then be
able to apply to participating local banks
for WPCLF linked deposit loans. We
anticipate that the first of these WPCLF
linked deposit loans will be made in
August 1993.
Linked Deposit Concept
The linked deposit concept is the
unique aspect of this project, and is a
model which we borrowed from the State
of Ohio Treasurer's Office. The treasurer,
through the Mary Ellen Withrow Linked
Certificates of Deposit Program, is
currently providing funds to local area
banks to be used for agricultural produc-
tion loans or small business loans. The
State Treasurer invests state funds with
qualifying participating banks at below
market interest rates through the issuance
of a certificate of deposit. The banks then
pass on the lower interest rates provided to
them by the state treasurer by proportion-
ally reducing the interest rates of the loans
made to farmers or small businesses. The
certificates of deposit are insured by the
FDIC, or secured by the bank's assets
when investments exceed $100,000.
The linked deposit model holds the
following advantages for the WPCLF
program:
1. Because of the popularity of the
State of Ohio Treasurer's program,
local banks are already familiar
with how a linked deposit program
operates. This will facilitate the
entry of the WPCLF into this new
area of project funding. Local
banks from the Killbuck Creek
watershed area have expressed an
interest in participating in a
WPCLF linked deposit program.
This interest will be a key compo-
nent of implementing the program.
2. The individual credit decisions that
need to be made on farm loans will
be made by institutions that have
experience in making such loans.
This greater familiarity with making
farm loans will result in better credit
decisions being made.
3. The WPCLF will be sheltered from
the credit risks associated with
making loans to individual farmers.
The banks will assume those risks
and the WPCLF's security will
derive from either insurance through
FDIC, or the assets of the banks in
cases where deposits exceed
$100,000.
We are planning to use the following
process to implement WPCLF linked
deposit financing:
1. Banks would initially indicate an
interest in participating in the
program.
2. Interested banks would be evaluated
regarding the security they could
provide, their financial health, and
whether or not they are state char-
tered institutions.
3. For interested banks meeting the
qualifying criteria, agreements
would be entered into covering
acceptable uses and forms of security
for WPCLF funds deposited in the
banks, as well as limitations on the
percentage of public funds that can
form a bank's assets. The banks
would commit in the agreements to
pass the discount they receive from
the WPCLF funds deposited in the
bank onto the recipients of the /inked
deposit loans.
4. As farmers bring in approved farm
management plans to participating
banks, the banks would evaluate
the farmers' loan applications based
on the banks' loan criteria. After
loan agreements are entered into
between the banks and the farmers,
the banks would come to the
WPCLF with a request for funds.
The WPCLF would then deposit
funds in the bank at a reduced
interest rate.
5. The term on WPCLF linked deposits
would be equal to the useful life of
the faculties for which loan funding
was provided.
-------
184
Watershed '93
Conclusion
In the Killbuck Creek watershed,
developing the ability to finance agricultural
NFS pollution controls through the state's
SRF program has forged new networks
which are bringing together public and
private entities in a new financing partner-
ship. The skills and resources of many
agencies, groups, and individuals are being
focused in a coordinated effort to address a
watershed-scale problem. Ohio is finding
that with its SRF program it can augment
previous activities, supply badly needed
funds, and facilitate development and
implementation of watershed-level projects
that provide water quality benefits. In
Killbuck Creek, placing responsibility for
making decisions about project implementa-
tion and financing at the local level will
greatly increase the chances of success for
the project. We feel that this is one of the
chief benefits of the linked deposit method
of financing.
Besides the livestock problems
initially identified in the Killbuck Creek
watershed, problems with unsewered areas
and landfill leachate have also been men-
tioned by the SWCD boards of supervisors.
These problems may also be addressed in a
later phase of this project. For the
unsewered area problems, if upgraded septic
systems are a solution to the problems
identified, the WPCLF linked deposit
concept may also provide the best financing
mechanism to help solve these problems.
The Killbuck Creek watershed project
demonstrates some important principles in
the effective delivery of government
services. The Killbuck Creek project is
being designed to utilize people at the local
level who are most knowledgeable about
solving agricultural pollution problems and
arranging financing with individual farmers;
namely, the local agricultural organizations
and local area banks.
Other NFS pollution control projects
currently being considered as candidates for
WPCLF funding include other types of
agricultural pollution controls, on-site septic
system improvements, landfill closure plans,
and wellhead protection. In each case,
different financing approaches may be
needed to implement improvements. We
expect that these activities will result in
comprehensive watershed-level projects,
combining our efforts with those of other
government agencies. Broad-based water
resource restoration projects will be the
result of tailoring financing and implemen-
tation plans to local needs.
Update
On December 23, 1993, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
formally approved Ohio EPA's linked
deposit concept as consistent with the
federal Clean Water Act. This approval and
U.S. EPA's concurrence with Ohio's
subsequent amendment to its Nonpoint
Source Management Program now allow
Ohio's WPCLF to finance NFS projects in
the Killbuck Creek watershed as described
above.
In response to this approval, two
linked deposit loans have been made to
farmers in the Killbuck Creek watershed.
These capital improvements are valued at
$140,000. Ohio EPA expects further
application of the linked deposit concept by
other farmers and in other watersheds in
1994.
-------
WATERSHED '93
Financing Storm Water Management:
Maryland's Experience with
Storm Water Utilities
Jim George, Nonpoint Source Assessment and Policy Program
Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Management Administration
Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD
Motivation for Dedicated
Local Funding
Maryland's 1982 Stormwater
Management Act (Environment
Article, Title 4, Subtitle 2)
required counties and municipalities to
adopt an ordinance by 1984 giving them the
authority to implement a local storm water
management program. The Act also
requires the Maryland Department of
Environment (MDE) to evaluate each
jurisdiction's program at least once every
3 years. Thus, to effect changes at the local
level, the state must do so through these
local program reviews.
The state has two standard tools
available for influencing local programs:
enforcement actions and incentives. Unfor-
tunately, these tools are inadequate. Formal
enforcement orders are viewed as being
counterproductive. Consequently, state staff
take action through less formal written
recommendations with spotty success.
Financial incentives, which had been limited
in the past, have eroded further due to state
budget constraints. The MDE has con-
cluded that instituting dedicated long-term
local funding mechanisms is the logical
solution to the problem of ineffective storm
water management programs. This paper
discusses the efforts made by MDE to help
local storm water program managers
overcome the obstacles to meeting their
financing needs.
As noted above, state incentives are a
limited and unreliable source of local
program financing. Until recently, Mary-
land had three funding support mechanisms
that were available to local storm water
management programs: the Storm Water
Pollution Control Cost Share Funds, the
State Revolving Loan Fund, and Storm
Water Grants-in-Aid. The Cost Share
Funds and Revolving Loan Fund are geared
toward funding the construction of public
storm water management structures. The
Revolving Loan Fund was designed for
large-scale water treatment projects. The
significant administrative burden associated
with securing these funds makes it unattrac-
tive for storm water management struc-
tures, which are small by comparison to
water treatment plants. Prior to its termina-
tion, due to state budget cuts, the Grants-in-
Aid program was used by local govern-
ments to hire staff for their storm water
management programs. This grant program
played two important roles. First, it helped
some jurisdictions keep up with plan
reviews, rather than performing perfunctory
reviews. Second, the potential for losing
the grant money served as a strong incen-
tive to be responsive to the state's concerns.
Figure 1 illustrates two salient points
based on 1990 data provided by the local
jurisdictions. The two pie charts, which
portray per capita revenue sources, differ by
the inclusion and exclusion of the revenues
of Prince George's County, a suburb of
Washington, DC. Prince George's County
is the only county in Maryland that has a
dedicated funding source for its storm water
management program (that is, a dedicated
property tax). The first point illustrated by
comparing the two charts is how much
185
-------
186
Watershed '93
Revenue Sources
S Plan Review Fees D State Grants • Fees-ln-Lieu E3 Other • Property Taxes
27%"
30%
73%
a) Including Prince George's
Tt» Sla!« Granl-ln Aid Fund was temilnalod In 1991
.11%
24%
b) Excluding Prince George's County
Figure 1. Comparison of per-capita operating expenditures by revenue source
for storm water management in Maryland including and excluding Prince
George's County.
Prince George's County's well-financed
program dominates the funding of the other
counties. The second point made in Figure
Ib highlights the impact of losing the State-
Grants-in-Aid program, which represented
27 percent of statewide county funding after
excluding Prince George's County. Of the
23 counties in Maryland in 1990, 4 de-
pended on the state grant for 100 percent of
their storm water management program
funding. The state grant monies provided
50 percent or more of the funding for 11
counties in Maryland.
In 1986, state staff completed a
storm water facility maintenance survey.
The survey results made clear that
maintenance funds were subject to
redirection to cover more pressing funding
needs. Some jurisdictions charge
developers a fee in lieu of building on-site
storage facilities and set this money aside
to fund the future construction of a
regional pond. Unfortunately, these funds
can also be redirected away from their
intended purpose. Thus, in addition to the
basic recognition that additional local
funding was needed, evidence of the
instability of storm water management
funds prompted the state to examine a
utility approach. This approach would
create local enterprises with the authority
to charge fees that correlate with each
property owner's contribution to the storm
water problem. The revenue collected by a
utility would be insulated better from the
vagaries of the political process
and thus more secure.
Storm Water Utilities
and Other Dedicated
Revenue Sources
Most of the 100 or so storm
water utilities in the United States
are public entities, much like con-
ventional water utilities, that pro-
vide storm water management
services. Landowners are as-
sessed fees based on land charac-
teristics such as area and the de-
gree of impervious development.
In a proposed rate schedule de-
veloped by the Water Resources
Planning staff in Montgomery
County, Maryland, a pollution
loading factor is also included.
Storm water utilities are
frequently compared to dedi-
cated property tax approaches (an ad
valorem tax), which is about the only other
means of generating a large steady supply
of revenues. Five primary benefits of die
storm water utility approach have been
identified. First, they can generate
substantial funds. Second, the funds are
predictable and secure. Third, the paying
public can readily account for the use of
their fees. Fourth, storm water utilities
that give credits for on-site controls
provide an incentive for environmental
protection. Finally, the distribution of
costs are considered to be more fair than a
dedicated property tax in two ways. The
first way is that fees are related to environ-
mental impact rather than an arbitrary land
value. In addition, a study conducted by
MDE (George, 1991) suggests that the
distribution of costs among different land
uses based on a storm water utility system
weigh more heavily toward commercial
land than they would under a property tax
scenario. This distribution is more
equitable because commercial land owners
have the opportunity to pass their costs on
to customers, whereas residential landown-
ers cannot.
There are several drawbacks of storm
water utilities when compared to a dedicated
property tax approach. First, a property tax
is usually easier to initiate. Starting a utility
can require a significant process of educat-
ing decision makers and the public. Second,
utilities entail additional administrative
-------
Conference Proceedings
{87
operating costs due to significant database
maintenance requirements. Third, because
property values generally grow over the
long term, a property tax approach is less
likely to require politically painful fee
adjustments to keep pace with inflation (if
property values decline, this could be a
drawback). Finally, property taxes are
deductible when computing income taxes,
whereas utility fees are not.
The State of Maryland is aware that
each jurisdiction has unique considerations
underlying its choice of how to finance
storm water management programs. Over
the past 6 years, MDE has provided techni-
cal assistance to encourage local govern-
ments to adopt some form of dedicated
financing. The following section highlights
these efforts.
Maryland's Storm Water Utility
Technical Assistance Efforts
Maryland's storm water utility
technical assistance efforts began in 1987
with an intensive literature search and
survey of existing utilities. In 1988, two
significant reports were produced by the
MDE. A Survey of Stormwater Utilities
(Lindsey, 1988a) provided the results of a
survey of 25 existing utilities. The findings
demonstrate the wide variety of existing
utilities and give answers to commonly
asked questions. Financing Stormwater
Management: The Utility Approach
(Lindsey, 1988b) describes the technical,
legal, and public policy issues associated
with planning and implementing a storm
water utility. It also includes a fairly
extensive reference list. These two
documents serve as the primary references
for a recent American Public Works
Association publication on storm water
utilities (APWA, 1991).
In 1989, MDE facilitated a compre-
hensive study of financing storm water in
Baltimore County, Maryland. The frame-
work of the study included the participation
of a committee of interested parties con-
vened by the county's Director of the
Department of Environmental Protection
and Resource Management. MDE produced
a final report entitled Financing Stormwater
Controls in Baltimore County (Lindsey,
1990) that documented the committee's
recommendation to pursue a storm water
utility approach. Soon after the completion
of the Baltimore County study, an election
resulted in a change of administrations.
Support for the storm water utility dissi-
pated with the departure of the previous
administration.
Throughout the early period of its
involvement in providing technical assis-
tance, MDE staff made contacts with
numerous county and municipal storm water
managers. MDE staff made presentations
and distributed briefing materials and a
brochure based on excerpts from the 1988
studies. These contacts lead the storm water
management staff of Montgomery County to
undertake an extensive, independent effort
to pursue a storm water utility (they are also
considering an ad valorem tax). In addition,
a citizen task force, appointed by the Mayor
of the City of Rockville in Montgomery
County, assessed storm water management
in general and endorsed the pursuit of a
storm water utility (Watson et al., 1992).
The current political and economic climate
has slowed these efforts; however, local
staff voice confidence in their eventual
success.
The state has devised an additional
avenue for providing technical assistance,
termed a preliminary investigation. This
entails a review of the jurisdiction's current
expenditures and future storm water
financing needs with an eye toward the
viability of introducing a storm water utility.
A preliminary investigation can be con-
ducted with or without the direct participa-
tion of the jurisdiction. If the jurisdiction
does not actively participate, the results can
be transmitted to interested parties to serve
as a framework for discussion. These
resulting documents often represent the only
comprehensive estimate of the storm water
management program's financial status.
Participating counties have included Carroll,
Cecil, Charles, and Harfbrd Counties.
Preliminary investigations have provided a
forum for discussing the merits of storm
water utilities and the resulting reports
provide local staff with technical documen-
tation that can serve as a starting point for
future consideration of implementing a
storm water utility.
In 1991, MDE developed an estimate
of the revenue generating potential of each
county (George, 1991). This report esti-
mated the annual revenue potential of the
statewide implementation of storm water
utilities to be from $64 to $72 million
depending on the fee structure. These
estimates were of value in the successful
introduction of enabling state legislation in
-------
188
Watershed '93
1992 that gives local jurisdictions explicit
authority to start a storm water utility.
Although implicit authority had been written
into the Maryland's 1982 Storm water
Management Act, local jurisdictions were
reluctant to be the first to test that authority.
Currently, MDE is compiling case
studies of how existing storm water utilities
financed their start up costs, which can be a
barrier to implementation. In addition,
MDE is developing several slide show
modules that can be mixed and matched for
audiences of varying familiarity with the
concepts of storm water utilities. These two
projects represent a new phase in
Maryland's technical assistance efforts
consistent with jurisdictions moving closer
to implementation.
The common themes of the efforts
made by MDE have been the transfer of
technical knowledge to local storm water
management staff and the removal of
various legal and financial impediments.
MDE does not wish to engage in the details
of implementing a jurisdiction's storm water
utility. This should be performed by the
counties with contracted assistance from an
experienced consulting firm. The state's
role is to get the process moving and to
apply the necessary pressures through the
review process to affirm that storm water
management remains a high priority.
Concluding Observations
Maryland State Law is limited to
controlling storm water management for
new development. The federal Clean Water
Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimina-
tion System (NPDES) for municipal storm
sewers expands the responsibility of local
jurisdictions to also include previously
developed land. Half of Maryland's
counties are obligated to comply with new
NPDES permits. Furthermore, the associ-
ated federal regulations require local
financial responsibility as a term of compli-
ance. Because these new regulations are
associated with the federal Clean Water Act,
their enforcement may be effected through
third party law suits.
Public financing is an inherently
political undertaking. Jurisdictions with
pro-development administrations that use
general funds as the primary revenue source
for their storm water management programs
almost invariably have weak programs.
These jurisdictions are also unlikely
candidates for the implementation of storm
water utilities due to the orientation of their
political leadership. As such, these
jurisdictions may be exposing themselves
to costly legal battles, if not fines, for
failure to satisfy the financing requirements
of NPDES regulations for municipal storm
sewer systems.
Other jurisdictions that are open to the
idea of developing dedicated financing
mechanisms still face the political aspects of
public financing. Until an understanding
about the need for storm water financing is
reached with vocal public interests, even
benevolent public officials will be wary of
endorsing a new tax or fee. States in this
situation can provide support in the form of
educational material for the public and
technical briefing material for program staff
and decision makers. As was demonstrated
with the policy reversal in Baltimore
County, political factors make the imple-
mentation of a storm water utility an
uncertain endeavor.
Providing state-level legal authority is
a key step that state agencies can take to
pave the way for local storm water utilities.
A valuable element of such legislation is the
provision for itemizing the utility charge on
the county property tax bill. While some
counties may elect to use a separate billing
system, such systems can be prohibitively
expensive to develop. It is also advisable
for the state law to impart the same penalties
for failure to pay the utility fee as for taxes.
This will help ensure that fee collection is
enforceable.
MDE advises that a separate storm
water utility ordinance be enacted, rather
than combining it with the ordinance that
authorizes the storm water management
program (USEPA, 1992). This legislative
structure will help insulate the storm water
management program ordinance from
malevolent amendments if the storm water
utility ordinance requires amendments and
vice versa.
For the past 6 years, Maryland has
been engaged in efforts to influence local
jurisdictions to institute dedicated funding
for its storm water programs. Although
this effort has not yet resulted in the
implementation of a storm water utility in
Maryland, states in a similar situation
should not be discouraged. States can play
an essential role in creating a fertile
institutional environment for the local
jurisdictions. In the end, behind each
successful storm water utility is a small
-------
Conference Proceedings
189
cadre of well-informed, motivated local
individuals. To the degree that state staff
responsible for storm water management
can identify and support these individuals,
they should do so.
References
American Public Works Association. 1991.
Financing stormwaterfacilities: A
utility approach. Institute for Water
Resources of the APWA, Chicago, EL.
George, J., G. Lindsey. 1991. Potential
revenues from stormwater utilities in
Maryland. Sediment and Stormwater
Management Administration, Mary-
land Department of the Environment.
July.
Lindsey, G. 1988a. A survey of stormwater
utilities. Sediment and Stormwater
Management Administration, Mary-
land Department of the Environment.
March.
, 1988b. Financing stormwater
, management: The utility approach.
Sediment and Stormwater Administra-
tion, Maryland Department of the
Environment. August.
. 1990. Financing stormwater
controls in Baltimore County. Final
report. Sediment and Stormwater
Administration, Maryland Department
of the Environment. February.
USEPA. 1992. Stormwater utilities:
Innovative financing for stormwater
management. Draft. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of
Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
Washington, DC. March.
Watson, E.L., et al. 1992. Stormwater
management task force report to
mayor and council. City of Rockville,
Maryland. September.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Funding the Implementation of the
Blizzards Bay CCMP: Searching for a
New Approach
Edwin H.B. Pratt, Jr., Chairman
Dennis Luttrell, Executive Director
The Buzzards Bay Action Committee, Marion, MA
The Buzzards Bay Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan
(CCMP) is the result of 5 years of
study and consultation among scientists,
citizens, and all levels of government, along
with pilot implementation projects con-
ducted under the direction of the Buzzards
Bay Project, part of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) National
Estuary Program (NEP). One of the
products of the study is a set of 11 Action
Plans, defining specific implementation
objectives and methods deemed necessary to
prevent increased degradation of Buzzards
Bay (Figure 1) and to begin the remediation
of existing problems. Because the Water
Quality Act of 1987, which created the
NEP, has no authorization for funding
implementation and because federal
spending is decreasing as a percent of total
governmental spending on environmental
quality (Figure 2), an essential part of the
Buzzards Bay CCMP is a financial plan.
This financial plan includes a series
of suggestions for funding sources. The
litany of typical actions—bonding, taxation,
fees, grants, etc.—is efficiently laid out.1 In
general, however, review of these various
options has not generated much enthusi-
asm or optimism among local governments
given the current status of government
funding hi Massachusetts, the decidedly
unhappy mood of the public, and the large
sums involved. This is not a good time for
1 See Buzzards Bay Project: Buzzards Bay Comprehen-
sive Conservation and Management Plan, Volume II,
August 1991.
a "business-as-usual" governmental
funding approach to meet the multi-million
dollar need (Figure 3 and Table 1).
BUZZARDS
BAY
10 mites
10 kilometers
Town boundaries provided by MassGIS and digitized
from 1:25000 scale USGS quadrangle maps. Basin
boundary compiled by USGS-WRD and digitized by
MassGIS. Cape Cod side basin boundary based on
interpretation of water table elevation contours
published in Hydrologic Atlas No. HA-692.
BUZZARDS BAY
NARRAGANSETTBAY
LONG ISLAND SOUND
Figure 1. Buzzards Bay and its drainage basin.
191
-------
192
Watershed '93
Local (76%)
1981
State (6%)
Total spending=
$35 billion
EPA (18%)
Local (82%)
1987
Local (87%)
2000
Source: Apogee Research.
State (5%)
EPA (13%)
Total spending^
$40 billion
State (5%)
EPA (8%)
Total spending=
$55 billion
Figure 2. Environmental outlays by level of government.
Billions
of
1988
dollars
10
97 99
Fiscal Year
Figure 3. Expenditures on environmental quality by all levels of government.
Something new is requked: a method not
only creating a source for the necessary
investment, but also influencing individual
decisions through economic incentives
instead of regulations.
Anyone who has
spent time as a regulator at
the local level in recent
years knows of the growing
backlash on the part of vot-
ing citizens upset about
their out-of-pocket costs
and that businesses com-
plain about reduced pro-
ductivity and competitive-
ness. It is beginning to
threaten much of the
progress made in environ-
mental protection. Increas-
ingly successful political
action against local offi-
cials who support the
implementation of national
standards expressed in such
legislation as the Clean Air
and Clean Water Acts,
coupled with the economic
recovery that will soon
stimulate development ac-
tivity across the country—
development largely regu-
lated by local
officials—portends omi-
nously for the health and
safety of environmental
resources in general and
watershed resources in par-
ticular given the major role
local government expendi-
ture must play (Figure 4).
Establishing strict stan-
dards, relying on regulatory
activity and legal enforce-
ment, has brought us a long
way, but if we are to avoid
serious reversals, much less
continue to improve our
ability to protect and en-
hance valuable environmen-
tal resources, we must move
beyond "command and con-
trol" techniques and try to
find other ways to influence
the day-to-day economic
choices made by individu-
als. What is "good" for
people and what is "best"
for the planet will not per-
suade individuals to change
their behavior. Giving them cash-based in-
centives will. We must make the market-
place work for us by entering into its trans-
actions rather than attempting to restructure
them from without.
other
Solid Waste
Water Quality/
Construction Grants
Drinking Water
Air Quality
-------
Conference Proceedings
193
One such approach is the use of
betterments—fees assessed against
property owners in the form of charges
on their regular property tax bills. In
Massachusetts, betterments are
typically used for services provided
only to a specific portion of the
property owners within the municipal-
ity,2 such as sewer and water line
extensions, sidewalk repairs, etc.
(Massachusetts General Laws; MGL
Chapter 80, Sections 1-17). In some
communities, bylaws have been
adopted to further allow their use in
repairing private ways. It is this last
use of betterments for certain improve-
ments to private property that has
suggested to us some possible innova-
tions in municipal cash management,
marketing of municipal bonds, and
state and federal income tax policy, as
a way to drive private investment in
the various actions recommended in
the Buzzards Bay CCMP.
We propose a combination of
tax incentives with modifications in
public and private financial practices
designed to drive private investment in
projects beneficial to watershed
management. Many worthy goals
including septic system repairs and .
upgrades, improved storm water
management and treatment, toxic
pollution abatement, toxic use
reduction, habitat and wetland
protection, and expansion of open
space, can be promoted rather man coerced
if we can create new investment vehicles.
Potential investment will be significant and
local and regional economic stimulation will
be an important result. One such vehicle
could possibly be a Betterment-Backed
Security (BBS), similar to the Mortgage-
Backed Security traded every day. BBSs
could be further supplemented by Environ-
mental Revenue Bonds (ERBs), which are
similar to Industrial Revenue Bonds. Gifts
of land or development rights that protect
habitat or wetlands or serve other valid
public purposes could be deductible at rates
greater than their market value, creating
transferable tax credits. And, finally,
changing the actual manner in which
government manages its cash could signifi-
Table 1. Preliminary estimate of financial costs to implement
management actions in Buzzards Bay
Storm water remediation
(400 discharges, $25,000 ea.)
Boat pump-out + waste collection
(15 facilities, $25,000 ea)
Land-use planning, N management
(1 5 embayments, $30,000 ea)
Oil spill containment equipment
(municipalities and regional aid)
Resource mapping, harbor planning
(7 municipalities, $60,000 ea)
Municipal grants
(for innov. demonstration projects)
Special assessments
(monitoring, special research investigations)
Technical assistance to municipalities
Education, outreach, citizen programs
Toxic source reduction
Agricultural NPS projects and BMPs
Projects to restore and protect habitat
?roject administration and support
TOTAL
5-year
Total ($)
10,000,000
375,000
450,000
100,000
420,000
1,500,000
3,000,000
2,250,000
750,000
750,000
500,000
500,000
750,000
21,345,000
Annual ($)
2,000,000
75,000
90,000
20,000
84,000
300,000
600,000
450,000
150,000
150,000
100,000
100,000
150,000
4,259,000
2 We will use "municipal" throughout this paper as
synonymous with any appropriate governmental
entity.
Other issues not addressed with NEP funding:
Remediation activities in New Bedford (sewage treatment facility upgrade, CSO
remediation, and Superfund PCB cleanup) will cost $200 million-$300 million.
cantly lower transaction costs through staff
reductions, increasing cash available, and/or
reducing taxes.
To begin with, let us look at the idea
of BBSs. Betterments are charges levied by
government, usually in the form of specific
tax billings, on property that has received a
benefit not universally shared throughout
the municipality. Once assessed, better-
ments are senior liens to all but federal and
state taxes; they are collectable by the taxing
jurisdiction in exactly the same way as
property taxes. A property owner needs no
credit qualification for a betterment;
succeeding owners are bound to repay them
without any legal procedure other than that
which transfers tide; and the funds expended
are borrowed at the public cost of money,
often far less than that of loans available on
the private market. Finally, unlike normal
municipal bonds which are issued on the
"full faith and credit" of the municipality,
and which require the annual raising
-------
194
Watershed '93
\
$5.3 Billion
Additional local
spending to comply
with new
environmental
standards"
$15.8 Billion
Additional local
government spending
to maintain current
level of environmental
quality
Fiscal Year
•foeiudw sending for drinking water, watsr quality, solid waste, air and others
Source: Apogee Research from U.S. Bureau of Census, Government Finances
(various years) and data prepared by the Environmental Law Institute.
Figure 4. Local government expenditures on environmental quality.
through taxation of the appropriation for
repayment, betterment borrowing is repaid
through transfers from a special revolving
fund within the municipal treasury that has
been set up to receive the betterment
payments made by property owners.
Repayment of the notes is secured by the tax
collector's capacity to seize property for
nonpayment of betterment charges and,
being an administrative rather than political
process, represents less risk and is the same
for each municipality, regardless of bond
rating, and for each betterment regardless of
the size or nature of the betterment. As the
first chart below indicates, other things
being equal, from a property owner's point
of view the betterment offers a less expen-
sive and more accessible means of funding
for necessary improvements.
There are also significant benefits
from the point of view of the institution
lending the money. The cost of closing each
loan is significantly reduced because no
credit check is necessary. The actual
processing of each betterment, record
keeping, and if necessary, enforced collec-
tion are the responsibility of the
municipality administering the
betterments. Collection is guaran-
teed by a legally binding and largely
automatic administrative procedure,
making the loan one of very low risk
with only state or federal tax liens
senior to it.
Thus a bank, or other lender,
would have significantly lower
processing costs and less risk when
loaning against betterments as
compared with typical mortgages or
home improvement loans. The
comparison of betterments to normal
municipal bonds is somewhat less
straightforward but also includes
significant savings and modest risk
reduction. (See second chart.)
Because the payment of principal
and interest is guaranteed by the
administrative process of collecting
fees and the legal authority to take
property for failure to pay and not by
the annual tax levy, there is almost
no risk of default driven by political
issues or financial difficulties that
may confront the municipality. All
that is needed is an efficient record-
ing and collecting procedure, easily
supplied at low cost to any tax
collector's office in the form of a
small computer and simple program.
Many tax collectors' offices already have
the necessary capacity. The added cost of
betterment fee administration should be
small and can be borne by each project.
Essentially, all the processing is done by the
municipality; the bank only has to place the
loan with investors. And, as the cost of
processing a betterment loan to the bank is
less than a municipal bond offering, with the
risk of default or late payment also reduced,
the interest rate charged to the borrower
should be lower.
This brings us to another interesting
characteristic of BBSs: each individual
betterment lien, whether on a private
residence, a condo complex, an office
building or factory, is, for all intents and
purposes, identical in quality from the
loaning (investing) institution's point of
view. The security of each loan is not the
property owner's capacity to repay, but the
municipality's capacity to seize and sell
property for nonpayment. A capacity that is
legally secure, administrative in nature, and
whose standard of performance (i.e., how
much of a break can the tax collector give
-------
Conference Proceedings
195
1. Security
2. Default =
3. Repayment
4. Inv. Quality
Betterment
Property
Seizure & Sale
Transfer
Identical
Municipal Bond
Full Faith & Credit
Court Action
Appropriation
Issuer-Dependent
Mortgage/Loan
Property
Foreclosure & Sale
Billing
Borrower-Dependent
any given betterment payer
in trouble) can be defined by
binding contract. Further,
unlike a municipal bond,
which is guaranteed by the
issuing municipality's "full
faith & credit" and is subject
to a bond rating, every
betterment within the state is
exactly the same
in terms of
payment guaran-
tees and risk.
Therefore, lending
institutions can
pool betterments,
affording the
same low costs to
each betterment
payer, regardless of size, type, or location,
and offer the large institutional investor
substantial blocks of very high quality,
double tax-exempt paper. In Massachusetts,
you could sell such paper all day long!
In an effort to take advantage of the
potential benefits offered by betterments, the
Massachusetts Association of Health Boards
(MAHB) and the Buzzards Bay Action
Committee (BBAC) have drafted and filed
legislation known as the "Betterment Bill."
This bill expands the traditional use of
betterments to include septic system repairs
and lead paint removal. It links these
betterments with the substantial authority
local boards of health have in Massachusetts
to compel the abatement of a threat to the
public health and safety (Massachusetts
General Laws; MGL Chapter 111, Sections
31, 122-154.). It also allows for the
property owner to petition the board of
health for the use of betterments for septic
system and lead-paint projects. We expect
its passage this session and hope to begin
putting it to use in Fiscal Year 1994
municipal budgets. Initially, it will involve
traditional financing as the BBAC must
further explore the possibility of putting
BBSs to work with various banks. Discus-
sions have already begun with a large
regional bank, but it is unclear at this time
whether further legislation will be needed.
Typically, municipalities would be
able to take any of three approaches:
1. Individual property owners get
projects permitted, bid, and quali-
fied, then sign up for an annual
betterment borrowing. As part of its
annual budget process, the munici-
pality authorizes the betterments and
Comparison of Betterment vs. Mortgage/Loan
1. Interest Rate (Est.)
2. Term
3. Owner Credit- worthy
4. Up-front Fees
5. Lien Transferable
Betterment
4.5%-6.5%
5 - 20 Years
Not Necessary
No
Yes
Mortgage/Loan
7%- Up
0 - 30 Years
Yes
Usually
No
the necessary borrowings. Upon
obtaining the funds, the projects are
authorized and go through the
normal inspection process, the
various contractors are paid at the
agreed price upon successful
completion of work, and collection
of betterment charges and payment
of note begins, timed so that collec-
tions precede payments.
2. The municipality invites property
owners to submit projects. After
permitting and qualification proce-
dures, the municipality puts projects
out to bid as a group, or in groups,
whichever is appropriate. Bids are
awarded and upon obtaining funds
the projects go through the normal
inspection process; the various
contractors are paid at the agreed
price upon successful completion of
work; and collection of betterment
charges and payment of note begins,
timed so that collections precede
payments.
3. In order to accommodate emergen-
cies and special circumstances, an
annual budget might include a
borrowing authorization up to a
certain limit for projects meeting
specifically defined criteria. The
authorizing board or commission
might pool projects, or do them one
at a time, with the treasurer borrow-
ing in anticipation of revenue. The
projects could be then rolled into a
larger betterment borrowing in the
next annual budget.
Working with the member municipali-
ties of the BBAC, we expect to quickly
-------
196
Watershed '93
establish common procedures for the use of
betterments. An $8,500 grant has recently
been given to the MAHB to work with local
boards of health to standardize local health
regulations to begin this effort. With such
procedures in place, we will move to expand
the application of the Act, offering amend-
ments to include point and nonpoint source
pollution reduction, sewer pretreatment, fuel
storage tank management, and toxic and
hazardous material clean up. Given the
broad powers of boards of health in Massa-
chusetts, linking betterments and the
management objectives of the Buzzards Bay
CCMP through them provides substantial
opportunity to encourage voluntary compli-
ance with existing law and regulation
because of the reduction of costs to the
property owner. Property owners often
conceal violations because of legitimate
concerns about the cost of abatement. Many
times a board of health, faced with property
owners unable or unwilling to pay for
proper abatement, is itself unwilling to go
through the process for compelling compli-
ance and either ignores the problem or
allows a substandard abatement. Either
case, while possibly defensible in isolation,
adds to the future cost of full CCMP
implementation as some further, and largely
duplicative, action will eventually be
required.
Along with these efforts, we will
continue our discussion with area banks in
an effort to pool betterment borrowings
from all the BBAC municipalities. This
substantial borrowing should, we hope, lead
to significant reductions in costs, as dis-
cussed above, and lead to the development
of BBSs. We have already discussed with a
regional bank the possibility of creating an
environmental mutual fund that would
attract investors with both a high-quality
Massachusetts tax-exempt investment and
its environmentally beneficial nature.
Also, we will explore the use of board
of health regulations and/or municipal
bylaws, modeled on the private way repair
bylaws mentioned above, to allow for
remediation of septic system problems on a
neighborhood basis. One of the important
aspects of the private ways bylaw is its
ability to compel the participation of all
residents whose property has frontage on a
private way, if a certain percentage of those
residents vote to improve that way through
the bylaw's betterment procedure. We are
proposing a similar mechanism be crafted
that establishes standards for defining a
neighborhood that has septic system
problems significant enough to warrant a
neighborhood-wide remedial action instead
of a property-by-property approach.
Typically, a board of health would
investigate problems in a given area. Using
these standards would ascertain the need for
a neighborhood remediation. After going
through a proper hearing procedure, the
Board could order the remediation under-
taken. It would then oversee the design,
review, and construction bid process; award
contracts; establish betterments; and seek
the appropriate borrowing authorization.
With the other mechanisms discussed above
in place, the process should result in a
superior remedial effort at as low a cost to
the property owner as is reasonably pos-
sible. Such lowering of costs will obviously
expand resources available, encourage
cooperation, and reduce the expenses related
to case-by-case enforcement. It will also
help change the relationship the board of
health has with property owners who have
problems from an adversarial relationship to
one of cooperation.
Beyond these actions, municipalities,
most likely through their boards of health,
can individually or in some regional
association further reduce the costs to
property owners of septic system mainte-
nance and repair by establishing On-site
Management Districts (OSMD) that take
over these responsibilities.3 Preliminary
analysis of an OSMD in the Town of
Marion indicates that if such districts are
formed, and the upgrading and repair of
septic systems is organized in an orderly and
rational manner, reflecting both environ-
mental and economic considerations, that
remarkable savings can be realized. By
charging septic system owners annual fees
based on water usage or septic system type
and using betterments to upgrade and repair
systems, it appears OSMD annual fees
would be less than those of sewer users and
that the one-time betterment charge would
be about 80 percent of actual cost. In effect,
an OSMD would make Marion septic
systems behave, from the property owners'
point of view, exactly like a sewer. Pay an
annual fee and a one-time betterment charge
for an up-grade to current standards, and the
OSMD looks after your septic system
3 Similarly, when the Betterment Act is amended to
include storm water drainage and treatment, Drainage
Utilities can be set up, which will operate in much the
same manner as OSMDs.
-------
Conference Proceedings
197
forever, including future repairs or up-
grades. It is hard to over estimate how
much easier a board of health's work would
be with the establishment of a successful
OSMD. And, at least in Marion's case, the
increase in property values through the
resolution of septic system problems—at
least 2/3 of Marion's 1600 septic systems
need attention—coupled with the injection
of cash into the local economy through the
upgrade contracts—estimated at over
$5,000,000 within seven years—offer
substantial economic as well as public
health and environmental benefits.4
Assuming we can accomplish all of
the above, there are further measures that
federal and state governments should
review. In any given CCMP or other
resource management plan, there will be
particularly important or especially difficult
tasks. In an effort to most efficiently
stimulate investment in these tasks, consid-
eration should be given to making some or
all of the capital investment made by a
property owner under an appropriately
qualified program tax deductible. Here we
propose the use of Environmental Revenue
Bonds (ERB), modeled after Industrial
Revenue Bonds (IRB) that have been used
as a vehicle for economic development for
so many years. If you would consider the
betterment-driven process we have dis-
cussed in detail above, imagine the further
stimulus to property owners to participate if
they knew that some part of the principal
portion of their betterment was tax deduct-
ible. The authorization of ERBs could
replace some of the block grant programs,
representing a much more efficient use of
federal resources, a tax expenditure being
far less costly to administer than the
collection of tax revenues with the subse-
quent high cost of redistribution through
heavily administered grant programs. Each
project would carry the cost of its adminis-
tration and oversight, obviating the need for
some of the permanent staff doing this work
in federal and state agencies.
Even in projects that did not qualify
for ERBs, similar cost savings can be
realized by replacing grant programs with
direct revenue sharing. Again, qualified
programs that normally would receive some
federal or state match through existing grant
programs would also be required to cover
the costs of their administration and over-
sight, and the matching funds could be paid
directly from the federal or state treasury
without the need for disbursement through
their bureaucracies. This again reduces the
need for permanent staff in oversight
agencies, makes each project justify and
bear its own administrative costs, and would
be a much more efficient use of the taxpayer
dollars.
In order to encourage the up-front
research and planning necessary to develop
projects, revolving fund programs could be
used. Initially set up with state or federal
grants, these grants could slowly be repaid
through a surcharge on projects. When an
adequate revolving fund level for any given
area or purpose has been achieved with all
federal and state money repaid, the sur-
charge can be removed and future projects
simply reimburse the fund for borrowings
and administrative costs.
Finally, there is the possibility of
establishing transferable tax credits to
encourage gifts of land, establishment of
various types of easements, and the further
stimulation of investment One of the
driving forces behind development is the
way the federal government taxes land in
estates. If an estate has $100,000 worth of
land, and is in the federal 50 percent tax
bracket, it must also have $100,000 in cash
to pay the necessary taxes on both land and
cash. Otherwise, the land must be sold to
pay its own tax burden. It would seem
reasonable, as land development often
threatens valuable environmental resources
and creates adverse impacts,5 to change the
federal inheritance tax code to allow gifts
and easements that enhance and/or protect
some identifiable public good, to be
deductible at more than 100 percent of
market value. This would slow develop-
ment in sensitive areas, and certainly
encourage gifts of land!
The same logic could be applied to
investment profits. Transferable tax credits
could be allowed financial institutions and
individuals for investments in qualified
projects, for example, certain classes of
ERBs. As above, these credits represent a
tax expenditure that could be used to off-set
* A multiplier factor of 6 is often used to compute the
added value to the local economy of each dollar spent
on such projects.
5 It should be noted that single-family home develop-
ment almost always pushes up local property tax rates
through increased demand for services. There are
more than just environmental reasons to limit
subdivision of land!
-------
198
Watershed '93
grant programs in an appropriate manner,
further stimulating private investment and
reducing government's size and cost.
In summary, while all of the above is
largely only an intellectual exercise, the
mechanisms discussed could certainly be
refined and established. This could go a
long way in undoing the unfortunate
expansion of central government, which has
caused atrophy of ability and will at the
local level. While federal and state govern-
ment must carry on programs of research
and evaluation and must continue to
establish and sustain the broad national
values expressed in legislation such as the
Clean Air and Clean Water Acts, the actual
work of developing remedial programs for
environmental problems must become
increasingly problem and site specific. Such
, a new approach would provide flexibility
and improve cooperation between levels of
government and between government and
citizens; it would stimulate private invest-
ment and its related growth in economic
activity and eventually allow for reduction
in governmental overheads having achieved
more efficient use of the taxpayer dollars.
This efficiency mainly arrived at by not
collecting dollars as taxes at all, but by
having dollars spent directly in the support
of clearly defined public policy objectives
by private parties.
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
The "Local Loan Fund"—A Solution
to Many Watershed Pollution Control
Problems
Dan Filip, Environmental Planner
State of Washington, Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA
Background and Rationale
Mdfunctioning septic tank systems
and improper agricultural practices
are major nonpoint pollution
sources to watersheds of Washington State
and many other areas of the country. In
Washington State there are about 600,000
on-site septic tank systems mat serve
approximately 25 percent of the state's
population. Largely because of substan-
dard soil conditions, approximately 10-15
percent of these systems do not function
properly. Therefore, at least 60,000 septic
tanks are presently discharging inad-
equately treated sewage to the surface
water and ground water of our water-
sheds. Likewise, much of the 31 million
pounds of manure produced each day by
the state's dairy herds ends up in our
state's waters.
Unfortunately, private property
owners do not always have the money
needed to correct these costly problems.
For example, engineered drainfield
designs, such as "mound systems," which
are often the only alternative when
standard gravity drainfields fail, frequently
cost $8,000 to $12,000 to install. Like-
wise, for farm operators, costs often
exceed $10,000 to provide adequate
manure lagoons, install equipment that
limits storm water runoff, and implement
other farm plan measures.
No governmental program or private
bank was available to rehabilitate septic
systems, and there was very limited support
for installing agricultural best management
practices (BMPs).
A Possible Solution?
In response to these problems, nine of
Washington State's county governments and
two conservation districts have developed
local loan funds through the Washington
State Revolving Fund (SRF) administered
by the State Department of Ecology. These
funds provide low interest loans to
homeowners to repair or replace failed
septic tank systems and to farm operators to
implement agricultural best management
practices. Local governments use the SRF
to initiate their programs. Even though the
concept is less than 3 years old, at least 60
loans have already been issued in the state,
and the water quality problems have been
corrected. Furthermore, many more such
loans are pending approval.
How Does the SRF Work?
To initiate the SRF programs in all 50
states, Congress provided that grants be
issued to the states from the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. Although grant
funds are subject to congressional appro-
priation, Washington State has received
between $30 million and $40 million each
year since 1989 to "seed" its SRF program.
Other states receive proportionally more or
less depending on population and docu-
mented water pollution control needs.
States must add $1.00 of state money to
every $4.00 of federal money received.
Through legally binding agreements,
states issue loans to local governments for
water pollution control projects. Most loans
199
-------
200
Watershed '93
are issued for multimillion-dollar sewage
treatment projects, but states have much
flexibility to develop innovative approaches
to solving water pollution control problems
such as the local loan strategy.
Under the local loan fund approach,
the local government determines how many
loans it believes it can make during the
project period and estimates the total cost of
the loans. The local government is issued an
SRF loan for this amount from the state.
Repayments to the local loan funds from
participating residents and county taxes are
used to repay the often interest-free SRF
loan. Local governments must begin
repaying the loan to the state within 1 year
of the end of the project period. Repay-
ments to the SRF would usually begin about
3 to 4 years after the loan was issued. Local
governments are encouraged to require that
repayments to their funds begin as quickly
as possible so that a repayment account is
established.
Federal seed grants are presently
slated to be ended next year with repay-
ments to loans being the sole source of
funds, but because the SRF program has
been so successful, Congress is now
considering extending the federal seed phase
through 1997. State SRF pools could be
substantially bigger and easier to maintain
"in perpetuity" as the 1987 amendments to
the Clean Water Act mandated. However,
most states are now issuing some loans from
the repayments on earlier loans. Therefore,
some money may already be available from
state revolving funds for high priority water
pollution control projects.
Are Local Loan Funds a "High
Priority"?
The SRF development staff in
Washington State recognized that nonpoint
source projects could not fairly be compared
to municipal sewage treatment plants in
terms of water quality benefits. Therefore,
by state regulation, 10 percent of the fund
was reserved each year for nonpoint water
pollution control projects. It is from this
reserve that loans to local governments for
septic system repair and agricultural BMPs
are issued. This provision for nonpoint
source projects was in concert with Con-
gressional intent to transition from federal
grants to state issued loans for sewage and
storm water treatment and to finance
nonpoint source projects.
Because loans from the SRF for local
loan funds are usually for between
$100,000 and $300,000 over project
completion periods of 2 to 3 years; a
relatively small percentage of the money
available in the SRF goes to such projects.
During the first 4 years of the SRF, much
of each year's reserve was used to help
finance point source projects, such as
sewage treatment plant upgrades and
combined sewer overflow reduction
projects. Last year approximately 6
percent of the SRF funds available were
offered to local loan fund projects. The
great majority of the money is used to help
finance more traditional larger scale point
source projects. Therefore, there have
been few, if any, objections to the concept
of using the SRF program to finance
nonpoint source projects.
Local Loan Fund Program
Provisions
Under the local loan fund concept,
local governments have a great deal of
flexibility to set the terms of the loans to
private individuals in order to address
special situations (for example, low-
income provisions) as long as they con-
tinue to keep water quality improvement in
the forefront.
All local programs protect their loans
by receiving liens on property to guarantee
that if the property is sold or inherited, the
loan is repaid at that time. Several
programs rely on local banks to review
applications, loan agreements, issue
reminder notices, etc. At least some banks
have volunteered to provide these services
at cost, as a public service to the communi-
ties. This strategy relieves county staffs
that may not be completely comfortable
with detailed financial and legal docu-
ments and also may help stabilize the
seasonal workload peaks and valleys for
loan processing and construction activities.
One of the conservation districts,
which issued 9 loans during the first year
of service and received another 30 applica-
tions, has developed an innovative collec-
tion approach. Because all loans issued
are for dairy waste BMPs, the local milk
processing plant deducts the monthly loan
payments from checks it issues to farmers
for milk production. The milk processor
then sends these repayments directly to the
conservation district.
-------
Conference Proceedings
201
Matters That May Surface
Any new concept has issues that
must be addressed. The staff of the state's
Attorney General should be made aware of
the approach as it is developed. County
attorneys must also approve the loans to
the county. The major public benefits of
clean public waterways and public health
are factors that may need to be understood
as they consider the strategy.
One of the most important aspects of
the program is the need for counties or
other financially sound taxing authorities
to guarantee repayment of the SRF loan.
This provision is critical because it
distances the state's SRF from any pos-
sible defaults on loans issued to private
individuals. It also fulfills the Federal
Clean Water Act requirement that SRF
loans be issued only if there is a "dedicated
source of repayment."
Conclusion
Through local loan funds, local govern-
ments can prioritize how funds are dispersed
to achieve the greatest overall water quality
improvement and solve their most critical
problems. For example, a county may opt to
target specific watershed(s). As the concept
is adaptable, local governments may help to
solve many of their watershed problems
through the local loan fund concept.
Public bodies throughout Washington
State are encouraged to use financial assis-
tance available from the Department of Ecol-
ogy to establish similar programs. Coopera-
tive efforts between Washington State's
local governments and the State Department
of Ecology could be used in other states as
an example for other water quality and pub-
lic health agencies to use as they address
their own critical watershed management
problems.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Using a Geographic Information
System as a Targeting Tool for
Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay
Program
Veronica Kasi, Conservation Program Specialist
Bureau of Land and Water Conservation
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources, Harrisburg, PA
History of Pennsylvania's
Chesapeake Bay Program
1983 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
In 1983, the Governors of the States of
Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania,
and the Mayor of Washington, DC,
signed an agreement to work together with
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to reduce nutrients (nitrogen and
phosphorus) to the Chesapeake Bay. This
agreement was written in response to a study
recently completed by EPA which docu-
mented the severe decline of the Chesapeake
Bay due to an excess of nitrogen and
phosphorus.
Pennsylvania's Program
Development
In response to the 1983 Agreement,
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
Department of Environmental Resources
(DER), Bureau of Land and Water Conser-
vation (BLWC), developed a program to
reduce nutrients entering the bay from the
Susquehanna River and the state's portion of
the Potomac River. An integral part of the
program involved the cost sharing of best
management practices designed to reduce
nutrients from agricultural sources. Cur-
rently, 80 percent or up to $30,000 per
landowner is given to farmers to help
remediate their nutrient management
problems.
It was recognized that a method of
targeting or prioritizing watersheds would
be needed to ensure that the limited cost
share monies would be spent where the most
progress could be made. The first list of
priority watersheds came from the "208
Study." This was a study conducted in the
late 1970s by the Department of Environ-
mental Resources in response to section 208
of the Clean Water Act. This study identi-
fied high-, medium- and low-priority water-
sheds within the state according to their po-
tential to create agricultural pollution. After
an intensive, detailed watershed assessment
was completed by the County Conservation
Districts, farmers located within these prior-
ity watersheds were considered eligible to
receive financial assistance for the installa-
tion of best management practices. The pri-
ority watershed assessments were completed
in four phases between 1985 and 1990.
1987 Chesapeake Bay Agreement
In 1987, the Governors of Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and Maryland, the Mayor of
Washington, DC, the Administrator of EPA,
and the Chairman of the Chesapeake Bay
Commission signed a second agreement.
The most important component of this
agreement required the signatories to reduce
the amount of controllable nutrients to
Chesapeake Bay by 40 percent by the year
2000.
The states had to write a strategy as to
how they would each reach their respective
203
-------
204
Watershed'93
reduction targets by the year 2000. The
initial prioritization scheme developed from
the "208 Study" was continued, since it was
imperative to target limited resources in
order to achieve the goal by the year 2000.
The Environmental Resources
Research Institute (ERRI)
Project
By 1990, the four phases of watershed
assessments were completed, and farmers
within these watersheds had begun to receive
cost share monies to remediate their nutrient
problems. All the high and medium priority
watersheds identified in the "208 Study"
were made a part of the program. During
this time, several questions were raised—
Where do we go from here? Are the limited
resources available to the program being
spent where they can do the most good?
In order to answer these questions, a
project was begun by BLWC, in cooperation
with Pennsylvania State University's ERRI.
This project was designed to use a Geo-
graphic Information System (GIS) to
compute an Agricultural Pollution Potential
Index for the 104 watersheds identified in
the State Water Plan.
Data Collected
Data were collected and input into the
system using a scale of 1:250,000 at a 100-
meter square grid. Over 250 million bytes
of data were developed and combined. Data
were collected to develop the following
seven layers (Petersen et al., 1991, p. 2):
1. Watershed boundaries. The State
Water Plan Boundaries for the
state's 104 watersheds were digi-
tized by ERRI.
2. Land Use. Data from the U.S. Geo-
logical Survey (USGS) Land Use
Data Analysis (LUDA) program
were used for the years 1972
through 1978.
3. Animal Density. The 1987 U.S. Ag-
ricultural Census data were used.
Animal populations were obtained
by ZIP code and combined with the
agricultural land uses to identify
animal density and to compute ani-
mal loading (lb/acre).
4. Topography. These data were devel-
oped from the USGS Digital Eleva-
tion data. Percent slope was calcu-
lated using these data.
5. Soils. The Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) State Soil Geo-
graphic Data Base (STATSGO)
was used.
6. Precipitation. These data are a
combination of data derived from
climatological station summaries by
the National Climatic Data Center in
North Carolina. This data layer was
developed in cooperation with Zedx,
Inc.
7. Rainfall-Runoff Factor. Also
developed by Zedx, Inc, this layer
consists of average monthly erosion
indexes using average annual and
regional monthly profiles. This
factor is an integral part of the
Universal Soil Loss Equation
developed by SCS to determine the
amount of sediment generated from
erosion.
Development of Pollution Indexes
Using the data layers described above,
ERRI developed four pollution indexes for
agricultural pollution. These four indexes
can then be combined in any fashion, and
weighted to develop a final agricultural
pollution potential index. The four indexes
are:
I. Runoff. This index was developed
by combining the Land Use, Soils,
and Precipitation data layers. The
result is an index for each watershed
in inches of runoff (Petersen et al.,
1991, p. 8).
2. Chemical Use. This index was
developed using a ranking system of
chemical use, depending on the land
use (Petersen et al., 1991, Table 5).
3. Sediment Production. This index
was developed using the SCS
Universal Soil Loss Equation. The
different layers were combined to
develop the different factors used in
the equation. The result is expressed
in tons/acre/yr (Petersen et al., 1991,
Tables 1 and 2).
4. Animal Loading. This index was
developed by combining the animal
density data by ZIP code and
overlaying the land use in each
watershed. By converting the animal
populations to pounds of nitrogen
and phosphorus generated, an index
of pound nitrogen or phosphorus per
acre of agricultural land was devel-
oped (Petersen et al., 1991, p. 9).
-------
Conference Proceedings
ZO5
The final Agricultural Pollution
Potential Index can be any combination of
these four indexes. Petersen et al. devel-
oped this index two ways. They computed
an index for each watershed by using the
entire acreage of the watershed, and an
index for each watershed by using only the
agricultural acreage in each watershed.
These four indexes were also combined
using an equal weighting, and a weighting
of 30 percent for the Animal Loading,
Sediment Production, and Runoff indexes,
and a 10 percent weight for Chemical Use.
This project took 1.5 years to com-
plete. Extensive assistance and cooperation
with USGS, SCS, the Pennsylvania Depart-
ment of Agriculture (PDA), and the
Susquehanna River Basin Commission
(SRBC) was used to enhance and develop
this project. Using monitoring data for
several watersheds obtained from SRBC, the
ranking and indexing process was validated
and verified. The monitoring data were
used to develop an index and ranking of
eight watersheds. The relative ranking in
each of the four Indexes, as well as the final
agricultural pollution potential index, were
compared for these eight watersheds. The
relative rankings came out the same.
How Is This CIS Used by DER?
This project has been used in many
ways by the Department. Agricultural
Watershed Assessments conducted by the
BLWC have been conducted statewide.
The identification of priority watersheds for
these assessments was done using the
agricultural pollution potential index for
watersheds developed with the Agricultural
Land Only acreage. This system has also
been used to help the state's Nonpoint
Source Program (section 319 of the Clean
Water Act) identify priority watersheds for
comprehensive watershed remediation
projects. The most valuable use of this
system has been to identify priority water-
sheds for Pennsylvania's Chesapeake Bay
Program.
Use by Pennsylvania's Chesapeake
Bay Program
The first step taken by the BLWC was
the development of a workgroup to deter-
mine how best to use this system for the Bay
Program. Members of this workgroup
included staff from the Chesapeake Bay
Foundation (CBF), the SCS, and the BLWC.
The workgroup combined the four indexes
in various ways and came up with three
different options for consideration by the
State Conservation Commission. (The
Commission is a group established by state
law, chaired by the Secretary of the Depart-
ment of Environmental Resources, to
oversee and supervise all activities of the
county conservation districts.)
The workgroup decided that the
Sediment Production Index and the Animal
Loading Index best reflected the emphasis
of the program. The workgroup members
felt that the Sediment Production Index gave
an indication of where the best management
practices used to control erosion should be
implemented, and the Animal Loading
Index gave an indication of where the most
severe animal waste problems were. Based
on estimated nutrient savings from best
management practices tracked as part of the
cost share program, it was determined that
80 percent of the nitrogen and phosphorus
was saved through practices designed to
handle animal waste problems, while 20
percent of the nutrient savings came from
the implementation of practices designed to
reduce erosion.
After consideration of several combi-
nations and various weights, the three
options developed for the Commission's
consideration involved the combination of
the Sediment Production Index, with a 20
percent weight, and the Animal Loading
Index with a 80 percent weight. The
difference between the options involved the
method used to calculate the norm which
was used to rank each watershed—the
higher the norm, the higher the pollution
potential index, and the higher the water-
shed is on the priority list. The norm was
computed using the equation:
Index Value - Mean
Standard Deviation
The difference involved the calcula-
tion of the mean and standard deviation of
the watershed indexes. The first option
calculated a mean and a standard deviation
using all 104 watersheds in the state. The
second option calculated a mean and a
standard deviation using only the 48
watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay drainage
basin. The third option involved calculation
of the mean and standard deviation without
using the indexes for the three highest
ranked watersheds. The workgroup felt that
-------
206
Watershed '93
the index and norm for these three water-
sheds was so much higher than the rest of
the basin that the priority list developed had
a bias which left little room for further
development of the program. The Commis-
sion selected the third option. The list of
priority watersheds is included in Table 1;
the map of priority watersheds is Figure 1.
Referring to Figure 1, it can be seen
that some of the watersheds identified hi the
"208 Study" are part of the new priority list
and remained in the Chesapeake Bay Cost
Share Program. Ten new watersheds were
identified to be included into the program.
Detailed watershed assessments of these ten
watersheds will be completed by the County
Conservation Districts by the end of 1993.
The other watersheds shown in Figure 1 are
watersheds which were part of the initial
priority watershed list, but are no longer
identified as a priority. It was the decision
of the Commission at that time that these
watersheds would be phased out over the
next 2 to 3 years.
Other options are now being explored
by DER to develop these data at a scale of
1:100,000. These options include:
1. Cooperating with USGS to develop
these data at an Andersen Level 2
Classification. This would follow
the same procedure used to develop
the original 1972-1978 data.
2. Requesting that Pennsylvania State
University complete the data for the
State of Pennsylvania, using the
protocol developed by EMAP during
the Chesapeake Bay Pilot Project.
It is planned that a decision will be made
shortly so that this project can continue and
the data can be completed by October 1994.
Once this data layer is obtained, the
Agricultural Pollution Potential Index will
be revised to reflect the changes in land use.
The Chemical Use Index will be greatly
enhanced by the use of this updated data.
The idea of using the 1972-78 and the 1990
data to determine land use changes and
trends is also being explored.
Plans for the Future
A GIS such as this is only as good as
the data entered into the system. Provisions
should be made to update and enhance a
data base such as this as new data are
obtained.
Revision of the Land Use Data
Current land use data were identified
as data that would greatly improve the
applicability of this system. EPA has
developed 1990 land use/land cover data for
the entire Chesapeake Bay drainage basin
using its Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (EMAP). EPA has
developed land cover/land use data at a scale
of 1:100,000, using thematic mapping and
satellite imagery to develop data on a 25- to
30-meter grid. This grid was then smoothed
to a 100-meter grid.
The BLWC developed a contract with
the EMAP lab hi Las Vegas, which was
developing this land use/land cover data for
the Chesapeake Bay, to complete coverage
of the rest of the State of Pennsylvania at the
same time the data for the Chesapeake Bay
drainage area was completed. Due to an
audit of the EMAP lab, this project was
terminated before the remaining area of
Pennsylvania outside the Chesapeake Bay
drainage area was completed.
Revision of the Animal Loading
Index
After the priority watersheds were
identified for the Chesapeake Bay Program,
several of the county conservation districts
started investigating the accuracy of some of
the data used. It was found that the Agricul-
tural Census Data significantly underesti-
mate the actual animal populations in some
watersheds. This is due to the following
reasons:
1. The original data were collected by
ZIP code. It was found that in
certain ZIP codes, only one producer
existed. In order to protect the
privacy of that one producer, no
information concerning numbers of
animals was provided to Pennsylva-
nia State University. In the case of
poultry, the differences are signifi-
cant.
2. The address of the producer who
filled out the form may be different
than the actual location of the
animal. This may result in the
location of an animal or population
of animals being located in the
wrong watershed. It is estimated that
this may generate as much as a 20
percent error in the calculations
(John Blackledge, U.S. Agricultural
Census Bureau, voice communica-
tion).
-------
Conference Proceedings
ZO7
Table 1. Priority watersheds
ERRI Project - Alternate Run 3 Option "C"
NOTE: Norms were calculated using only Bay Watersheds, minus the Top 3
Final
Rank
*1
*2
*3
*4
*5
*6
7
*8
*9
10
*11
*12
13
*14
15
*16
17
*18
*19
20
*21
*22
23
24
25
*26
27
28
*29
30
*31
32
33
*34
*35
*36
37
*38
*39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
Final
Norm
6.72814
6.36558
4.09845
2.29164
1.61897
1.32724
1.09567
1.01514
0.90189
0.53899
0.48927
0.47680
0.39506
0.39321
0.39291
0.38065
0.31163
0.29498
0.25436
0.22349
0.20149
0.18728
0.16430
0.12569
0.08261
0.07181
-0.05921
-0.11260
-0.14615
-0.18599
-0.23586
-0.30033
-0.34348
-0.41536
-0.42616
-0.45282
-0.46943
-0.53631
-0.58009
-0.60032
-0.62658
-0.80861
-0.88244
-0.89932
-0.07297
-0.14913
-0.22676
-0.70516
Water-
shed
7J
7G
7K
12A
4C
13C
11D
11A
7D
12B
7B
4D
13B
IOC
4G
9C
5A
7H
6C
4E
6A
71
10B
10A
7A
7E
12C
4B
6B
13A
4F
11B
11C
13D
7F
5E
4A
5C
10D
5D
8B
8C
5B
9A
8A
9B
7C
8D
Major
Streams
Conestoga River
Chickies Creek
Elk/Pequea/Octoraro
Juniata River
Towanda Creek
Conococheague/Antietam
Raystown Branch
Frankstown Branch
Swatara Creek
Tuscarora/Buffalo
Conodoguinet
Wyalusing Creek
Licking Creek
Buffalo/White Deer
Meshoppen/Mahoopany
Bald Eagle Creek
Lackawanna River
Codorus Creek
Wiconisco/Mahantango
Susquehanna/Snake Creek
Penns/Middle Creek
Muddy Creek
Loyal Sock
Lycoming Creek
Shermans Creek
Yellow Breeches
Augwick Creek
Susquehanna/Bentley Creek
Shamokin/Mahanoy
Wills/Evvitts Creek
Tunkhannock
Marsh Creek
Conewago
Catawissa Creek
Fishing Creek
Muncy
Counties
Lancaster/Lebanon
Lancaster/Lebanon/Dauphin
Lancaster/Chester
Mifflin/Juniata
Bradford
Franklin/Adams
Bedford/Huntington
Bedford/Huntington/Blair
Berks/Dauphin/Lebanon/Schuylkill
Perry/Juniata/Huntingdon/Franklin
Cumberland/Franklin
Bradford/Susquehanna/Wyoming
Fulton/Bedford/Franklin
Union/Lycoming/Centre
SusquehannaAVyoming/Lackawanna
Centre/Clinton
Lackawana/Susquehanna/LuzerneAVayne
York
Northumberland/Dauphin/Schuylkill
SusquehannaAVayne
Snyder/Union/Centre/Mifflin
York
Sullivan/Lycoming/Bradford
Lycoming/Tioga/Clinton
Perry
Cumberland/York/Adams
Huntingdon/Fulton/Juniata/Mifflin
Bradford/Susquehanna/Tioga
Northumberland/Schuylkill/Columbia
Bedford/Somerset
SusquehannaAVyoming/Lakawanna
Adams/Franklin
Adams /York
Northumberland/Montour/Columbia/Sct
Columbia/Luzerne/Sullivan
Northumberland/Montour/Lycoming
"NORM" cutoff
* Watersheds now participating in the Financial Assistance Funding Program
-------
208
Watershed '93
PRIORITY WATERSHEDS — CHESAPEAKE BAY PROGRAM
WATERSHEDS STILL IN THE PROGRAM
WATERSHEDS TO BE PHASED IN
WATERSHEDS TO BE PHASED OUT
Figure 1. Selected watershed areas in Pennsylvania.
When this discrepancy was found, the
BLWC decided to find a way to revise these
data and minimize the level of error in the
Animal Loading Index. It was decided to
determine a conversion factor for each type
of animal the Agriculture Census Bureau
collects population numbers for. The
conversion factor would define the pounds
of nitrogen generated by each animal type.
The Census Bureau could then take the
animal populations in each ZIP code and
compute a total pounds of nitrogen gener-
ated by the animals for each ZIP code.
These data will replace the original data
used and a new Animal Loading Index will
be created. It is anticipated that this will
also be completed by the end of 1994.
In addition to revising the 1987
Census data, the same conversion factors
will be used to calculate pounds of nitrogen
by zip code using the animal population data
now being collected for 1992. Population
trends and changes in animal loadings can
then also be calculated to minimize the
affects of the inaccuracies inherent in using
these data.
Ground Water Index Development
The BLWC, in cooperation with
ERRI, is now developing a ground-water
pollution potential index to be added to the
agricultural pollution potential index already
developed. This project will use data from
STORET and WATSTORE to develop a
depth to water data layer. The geology of
the state is being digitized by USGS and
will be added to this data base. A pollution
potential index by soil type for various
pesticides has been developed by SCS and
included in the STATSGO data base. Using
DRASTIC, these data will be combined, and
an agricultural ground-water pollution
potential index developed for all 478
ground-water basins identified by the
Department's Bureau of Water Quality
Management. This project should be
completed by the end of this year.
-------
Conference Proceedings
ZO9
Conclusions
After using this GIS for several
purposes over the last year, the following
conclusions were reached:
1. This GIS is a good statewide/
basinwide planning tool. It can be
used as a tool to help screen and
prioritize watersheds for further
analysis and activities. It is a good
way to begin the process of targeting
resources to ensure that they are used
where they are needed the most.
2. If the intent of using a system such
as GIS is to do detailed assessments
or to prioritize at a fine scale, more
detailed resolution is needed than the
1:250,000 scale used. It is recom-
mended that a scale of 1:100,000 be
the starting point, but finer resolu-
tion of 1:24,000 may be needed,
depending on the intended use of the
GIS.
3. This system is very useful. However,
there are limitations to the Agricul-
tural Census data. Obtaining these
data from other sources was explored
and found to be infeasible at this
time. If the inaccuracies are kept in
mind, these data are still the most
consistent, accurate data collected.
4. It must be recognized that if this sys-
tem is to keep its utility as a prioriti-
zation and targeting tool, it must be
constantly updated and enhanced.
Costs and resources to maintain a
system such as this should be identi-
fied before developing a similar GIS.
References
Petersen, G., et al. 1991. Evaluation of
agricultural pollution potential in
Pennsylvania using a geographic
information system. ER9105.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
The Colville River Watershed Ranking
and Planning Project
Charles L. Kessler, Project Manager
Stevens County Conservation District, Colville, WA
Gordon L. Dugan, Professor
Department of Engineering, University of Hawaii at Manoa
The Colville River Basin encompasses
approximately 263,000 hectares
(650,000 acres) in Stevens County in
the northeast corner of Washington
(Figure 1). The 53-mile-long river is a
tributary of the Columbia River, flowing
into the portion of the Columbia known as
Lake Franklin D. Roosevelt. The headwa-
ters of the Basin are in the Loon Lake area
and the river flows north to its confluence
with the Columbia River just south of Kettle
Falls.
The Colville River Basin is mainly
rural with a rich valley bottom, ranging in
width from 1 to 3 miles, bordered by
forested foothills and mountains. Approxi-
mately 25,000 people live within the Basin.
There are five cities ranging in size from
200 to 5,000 people.
Much of the Basin's economy is
natural resource based. Beef, grain, hay,
and milk production are important eco-
nomic factors. Logging and the milling of
logs are also vitally important with four
large mills being located in the Basin.
Federally administered, forest industry,
state, and small privately owned lands
provide the logs needed for these mills.
The Basin is rich hi minerals, and mining
and processing operations exist in Addy
and the area around the town of Valley
(Figure 1).
The Stevens County Conservation
District received a grant from the Wash-
ington State Department of Ecology in
1991 to conduct the Colville River
Watershed Ranking and Planning Project.
The funding for the project was provided
by the State of Washington Centennial
Clean Water Fund which is generated by a
state tax on tobacco products. The purpose
of the project was to encourage, and to
provide the opportunity for, local partici-
pation in watershed planning and manage-
ment. The Department of Ecology realizes
that these are important components in
Figure 1. Vicinity map of Stevens County, Washington.
211
-------
212
Watershed '93
improving, maintaining, and protecting the
quality of surface waters throughout the
State of Washington.
The project had two distinct phases.
The first phase involved looking at the
entire Colville River Basin and ranking 19
watersheds within the Basin for the purpose
of developing watershed management plans.
The second phase, which is currently
underway, involves developing a watershed
management plan for the number one ranked
watershed. This paper will discuss the
watershed ranking portion of the project.
Watershed Ranking Project
Objectives
were:
The major objectives of the project
Develop local committees to conduct
a watershed ranking.
Develop watershed ranking criteria.
Review information on the physical
and human environment and the
water quality within each of the
designated watersheds.
Rank the watersheds, based upon
review of this information, for the
development of watershed man-
agement plans that would en-
hance, maintain, or protect water
quality.
Watershed Ranking Project
Overview
Committee Development
A Technical Advisory Committee
(TAG) and a Watershed Ranking Committee
(WRC) were developed. These committees
met on a monthly or biweekly schedule
during the course of the project.
The membership of the TAG included
representatives of:
• Washington State Agencies: Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Depart-
ment of Ecology, Department of
Transportation.
• Soil Conservation Service.
• Local Agencies: Stevens County
Planning Department, Northeast Tri-
County Health District.
• Lake Roosevelt Water Quality
Council.
• Stevens County Conservation
District.
• Arden Tree Farms.
• Boise Cascade Corporation.
The role of the TAG was to provide
assistance to Conservation District staff in
all phases of the project and to provide
technical support to the WRC during the
ranking process. The TAG supported the
water quality monitoring portion of the
project by reviewing the Monitoring and
Quality Assurance Plan and commenting on
water quality data as it became available.
Committee members participated in the
watershed characterization by:
• Aiding in the delineation of water-
sheds within the Basin.
• Aiding in data collection by recom-
mending possible data sources,
providing the required data, and/or
commenting on the appropriateness
of certain pieces of information.
The WRC was composed of 18
members representing diverse interests
within the Basin. The Conservation District
wanted to ensure that all interested parties
were asked to participate in the ranking
project from its beginning. While some
parties were unable to participate due to
time constraints, all asked to be kept
informed of the progress of the project.
The membership of the WRC included
representatives of:
• Agriculture. Stevens County
Cattlemen's Association, a dairy-
man, a hay and grain producer.
• Environmental groups. Washington
Environmental Council, Inland
Empire Public Lands Council.
• Forestry. Washington State Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Vaagen
Brothers Lumber Company, Boise
Cascade Corporation, Arden Tree
Farms, U.S. Forest Service, Wash-
ington Farm Forestry Association.
• Local agencies. Tri-County Eco-
nomic Development District,
Washington State University
Cooperative Extension, Stevens
County Conservation District.
• Local government. City of
Chewelah, City of Kettle Falls, City
of Colville, Stevens County Com-
missioners.
The WRC chose consensus as the
preferred method of decision making.
Although uniform agreement may not
always occur, each party gains a better
understanding of other members' perspec-
tives. The WRC felt that while consensus
may require more time to reach a decision, it
-------
Conference Proceedings
should reduce the possibility of alienating
members from the decision-making process.
It was agreed that if a member strongly
disagreed with a committee decision, they
could write a dissenting opinion that would
become part of any document produced by
the committee.
The WRC developed a criteria for
ranking the Basin's watersheds. These
criteria also provided an outline of data
needs for each watershed. The committee
developed a two phase criteria. Phase One
considered: ,
• Current threats to beneficial uses.
• The likelihood of intensified land or
water use in the future.
• Environmental factors that increase
the probability of water quality
degradation.
• A comparison of contamination
produced by the watersheds.
Phase Two considered:
• The likelihood of success of
nonpoint source control programs
based upon the interest in the
watershed in developing and
implementing a watershed manage-
ment plan.
Each phase was worth 100 points.
Water Quality Monitoring
A water quality monitoring program
was established to evaluate the current water
quality in the Colville River and selected
tributary streams. Twenty-five sampling
sites were selected, 10 in the river and 15 on
tributaries. Tributary sampling sites were
located as close to the mouth of the stream
as possible to characterize what was being
delivered to the river.
Twenty sampling periods were
established for calendar year 1992. Samples
were taken once a month with the exception
of the high flow months (April and May)
and the low flow months (September and
October). Samples were taken three times a
month during these times.
At each sampling site, information was
obtained on flow, dissolved oxygen, tem-
perature, conductivity, total dissolved solids,
pH, ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, total phospho-
rus, total suspended solids, and fecal
coliform. Metal samples,were collected at
selected river sites. These samples were
analyzed for copper, lead, zinc, iron, magne-
sium, manganese, aluminum, and hardness.
The WRC was provided with water
quality monitoring results in tabular and
graphical form. The committee was pro-
vided with graphical comparisons of the rela-
tive contributions of the various watersheds
to the Colville River.- Pie charts were used to
represent the relative contribution of flow,
ammonia, nitrate-nitrite, total phosphorus,
total suspended solids, and fecal coliform.
The WRC was provided with support-
ing information on Washington State water
quality standards and results of water quality
sampling on other rivers and streams in
eastern Washington and northern Idaho.
Presentations were made to the WRC on the
role of riparian areas in nutrient cycling and
the effect of nutrients in an aquatic environ-
ment. This information helped the commit-
tee better assess the water quality situation in
the Colville River Basin.
Watershed Characterization
The initial phase of the watershed
characterization involved delineating 19
watersheds within the Colville River Basin.
Most of the watersheds were delineated
based upon the area drained by the major
tributaries to the Colville River. In three
watersheds, no one significant tributary
characterized the area so these watersheds
contained a number of smaller streams
draining to the Colville River.
Once these watersheds were delin-
eated, work commenced on gathering
information needed for the ranking. This
included information on:
• Topography. Basin relief and
watershed maps were provided.
• Soil. Soils were classified based on
Soil Conservation Service hydrologic
soil groups and the acreage in each
group reported. Hydrologic soil
groups classify soils according to
their runoff producing characteristics.
• Land use. The area within each
watershed was delineated as being
forested, open or urban/industrial.
Information on agricultural land use
within each watershed was provided
with emphasis placed on animal
raising activities.
• Wildlife. The Washington Depart-
ment of Wildlife provided estimates
for selected species based upon
hunting information. It was noted
that the survey was not exhaustive
and that certain species might exist in
a watershed that were not reported.
• Hydraulic projects. Any form of
work that uses, diverts, obstructs, or
-------
214
Watershed '93
changes the natural flow or bed of
any fresh water of the state, requires
Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA)
from the Department of Wildlife.
The number of permits granted since
1980 and the activities conducted
under each permit were provided for
each watershed.
• Building plats. The information
included the number of plats
recorded by the County Planning
Department from 1972-1989. The
range of plat sizes, the average plat
size, and the average lot size were
reported when the appropriate
information was available.
• Septic tanks. The number of permits
issued, the total gallons of new septic
tanks, and the total feet of new drain
field were provided for the period
from 1966 to 1992.
• Forest management. Forest practices
information was gathered from the
Washington Department of Natural
Resources for areas within one mile
of the major streams within each
watershed. The information reported
included the number of permits by
year, acres or miles of road to be
managed, percent removal, and water
type affected by the activity.
• Road projects. Stevens County
Public Works Department and the
Washington State Department of
Transportation provided information
on annual road maintenance and
proposed road improvement projects
for the next six years.
• Environmental complaints. The
Department of Ecology provided a
list of water-related complaints they
had received for the Colville River
Basin in 1991.
• Wetlands. The total acreage of areas
designated as wetlands and open
water was provided for each water-
shed.
In addition, the WRC was provided with a
series of maps showing prime agricultural
land and woodland, average annual precipi-
tation, generalized land use, land ownership,
and deer wintering and feeding areas in the
Colville River Basin.
The Ranking Procedure
The Watershed Ranking Committee
worked from October 1991 to November
1992 to rank the 19 watersheds. Three
meetings in October 1991 provided the
WRC with general project information and
produced guidelines for WRC conduct and
the previously mentioned set of ranking
criteria. The WRC agreed to stand ad-
journed until data became available for use
in the ranking process.
The WRC was encouraged to attend
two tours prior to the commencement of
formal meetings in July 1992. The first tour
concentrated on stream dynamics and water
quality monitoring. The second tour was
designed to inform the WRC of local water
quality concerns and some of the Best
Management Practices (BMPs) currently
employed to address those concerns. Much
emphasis was placed upon local efforts to
address local concerns during both tours.
The WRC met every 2 weeks for
5 months to complete the formal ranking
process. The committee was provided with
water quality monitoring results, supporting
water quality information, and watershed
characterization data for each of the 19
watersheds. Conservation District staff
attempted to provide the background
information necessary for filling out the
ranking criteria without influencing commit-
tee members' decisions.
The Committee was informed that a
current water quality problem need not exist
in a watershed for it to qualify for develop-
ment of a watershed management plan. The
plan could be one of three types: an en-
hancement plan, a maintenance plan, or a
protection plan based upon the current and
projected future conditions within the
watershed.
The WRC determined that each
member should rank the watersheds on their
own and then come together to discuss these
so that committee members could share
what they learned during the initial ranking.
The greatest problem committee members
encountered in the ranking was getting
started. The amount of data provided
seemed overwhelming to many members.
The Conservation District offered to have a
ranking workshop to allow committee
members the opportunity to lay out the data
for each watershed and systematically work
through the ranking. Conservation District
employees were available to provide
assistance and answer questions.
The results of the initial ranking were
based upon the ranking position given to
each watershed by individual committee
members. The ranking values for each
-------
Conference Proceedings
2/5
watershed were summed and the watershed
with the lowest total was ranked number one
and the one with the highest total number
nineteen. As an example of this method: a
watershed ranked first on 10 forms would
receive 10 points while one ranked tenth on
10 forms would receive 100 points. Water-
sheds were ranked one to nineteen with
allowance being made for ties.
The Committee decided to tour four of
the top ranked watersheds to provide a
visual assessment to support the watershed
characterization data. This tour was
conducted during one day using one vehicle
able to carry all the participants. The
committee felt these were important aspects
of the tour because they would ensure that
the same members would see all four
watersheds and the discussion between sites
could involve all participants.
Immediately after the tour, commit-
tee members re-ranked the four toured
watersheds. The previously ranked
number one and number two ranked
watersheds changed positions as a result of
the tour. Factors involved in this change
were relative sizes of the watersheds,
apparent development pressure, presence
of sediment throughout the system, and the
affect of the stream on a municipal area.
While this information was available in
various forms in the watershed character-
ization, the tour allowed committee
members to make a rapid assessment of the
conditions in each watershed.
Questionnaires were sent to each of
the watersheds toured. A cover letter; an
article on the overall project; and an
addressed, stamped envelope were included
with each questionnaire.
The questionnaires asked:
• Does a stream or river flow through
your property?
• Do you feel there is a water quality
problem in your area? Please
explain.
• Do you perceive a potential water
quality problem in your area in the
future? Please explain.
• If a local water quality effort is
established in your watershed to
maintain or improve the water
quality, are you willing to be
involved at some local level? If the
answer was yes, the respondents
were asked if they would attend
seminars, be a member of a plan-
ning committee, hold a public
meeting in their home, or partici-
pate in a stream enhancement
activity.
The response to the questionnaire was
excellent with between 37 percent and 46
percent responding from the various
watersheds.
Two public meetings were held, one
in the northern portion of the Basin and one
in the southern portion. Information was
provided on why the Conservation District
got the grant, the goals of the overall
project, and how the watershed ranking had
been developed. WRC members spoke
about what they considered during the
ranking and provided insight into why they
ranked the watersheds as they did. During
the discussion, special emphasis was placed
on the highest ranked watersheds in each
portion of the Basin.
In developing the final ranking, the
WRC focused heavily on the likelihood of
increase in the intensity of land or water use
in each watershed and evidence of the
presence of contaminants and their impact.
Stevens County and the Colville River Basin
appear to be on the verge of an increase in
population and this potential was reflected
by the ranking. The current contribution of
flow and nutrients to the Colville River by
each monitored tributary was also given
significant weight. The fact that there have
been few reported incidents of impairment
or threats to beneficial uses of water within
the Colville River Basin was also reflected
in the ranking. The environmental condi-
tions that could produce a potential increase
in water quality problems were generally
considered to be fairly uniform throughout
the Basin.
The 26,900-hectare (66,475-acre)
Chewelah Creek Watershed was ranked
number one. Factors affecting the selection
were:
• Size. It is the third largest watershed
in the Basin.
• Land use. The watershed has a
variety of land uses with federal,
state and private timberland in the
headwaters areas, agricultural
activity in much of the Basin, and a
municipal area of 2000 people near
its mouth.
• Recreational use. The Creek is the
site of recreational activity along its
entire length with heavy pressure
being applied in a city park in
Chewelah.
• Water quality. The Creek contrib-
uted 21 percent of the nitrate-nitrite
-------
216
Watershed '93
delivered to the Colville River and
12 percent of the flow during the
1992 sampling periods and while the
geometric mean for fecal coliform
was below the state standard, 40
percent of the samples exceeded the
standard.
The future. Chewelah has received
much national attention as a wonder-
ful place to live, a 200-home
development is being built in the
. watershed, and there is a strong
possibility that large single-owner
tracts will be broken into 10-20-acre
parcels throughout the watershed.
Summary
The Colville River Watershed Rank-
ing Project brought together a diverse group
that contributed over 500 volunteer hours to
rank the 19 watersheds within the Colville
River Basin. The final ranking has provided
direction for the Stevens County Conserva-
tion District's Long Range Water Quality
Plan. A management plan will be developed
for the Chewelah Creek Watershed in 1993.
Funding will be pursued so that manage-
ment plans can be developed and implemen-
tation projects conducted for the top five
ranked watersheds over the next decade.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Watershed Simulation Modeling
with CIS in Prince George's
County
Chris Rodstrom, HydroIoglst/GIS Specialist
Mohammed Lahlou, Ph.D, Environmental Engineer
Alan Cavacas, P.E., Manager, Environmental and Water Resources
TetraTech, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Mow-Soung Cheng, P.E., Ph.D.
Department of Environmental Resources, Prince George's County, MD
The NPDES storm water permit regula-
tions resulting from the Clean Water
Act Reauthorization of 1987 require
counties and municipalities to develop
comprehensive storm water management
programs. For large, complex urban fringe
areas such as Prince George's County, MD,
prioritizing storm water problems and
developing cost-effective management
techniques are primary objectives if program
resources are to be efficiently allocated. The
geographic information system (GlS)-based
Watershed Simulation Model (GWSM) was
designed to accomplish these objectives.
GWSM enables planning assessment at the
watershed level, estimating pollutant loads
and flows for current land use conditions,
and estimating future build-out scenarios
with or without structural controls. At the
small basin level, alternative storm water
control scenarios can be evaluated for user-
defined areas.
Previous Studies
GIS is increasingly being used for
watershed assessment in support of various
water resources programs (DeVantier and
Feldman, 1993). The review of available
literature shows that the use of GIS in con-
junction with hydrologic models comprises
a major part of the current activities. The
use of GIS for hydrologic modeling can be
divided into two general approaches: (1)
performing watershed modeling analysis
directly within a GIS package using empiri-
cal or lumped models and (2) processing
input data for use with a separate or par-
tially linked watershed model.
Empirical modeling within a GIS en-
vironment includes an approach using the
modified Universal Soil Loss Equation
(USLE) for evaluating silvicultural activi-
ties and control programs in Montana
(James and Hewitt, 1992). Tim et al. (1992)
coupled empirical simulation modeling
with a GIS to identify critical areas of
nonpoint source pollution in Virginia. On
the other hand, linked GIS and hydrologic
modeling approaches include a study by
Ross and Tara (1993) utilizing a GIS to per-
form spatial data referencing and data pro-
cessing while traditional hydrologic codes
performed the calculations for time-depen-
dent surface- and ground-water simulations.
Terstriep and Lee (1990) developed
AUTO_QI, a GIS-based interface for water-
shed delineation and input data formatting
to the Q-ELLUDAS model.
Modeling Approach—The
Prince George's County CIS-
Based Watershed Simulation
Model
The GWSM developed for the Prince
George's County storm water program
combines results from a watershed model
217
-------
218
Watershed '93
with GIS analytic routines. Figure 1
illustrates this modular modeling approach.
The GWSM uses a continuous simulation
model to generate single land use water
quality and quantity time series data.
ARC/INFO, combining GIS coverages from
various data bases, is used to select a
watershed and determine its physical
characteristics including drainage area and
land use distribution (Figure 1). The single
land use time series, along with the land use
and drainage area files, are processed by a
series of Fortran routines and analyses to
determine watershed loads and summary
statistics. Results can be interactively
displayed for watershed comparisons and
management assessment. As with AUTO_QI
(Terstriep and Lee, 1990), the GWSM
modeling approach uses the GIS to furnish
data for use with a continuous simulation
model. Unlike other approaches, however,
GWSM utilizes preprocessed output from a
watershed model to calculate storm flows
and pollutant loads for the study watershed.
Although the Stormwater Manage-
ment Model (SWMM) (Huber and
Dickinson, 1988) was used for this applica-
tion of GWSM, results from other continu-
ous simulation models such as the Hydro-
logic Simulation Program-Fortran (HSPF)
Continuous
Simulation Model
Single Land Use
Water Quality Time Series
PC Model
Small Watersheds
Output Processing
and Statistical
Analyses
Figure 1. Conceptual design of the planning-level watershed modeling
approach.
(Barnwell and Johanson, 1981) can also be
included. This modular approach enables
increased simulation accuracy as calibrated
models become available. Further, several
models can be used within a single applica-
tion, combining the strengths of each. For
instance, SWMM could be used for urban
areas while HSPF is applied to agricultural
lands within a single study area.
Input Data Requirements
GWSM requires both ARC/INFO
vector coverages and continuous simulation
model output for each land use type mod-
eled. Coverages include watershed bound-
aries and current land use files. Input data
for SWMM include parameters for the
rainfall, temperature, and runoff blocks for
each of nine homogenous land use files.
A Case Study—Collington Branch
Watershed
Water resource managers face
multiple questions on how to best manage
storm water on a regional, watershed, and
sub-basin scale. For Prince George's
County, an area covering over 480 square
miles, there are 41 watersheds of varying
size and land use
distribution. The
proximity of the county
to the fast growing
metropolitan Washing-
ton, DC, area makes
storm water manage-
ment a complex and
pressing problem.
An assessment of
the predominantly
forested and agricultural
Collington Branch
watershed, covering
approximately 14,820
acres and draining to the
Western Branch and to
the Patuxent River, was
performed as a demon-
stration of the GWSM.
Figure 2 presents the
watershed selection
screen from the GWSM,
including the land use
distribution for the
Collington Branch
watershed. This case
study demonstrates how
the GWSM can be
County/State
Data Bases
GIS
EPA Mainframe
Data Bases
-------
Conference Proceedings
2/9
applied using a three-step approach:
identify and target problem watersheds,
identify pollutant sources and characterize
pollutants, and conceptually identify control
measures and evaluate future land use
changes.
/. Watershed Problem Identification
and Targeting
Often, the first question asked by
water resource managers is: How can
problem watersheds be identified, and how
do watersheds compare with each other in
terms of pollutant loads and flows? GWSM
enables die rapid analysis of the relative
contributions of each watershed to the total
load, performing a complete assessment and
interpretation of the data within 10 minutes.
The results include estimates of annual,
mean monthly, and monthly loads for the
watershed for 12 parameters. Each
constituent may be viewed either as a
percentage of the total load, or in actual
units (pounds or cubic feet). Figure 3
presents the
graphical display
from GWSM
showing the total
nitrogen load for
the Collington
Branch, illustrating
the changes in
loads due to
climatic variability.
A compari-
son between two
watersheds is easily
performed to assess
load and flow
estimates and
review results
graphically.
Multiple applica-
tions provide a
rapid assessment of
all the major
watersheds in the
county. This phase
of the GWSM
analysis provides
information to
answer the ques-
tion: Which are the
likely water quality
impacts and how
significant are they
compared to other
watersheds?
2. Identify Pollutant Sources and
Characterize Pollutants of Concern
Once problem watersheds are identi-
fied and targeted for further analysis, the
water quality problems must be clearly
defined. What are the sources of the
pollutants of concern? An analysis of the
pollutant contribution by land use is
included in GWSM, calculating constituent
load by land use for each of the 12 param-
eters. Figure 4 shows total nitrogen contri-
butions for each land use in the Collington
Branch, indicting that agricultural areas are
the primary source. This provides important
information for targeting control programs
throughout the watershed. Characterizing
the pollutant loads is an important issue for
developing management programs. Ques-
tions answered at this phase include: What
pollutants are of primary concern, what are
their sources, spatial, and temporal charac-
teristics; and how do their loads varying
seasonally and annually, and what are the
temporal variations between pollutants? To
Low Density Res.
Medium Density Res.
High Density Res.
Commerical
Industrial
Open Space
Agriculture
Forest
Barren Land
Figure 2. Collington Branch watershed.
-------
220
Watershed '93
Collington Branch
1980
1961
1982
1983 1984
Year
i TN(MA = 361511.6lb)
1986
1987
Figure 3. Annual summary of total nitrogen loadings.
k
Collington Branch
200
150
100
GO
Low Med High Comm Indus Open For
Land Use
P TN (MA = 361511.6 Ib)
Agri
Figure 4. Distribution of total nitrogen loadings by land use type.
answer these questions GWSM provides
graphical displays of mean monthly, mean
annual, and annual pollutant loads for each
pollutant.
3, Management
Screening
In this phase, imple-
menting the most cost-
effective controls is
addressed. In order to
address control measures,
the relationship between
storm size, runoff volume,
and pollutant load must be
assessed. For example, what
storm sizes contribute the
largest pollutant loads, and
which storm size should be
targeted? The analytic
routines in GWSM provide
graphical answers to these
questions. Figure 5 presents
lead loads by storm size,
indicating that by targeting
only a percentage of runoff
volume will control over
half of the total lead load.
Figure 6 illustrates the
rainfall/runoff characteris-
tics of the watershed; the
majority of storms generate
less than 0.05 inch of
runoff. These estimates
will vary by watershed;
however, the advantage of
GWSM is the rapid analysis
of each pollutant, land use,
and watershed.
Management evalua-
tion is done at both the
watershed and site-specific
levels. Over an entire
watershed, what is the
optimal control level for
structural water quality
facilities? GWSM includes
a storm water pond routine
that calculates the pollutant-
mitigating effects for
different control levels and
retention times. At a site-
specific level, such as a
proposed new subdivision,
similar structures can also
be evaluated to allow an
optimal design criterion to
be selected. Figure 7
illustrates the phosphorus
contribution for a simulated residential
subdivision, and the pollutant reduction
from a storm water pond designed to control
for 0.3 inch of runoff. As shown in the
Bar
-------
Conference Proceedings
ZZ1
figure, the mean annual
phosphorus load was
reduced from 453 pounds to
277 pounds by the simulated
structure.
Managers must address
how future changes will
affect water quality. On the
watershed level, what will be
the impact of urbanization
onflow and pollutants
loads? At the subbasin level,
how will proposed projects
change the runoff character-
istics? Both land use
scenarios can be evaluated in
GWSM. On the watershed
scale the current land use can
be interactively changed
with a "point-and-click"
menu. At the subbasin level
a user-defined basin may be
modeled, with the land use
distribution entered into a
pull-down menu. At both the
watershed and subbasin
level, once a land use
scenario is selected GWSM
calculates the anticipated
pollution loads. The results
can then be compared to the
pre-existing conditions. The
questions answered during
the final phase of GWSM
include: How do pollutant
loads relate to rainfall and
runoff distribution and
intensity? What is the
optimal control level for
structural practices ? What
are the likely impacts of
future land use changes on
water quality?
Storm Water
Management—
Future Model
Applications
Lead
0.0-0.05 0.05-0.1 0.1-0.2 05-0.3 0.&O.4 0.4-0.5 0.&O.75 0.75-1.0 1.0-1.5
Storm Size (flow in inches)
111 Collington Branch (MA = 6610.4 Ib.)
1.5+
Figure 5. Distribution of lead loadings by storm size.
FLOW (frequency)
900
800
700
600
500
400
300
200
100
0-0.05 0.05-0.1 0.1-0.2 0.2-0.3 0.3-0.4 0.4-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 1.0-1.5
Storm Size (flow in inches)
111 COLLINGTON BRANCH
1.5+
. The NPDES storm
water permit regulations
have created new challenges
and opportunities for state, county, and city
water resource programs. Water resource
managers are faced with often conflicting
storm water management objectives and are
forced to make decisions that must weigh
the costs and benefits of each. For instance,
Figure 6. Flow distribution by storm size.
water quality and flood control objectives
do not always, coincide. The design and
management of regional storm water ponds
will vary depending on whether water
quantity or water quality control is the
primary objective.
-------
222
Watershed '93
LDR100TS OP)
00-0.05 0.05-0.1 0.1-0.2 05-0.3 0.3-0.4 0.4-0.5 0.5-0.75 0.75-1.0 1.0-1.5 1.5t
Runoff (inches)
0 no control: (MA=453.6) |£3 control: 0.30 in, 48 hr, (MA = 2)
Figure 7. Phosphorus contribution by storm size: comparison of controlled
and existing conditions.
To address the complex array of
storm water issues, more sophisticated
analytic tools and techniques will be
needed. Watershed models that effectively
evaluate alternative scenarios and allow for
optimization routines for differing manage-
ment objectives will be in demand.
Integrating environmental data, such as
wetland area and bioassessment informa-
tion, structural and nonstructural BMP
optimization, and permit and monitoring
information, will be required in a user- ,
friendly GIS package.
As the NPDES storm water regula-
tions are implemented at the county and
local level, unique management programs
will develop according to the specific water
quality and resource availability issues. As
these programs take shape, GIS and GIS-
based models and information management
systems are likely to play a larger role for
assessing problems and crafting solutions.
Conclusions and
Recommendation
The GIS-based Watershed Simula-
tion Model enables the rapid assessment
of Prince George's County's storm water
problem areas and the evaluation of
control measures. The model incorporates
the strengths of continuous simulation
modeling with the spatial
analysis techniques of GIS in
an integrated system. To-
gether the GIS and data
processing routines allow for
further analysis and interpre-
tation of time series data
from the SWMM model.
Combining continuous time
series data with
georeferenced watershed/land
use data allows for further
analysis and interpretation of
the results. As additional data
from monitoring both
homogenous land use basins
and instream locations
become available from the
long-term monitoring
program developed as part of
the NPDES Part 2 permit, the
accuracy of the model will be
increased.
As technologies for
developing and evaluating
stormwater programs in-
crease in sophistication, the questions
asked of water resource managers are
likely to grow more difficult as well. The
GWSM will continue to incorporate more
functions designed to assist the managers
in making the best possible, most informed
decisions.
Acknowledgments
Prince George's County Watershed
Protection Branch for their support of the
model development; Prince George's
County Park and Planning for the watershed
delineation coverages; Maryland Depart-
ment of Planning for the 1990 land use
coverages of Prince George's County.
References
ARC/INFO 6.1 user's manual. 1992.
Environmental Systems Research
Institute, Redlands, CA.
Barnwell, T.O., and R. Johanson. 1981.
HSPF: A comprehensive package for
simulation of water hydrology and
water quality. Nonpoint pollution
control: Tools and techniques for the
future. Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin, Rockville,
MD.
-------
Conference Proceedings
223
DeVantier, B.A., and A.D. Feldman. 1993.
Review of GIS applications in
hydrologic modeling. Journal of
Water Resources Planning and
Management 119(2):246-261.
James, D.E., and J.M. Hewitt, III. 1992. To
save a river. Geolnfo Systems,
November/December 1992, pp. 37-49.
Mills, W.B. 1985. Water quality assessment:
A screening procedure for toxic and
conventional pollutants in surface and
groundwater. Part 1. EPA/600/6-85/
002a. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Athens, GA.
Ross, M.A., and P.D. Tara. 1993. Inte-
grated hydrologic modeling with
geographic information systems.
Journal of Water Resources Planning
and Management 119(2):129-140.
Schueler, T. 1987. Controlling urban
runoff: A practical manual for
planning and designing urban BMPs.
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Washington, DC.
See, R.B., D.L. Naftz, and C.L. Quails.
1992. GIS-assisted analysis to
identify sources of selenium in
streams. Water Resources Bulletin
28(2): 315-330.
Shea, C., W. Grayman, D. Darden, R.M.
Males, and P. Sushinsky. 1993.
Integrated GIS and hydrologic
modeling for countywide drainage
study. Journal of Water Resources
Planning and Management 119(2):
112-128.
Terstriep, M., and M.T. Lee. 1990. ARC/
INFO GIS interface for QILLUDAS
storm water quantity/quality model.
In Proceedings from Remote Sensing
and GIS Applications to Nonpoint
Source Planning, Chicago, IL,
October 1-3, 1990.
Tim, U.S., S. Mostaghimi, and V.O.
Shanholz. 1992. Identification of
critical nonpoint pollution source
areas using geographic information
systems and water quality modeling.
Water Resources Bulletin 28(5): 877-
887.
USEPA. 1992. Compendium of watershed-
scale models for TMDL development.
EPA 841-R-92-002. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Biodiversity Considerations in
Watershed Management
Kathy E. Freas, Ecologlst
CH2M HILL, Inc., San Jose, CA
Janet Senior, Water Resources Planner
City of Portland, Bureau of Water Works
Daniel Heagerty, Natural Resources Planner
CH2M HILL, Inc., Portland, OR
The role of watershed manager is
probably changing faster than that of
any other resource manager. Increas-
ing demands for water, energy, timber,
recreation, and other benefits provided by
watersheds, coupled with growing aware-
ness of the impacts of past management
regimes on the physical and biological
functions of watersheds, have expanded the
realm of management far beyond the
maintenance of water yield and water
quality. Watershed managers are now faced
with integrating the perspectives of hydrolo-
gist, forester, land use planner, economist,
farmer, and ecologist. Watershed managers
are being recognized as keepers of an array
of resources, while continuing to provide
water supply of sufficient quantity and
quality for a growing human population.
The increased emphasis on
multidisciplinary approaches to managing
. watersheds is comparatively recent. In
western states, where National Forests
provide a large portion of the water supply,
watershed management has, for nearly a
century, been directed by the Organic Act of
1897, which identifies water supply as the
primary resource driving National Forest
management (Smith, 1987). An example of
this directive taken to an extreme was
evidenced recently in California in a plan
proposed to manage forested watersheds in
the Sierra Nevada to maximize water yield.
Proposed management tactics, which were
designed to minimize evapotranspiration,
interception, and infiltration, included
extensive replacement of deep rooted
vegetation (forest trees) with shallow-rooted
herbaceous cover and grasses, shortened
rotations of remaining timber to prevent
deep rooted vegetation from reestablishing,
and optimal use of impermeable surfaces to
direct runoff to watercourses. The plan
acknowledged that timber harvest and
fisheries could suffer impacts and that
significant structural support would be
required to prevent erosion and sedimenta-
tion, and to maintain water quality, but
argued that the economic value of increasing
water yield could be sufficient to justify
such costs. Clearly, the costs associated
with severe ecosystem degradation as a
result of implementing the plan were not
considered in the analysis. While such plans
are not likely to be considered seriously on
even a limited scale, watershed management
based on maximizing output of one or
several resources without regard for the
sustainability of the ecological complexes
that provides those resources remains
commonplace.
A recent inventory of several hundred
western watershed management projects
(Callaham, 1990) identified the patterns of
degradation resulting from years of manage-
ment focused on one or a few resources.
Management to maximize water yield,
timber harvest, grazing, and mining has
resulted in erosion, loss of riparian and
upland forests, reduced production and
quality of grazing forage, reduced soil
fertility, water quality degradation, reduced
ground-water storage, fisheries decline,
reservoir and stream channel sedimentation,
225
-------
226
Watershed '93
increased flooding flows, and loss of native
aquatic and terrestrial species diversity. In
short, watershed management practices have
significantly impaired the ability of many
watersheds to continue to provide the
resources and services we expect to harvest
from them. The most important conse-
quence of this watershed inventory and
assessment was identification of the need to
develop watershed management approaches
that provide for sustained watershed services
and balanced resource output.
The services to which I refer consti-
tute what have been more broadly termed
ecosystem services (Ehrlich and Mooney,
1983). Ecosystem services, which include
oxygen production, soil generation, mainte-
nance of soil fertility, erosion control,
organic waste disposal, nutrient cycling,
production of fresh water, pest control,
flood control, the basis of all agricultural
and forestry resources and other species-
derived products, and at a larger scale,
regulation of atmospheric gases, precipita-
tion patterns, and climate control, are
provided by complexes of functional
ecosystems. That is, functional, intact
ecosystems provide services to our species
without which we cannot survive.
The source of these services has come
to be referred to as biological diversity or
biodiversity. A truly operational definition
of biodiversity would fill a library, but
conceptually, biodiversity has been com-
monly defined as "the variety and variability
among riving organisms and the ecological
complexes in which they occur" (Office of
Technology Assessment, 1987). While this
condensed definition has been widely used
and accepted, it fails to explicitly communi-
cate a component that is critical for the
protection of biodiversity. Specifically, we
must reword this definition to read "the
variety and variability among living
organisms and the ecological complexes in
which they occur that maintain the support
systems on which society is dependent."
The accelerating rate of loss of
biodiversity has been of considerable con-
cern to a growing number of biologists for
several decades and recently has received a
great deal of national and international at-
tention. The effects of dismantling the eco-
system complexes that support us are most
clearly evidenced by an unprecedented rate
of species extinctions. This loss has been
conservatively estimated at 4,000 to 6,000
species (Wilson, 1988) to as many as 90,000
species annually (Erwin, 1988). Loss of
individual species, while critical, more im-
portantly serves as a warning that our treat-
ment of natural systems is destroying their
ability to support us.
Awareness of this loss of biodiversity
catalyzed the emergence of the discipline of
conservation biology nearly 15 years ago.
With roots in classical ecology, conservation
biology initially followed a reductionist ap-
proach to conserving biodiversity, focusing
on population phenomena within individual
species known to be imperiled. To some
degree, this approach has continued to be
fostered by our interpretation of the federal
Endangered Species Act, which focuses on
single species and their often narrowly de-
fined habitats, but which for many years has
been the only enforceable statute available
for biodiversity protection. Conservation
biologists have learned in fairly short order
that conservation strategies that are limited
to single species protection are ineffective
because they do not sustain the function of
ecosystem complexes that allows species
survival. This is not to suggest that protec-
tion of population and species levels of bio-
logical organization are not necessary, only
that their protection is not sufficient to pro-
tect biodiversity (Noss, 1990).
In response to the realization that our
conservation strategies have been to limited
in scale, many conservation biologists have
begun to incorporate higher levels of bio-
logical organization into planning for
biodiversity protection. The emerging per-
spective that has shifted focus to higher lev-
els of organization has adopted concepts
from the discipline of landscape ecology.
Quite simply, landscape ecology
addresses the dynamics within ecological
mosaics that vary in scale and degree of
connectedness. Most fundamental is that the
components of these mosaics do not exist in
isolation, but constantly interact, exchang-
ing energy, nutrients, water, and organisms,
as well as experiencing ecological succes-
sion and disturbance regimes through time.
Recognition of the importance of these
interactions between landscape components
to the sustainability of ecological function
has pointed to landscape ecology as the
source for developing the management
regimes required to protect biodiversity.
The connection here to watershed manage-
ment is straightforward. Watersheds, which
are composed of multiple connected
ecosystems that experience temporally and
spatially dynamic phenomena, may be
considered as landscapes.
-------
Conference Proceedings
227
John Wiens, last year, assessed the
function of landscape ecology as an applied
discipline by evaluating the content of the
papers included in the first five volumes of
the journal Landscape Ecology (Wiens,
1992). He found that nearly three-fourths of
the papers were primarily descriptive or
conceptual with limited or no quantification
of results, and that concepts were rarely
mathematically formalized, much less
experimentally tested, with the exception of
a small, well-defined emphasis on computer
simulation and modeling. So, while the
tenets of landscape ecology provide water-
shed managers with a theoretical framework
from which effective management strategies
may emerge, there is much work to be done.
Delimiting and refining management
techniques from the existing theoretical
framework will require extensive informa-
tion flow and feedback between researchers
and managers in order to test landscape-
level hypotheses that currently exist as both
verbal and mathematical models. Studies
must be designed to address landscape-level
dynamics that previously have only been
inferred from the behavior of smaller scale
systems. Watershed management programs
can provide the venue for the execution of
such studies, hypothesis testing, and
information exchange and, in so doing, can
contribute to development of the tools that
watershed managers need to manage the full
range of biological diversity of which they
are stewards. With the papers that follow
this morning, I hope we can begin this
process.
References
Callaham, R.Z. ed. 1990. Case studies and
watershed projects in western prov-
inces and states. Wildland Resources
Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Ehrlich, P.R., and H.A. Mooney. 1983.
Extinction, substitution, and ecosys-
tem services. Bioscience 33: 248-254.
Ehrlich, P.R., and E.G. Wilson. 1991.
Biodiversity studies: science and
policy. Science 253: 758-762.
Erwin, T. 1988. The tropical forest canopy.
In Biodiversity, ed. E. Wilson, pp.
123-129. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
Noss, R.F. 1990. Can we maintain biologi-
cal and ecological integrity? Conser-
vation Biology 4:241-243.
Office of Technology Assessment. 1987.
Technologies to maintain biological
diversity. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC.
Smith, Z.G., Jr. 1987. Water: California's
leading natural resource. In Proceed-
ings, California watershed manage-
ment conference, ed. R.Z. Callanhan
and J.J. DeVries. Wildland Resources
Center, University of California,
Berkeley, CA.
Wiens, J.A. 1992. What is landscape
ecology, really? Landscape Ecology
7:149-150.
Wilson, E.G., ed. 1988. Biodiversity.
National Academy Press, Washington,
DC.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Ecological Perspectives on
Silvicultural Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control
Y. David Chen
Daniel B. Warnell School of Forest Resources
The University of Georgia, Athens, GA
Steve C. McCutcheon and Robert F. Carsel
Environmental Research Laboratory
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA
Since the passage of the 1972 Clean
Water Act, greater efforts for attaining
the Nation's water quality goals have
been devoted to control of nonpoint source
(NFS) pollution. Because of its complex
nature and site-specific and source-specific
characteristics, NFS pollution is not yet
under control. It remains one of the most
serious threats to the Nation's water
quality. Silvicultural NFS pollution has
been reported to be a widespread problem
in 7 states (most in the Pacific Northwest)
and a localized problem in 33 states
scattered around the country (Myers et al.,
1985). Since aesthetically pleasing
forested watersheds normally provide
high-quality waters for municipal water
supplies, fisheries, and recreational
activities, NFS control programs must be
undertaken to protect these precious water
resources.
In this paper, we discuss the progress
in developing goals and strategies for water
pollution control, as it relates to an integra-
tive ecological approach to Silvicultural NFS
pollution control. Various water quality
goals and assessment methods are integrated
into a conceptual framework that illustrates
the use of assessment results as feedbacks
for controlling Silvicultural NFS pollution.
Characterization of potential and existing
ecological effects is the first step and an
important element for assessing ecological
risk. As an illustration, we summarize the
major ecological effects of forestry activi-
ties. Lastly, further research needs are iden-
tified for long-term, ecology-oriented NFS
pollution control efforts.
Ecological Integrity—The
Paramount Water Quality Goal
The principal objectives of the Clean
Water Act are "to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of the nation's waters." The interpretation
of these objectives, which is important for
the formulation and implementation of
water quality management approaches, has
been discussed extensively over the last two
decades. Although biological integrity is
explicitly mandated by the Clean Water Act,
this aspect of water resources management
has long been neglected (Karr and Dudley,
1981; Karr, 1991) as indicated by the fact
that water quality traditionally has been
interpreted as the physical properties and
chemical constituents of waterbodies, and
biological integrity has been assumed to be
protected if the physical/chemical water
quality criteria are met. Although some
efforts have been made to use biological
monitoring data for assessing water quality,
e.g., indicator species and diversity indices,
success has been limited because an integra-
tive ecological approach was not employed
(Karr, 1991).
Since the early 1980s, this situation
has been steadily changing, as reflected by
three major advances. First, new ecological
principles and methodologies have been
229
-------
230
Watershed '93
developed for water resources management,
e.g., integrative ecological indexes such as
ffil (Index of Biotic Integrity) and ICI
(Invertebrate Community Index), the
ecoregion approach, and recognition of the
importance of cumulative impact on aquatic
ecosystems, as summarized by Karr (1991).
Second, in recognition of the inadequacy of
water chemistry and toxicity tests for
successfully protecting water resources, the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA), states, and scientific community
have accelerated the development and
implementation of biological monitoring
techniques and biocriteria (USEPA, 1990).
Third, the focus of environmental protection
has been expanded from human health risk
reduction to include ecological risk reduc-
tion (SAB, 1990). These theoretical and
technical progresses have resulted in general
acceptance of the concept of "ecological
integrity" as the summation of physical,
chemical,-and biological integrity, which
should be the highest and ultimate goal of
water quality protection (Karr and Dudley,
1981; USEPA, 1990). Since "integrity" is a
relatively abstract concept, it must be
quantified by some kinds of criteria for
water quality management purposes. As the
biological criteria become increasingly
reliable and provide better supplemental
roles to the physicochemical water quality
criteria, the next step seems naturally to be
the integration of these criteria for develop-
ing aquatic ecological criteria (USEPA,
1992a).
For NPS pollution control, ecological
integrity is even more important, largely for
two reasons. First, many nonchemical
stresses generated by land use activities
(e.g., hydromodification, habitat degrada-
tion, etc.) have been recognized as the
additional or more critical threats to the
aquatic ecosystem health, in contrast to the
nutrient and toxic effects typical of point
sources. Second, NPS pollution, which is
derived from episodic hydrologic events
(rainfall and snowmelt), creates cumulative
effects on aquatic ecosystems that can be
better determined by biological monitoring
because the resident biota are continuous
monitors of the cumulative effects (USEPA,
1990). Moreover, in the case of silvicultural
NPS pollution control, forestry operations
usually are carried out in headwater, low-
order stream basins where the aquatic
ecosystems are significantly affected by
their surrounding forested lands. Given the
rapid response of forest streams, protection
based on ecological integrity becomes even
more important.
Ecological Risk Assessment—
the New Paradigm of
Environmental Assessment
NPS pollution control programs
should include three major components:
management mechanisms, environmental
investigation approaches, and environmental
criteria and assessment methodologies.
These components can be used to establish a
management framework that shows the
interrelationships among each element
(Chen et al., 1993). In this NPS manage-
ment framework, the best management
practices (BMPs) to be used are consistent
with current forestry practices by the U.S.
Forest Service, timber companies, and
private landowners. Investigation tech-
niques include direct methods (i.e., monitor-
ing) and indirect methods (i.e., simulation
modeling). These first two components are
addressed elsewhere (Chen et al., 1993). In
this paper, we focus on the third component,
in which investigation results are used to
assess the environmental effectiveness of
proposed BMPs based on certain criteria.
In brief, environmental assessment
methods and criteria include Physical/
Chemical Impact Assessment (PCIA) based
on Water Quality Criteria (WQC), Biologi-
cal Assessment (BA) based on Biological
Criteria (BC), and Ecological Risk Assess-
ment (ERA) based on Aquatic Ecological
Criteria (AEC), which can be summarized as
a conceptual framework for silvicultural
NPS pollution control (Figure 1). This
framework uses an iterative process for
determining whether to accept or to revise
proposed BMPs based on assessment results
and comprises three loops wherein three
different assessment approaches and criteria
are employed. While PCIA/WQC domi-
nated in the 1960s-70s and BA/BC were
emphasized in the 1980s, the importance of
ERA/AEC is expected to be increasingly
recognized in the 1990s as their theoretical
• and technical developments are accelerated.
Water quality assessments based on
physicochemical criteria normally utilize
traditional standards-based methods that
have three weaknesses:
1. Single mean or extreme values only
set up pass/fail standards, but
environmental impacts are a con-
tinuum governed by various pollu-
-------
Conference Proceedings
231
Accept the proposed BMPs -
Accept the proposed BMPs
Figure 1. Conceptual model for silvicultural nonpoint source pollution control.
tion levels (i.e., concentrations or
other quantities).
2. Standards-based assessment cannot
explicitly quantify damages to
aquatic ecosystems.
3. Uniform water quality criteria do not
account for the natural variability of
water quality due to geographic
locations or different types of
waterbodies. Although the third
problem has been identified and
overcome in the development of
bioassessment techniques and
biocriteria by using reference
conditions at specific sites in an
ecoregion, the traditional standards-
based methods still dominate in the
biological approaches.
Concurrent with the development and
application of standards-based assessment
methods, risk analysis has evolved into an
organized approach with demonstrated
utility in predicting weather, failure of
engineered systems, and insurance claims
(Suter, 1993). In recognition of the draw-
backs of standards-based methods, EPA has
long advocated the use of risk-based
approaches to environmental assessment and
management (USEPA, 1991). Although
EPA has been concerned initially with
estimating human health impacts associated
with various levels of exposure to toxic and
hazardous substances, the Agency has been
broadening its risk assessment context to
include the health of nonhuman biota.
Chronic and cumulative nonchemical effects
as well as chemical stresses have been
determined to be the basis for future
integrated approaches. The full integration
of human health and ecological risk assess-
ment is expected to be the new paradigm of
environmental assessment for the coming
years (Suter, 1993; USEPA, 1992b). Given
the nature of silvicultural NPS pollution, it
is especially important that in order to attain
the integrity of forest stream ecosystems, the
ecological risk imposed by silvicultural
BMPs must be assessed based on ecological
criteria, despite the formative nature of
current criteria.
Ecological Effects of
Silvicultural BMPs
Ecological effects of forest practices
upon stream ecosystems have long been
studied by many ecologists. Karr and
Dudley (1981) identified four major catego-
ries of environmental factors that affect
aquatic biota: flow regime, water quality,
habitat structure, and energy sources. Be-
sides the physical/chemical water quality,
many other environmental parameters al-
tered by forestry operations may affect
stream ecosystems. MacDonald et al. (1991)
provide the most comprehensive technical
guide for water quality monitoring on
-------
232
Watershed'93
forested lands to date. They recommend
that a total of 30 parameters or groups of
parameters be used to determine silvicultural
impacts. Based on a review of the literature,
we first discuss the general characteristics of
each category of environmental factors; then
identify the most important parameters; and
briefly summarize the alterations, mecha-
nisms, and ecological effects for each of
these parameters.
Flow Regime
Change of streamflow is one of the
most noticeable impacts generated by forest
activities. Numerous watershed experiments
have observed increases of stream flows
(Bosch and Hewlett, 1982) that cause
various impacts on stream ecosystems
(Table 1).
Water Quality
Table 2 summarizes the most impor-
tant physical properties and chemical
constituents of water affected by forestry
activities. Water quality may affect biologi-
cal integrity by directly causing mortality or
may shift the balance among species as a
result of subtle effects such as reduced
reproductive rates or changing competitive
ability.
Habitat Structure
The availability of both food and
physical habitat is the fundamental basis for
maintaining the life of aquatic organisms.
Although some of the habitat characteristics
are depicted by flow regime and water qual-
ity parameters, other habitat features need to
be considered. These additional features
primarily include the shape of stream chan-
nel, the structural attributes within stream
channel, and the stability of streambanks
(MacDonaldetal., 1991). These complex
and interactive features are much more diffi-
cult to quantitatively evaluate by using nu-
meric parameters. Table 3 summarizes the
four types of habitat alterations that have the
greatest ecological significance.
Energy/Food Source
Rows of energy and substances deter-
mine the function and structure of ecosys-
tems. For undisturbed, small, headwater,
woodland streams, the primary energy
source is allochthonous organic matter from
terrestrial environments because the stream
has little primary productivity due to heavy
shading and low water temperature. Thus,
the stream is in a heterotrophic state with
dominant insects of shredders and collectors
and invertivorous fish. These attributes of
natural ecosystems may be changed by for-
est operations (Table 4).
Further Research Needs and
Conclusions
Although we recognize that ecological
integrity is the paramount water quality goal
and that ecological risk assessment is the
new paradigm for water quality protection,
we also conclude that we still have a very
long way to go in putting our ideal concep-
tual model into practice, because even the
qualitative analyses of ecological risk of
forest activities seem to be extremely
complex. We therefore note several
important needs for further research.
1. Long-term cooperative research
efforts by ecologists, hydrologists
and foresters will be needed to better
Table 1. Ecological effects of flow changes caused by forestry activities
Parameters
Alterations
Mechanisms
Ecological Effects
Peak flows,
Low flows,
Total water
yield
Increased stream flows
and water yield
Reduced evapotranspiration due to
vegetation removal
Reduced interception due to canopy
removal
Reduced infiltration due to soil compac-
tion caused by logging and mechanical
site preparation and hydrophobicity of
soils after burning
Increased rate of snowmelt
Reduced stream retention
capacity, decreased
availability of food and
substrates for aquatic
organisms;
Increased size and
frequency of peak flows
causing significant habitat
destruction
-------
Conference Proceedings
233
Table 2. Major water quality parameters affected by forestry activities
Parameters
Alterations
Mechanisms
Ecological Effects
Temperature
Suspended
sediment and
turbidity
Dissolved
oxygen (DO)
Dissolved
nutrients
Herbicides
Pesticides
Increased water
temperatures
Increased sediment
production is the
most important
problem
Reduced DO
Numerous
inconsistent study
results
Increased N and P
likely
Inputs of introduced
chemicals
Increases in solar radiation
due to reduced shading
Soil erosion from road
surface, road fills, slope
failures associated with
road building and
maintenance
Surface erosion from
landings, skid trails, burned
areas, slope failures
associated with forest
harvest
Heavy input of fine, fresh
organic materials after
logging
Reaeration reductions due
to sedimentation
Saturated DO reductions
due to increased water
temperature.
Organic matter and
sediment input into stream
due to logging
Nutrient leaching after
burning
Forest fertilization, such as
the use of urea
Direct overspraying and
drift due to aerial applica-
tion
Transportation by leaching,
volatilization, and sedi-
ment erosion
Lethal or sublethal effects on fish and
invertebrates
Effects on chemical reactions
Effects on productivity and behavior of
aquatic biota
Toxic effects of pesticides and herbi-
cides absorbed to sediments
Eutrophication due to nutrients absorbed
to sediments, especially phosphorus
Decreases hi primary productivity due to
reduced light penetration in turbid water
Inhibition of fish reproduction due to
reduced intergravel DO and entrapping
alevins or fry
Impairment of fish feeding and growth
due to reduced ability to capture prey in
turbid water
Detrimental effects on metabolism of
aquatic biota due to deficiency of DO
Reduction in rate of organic matter
breakdown resulting in unfavorable odor
and water color
Toxicity to human and aquatic biota,
mainly nitrate, nitrite, and ammonia
Increases in primary production (e.g.,
bacteria and algae) and possibly second-
ary production (e.g., macroinvertebrates
and fish) causing possible eutrophication
Direct toxic effects on aquatic biota,
causing catastrophic drift, reduced
benthic abundance, etc.
Indirect effects on the community
structure, e.g., dietary shifts due to
reduction of prey
understand the complex ecological
effects of forest activities upon
stream ecosystems. The biological
aspect of water resources manage-
ment has been neglected for too long
(Karr, 1991). Biological monitoring
techniques and biocriteria need to be
coupled to the major advances in
stream ecology that occurred in the
past two or three decades.
2. Risk-based approaches to environ-
mental assessment and management
have become traditional approaches
in the EPA regulatory efforts.
However, ecological risk has much
broader significance than the
traditional human health risk. The
stress-response profile in eco-risk
assessment is not simply a dose-
response relationship and the
-------
234
Watershed '93
Table 3. Major stream habitat attributes affected by forestry activities
Attributes
Alterations
Mechanisms
Ecological Effects
Pool/riffle
setting
Embeddedness
Large woody
debris (LWD)
Bank stability
Degradation in the
number, size, and
variety of pools
Increased
embeddedness
Short-term increase
and long-term
decrease
Reduced bank
stability
Increased sediment yields fill in
pools
Reduced input of large woody
debris due to riparian vegetation
cutting
Coarser particles on streambed
are surrounded or partially buried
by increased input of fine
sediments
Introduction of logging slash
immediately after harvest
Reduced input due to riparian
vegetation harvest
Increased peak flows, size and flux
of transported sediments resulting
from various forest activities
Grazing in riparian zone
Pools are more important habitat
because they provide more stable
substrates and flows and are prime
fish spawning and rearing areas
Biologically, little space for
invertebrates, juvenile fish, and
periphyton; reduced intergravel DO
Decreased channel roughness
affects stream hydraulics
Loss of pools as important fish
habitats because LWD is a major
structural agent forming pools
Reduction of food availability
because LWD can trap organic
matter such as leaves and twigs
Large amount of sediments by
slumps and surface erosion from
unstable banks into the stream
Increased water temperature due to
larger surface area exposed to solar
radiation resulting from increased
channel width after bank erosion
Little or no riparian vegetation
supported by actively eroding
banks
Table 4. Major energy/food sources for stream ecosystems affected by forest activities
Parameters
Alterations
Mechanisms
Ecological Effects
Light and
temperature
Allochthonous
organic inputs
Elevated light
intensity and
temperature
Reduced quantity
and quality of
inputs
Reduced shading due to
riparian vegetation removal
Vegetation removal
Increased autochthonous production may
shift the stream trophic state from
heterotrophic (P/R<1) to autotrophic
Change of trophic condition affects
species composition of algal commu-
nity, e.g., filamentous green algae often
increase in abundance
Macroinvertebrate density may increase
as a result of excess algal availability
Switch in dominant benthic invertebrates,
i.e., shredders become less important
while the production of scrapers and
collectors increases
-------
Conference Proceedings
235
traditional quantitative methods
(e.g., quotient and continuous
methods) for risk assessment are not
applicable. Although some efforts
have been made to assess the
ecological risks associated with
chemical exposure (Suter, 1993),
ecological risk assessment for
controlling NFS pollution generated
by land use activities is almost a
virgin area so far. New theories and
methodologies for ecological risk
assessment will need to be devel-
oped.
3. Although the "magnitude" of eco-
risk can be generally expressed as
the integration of risk severity (a
"loss" function) and accompanying
probability (Chen et al., 1993), it is
very difficult to determine what
properties and what level of biologi-
cal organization should be assessed.
To quantify ecosystem risk, some
theoretical constraints such as the
lack of a generally accepted defini-
tion of "ecosystem health" must first
be overcome.
4. Ecological risk assessment should be
integrated with water quality
modeling for NFS pollution control.
Although the general relationships
for this linkage have been described
(Chen et al., 1993), technical
guidance for the practical integration
of these two promising approaches
needs to be developed.
5. As the procedures for ecological risk
assessment are being developed,
risk-based ecological criteria should
be formulated in the meantime. The
development of "aquatic ecological
criteria" is in its planning stage
(USEPA, 1992a). Progress in all
five areas will ensure better water
resources management in the next
decade.
References
Bosch, J.M., and J.D. Hewlett. 1982. A
review of catchment experiments to
determine the effect of vegetation
changes on water yield and evapo-
transpiration. Journal of Hydrology
55:3-23.'
Chen, Y.D., S.C. McCutcheon, T.C.
Rasmussen, W.L. Nutter, and R.F.
Carsel. 1993. Integrating water quality
modeling with ecological risk assess-
ment for nonpoint source pollution
control: a conceptual framework.
Water Science and Technology 28(2-
5): 431-440.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A
long-neglected aspect of water
resource management. Ecological
Applications l(l):66-84.
Karr, J.R., and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecologi-
cal perspective on water quality goals.
Environmental Management
5(l):55-68.
MacDonald, L.H., A.W. Smart, and R.C.
Wissmar. 1991. Monitoring guidelines
to evaluate effects of forestry activities
on streams in the Pacific Northwest
and Alaska. EPA 910/9-91-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region X, Seattle, WA.
Myers, C.F., J. Meek, S. tuller, and A.
Weinberg. 1985. Nonpoint sources of
water pollution. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation 40(1): 14-18.
SAB. 1990. Reducing risk: Setting priori-
ties and strategies for environmental
protection. SAB-EC-90-021. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Science Advisory Board, Washington,
DC.
Suter, G.W. 1993. Ecological risk assess-
ment. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
USEPA. 1990. Biological criteria. EPA-
440/5-90-004, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
— . 1991. Setting environmental
priorities: The debate about risk. EPA
Journal 17(2).
. 1992a. Aquatic ecological criteria.
Issue Research Plans, working drafts,
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
. 1992b. Framework for ecological
risk assessment. EPA/630/R-92/001.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Risk Assessment Forum,
Washington, DC.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Butterfield Creek Watershed
Management: An Interagency
Approach
Peggy A. Glassforct, Village Manager
Village of Flossmoor, Flossmoor, IL
Dennis W. Dreher, Director, Natural Resources
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, Chicago, IL
Robert M. Bartels, Planning Engineer
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service, Lincoln, NE
In the early 1980s, the Butterfield Creek
watershed experienced several large
flood events which filled both the flood-
prone areas and the local government
boardrooms to overflowing. Political
pressure to end flooding led to the formation
of a local steering committee whose focus
was to get state and federal assistance to
dam, divert, or detain the storm water.
The last 10 years have taught every-
one involved many lessons in the complex
world of storm water management. Local
officials and floodplain residents began with
a hope that somebody else would provide a
relatively quick solution with lots of money.
The reality has been a study in self-help and
intergovernmental cooperation with very
limited funding. The Butterfield Creek
story is a series of multi's: multi-commu-
nity, multi-agency, multi-objective. What
was learned can be applied by others in their
watersheds.
The Butterfield Creek watershed is a
6,735-hectare (26-square-mile) area located
approximately 48 kilometers (30 miles)
south of Chicago, EL. Portions of eight
communities are located in this watershed.
Approximately 60 percent of the watershed
is developed with typical suburban land use,
23 percent is still being used for agricultural
production, and 15 percent is in public open
space or is currently vacant waiting for
construction of new developments.
Historically, the creeks draining the
upper portions of the watershed were part of
a wide, prairie wetland. As the creek
proceeded downstream the terrain became
steeper and the channel was much more
defined. As farmers settled, farm tiles were
installed, the upstream portions were
drained, and the waters were carried away in
small man-made channels. Early urban
development was concentrated in the
downstream portion of the watershed,
primarily on the higher elevation lands and
along the floodplain of Butterfield Creek.
By 1980, new development had crowded out
onto the natural floodplains and into
wetlands and other natural storage areas
through use of both drainage and fill.
These changes resulted in higher peak
flows during storm events and significantly
higher damages to the developed properties.
The downstream communities were very
concerned about what would happen when
additional development occurred on the
undeveloped land upstream.
Searching for Simple
Solutions
The Butterfield Creek Steering Com-
mittee (BCSC), representing seven commu-
nities of the watershed and Cook County,
was formed in 1983. The first action of the
237
-------
238
Watershed '93
Committee was to request the state and
federal government agencies to stop the
flood damages. The U.S. Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) and the Illinois Department
of Transportation, Division of Water
Resources (IDOT-DWR), provided the first
interagency cooperative response by con-
ducting a study of flooding and flood
damages in the watershed. Structural solu-
tions were to be evaluated as part of the
study and the local communities waited to
see if these agencies would solve their
problems.
In April of 1987, the SCS presented
preliminary results of the floodplain
management study to the BCSC and local
citizens. The results presented were very
disappointing to all in attendance. While
substantial flood damages were identified,
they were scattered and many different
measures would be needed to significantly
reduce the damages. The benefit/cost ratio
for these upstream structures did not meet
federal or state criteria for the expenditure of
their funds to solve the problems.
Although the SCS floodplain manage-
ment study (USDA-SCS, 1987) did not
result in funding to solve the flood problem,
it did identify three very important facts
about the watershed. First, the current flood
insurance maps for Butterfield Creek were
inaccurate—the recalculated 100-year flood
level was as much as 0.76 meters (2.5 feet)
higher in some locations. Second, most
detention standards for new development, in
force in 1987, would not prevent increased
flood damages in downstream areas (Bartels,
1987). Finally, the study identified the
significant areas of natural storage in the
upstream watershed. If this storage were to
be removed, flood damages hi the watershed
would go up by at least 50 percent and
possibly by as much as 500 percent.
Tackling the Complex
Recognizing their vulnerability,
downstream communities requested,
through the BCSC, the cooperation of all
communities of the watershed in addressing
the flood problems. If flooding could not be
easily stopped, at least they could work
together to plan and control their future
before more of the watershed developed and
flood damages increased. Recognizing that
a commitment to help each other would
benefit both upstream and downstream
communities, all involved communities
agreed to continue the BCSC efforts.
Although there were no easy answers, it was
understood that all seven communities,
along with Cook County, were impacted by
what happened in the watershed and along
Butterfield Creek.
Organizing and staffing the BCSC
was an immediate problem; fortunately, the
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
(NIPC), a regional planning agency for the
six-county area of northeastern Illinois,
agreed to provide basic help with agendas,
mailings, minute taking, and some engineer-
ing evaluations. The IDOT-DWR agreed to
provide a liaison to the Committee. De-
pending upon the particular need, the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, the SCS, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA) all agreed to provide future
assistance.
With multiple communities and
multiple agencies around the table, the
group began to tackle the complex task of
storm water management.
Goal Setting
Goal setting proved to be a critical
juncture for the Committee. This was when
the participants discussed and concluded
that flooding problems and environmental
concerns were inextricably connected and
that in order to tackle one, the other must be
considered. Thus, the BCSC's goals became
multi-objective:
• Reduce flooding and minimize
streambank erosion in the Butterfield
Creek drainage basin.
• Protect the storm and floodwater
capacities of natural detention areas
and protect wetlands for their
resource management benefits.
• Preserve additional public open
space to increase recreational
opportunities (including trail
facilities) to protect and enhance
natural resource benefits, and to
improve the environment within
communities and neighborhoods.
• Improve the maintenance of streams
hi order to maximize natural water
resource benefits and the aesthetics
of stream corridors.
• Improve the quality of water in
Butterfield Creek and its tributaries.
• Achieve a mutually supportive,
-------
Conference Proceedings
239
• basin-wide management and
regulatory framework for develop-
ment activities affecting Butterfield
Creek watershed.
Having agreed to goals, the Commit-
tee's next step was to create a model storm
water management code for the communi-
ties. A state statute was passed in 1988 that
mandated new floodplain regulations. This
created an opportune time to review current
ordinances and at the same time address
some of the issues raised by the SCS study
of the watershed. It was concluded that any
code developed by the BCSC would address
all issues of storm water management. The
village engineer for one of the downstream
communities worked with the NIPC staff to
develop the Model Code (BCSC, 1990).
Highlights of the model code are:
• The storage capacity of those all
important natural storage areas
identified in the SCS study will be
maintained.
• Detention requirements for new
development were significantly
strengthened. Release rates must
meet 100-year storm limits of 0.0105
cubic meters per second per hectare
(0.15 CFS per acre) and 2-year storm
limits of 0.0028 cubic meters per
second per hectare (0.04 CFS per
acre). The 2-year requirement is to
prevent increased erosion of down-
stream channels.
• The adverse water quality effects of
new development are addressed by:
- requiring effective erosion and
sediment control;
- encouraging natural drainage
practices; and
- requiring detention basin designs
which enhance pollutant removal.
• The regulatory floodplains have been
expanded to coincide with those
defined in the SCS study.
• Very limited uses in the floodway,
allowing only public flood control,
public recreation and open space,
crossing roads and bridges.
• Fees are allowed in lieu of detention
for small developments where small
individual detention basins for every
site are not reasonable. This will
. require careful planning to create
centralized detention at the needed
locations.
• New developments along streams
are required to have 22.8-meter
(75-foot) setbacks with a 7.6-meter
(25-foot) vegetated buffer strip along
the stream.
• Site permits are required for all
development. Development is
defined as any man-made change to
real estate. This regulation includes
the grading of all private property
including residential.
• All regulations related to storm water
management are consolidated into
this one code.
To date, five of the seven communities
on the BCSC have adopted the model code.
These five include all of the communities lo-
cated in the upper portions of the watershed.
With stronger regulations adopted, the
residents of the watershed threatened by
floods have been given some insurance
against worsened flood conditions in the
future.
Hazard Mitigation Plan
In order to establish priorities for
reducing flood hazards in the watershed,
NIPC officials prepared options for Commit-
tee evaluation. This effort was funded by
FEMA through IDOT-DWR, and the final
product was a Flood Hazard Mitigation Plan
(Price and Dreher, 1991) in which known
mitigation options are described and recom-
mendations for action are outlined. These
recommendations are now before the policy
boards of the watershed communities. It is
hoped that each community will adopt the
Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The Multi-Objective Approach:
A Plan for Action
Discussions at the BCSC meetings in
1991 pointed out the need to develop an
Action Plan. This plan, completed in 1992,
combines the twin goals of mitigating flood
hazards and protecting the watershed
environment. The committee members
divided the Action Plan into logical catego-
ries with members of the Committee taking
leadership for a specific category. Highlights
of the plan and accomplishments to date are
as follows.
Natural Storage Acquisition/
Greenway Planning
A major element of the action strategy
is preservation, and possible enhancement,
-------
240
Watershed '93
of the upstream natural storage areas.
Public ownership of this land would meet
the primary objective of flood control, but it
could also satisfy other objectives such as
passive recreation, preservation of open
space and, in some cases, habitat restoration.
A key question is: Who will provide
the funding? The open space benefits and
some recreation advantages would primarily
go to the community where the land is
located. The flood storage benefits would
accrue to both the community where the site
is located and to downstream communities.
Recognizing these mutual advantages,
the watershed committee has united behind
an effort to secure funding for the acquisi-
tion of the natural storage areas. Short on
funds, but long on cooperative and informed
member communities, the Committee is now
working with state agencies to tie down a
quarter million dollars for land acquisition.
Part of the land targeted for acquisi-
tion lies within a greenway recently desig-
nated in the Northeastern Illinois Regional
Greenways Plan developed and adopted by
NIPC in cooperation with the Openlands
Project, a private open space advocacy
organization. It is hoped this will aid in
obtaining additional funds to purchase the
land identified.
Water Quality Management
Projects
The water quality, aquatic habitat, and
aesthetic conditions of Butterfield Creek are
all degraded. Because there are no signifi-
cant wastewater discharges to the creek, it
was easy to conclude that identified prob-
lems are caused by nonpoint sources of
pollution. With funding from EPA, the
watershed was thoroughly evaluated and a
preliminary nonpoint source management
plan (Dreher et al., 1992) was developed.
The study concluded that the major sources
of stream degradation were urban runoff and
stream channelization, with additional
contributions coming from problem septic
systems and illicit wastewater connections
to storm sewers.
Many of the actions recommended
were also included in the Flood Hazard
Mitigation Plan (Price and Dreher, 1991).
The plan identified the need for stringent
controls on development similar to those in
the Model Code (BCSC, 1990) with some
enhancements. The plan recognized that
public awareness and access must be
improved; it specifically recommended the
acquisition of riparian open space and the
expansion of a streamside trail network.
Recognizing that implementation of
this plan could be enhanced by timely
demonstration projects, EPA funded two
activities to demonstrate innovative, multi-
purpose design of storm water facilities.
The first demonstration is aimed at enhanc-
ing the capability of small detention basins
to remove sediment-related pollutants. The
second demonstration involves the retrofit-
ting of existing, single-purpose detention
basins to improve their ability to remove
runoff pollutants and to control erosion-
causing storm flows.
Both of these demonstration projects
address maintenance, public education, and
aesthetics as critical elements to their long-
term success and acceptability by local
officials, developers, and residents.
In response to severe channel erosion
problems, the Illinois Department of
Conservation has provided funding for a
project to demonstrate effective, low-cost
streambank stabilization using natural
landscape materials. If successful, this
demonstration will show property owners a
way to protect thek own streambank—
creating an aesthetically pleasing landscape
while preventing their property from
literally being carried away by floodwaters.
Floodproofing
The most cost-effective method
identified in the SCS study (USDA-SCS,
1987) to reduce flood damages in the
Butterfield watershed was floodproofing of
flood-prone properties. This solution,
however, is dependent on acceptance by the
private property owner; it is sometimes
difficult to sell. The Committee, using a
model created by IDOT/DWR, decided to
promote the advantages of floodproofing
through an educational open house at which
local governments and agencies set up
informational tables to inform homeowners.
IDOT-DWR planned this event, which was
attended by nearly 300 people. An interest-
ing highlight of the Floodproofing Open
House was the presentation by contractors
of their floodproofing methods and equip-
' ment.
Homewood, a member community of
the BCSC, is demonstrating its conviction to'
this element of the Action Plan. The village
is preparing a pilot program under which
eight flood-prone homes will be elevated, a
maximum of 0.61 meters (2 feet), above the
-------
Conference Proceedings
24*
established flood protection elevation. In
addition to the house elevation program, 11
homes with basements or lower levels were
identified as eligible for a special
floodproofmg program through the village.
Participating homeowners will be re-
quired to pay the first $1,500 towards the
cost of elevating or floodproofing. The vill-
age will pay for the remaining portion. It is
estimated that the total cost of elevating one
home will be about $25,000. Having par-
ticipated in the decision-making and plann-
ing process that produced the floodproofing
recommendation, home-owners are anxious
to have the work initiated.
Public Education
The Committee plans a series of
educational efforts working with schools
and libraries. The first of three planned
videotapes is already completed. The
Committee member working on this project
convinced the local cable TV company to
produce the first 15-minute video, which
introduces the Committee and its work. The
video was first broadcast to the concerned
communities in February 1993.
The Butterfield Experience
as a Model
The projects completed to date speak
for themselves; some could be used in other
watersheds, some are unique to this stream
corridor. Beyond the projects, however, it is
felt that there are four universally applicable
lessons one can learn from the Butterfield
experience. The first is that streams do not
respect geographic or political boundaries.
Storm water management must have the
cooperation of all the watershed communi-
ties in order to solve problems. Demonstrat-
ing a united effort also makes it much easier
to get outside help.
The second lesson is that help is
available. While the state and federal
agencies often receive criticism because of
their regulatory responsibility, they are a
resource of knowledgeable and dedicated
people who really want to help solve
problems. The residents of the Butterfield
Creek watershed have been blessed with the
help of many agencies. The agencies cannot
do everything but, if the local governments
are willing to work with what is possible,
much can be accomplished.
The third lesson is that it is important
to know what can be done and what can't
be done. The communities and residents
of the watershed had to accept that there
would be no quick fix for the flooding
problems. They had to recognize the need
to help themselves and mat it would take
years of hard work to show any significant
results.
Finally, efforts to manage storm water
can also provide a means to protect the
environment and provide recreation when a
holistic approach is used to find a solution.
A multi-objective approach is critical.
Butterfield Creek, like all streams,
bears the imprint of its watershed. Every
activity on the land draining into the stream
impacts the stream's flow characteristics.
Flooding, erosion, and environmental
degradation are the creek's reaction to poor
watershed planning. It is the hope of the
BCSC that the waters of their creek will one
day bear the positive imprint of the coordi-
nated planning effort they are doing today.
References
Bartels, R. 1987. Storm water manage-
ment—When on-site detention
reduces stream flooding. Proceed-
ings of the Eleventh Annual Confer-
ence of the Association of State
Floodplain Managers, Seattle,
Washington, June 8-13, 1987.
BCSC. 1990. Model floodplain and storm
water management code for
Butterfield Creek watershed commu-
nities. Butterfield Creek Steering
Committee, assisted by Northeastern
Illinois Planning Commission and
J. Carney, P.E. November.
Dreher, D., T. Gray, and H. Hudson.
1992. Demonstration of an urban
non-point source methodology for
Butterfield Creek. Northeastern
Illinois Planning Commission. May.
Price, T. and D. Dreher. 1991. Butterfield
Creek flood hazard mitigation plan.
Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission. August.
USDA-SCS. 1987. Butterfield Creek and
tributaries floodplain management
study. U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Soil Conservation Service.
November.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Watershed Management in Puget
Sound: A Case Study
Katherine Minsch, Environmental Planner
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, Olympia, WA
Goperative watershed management is
ey to cleaning up and protecting
uget Sound. The Puget Sound
Water Quality Management Plan (Plan),
approved as the first Comprehensive
Conservation and Management Plan under
the National Estuary Program in 1991,
represents a comprehensive strategy,
addressing a wide range of water quality
problems. The Plan consists of 15 action
programs designed to restore and protect the
Sound and its many sub-watersheds. It was
developed by a partnership of federal, state,
local, and tribal governments, with exten-
sive public outreach and involvement A
state agency created especially by the
Washington State legislature in 1985 to
develop, adopt and oversee the implementa-
tion of the Plan—the Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority (Authority)—provided
the leadership.
Implementation of the actions laid out
in the Plan also depends upon strong
partnerships. A notable example is the
Puget Sound local watershed action pro-
gram, the heart of controlling nonpoint
pollution in the Sound. This is the heart,
because the program is based on the premise
that everyone contributes to the problem,
and should be part of the solution, and
because nonpoint source pollution is most
effectively dealt with at the local level.
Furthermore, the action program relies
largely on voluntary compliance, rather than
mandatory measures, through fostering
community stewardship and public consen-
sus on the most appropriate ways to reduce
the harm from day-to-day activities in the
local watershed.
The Puget Sound local watershed
action program involves citizens, tribes,
governments, and other stakeholders in the
development of restoration and nonpoint
source pollution prevention plans for
targeted watersheds. It is a unique model,
now five years old, that is constantly
evolving as more plans are produced and
implemented, and as we learn more about
how to best control nonpoint pollution
through this type of program. I will
describe the framework and structure, the
process, status, and the key issues confront-
ing communities in the watershed as they
move forward with implementing this part
of the Plan.
The Problem
Puget Sound is a huge watershed,
encompassing over 2,400 miles of shoreline,
with over 10,000 rivers draining over
16,000 square miles of land. The Sound
itself is 3,200 square miles. Essentially a
fjord, with depths up to 930 feet, it also
contains many shallow embayments, some
of which still harbor a rich diversity of
marine and wildlife. It is a complex
estuarine ecosystem, with slow exchange of
waters with the Pacific. As a result,
pollutants running off the land tend to be
trapped in the system for awhile, rather than
flushed out right away. This physical and
circulatory nature, combined with all the
existing land uses and the accelerating rate
of growth in the basin, has resulted in
nonpoint source pollution being a signifi-
cant threat to the health of Puget Sound.
Storm water runoff, farm operations, timber
and forestry practices, on-site septic
systems, marinas and boats, household
hazardous wastes, and various other
activities, such as mining, are all contribu-
tors, the extent varying among all the sub-
243
-------
244
Watershed '93
watersheds. Degradation of the Sound
adversely affects the economy as well. For
example, Washington's shellfish harvest,
worth $52 million in 1989, is seriously
affected by nonpoint source pollution.
Commercial and recreational shellfish beds
are continually being downgraded and
closed.
Selection of Watersheds
The Authority designed the local
watershed action program to be a coopera-
tive approach involving all stakeholders, but
on a prioritized basis so as to make the best
use of limited state and local resources. As
directed by the Authority in the 1987
version of the Puget Sound plan, the 12
counties comprising the Sound basin ranked
their local watersheds according to a
specific set of criteria. The counties formed
watershed ranking committees consisting of
citizens, tribes, governmental entities, and
interest groups to conduct the actual
ranking. The Authority designed the five
basic criteria to allow both restoration of
damaged watersheds and protection of
threatened ones:
1. Impaired or threatened beneficial
uses, such as shellfish beds, fish
habitat, and drinking water.
2. Likelihood of future intensified land
use, such as development or logging.
3. Environmental factors such as
limited flushing or soil type suscep-
tible to further degradation.
4. Relatively more contaminants or
greater harm to beneficial uses than
other watersheds.
5. Likelihood of success.
Ranking committees could add other criteria,
as suited their particular county. All the
counties had ranked a total of 119 water-
sheds by January 1989.
Meanwhile, the state and local
communities, also under the Plan, had
selected 12 early action watersheds to get a
head start on planning and to test the
process. These watersheds were identified
by mid-1987, with planning starting in 1988
under the guidance of a nonpoint rule
adopted by the Authority early in 1988.
This rule established the framework and
process for both the watershed ranking and
planning processes. The goals are prevent-
ing nonpoint source pollution, enhancing
water quality, and protecting beneficial uses.
The model was underway.
Model Features of the Local
Watershed Action Program
The planning process steps are
straightforward. The first step is character-
ization of the physical, biological, institu-
tional, jurisdictional, and other characteris-
tics of the watershed. The characterization
is then used to define the extent of water
quality and habitat problems resulting from
nonpoint pollution, and subsequently serves
as a basis for the goals and objectives of the
action plan. Next, control strategies are
developed for each type of nonpoint
pollution problem, such as farming or
forestry practices. These strategies encom-
pass a combination of voluntary, educational
and regulatory management approaches. An
implementation strategy is prepared,
including identification of responsible
entities, costs, a timeline, a process for
coordination with existing programs, and a
plan for long-term financing. The plan then
undergoes an extensive review and approval
process. So what makes this program so
unique, and worth learning from?
A number of unique features set this
program apart.
1. Local stakeholder committees
develop the plan. While a lead local
agency, usually the planning
department (public works depart-
ments and conservation districts
have also been the lead), initiates the
planning process through applying
for a state grant (see item 4 below),
the main entity responsible for
developing the action plan is a
watershed management committee
comprised of all the stakeholders in
the local watershed. This is a
significant departure from the
traditional planning approach where
agencies develop plans with public
comment at the end. The county (or
city, if the watershed is within its
boundaries) appoints the committee,
which includes citizens, tribes, local
agencies, federal and state agencies
as appropriate, special- purpose
districts, environmental groups, and
business and industry. The purpose
is to involve all affected parties in
developing the most workable plan
for their community, including those
whose beneficial use is being
impaired or potentially impaired and
those who are associated with the
various types of nonpoint pollution.
-------
Conference Proceedings
245
Thus the very foundation of this
program is based in partnership and
community stewardship. This
program also helped gain recognition
for the tribes as leaders in steward-
ship of the Sound's natural resources
and technical experts in water
quality, habitat, and fisheries issues.
Additionally, the committee must
develop a public involvement
strategy for the planning process, to
be carried out by the lead agency.
All watershed residents are to have a
chance to learn about and participate
in cleaning up and protecting their
bay or river.
2. Committees most often use consensus
to reach decisions. The lead agency
brings in experts in consensus-
building to train watershed commit-
tees in making decisions, by consen-
sus. Each committee adopts ground
rules for how they will proceed.
Committees resort to voting if
consensus cannot be reached, but the
use of consensus is strongly encour-
aged. The intent is for differing
factions to listen to and understand
each other. Then they try to reach a
common ground so the plan won't be
stalled or blocked and it can be
implemented to improve water
quality.
3. Signed statements of concurrence
commit implementing entities to the
plan. The committee ensures
commitment from all the responsible
implementing parties through formal
statements of concurrence. This is
accomplished through circulation of
the draft and final plans to all entities
as early as possible in the process.
Ideally, the representatives will
already be on the committee and
keeping their decision makers in the
loop. They then submit letters
commenting on the plan and stating
their concurrence to their designated
actions, within budget capabilities.
The committee then formally adopts
the plan, which the lead agency
submits to the State Department of
Ecology for final approval.
4. The program is incentive-driven, not
mandatory. It is important to note
that the state rule adopted by the
Authority is not mandatory. The-
rule is only activated when a county
or city applies for funding to develop
the plan. The watershed program
would not have been financially
feasible without a special water
quality fund set up by the State of
Washington, called the Centennial
Clean Water Fund, whose revenue
source is a state cigarette tax. The
legislature allocates $40 million a
year in grants to local governments
for water quality restoration and
protection projects. Ten percent, or
$4 million per year, goes toward
nonpoint source control planning
and implementation projects. So far,
over $18 million has been invested
in Puget Sound local watershed
planning and implementation.
5. Federal and state interagency teams
provide direct technical assistance.
The Puget Sound Cooperative River
Basin Team, funded through the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) begin-
ning in 1987, has prepared many of
the characterization reports for the
local watershed committees. The
team consists of technical experts in
relevant fields—biology, hydrology,
wetlands, mapping—from SCS, the
U.S. Forest Service, and several state
resource agencies. This team has
been such an invaluable resource that
SCS has subsequently granted two 3-
year extensions. This is the only
river basin team to receive exten-
sions. Additionally, the Department
of Ecology leads an interagency
technical assistance team, funded
through the Puget Sound Plan, which
consists of staff from all the state
environmental and resource agencies
and provides assistance to the
committees. Finally, the state funds
a water quality field agent team
through both the Sea Grant and
Cooperative Extension programs.
These agents provide invaluable
assistance in the field and on
consensus-training and facilitation
for the watershed committees.
6. Committees determine the appropri-
ate mix of management approaches
for their community. Committees
have the option to develop three
types of management approaches to
controlling nonpoint pollution from
identified sources. These approaches
include education, voluntary actions,
and regulation. The needs of the
-------
246
Watershed '93
communities vary from watershed to
watershed. Generally, the more rural
areas tend to rely more heavily on
the educational and voluntary
approaches, while the urbanized
watersheds use a relatively higher
percentage of regulatory tools, such
as land-use ordinances. The 1988
nonpoint rule required committees to
develop strategies for all the sources
in the watershed, with very specific
parameters. The rule has since been
revised to allow committees to
determine what kinds of controls
work best in their community.
7. All final action plans must contain
implementation strategies. A crucial
element of the plan is a strong, sound
strategy for implementation. This
strategy has four components.
Committees must identify for each
action the responsible entity, the
cost, a time frame, and a funding
source. They must also identify
long-term financing mechanisms,
particularly at the local level, for
ongoing implementation of the plan.
Many Puget Sound local govern-
ments already have storm water
utilities, for example. Some counties
that have recent shellfish bed
downgrades or closures are develop-
ing shellfish protection districts
under a new law that allows them to
assess fees to residents within the
watershed. Conservation assessment
districts, on-site septic maintenance
districts, and bonds are other options
being explored. Second, commit-
tees must include a process for
coordinating with and integrating
other planning and management
programs; local comprehensive plans
under the States Growth Manage-
ment Act, local shoreline master
plans, wetlands programs, ground-
water management plans, and storm
water programs are the most com-
mon examples. The intent here is to
make the most efficient use of
resources by using these programs as
tools to help implement the plan and
to use the watershed plan to help
implement these programs. Third,
the plan must include provisions for
ongoing public involvement and
participation in plan implementation
activities, such as the adoption of
ordinances. We strongly encourage
the formation of implementation
committees after the plans are
approved to advise and assist the
lead implementing agencies, and to
perform a "watchdog" role. Finally,
lead agencies must prepare annual
evaluations of plan implementation,
and conduct long-term monitoring
programs, so that we can assess if
and to what extent progress is being
made in cleaning up Puget Sound.
Current Status
Eleven of the twelve Puget Sound
counties are in various stages of watershed
planning and implementation (Figure 1).
The Puget Sound Plan goal states that each
county shall be implementing at least three
watershed action plans by 1996; this means
a total of 36 plans. We are well on our way
to meeting that goal. Fourteen watershed
committees have completed plans that are
being implemented in nine of the counties.
Nineteen more committees are working on
plans, with four more gearing up to start by
the middle of 1993. Several counties or
cities are expected to receive new planning
grants in 1993. The Authority evaluated the
early action watershed experience in 1990
and subsequently adopted a revised
nonpoint rule in the fall of 1991. The rule
streamlined the review and approval process
and increased local flexibility.
How Well Is the Model Working?
Generally, the local watershed
program is working. More plans are being
produced and implemented each year since
its inception, and we are starting to see
water quality improvements in some
watersheds. However, the pioneering nature
of this program, involving sensitive issues
of land use, resource management, changing
lifestyles, and a nontraditional stakeholder
planning process, has resulted in a number
of challenges. The major issues facing the
watershed program are sorting out partici-
pant roles during the planning process;
building ownership of plans without
reinventing the wheel; sustaining political
will for plan implementation; obtaining and
establishing adequate funding to carry out
the plans; and integrating watershed
planning with mandatory local growth
management and other local resource-
management programs.
-------
Conference Proceedings
247
Upper Hood Canal/Port Gamble
Sinclair Inlel (-
Drayton Harbor I
Komm Creek ^ ^
Tenmile Creek \
Silver Creek ,
s
J
Samish River ^
Podilia Bay/Bayview
Nookachamps River
Stillaguamish
\
\
Quilceda/Allen
Swamp Creek
North Creek
Pipers Creek
Longfellow Creek
s
/
Issaquah Creek/East Sammamish
/ Upper Cedar
Green/Duwamish
ower Puyallup
•Tacoma Cluster
• Henderson Inlet
— Budd/Deschutes River
Eld Inlet
Skookum-Totten Inlets
Oakland Bay
I In planning phase
I In implementation phase
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
February 1993
Figure 1. Watershed planning in the Puget Sound basin.
1. Counties appoint the committee
members, facilitate the planning pro-
cess, have representatives on the
committee, and must concur with the
plan actions for which they are re-
sponsible. However, the program is
designed for the committee to be in
the driver's seat, actually producing
and adopting the plans. Some
county officials have found this dif-
ficult. They would prefer instead to
appoint citizens on a separate advi-
sory committee or to approve the
whole plan, not just the sections they
are responsible for implementing.
2. Most counties are now on their
second, third, or fourth plan. There
is a delicate balance between taking
time to educate committee members
about nonpoint source impacts and
solutions, in order to build trust and
ownership, and discussing and
deciding what control strategies and
approaches will be in a particular
plan. We are finding that, in order to
help avoid committee boredom and
-------
248
Watershed '93
burnout, it is better to start discus-
sions of possible solutions while
they are learning about the problems,
building upon plans already pro-
duced, and involving committees in
educating their community.
3. Key factors in the planning process,
which begin the process of building
political will for implementation, are
involving all stakeholders, obtaining
early-buy in from decision makers,
using consensus, obtaining concur-
rence from major implementers, and
promoting community stewardship
through strong public participation
programs. Watershed plans overseen
by implementation councils whose
members act as advocates generally
stand a better chance of being
implemented. Ongoing public
education and participation programs
help keep the community aware of
the plan's existence as a tool in
helping to restore and protect their
estuary or river.
4. Finding adequate funding for
implementation of watershed action
plans remains a constant struggle.
This is a time when local govern-
ments are being asked to do more
with less, and local resources are
being directed towards mandatory
growth management and storm water
programs, among others. While
many options for local funding
mechanisms are available, it is
difficult to convince watershed
residents to pay even more annual
fees, no matter how low or well-
justified they might be.
5. Growth management and water-
quantity planning efforts are
competing with watershed planning
in many areas. While the nonpoint
rule requires committees to coordi-
nate with and incorporate these and
other resource-management
programs, no reciprocal require-
ments exist. It is time to look at
how these efforts can all be better
integrated.
Conclusion
The Puget Sound local watershed
action program, by its very nature, is the
result of a cooperative partnership between
the state, local and tribal governments,
citizens, business, and public interest
groups, and the federal government, all as
stakeholders. Each plays a vital role. The
state provides the program framework,
financial incentives, and technical assis-
tance. The local communities—not just the
government agencies—actually develop and
own the plan and are the prime
implementers. Tribes are key participants.
The federal government provides both
financial and technical assistance and is
responsible for controlling pollution on its
lands. Consensus, concurrence by
implementers, citizen and community
stewardship, political will, local financing
tools, and integration with growth manage-
ment programs are proving to be critical
factors in the success of these plans.
However, the future success of this program
is also ultimately dependent upon the ability
of each of these entities to continue to work
together, in the face of growing challenges,
to protect the environmental and economic
health of the local watersheds and the larger
Puget Sound Basin.
-------
W AT E R S H E O ' 9 3
Citizens Take the Lead: Elkhorn
Creek Watershed Planning and
Action Through Consensus
Beth K. Stewart, Acting Chair
Kentucky Waterways Alliance
Member, Elkhom Land and Historic Trust, Georgetown, KY
Gregory K. Johnson, Area Conservationist
Doug Hines, Soil and Water Resource Specialist
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service
Cynthiana Regional Office, KY
The many tributary streams that create a
river also have a major impact on its
water quality. Yet with limited
resources, state and federal water quality
programs cannot manage entire watersheds
and their tributary streams without the help
of local property owners and local govern-
ments. Any successful program to restore
them must awaken the stewardship values
and harness the energies of the people
whose daily lives are interwoven wiith these
"hometown" streams.
As the watershed planning approach
has advanced, through the efforts of
agencies such as the Soil Conservation
Service, so has the realization that improve-
ment of water quality and quality of life is
dependent on reaching a consensus about
natural resources among those living and
working in the watershed. Yet since the
advent of the environmental movement, the
relationship between property owners,
citizen activists, and the government
agencies that have the mandate and the
resources to improve water quality has often
been an uncomfortable and counterproduc-
tive one.
The experience of the Elkhorn Land
and Historic Trust (Trust) illustrates a fairly
successful consensus-building process for
total resource planning within a watershed.
It also shows how to build an effective,
dynamic, and comfortable partnership
between grass-roots citizen groups and
government staff to carry out a watershed
plan and provide ongoing stewardship for a
local waterway. This presentation will
describe the philosophy of the Trust, the
total resource planning process for Elkhorn
Creek, and the many public/private projects
and initiatives that the plan has sparked
throughout the watershed.
Elkhorn Creek waters the heart of
Kentucky's world-renowned Bluegrass
Region and has shaped the identity of its
communities and people. The two forks and
mainstem of the creek traverse 141 miles,
drain a 500-square mile area encompassing
four counties, and join the Kentucky River
just north of the State Capitol. The path of
the Elkhorn exemplifies the cultural, natural,
and scenic resources of the Bluegrass
Region and symbolizes its historic heritage.
In the 1860 version of Leaves of Grass,
Walt Whitman wrote of " ... A Kentuckian,
walking the Vale of the Elkhorn in my deer-
skin leggins...."
In many ways, the experience of the
Elkhorn today still recalls a century-old way
of life. As Bluegrass residents shaped the
agricultural and urban landscape, the
corridor of the Elkhorn retained the last
vestiges of Kentucky's lush native vegeta-
tion. Many historic structures, such as a
working mill and a covered bridge, still
remain. The creek has always been the
primary water source for crop irrigation and
stock watering, and was once one of the
249
-------
250
Watershed '93
top-rated small-mouth bass fisheries in the
United States From the still pools held by
mill dams, to the sleepy rural hamlets, to the
dramatic palisades and Whitewater beloved
by canoeists and naturalists, the Elkhorn
serves many needs.
However, as the creek was taken for
granted and ignored over the years, water
quality in the watershed became degraded.
The problems are common: urban en-
croachment, increasing agricultural pres-
sures, nonpoint runoff pollution and erosion,
inadequate sewage treatment, decline in
fisheries and wildlife habitat, loss of historic
resources through neglect and redevelop-
ment, illegal dumping, and growing con-
flicts between recreational users and
property owners. These problems have
slowly severed the traditional relationship of
people to the creek. As a recent news article
asked, "Would you want to be baptized in
the Elkhorn?"
Formation of the Trust
In 1988 a group of concerned citizens
and government staff formed a loose
coalition called the Elkhorn Land and
Historic Trust, which has been successful by
following two essential philosophies:
• Build a consensus among the many
user groups that depend upon the
creek.
• Focus the considerable energies and
resources of citizen volunteers and
existing government programs on the
creek.
In the beginning, the Trust was simply
an informal gathering place for people who
wanted to talk about the creek's problems
and possible solutions. We were as inclusive
as possible, constantly inviting knowledge-
able citizens, property owners, and interested
government staff to participate. We made a
special effort to involve two types of govern-
ment people. The first type are those whose
agency's mission intersected with our goals,
such as the county district conservation staff,
local planners, Fish and Wildlife field per-
sonnel, and state water quality regulators.
The second type are those who had a special
personal relationship to the creek, such as
the Scott County chief elected official, Judge
Lusby, who fishes in the creek every day,
and the director of the Kentucky department
that awards community development grants,
who lives on the creek. After all, govern-
ment staff are regional residents too, and ap-
pealing to their professional and personal
values is just as important as awakening
stewardship values in citizens.
During this time we organized
activities such as creek cleanups and
encouraged many articles in local newspa-
pers about conditions in the creek and the
Trust's intentions. Once we had established
a level of credibility and public awareness,
we received a planning grant from the
Kentucky Heritage Council, the state
historic preservation office, with the help of
their Rural Preservation Coordinator. This
grant set a precedent for considering historic
preservation in the wider context of natural
resource planning.
The Elkhorn Action Plan
The Mayor of the Lexington-Fayette
Urban County Government and the Judge-
Executives of the other three counties in the
watershed, Scott, Franklin, and Woodford,
formed the Elkhorn Intercounty Planning
Consortium to lead the planning effort. The
Consortium was created by an Interlocal
Agreement, which is sanctioned by a
Kentucky law permitting local governments
to coordinate their powers and authority.
The agreement to protect and manage a
shared natural resource was the first effort of
its kind among local governments in
Kentucky.
The elected officials established a
planning steering committee, coordinated by
the planners of each county, to build upon
the partnerships and expertise identified by
the Trust. The steering committee included
many of the key players who would carry
out the watershed action plan. With the help
of a consultant, we met monthly for about a
year. We examined a one mile-wide
corridor centered on the creek and identified
all known agricultural, natural, historic,
tourism, and recreational resources, land use
trends, and the water quality of the corridor.
We held public meetings in communities
along the creek to help identify Important
resources, threats to the creek, conflicts
between uses, and hopes for future improve-
ments.
Reaching Consensus
The public meetings confirmed that
water quality was the problem uppermost in
everyone's mind. The process also educated
-------
Conference Proceedings
251
people about the interrelationship between
water quality and all other uses and values
of the creek. This helped the participants
understand the shared benefits of improving
water quality and recognize their own
personal responsibilities for carrying out the
plan.
It was only with this comprehensive
understanding of the interrelationship of
resources and public values that we pro-
posed consensus goals and a specific plan of
action to meet them. The Action Plan was
based on a common vision, but contains
diverse solutions and approaches so that
each person, community group, and govern-
ment agency can choose those actions best
suited to their values, talents, needs, and
resources. The plan also recommends an
ongoing agenda for the local elected
officials acting together in the Intercounty
Consortium.
Key partners throughout the planning
process have been the Soil Conservation
Service and the local Soil and Water
Conservation Districts. Working as a team,
these agencies provide technical assistance
to land users and offer an effective program
delivery service to farmers. To help address
natural resource issues, the Soil Conserva-
tion Service prepared a Total Resource
Management Plan for the Elkhorn Water-
shed. Integral to this plan are the local
concerns and interests expressed in the
series of public meetings sponsored by the
Trust.
Results
These planning efforts cemented
partnerships and spun-off energies to bring
about results at the local, regional, and
statewide levels. Local and regional
benefits include the following projects.
• Scott County Comprehensive Plan.
Led by a Citizen Advisory Commit-
tee, the new plan set policy for no
further fill or development in the
floodplain of Elkhorn Creek within
the City of Georgetown and the
county. It created a greenspace and
recreation network plan following
the creek.
• Agricultural Water Quality Cost-
Sharing Program. This innovative,
locally-funded cost-sharing program
helps farmers improve and protect
water quality by excluding livestock
from riparian areas. This is a
voluntary program administered by
the Scott County Conservation
District, with 75 percent funding
provided by the Scott County Fiscal
Court for projects such as fencing
and development of alternate water
sources.
Best management practices demon-
stration project. The EPA has
funded mis project to improve water
quality and wildlife habitat by
demonstrating new technology and
methods for restricting livestock
access to sensitive riparian areas.
The project includes monitoring to
document changes in water quality
and habitat. It is also intended to
encourage participation in the
Agricultural Water Quality Cost-
Sharing Program by demonstrating
the feasibility and benefits of the
improvements.
Elkhorn environmental education
center. A hands-on environmental
education program for at-risk high
school students was created. Plan-
ning has begun for an environmental
center and historical museum at a
creekside park near a new elemen-
tary school. The project has been
funded by a state Community Rivers
and Streams Grant in cooperation
with the Scott County School Board,
county and city governments, and
the Scott County Education Founda-
tion, a nonprofit citizen/business
organization.
Creekside woodlands demonstration
project. This project will include a
landscape plan to restore and manage
both degraded and natural riparian
vegetation at a city park. A hand-
book will be developed for private
and public property owners on how
to recognize typical creekside
species and best manage the vegeta-
tion for erosion control and natural
habitat value. Funds will be pro-
vided by an Urban Forestry Grant, in
cooperation with the Scott County
Parks and Recreation Department,
Planning Commission, and Singer
Gardens (a private nursery),
Creek cleanup program. To date,
five major creek bank dumps and
several dumps in sinkholes near the
creek have been cleaned up. These
efforts have been coordinated by
county Solid Waste Management
-------
252
Watershed '93
Directors using county road equip-
ment, prisoners, parks departments, a
commercial canoe livery, and many
volunteers. Two of the dumps were
near county boundaries and were
cleaned up through cooperation
between local governments.
Public creek access parks. The
Elkhom Action Plan proposed a
network of parks to better provide
for and manage public access to the
creek and reduce trespassing on
private land. Four public access
points have been secured and
developed through donations, local
funds, and Land and Water Conser-
vation grants. Negotiations are
underway for four additional sites.
Sharing Leadership and
Responsibility
The Elkhorn Trust itself has not been
the instigator of many of these activities and
rarely takes credit for them. Part of our
success lies in relinquishing control of the
Action Plan and its results. The planning
process sparked ideas, identified resources,
and moved minds in the same directions;
creative individuals have done the rest, by
finding ways to focus their agencies and
organizations on the part of the problem
they cared about the most. This approach
has widened the sense of "ownership" of
Elkhorn Creek, which is a crucial step in
building a lasting stewardship effort that has
strength in diversity of involvement.
Sharing leadership for improvements
in the watershed has helped in many ways.
For example, one of the Trust's major
challenges has been in resolving property
owner and recreational conflicts. Property
owners along the prime canoeing route are
suspicious of the Trust because of commer-
cial recreational interests represented in our
membership, despite scrupulous efforts by
the latter to avoid conflict of interest.
However, the Soil Conservation Service
staff for the region and county has a good
relationship with these property owners, and
continues to work with them to solve water
quality problems, which is our key goal.
New Directions at the State
Level
The successful example of the
Elkhorn Trust and other groups like it in
Kentucky has led to significant state-level
initiatives for water resource stewardship.
In 1992 the Kentucky General Assembly
funded the Community Rivers and Streams
Program, a seed grant program to encourage
similar citizen efforts throughout the state.
These funds are awarded to local govern-
ments, and the selection criteria favor
Comprehensive resource planning through
multigovemment partnerships with citizen
groups. It is clearly a popular program.
Fifty-four local governments, 14 citizen
water resource groups, and 30 additional
government and citizen organizations
formed partnerships to participate in the first
year grant applications, competing for only
10 grant awards of $5,000 each. The
program has leveraged over $163,500 in
local matching funds and in-kind assistance.
As an exciting next step, we have
recently formed the Kentucky Waterways
Alliance, a statewide coalition of citizen
stewardship groups for rivers, streams,
lakes, and underground waterways. The
Alliance will help build and strengthen local
citizen groups like the Trust by providing
financial and technical resources, networks,
advocacy, and education. Through these
state-wide initiatives, we hope that the
model of total resource watershed planning,
consensus-building, and partnerships
between citizens and governments will
sweep Kentucky and continue to transform
the way we care for our water resources.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Partnerships for Regional
Watershed Planning:
The ORSANCO Experience
Ed Logsdon, Commissioner
Kentucky Department of Agriculture, Frankfort, KY
For approximately 2 years, water quality
program managers and technical experts
from various state and federal agencies
and the Cooperative Extension Service have
been meeting on a regular basis to discuss
water quality issues, consider new technol-
ogy, and explore opportunities for greater
cooperation and coordination of their
respective programs and activities <
The timing of this initiative coincided
with passage of the 1990 Farm Bill and
subsequent recognition on the part of the
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
agencies of the need to do more about
agricultural nonpoint source pollution.
USDA leaders at the state level made
overtures to state agencies with both
regulatory authority and technical and
financial support capabilities. :
Membership on the Kentucky Water
Interagency Coordinating Committee
(KWICC) originally consisted of representa-
tives from the Divisions of Water and
Conservation in the Natural Resources and
Environmental Protection Cabinet; the
Kentucky and U.S. Geological Survey; Soil
Conservation Service and Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service; the
Kentucky Department of Agriculture; the
University of Kentucky; Kentucky State
University, an 1890 land grant institution;
and the Cooperative Extension Service.
Later, a representative from the Kentucky
Farm Bureau Federation was added.
Among the many projects on which
the representatives of these agencies and the
Farm Bureau have worked together or
consulted each other on over the past 2 years
are refining the watershed planning process;
designing a geographical information
system; compiling an agricultural best
management practices (BMP) manual, as
well as a state pesticide management plan;
developing an agricultural chemical collec-
tion and container recycling program; and
evaluating constructed wetlands as a
component of animal waste-management
systems.
These projects are in various stages of
completion and the real impact on them by
KWICC has varied. However, the fact that
they were discussed by such a group during
sensitive stages of development reveals a
new openness and a willingness on the part
of these agencies to work together for the
betterment of agriculture and the environ-
ment. Still, those who were responsible for
bringing this diverse group together
recognized a major void in the structure and
composition of the committee, and that was
a noticeable absence of those individuals
who actually make policy at the state level.
Although the members of KWICC represent
agencies and other entities that are deeply
concerned and involved in water quality
issues and programs, they are not personally
in a position to push for legislation, to make
budget recommendations, and to lobby
federal legislators and agency administra-
tors.
During the interim period since the
formation of KWICC, Kentucky voters
elected a new Governor and a new Commis-
sioner of Agriculture. And, the membership
of the Kentucky Farm Bureau also elected a
new board. These were enlightened and
forward-looking individuals who under-
stood the need to get out front on many of
253
-------
254
Watershed '93
the important environmental issues—to
assume a leadership role rather than wait for
the federal government to dictate an agenda.
At the urging of Farm Bureau Presi-
dent Bill Sprague, Commissioner of
Agriculture Ed Logsdon, and other influen-
tial agricultural leaders, Governor Brereton
Jones, on February 5, 1993, issued an
Executive Order creating the Kentucky
Agricultural Water Quality Policy Advisory
Committee. The membership of this
committee currently consists of the Gover-
nor, who serves as Chairman; the Commis-
sioner of Agriculture, Vice Chairman; the
Dean of the University of Kentucky College
of Agriculture; the Deputy Secretary of the
National Resources and Environmental
Protection Cabinet; and the First Vice
President of the Kentucky Farm Bureau.
The principal charge of this commit-
tee is to develop a water quality model of
excellence for the Commonwealth of
Kentucky, an embodiment of goals, policies,
and directives that encourage and assist
landowners; private business concerns; and
local, state, and federal entities to assess
water quality problems, identify best
management practices, and marshal the
resources to implement those practices.
Other functions of the Agricultural Water
Quality Policy Advisory Committee will be
to assure interagency cooperation, determine
priorities, and secure whatever additional
authorities and funding may be needed to
achieve the committee's goals and objec-
tives.
The appropriate federal agencies with
offices in the state will also be invited to the
table and given an opportunity to participate
in the deliberations of the committee.
With this last component of the
federal/state partnership in place, Kentucky
is poised to make great strides in the
environmentally crucial areas of erosion
control, waste management, and water
quality improvement.
-------
WATERSHED '93
Watershed Protection—
A Private/Public Issue
Tom Yohe, Ph.D., Senior Manager, Water Quality
Preston Luitweiler, P.E., Manager, Research and Environmental Affairs
Philadelphia Suburban Water Company, Bryn Mawr, PA
Philadelphia Suburban Water Company
(PSWC) is a private, investor-owned
water utility which serves a population
of over 800,000 people in the suburbs north
and west of Philadelphia, PA. The
company's service territory covers 379
square miles in parts of Bucks, Montgom-
ery, Chester, and Delaware Counties.
Average send-out is about 89.5
million gallons per day, which is obtained
from a variety of sources. Four surface
water treatment plants supply about 75
percent of average demand, while the
balance is derived from 50 wells and a
ground water-fed reservoir. Surface water is
withdrawn from the SchuylkQl River and
four smaller streams: Pickering Creek,
Perkiomen Creek, Cram Creek, and
Neshaminy Creek.
PSWC's first surface water treatment
plants were built over a century ago on
pristine rural streams. Supply was expanded
by the construction of reservoirs in areas
which were rural in character at the time.
The company now owns and operates six
impoundments, including the Green Lane
and Springton reservoirs.
In 1895, the Pickering Creek treatment
plant was built at the confluence of the
Pickering Creek with the Schuylkill River.
At the time, the Schuylkill was fouled with
spoil from coal mines and with inadequately
treated wastewater discharges. It was
considered unsuitable as a raw water source.
Construction and upgrading of sewer plants,
elimination of discharges from heavy
industry, and an extensive dredging project
undertaken by the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania and the Army Corps of Engi-
neers between 1952 and 1964 succeeded in
bringing about dramatic improvements in
the Schuylkill. Today, it is a major source
of supply for the Pickering plant. The
restoration of the Schuylkill River is a
testament to what can be accomplished by
concerted effort on the part of the public
sector.
As a private-sector company, PSWC
has contributed to the protection and
enhancement of water quality through its
own programs. For decades, PSWC has
maintained an active watershed patrol
program. The function of this program has
evolved over the years with the development
of the watersheds, and the simultaneous
implementation of pollution control and
abatement measures under federal and state
law. Originally designed to prevent obvious
contamination of the watersheds by direct
discharges from point sources and poor
farming practices, the program has evolved
in scope and sophistication.
Replacement of farms with suburban
developments, enforcement of erosion and
sedimentation control measures by county
soil conservation districts, and effective
public education have produced marked im-
provements in the watersheds. At the same
time, development has increased the volume
of road runoff and sewage discharges that
contribute to normal streamflows, particu-
larly on the Neshaminy watershed.
In the region which PSWC serves, it
has not been reasonable or defensible to rely
heavily on ownership of watershed lands to
secure a good quality raw water supply.
Furthermore, the company lacks specific
enforcement powers to address actual or
potential contamination. Cooperation with
local government and with state and federal
agencies is essential in any effort to protect
the quality of raw water supplies for human
255
-------
256
Watershed '93
needs and to preserve the aquatic environ-
ment.
The routine work of PSWC's
Environmental Specialists now involves
dealing with everything from an occa-
sional oil spill to sagging silt fences, from
reservoir eutrophication and algae blooms
to masses of Asiatic clams. In these
activities, they may work closely with
local code enforcement officers, emer-
gency response teams, county soil conser-
vation districts, state Water Quality
Specialists and occasionally with the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), who can now bring an impressive
array of resources to bear on a 50-gallon
fuel oil spill, a leaking underground
tank, or an unpermitted residential grey-
water discharge pipe.
Occasionally—and fortunately it is
only occasionally—PSWC is faced with a
serious threat to the company's water
resources. The successful resolution of
these problems usually involves a partner-
ship between our private water utility and
regulators, enforcement agencies, or
governmental bodies in the public sector.
Ground-Water Contamination
Ground-water protection within the
PSWC territory continues to be a major
challenge. In the late 1970s, volatile organic
contaminants were detected in several
ground-water sources. Long before the
enactment of regulations under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, PSWC addressed these
problems with the installation of air strip-
pers at four facilities. The Upper Merion
Reservoir (UMR) was the largest and the
first source treated.
The UMR is a former limestone
quarry which was converted in 1969 into a
reservoir and water supply source. A few
years later, a trash hauler purchased nearby
land and commenced some questionable
activities on the property in 1975. Two
years later, the Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources (PaDER) uncov-
ered evidence of illegal disposal of liquid
wastes into an abandoned well on the
property, about 2,000 feet from the UMR.
PSWC subsequently discovered trace
contaminants in the UMR and, in coopera-
tion with PaDER, conducted a thorough
reconnaissance survey of the area. This
search turned up a second potential source
of contamination.
Unfortunately, although underground
disposal of wastes ceased at both sites,
enforcement actions languished and busi-
ness continued as usual at both sites. EPA
assumed jurisdiction over both sites under
the Comprehensive Environmental Re-
sponse, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA, better known as Superfund), but
site investigation and legal maneuvering
continued for more than a decade. EPA
refused to acknowledge the contribution of
PSWC's own response action, or to require
reimbursement of the water company's
treatment costs from the Potentially Respon-
sible Parties (PRPs).
Obviously, cooperation between
PSWC, PaDER, and EPA was not always
smooth. Eventually, in 1989, PSWC filed a
separate legal action against the PRPs under
Section 107 of CERCLA, and obtained a
partial settlement for its response costs. At
the same time, EPA took independent legal
action under section 106 of CERCLA. The
water company, PaDER, and EPA began
working in concert again, and the PRPs
were forced to move expeditiously on
remediation. Today, the former landfill area
has been capped and an extensive ground
water clean-up operation is underway.
Progress is being made on cleanup at the
second site. These cases stand as an
example of what can be accompli shed when
Superfund finally moves from the morass of
investigation and litigation into purposeful
cleanup.
Cram Creek—Impacts of
Major Earth Disturbances
The Crum Creek watershed encom-
passes 28.5 square miles upstream of
PSWC's treatment plant. The smaller Crum
Creek Reservoir was built in 1918. It
impounds water from a 7.5-square-mile
drainage area and also receives releases
from the much larger Springton Reservoir
upstream. The Springton Reservoir was
built in 1931, covers 391 acres, and has a
capacity of approximately 3.5 billion
gallons.
The reservoirs in this system are more
prone to impact from localized problems
because of the small drainage area. One such
localized problem was construction of an
Interstate highway through the stream
valley. During the spring of 1988, construc-
tion of Interstate 476 began in earnest. Both
the local Soil Conservation District and
-------
Conference Proceedings
257
PaDER tried to be vigilant in requiring and
inspecting control measures. An indepen-
dent "Environmental Monitor" was hired to
look over the entire highway project.
Despite these measures, however, an
estimated 15,000 cubic yards of material
were deposited in the Crum Creek Reservoir
between 1988 and 1990, based on sound-
ings. The water company is prepared to
dredge this material out over a number of
years, but has so far been denied compensa-
tion from the state highway department or
its contractors.
Neshaminy Creek—Response
to In-Stream Contamination
In our modern society, which contin-
ues to generate large volumes of problem
wastes, well-meaning regulation can
sometimes have unintended consequences.
To provide for the proper disposal of
hazardous wastes, the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania has permitted four Hazardous
Waste Management Facilities throughout
the state but no disposal sites. One of the
management facilities is located on the
Neshaminy Creek watershed and discharges
treated wastewater to the Hatfield wastewa-
ter plant 28 miles upstream of the intake at
PSWC's Neshaminy Falls water plant. The
plant is the smallest of PSWC's surface
water plants, with an average send-out of
ibout 9 million gallons per day. The raw
vater source is a stream draining a 215-
:quare-mile, heavily developed suburban
vatershed.
PSWC recognizes that the state must
lave proper facilities for handling of
lazardous wastes, but has always been
measy about this particular facility. The
facility has caused special problems with
astes and odors in the past, and PSWC has
devoted a significant portion of its limited
research resources to develop and imple-
ment special analytical techniques to
monitor for unusual contaminants from it.
Over about 20 days, from January 31
through February 20, 1992, a very serious
odor event occurred at the Neshaminy plant.
Plant operators first detected an unusual
"sweet" chemical odor in the water in the
early morning hours of January 31. Within
12 hours, the source of the odor was traced
to the Hatfield wastewater plant. Operators
of this plant and the waste management
facility were notified. An extensive battery
of tests was performed to identify the cause
of the odor, and extraordinary treatment
measures were taken to attempt to remove it.
No contamination was discernible from the
tests of the treated water, but the intensity of
the odor continued to increase. By Sunday,
February 9, customer complaints were
increasing, and a deluge arrived on Monday,
February 10.
Meanwhile, PSWC's Research Lab
was focusing on traces of unidentified
compounds which showed up in its most
sensitive analyses of wastewater samples
from the Hatfield wastewater plant and a
few stream samples. Information was
shared with PaDER laboratories in Harris-
burg. PaDER chemists reported that the
incident bore similarities to a case which
had occurred in western Pennsylvania in
August 1989. In this earlier incident, a
wastewater plant discharge containing small
amounts of industrial waste had caused taste
and odor complaints along the Ohio River as
far south as Cincinnati. The specific
chemical compound responsible had never
been identified.
Some extraordinary analytical
sleuthing by PSWC's Research Laboratory
and by Monell Chemical Senses Center in
Philadelphia, successfully found the
signature of the compound responsible,
divined its chemical identity, and synthe-
sized a minute quantity hi order to confirm
its properties and to determine the quantity
which had been present during the incident
on the Neshaminy Creek.
The waste management facility had
received for treatment about 30,000 gallons
of wastewater characterized as nonhazard-
ous but which contained about 1 milligram/
liter (part per million) of the odor-causing
agent. Over a 10-day period, about 20,000
gallons of water from this batch of waste
was discharged to the Hatfield sewer plant.
The discharge probably contained about 75
grams (less than 3 ounces) of the chemical
compound. This was subsequently diluted
in a flow of about 4 million gallons/day
from the wastewater plant, and then further
diluted in the Neshaminy Creek. The total
amount of the chemical in the raw water
withdrawn at the Neshaminy plant during
this entire incident was probably less than 5
grams. The concentration of the compound
in the treated water leaving the Neshaminy
Plant was less than 10 parts per trillion.
At the height of the incident, the
discharge pipe from the waste management
facility was plugged by the sewer plant
operators, and the discharge valve was
-------
258
Watershed '93
padlocked. PaDER investigated operations
at the waste management facility, and both
PaDER and EPA examined the sewer plant's
Municipal Industrial Pretreatment program.
PSWC recovered damages from the hazard-
ous waste management facility and sought
major operational changes and restrictions
on the waste management facility as a
precondition for continued discharges to the
sewer plant.
Clearly, more still needs to be done in
the area of public/private cooperation in
dealing with watershed issues. There are
often serious lapses in communication
between state water quality investigators and
water suppliers. Significant policy issues
remain to be addressed. For example, there
are a number of hazardous waste manage-
ment facilities throughout the country which
discharge to wastewater plants above water
supply intakes. These facilities rarely have
more than a very superficial knowledge of
the chemical composition of the wastes
which they accept for treatment. If the
Waste Acceptance Documentation were
required to disclose the location of the waste
management facility relative to a water
supply intake, generators, who best under-
stand the nature and composition of thek
waste, would share the responsibility for
ensuring against adverse consequences of
Improper disposal.
Green Lane Reservoir—
Protecting a Resource
PSWC's Green Lane Reservoir was
built in 1956 and impounds 4.4 billion
gallons from a 71-square-mile drainage area
of the Perkiomen Creek. The resulting lake
covers 814 acres, and releases from this lake
augment stream flow while supplying
PSWC's intakes 18 miles downstream.
One of PSWC's current concerns is
the prospect of an invasion of zebra mussels
into the company's reservoirs. Recreational
boating is permitted at the Green Lane
Reservoir and is restricted to electric or
manually powered craft. In 1959, as a
gesture of goodwill to the local community,
PSWC opened its Green Lane Reservoir to
limited boating and fishing. In 1983, as an
alternative to selling excess land around the
reservoir for development, PSWC sold 1,087
acres to Montgomery County (PA) for use as
a public park. PSWC retained the reservoir
and 514 acres of adjacent land, but granted
the county an easement to use the reservoir
for limited recreational purposes. In 1987,
farmland around the reservoir was enrolled
in the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Conservation Reserve Program upon mutual
agreement with existing leaseholders.
Beginning May 1, 1993, boating
restrictions :will allow only boats that are
stored on site to be used in this reservoir.
Racks are currently being constructed for
boat storage. Following a 10-day quarantine
and subsequent inspection, boats will be
allowed on the reservoir. PSWC has
worked closely with Montgomery County to
develop a program that allows limited
boating on the reservoir, but minimizes the
possibility of boaters introducing the zebra
mussel. In order to minimize the effect,
PSWC has shared expenses with the County
to allow construction of boat racks and the
purchase of additional rental boats.
Summary and Conclusions
An analysis of the experiences
reported in this paper indicates that there is
an inverse relationship between the hierar-
chical level of a regulatory agency and the
level of cooperation, understanding, and
productivity towards resolution of water-
shed issues. Further, it becomes clear that
the existing regulations are inadequate to
efficiently resolve conflicting water uses.
The protection of human health and safety
must be recognized as the highest priority
use for water and clearly designated as such
in legislation. The evolutionary trend
towards basin and sub-basin management
will be severely hampered without a
mechanism that recognizes and resolves
conflicting use issues.
-------
WATERSHED '93
The Patuxent Estuary Demonstration
Project: Partnerships Restoring the
Patuxent River
Susan M. Battle, Deputy Director, Office of Strategic Planning and Policy
Robert M. Summers, Ph.D., Administrator, Nonpoint Source Assessment
and Policy Program
Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD
Richard E. Hall, Patuxent Project Coordinator
Maryland Office of Planning, Baltimore, MD
The Patuxent Demonstration Project is
the latest phase of an ongoing partner
ship between federal, state, and local
governments that have been working
together since the early 1970s to restore the
water quality and living resources of
Maryland's Patuxent River and its estuary.
Recognizing the importance of this
effort and the value of Maryland's experi-
ence in the Patuxent watershed to others
facing similar problems, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) granted
Maryland $3.5 million to support this
$5.3 million Demonstration Project. The
Project's primary goal is to expand the
Patuxent restoration effort to include the
application of land management in improv-
ing water quality.
History
The Patuxent River is one of Mary-
land's major tributaries to the Chesapeake
Bay. Located in the most rapidly develop-
ing region of the state, between the Balti-
more and Washington metropolitan areas,
the watershed's streams, rivers and the
Patuxent estuary are subject to most of the
same water quality problems currently
facing developing regions throughout the
world. The symptoms of eutrophication—
algae blooms, decreasing water clarity, low
dissolved oxygen, and declining health of
important fisheries—are particularly evident
in the Patuxent estuary and have been the
focus of an ambitious nutrient pollution
reduction effort since the late 1970s.
The 1970s: Early Concerns and
Interjurisdlctional Controversies
A comprehensive review of the
historical water quality data for the period
1936-1976 (Mihursky and Boynton, 1978)
showed trends of increased nutrient concen-
trations, increased algal growth, decreased
water column transparency, and extended
oxygen depletion in the bottom waters of the
lower Patuxent estuary. These changes in
Patuxent water quality were ultimately
expressed in the declining health of living
resources. A significant loss of submerged
aquatic vegetation was reported, with an
associated loss of food sources and vital
habitat. Harvests of commercially important
species such as striped bass and oysters were
reported to have declined dramatically.
In an effort to find solutions to these
problems, Maryland initiated an extensive
review of the existing water quality data for
the Patuxent, and an intensive monitoring
program to collect additional information to
support development of a water quality
model of the Patuxent estuary. Results of
the modeling analysis indicated that a point
source (PS) phosphorus control policy would
result in the greatest water quality benefits in
the Patuxent. However, the analysis was the
subject of considerable controversy; this
259
-------
260
Watershed '93
controversy even extended to legal action.
The three counties of south-ern Maryland,
where the river plays a larger role in defin-
ing lifestyles and livelihoods, sued EPA and
the state in 1977 over the state's water qual-
ity management plan. The southern counties
challenged the plan pri-marily because it did
not include a strategy for nitrogen removal;
the legal suit delayed expansion of an up-
stream sewage treatment plant.
The Patuxent Charette
In an effort to resolve disagreements
about the nutrient removal strategy for the
Patuxent, the state convened an intensive
arbitration workshop in December 1981.
Referred to as the Charette, the workshop
involved representatives from the local,
state, and federal governments, utility
agencies, and other user groups. The
Charette resulted in agreement on and the
adoption of water quality, fisheries produc-
tivity, aesthetic, and recreational goals for
the Patuxent system.
The Charette successfully reached a
consensus for action that included:
' • Acceptance of the water quality
model results.
• Agreement that a watershed-wide
nutrient control strategy was needed.
• Agreement that both phosphorus and
nitrogen would be reduced.
• Recognition that additional research
and modeling were needed.
It was also agreed that further monitor-
Ing was necessary to track progress. The
Charette marked the beginning of a more co-
operative approach to watershed protection.
management strategy as new
information becomes available.
Following adoption of the Water
Quality Management Plan, the State of
Maryland developed and initiated the
Patuxent Nutrient Control Strategy (OEP,
1983). The Patuxent Strategy identified
specific nitrogen and phosphorus reduction
goals as follows:
• PS phosphorus loads were to be
reduced to 420 pounds per day.
• PS nitrogen loads were to be reduced
to 4,040 pounds per day.
• Nonpoint-source (NFS) nitrogen
loads were to be reduced by 2000
pounds per day from the 1981 levels.
It was expected that phosphorus NPS
loads would be reduced through control of
sediment runoff to be achieved under
agricultural and storm water cost-share
programs. The Strategy also called for the
continuation of a comprehensive monitor-
ing, modeling, and research program to
reduce scientific uncertainty and to confirm
the response of the Patuxent system to
management actions.
The Patuxent River Commission
In 1980, the Patuxent River Commis-
sion was established by state legislation.
The Commission, with representatives from
the seven counties in the watershed and the
four state agencies with water-quality- and
resource-protection-related responsibilities,
was established to provide coordination to
the restoration effort. The Commission's
role in the Demonstration Project is de-
scribed below.
Patuxent Nutrient Reduction Coals The Patuxent Policy Plan
With the 1981 consensus as a founda-
tion for management actions, the 208 Water
Quality Management Plan for the Patuxent
River Basin was developed. The plan
outlined a broad approach for improving
water quality in the estuary by:
• Formally adopting specific goals for
nitrogen and phosphorus control
from point and nonpoint sources.
• Proposing that efforts to protect the
river must go forward based on the
best available information at that
time.
• Calling for an intensive monitoring,
research, and modeling effort to
improve understanding of the river.
• Providing for adjustment of the
Concurrent with the development of
the Patuxent Nutrient Control Strategy, the
Patuxent River Commission developed the
Patuxent River Policy Plan: A Land
Management Strategy (1984). Following an
extensive series of public meetings, the
Policy Plan was adopted by resolution in the
Maryland General Assembly and the seven
county governments in 1984. The Policy
Plan provides guidance to state and local
governments in making land use manage-
ment decisions and controlling water
pollution. This document represented one
of the first attempts to incorporate water
quality objectives in a cooperative state-
and local-government-approved land use
management program. It also served as a
-------
Conference; Proceedings
conceptual basis for Maryland's Chesapeake
Bay Critical Area Management Act of 1984.
Chesapeake Bay Restoration Effort
Maryland's Patuxent restoration effort
has served as an example for the Chesapeake
Bay restoration effort in many other ways as
well. The States of Maryland, Virginia,
Pennsylvania, and the District of Columbia,
as well as EPA, signed the initial Chesa-
peake Bay Agreement in 1983. The scope of
the Bay Agreement was expanded in 1987 to
include, among other things, a commitment
to reduce overall nutrient loading to the
Chesapeake Bay by 40 percent. Each
participating jurisdiction also agreed to
develop a nutrient reduction strategy
designed to achieve the 40 percent goal.
In 1992, following an extensive
technical evaluation of the nutrient reduc-
tion strategies developed for the 1987 Bay
Agreement, a number of additional commit-
ments were added to the 1987 Bay Agree-
ment. Among those were the commitment
to develop and begin implementation of
specific nutrient management plans for ten
major Bay tributaries, including the
Patuxent.
The Patuxent Demonstration
Project
By 1991, substantial progress had
been made in controlling PS; federal, state,
and local investments in upgrades of sewage
treatment plants for removal of nitrogen and
phosphorus had brought attainment of
Patuxent PS nutrient goals. Yet NPS
nutrient pollution, particularly NPS nitrogen
loads, still exceeded target levels.
Project Coals and Objectives
The Patuxent Demonstration Project
has provided an opportunity for the State
of Maryland to bring together all of these
contributing efforts into a single, compre-
hensive restoration strategy. The Project is
designed to enhance state and local
cooperation in refining and implementing
a water quality management strategy for
the Patuxent watershed, based on control-
ling PS and NPS of pollution, that includes
land and resource planning as essential
components.
In pursuit of this goal, the Project has
three primary objectives:
1. To document the linkages between
land management and NPS pollution
control in the Patuxent watershed,
and water quality and living re-
sources conditions in the Patuxent
estuary, in order to provide sound
technical bases for future land-use
and water quality management
decisions.
2. To improve the coordination of
policy-making processes in the
numerous jurisdictions composing
the Patuxent watershed so that
meaningful watershed management
actions may result.
3. To demonstrate the effectiveness of
various innovative techniques for
reducing NPS pollution.
Project Components and Approach
The Project has six major compo-
nents:
1. Establishment of an organizational
structure for the coordination of
planning, technical analysis, and
implementation of control measures.
2. Identification of issues, environmen-
tal goals, and management options
available to achieve those goals.
3. Completion of a comprehensive
data base and linked watershed and
tidal water quality models. These
models will predict nutrient and
sediment loads to the estuary, as
, well as the water quality response
, of the estuary to proposed manage-
ment actions.
4. Provision of $1.5 million of federal
funds for the implementation of
projects to demonstrate new and
innovative NPS pollution control
measures.
5. Development of water quality and
resource management guidance for
state and local governments to
document the results of the Project
and define the management options
and recommended strategy.
6. Based on the guidance document,
development of a formal state and
local government Patuxent Agree-
ment analogous to the interstate
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. This
Agreement will include goals, time
frames, and commitments and will
provide the basis for comprehensive
improvement of water quality and
living resources conditions.
-------
262
Watershed '93
The Project's Organizational
Structure
The Patuxent River Commission's
Role
In 1991, the Patuxent River Commis-
sion was charged with overseeing the
Demonstration Project. The Commission
gives general guidance and oversight,
provides a forum for limited public
participation, and approves recommended
decisions about which demonstration
implementation proposals receive Project
funding.
To date, the Commission's limited
resources and authority have constrained its
ability to provide meaningful direction
either for the overall Patuxent effort or for
the Demonstration Project. Only three of
the Commission's seven county representa-
tives hold positions within their county
government that allow them to speak for, or
make commitments on behalf of, the county
they represent. The other county representa-
tives include, for example, a state senator
and an environmental activist.
Although not stated as an explicit
Project goal, many people involved with the
Patuxent restoration effort hope that giving
the Commission authority to oversee the
Project will increase its effectiveness in
coordinating efforts to protect the River.
The Project's Partners
The Project's local and state partners
include the following:
• The seven county governments in
the watershed: Anne Arundel,
Calvert, Charles, Howard, Mont-
gomery, Prince George's, and St.
Mary's.
• The seven counties' soil conserva-
tion districts.
• The Tri-County Council for South-
ern Maryland, which represents the
three southern Maryland counties.
• The municipalities of Laurel and
Bowie, which are in Prince George's
County.
• The Maryland Office of Planning;
the Maryland Departments of Envi-
ronment, Natural Resources, and
Agriculture; and the Governor's
Office.
As noted above, EPA provided substantial
funding for the Project; however, EPA has
not played an active role in Project activities
to date.
Each of these partners has representa-
tives on the Project's three standing commit-
tees—Technical, Planning, and Implementa-
tion. These committees meet monthly on
average; their roles and activities are dis-
cussed briefly below.
Technical Committee
Most, though not all, of the technical
work for the Project is being done by the
State. The Technical Committee oversees
the relevant monitoring, modeling, and re-
search efforts. It is charged with reviewing
and, when necessary, guiding the state's
technical work to ensure that the results are
acceptable to the local partners. Its activities
include:
• Reviewing and providing input into
the watershed models, and conduct-
ing other technical analyses for the
Project.
• Providing guidance on water quality
monitoring.
• Recommending development of a
regular "State of the Patuxent"
report.
• Collecting and disseminating
information on the effectiveness of
urban and agricultural best manage-
ment practices (BMPs).
Planning Committee
This committee provides a compre-
hensive planning approach to the Project,
designs management scenarios, and devel-
ops appropriate strategies for the counties
and the watershed as a whole. Its activities
include:
• Defining state and local NPS issues
and priorities.
• Cataloging and reviewing NPS
management tools.
• Developing management scenarios
and supporting information.
• Providing guidance to and interact-
ing with the Technical Committee on
modeling issues.
• Developing the Guidance Document,
including its recommendations for
NPS management.
• Developing the Patuxent Agreement.
Implementation Committee
This committee is charged with select-
ing demonstration implementation projects
throughout the watershed to recommend to
-------
Conference Proceedings
2(53
the Patuxent River Commission for Demon-
stration Project funding. It is also respon-
sible for gathering information about exist-
ing and planned NFS control implementation
efforts. Its activities include the following:
• Developing criteria for recommend-
ing implementation projects to
receive support from the Project's
$1.5 million implementation fund.
•• Designing a process for soliciting
and reviewing proposals for imple-
mentation projects.
• Recommending implementation
projects to the Commission for
funding.
• Producing an inventory of BMPs for
use in the watershed model and other
technical analyses.
Results of the Project
Working through these committees,
the Project's results will include:
/. Determination of Baseline
Pollution Lends
Baseline nutrient loading and water
quality conditions, derived from the state's
watershed and water quality models, were
summarized for the Project participants. Nu-
. trient loading reduction goals were com-
pared with current estimates of loading from
the major PS and NFS in order to define
progress toward meeting the goals. In addi-
tion, loading was estimated using current
growth projections to the year 2000 to begin
to identify the relative benefits of different
options for further nutrient control measures.
Watershed model runs indicate that
the expected shift of land use out of the
agricultural and forest categories into urban
uses results hi no net change in NPS
nitrogen and a decrease hi NPS phosphorus.
Assuming no change in current nutrient
control programs, projected year 2000 loads
for phosphorus will meet the loading goal;
however, the nitrogen goal will not be met.
Accelerated implementation of agricultural,
urban retrofit, and urban growth manage-
ment control measures will be needed to
meet the nitrogen goal.
2. Inventory of Existing NPS Control
Measures
An inventory of existing urban and
agricultural BMPs has been compiled and
the information is being used in technical
analyses. However, information on urban
BMPs remains incomplete; counties are
working to gather information still needed.
In addition, information has been compiled
on county and State programs that address
NPS pollution.
3. Articulation of Local and State
Visions for the River
The Planning Committee also articu-
lated and reviewed local and state visions for
the watershed. Local visions were based
somewhat on existing county comprehensive
plans; a few counties had developed envi-
ronmental management plans that also
offered insight into those counties' visions
for the future. Local staff participating in
the Project interpreted these plans and added
their judgments about their jurisdiction's
future directions.
State visions were derived from the
Patuxent Policy Plan (mentioned above) and
from a state growth management law passed
in 1992. They address such issues as where
growth and development will occur, where
agriculture will be preserved, how storm
water runoff will be controlled, where sewer
service might be extended, etc.
4. Definition of Management
Options
Based on the review of existing NPS
control measures, Project participants have
defined three basic NPS management
options (or scenarios):
• Base case (projected land use
changes based on population projec-
tions, with no nutrient control efforts
beyond currently implemented prac-
tices).
• Current BMP implementation
(projected land use change with
continued agricultural and urban
NPS pollution control implementa-
tion at current rates).
• Enhanced BMP implementation
(projected land use with enhanced
implementation of agricultural NPS
controls and urban growth manage-
ment measures, including sensitive
area protection, improved storm
water management practices, and
forest conservation).
Specific land-use changes and the character-
istics and extent of BMP implementation
have been defined for each option.
-------
264
Watershed '93
Upon completion of the preliminary
guidance document (discussed below) and
review of the options by each county,
county-specific options will be developed
and analyzed.
5. Analysis of Management
Options
The management options described
above are being analyzed using a geographic
information system-based NFS accounting
system to estimate both acreage changes in
different land use categories and the relative
change in average annual nutrient loadings
due to implementation of the different man-
agement options. The accounting system-
derived land use acreages and management
practice implementation estimates were also
applied in the watershed model, along with
projected PS flow and loading changes, to
determine the hydrologic and nutrient load-
ing changes expected as a result of the base
case and management options.
Several analyses are under way: (1)
development of more detailed projections of
growth, land use change, and the effects of
enhanced BMP implementation using the
NPS accounting system; (2) watershed
model-based projections of the hydrologic
and nutrient loading response of the water-
shed to the enhanced NPS and growth man-
agement measures; (3) development of a
detailed watershed model to provide better
spatial resolution for the hydrologic and nu-
trient loading assessments needed to evalu-
ate specific county restoration efforts; and
(4) linkage of the watershed model results to
the estuarine water quality model to estimate
the response of the Patuxent estuary to the
different management measures.
6. Nonpoint Source Management
Guidance Documents
NPS control guidance and recommen-
dations will be developed by the Planning
Committee with input from the other two
committees. As mentioned above, county
staff have previously articulated county
visions and potential options. These are
being summarized in a preliminary planning
guidance document, along with results of
the technical analyses described above. The
preliminary guidance document will provide
the basis for each county to hold an intra-
county workshop to transform the prelimi-
nary guidance into specific options relevant
to the county. Each county's representative
to the Planning Committee will then report
to the Committee the results of the work-
shop. These results will be used to develop
watershed-wide and county-specific
recommendations for further action with the
intention of meeting the NPS portion of the
Patuxent's nutrient reduction goal.
Information about the relative effects
of land-use options, and other NPS control
options, on NPS pollution loads will be
compiled into the final NPS management
guidance document to be produced by the
Project participants. This document will
also include recommendations concerning
which measures state and county govern-
ments should adopt.
7. Patuxent Agreement
The options and recommendations in
the guidance document will be used as the
basis for a Patuxent Agreement. This
agreement will be a formal commitment to
take specific steps to reduce NPS pollution.
One approach may be to assign a nutrient
reduction goal to each county, based on the
reduction goal assigned to the Patuxent by
the Chesapeake Bay tributary strategy.
Project plans call for elected executive
officials from the seven participating
counties and the state to sign this agreement.
As with all of the other activities in this
Project, the text of the Agreement will be
developed by the Project's partners, working
through the committees.
8. Implementation Projects
One demonstration implementation
project has already been funded; it involves
a comprehensive approach to NPS manage-
ment, including public education and
structural retrofits. Approximately 10 other
projects are under consideration. Other
implementation efforts will follow, and be
guided by, the guidance and the Patuxent
Agreement.
Lessons Learned
The Project has provided a unique
opportunity for state and local staff and
resources to work together to develop a
strategy for reducing NPS pollution. Given
this unique situation, a variety of lessons
have been learned to date.
1. Local governments are accustomed
to the state's providing direction in
-------
Conference Proceedings
Z
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Building Local Partnerships
Loring BuIIard, Executive Director
Watershed Committee of the Ozarks, Springfield, MO
Springfield, Missouri's third largest
city, lies in the Ozarks physiographic
province, an area of uplifted plateaus
covering about 40,000 square miles in
southern Missouri, northern Arkansas, and
northeastern Oklahoma. It is a region of
rolling to rugged hills; clean, clear streams
and lakes; oak-hickory-pine forests; and
extensive dairy, beef, and poultry farming.
Much of the area is characterized by karst
topography, a landscape formed by the
action of abundant rainfall on soluble
limestone and dolomite bedrock. The
resultant caves, springs, sinkholes, and
losing streams typical of karst terrain
certainly add to the beauty and interest of
the Ozarks.
Inhabitants of the Ozark region are
also interesting and diverse. The traditional
"hillbilly" stereotype reflects an early
predominance of immigrants from the hill
country of Kentucky and Tennessee. These
fiercely independent folks settled the Ozark
hills passed over by those hi search of more
productive farmland. The conservative
values of the hillbilly are now well mingled
with those of folks representing a variety of
backgrounds and lifestyles. A mild climate,
diversified economic base, modest cost of
living, and abundant recreational opportuni-
ties have combined to attract a steady influx
of settlers to the area. Greene County,
which contains the City of Springfield,
sustained a 12 percent growth rate in the
1980-1990 census period (185,000 to
208,000 population) compared to a state-
wide growth rate of 4 percent. The county
just to the south of Springfield had the
second highest growth rate of any county in
the state during this census period—just
under 50 percent.
The combination of population growth
and karst terrain intensifies the need to
carefully manage potentially polluting
human activities. A prominent feature of
karst is the rapid movement of water into
and through the subsurface, with little
filtering action in soil or bedrock. Surface
water may sink into ground water at a
sinkhole or losing stream, cross under a
surface drainage divide, and reappear at a
spring in a different surface watershed.
These attributes present difficulties in terms
of watershed management. Water move-
ments do not necessarily respect surface
drainage divides. And we can't selectively
protect surface or ground water in karst,
because they are essentially one and the
same.
Spills of hazardous materials, particu-
larly in areas of sinkholes or losing streams,
may drain into the ground water system with
essentially no attenuation. Catastrophic
sinkhole collapses under wastewater lagoons
can, and have, released millions of gallons
of sewage into the subsurface. Traditionally
designed septic systems often allow un-
treated sewage to leach through thin, rocky
Ozark soils into underground water supplies.
Even in areas served by public sewage
systems, land subsidence associated with
karst processes may cause sewers to buckle
and leak.
Citizens and elected officials in the
Ozarks region have for many years realized
the sensitive nature of their water resources.
Recognition of this vulnerability by regula-
tory agencies has resulted in tougher
standards on well construction and siting
and design of waste treatment facilities in
karst areas. Concerns relevant to protecting
critical water supplies in a karst terrain
directly contributed to the formation of the
Watershed Committee in Springfield.
With the rapid population growth in
the Springfield area, it was inevitable that
large-scale land developments would be
proposed within the municipal drinking
267
-------
268
Watershed '93
water supply watersheds. Several cases
presented before local Planning and Zoning
Commissions in the early 1980s, especially
those involving large numbers of on-site
wastewater systems in proximity to the
drinking water reservoirs, galvanized local
officials to the degradation potential under
existing land-use controls. How could we
be sure that subsurface movement of sewage
in the karst terrain would not pollute the
lake? Polarization over development
policies in the drinking watersheds nearly
drew the local governments and water utility
into a court confrontation. A compromise
solution was the formation of the Watershed
Task Force in 1983, assigned to explore
strategies for watershed management that
could be embraced by all parties involved.
The overriding goal of the Task Force was
to "protect the current high quality of the
municipal sources of drinking water."
The Task Force attempted to pull
together all available information relating to
the specific watersheds and wellheads
serving the municipal drinking water
supply. The city uses diverse sources
including both surface and ground water
(which, as mentioned earlier, are somewhat
artificial distinctions in the Ozarks).
Fulbright Spring, the original source of
water for the city in the 1880s, still supplies
about 20 percent of the annual source water.
Fulbright has a recharge area of 15 square
miles. Also used are two reservoirs (com-
bined watershed of 40 square miles), the
James River (238-square mile watershed
above intake), and 11 deep wells.
Recognizing that these watersheds and
recharge zones extend beyond the city, and
even the county limits, the Task Force
emphasized a multijurisdictional approach
to management. Further, they predicted that
the growth of the city and county would
pose increasing threats to water quality, as
development that had previously concen-
trated downstream of drinking water intakes
progressed upstream into the watersheds.
Finally, the group recommended that an
organization be established to provide
sustained, comprehensive management for
the municipal watersheds. This enabling
language preordained the formation of the
Watershed Management Coordinating
Committee.
At first, some government officials
were adamant that this Committee be
constructed strictly ad hoc. Their reasoning
was that a 2-year life span would be
sufficient to gather information and produce
recommendations for any needed changes to
local regulation or policy. This resistance to
the creation of another permanent and
potentially burdensome layer of bureaucracy
resulted in the adoption of "sunset" provi-
sions on the newly established Watershed
Committee. But at the time of sunset
review, an outpouring of public support not
only extended the Committee's life but also
implanted the concept firmly within the
community.
The Committee consists of six citizen
volunteers, with a paid staff of two—an
Executive Director and an Assistant.
Funding for the operation of the Committee
is provided through a partnership of three
local units of government—the City of
Springfield, Greene County, and City
Utilities of Springfield, which manages the
municipal water supply. Each of these three
entities chooses one citizen to represent
them on the Committee, with the other three
members serving at-large. In 1989, the
Watershed Management Coordinating
Committee changed its name to the less
phonetically challenging "Watershed
Committee of the Ozarks" and incorporated
as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. The
not-for-profit status allows the Committee to
accept tax-deductible contributions from
businesses and individuals, and to obtain a
reduced bulk mailing rate.
The Committee has functioned since
1984 in a manner generally consistent with
the recommendations in the Task Force
Report. The overarching goal of the
organization is to prevent pollution of the
public drinking water sources. In order to
accomplish this, the Committee provides
review of all rezoning and land development
cases within the watershed areas, coordi-
nates watershed management policies and
regulations between state and local units of
government, promotes and pursues data
acquisition projects, and provides water
quality educational programs throughout the
region.
One of the most profound successes of
the Committee has been its ability to bring
representatives of local government together
to discuss watershed issues on a regular,
sustained basis. Before the Watershed
Committee, units of government operated
somewhat independently with respect to
developments in watershed areas. Now, the
Committee's input is an integral component
of the governmental land development
review process. When technical issues arise,
the Committee has been able to pull the
-------
Conference Proceedings
269
necessary resources together from academia,
regulatory agencies, and consulting firms to
offer realistic and scientifically valid advice.
A day-to-day working relationship has been
established with the staffs of the County
Resource Management Department, the City
Planning and Development Department, and
City Utilities Water Supply and Manage-
ment. The Watershed Committee has
become an institution accepted and re-
spected by both government and the
citizenry.
Over the years, the Committee has
administered many studies and projects
designed to gather data and provide manage-
ment options for local governments. One of
its first efforts in this regard was the hiring
of a consultant in 1984 to provide a thor-
ough survey of water quality threats in the
watersheds, and to make recommendations
for modifying policies and regulations to
address those threats. Most of those
recommendations have been put into
practice.
Since 1984, four other major data
acquisition and information management
projects have been administered by the
Committee. All have involved cooperative
relationships with local, state, federal, and
private entities. A 3-year project to develop
a geographic information system for Greene
County was a joint effort with the U.S.
Geological Survey, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the Missouri Depart-
ment of Natural Resources, Southwest
Missouri State University, and the
Committee's three sponsors. Especially
important in this project was a local working
partnership with the University, which
provided students to field-map sinkholes
and digitize information.
The recently begun 319 (section 319,
Clean Water Act) Nonpoint Source Project
in the Fellows/McDaniel Lake watersheds
involves even more cooperators. This
project has two major components. An
agricultural portion involves the USDA Soil
Conservation Service, USDA Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service,
University of Missouri Extension, Greene
County Soil and Water Conservation
District, Greene County Resource Manage-
ment, and the Missouri Department of
Conservation; and an on-site wastewater
component involves Greene County
Resource Management, the Springfield-
Greene County Health Department, and the
Department of Natural Resources. Spring-
field City Utilities, Greene County, and the
Watershed Committee are jointly managing
the project. Nonpoint source projects, by
their nature, require a broad-based effort and
a flexibility of traditional roles among
agencies. All the parties involved in this
project have agreed that this is the key to
successful implementation of nonpoint
strategies. With this understanding, the
partnership has functioned smoothly.
One of the more interesting recent
partnerships in data acquisition is the
Pearson Creek Stormwater Project. The
Watershed Committee, City Utilities, and
Greene County have determined a need for
area-specific storm water quality informa-
tion on which to base effective manage-
ment strategies. Storm water runoff and its
potential effects on adjacent landowners
are issues frequently raised at Planning and
Zoning hearings. It was decided to
undertake a sampling project, but a major
consideration was the ability to obtain
sampling manpower. The Committee
made contact with a citizen's group in the
Pearson basin that had been organized
primarily to oppose a specific land devel-
opment. This group was approached about
providing volunteers to help gather storm
water data. Seeing that local agencies
were sincere in their desire to address these
problems, the group became very inter-
ested in helping out. Volunteers have now
received training and sampling kits and are
awaiting their first "event."
Perhaps one of the most visible
successes of the Committee has been in the
area of community education. The first
educational piece produced by the Commit-
tee was Clean Water for Cave Country, a
slide and video program focusing on the
vulnerability of ground water in karst
terrain. With the assistance of an outreach
coordinator, the Committee has recently
developed a more integrated program using
television public service announcements,
newsletters, fact sheets, school programs,
and citizen workshops.
The Committee annually sponsors the
Watershed Conference, which is designed to
provide a regional focus on water quality
and water resource issues. This summer, the
7th annual conference will again be sup-
ported by many local businesses that have
become clean water partners with the
Committee. This partnership provides high
community visibility for the businesses and
helps the Committee to keep registration
costs low. This year, the Missouri Depart-
ment of Natural Resources is cosponsoring a
-------
270
Watershed '93
teacher's water quality workshop to be held
in conjunction with the Conference.
Three years ago, the Committee began
the watershed Signing Project. Signs along
highways at watershed boundaries now
notify travelers that they are entering the
"Springfield Water Supply Protection Area."
These signs were erected hi cooperation with
the Missouri State Highway Department and
are designed to raise awareness and aid in
emergency response. An outgrowth of this
effort is a cooperative arrangement negoti-
ated through the Greene County Emergency
Management Agency whereby fire, police,
and sheriffs department personnel are made
aware of drinking watershed areas, provided
handy maps, and instructed on procedures
for alerting water supply personnel in the
event of a spill. This spring, an exercise
coordinated by the Local Emergency
Planning Committee will involve a mock
spill within a municipal watershed.
These community-based education
programs have built strong public support
and increased awareness, as evidenced by
surveys and the level of sophistication of
public response at forums such as Planning
and Zoning meetings. Throughout this
awareness-building process, the Commit-
tee has relied on partnerships with many
state and local organizations whose goals
are closely allied, or complementary. For
example, the Committee has cosponsored
stream cleanups and water quality monitor-
ing workshops with
area Stream Teams.
This partnership led to
one area Stream Team
serving as a pilot for
the first statewide
volunteer water quality
monitoring program.
In conjunction with the
Springfield-Greene
County Environmental
Advisory Board and
Ozark Greenways, a
series of activities were
organized for Clean
Water Month, includ-
ing an urban stream
cleanup assisted by the
Governor. The
Committee organized
the first ever City
Stream Festival in
Springfield with the
promotional help of a local radio station.
A partner in this festival was the House-
hold Hazardous Waste Project, which
directed a pilot storm drain stenciling
project with local 4-H groups. And a local
sporting goods store has become a partner
in producing Committee "Water Protection
at Home" fact sheets for distribution
through their large retail outlet. In this
case, the theme of clean water accommo-
dated the store's goal of good fishing, as
well as the Committee's clean drinking
water objectives.
A key to the formation of these
successful partnerships is a willingness to be
receptive to new opportunities and to
explore common ground. The successful
operation of these cooperative ventures also
implies a basic desire to work together for
mutually desirable higher goals. Of course,
all such partnerships must be based on
respect for alternative points of view, and
trust that no hidden agendas are at work.
Another important consideration is that each
of the partners make clear their deskes and
expectations at the outset. In spite of the
heritage of individualism in the Ozarks,
many groups in the Springfield area have
shown an inclination, and even an eager-
ness, to work together on projects of mutual
interest.
An indication of the perceived success
of the Watershed Committee has been the
spawning of similarly organized groups in
the region. One important example is the
Scenic Riverways Watershed Partnership, a
cooperative venture between the Ozark
National Scenic Riverways, a unit of the
National Park System, and the eight
counties surrounding the park. This group,
which focuses on watershed protection and
education, used the Watershed Committee's
by-laws and articles of incorporation as a
model for their structure.
Throughout the existence of the
Watershed Committee, the most critical
partnership has been with the three local
sponsoring governmental entities. Their
financial and psychological stake in the
successful operation of the Committee has
insured their consistent appearance at the
discussion table, and allowed watershed
issues to be addressed up-front, at high
level, and cooperatively. Their continued
support will keep the Committee function-
ing as a valuable community resource for
watershed management and protection.
-------
W AT E K S H E O '93
in Decision Making
Within the San Francisco Bay/Delta
Thomas H. Wakeman III, Project Manager
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, San Francisco, CA
i ecently there has been a major shift in
how some government agencies are
organizing to accomplish their
missions or mandates, particularly around
watershed management activities. These
new organizations are partnerships that
combine multiple agencies and interested
nongovernmental parties into the decision-
making process via an inclusive manage-
ment structure. This new approach to the
business of public policy implementation is
anticipated to continue and to evolve as
resources become more limited.
These organizations are innovative in
their structures, with most developed in an
"ad hoc" manner. Their differing structures
and operating characteristics exhibit varying
degrees of success in supporting decision
making and program implementation. Three
examples from the San Francisco Bay
region are presented and are used to
illustrate how these models of partnership
work. The three are: the Interagency
Ecological Studies Program (DESP), the San
Francisco Estuary Project (SFEP), and the
Long-Term Management Strategy (LTMS).
The IESP, SFEP, and LTMS offer three
different organizational structures with
dissimilar decision making procedures. In
an attempt to distill the best framework to
structure new partnerships, this paper
examines the decision-making processes of
these organizations.
Closure in Decision Making
Using closure as the "target" of the
decision-making process, picture a multilay-
ered framework that partitions the process
into factors affecting the outcome (Figure 1).
Around the central core of closure is a layer
of human qualities that are personified in the
form of leadership, commitment, and drive
of the partnership participants. The next
sphere, moving out from the core, is proce-
dural or operational characteristics that de-
fine the rules for agreement and procedural
conduct among the participants. The outer-
most layer is the organizational structure
that provides the context within which the
procedures are implemented by the members
of the partnership to arrive at their decisions.
Probably the most complex aspect of
this framework is the contribution of human
behavior to decision closure. It is clearly
the most uncertain aspect. Closure can be
ISSUE
/ / /
CLOSURE
Figure 1. Decision-making "target."
271
-------
272
Watershed '93
hampered or blocked by one person regard-
less of how fine the operational characteris-
tics and structure are in a particular partner-
ship. On the other hand, a flawed operating
process and organizational structure can be
overcome by a strong willingness on the
part of the participants to achieve closure.
The human factors are the primary "glue"
for the nucleus of closure.
Because the human factors are
difficult to quantify, this paper will investi-
gate the influence of the second and third
layers on decision closure. Assuming that
human factors can be removed from the
proposed framework by having many of the
same people participating in several
partnerships within the same region, it is
possible to tease out the qualities of the
other two layers that contribute to success-
fully hitting the target. The San Francisco
Bay/Delta offers the opportunity to attempt
this analysis because there are multiple
members, or at least organizations, mat
overlap among the three regional partner-
ships.
Regional Partnerships
The IESP was initiated in July 1970
by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, U.S.
Bureau of Sport Fisheries and Wildlife,
California Department of Water Resources,
and California Department of Fish and
Game. The program was established to
investigate impacts of freshwater diversions
on fish and wildlife resources in the region.
Currently, the IESP includes the original
four agencies as well as four more: the U.S.
Geological Survey and State Water Re-
sources Control Board (both joining in
1979), the San Francisco District of the
Corps of Engineers (joining in 1990), and
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(joining in 1992). The program has a three-
tiered organizational structure that includes
the eight agency directors at one level,
agency coordinators at the next level, and
five technical committees. The program has
been overseen by a full-time Study Manager
since 1990. The agency directors meet at
least once a year to review progress and to
resolve major issues regarding differences in
agency policies. The agency coordinators
meet generally monthly to resolve issues
around funding and study organization. The
technical committees develop specific study
proposals and budgets and exercise technical
supervision over individual studies as
necessary to accomplish their assigned
responsibilities and tasks.
The SFEP is another partnership in
the San Francisco Bay/Delta region. The
SFEP Management Conference was
formally convened in April 1988. The
Conference is composed of four hierarchical
committees. The executive level partici-
pants comprise the Sponsoring Agency
Committee and are responsible for overall
policy guidance. Sponsoring Agency
meetings are held approximately twice a
year. The Management Committee is
formed by senior level representatives and is
the forum created to determine project
direction, planning, and budget decisions.
Management Committee meetings varied
from every 2 to 3 months early in the project
to every 2 to 3 weeks near the end. The last
two committees, the Public Advisory and
the Technical Advisory Committees,
provide input up to the Management
Committee. Additionally, it is their tasks,
respectively, to address public outreach and
education and the technical accuracy and
feasibility of products and recommenda-
tions. Meetings were generally scheduled
monthly or as needed. The final product of
all these meetings will be a consensus, or
near consensus, document presenting the
region's plan for the estuary.
The last organization to be examined
is the LTMS for dredged material disposed.
The LTMS began in January 1990 and is
scheduled to be implemented in August
1994. The LTMS partnership was formed to
provide a mechanism to build consensus and
to support federal cost participation requests
from local navigation interests. It involves
over 35 different participants including gov-
ernment agencies, environmental organiza-
tions, development interests, ports, and fish-
erman groups. A management structure was
discussed and approved by this group in
July 1990. Under this management struc-
ture, the LTMS is led by an Executive Com-
mittee composed of agency heads within the
region. This group is regularly advised by
the Policy Review Committee (PRC)—com-
posed of all the LTMS participants—on all
pertinent issues dealing with local dredging
and disposal activities. The Executive Com-
mittee and the PRC hold joint meetings ap-
proximately quarterly. Work is directed by
the Management Committee. The Manage-
ment Committee oversees the LTMS stud-
ies, budget, and schedule. Their meetings
are approximately every other month. The
day-to-day work is accomplished by three
-------
Conference Proceedings
273
subordinate Work Groups on ocean, in-bay,
and nonaquatic disposal alternatives that
have had a regular monthly meeting sched-
ule. A new work group to address political,
procedural, and institutional aspects of dis-
posal option implementation was added in
1992. The Implementation Work Group is
further subdivided into six task committees
dealing with different aspects of issue.
Decision-Making Processes
Each of these three organizations has
definable traits that have either enhanced or
foiled the success of their decision-making
processes. The key factors that they broadly
share, which seem to have promoted
successful agreements, include commitment,
shared visions of desired outcomes, and
evolving trust among their participants.
These positive commonalities are the glue
that binds the partnerships and their compo-
nent organizations together through difficult
moments. Notice that these three factors are
first-layer attributes from the earlier
described closure framework—human
factors.
The common downside of the deci-
sion-making processes of the three partner-
ship models is that they are tune-consuming
and expensive. Public interest groups are
particularly vulnerable to the time require-
ments because they lack funds to support
their members' attendance of numerous
consensus building meetings. This circum-
stance impacts the public's ability to
participate, either partially or totally, and
ultimately weakens the acceptability of the
final decision. The following analysis
attempts to find other traits and describe
their influence on reaching closure in
partnership decision making.
Strengths
The other features of the San Fran-
cisco models that have allowed difficult is-
sues to be worked include multitiered man-
agement and decision-making structures;
participation by key stakeholders; and inte-
gration of technical, managerial, and policy
factors as critical issues are identified.
Multidimensional Participation
The three San Francisco partnerships
are hierarchical with compartments for all
levels of participation. The visible and ac-
tive support of senior-level individuals, gen-
erally political appointees in agencies, is
crucial to sustaining the partnership. Senior
leadership focuses on the broad issues the
partnership embraces and direction it takes.
The ffiSP, SFEP, and LTMS executive lev-
els provide guidance to their respective pro-
grams on the organization's future actions—
often what is politically acceptable and
achievable. Many political considerations
must be folded into the decision-making
process and evaluated if implementable de-
cisions are to be rendered. Further, this
group has the power to redirect resources if
they see that a change in program direction
is necessary to be responsive to public or
political pressures. In the final analysis, this
level has the "power" to make things hap-
pen—including pressuring for, or directly
making, decisions.
Under the executive level in the three
San Francisco examples is a management
level. This level is where the program's
policies are implemented, including oversee-
ing the distribution of money and staff in
order to meet the goals of the program. This
group is typically career employees or high
level managers. The leadership they offer,
in both the ffiSP and LTMS cases, is limited
to how to implement the decisions previ-
ously obtained. In the SFEP, the Manage-
ment Committee can also be the forum to
suggest new directions—although this
sometimes has led to a conflict with the
Sponsoring Agency Committee.
Technical and public advisory com-
partments also exist within these organiza-
tions. In the IESP and LTMS, the technical
committees are positioned below the man-
agement level—although the LTMS Man-
agement Committee has a Technical Review
Panel horizontally linked to it for outside
technical review. The LTMS also has its
public interest comments presented directly
to the executive level at their Policy Review
Committee meetings. The IESP does not
have a public input compartment; however,
they do conduct an annual public forum to
receive public comment and reaction.
Technical compartment participants
are generally specialists framing issues for
research and study from an engineering or
scientific perspective. This group seems to
balk at attempts to involve them in new
policy or regulation formulation. The
concern most often cited by members is that
they would lose their "objective" orienta-
tion. The public or interest group compart-
-------
274
Watershed '93
ments, on the other hand, are very sensitive
to new policy or regulation development.
Their participants are either part of the
regulated community or interested layper-
sons with an advocacy coalition or organiza-
tion. It is generally their desire to instill
their "subjective" desires and values into the
negotiation process and effect an outcome
that reflects their organization's position.
The members of these two auxiliary com-
partments are frequently first-line supervi-
sors or their staffs. These major units will
create service committees or single-issue
committees to get a task accomplished or
obtain a decision on a specific point. Staff-
level specialists who are familiar with the
needs, facts, and issues of the particular
circumstance being investigated are typi-
cally involved.
In short, all levels of skills, knowl-
edge, authority, and experience, from both
public and private organizations, can be
accommodated within a multi-tiered
organization. The involvement of multiple
levels of personnel gives the broader
partnership strength and vitality because
everyone is included and shares in the
partnership's accomplishments or failures.
Participation by Key Parties
In 1970, the affected communities hi
the IESP were forced to the table by Water
Rights Decision 1379. Thereafter, other
agency interests outside the state mandate
including the mandating agency were
brought to the table by enlightened self-
interest. Currently, the IESP is limited to
key agency participants; however, non-
agency groups are becoming aggressive in
trying to expand the partnership's member-
ship to directly include their point of view
and participation. The SFEP and LTMS are
both open processes that from the outset
solicited participation by all stakeholders.
Both of these partnerships acknowledged
that if a player is excluded from the table, he
or she may become a litigator or project
opponent later in the process. Thus, every
effort was made in both projects to identify,
contact, and include all affected parties.
Both programs use newsletters and bulletins
as well as public meetings and hearings to
encourage participation.
Integration of Information
Although the three organizational
structures have specific compartments for
participants' perspectives, they also foster
overlap to achieve a shared communication
network. There are several information sets
that participants must deal with and commu-
nicate during the decision-making process.
Information is power; movement of that
information between participants not only
empowers participants but also enables
integration of concerns and identification of
sound alternatives to consider while
formulating project decisions. The SFEP
and LTMS have formed a series of focused
or task committees to work with single
issues. These subcommittees were multi-
dimensional, drawing on several kinds or
dimensions of information. Each of these
dimensions was characterized by unique
perspectives, and their proponents had
specific motivations behind their positions.
The outcome of the negotiations within
these subcommittees were framed by the
participants' access to information and their
intentions. By sitting around the table over
months to years, the participants developed
an understanding of each other's position
and the trade-offs in their issue area.
Integration of the various constituents'
considerations led to stable decisions. These
consensus decisions, when elevated to the
next higher level, were generally adopted
because of their support in the lower,
focused work groups.
These three structural strengths are
complemented by two key operational
characteristics: consensus developed
statements of purpose and systems for
measuring performance. The SFEP and
LTMS have clear purpose statements that
define the conceptual framework for their
efforts. The IESP lacked such a statement
until recently when it was criticized for
having an inadequate conceptual basis for its
activities. Annual work plans provide a
mechanism to measure accomplishments
and document successes—all three partner-
ships use work plans to allocate resources
and track tasks.
The development and acceptance of a
strong purpose or vision statement by
participants provides the foundation for
establishment of goals, objectives, and
product statements. Under the SFEP, its
consensus process utilizes the project's
vision statement to measure the significance
of its members' concerns to the total
project's intentions. At times, these
concerns were dismissed in deference to
continuing the process given their limited
role and impact in attaining the vision. The
-------
Conference Proceedings
275
LTMS uses ratified (signed by the Executive
Committee) statements defining its goals,
objectives, products and work plan budget
and schedule. This level of detail has
allowed the LTMS Management Committee
to control and measure progress as well as
make mid-stream corrections to project
direction to achieve its goals. Further, the
ratified documents have allowed the top
level participants to be conspicuous about
their commitments to the LTMS partnership.
Both IESP and SFEP lack these types of
ratified documents, and thus sometimes
have appeared to be adrift, and participants
have questioned their ability to effectively
implement decisions.
Formal documents provide partici-
pants and outside parties with information
about what the partnership is doing and
when activities are occurring. The organiza-
tional structural and operational characteris-
tics can provide the setting and communica-
tion linkages to transfer information
between compartments. These attributes are
mechanisms that the partnerships can use to
build supportable decisions.
Weaknesses
Each of the San Francisco organiza-
tions has been functioning for several years
or more. During this period, each has
received criticism from partners regarding
decision making activities—chiefly around
operating characteristics. Three operating
procedures that influence partnership
operation are: whether the organization
decides issues by a formal consensus-driven
process; process is open to all interested
parties; and usage of decision criteria and
lines of authority. Weak links in the
decision-making process of each San
Francisco partnership are suggested hi this
list. The IESP process suffers from having
unequal voices. Two agencies provide most
of the budget for the program, thus fre-
quently have the last word with respect to
funds allocation—"somewhat" consensus-
driven. The roles and responsibilities of the
member agencies are not clearly defined in
the group's charter; each agency potentially
retains unilateral control over its funds and
staff. This discretion is a problem when
participants believe that thek decisions
can be subsequently overturned without
recourse.
The LTMS is also a "somewhat"
consensus-driven process; under its charter,
the Executive Committee has the final voice
in any decision if consensus has not been
achieved at the Policy Review Committee or
at a lower level. The LTMS participants are
able to meet directly with the Executive
Committee. However, sometimes their best
arguments do not ensure they get thek way.
The Executive Committee may find that
consensus is not necessary to obtain because
either the lack of resources, tune, or other
constraints override the significance of the
proponent's concern. This mixed process
frustrates some participants.
Lack of clear decision-making
authorities of the component committees
and definition of the decision criteria has
been the failing of the SFEP. Members of
various committees (Management, Techni-
cal, and Public) were not informed as to
their decision-making authority and abilities
with regard to the oversight committee
(Sponsoring Agency). Problems arose when
decisions achieved by consensus were
debated at the executive level and changed.
This upset of participants forced, in one
case, a "damage control" joint meeting to
keep participants from leaving the table.
Secondly, decision criteria in a totally
consensus-driven circumstance were
generally lacking for the first 3 years of the
project and continue to be nebulous for
some issues at its closing. The absence of
criteria led to stalling on decisions for
months, and sometimes years, while the
issues were discussed again and again or
ignored.
Lessons Learned
Reflecting on the descriptions of what
has worked for the three partnerships in the
San Francisco region, what lessons can be
extracted and transferred to future partner-
ship formations? The success of decision-
making efforts seems to be influenced by
some simple ideas. Participant willingness
to reach closure is the primary ingredient for
a prosperous partnership. Nevertheless,
operating characteristics and organizational
structure can aid decision making in these
large partnerships when properly imple-
mented.
Operational characteristics that
produce closure include:
• Establish clear lines of decision-
making authority with defined roles
and responsibilities for the
organization's components.
-------
276
Watershed '93
Technical
"Objective"
Primary Information Flow
Secondary Information Flow
Executives
"Power"
i
r
Managers
"Implementors"
;
. „ Public
* "Subjective"
/\
Figure 2. Proposed organizational structure.
Prepare, adopt, and ratify formal
documents that specify die
partnership's vision, goals, objec-
tives, and products.
Agree to a system of performance
measures that enable assessment of
accountability and timeliness on a
regular basis.
Provide direct support for public
interest representation at the table to
improve participation and the
possibility of an acceptable process
outcome.
An organizational
structure is proposed that
has the property of being
simple while enhancing
communication and
information exchange. A
four-box framework, as
shown in Figure 2, places
the executive members in
a position to directly
receive input from the
technical and public
sectors of the organiza-
tion.
This improves the
likelihood that the
partnership is seen as open
and responsive to various
points of view and
concerns. The executive
members have the
"power" to act on "objec-
tive" and "subjective" sources of informa-
tion as presented in joint meetings. Further,
this reduces potential isolation of partici-
pants that may otherwise leave the table
because of their disagreement with the
partnership's decisions. The managers or
"implementors" of the partnership's
decisions are positioned a tier below the
other organizational units. They are
responsible for acting on the first tier's
decisions and organizing any "issue"
committees or other service groups for the
broader organization.
-------
WATERSHED '93
The Conceptual Foundations of
Multiobjective River Basin Planning
and Their Contemporary Relevance
David C. Major, Program Director, Global Environmental Change
The Social Science Research Council, New York, NY
The conceptual foundations of
multiobjective (including environmen
tal objectives) river basin planning
have developed over a period of more than
30 years, embracing a range of remarkable
theoretical developments in economics,
political science, engineering, and systems
analysis. These foundations have been
embodied to a greater or lesser extent in a
series of federal water planning guidelines
and have been the basis of many applica-
tions. This paper provides a succinct
statement of the conceptual foundations,
describes their reflection in planning
guidelines, notes examples of applications,
and outlines the relevance of multiobjective
planning to river basin (watershed) planning
today.
Multiobjective Planning:
Conceptual Foundations
Multiobjective analysis is a generali-
zation of traditional benefit-cost analysis.
The perceived need for this more general
analysis in water resources planning 30
years ago arose from the observation that,
while the objectives of water planning in
the United States have historically been
diverse, the traditional formal analytic
criterion—benefit-cost analysis—restricted
analysis to only one of many applicable
objectives (Major, 1977). Detailed
presentations of multiobjective theory, and
perspectives on it, can be found in Maass
et al. (1962); Maass (1966, 1970); Marglin
(1967); United Nations Industrial Develop-
ment Organization (1972), and Major
(1977). References to applications are
given below.
Multiobjective theory is shown
graphically in Figure 1. (This section
follows Major and Schwarz, 1990, pp. 33-
35.) This figure shows a multiobjective
problem with two objectives: the traditional
objective of increasing national income and
the objective of increasing income to a
particular region. (The rules for counting
national and regional income differ; see the
references given in the previous paragraph.)
Benefits counted toward each objective are
Net discounted national
income benefits
Slope =
net benefit combinations
Net discounted
regional income
benefits to a
Net benefit
transformation
curve
Source: Adapted from Major and Lenton, 1979, p. 31.
Figure 1. Multiobjective theory.
277
-------
278
Watershed '93
netted and discounted; that is, gross costs
are subtracted from gross benefits in each
time period of the analysis and the resulting
net benefits are reduced to present value.
The effects of various management and
development options on the objectives are
estimated and displayed in the net benefit
space formed by the coordinates. These
effects can be negative or positive for each
objective. The group of attainable net
benefit combinations is called the feasible
set, and the boundary of this set is called the
net benefit transformation curve.
The points of interest to decision
makers are the points on the boundary of the
feasible set where it slopes from northwest
to southeast. From any point on this part of
the net benefit transformation curve no
move can be made that is unambiguously
good; a gain in net benefits toward one
objective implies a loss of net benefits
toward the other objective. Here prefer-
ences must come into play. These are
represented by social welfare curves (Wl,
W2, W3 in Figure 1). Each social welfare
curve is a locus of points in net benefit space
of equal social utility; a curve farther from
the origin represents a higher level of social
utility than a curve closer in. The formal
purpose of multiobjective planning is to
locate that point on the net benefit transfor-
mation curve that is tangent to the highest
attainable social welfare curve. In Figure 1,
point A shows the combination of net
benefits toward the two objectives that is
attained by implementing die optimal
project or program.
The negative of the slope of the
tangent line at A gives the weight that
society places on an additional dollar of net
regional income benefit to the specified
region in terms of an additional dollar of net
income to the nation. A slope of -0.5 means
that the value placed by society on an
additional dollar of regional income is 0.5.
With this weight on regional benefits,
society would be willing to give up at the
margin $1 of national income to obtain $2
of regional income. (If we take the weight
on national income to be one by convention,
(1)$1 = (0.5)$2.0.)
The traditional point of best design is
shown by B, the highest attainable level of
net discounted national income benefits.
Although the results shown in the figure
depend on the shapes of the net benefit
transformation curve and the social welfare
curves, it can be seen that in general A and
B will not coincide. This is the reason for
using multiobjective rather than traditional
benefit-cost analysis in water planning.
Multiobjective theory captures the funda-
mental elements of all social decision
making: there is an assessment of both
possibilities and preferences, and an
integration of the two. Details about the
assumptions and qualifications of this
analysis are in the references given above.
It can be noted here that in practice planners
do not have or need all of the information in
Figure 1; in applications, the planner strives
to develop the information that is necessary
to the problem at hand. For example,
preferences can be approached by discussion
of alternative feasible points, rather than by
direct attempts at estimating preference
curves. The representation in Figure 1 can
be generalized to many dimensions. Be-
yond three dimensions, the presentation
must be in numerical terms. Among the
most important objectives in multiobjective
planning are environmental objectives (for
an example in practice, see Major and
Schwarz, 1990, chapter 4). While, to be
sure, some environmental considerations can
be approximated through national income
concepts, environmental objectives partake
strongly of the "merit want" concept, in
which society's preferences for objectives
other than the national income objective are
explicitly considered.
Applications and Guidelines
Multiobjectives have been applied in
many studies beginning in the 1960s.
Among the earliest large-scale applications
were the Massachusetts Institute of Technol-
ogy-Argentina study (Major and Lenton,
1979) and the North Atlantic Regional
Study (Major and Schwarz, 1990), both
completed in the early 1970s. Applications
in substantial numbers have continued to the
present. One recent collection of articles on
multiobjectives in water resources planning
includes 18 papers (Hipel, 1992). In the
area of water resources regulations,
multiobjective theory formed the basis for
the 1973 Principles and Standards of the
U.S. Water Resources Council (1973). The
preliminary proposals (U.S. Water Re-
sources Council, 1969,1970 a, b, c, d, 1971)
leading up to these regulations are also of
interest. An insightful assessment of the
multiobjective aspects of the Principles and
Standards and later criteria is given in
Stakhiv (1986).
-------
Proceedings
279
Relevance to River Basin
(Watershed) Planning Today
Multiobjective planning remains of
central importance to river basin and
watershed planning today (using the term
watershed to mean a constituent part of a
river basin). Its strengths remain those that
were built into the original conceptual
structure: the explicit integration of all
relevant social objectives into the planning
process; explicit optimizing; the inclusion of
the traditional approaches of benefit-cost
analysis, pricing, and standard-setting as
methods, rather than as goals in themselves;
the integration of preferences from the
beginning of the planning process; and the
integration in water resources planning of
the range of applicable social, engineering,
and natural sciences. The importance of
stressing these strengths is greater than ever.
To a significant extent today multiobjective
planning as an overall conceptual structure
has been replaced by standard-setting. What
is simply a method has become nearly the
whole of planning for some agencies and
purposes, whereas the whole of planning
should be captured in the powerful concep-
tual structure of multiobjective planning.
Especially as new initiatives for
watersheds are contemplated, the choice of
conceptual basis is an essential one. Water-
sheds present decision problems that are a
complex mixture of physical, engineering,
environmental, economic, and social
considerations; simple and poorly grounded
methods will not suffice. The U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) is not
often thought of as a multiobjective agency,
but in fact its work is inextricably bound up
with objectives other than environmental
ones. A recent emissions trading case is an
example where regional considerations are
crucial (New York Times, March 14, 1993,
p. 35); instances where economic objectives
matter are commonplace.
The use of multiobjective planning
will have significant implications both for
EPA's ability to fulfill its watershed
planning mission effectively and for
staffing. In terms of professionalism
(although not of course, in terms of detailed
methods or the precise mix of objectives
used by the staff), EPA's staff will have to
be transformed into the equal of the staffs of
the U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, or the U.S. Geological Survey in
the heydays of those agencies. (A substan-
tial improvement in management and
staffing is apparently required almost
regardless of methods: see the report on the
new Director's views in the Washington
Post, March 11, 1993, p. A18.) One useful
way to incorporate multiobjective methods
into EPA's procedures would be to under-
take several watershed planning and
assessment case studies using the concep-
tual basis and methods of multiobjective
planning that are so richly available, with
suitable adjustments for EPA's mission.
This would be an important start in keeping
EPA from continuing to be, conceptually,
an agency that is located firmly in the
1930s in terms of its single purpose
planning with inflexible planning methods.
References
Hipel, K.W., ed. 1992 Multiple objective
decision making in water resources.
AWRA Monograph Series No. 18
(reprinted from Water Resources
Bulletin 28:1, January/February 1992).
American Water Resources Associa-
tion, Bethesda, MD.
Maass, A. 1966. Benefit-cost analysis: its
relevance to public expenditure
decisions. Quarterly Journal of
Economics 80:208-226.
. 1970. Public investment planning
in the United States: Analysis and
critique. Public Policy 18(2) :211-243.
Maass, A., M. M. Hufschmidt, R. Dorfman,
H.A. Thomas, Jr., S.A. Marglin, and
G.M. Fair. 1962. Design of water-
resource systems. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Major, D.C. 1977. Multiobjective Water
Resource Planning. Water Resources
Monograph 4. American Geophysical
Union, Washington, DC.
— . Comments: Challenges in inte-
grated urban water management. In
Water resources administration in the
United States: Policy, practice, and
emerging issues, ed. M. Reuss.
Michigan State University Press, East
Lansing, MI. Forthcoming.
Major, D.C., and R.L. Lenton. 1979.
Applied water resource systems
planning. Environmental Sciences
Series, Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Major, D.C., and H.E. Schwarz. 1990.
Large-scale regional water resources
planning: The North Atlantic regional
study. Water Science and Technology
-------
280
Watershed '93
Library, Vol. 7, Dordrecht, Kluwer
Academic Publishers, The Nether-
lands.
Marglin, S.A. 1967. Public investment
criteria. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
Stakhiv, E.Z. 1986. Achieving social and
environmental objectives in water
resources planning: Theory and
practice. In Social and environmental
objectives in water resources planning
and management: Proceedings of an
Engineering Foundation conference,
. ed. W. Viessman, Jr., and K.E.
Schilling. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, NY.
Suit attacks swap plan on pollution. 1993,
March 14. New York Times, p. 35.
United Nations Industrial Development
Organization. 1972. Guidelines for
project evaluation. United Nations,
New York, NY.
United States Water Resources Council.
1969. Report to the Water Resources
Council by the Special Task Force:
Procedures for evaluation of water
and related land resource projects.
United States Water Resources
Council, Washington, DC.
. 1970a. Report to the Water Re-
sources Council by the Special Task
Force: Principles for planning water
and land resources. United States
Water Resources Council, Washing-
ton, DC.
—. 1970b. Report to the Water
Resources Council by the Special Task
Force: Standards for planning water
and land resources. United States
Water Resources Council, Washing-
ton, DC.
—. 1970c. Report to the Water Re-
sources Council by the Special Task
Force: Findings and recommenda-
tions. United States Water Resources
Council, Washington, DC.
—. 1970d. A summary analysis of
nineteen tests of proposed evaluation
procedures on selected water and land
resource projects. United States
Water Resources Council, Washing-
ton, DC.
—. 1971. Proposed principles and
standards for planning water and
related land resources. Federal
Register, December 21, 1971,
36(245):24144-24194.
—. 1973. Water and related land
resources: establishment of principles
and standards for planning. Federal
Register, 1973, 38(174):24778-24869.
EPA in sad shape, new boss testifies. 1993,
March 11. Washington Post, p. A18.
-------
WATERSHED1 93
Geographic Approaches to
Environmental Management:
Bioregionalism Applied
Jonathan Z. Cannon, Assistant Administrator for Administration
and Resources Management
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
"The earth does not give Itself to us in a global sameness, it gives
itself to us in arctic and tropical regions, in seashore and in desert,
in prairie lands and woodlands, in mountains and valleys. Out of
each unique shaping of life takes place a community, an integral
community of all the geological as well as the biological and the
human components." —T. Berry, The Dream of the Earth
Bioregionalism has been described
variously as a "moral philosophy," an
action-oriented cultural geography,
and an outgrowth of the Green movement
(Parsons, 1985; Berry, 1988). E. O.
Wilson dates its origins to John Muir
(Wilson, 1992). Its present-day apologists
include distinguished poets, biologists,
theologians, and geographers. Yet it
remains difficult to pin down exactly.
Bioregionalism is a "mode of conscious-
ness that is groping toward a more precise
articulation of its own ideas, its institu-
tional forms, and its most effective
programs of action" (Berry, 1988). "The
movement has not coalesced around any
single philosophy of land management"
(Wilson, 1992). Nevertheless, some basic
themes of bioregionalism are apparent and
have important implications for environ-
mental managers pursuing watershed and
other geographic approaches.
First, bioregionalism seeks a reorder-
ing of political, economic, and other human
institutions around a region or place. It
ultimately seeks to redefine community to
include all the physical as well as the
organic constituents of a place (Berry,
1988). Its goal is the full appreciation and
awareness of the biotic community taken in
its broadest sense to include human activi-
ties as among the interdependent biological
and physical processes of the region.
Second, the reordering is to be
guided by a new ethic. Not so new, in
theory at least, this ethic is essentially an
elaboration of Aldo Leopold's land ethic,
according to which humans are to become
functioning members of the biotic commu-
nity rather than conquering invaders. Or,
as Thomas Berry has put it, "the change is
from an exploitative anthropocentrism to a
participative biocentrism" (Berry, 1988).
In bioregionalism, this ethic has a dis-
tinctly local and practical flavor. "Stew-
ardship means, for most of us, find your
place on the planet, dig in, and take
responsibility from there—the tiresome but
tangible work of school boards, county
supervisors, local foresters—local politics"
(Snyder, 1974).
Third, bioregionalism places a strong
emphasis on regional culture and regional
autonomy in decision making. Because the
function of culture, in the bioregionalists'
view, is to mediate between humans and the
ecosystem within which they live, culture is
necessarily regional. Similarly, because
political decision making is dedicated to
striking the right balance within the regional
biotic community, political decentralization
and regional self-determination are essential.
281
-------
282
Watershed '93
The scale of governmental decision making
must be appropriate to the scale of the
community served by those decisions.
How We Got to Where We Are
The idea of looking at natural resource
issues from a regional perspective is not
new. In the early part of this century there
was an effort to conduct comprehensive
water resource planning on a watershed
basis. Historically, however, river basin
planning focused only on specific features
of the watershed (such as water resource
development) rather than on the watershed
as a whole. For example, the Water
Resources Planning Act of 1965, which
provided for a national system of river basin
commissions, was undercut by its failure to
incorporate environmental concerns.
(National Research Council, 1992).'
The federal environmental statutes
that emerged in the 1970s were typically
focused on pollution control and largely
ignored broader ecological concerns.
Although these statutes have resulted in
large reductions in pollution in the last two
decades, ecological concerns—including
habitat destruction and loss of
biodiversity—have intensified during this
same period. At the landscape level, the
effects of these statutes have often appeared
fragmented, piecemeal, or simply inad-
equate to deal in any comprehensive way
with the real problems. The authors of
Water Quality 2000 state:
"[A]fter 20 years of experience with
narrowly targeted authorities, technology-
forcing regulations, and patchwork pro-
grams, we believe the nation is ready to
embrace a more holistic approach." (Water
Environment Federation, 1992).
In an effort to foster holistic programs,
a watershed protection approach has evolved
in the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). This approach encompasses
a broad array of related initiatives including
EPA's Great Waterbodies Programs (the
Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, and the Gulf
of Mexico) and the National Estuary
Programs, as well as a number of smaller
'Section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act Amendments of 1972 represented an effort to
plan and manage water quality issues on a watershed
scale. However, section 208 provided no money for
implementation. The area-wide planning provisions
fell short for a number of institutional reasons. (Fox,
1992; National Research Council, 1992).
watershed planning and implementation
efforts. Efforts of other federal agencies
such as the Soil Conservation Service, Fish
and Wildlife Service, and Forest Service are
also being reoriented around regional
watershed models or other ecosystem-level
models.
EPA's Watershed Approach
EPA's watershed approach provides a
useful illustration of these geographically-
based efforts. In its execution, the water-
shed approach is diverse; however, there are
a number of common elements. First, the
watershed approach is holistic and inte-
grated. It addresses not only water quality
and quantity but also enhancement and
preservation of fisheries and wildlife and the
health of land-based ecological communi-
ties. It also addresses economic issues
because these are part of the dynamic of the
biotic community. Among other things, the
economic well-being of the human commu-
nity is a necessary predicate to effective
environmental programs and sustainable use
of natural resources. The watershed
approach seeks to coordinate efforts across
geographic boundaries and governmental
jurisdictions, as well as across the public
and private sectors.
Second, the watershed approach is
participatory. It brings together all affected
stakeholders—people and organizations
with an interest in the watershed and with
some ability, individually or collectively, to
take action to restore and protect it.
Through stakeholder councils, comprehen-
sive plans are developed from diverse
perspectives and are implemented through
decentralized mechanisms (Lee, 1989).
Third, the tools used in watershed
approaches are eclectic and are tailored to
the particular problems of each watershed.
They include nonregulatory, educational,
and outreach efforts as well as more
traditional regulatory, public works, and
land acquisition programs.
What Does Bioregionalism
Have to Offer?
What do the bioregionalists have to
offer environmental managers in the design
and implementation of watershed or other
geographic approaches? Bioregional
thinking confirms the basic premises of the
-------
Conference Proceedings
283
watershed and other geographic approaches.
It also illuminates new potential for these
approaches. By the same token, real-world
experience with geographic approaches is
beginning to define the institutional forms
through which bioregionalism might be
realized.
Bioregionalism confirms, if any con-
firmation is necessary, the holistic, inte-
grated focus of the watershed and other
geographic approaches as well as their de-
centralized and participatory aspects. But it
also adds something that is often missing
from formulations of these approaches by
environmental managers: the strong envi-
ronmental ethic that is critical if these ap-
proaches are to be successful. While envi-
ronmental managers often discuss the need
for education and outreach, the aim of the
bioregionalists is much more fundamental.
The premise of bioregionalism is a
widespread understanding and acceptance of
not only the complexity and interrelatedners
of natural systems but also their multiple
values to the human community. This
awareness allows the citizens of a watershed
or other natural system to see themselves in
relationship to their environment and,
thereby, bring a new perspective to political
and economic decisions affecting their
region.
The proliferation of watershed
councils and other local and regional
environmental efforts suggests the growing
strength of an environmental ethic rooted in
place. This feeling for the land, the
bioregional impulse, is fundamental to the
success of all geographic approaches. To
foster and inform this impulse, education is
key. Aldo Leopold pointed out:
"[I]f the individual has a warm
personal understanding of the land, he will
perceive of his own accord that it is
something more than a breadbasket. He
will see land as a community of which he is
only a member, albeit now the dominant
one. He will see the beauty, as well as the
utility, of the whole, and know the two
cannot be separated. We love (and make
intelligent use of) what we have learned to
understand." (Leopold, 1947).
The Senegalese conservationist Bala
Dioum was more to the point: "In the end,
we will conserve only what we love, we will
love only what we understand, and we will
understand only what we are taught."
(Wilson, 1992).
With an informed appreciation and
understanding of ecological relationships,
communities can provide integrated re-
sponses to resource issues. This model of
localized decision making offers a way of
overcoming, or at least working through,
some of the traditional-antagonisms that
have plagued environmental policy at a
national level: conservation vs. preserva-
tion; jobs vs. the environment; utilitarian vs.
inherent value of natural resources. By
focusing holistically on a specific ecosys-
tem, the communal judgment can be brought
to bear in a manner that transcends these
divisions. As discussed below, however,
this model has its limits and complementary
decisional processes at the national and
international level will remain necessary.
Qualifications and
Complexities
Bioregionalism is visionary.
Implementors have to worry about details,
about qualifications, about complexities.
And there are some important limitations
and qualifications to the bioregional vision.
First, bioregionalism largely begs the
question of scale; second, it does not
sufficiently recognize the extra-local origin
of many ecological and cultural problems.
(Parsons, 1985).
The Problem of Scale
The problem of scale is fundamental.
There are no obvious bioregions. A
bioregion has been defined as "a geographi-
cal province of marked ecological and often
cultural unity, its subdivisions, at least
ideally, often delimited by watersheds of
major streams." (Parsons, 1985). Water-
sheds are typically seen as "providing the
operating basis for organizing and managing
the relations between humans and their local
environment." (Parsons, 1985). The recent
Water Quality 2000 report stated that
watersheds may define the appropriate
spatial boundaries for total environmental
and economic planning. (Water Environ-
ment Federation, 1992).
There are other criteria to delineate
bioregions: among them, biotic shift,
physiography, and climate. But even if
watersheds are accepted as the best way of
defining bioregions, the problem of scale
remains. Water Quality 2000 suggests that
watershed-based approaches be keyed to
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) hydrologic
units, the largest of which encompass the
-------
284
Watershed '93
drainage areas of major river systems; there
are 21 such regions in the United States.
The report goes on to acknowledge, how-
ever, that "[i]n some watersheds, planning
and management activities may be more
effective in obtaining water quality goals if
they are organized by ecological regions
(sub-watersheds). This is because the
natural difference in climate, geology, soil,
land form, and vegetation may not conform
strictly to hydrologic regions." (Water
Environment Federation, 1992).
In other cases, bioregions may be
recognized at a much larger scale. For
example, EPA's Gulf of Mexico program is
dedicated to addressing comprehensively
environmental issues within the entire Gulf
ecosystem, including problems that may be
created through the various drainages into
the Gulf. That system contains five of the
major USGS hydrologic regions, as well as
the Gulf. Does an effort of this scale fit the
bioregional model? Are the Gulf and its
drainages (including those from Mexico and
Cuba) a bioregion? Or are programs at this
level to be viewed as structures to mediate
and support smaller, more focused
bioregional efforts?
One way to deal with the question of
scale is to look at watersheds or other
natural systems as "problemsheds," and to
determine at what scale the problems in
those systems seem most responsive to
coherent solutions. In addressing
"problemsheds," it is important not to look
at problems individually. Since the
bioregional approach seeks to view the
region as a functioning system, determining
the appropriate scale of a bioregion requires
consideration of "the major ecological
interactions in a watershed, rather than
managing for a single species or for a
resource commodity such as the game fish."
(National Research Council, 1992). The
National Research Council suggests that
scale be determined by the species requiring
the largest home range for survival (e.g., a
bearshed).
Another important factor in consider-
ing the scale and configuration of bioregions
is the ability of a particular bioregion to
coalesce human interest in it. This identifi-
cation is essential; without it, the participa-
tive energy necessary to shape a functioning
community around a natural system will not
exist We are just beginning to understand
the scale or scales at which this identifica-
tion takes place, and what the necessary
prerequisites for it may be.
Extra-Regional Issues
Bioregionalists have emphasized the
self-sufficiency and self-determination of
bioregions (Berry, 1988; Calenbach,
1975). They have been criticized for not
sufficiently recognizing that, at whatever
scale and in whatever configuration the
bioregion is defined, there will remain
extra-local sources of both problems and
solutions (Parson, 1985). It is more
consistent with our understanding both of
the natural world and human institutions to
consider bioregions as nonexclusive.
Bioregions may be nested: several smaller
bioregions (or subregions) may be con-
tained within a larger bioregion. The
activities at these different levels will be
appropriate to the types of problems to be
addressed, and the nature of the constitu-
encies involved, as well as the natural
linkages among the systems involved.
Some problems (e.g., global warming)
must be addressed at the global level.
Others must be addressed locally. Poten-
tial interactions among regions must also
be considered; for example, potential
problems such as global climate change
may mean that landscape connectivity
gecomes critical for species preservation
and persistence (Turner, 1989).
The notion that bioregions are not
exclusive or self-contained assumes that we
will be called on to think and act as citizens
of more than one bioregion. This runs the
risk that our energies, as citizens of the
biosphere, will be dissipated. But the world
is complex both in its natural systems and its
human institutions. Oversimplifications that
do not accurately recognize the full range of
problems and solutions can only lead to
disappointment. Further, recognizing that
bioregions are not exclusive, and may be
nested, makes the problems of scale less
acute. It gives more flexibility to organize
and carry out projects at several levels and
to learn, by experiment, about what func-
tions, activities, and problems are appropri-
ately addressed at what levels.
Finally, with regard to the decisional
autonomy of bioregions, the history of
environmental regulation in this country
suggests an important limitation. In the
1970s, strong federal legislation was enacted
because economic considerations were seen
as overwhelming environmental concerns at
the local level. Nationally uniform pollution
control measures were judged necessary to
set a floor and to limit the ability of eco-
-------
Conference Proceedings
185
nomic interests to use thek leverage to
negotiate environmental terms with local or
regional interests. The assumption of
bioregionalism (and of the implementing
management models) is that with full
understanding of the natural systems of
which they are a part, human beings will act
to sustain (to keep in being) those systems.
To the extent this may not occur, a national
and ultimately perhaps an international set
of management functions should be main-
tained. This is particularly true for natural
systems that have special interregional,
national, or international value.
Integrating the Bioregional
Approach
Bioregionalists would supplant
existing forms of government—currently
based on arbitrary (nonecological) bound-
aries—or at least occasion a radical reorder-
ing of these institutions. This is implicit in
Kirkpatrick Sale's definition of a bioregion
as "a place defined by its life forms, its
topography and its biota, rather than by
human dictates; a region governed by
nature, not legislature" (Sale, 1985). This is
expecting too much. Donald Alexander
points out that while people identify with
thek geographical region and its natural
elements, they also identify with their
• municipality and thek "urban catchment
area," which brings rural dwellers into a
common bond with thek urban counterparts.
Municipal and urban catchment area
identifications are arguably even stronger
today than in the past because of "the
minimal role that primary production plays
in the life of the area relative to industry and
commerce, thus causing people's relation-
ship to the land to be highly mediated."
(Alexander, 1990).
Bioregionalists urge that this rela-
tionship become dkect, and that competing
identifications be subsumed within the
more compelling connection to the land.
The envkonmental ethic pushes us in this
dkection. But it remains unrealistic to
expect that other institutions to which the
public has strong allegiances will be
replaced or subsumed any time soon by
institutions organized primarily around
ecological concepts. Envkonmental
programs at the regional level can gain
strength through existing institutions.
They can leverage the resources, authori-
ties, and constituencies of those institu-
tions to enhance envkonmental under-
standing and to devise and implement
coherent,envkonmental strategies. Reli-
gious, civic, political, and governmental
institutions all can contribute.
The need to integrate bioregional
institutions into existing structures will
remain paramount, including integration
across governmental lines. This integration
requkes several conditions in order to
succeed. It requkes leadership to articulate
and constantly hold out the vision of human
existence within the context of natural
systems, with the energy to jump gaps and
take actions necessary to move toward that
vision. It requkes planning processes that
can assemble comprehensive views from
fragmented perspectives. Finally, it requkes
the ability to implement through decentral-
ized mechanisms. (Lee, 1989).
References
Alexander, D. 1990. Bioregionalism,
science or sensibility. Environmental
Ethics, Summer 1990.
Berry, T. 1988. The dream of the earth.
Sierra Club Books.
Calenbach, E. n.d. Ecotopia, the notebooks
and reports of William Weston.
Banyan Tree Books.
Dodge, J. 1981. Living by life, some
bioregional theory and practice.
Convolution Quarterly, Winter 1981.
Fox, A. 1992. Comprehensive watershed
management. Speech to Summer
Technical Conference of Association
of Metropolitan Sewage Agencies,
July 22,1992.
Grumbine, S.R.E. 1992. Ghost bears,
exploring the biodiversity crisis.
Island Press.
Lee, K. 1989. The Columbia River Basin:
Experimenting with sustainability.
Environment, July/August 1989.
Leopold, A. 1947. Ecology and politics.
In The river of the mother of God
and other essays by Aldo Leopold,
ed. S.L. Flader and J.B. CaUicott.
University of Wisconsin Press
(1991).
National Research Council. 1992. Restora-
tion of aquatic ecosystems. National
Academy Press.
Pacific Rivers Council. 1992 Entering the
watershed: A new paradigm to save
America's river systems and
biodiversity,
-------
286
Watershed '93
Parsons, JJ. 1985. On "bioregionalism"
and "watershed consciousness."
Professional Geographer, February
1985.
Sale, K. 1985. Dwellers in the land: The
bioregional vision. Sierra Club.
Snyder, G. 1974. Turtle Island. New
Directions Books.
. 1992. Coming in to the watershed.
Wild Earth (special issue) 1992
(Cenozoic Society, Inc.).
Turner, M.G. 1989. The effect of pattern
on process. Annual Review Ecologi-
cal Systems.
Water Environment Federation. 1992.
Water Quality 2000: A national water
agenda for the 21st century. Water
Environment Federation, Alexandria,
VA.
Wilson, E.G. 1992. The diversity of life.
Belknap Press of Harvard University
Press.
-------
WATERSHED '93
William B. Lord, Professor of Agricultural and Resource Economics
The University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ
Managing a Desert Ecosystem for
Multiple Objectives
Watershed planning and manage
ment is but the latest in a long
series of efforts to make rational
collective decisions about the relationship of
human activity to the hydrologic and
associated terrestrial environment. There
have been many advances, as well as no
small number of mistakes and dead ends, in
this history of integrated water resources
planning. Watershed planners should build
upon those advances and avoid repeating
those mistakes. Yet our understanding of
the job to be done changes with each
successive effort, and the natural and social
environment in which watershed planning
will be accomplished is now understood
somewhat differently than it has been
understood in years past. This paper begins
with the examination of a current watershed
management case study and attempts to
draw conclusions from it as to how received
doctrine on integrated water resources
planning might be updated to provide
guidance for future watershed planning
efforts.
San Pedro Tales
The San Pedro River flows northward
out of Mexico through southern Arizona to
join the larger Gila River at Winkleman.
The river is perennial for about half of its
length and intermittent elsewhere. Perennial
flows are supplied through a porous and
shallow floodplain aquifer, which has a
capacity of about 600 million cubic meters.
This aquifer is recharged by surface runoff,
inflow from the underlying "regional"
aquifer, and incidental recharge from
irrigation. Its contents vary seasonally. The
regional aquifer, composed of valley fill
sediments up to 500 meters deep, contains
60 billion cubic meters of water and is fed
by mountain front recharge at a rate of about
30 million cubic meters annually. This,
together with the approximately 80 million
cubic meters of mean annual runoff, sums to
the total annual inflow of about 110 million
cubic feet. Of this total inflow, human uses,
irrigation being the largest, account for 55
million cubic meters; natural evapotranspi-
ration accounts for 45 million cubic meters;
and the remaining 10 million cubic meters is
outflow into the Gila River (Arizona
Department of Water Resources, 1990).
Most of the perennial reach of the San
Pedro River is contained in the San Pedro
Riparian National Conservation Area
(SPRNCA), which is administered by the
U.S. Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
This area was acquired and dedicated in
1988 in order to safeguard one of the few
remaining flowing streams in Arizona (95
percent of the state's once-flowing streams
have been dewatered), its associated riparian
ecosystem, and the remarkably wide and
unusual range of plant and animal species
which occur there.
A modest irrigated agriculture has
expanded in the San Pedro Basin since
World War IL Some surface water diver-
sion occurs, but most irrigation water is
supplied by pumping from the shallow
floodplain aquifer. Irrigation is the largest
source of anthropogenic depletions in the
basin, although BLM has purchased and
retired many of the irrigation rights above
the SPRNCA.
The federal government also operates
Fort Huachuca, an army post which is the
basin's principal economic base. Sierra
Vista, the largest city in the basin, is
adjacent to Fort Huachuca and has grown up
287
-------
288
Watershed '93
to support it Both Fort Huachuca and
Sierra Vista draw water from the regional
aquifer. This has produced a deepening and
expanding cone of depression. Pumping
depths and costs have been increasing in the
Sierra Vista area for years.
A University of Arizona study reports
that the cone of depression has at last
reached the San Pedro River upstream from
the National Conservation Area and will
now draw water from it (University of
Arizona, 1991). That study confirmed what
many had feared, that continued growth in
Sierra Vista constitutes a long-term threat to
the maintenance of the San Pedro River and
its associated riparian areas, including the
SPRNCA. Although their study was not
exhaustive, the University research team
was unable to find or design a policy option
which would both preserve the riparian
ecosystem and supply additional water to
support the future growth of Sierra Vista
and Fort Huachuca.
Indeed, even the continuation of
current levels of water use there may be
incompatible with preservation of the
existing resources of the SPRNCA. The
effects now being felt by the river are the
consequences of pumping years ago,
because transit times in the regional aquifer
are slow, averaging only 7 meters per year
(Putnam et al., 1987). Worse news is
already on its way.
At the same time, the Arizona Con-
gressional delegation, at the behest of local
growth proponents, have been fighting to
keep Fort Huachuca open and even to
expand it. The current Pentagon base-
closing list indicates that they have been
successful, although the state politicians and
a local lobbying group, Fort Huachuca 50,
bemoan the fact that it will not be expanded
to absorb functions from bases slated to be
closed (Gamerman, 1993).
Curiously, but typically for a western
appropriation doctrine state, Arizona water
law does not recognize the hydrologic
connection between the regional aquifer and
the river and its associated floodplain
aquifer. The senior water rights of the
SPRNCA, to say nothing of downstream
San Pedro water users or of the Gila River
Indian Community on the Gila mainstem,
are vulnerable to more recent water uses in
the Sierra Vista-Fort Huachuca area, even
though western water law was designed
expressly to avoid such conflicts. Some day
that situation will have to change, as the law
evolves to reflect modern hydrologic
knowledge. Meanwhile, the law offers no
means of conflict resolution, and it even
encourages denial of the growing problem.
The problems of the San Pedro basin
illustrate some of the kinds of difficulties
which future watershed planning and
management will encounter. The planning
process will be pluralistic, involving several
levels of government, diverse water man-
agement agencies at all levels, fractionated
and inconsistent laws and authorities,
conflicting interests at the local level,
national interests in environmental protec-
tion which compete with local interests in
economic growth, weak or nonexistent
federal programs to resolve conflicts
through subsidized distributive political
solutions, and recalcitrant conflicts between
man and nature for which no good solutions
may exist.
Characteristics of the
Watershed Planning
Environment
Watershed management, like inte-
grated river basin management before it, is
holistic. It is based upon a vision of the
watershed, including both its non-human
and societal components, as a single system
of interrelated elements.
Watershed management, unlike
integrated river basin management, is
focused upon sustainability, not upon
development. Although capital-intensive
artifacts, such as water control structures,
may have a place, the emphasis is rather
upon investment in the perpetuation of
ecosystems.
Watershed management, unlike the
earlier river basin management, conceives
"management" broadly, to include the
management of human behavior as well as
management of the environment. In
principle, it is human activity which has
become the most influential force affecting
the rate and type of change which occurs in
many ecosystems. To think of watershed
management as excluding the management
of human behavior defines the problem too
narrowly and inordinately reduces the range
of alternative solutions (Lord, 1981b).
Watershed management is properly a
concern of all levels of government.
Coordinating the actions of so many players,
a necessary task in holistic management, is
difficult because the objectives and means
for attaining those objectives often vary
-------
Conference Proceedings
289
widely across these levels of government
(Lord, 1981a).
The policy tools which are available to
the key players in watershed management
vary widely; and it is often impossible for
one organization, whose authorities are
primarily regulatory, to complement the
actions of another organization, whose
authorities are primarily proprietary (Lord,
1981b).
Watershed management occurs within
a framework of law which is fragmented by
level of government, by subject matter, and
by implementing organization. This creates
inconsistencies and, especially, conflicting
and inappropriate incentives for both private
actors and bureaucrats. Rights and privi-
leges accorded by the law may fail to
resolve conflicts between resource users.
The organizations which manage
watersheds, and the behavior of the people
who use them, are many and their missions
and policies are diverse. Each responds to
its own clientele groups and defines prob-
lems and potential solutions through its own
limited perspective.
Watershed management decision
making takes place within an environment
of inadequate, and often misleading,
information. Scarce resources are often
dissipated by attempting to address these
information gaps without careful identifica-
tion of what information is most worth
obtaining and what the cost of new informa-
tion may be (Lord, 1974).
Public involvement in watershed
management takes many forms. Private
landowners and developers are major
. stakeholders who respond to market forces
and who, because they are locally focused,
powerfully influence local governments.
Environmental groups are well-organized
and vocal at both local and national levels,
although perhaps less so at the state level.
The vast majority of citizens, while sympa-
thetic to environmental protection goals, see
the issues involved in managing specific
watersheds as remote and relatively inconse-
quential to them.
Decision making in watershed
management too often is characterized by a
veto system, in which a well-organized or
powerful interest can block any alternative
which it perceives to be unfavorable to its
well-being.
Insufficient mechanisms exist to
facilitate bargaining by compensating
potential losers at the expense of potential
winners, thus creating positive sum solu-
tions in which no one loses. It is necessary
both to discover more efficient Pareto-
optimal solutions and to structure property
rights so that losers can be compensated by
winners.
The balance between private interest
and public interest in many watersheds was
forged in an earlier era in which private
development was conceived to be the
primary goal and protection of public values
was seen as secondary. Public values must
be paramount, but vested interests must
receive fair consideration.
Building Upon the Past
The long history of water resource
planning in the United States offers many
learnings to those who would plan for the
management of watersheds for sustainable
development. It begins with the pre-World
War II experience with the National
Resources Planning Board, continues with
the federal interagency planning efforts of
the 1950s and early '60s, and culminates in
the comprehensive river basin planning
program of the Water Resources Council,
from 1965 until 1981. Some of the success-
ful features of that half century of experi-
ence and innovation were a degree of federal
interagency coordination, the involvement
of state decision makers, the evolution of
technically sophisticated project planning
and evaluation procedures and, late in the
period, the development of public participa-
tion and alternative dispute resolution
techniques. Among the failures, which are
equally valuable from the standpoint of
lessons to be learned, were an inability to
resolve major interagency disagreements; an
inordinately costly, protracted, and unfo-
cused data collection program; a paucity of
action recommendations; and a continued
overemphasis on construction or engineer-
ing alternatives.
The two successes of the federal
interagency river basin planning program
which should be adopted by watershed
planners are the sophisticated planning and
evaluation procedures and the public
participation and alternative dispute
resolution techniques. Countless hours of
agency and academic efforts were devoted
to the development of the Water Resources
Council's Principles and Standards for
Planning Water and Related Land Resource
Projects (U.S. Water Resources Council,
1973). Although few students would agree
-------
290
Watershed '93
totally with all aspects of these procedures
as they stood when the Reagan administra-
tion substituted a non-mandatory set of
Principles and Guidelines for them in 1981,
they represent the most complete and
technically correct such procedures devised
anywhere. There is no need for watershed
planners to reinvent the wheel in this
respect.
The P&S, as they are called, were
designed with the planning and evaluation
of capital-intensive construction projects in
mind. Their application to planning and
evaluation of operating programs is not so
straightforward, and further elaboration in
this respect seems called for.
The four accounts framework of the
P&S is an excellent accounting system for
displaying the nationally relevant impacts of
development projects. It is too general for
displaying local impacts or for providing the
group/specific impact data which can
support a bargaining process for identifying
acceptable alternatives. But these enhance-
ments are easy to make in principle,
however difficult may be some of the data
disaggregation steps needed to implement
them.
Public participation techniques, such
as the Corps of Engineers' "Fishbowl
Planning" evolved in the 1970s, but fell into
disuse as project planning waned in the
Reagan years. Such devices make planning
an open process in which interest groups can
become advocates rather than opponents,
because their views are sought and heeded.
However, they function best when a single
agency is responsible for planning. Ways
must be developed to adapt public participa-
tion to the multi-government, multi-agency
environment which will characterize future
watershed management.
Alternative dispute resolution (ADR)
techniques go hand in hand with increased
public participation, for conflict surfaces
earlier and becomes more evident in an open
planning process. ADR is just that, an
alternative to the formal and institutional-
ized decision making processes which no
longer do their job well. Institutional
innovation is needed to get these established
institutions back on track; but, meanwhile,
ADR will still be needed, and many ADR
techniques will find thek way into estab-
lished institutions as a part of this innova-
tion.
The failure of the federal interagency
river basin planning program to resolve
interagency conflicts is a key lesson for
watershed planners. The diversity of federal
agencies, their missions, and their interest
group clienteles is replicated in the institu-
tional complexity of the watershed manage-
ment environment. The only solution to this
dilemma is greater public participation and a
real devolution of decision making power
from the Congress, state legislatures, and
local general purpose governments to
stakeholder groups at the watershed level.
Public participation must change from
public information to public decision
making, and agencies must change from
decision makers to information providers
and facilitators.
Solutions
Experience has shown that the
creation of watershed-based planning and
decision making bodies is essential. Such
entities need not be all-powerful, but they
must have a sufficiently broad mandate to
consider all aspects of holistic watershed
management.
Participation in these watershed
planning and management organizations
must be open to all substantial stakeholder
groups. While responsive to local interests,
the broad national interest in environmental
protection and sustainability must be
adequately represented as well.
Information production and dissemi-
nation must be comprehensive, although far
from exhaustive, technically competent,
economically efficient, and unbiased. It
must reveal imaginative alternatives and
potentially consensual bargaining options.
The four account framework of the Prin-
ciples and Standards, if further disaggre-
gated, provides an excellent model.
The rules under which these organiza-
tions operate must not permit minorities to
thwart achievement of the common good,
nor should they permit majorities to ride
roughshod over the legitimate concerns of
minorities. Simple voting, by either
unanimity or majority rules, is unlikely to
meet this condition.
References
Arizona Department of Water Resources.
1990. Preliminary hydrographic
survey report for the San Pedro
watershed, Vol. 1: General assess-
ment. Phoenix, AZ.
-------
Conference Proceedings
291
Gamerman, E. 1993, March 13. No
Arizona bases on closing list, but GOP
lawmakers upset. Arizona Daily Star,
p. 4A.
Lord, W.B. Information requirements for
environmental decision making. In
Economics and decision making for
environmental quality, ed. J.R. Conner
and E. Loehman, pp. 123-140. The
University Presses of Florida,
Gainesville.
. 198 la. Objectives and constraints
in federal water resources planning.
Water Resources Bulletin 17(6): 1060-
1065.
. 198 Ib. Unified river basin
planning in retrospect and in prospect.
In Unified river basin management -
Stage II, ed. DJ. Alice, L.B. Dwors,
Kentucky, and R.M. North, Minneapo-
lis, pp. 58-67. American Water
Resources Association.
Putnam, F., K. Mitchell, and G. Bushner.
1987. Water resources of the Upper
San Pedro Basin, Arizona. Draft report
for the Special Studies Section, Hydrol-
ogy Division, Arizona Department of
Water Resources, Phoenix, AZ.
University of Arizona. 1991. A study of the
water resources of the San Pedro Basin
and options for efficient and equitable
water management, Water Resources
Research Center, University of Ari-
zona, Tucson, AZ.
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1973.
Principles and standards for planning
water and related land resources.
Federal Register 38, no. 174, pt. 3.
-------
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
Community-Based Natural Resource
Planning by Hydrologk
R. Wade Biddix, Planning Coordinator
USDA Soil Conservation Service, Richmond, VA
Background of the Natural
Resource Planning Initiative
in Virginia
In Virginia, 491 hydrologic units were
defined and incorporated into the
Virginia Geographic Information
System. County-level planning maps were
produced. A ranking procedure was utilized
which considered nonpoint source pollution
(NFS) pollution potential as well as water
quality problems. As a result of the rank-
ings, each watershed was ranked high,
medium, or low priority. These rankings are
being used to target Virginia's NFS pollu-
tion programs. All USDA Soil Conserva-
tion Service (SCS) progress is being coded
into the CAMPS data bases using the
Hydrologic Units (HUs) for identification
and tracking purposes. Some of the state
and federal agencies in Virginia have
adopted the HU system for management and
interagency cooperation purposes.
Community-Based Natural
Resource Planning by
Hydrologic Units
Natural resource planning can be
defined as a process that encourages people
within a defined geographical area to come
together to identify and discuss mutual
problems and needs and, with the help of
technical advisors, develop a plan of action
that ultimately leads to measured benefits to
individuals, groups of people, or to society
within or adjacent to that area. (Kitchen-
Maran, 1992).
The overall concept of natural re-
source planning centers on people partici-
pating in identification of problems or needs
and taking an active role in the solution of
these problems. Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Districts (SWCDs) serve as the primary
facilitator in involving local, state, or federal
agencies that are in a position to assist with
planning.
The purpose of natural resource
planning is to motivate people to identify
and fully understand their problems so that
beneficial solutions can be discussed and de-
fined. Hopefully, this process will subse-
quently lead to implementation and the
improvement of life.
The Step-by-Step Planning
Process
The natural resource planning process
involves a step-by-step procedure that re-
quires the interaction of several interest
groups to develop a viable plan. The out-
lined approach is summarized as follows:
Step 1—Resource Concerns
Identified at the Local Level
Before initiating development of a
natural resource plan the priority resource
concerns need to be established and agreed
upon by everyone at the local level. This
step is critical in setting the direction of the
effort. This could result from a formal re-
quest, but generally will correspond to a re-
view of county concerns and selecting an
area with an identified problem(s) and/or
resource needs where local people have
demonstrated a willingness to apply conser-
vation systems.
Step 2—Background Resource Data
Gathered
Once the HU has been selected several
maps and basic data should be prepared for
293
-------
294
Watershed '93
the unit It is recommended that the
following maps be prepared: photobase
map, detailed soil map, land use map, and
topographic map. These should be mosaic
maps using the available map scale, gener-
ally 4 Inch = 1 mile, for the photobase, soils,
and land use maps. The topographic map
should be 7.5 minute, if available.
Additionally, one to three of the major
resource concerns in the HU should be
inventoried. These basic data provide "lead
in" materials as key leaders in the unit are
approached to discuss local problems,
explain the natural resource planning process
and ask for their leadership assistance. Keep
this background data as basic as possible.
Do not generate much new data.
Step 3—Key People Fo/m Planning
Committee
The district conservationist, along
with the Soil and Water Conservation
District (SWCD), DSWC, Cooperative
Extension Service, etc., should identify
five to eight key people in the HU with
whom they and others will develop the
natural resource plan. Once these key
leaders have been selected the district
conservationist, along with an SWCD
board member, are ready to meet individu-
ally with each to:
• Discuss the selected hydrologic unit.
• Briefly explain the need for local
input and his or her selection to
assist with plan development.
• Ask them to identify problems and
concerns.
• Ask them to serve on the planning
committee
At least one district board member
should participate as a facilitator to the local
group if possible. His or her primary
purpose would be to show SWCD support
and to make certain that other agency people
are invited to assist in the planning process.
Step 4—Planning Committee
Meeting Held
The committee meets to discuss and
fully identify the important concerns or
problems of the hydrologic unit. The
committee should determine the level of
inventory and identify other agencies to
invite to assist with the plan development.
At this meeting the objectives of the
planning committee should be identified and
a chairman should be selected. A plan of
work should be developed by the planning
committee.
Step 5—The Public Is Informed
A letter to all landusers in the hydro-
logic unit should be drafted by the commit-
tee. It should cover the following items:
• Purpose of the HU planning effort.
• List of members of the planning
committee.
• List of problems identified.
• A request for their help to broaden
list.
• An invitation to call or discuss the
problems with the committee
members informally.
The SWCD, Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service, and SCS should
help develop a list of all landusers in the
watershed and make a mailing list for the
committee. Additionally, the newspaper or
other news media should be used to make
others aware of the HU targeting and
planning activities.
A public meeting may be held as an
alternative method of informing the public
and obtaining essential feedback.
Step 6—-Technical Advisory
Committee Appointed by the SWCD
The planning committee identifies
where planning assistance might be avail- .
able to help them find ways to solve the
problems they have identified. The SWCD
chairman will send letters, cosigned by the
planning committee chairman, to all
individuals or groups identified as technical
advisors for plan development.
Step 7—Technical Advisory
Committee Conducts Inventories
and Evaluations
Inventories and evaluations will be
completed by the necessary technical
advisory committee members. These
inventories will identify the existing
conditions or problems in the watershed that
local people want to solve. The evaluations
will identify what needs to be done to
correct the problems. Basic data will be
presented and discussed with the planning
committee. All agencies involved with the
data collection should participate with the
data presentation. After inventories and
evaluations are discussed, objectives of the
planning committee should be clarified.
-------
Conference Proceedings
295
Step 8—Alternative Solutions
Provided to Planning Committee
Alternatives will be developed by the
technical advisory committee to solve the
problems and meet the objectives the
planning committee has identified. Alterna-
tives will include sufficient cost-return data
to guide the decisionmaking process.
Step 9—Public Meeting Held to
Review and Discuss Alternatives
The planning committee will hold a
public meeting to discuss the data collected.
The alternative solutions and their planned
benefits will be identified and discussed.
All agency people involved with the plan
development will be asked to participate as
needed. Input from the public will be con-
sidered before final alternatives are selected.
Step 10—Planning Committee
Selects Preferred AItemative(s)
After the public meeting the planning
committee will select the preferred
alternative(s). This strategy will fully
outline the actions that will be taken to
address the local concerns and objectives.
The actions will show who (what agency),
what (action), and when (month, year) the
action will be initiated and completed as
fully as possible.
Step //—Plan Adopted by the
SWCD
The plan chosen by the planning
committee should be formally adopted by
the SWCD before implementation begins.
This is not required, but suggested, to ensure
that local elected officials are familiar with
and support the plan.
Step 12—Resource Plan
Implemented
The strategy and actions as outlined by
the planning committee are set into motion
as indicated in the plan. Copies of the plan
should be provided to all persons or groups
who will participate with implementation.
Step 13—Plan Reviewed, Evaluated
and Updated as Needed
The progress toward implementation
will be reviewed at least once a year with
the planning committee, technical advisory
committee, and/or the public. This will
permit the committees to evaluate the
impacts and make necessary revisions or
updates in a timely manner.
Advantages of Community-
Based Natural Resource
Planning
Local people, making decisions that
ultimately affect and improve the communi-
ties in which they live and work, quickly
realize the advantages of this approach. A
few advantages are listed below:
1. Local involvement and
decisionmaking. When local people
have input in determining resource
concerns and needs, and developing
objectives and goals, they will
support the actions and programs
that address those needs. They
develop "ownership" and "buy-in" to
the project.
2. Local participation broadens
support. The most important part of
this process is local participation in
planning and implementation. Local
participation provides the leadership
and broadens the support for the
planning efforts. Peer interaction of
neighbors and citizens in a small
geographic area increases support
and leads to actions by individuals to
do their part. This accelerates
project implementation.
3. Framework for measuring off-site
benefits. People in an HU can relate
to the on-site and off-site effects of
their resource use and management.
They see the effects in their commu-
nity. By knowing the off-site
benefits of various conservation
systems, landusers can make better
decisions about which systems to
adopt to provide a balance of
benefits.
4. Local people select programs to
meet goals. All natural resource
programs can be used as applicable
to solve identified concerns. Local
decisionmakers select and implement
programs to meet their long-range ,
objectives.
5. Framework for targeting specific
audiences. Solutions to various
resource problems such as soil
erosion, water quality, flooding, etc.,
-------
296
Watershed '93
are closely related. The HU provides
a mechanism to address these major
issues and to obtain tangible benefits
from actions.
6. Efficient method for delivery of
services. Conservation planning and
application activities can be sched-
uled and delivered in an efficient
manner using the HU approach.
Common concerns and objectives
can be addressed through group
planning. Newsletters and other
mailings can be concentrated on
HUs.
7. Permits close interaction of agencies
and organizations. Coordinated
assistance can be provided in a unit
to solve the objectives and meet the
local needs. The SWCD requests the
needed assistance from the various
agencies and outlines agency roles
and program expectations.
8. Framework for evaluating land
treatment strategies and impacts.
HU codes in CAMPS will provide
progress reporting by each unit.
Other databases and models can
provide additional analysis and
progress reporting support to the
HU. The models also can predict
what types of on- and off-site
resources will be enhanced by
various activities. These data will
provide progress updates to the
steering committees.
Vision for the Future
The following is a hypothetical
example of a successful community-based
natural resource planning situation that
symbolizes a vision for the future.
The SWCD is approached by a group
of local farmers and community leaders with
a specific natural resource problem. The
SWCD works with the local field office staff
to verify and document the problem. Local
leaders are organized into a planning
committee and hold their first meeting. A
plan of work is developed which identifies
the resources to be inventoried and the
technical agencies who are needed to assist
with the inventories. The general public is
informed of the targeted watershed, and
people actively voice their problems and
concerns at a public meeting. The technical
advisory committee conducts the necessary
inventories and evaluations of the identified
natural resource problems. Alternative
solutions are developed that meet the
planning committee's objectives. A second
public meeting is held to review and discuss
the alternatives. After input from the public,
the planning committee selects the preferred
alternative(s). The plan is adopted by the
SWCD and implemented by the local
citizenry.
As best management practices are
applied, the progress is entered into a
tracking system. -The data derived from the
tracking system are put into a geographic
information system and nonpoint source
computer models. The models are run and
the output provided to the SWCD and the
planning committee. The output is compre-
hensive and adequate to properly evaluate
the impacts of the implementation. The
model is also run to determine the projected
future resource conditions, modeling both
with and without project implementation.
Monitoring stations are established in
strategic locations throughout the watershed.
The public is informed of the progress and
the monitoring and modeling results.
Further actions are conducted as necessary
to complete the project and improve the
natural resources to their designated
beneficial uses. After completion of the
project, the local community thrives
economically, enjoying the fruits of a
productive nation in harmony with a quality
environment.
Summary
Community-based natural resource
planning has evolved in Virginia due to
extensive cooperation and coordination
between federal, state, regional, and local
units of government, the citizenry, and the
multiple resource concerns in the Common-
wealth. The planning base maps, back-
ground inventory data, and HU
prioritization are available statewide. With
leadership provided by local SWCDs,
voluntary involvement by private landown-
ers, improved media relations, enhanced
education and information activities, and
technical support provided by various
agencies and organizations, this approach
provides the ultimate vehicle to get things
done.
The Southern Virginia River Basin
Study is one example of the success SCS
has had using the previously described
planning process. That study is being used
-------
Conference Proceedings
297
in seven major drainage basins in Virginia
to prioritize individual HUs based on a
number of various resource data. Local
steering committees were formed in each
basin consisting of various county officials,
SWCD directors, farmers, and landowners
to assist the river basin coordinating
committee in conducting the study. The
steering committees were very active in each
basin. They identified local resource
problems and concerns, provided study
oversight, and adopted the study results as
their implementation plan. The information
contained in the study reports is being used
by the local steering committees to evaluate
and address their high-priority resource
treatment needs and to secure funding from
all available sources for implementation.
(Southern Virginia River Basin Study, 1991-
1997).
Unprecedented federal, state, and local
partnerships must be forged in order to
make a significant improvement in the many
sources of nonpoint pollution currently
having an impact on the Nation's natural
resources. The collective technical, finan-
cial, information, and managerial resources
available from all agencies, local organiza-
tions, and the general public must be
focused to meet the challenges ahead.
The community-based natural
resource planning approach described herein
will stand the test of time and become the
most efficient and effective method of
getting conservation on the ground. This
will ultimately lead to improved water
quality and overall natural resource condi-
tions in Virginia.
References
Hession, C.W., J.M. Flagg, S.D. Wilson,
R.W. Biddix, and V.O. Shanholtz.
1992, Targeting Virginia's nonpoint
source programs.
Kitchen-Maran, K. 1992. Perceptions of
Illinois District conservationists
toward the use of the hydrologic unit
approach for natural resource planning
and management. Ph.D. thesis,
University of Illinois at Urbana-
Champaign.
Southern Virginia river basin study, 1991-
1997. USDA-Soil Conservation
Service, Richmond, VA.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Watershed Planning and
Management
Carolyn Hardy Olsen, P.E.
Vice President, Water Program Director
Brown and Caldwell, Atlanta, GA
"Water is one of the strongest elements on earth: ft can't be
broken; it can assume many shapes; it joins easily with itself.
When it reaches a certain mass, moving water presents an
irresistible force."
—Karen Casey
In the 1990s, a renewed interest in
watershed planning and management has
raised the concept to such a level that it
is considered a key element in future
national water policy formulation. No single
organization can take credit for this happen-
ing. It seems as if suddenly everyone
became aware of the methodology for
planning and managing water quality and
quantity that the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) had been using for years. Each
organization and person now promoting the
watershed concept arrived from a different
starting point. The organization Water
Quality 2000 was initiated at a Wingspread
Conference in 1988 and 1 year later adopted
its vision statement: "Society living in
harmony with healthy natural systems," and
goal: "To develop and implement an
integrated policy for the nation to protect
and enhance water quality that supports
society living in harmony with healthy
natural systems."
Water Quality 2000 is a cooperative
effort of more than 80 public, private, and
nonprofit organizations. Using the following
four-phase cooperative effort, the organiza-
tion has developed a framework to propose
and promote new national policies to protect
water resources:
• Phase I: Feasibility and Plan
Development (Vision and Goal).
• Phase II: Problem Identification
(Challenges for the Future).
• Phase HI: Recommendation for
Improvement (National Water
Agenda).
• Phase IV: Implementation (Promote
adoption of National Water Agenda).
The single most important recommen-
dation to emerge from Water Quality 2000
Phase III is a call for a national policy for
total protection of surface and ground water
resources. It should be based on the
concepts of:
• Protecting water resources by
preventing pollution.
• Empowering all segments of society
to contribute to water quality
improvements through individual
and collective responsibilities.
• Planning and managing water quality
and quantity on a watershed basis.
In short, an integrated national water
policy that supports society living in
harmony with natural systems.
Effective watershed planning and
management must include the implementa-
tion of pollution prevention and empower-
ment of society. However, this paper will
focus primarily on logistics of watershed
planning and management as reported by
Water Quality 2000.
Watershed planning efforts to date
strongly suggest that individual watersheds
are the most logical geographical units to
use to identify holistic cause-and-effect
water quality relationships, link upstream
uses to downstream effects, develop reason-
able water cleanup plans, target limited
resources, and educate and involve the
public.
The primary national water quality
effort over the past several decades has
299
-------
300
Watershed '93
relied on standard technologies or manage-
ment approaches that could be expected to
reduce pollution from point sources regard-
less of their location. However, many of the
remaining water quality problems across the
country are attributable to runoff from
agricultural, urban, and suburban lands.
In contrast to the problems posed by a
manageable number of point sources, whose
discharges have been relatively predictable,
the problems associated with runoff are far
more complex. Runoff problems are often
related more to individual actions than to
single pollutant sources; there are as many
different sources of runoff as there are land
uses. Both the quality and quantity of
runoff depend on local topography, soils,
and rainfall. Under these conditions,
solutions based exclusively on a standard
national approach seem unlikely to be
successful. Controls developed at the
national and state levels must be combined
with individually developed strategies for
unique river basins, watersheds, and
collection basins or receiving waters,
including most of the Nation's estuaries.
The watershed approach may be the only
sensible way to address point sources and
runoff in an integrated fashion.
Promoting the implementation and
funding of protection efforts within water-
sheds motivates individual action and
provides the public reasonable assurance
that those asked to pay for cleanup also will
be able to enjoy its benefits. Citizens are
usually more interested and involved when
they can identify with a nearby stream, lake,
or watershed area.
Management institutions organized by
watershed provide far better opportunity to
resolve intergovernmental or interjurisdic-
tional conflicts through collaborative, con-
sensus-based techniques. Local incentive to
participate hi such processes should be en-
hanced to the extent that participants can be
assured that all are equal in the process and
that results will benefit their community.
Watersheds provide the flexibility to
address water quality and water quantity
problems and their interaction in the differ-
ent climatic settings found throughout the
Nation; water quality-quantity problems in
the arid West are far different from those in
the Northeast. Thus, watersheds allow for
the development of total resource protection
plans tailored to the conditions in the area of
interest.
Watersheds also may be the appropri-
ate spatial boundaries for total environmen-
tal and economic planning. Water is one of
the keystones for all levels of biological
organization as well as all organized
economic activity. Ultimately, all activities
in or on the air, land, and water can be
measured in terms of their effects on water
quality, water quantity, or aquatic resources.
It seems sensible, therefore, to evaluate the
acceptability of environmental protection
and economic development activities on the
basis of their effects on aquatic resources
within the watershed.
Watershed-based management allows
for better accountability in protecting water
resources. Water Quality 2000 findings
concluded that clean water programs may
have been more effective than current data
indicates. The inability to measure success
is a result of the lack of baseline data and
statistics related to progress over time. In
addition, monitoring efforts have histori-
cally focused on water chemistry instead of
other indicators, such as physical habitat,
flow, and biology. The watershed provides
a logical basis for integrated, coordinated
monitoring. Data can then be used as a
management tool to manage for environ-
mental results. The data can be used to
establish priorities and goals within the
watershed, evaluate the success of protection
efforts, and focus limited resources on the
most effective approaches and actions.
USGS hydrologic units allow for
consistently derived waterbody segments
within which watershed-based measures can
.be implemented. There are four levels of
hydrologic units; the largest, regions,
encompasses the drainage of major river
systems. The regions are divided into
subregions, accounting units, and catalog-
ing units. This hierarchy provides the
flexibility to address water quality problems
at appropriate scales.
Surface hydrologic units may be used
to address ground water issues for some
types of aquifers, but not for others. In
particular, shallow, unconfined aquifers
usually can be managed within surface
water boundaries because they are highly
connected to surface waters. Deeper,
confined aquifers generally cannot be
protected effectively within surface water
boundaries because these aquifers transgress
such boundaries and are not well connected
to surface water. Ground water protection is
an integral part of holistic watershed
planning. Recognizing that aquifers do not
always follow watershed boundaries, water-
shed institutions should create ways to plan
-------
Conference Proceedings
301
for protection of ground-water resources
that cross watershed boundaries.
Under U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and state leadership, amend-
ments to the 1972 Clean Water Act have re-
sulted in several useful models of watershed
planning. However, little progress has been
made in the area of watershed management.
States are also recognizing the need to man-
age their natural resources on an increas-
ingly broader scale. Today, 36 states sup-
port regional or river basin approaches to
natural resources management. Typically
these efforts are designed as consensus-
based policy making or planning processes;
states facilitate the creation and implementa-
tion of integrated land use, development,
and conservation goals in cooperation with
local public and private interests. Yet, most
states would probably agree that their ad-
ministrative and political structures may
have to change to better support comprehen-
sive natural resources management.
Such change cannot be successful
without a parallel reevaluation of federal
water quality, natural resources, and related
statutes as well as the programs they
engender. The 1972 Clean Water Act called
for the development of areawide waste
treatment plans (section 208). These
regional plans were expected to coordinate
all surface and ground water quality
initiatives under a management strategy to
control or treat industrial and municipal
point sources, agricultural and urban runoff,
silviculture, construction, mining, saltwater
intrusion, runoff from solid waste sites, and
accumulated sources of pollution such as
deposits in harbors.
Despite a relatively comprehensive
design and the expenditure of millions of
dollars in federal funds, the section 208
planning process failed to attain its goals.
Over time, regulators and engineers were
able to achieve significant improvements in
some waterbodies by controlling point
sources. Planners were unsuccessful in
convincing decision makers to address the
full range of sources. The failure to address
the full range of sources was attributable to
program delays caused, in part, by lack of
EPA guidance. This lack of guidance had
the following results:
• A planning process out of synchroni-
zation with the construction of
facilities.
• Federal funding priorities that
favored installation of point source
controls in advance of planning.
• State and local government resis-
tance to using the 208 process for
land use control.
Areawide water quality management
may have been ahead of its time in 1972.
Today, after 20 years of experience with nar-
rowly targeted authorities, technology-forc-
ing regulations, and patchwork programs, we
believe the Nation is ready to embrace a
more holistic approach. The challenge this
time will be to move beyond planning and
actually implement integrated, watershed-
based protection of water resources.
Water Quality 2000
Recommendations
Congress should create a new national
program of watershed planning and manage-
ment, including a mandate for implementa-
tion of activities as a condition of participat-
ing in planning. Congress should impose no
particular management form on the states
and should build upon existing watershed
mechanisms. Planning and management
institutions should be required for all 21 of
the major riverine watersheds in the United
States. Where watersheds fall entirely
within state boundaries, intrastate manage-
ment institutions may be appropriate.
Where water resource systems extend
beyond state boundaries, Congress should
encourage, authorize, and approve the
creation of interstate regional mechanisms,
including joint federal-interstate compacts,
as requested by the states, to plan and
manage water resources. New planning and
management institutions should be created
with care—on the basis of water quality
priorities and expressions of local interest
and commitment.
These new public jurisdictions must
be empowered to undertake the range of
functions necessary to achieve coordinated
use and conservation of water resources.
Intrastate and interstate water resources
coordination institutions should be estab-
lished pursuant to negotiations among
participating parties. These institutions
should be independent, within the context of
the broader hierarchy of watersheds, and
attentive to the concerns of all affected
levels of government and public and private
interests. They should be financed, to the
extent possible, by parties to the agreement;
empowered to take effective action within
the scope of responsibility agreed to; and
directed by parties of the agreement.
-------
30Z
Watershed '93
Watershed planning and management
institutions should be nested, reflecting the
multiple orders of progressively larger
watersheds. Institutions created to manage
the smallest watersheds (corresponding to
one of the 2,150 USGS cataloguing units)
should participate in planning and managing
the larger watersheds to which they belong
and selecting priority areas within water-
sheds for action.
A nested hierarchy could be organized
at the top with an umbrella planning
institution representing each of the 21 major
riverine watersheds, the largest of the
watershed divisions in the United States.
It could be expected that more
planning and less management will occur at
the largest watershed level. To the extent
that federal-interstate jurisdictions are
created, for example, they may be well
suited to setting performance goals,
coordinating the activities of signatory states
and their jurisdictions, handling disputes,
and raising revenues for implementation.
More localized watersheds are probably
better suited to sponsor hands-on resource
protection, conservation, and use activities,
consistent with local goals and preferences.
Local management plans must reflect the
unique characteristics of the watershed,
including those that affect the hydrologic
cycle (precipitation, runoff, ground-water
percolation, and evapotranspiration),
topography, soils, land use, socioeconomics,
and institutions. At the same time, however,
plans must take a systems perspective by
developing a comprehensive water resources
management program that includes water
supply, water quality, water conservation,
flood protection, land use, and protection of
living resources and their habitats.
Watershed management efforts may
have to turn to the federal government for
activities in which there is a clear advantage
to a federal role. Obvious examples include
setting national water quality criteria and
effluent guidelines as well as drinking water
standards. The federal government alone
can coordinate the federal agencies to
improve collection and dissemination of
water resources data and the research and
development of effective tools for watershed
planning.
Case Study
In recent history, the water conflicts
that have long been part of water quantity
management west of the Mississippi River
have moved to the southeast states. The
topography of the State of Georgia forms a
ridge line whereby all precipitation flows
out of the state to the Atlantic Ocean or to
another state. Georgia has been aggressive
in its water management planning and has
utilized federal, local, and private funds to
develop a water resource system that
provides for flood control, power genera-
tion, water supply, water quality, recreation,
and navigation. .
The Atlanta Region has benefited
from this planning and has been able to
grow as a result of the construction of
Buford Dam/Lake Lanier in 1957. The
Buford Dam/Lake Lanier project is a federal
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
project that releases water into the
Chattahoochee River. Original authoriza-
tion documentation for the project clearly
indicates that water supply and water quality
for the Atlanta Region was a purpose of the
project. In 1972, Congress authorized the
Metropolitan Atlanta Water Resource
Management Study (MAWRS) to develop a
long-range water supply management plan.
The study verified that the Lake Lanier/
Chattahoochee River was the only reason-
able major source of water for the Atlanta
Region and studied many alternatives for its
management. In 1981, the MAWRS study
recommended that a reregulation dam be
constructed below Buford Dam, which
would be designed to capture weekday
hydropower surges from Buford Dam and
release them at times in a manner more
suited to water supply demand. The
reregulation dam was authorized in the
Federal Water Resources Act of 1986 with
the conditions that environmental and
economics issues be evaluated. Strong
environmental opposition existed and in
1988 the COE changed its recommendation
from construction of a reregulation damn to
the reallocation of 20 percent of the water
stored in Lake Lanier from hydropower to
water supply. The proposed reallocation
would meet the water supply needs of
Atlanta Region and other Lake Lanier uses
until the year 2010.
In October of 1989, the COE pro-
duced a draft Post-Authorization-Change
Report (PAC) which indicated that the
impacts of reallocation on downstream users
would be minor and insignificant. However,
during the public hearings, public concerns
and false perceptions caused the reallocation
proposal to become a controversial project,
-------
Conference Proceedings
303
and caused anti-Atlanta and anti-COE
sentiments to surface.
Later in 1989, Congress directed the
COE to develop another study. This
study will be a year 2040 study of the
Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River
Basins. It appears that this study is an
attempt to restudy the reallocation of Lake
Lanier. The study also proposes to study
many other aspects of water resources
such as water quality standards and the
Georgia Regional Reservoir program. In
June of 1990, the State of Alabama filed a
lawsuit and was joined by the State of
Florida to prevent the COE from entering
into any agreements for Atlanta's water
supply.
To put the lawsuit aside, the States of
Alabama, Georgia, and Florida signed a
Memorandum of Understanding and agreed
to cooperate in a Comprehensive Study of
the Alabama-Coosa-Tallapoosa and
Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River
Basins. The original study was to take
4 years and cost $4 million. It is now
estimated that the study will take 6 to
8 years and could cost up to $12 million.
As shown by this example, watershed
planning and management can be time
consuming and costly.
Therefore, it is imperative that as we
work to develop federal and local legislation
to promote watershed planning and manage-
ment, we provide the way to success. Any
new watershed legislation or regulations
should be goal oriented and not be encum-
bered with bureaucracy that will discourage
participation in the holistic watershed
approach to improving the Nation's water
resources.
References
Comprehensive study—Alabama-Coosa-
Tallapoosa and Apalachicola-
Chattahoochee-Flint River Basins.
Vol. 1, Plan of Study, pp. 1-7.
Prepared by States of Alabama,
Florida, and Georgia and the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
Stevens, P. 1991. Reallocations of Lake
Lanier, Georgia. In Georgia Water
Resources Conference Proceedings,
pp. 139-142.
Water Environment Federation. 1992. A
national water agenda for the 21st
century—Phase HI report. Water
Quality 2000/Water Environment
Federation, Alexandria, VA. Novem-
ber, pp. 32-40.
-------
-------
W AT E R S H ED '93
Challenges in Watershed Activism—
Changing Our River Legacies
Peter M. Lavigne, River Leadership Program Director
River Network, Portland, OR
"Everybody has to go down the river sometime. What river,
weJl some river, some kind of river. Huck Finn said that and if
he didn 't say it he should have said it. If he didn 't, I will."
—Edward Abbey, One Life At A Time, Please
I've got to say, with that quote as our
background, that it's great to be here.
Great to see so many people interested in
rivers and watershed protection. There is a
tremendous amount of wisdom and commit-
ment in this audience (what else could you
be but committed or committable—to work
in environmental protection and restora-
tion!), and I am hoping that together with
the rest of our panelists we will tap into that
wisdom here in the next hour.
Speaking of committed people—a
few years ago, a person I really admire,
Professor Richard Brooks, the founding
Director of the Environmental Law Center
at Vermont Law School, had to introduce
me at a public function. Now Dick and I
have known each other for a long time,
first while I was a student of his in several
classes, later as we did a lot of research
and writing together, and by the time of
this story, as professional colleagues and
friends. Well, sometimes friends know
more about individuals than they think
about, and Dick knew for a long time that I
can be persistent and cantankerous and
more than a little bit eclectic in my
approaches to environmental challenges
but he always thought of me as a commit-
ted environmental activist. And indeed,
when it came time to introduce me, he
meant to say that I was a "committed"
environmentalist only instead it came out
as Peter is a persistent and "committable"
environmentalist! After he thought about
it for a few seconds, he decided that was a
better way to introduce me anyway.
Be that as it may, I am here this
afternoon as a committed, or committable
river advocate, your choice, to discuss some
disturbing trends about rivers and river
systems in North America and to discuss the
interplay of science and public policy and
environmental protection. I hope with this
brief talk and our discussion we can explore
what is necessary for each and how they can
best work together to protect and restore
rivers.
First I want to tell you a story and then
make some disclaimers.
The Brook
How many of you know your ecologi-
cal address? Do you know exactly where
you live? Do you know what watershed you
live in? Well my current ecological or
watershed address is quite a bit different
from the one I had for the first 18 years of
my life; it is in a different state and many
hours away. I grew up in what was then a
small mill town in the Lakes Region of New
Hampshire. Specifically, I grew up along
the banks of what I knew as a child as "THE
BROOK," Dunham Brook in Tilton, NH. I
was lucky enough to live in an area where
there were about 2 square miles of undevel-
oped land surrounding the upper reaches of
Dunham Brook, and although my parents
only owned a very small piece of the land, I
and the other seven kids in the neighbor-
hood thought it was our backyard. When I
got a little older, about 7 or 8 years old or
305
-------
306
Watershed '93
so, I began to realize that the brook crossed
School Street below my parents' house and
went past a cow field, through some woods,
crossed under a power line, skirted the back
edge of a gravel mining operation, and ran
into a natural cranberry bog and then a pond
at the end of Bittern Lane, where my Great
Aunt Fran lived. The brook left the pond,
through a small dam, and went under the
highway, down the hill, and into the
Winnipesaukee River.
I got a little older and traveled a little
more, by bicycle mostly, and then made an
important discovery. The Winnipesaukee
River flowed into the next town, met with
the Pemigewasset and formed a much larger
river—the mighty Merrimack—with which I
was already well acquainted because the
Merrimack was paralleled by the main
highway in New Hampshire which led to my
grandparents house in Nashua. I live today,
after many escapades on rivers and brooks
across the United States, far from the
Merrimack watershed, in the middle of a
large urban area along the Willamette River
in Oregon, but the parallels in the two
watersheds are closer than I ever could have
imagined as a child.
Your Ecological Address
It is terribly important, for every
person here in this room, to know their
ecological address. It is fundamental to the
work you do as environmental engineers,
resource scientists, regulatory administra-
tors, and environmental activists, and it is
fundamental to the work I do with citizen
activists all over the continent. It is funda-
mental because it shows an understanding of
our place in the ecosystem, and knowledge
of our place in the ecosystem clearly
indicates an understanding of the inter-
connectedness of the human and natural
environment.
We are going to return to my first
ecological address, to "The Brook," later in
this discussion because the changes in
Dunham Brook over the last 30 years
illustrate the problems and opportunities
facing North American streams today.
Now the disclaimers: You know from
my biography and the introduction what I
am—a committable river activist, public
policy advocate, environmental lawyer, and
land use planner by training; now I'll tell
you what I am not. I am not a scientist—
though I consider myself somewhat scien-
tifically literate, and I have an undergradu-
ate background in geology along with a few
graduate science courses here and there. I
am not an expert on salmon or biochemistry,
geophysics, ecology, or many of the other
important disciplines which may be repre-
sented here today. Be that as it may, I want
to discuss some of the important scientific
trends affecting river watersheds today and
discuss them in a way which will illuminate
and broaden the interplay of science and
public policy, citizen action, and govern-
mental initiatives in environmental protec-
tion and restoration.
North American Context
The United States has nearly 5.2
million kilometers (nearly 3.25 million
miles) of rivers, comprising more than
100,000 streams (Benke, 1990). In many
ways, rivers represent the most visible
successes of the past two decades of major
environmental protection legislation. Most
U.S. rivers are no longer visibly polluted
with the sludge and changing colors from
the industrial discharges and algal blooms
that led the Merrimack and Nashua Rivers in
New England to be characterized by the late
1960s as "too thin to plow and too thick to
drink." (Sludge in the Nashua river grew to
the point that small birds were filmed
walking on the crust of sludge in what once
was a free-flowing, forested, and wildlife-
filled river. Many of the conditions were
repeated on the industrial rivers of Provi-
dence, RI, and across the United States for
decades.)
Gross water quality has improved, fish
and other aquatic species have been restored
in many formerly "dead" sections of rivers,
and the Cuyahoga no longer catches fire.
Indeed, after two decades of sewage
treatment and over half a billion dollars in
federal and state expenditures, the
Merrimack River now supplies drinking
water to over 300,000 people in its water-
shed and the river is seeing a resurgence of
its once tremendous anadromous fishery
with the return of American Shad and a
tenuous return of Atlantic Salmon. (USEPA
Region 1,1987)
Yet healthy river systems are a finite
and vanishing resource. The vast majority
have been drained, dammed, ditched, over-
developed, and/or choked with pollution.
Many, if not most, of our rivers are in
danger of losing their most basic natural
-------
Conference Proceedings
307
features, capacities, and ecological balance
(Table 1).
Rivers are the ecological infrastruc-
ture of the continent, the roads and pipes,
if you will, of our natural systems, the
veins and arteries of the watershed body.
It is truly the river's life transporting
function that determines the health and
ultimate survival of the patient. Rivers
provide natural valley flood storage,
wetland and wildlife habitat, and a
tremendous diversity of aquatic and land
species. Rivers are the scene of tremen-
dous natural vistas, impressive displays of
nature's power, and conversely, contempla-
tive opportunities central to our lives as
thinking humans— attributes needing far
more protection than they currently receive.
In addition to serving as critical
habitats in themselves, rivers perform a
larger function in the natural realm. They
connect the mountains to the sea, link
headwaters areas to lowlands, and provide a
continent-wide system of pathways for the
movement and genetic mixing of plant and
animal species. This mixing, to the extent it
can occur on rivers that have undergone
extensive development, biologically
strengthens all of the areas that rivers affect
by connecting our most significant natural
areas—mountains and coasts, forests and
refuges—one to the other.
In many ways rivers have also been,
and are, the primary natural economic
infrastructure, serving as natural sources for
waste disposal, power supply, transportation
corridors, drinking water, and recreational
use. Unfortunately, the history of human
development in North America, and
throughout the world, since 1600, has
shown an ever-increasing destructive
capacity to natural riverine systems. The
veins and arteries are denuded of their
supportive organs while simultaneously
overloaded with sediment and other waste
products.
Now, when most people think about
the natural environment, flowing freshwater
is a nearly forgotten resource system. In the
biodiversity or endangered species crises we
hear about all the time, much attention is
given to rain forests, wetlands, and marine
systems. We all know about the California
Condor and the spotted owl, but who knows
about endangered clams, crawfish, or
damselflies? Flowing freshwater systems
(isn't that a complicated phrase for rivers?),
which nurture and connect all of those other
areas, have received far less attention.
Table 1. Streams and rivers status and trends
5.2 million km of rivers in continental United States
Only 2% are healthy enough to be considered high quality and
worthy of protection
Of large rivers (>1000 km long) only Yellowstone not severely
altered
Of medium-sized rivers (>200 km long) only 42 have not been
dammed
Source: Benke, 1990.
Rivers and streams are sometimes viewed as
lacking the biological richness and charis-
matic species of other resource systems.
One study on the subject by scholars at the
University of Michigan states that fish have
few advocates and invertebrates even fewer
(Miller et al., 1989). Yet rivers are fre-
quently part of complex systems that are
valuable in themselves; are the beginning of
the natural food chains; and, as moving,
dynamic systems, are essential to the
survival of other ecosystems. (See generally
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems, Cairns
et al., 1992)
The loss of natural rivers and the
degradation of river systems in the U.S. has
critical implications that go far beyond the
river courses we seek to protect. Many of
the rivers we seek to protect constitute our
most important water supplies, have
enormously important recreation and
aesthetic value, and provide irreplaceable
habitat for plants, fish, and wildlife. We
need to gain a greater public understanding
of, and give increased policy consideration
to, the role that natural rivers and streams
play hi enhancing the daily life of each and
every citizen. In particular we need to
communicate river protection in ways that
people can relate to. People relate to what
they can taste, touch, and feel. Waste
products and recycling are popular and easy
to understand because we have to deal with
them each and every day as part of living.
The importance of river molluscs (clams and
snails), macroinvertebrates (bugs), and their
relationship to a healthy and natural
environment is a much more difficult
concept for the general public to grasp.
Ecological Shock
In nearly 15 years of professional
experience in environmental protection and
advocacy, I thought I was so jaded that I
-------
308
Watershed '93
was beyond the stage of being shocked
because I had seen so many horrors perpe-
trated on the environment. But I have to tell
you, I was shocked by some studies I
learned about 2 years ago.
The major point of these articles is
quite horrifying—they show that one-third
of the freshwater fish species in North
America, two-thirds of North American
crayfish, and nearly three-fourths of mussel
species are now rare or imperiled. Habitat
change and destruction and water pollution
account for up to 90 percent of the problem.
Current trends reveal a crisis in
biodiversity and an inability of current
environmental protection laws and efforts
to protect endangered species on a piece-
meal or systematic basis. These trends are
particularly true for rivers and their
watersheds. The latest addition to my
filing system includes an "Ecosystem
Collapse" file which contains a number of
recent studies and articles illustrating
trends regularly reported in the scientific
literature and the popular press. Recent
studies by the The Nature Conservancy,
The American Fisheries Society, and the
National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences (Cairns et al., 1992)
show that flowing freshwater systems
(read rivers!) are far more damaged than
terrestrial systems. The Nature Conser-
vancy Study (Master, 1990) concluded that
one-third of all native freshwater fish
species in the United States are threatened
or endangered and that 20 percent of all
aquatic species are threatened.
The American Fisheries Society study
(Nehlsen et al., 1991) found an equally
disturbing set of facts for anadromous fish,
concluding that 214 salmon and steelhead
fish stocks in the Northwest are now
threatened; 101 of these are near extinction.
We also know that eastern anadromous fish
species—the Atlantic Salmon and shad—are
gone from most of their original spawning
grounds due to river development, pollution,
and dam building.
All three studies cite the loss of
riverine habitat and biological stream
function due to dams, water diversions,
channelization, deforestation, and stream-
side activities as the major causes of species
decline. The Nature Conservancy study
concludes that riverine development and
habitat loss play a key role in 93 percent of
the instances of aquatic species decline.
Because many ecologists believe that rivers
are the true indicators of general ecological
health, these precipitous declines take on an
even greater significance.
Think about this for a second. One
study, by the Nature Conservancy, con-
cluded that fully one-third of all native
freshwater fish species in the United States
are threatened or endangered. Moreover,
20 percent of all aquatic species are threat-
ened. This is a ratio that is much higher
than terrestrial species and causes biologists
to speculate that our rivers are the first to
register the impact of our long-standing
development activities upon our natural
systems. Indeed, while 10 native U.S. fish
species have gone extinct in the past 10
years, no terrestrial species are known to
have become extinct in that same period.
Additions to the "Ecosystem Col-
lapse" file accumulate regularly. Recent
pieces include Congressional testimony in
April 1992 by Dr. James R. Karr, Director
of the Institute for Environmental Studies at
the University of Washington; a survey of
studies indicating the collapse of many toad
and frog populations around the world
(Yoffe, 1992); and, hot off the press, an
inch-thick study by the Pacific Rivers
Council (and a team of top research scien-
tists including Dr. Karr) called Entering the
Watershed - a Report to Congress by the
Pacific Rivers Council (Pacific Rivers
Council, 1993).
Dr. Karr's testimony to Congress,
accompanied by a grim list of statistics
(Table 2) states, "Simply put, the ecology of
North American Rivers has been decimated
by the actions of human society .... But
river degradation goes beyond the loss of
species. Sport and commercial fisheries of
the U.S. have also been decimated by human
actions during this century. Commercial
fishery harvest in rivers such as the Colum-
bia, Missouri, and Illinois, have declined by
over 80 percent during this century." Karr
goes on to ask, "How would we respond as a
society if our agricultural productivity
declined by over 75 percent? Can we
continue to ignore declines of that magni-
tude in river resources?"
Emily Yoffe's stark cover story,
'The Silence of the Frogs," for the New
York Times Magazine provides yet another
illustration of the ecological shock affect-
ing North American freshwater systems
and amphibian populations collapsing
throughout the world (Table 3). Studies
collected by the Declining Amphibian
Populations Task Force headquartered in
Corvallis, OR, show almost one-third of
-------
Conference Proceedings
309
North America's 86 species of frogs and
toads appear endangered and or extinct.
David Wake, director of the Museum of
Vertebrate Zoology at the University of
California at Berkeley, says, "My theory is
that it's general environmental degrada-
tion. That's the worst thing. . . . Frogs are
in essence a messenger. This is about
biodiversity and disintegration, the
destruction of our total environment."
(Yoffe, 1992, p 64.)
The most comprehensive collection to
date of the ecological crises facing North
American rivers is contained in Entering the
Watershed by the Pacific Rivers Council.
Documented impacts include the estimated
disappearance of 70-90 percent of natural
riparian vegetation due to human activities
and the fact that 70 percent of U.S. rivers
and streams have been impaired by flow
alteration.
Taken together, or even individually,
these studies provide initial evidence and
warning that the entirety of many of our
natural systems may be overloaded and in
some form of ecological shock.
Today's Challenge
It is my belief that the fundamental
measure of environmental protection in the
U.S. lies in the way we treat our river
systems. Current patterns cannot be
sustained without causing extensive extinc-
tion of species and major and fundamental
changes to our riverine environment.
Everything humans do to the air, the
soil, to ground water, and to surface waters
will eventually affect our river systems.
Great progress has been shown in gross
water quality improvement in industrial
disposal rivers, including the site of my
current ecological address on the
Willamette. The clean-up programs
initiated over the past 25 years work as they
are designed to—when they are given a
chance. But mere improvement in sewage
treatment and reduction in waste disposal
inputs alone will not save our river
systems. Across this country the creeping
suburbia, exemplified by the tremendous
coastal and river bank development boom
of 1980s, threatens to undo the progress
represented by water quality improvements
since the passage of the sewage treatment
mandates in the federal Clean Water Act.
The explosion in destructive shoreline
development, ironically made attractive by
Table 2. Aquatic biota status and trends
20% native fishes of Western United States extinct or endan-
gered (Miller, 1989)
32% of Colorado river native fish extinct, endangered, or
threatened (Carlson and Muth, 1989)
Since 1910, Columbia River salmonid runs declined 75-85%
(Ebel et al., 1989)
Since 1945, Missouri River commercial harvest down over 80%
(Hesse etal., 1989)
Since 1850,45% to 70% of fish species in rivers of Midwest
declined or disappeared (Karr et al., 1985)
Since 1933, 20% of molluscs in Tennessee River system lost
(Williams et al., 1989)
46% of remaining molluscs are endangered or seriously
threatened throughout their range (Jenkinson, 1981)
38 states reported fish consumption closures, restrictions, or
advisories in 1985 (Moyer, 1986)
Source: Karr, 1992.
Table 3. Collapsing amphibian populations
North America
Western toad (Bufo boreas): Plentiful in Colorado in 1972.
Population began collapsing in 1973. Extirpated in Colorado
1979.
Wyoming toad: dozens of sites in 1946; one site left 1993.
Yosemite toad: endangered.
Mountain yellow-legged frogs: one site left 1989.
Red-legged frog: in serious decline.
Cascades frog: two found 1991; none 1992.
Costa Rica Monteverde Cloud Forest Reserve
Golden toad: 1964-1987 thousands found
1988 one
1990 none since
Glass frog: known as "jewels in the night" these small lime
green frogs with a see-through underside and
large quizzical eyes were abundant until the late
1980s; now they can hardly be found.
the improvements in water quality,
threatens to permanently cripple the
natural habitat and other resources that
make our rivers so important to a sustain-
able natural environment.
-------
310
Watershed '93
Riverfront land has become so attrac-
tive (because the river no longer is full of
highly visible pollutants), that areas which
never should be developed—including
buffer strips and wetlands, are facing more
development and destruction pressure than
ever before. This kind of rampant, ecologi-
cally unsound development is also no friend
of the economy—as witnessed by what the
real estate speculation of the last few years
did to the health of the economy in New En-
gland and is doing to California today.
As an individual who regularly hikes,
kayaks, rafts, and canoes the estuaries and
rivers of North America, I have seen this
trend with my own trained and environmen-
tally aware eyes in all its unnecessary
tragedy over the past decade. These trends
are fundamentally incompatible to the
survival of the natural environment and the
survival of a healthy and economically
productive human environment.
Traditional Approaches to
River Protection
What do we do well, and what have
we done traditionally in river protection ac-
tivities? We focus on water quality; we
focus, particularly in the West, on water
supply.
In a lot of areas we focus on dams
and mostly on preventing dams, in the few
stretches of rivers that haven't been
dammed. Occasionally and historically we
focussed on the land along the river banks
and tried to protect it. Look at greenways.
Along with those foci are traditional tech-
nical fixes to the degradation and devasta-
tion of our water quality and water supply:
sewage treatment plants, discharge per-
mits, wetlands mitigation and replication.
All of those traditional "fixes" merely con-
dition continuing problems. These ap-
proaches have some mitigation benefit, but
I have a problem with the whole concept
of mitigation because one gives up 90 per-
cent of the battle by accepting that whole
idea. Mitigation only slows the harmful
effects addressed by discharge permits,
dredge and fill permits, development, and
habitual destruction; because population
numbers and development pressures con-
tinually increase—one never stays even—
one always loses with mitigation pro-
grams.
Traditional approaches also spend a
lot of energy with state and federal
agencies which live and breathe these
technical fixes. In fact, most of the
agencies were set up simply to implement
these discharge permits and enforce the
degradation of our water supply—if you
want to take a cynical view of environmen-
tal law protection.
When a lot of time is spent on these
agencies and these technical fixes, critical
problems which are noticeable even to the
"uninformed person" on the street are
ignored. All of the professionals in the
agencies and the river groups, myself
included, have been caught in this pattern
many times. We spend so much time
looking at the battle of the day, and the
mitigation project, and trying to condition a
development or put a technical fix on the
end of the sewer pipe, that we miss the larger
issues illustrated in the studies discussed
earlier in this presentation.
New Approaches
What we don't do, or what we don't
do very well at least, is address river issues
on a watershed-wide basis. We don't design
our programs to address the fundamental
interconnections between water quality,
water supply, wetlands, air quality, wildlife
habitat.
That's tough to do and it's fine to
stand up here and talk about what we don't
do, but how do we do it? I think we need to
step back a little bit and we need to put real
faith and effort into a concept that has been
around for a while and gets talked about a lot
and never gets done—to address these issues
with a bioregional focus, to plan our efforts
to restore and protect the environment on an
ecosystem basis, using watersheds as the
basic unit.
What does this mean on a practical
basis? It means redirecting agency work, in
addition to redirecting the work of private
nonprofit river protection and advocacy
groups—to step back and take a look at the
watershed, take a look at the global issues in
the watershed, and then figure out how we
are going to apply our daily battles to those
issues in a proactive way.
Watershed approaches involve a tough
step by step process allocating precious
resources and limited staff. It means
stepping back a little, trying to figure out
what the critical issues, what the global
issues for the watershed are, and it also
means making tough choices to get away
-------
Conference Proceedings
311
from spending a lot of time in the conserva-
tion commission hearings, and in the state
permitting statutes, and spending more time
and effort on political change which allows
for comprehensive approaches attacking
broader issues.
Many nonprofit river groups have be-
gun that process over the last 10 years. It is
not easy, and it is easy to get caught up in the
day-to-day grind. One of the key ways to get
to that process involves political change for
redirecting agency efforts. We are seeing the
beginning of this kind of change with the
new administration in Washington, and some
of the changes in Congress and the states.
When agency efforts are redirected to water-
shed approaches, they inevitably have to face
what I call global issues within the watershed
and what are in fact global issues of resource
depletion and degradation. When you talk
about resource depletion and resource degra-
dation in the United States, you have to step
back and look at our per capita consumption
of resources. We consume well over 10
times the average amount of resources of the
rest of the world. When you put that in the
context of even the relatively low population
in the United States compared to the rest of
the world, you are still talking about major
resource problems that we have to deal with
now, hi one way or another.
I have presented a few provocative
statements here and I hope they spur thought-
ful reflection. It is key to remember, how-
ever, this idea of watershed approaches is not
new. This whole idea of planning water
basins and using the resources and protecting
and restoring the resources on a watershed
wide basis, an ecosystem basis, was first
proposed in the United States by Major John
Wesley Powell long before anybody knew
what an ecosystem was. You can read about
the history of his proposals for the West and
how far they got, and why they eventually
didn't get anywhere in the new edition of a
classic environmental work The Silent Crisis
in the Next Generation by Stewart Udall,
former Secretary of the Interior (Udall, 1988).
I highly recommend the book for an interest-
ing history of river protection, among other
topics, in the United States.
Opportunity
There is a great deal of activity in river
conservation. The 7992 River Conservation
Directory (published by the National Park
Service and American Rivers) lists 1,640
private and public agencies at the national,
state, and local levels. What's missing is a
movement. There is no broad national con-
sciousness that rivers are vital and threat-
ened, nor is there much cooperation or sup-
port among all these organizations.
River Network sees a major opportu-
nity for river conservation in this country,
with the following elements:
First, the situation has reached a crisis
stage that can no longer be ignored. With
dried-up streams hi the West, fouled streams
in the East and endangered fish species
everywhere, the public is ready for change.
Second, there is a large and growing
number of activists throughout the country
who are ready to work for river protection.
They tend to be isolated and frustrated, but
they are highly committed.
Third, several issues are coming to the
fore that will focus public and legislative at-
tention on river protection. The next few
years will see the reauthorization of the
Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species
Act, the listing of many fish species as
threatened and endangered, and the 50-year
federal relicensing of some 200 private dams.
Backlash
Countering this opportunity, we see
several negatives:
• First, there is a growing backlash
against environmental protection,
particularly hi rural areas.
• Second, the tools at hand for river
protection are woefully inadequate.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act is
not doing the job for the vast
majority of rivers.
• Third, national environmental
organizations are able to devote very
little energy to forging a movement
and empowering the grass-roots. By
necessity, most of their energy goes
to working with Congress, adminis-
trative agencies, the courts, and the
media.
• Fourth, public funding for river
restoration (including purchase of
river lands) is dwindling.
1990s—Decade of River
Conservation
Given the river-related issues that the
country faces, the 1990s could be the decade
-------
312
Watershed '93
of river conservation. We could strengthen
the Clean Water Act, demand strong
recovery plans for endangered fish species,
negotiate far-reaching mitigation for dams
that are being relicensed, and forge and pass
comprehensive new tools for river protec-
tion.
To take advantage of these opportuni-
ties, however, it will be necessary to
mobilize a grass-roots movement that can
counteract the influence of the "backlash"
that is becoming more and more organized.
The framework for a grass-roots movement
is there in the 1,000 or more river guardian
groups across the country. It doesn't seem,
however, that any other national organiza-
tions are prepared to focus on this grass-
roots constituency. (One exception: the
area of stream monitoring.) Quite under-
standably, the national organizations want to
focus their energies on the more direct roles
of lobbying, litigation, intervention with
agencies, and gaining media attention for
river issues. (It is interesting to note, in this
context, the complete absence of any
inclusion of the tremendous accomplish-
ments, success, and potential for change
represented by the thousands of locally and
regionally based nonprofit citizens river
protection organizations in either the
working groups, studies, or recommenda-
tions of the Water Quality 2000 reports
assembled by a working group of agency
officials, national environmental groups, and
industry representatives. (Water Environ-
ment Federation, 1992))
National Rivers Campaign
The challenge, then, is to work at the
regional, state, and grass-roots levels to
foster a cohesive movement of river and
watershed conservation. This means
recruiting and empowering leaders. It
means building organizations capable of
carrying out campaigns. It means linking up
all these leaders and organizations so that
they can work together for the common
goal: to stem the tide of river deterioration
and forge new tools for river conservation.
To this end the Pacific Rivers Council,
American Rivers, the American Whitewater
Affiliation, River Network, and a number of
other organizations have banded together to
take advantage of the opportunities dis-
cussed above and expand on them in a new
National Rivers Campaign over the next
8 years. This will be the first time a com-
prehensive national campaign to protect both
public and private lands rivers has been at-
tempted. Campaign goals include a coordi-
nated Strategic National Watershed Restora-
tion Initiative, major changes to the Clean
Water Act, reorganization of the U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency, uniform and
consistent standards for all federal land
agencies, ecosystem and watershed-level
planning by all federal agencies, a compre-
hensive ecosystem-based watershed restora-
tion program, a moratorium on new dam
construction, periodic "State of the Nation's
Rivers" reports, and stable long-term fund-
ing and sufficient financial and tax incen-
tives for riverine restoration. (Entering The
Watershed, Pacific Rivers Council, 1993).
Return to Dunham Brook
Where do I think these efforts will go
to meet the challenges of the next 10 years?
How do we most effectively use the data
gathered by the Pacific Rivers Council, The
Nature Conservancy, and the American
Fisheries Society? Site specific threats
literally occur by the thousands. I said at the
beginning that I wanted to return to the story
of Dunham Brook. Three years ago I visited
the brook for the first time in about 10
years, and what I found then is indicative of
the challenges and opportunities facing
North American rivers over the next 8 years.
When I was a child, hiking up and
down, and fishing and swimming in The
Brook, most of the brook was fairly well-
insulated from direct human impact. There
were only about 3 houses within 300 yards
of the brook—now there are over 40 in the
upper reaches. In the summer now, little or
no water is left in this stretch. It is silted and
dried up. There are no fish left here, no
turtles, no salamanders for little kids to play
with and discover as they poke sticks into
the water and overturn rocks. The gravel pit
has expanded and diverted the course of
what was left of the stream in the last major
visible stretch, and there are no bitterns left
in the cranberry bog. The pond drained in a
trickle to the Winnipesaukee. A sad story
for a lost resource.
There may yet be a happy ending,
however. In a brief visit to my hometown
last week, just before the blizzard of '93,1
heard some fish stories from a 71-year-old
family friend and avid fisherman. Russell
told me some low-key natural restoration
has taken place in the lower stretch of the
-------
Conference Proceedings
313
brook below the new houses. Beavers have
returned above the gravel pit, damned the
brook, and created new fishing holes.
Russell claims he fished to his daily catch
limit in the beaver impoundment twice last
summer. These claims were hard to
evaluate or even reach under last week's
2 feet of snow, but I'll return in June to walk
the length of the brook and report back to
you in the future.
What this anecdote reveals, however,
is the tremendous resilience of the resource
if it is helped along, and it also reveals the
possibility of restoration of its entire length
with changes in the way the resource is
used. Restoration of the many Dunham
Brooks across this great continent is where I
hope the myriad efforts of citizen activists,
volunteer monitors, restoration ecologists,
visionary politicians, business interests, and
many others will go between now and the
next century.
Dunham Brook, and the thousands
like it all over America, represents a chal-
lenge for the next 10 years, a challenge that
the determination of the people in this room
can meet and succeed with. The challenge
then, is to take the example faced by
Dunham Brook, or the Blackstone Valley, or
the Pawtuxet, or Moshassuck; the Winnipe-
saukee, the Woonasquatucket, or the
Stilliguamish; the Salmon, Snake, Rogue,
Columbia, or Willamette rivers, your eco-
logical address, and ratchet up river protec-
tion to a new level of political awareness,
protection, and effective restoration. To
change the way we approach science and
reductionist study and to address the trends
that are so very clear with holistic ap-
proaches and innovative solutions.
In closing, I'm going to leave you
with another quote from Edward Abbey -
one we need to take to heart and practice in
our daily lives. It goes like this:
One final paragraph of advice: Do not
burn yourselves out. Be as I am—a
reluctant enthusiast... a part-time
crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save
the other half of yourselves and your
lives for pleasure and adventure. It is
not enough to fight for the land; it is
even more important to enjoy it.
While you can. While it's still here.
So get out there and hunt and fish and
mess around with your friends, ramble
out yonder and explore the forests,
encounter the grizz, climb the moun-
tains, bag the peaks, run the rivers,
breathe deep of that yet sweet and lu-
cid air, sit quietly for a while and con-
template the precious stillness, that
lovely, mysterious and awesome
space. Enjoy yourselves, keep your
brain in your head and your head
firmly attached to the body, the body
active and alive, and I promise you
this much: I promise you this one
sweet victory over our enemies, over
those desk-bound people with their
hearts in a safe deposit box and their
eyes hypnotized by desk calculators. I
promise you this: you will outlive the
bastards.
Thank you very much.
References
Abbey, E. 1987. One life at a time, please.
Henry Holt and Co.
Benke, A.C. 1990. A perspective on
America's vanishing streams. Journal
of the North American Benthological
Society 9(1, March).
Brody, J.E. 1991, April 21. Water based
animals are becoming extinct faster
than others. The New York Times, p.
C4.
Cairns, J., Jr., et al. 1992. Restoration of
aquatic ecosystems. National Acad-
emy Press, Washington, DC.
Dunnette, D.A. 1992. Assessing global
river water quality: Overview and
data collection. In The science of
global change: The impact of human
activities on the environment, ed.
D.A. Dunnette and R.J. O'Brien, pp.
241-259. American Chemical
Society, Washington, DC.
Karr, J.R. 1991. Biological integrity: A
long-neglected aspect of water
resource management. Ecological
Applications l(l):66-84.
. 1992. Testimony to the Subcom-
mittee on Energy and the Environ-
ment, House Interior and Insular
Affairs Committee, U.S. Congress,
April 29, 1992.
Master, L. 1990. The imperiled status of
North American aquatic animals.
Biodiversity Network News (Arling-
ton, VA) 3(3).
Miller, R.R., J.D. Williams, and J.E.
Williams. 1989. Extinctions of North
American fishes during the past cen-
tury. Fisheries (Bethesda) 14:22-38.
-------
314
Watershed '93
National body fears wide damage to aquatic
ecosystems. 1991, December 12.
Associated Press. The Boston Globe,
p. 10.
National Park Service. 1992. 1992 river
conservation directory. National Park
Service, Washington, DC.
Nehlsen, W. J.E. Williams, and J.A.
Lichatowich. 1991. Pacific salmon at
the crossroads: Stocks at risk from
California, Oregon, Idaho, and
Washington. Fisheries (Bethesda)
16(2, March-April).
Norcross, E., and G. Calvo. 1993. Private
lands river protection—Balancing
private and public concerns.
American Rivers (DC) February
1993.
Pacific Rivers Council. 1993. Entering the
watershed: An action plan to protect
and restore America's river ecosys-
tems and biodiversity. Pacific Rivers
Council, Eugene, OR. March.
Stevens, W.K. 1993, January 26. River life
through U.S. broadly degraded. The
New York Times, p. Cl.
Udall, S.R. 1988. The silent crisis in the
next generation. Peregrine Smith
Books, Salt Lake City, UT.
USEPA Region I. 1987. Merrimack River
watershed protection initiative: Past,
present, and future. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region I,
Boston, MA.
Water Environment Federation. 1992.
Water quality 2000: A national water
agenda for the 21st century. Water
Environment Federation, Alexandria,
VA.
Yoffe, E. 1992. Silence of the frogs. New
York Times Magazine, December 13,
1992: 36-39, 64-66, 76.
-------
WATERSHED1 9.3
A New Philosophy for the
Environmental Regulatory Process
Michael Pawlukiewicz
Department of Environmental Resources, Prince George's County, MD
Prince George's County, MD, is a
major suburb of Washington, DC,
extending east and south of the
District of Columbia. It is about 500
square miles in area and has a 1992
population of approximately 740,000
people. The area of the county immedi-
ately next to Washington is intensely
urbanized; the county also contains
sprawling suburban communities and
picturesque rural and agricultural areas.
The "regulatory process" that is the
subject of this paper is the local government
environmental protection process. At the
local level the most significant environmen-
tal regulatory activity concerns land
development. Land development and the
management of associated infrastructure
contribute significantly to water quality
problems particularly in urban areas.
Nevertheless, the thesis advanced here is
relevant to all areas of regulation, including
the federal and state environmental regula-
tory processes.
The parts of the regulatory process
that are examined are the fundamental
framework and philosophy within which
regulation is done. This paper proposes that
the relationships between the public and
private sectors and among governmental
agencies at all levels of government be
redefined.
There always has been, and probably
always will be, tension between levels of
government—between the state and local
governments, as well as between the state
and federal levels. It seems to be the nature
of the republic that there be rivalry and
competition between the various levels.
These rivalries have been so bitter and
destructive that today there is considerable
distrust among governmental agencies and
between levels of government. In addition,
there is a special kind of bad will between
public sector regulators and private sector
land developers. We in local government all
have stories of environmental atrocities
carried out by one development project or
another. Local business representatives can
also tell their own stories of abominations
perpetrated in the name of environmental
protection or of being trapped in some local
environmental Catch 22 crafted by the local
regulatory bureaucracy. This atmosphere
disrupts the economic viability of private
sector projects, making it difficult for them
to succeed and be profitable. Ultimately this
is destructive of the community's economic
well-being.
It is proposed here that, in the best
American tradition, we make these rivalries
a positive force in the Nation and a starting
point for a new approach to the environmen-
tal regulatory process.
By way of responding to the destruc-
tive nature of the existing system, a new
philosophy and approach to the process of
managing environmental regulation are
being used successfully in Prince George's
County, MD. This new philosophy and
process recognize and respect those natural
tensions in intergovernmental relations and
attempt to reverse the destructive tendencies
that characterize relations between the
public and private sectors.
The new philosophy is based on the
following five principles:
1. Establish and share a vision of
environmental quality in a context of
community well-being and economic
prosperity.
2. Build trust among public agencies at
all levels and between the public and
private sectors.
315
-------
316
Watershed '93
3. Respect the connectedness of
everything in natural and socioeco-
nomic systems.
4. Have sensitivity to the needs of the
regulated community, particularly
with respect to market and economic
forces.
5. Use good judgment, assess the risks,
evaluate outcomes, make appropriate
changes.
Principle Number 1: Establish and
Share a Vision of Environmental
Quality In a Context of Community
Well-Being and Economic
Prosperity
The concept of vision, sometimes ex-
pressed as "visualizing," is used in many
contexts today. It is a component of Total
Quality Management and other team build-
ing and management frameworks. A vision,
as used here, is a perception in the human
mind (imagination) mat embodies the charac-
teristics that the organization, or in this case
the community, would choose to have.
Having a vision makes a difference!
The County Executive of Prince George's
County, Parris N. Glendening, established a
vision for the county early in his first
administration. He thought it was important
to reverse the perception within the region
and the county itself that Prince George's
County was a second-class community; that
the county was the low end of the market for
development; that Prince George's County
is the place in the Washington Metropolitan
region to build cinder block warehouses and
low-rent garden apartments. Through his
public statements and implementation of
policy, he made it clear that the county
welcomed high-quality development but
would not tolerate low-end projects that
would drag down the county's economy.
Further, he insisted that having high-quality
development was not good enough and that,
in fact, development could not be of high
quality unless it protects and enhances
environmental quality. He reinforced this
view by consistently reiterating that a
healthy and productive natural environment
is consistent with good, profitable develop-
ment. The vision he promoted is capsuled
in the following statement: Quality develop-
ment that embodies environmental quality,
to provide improved quality of life for
Prince George's County.
The environmental vision should
incorporate cultural, public safety, and
economic considerations as well as those of
the envkonment. Glendening was clear
that his vision included better schools and
improved police and fire protection as well
as forest habitat protection and restoration of
water quality. Another vision, albeit a more
restricted one, many people are familiar with
is the Clean Water Act goal of "fishable and
swimmable" waters for the United States.
The components of a vision must be
integrated: Yes to forests, habitat, clean
water, clean air, and yes to other aspirations
for our community, such as high-paying
jobs, successful businesses, homes in good
communities, public safety and well-being,
etc. A good vision also incorporates well-
defined roles for the members of the
community and the organization, for
example, local, state, and federal govern-
ment agencies, citizens, business, etc. Each
organization has an appropriate function that
enhances and supports the functions of the
others. The regulator must take ownership
of the community's vision so the regulatory
activity has a context and is goal-oriented.
Principle Number 2: Build Trust
Among Public Agencies at All
Levels and Between the Public and
Private Sectors
Trust is a commodity that has con-
spicuously ebbed from the scene in the
regulatory process. Trusting means letting
go, allowing things to happen outside
controlling spheres. One of the lessons we
can glean from the collapse of the Commu-
nist world is that trying to control too much
destroys natural community and interper-
sonal bonds.
In the State of Maryland, a number of
relatively new environmental programs are
working using elements of this new process.
An example of this is the statewide erosion
and sediment control program. This
program is one that works very successfully
in Prince George's County. The state has
primary responsibility for the regulation of
erosion and sediment control in the con-
struction process. It also has the authority to
delegate that responsibility to each county
for two years at a time. The sediment
control statute requires the Maryland
Department of Natural Resources to set
standards and allows each county with
delegated authority to run the program
consistent with the standards, subject only to
state review. Of course, if the county fails
to adhere to the standards, the state takes
-------
Conference Proceedings
317
away the delegated authority and the
county loses control over its development
process. With the counties managing the
process and the state auditing it, there is a
much greater motivation on the part of each
to be successful.
Maryland runs similar programs in
storm water management and in the state-
mandated land use program for the Chesa-
peake Bay known as the Chesapeake Bay
Critical Area Program. The Chesapeake
Bay Critical Area Program is managed by a
commission made up of state and local
officials and citizens. The commission sets
the standards and its membership ensures a
process of local participation that prevents
the program from becoming a State Land
Use Program. This process also ensures
there is respect for how things are done
locally. The local governments are trusted
to do the enforcement, and they are in the
best position to handle it.
Regulatory programs should be
written without loopholes, but with room for
interpretation. Regulatory officials should
be responsible for allowing for extenuating
circumstances and to make appropriate
exceptions. Regulators must brealk out of
the mold of monolithic interpretation and
trust in their own professional judgment
and, of course, be allowed to do so. Trust-
ing means letting go! The regulatory system
must allow those who can be trusted to work
unimpeded. The system must also fall
swiftly on those who would take unfair
advantage of the trust. The system should
reward the person who protects the environ-
ment and should not punish all as if no one
can be trusted. Another aspect of this kind
of regulatory posture is that things may not
be done the way a regulator might prefer,
but that does not mean they have been done
wrong. Diverse solutions can be accommo-
dated. Building trust means being trusted.
Trusting, being trusted, and being free to let
go can be parts of the vision. This connec-
tion introduces us to the next principle,
connectedness.
Principle Number 3: Respect the
Connectedness of Everything in
Natural and Socioeconomic
Systems
One of Barry Commoner's laws of
nature is: "Everything is connected to
everything else." The theme of connected-
ness in one that is heard everywhere in these
times. People know that what they do in
their homes affects the global environment.
Two examples are the depletion of strato-
spheric ozone because of the widespread use
of CFCs and the concept of global warming
from the intensive use of fossil fuels.
Connectedness goes beyond natural sys-
tems; and, because human beings are in
reality part of nature, the things we do are
also connected to natural systems. In order
to plan for a truly healthy and diverse
environment, the universal connectedness of
things in nature and of natural systems must
be respected. Regulators must recognize
that this connectedness extends to socioeco-
nomic systems, as well as the connectedness
of socioeconomic systems to natural
systems. They must take responsibility for
their role in determining the consequences
of outcomes. Just as business people must
understand how then: moneymaking activity
affects environmental systems, regulators
must grasp how their resource protection
activities affect socioeconomic systems and
take responsibility for that.
In the State of Maryland, the Office of
Planning, the Department of the Environ-
ment, the Department of Natural Resources,
the Department of Agriculture, and the
seven counties in the Patuxent watershed are
using U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency funds to prepare a watershed-wide.
guidance document This document will
address water quality and habitat concerns
in the Patuxent River; each county will be
able to provide for its own economic and
cultural well-being according to its own
vision and goals.
Principle Number 4: Have
Sensitivity to the Needs of the
Regulated Community, Particularly
with Respect to Market and
Economic Forces
Visualize a community with a healthy,
functioning ecosystem—terrestrial and
aquatic and further—and here's the revolu-
tionary idea—businesses are fantastically
successful. Visualize environmental
regulators who see their goal as protecting
the environment and making business
projects financially profitable. This sounds
like a revolutionary idea, but doesn't it make
a lot of sense? One way to help businesses
be successful is by saying no early in the
process so heavy investment is prevented. It
is also important to say yes as early in the
process as possible. The worst thing for the
business investor is to be strung along
-------
318
Watershed '93
when, in fact, the regulator doesn't want to
say yes and hasn't the conviction to say no.
Government officials should be helping
businesses to accomplish their economic
goals for the benefit of the community.
This means working with people and
helping them, when appropriate, to find a
way to succeed.
We all have a role in our community.
Environmental regulators have the role of
protecting environmental systems. People
in business have the role of creating wealth.
Both sectors must help each other succeed La
their role. Business people should, of
course, be sensitive to the environmental
systems when they design and build their
projects. And environmental regulators
must be sensitive to social and economic
issues when they review these projects or
establish policies for their regulation. Both
should understand the vision and use it to
assist them in preparing their groundwork.
Principle Number 5: Use Good
Judgment, Assess the Risks,
Evaluate Outcomes, Moke
Appropriate Changes
It is imperative for us to know if we
are getting the desked results in environ-
mental protection, in economic activity, in
the cultural identity of the community, in
the health and well-being of the people.
Using good judgment means accurately
assessing risks and then understanding
which are appropriate to take. It means
being objective about data and making
changes when the data show that results are
not what has been expected. Also we need
to judge if we are living into the vision and
if the vision needs to change.
Using these principles, agencies,
managers, and employees become
focused on larger goals and begin to
understand how they affect and are
affected by other players in the process.
They become motivated to cooperate and
share in the accomplishments of the
organization. This philosophy, which is
also being tested in planning for the
Patuxent River watershed in Maryland,
can be the heart of successful implemen-
tation of the "watershed approach."
Conclusion
Building support among the partici-
pants in the regulatory process builds trust
among them too. Understanding the
connectedness of the roles also builds trust
and strengthens the vision. Seeing the
connectedness in nature can help us respect
the connectedness in human systems and
cultivate sensitivity to the forces that
constrain people's actions. Basing regula-
tory action on that sensitivity builds trust
and enhances the vision. Good judgment
requires that we stop doing things that don't
work, and that we evaluate how well we are
living the vision and make appropriate
action based on that evaluation.
-------
The Economics of Silvkultural Best
Management Practices
George E. Dissmeyer, S&.TF Water Program Manager
USDA Forest Service, Atlanta, GA
Several papers have discussed the
economics of implementing best
management practices (BMPs) from
the cost side of the equation, with no
attempt to develop the benefits side of the
equation for the landowner or operator.
Ellefson and Miles (1984) reported on the
costs of implementing skid trails, landing
design, seeding and fertilizing skid trails and
roads, waterbars, broad-based dips, and
buffer strips and of installing culverts to the
timber purchaser. Hickman and Jackson
(1978) used linear programming to evaluate
the economics of timber rotations and
species constrained by on-site erosion.
Dykstra and Froehlich studied costs of filter/
shade strips. Benson and Niccolucci (1986)
analyzed the stumpage costs of implement-
ing road, log hauling, skidding, and slash "
disposal BMPs.
There are benefits to the landowner
and operator for implementing BMPs. It is
not all cost! The basic principle in forestry
is: those things done to maintain or improve
water quality are often the same things done
to maintain or improve soil productivity
(Dissmeyer et al., 1987). It is through
maintaining or improving soil productivity
that landowners derive benefits in terms of
increments of induced outputs of timber,
forage, wildlife, recreation, etc. over
implementing poor soil and water manage-
ment. The national effort by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA) Forest
Service developed the models and methods
for evaluating increments of induced outputs
and demonstrated them through 16 ex-
amples (Dissmeyer et al., 1987).
Soil and water are the basic resources.
They are essential to the production of all
forest and range products and services. The
amount of goods and services produced
depends directly on the manner in which
soil and water resources are managed,
conserved, and used.
These resources and services have
economic value, which vary to the extent
they are in limited supply and meet human
needs. Through specific examples, the
USDA Forest Service project identified
incremental outputs and values of induced
goods and services attributed to investments
in soil and water resource management.
Generally, the project emphasized compar-
ing the value of goods and services pro-
duced or conserved with costs incurred.
Methods
The project developed five matrices to
estimate economic benefits from soil and
water resource management in five empha-
sis areas: timber, forage, fish, enhanced
water, and road construction and mainte-
nance (Dissmeyer et al., 1987). The
procedures can be applied to recreation,
wildlife, and other soil and water dependent
resources.
To illustrate the matrices, a simplified
timber matrix is presented (Table 1).
Literature and field data are used in the
analysis. Two southern soil- and water-
related timber management practices are
compared: site preparation for tree planting
using disking versus chop and burn practices
(Column 1).
Disking usually follows shearing and
windrowing, which removes nutrients and
topsoil to windrows, often reduces soil
productivity, and yields a significant
sediment to the stream. Chopping followed
by a cool burn leaves more nutrients in
place, better maintains soil productivity, and
319
-------
320
Watershed '93
Tkble 1. Simplified timber matrix
(1) (2)
Soil & Water Stocking
related level
practice (%)
Site Prep.
Disking %
Chop & burn %
(3)
S&S
growth
(m)
Height
Height
(4)
P&S
growth
(m)
Height
Height
(5)
Height
growth
curves
R
R
(6) (7)
Growth Induced
& yield res.
tables output
YB YB-YA
(8)
Economics
B C B/C IRR
$ $ %
B C B/C %
yields little sediment. To evaluate timber
output differences between treatments, the
following information and analysis tools are
needed.
The type of site preparation can
affect initial stocking levels (column 2).
Stocking levels at the end of a timber
rotation can be predicted with existing
relationships.
Seedling and sapling height growth
(column 3) and pole and sawtimber height
growth (column 4) are often affected by
site preparation treatments. By using
growth models, rotation heights can be
estimated with models (R) from early
stand heights (column 5).
Estimated stocking levels and
rotation stand height can be entered into
growth and yield tables (column 6) to
estimate wood volumes at the end of the
rotation. The estimated wood volume for
disking is YA, while chop and burn should
yield YB. Assuming disking produces less
wood than chop and burn, the induced
timber output from better soil and water
resource management with chopping is
YB-YA (column 7).
The increment of induced timber
volume (YA - YB) has a stumpage value that
is discounted to a net present worth or
benefit (B) in column 8. The cost of site
preparation and management over the
rotation is adjusted to present cost and the
difference in treatment costs is (C) in
column 8. With these data, benefit/cost
ratios (B/C) and internal rates of returns
(IRR) can be computed (column 8).
Examples of BMP Economic
Evaluations
The following three examples demon-
strate the application of the concepts,
matrices, and analytical procedures dis-
cussed above and hi the project report
(Dissmeyer et al., 1987). These three
examples are
limited to timber
production and
savings in road
maintenance costs.
The examples
were developed
for site specific
situations and the
results should not
be extrapolated to
other settings.
The examples are brief, yet allow the reader
to follow the logic and procedures used.
Example 1. Road Construction and
Maintenance
Problem: The main haul road to a
timber sale was built across problem soils
where the cutbanks yield excessive runoff
and erode easily. The volume of runoff
from the cutbanks erodes through the road
surface and subgrade. The road will be used
to haul timber periodically over the next 20
years. To maintain access, repair of the road
surface and subgrade will be needed every 3
years. BMPs were not used in the road
location, design, or construction.
Solution: The road should have been
constructed using the following BMPs: (1)
midslope terraces in cutbanks, (2) water
diversions above cutbanks, and (3) cutbanks
seeded, fertilized, and mulched.
Rationale: Actual repair costs at 3-
year intervals are compared to the costs of
BMPs and savings in maintenance costs
over a 20-year period.
Economics: Current situation with
maintenance cost at 3-year intervals. Repair
costs are:
Equipment costs (truck, frontend loader,
and bulldozer, plus operators) $365
Materials (subgrade fill and surface
gravel) 122
Work supervision 40
Total repair costs $527
The discounted value of six mainte-
nance costs over the 20-year expected life of
the road is $2,137, using a discount rate of
4 percent.
The alternative is installing the BMPs
to control runoff and revegetate the
cutbanks, which will eliminate the need for
heavy maintenance every 3 years. The costs
of technical assistance and BMPs:
-------
Conference Proceedings
321
Labor to construct mid-slope terraces
and water diversions above the
cutbanks
Materials to revegetate cutbanks
Cost of technical assistance
Total cost
Considering the $2,137 saved as the
benefit of spending $1,200 more at the time
of construction:
1. The present net value is $937.
2. The benefit/cost ratio is 1.78 to 1.00.
3. The internal rate of return is 11.2
percent.
Example conclusion: The additional
cost to install BMPs at the time of road
construction would have been strongly
justified on economic grounds.
Example 2. Site Preparation BMPs
and Timber Growth and Yields
Problem: The way a site is prepared
for tree planting can significantly affect
sediment yields, soil productivity, and
timber growth and yields by exposing and
compacting soil, and by removing litter,
topsoil, and nutrients.
Rationale: Shearing and wind-
rowing or bulldozing and windrowing
are common site preparation practices
in the South. Dissmeyer (1986) sum-
marized research on impacts of various
types of site preparation on timber
growth and yields. Research has dem-
onstrated that shearing and windrowing
can reduce height growth at the end of
the rotation by as much as 4.3 meters,
compared to soil conserving practices.
For this example, shearing and wind-
rowing will be compared to chopping
and light burning, and the height differ-
ence is assigned a conservative 1.5
meters (Patterson, 1984). The average
erosion rate for chopping and burning
will be approximately 30 to 50 percent
of the rate for shearing and windrowing
(Dissmeyer and Stump, 1978).
Economics: Patterson (1984)
used a site index of 21.3 meters for
chopping and burning (Table 2), and
19.8 meters for shearing and windrow-
ing (Table 3). A growth and yield
model estimated differences in timber
production for a 36-year rotation with
1,480 trees per hectare. Stumpage
prices used were $2.76/m3 of pulpwood
and $41.61/m3 of sawtimber.
Example Conclusions: Implementing
site preparation BMPs by favoring chopping
and light fire overshearing and windrowing
reduces sediment and better maintains soil
productivity and timber production. The
landowner will get a greater return on his
investment by investing $124 less per acre
with chopping and burning and increase the
present net value of timber by $318 per
hectare, compared to shearing and windrow-
ing. Employing chopping and burning
yielded larger trees and more valuable
products.
Example 3. Skid Trail Rehabilitation
Problem: Implementation of skid trail
rehabilitation BMPs is viewed as a cost only
by landowners. This example demonstrates
the value of mitigation BMPs by recouping
soil productivity on intensively disturbed
soils in skid trails. Timber yield from trees
growing in primary skid trails and roads is
severely reduced compared to adjacent
undisturbed soils. Soils within skid trails
are severely compacted, limiting soil
moisture availability and root development.
Soil nutrients are removed during skidding
Table 2. Site preparation with chopping and light burn
Year
1984
1999
2010
2020
Description
Site prep. & planting cost
Thinning income (pulpwood)
Thinning income (pulpwood) &
(sawtimber)
Final harvest income (pulpwood)
(sawtimber)
Cost
/ha
$296
Income
/ha
$252
526
2,417
Wood Volume
/hectare
91.2m3
47.4 m3&
9.5m3
22.4 m3&
56.6 m3
Internal rate of return: 8.1 percent.
Present net value (at 4 percent): $622/ha.
Benefit/cost ratio (at 4 percent): 3.1 to 1.0.
Table 3. Site preparation with shearing and windrowing
Year
1984
1999
2010
2020
Cost
Description /ha.
Site prep. & planting cost $420
Thinning income (pulpwood)
Thinning income (pulpwood) &
(sawtimber)
Final harvest income (pulpwood)
(sawtimber)
Income
/ha.
$180
331
2,069
Wood Volume
/hectare
65.3 m3
85.9 m3 &
2.2m3
31.3 m3&
47.6 m3
Present net value (at 4 percent): $304/ha.
Benefit/cost ratio (at 4 percent): 1.72 to 1.0.
-------
322
Watershed '93
and in the construction of skid roads. Skid
trails and roads can be significant sources
of sediment.
Solution: Employ BMP rehabilitation
treatments, which usually include soil
ripping, waterbarring, seeding, fertilizing,
mulching where needed, and in this ex-
ample, followed by tree planting.
Rationale: Wert and Thomas (1981)
found the volume growth of 42-year-old
Douglas fir (Pseudosuga menziesii) in
primary skid trails was reduced by 74
percent, compared to trees growing in
undisturbed soil. Loblolly pine (Pinus
taedd) seedling survival and early growth in
compacted, primary skid trails was ad-
versely affected (Hatchell et al., 1970).
Tilling and fertilizing heavily compacted
skid trails and landings resulted in seedling
growth through age 4 as being close to the
growth occurring on undisturbed soils
(Hatchell, 1981) and at age 12, the trees
were essentially the same height.
Growth differences observed during
the first 5 to 10 years of stand development
on upland sites will persist through a pulp-
wood rotation and likely to a sawlog rota-
tion (Dissmeyer, 1986). If loblolly pine
heights in rehabilitated skid trails and undis-
turbed soil are essentially the same at ages 4
and 12, then they should be essentially the
same at the end of a sawlog rotation.
Economics: The economics of
primary skid trail and landing rehabilitation
can be approximated using data by Wert and
Thomas (1981). Observations of shortleaf
pine and hardwoods in the South exhibit
similar growth differences between skid
trails and undisturbed soils. Benefits from
skid trail and landing rehabilitation for
hardwood (Quercus sp.) and shortleaf pine
(Pinus echinata) on site index 18.3 meters
and 21.3 meters (base 50 years) sites are
estimated (Table 4).
Sawlog rotations of 60 and 70 years
were used. Table 4 shows the expected
volume of timber per hectare and the value
per cubic meter.
A growth loss of 74 percent (Wert and
Thomas, 1981) was used to estimate timber
volume on skid trails. The estimated timber
volume on skid trails is 26 percent of the
volume on undisturbed soil (Table 4). To be
conservative, it was estimated that only 75
percent of the timber volume loss would be
regained by skid trail rehabilitation.
The present net value of hardwood
timber recovered is a minus $592 per
hectare, while the value of shortleaf pine
timber is a positive $524 per hectare skid
trail rehabilitation. The benefit/cost ratio for
hardwood is 0.34 to 1.0, and for shortleaf
pine it is 1.58 to 1.0.
Example conclusions: Economic
evaluations of soil rehabilitation treatments
can help determine where implementation of
BMPs is cost-effective. Investments in skid
trail rehabilitation, including tree planting,
Table 4. Economic benefits of skid trail rehabilitation BMPs
Rotation
Harvest volume per hectare
Value per cubic meter
Total value of timber per hectare
for uncompacted soil
Timber volume per hectare on skid
trails (26% of uncompacted soil)
Timber volume lost per hectare of
skid trail
Cost per hectare of skid trail
rehabilitation plus tree planting
Timber volume recovered (75% of loss)
Value of timber volume recovered
Internal rate of return
Present net value (at 4 percent)
Benefit/cost ratio (at 4 percent)
Units
Years
Cubic m
1986$
1986$
Cubic m
Cubic m
1986$
Cubic m
1986$
Percent
1986$
Timber Type
Hardwood
70
301
$28.57
$8,600
78
223
$900
167
$4,771
2.4
-$592
0.34:1
Shortleaf
Pine
60
420
$64.29
$27,000
109
311
$900
233
$14,980
4.8
$524
1.58:1.
-------
Conference Proceedings
323
in moderately high-valued shortleaf pine
forests contributes significantly to timber
production and is a financially sound
investment. In relatively low-value hard-
wood forests, skid trail rehabilitation may
not produce a positive financial return to the
landowner from timber production alone.
By treating skid trails as wildlife food plots,
the combination of hardwood timber and
wildlife values may make the investment
financially sound.
Conclusions
Implementation of BMPs can be a
financially sound investment for the
landowner and operator in many but not all
situations. The examples presented focused
on returns in timber production, and with
the addition of other increments of resource
outputs the investments can be made more
attractive. The methodology for evaluating
the economics of BMP implementation is
available and should be used by policy
makers, land managers, and operators.
References
Ameteis, R.L., and H. E. Burnhart. 1985.
Site index curves for loblolly pine
plantations on cutover site-prepared
lands. Southern Journal of Applied
Forestry 9:166-169.
Benson, R.E., and MJ. Niccolucci. 1986.
What does it cost to protect nontimber
resources during logging? American
Forests 92(6):26-28, 53-54.
Dissmeyer, G.E. 1986. Economic impacts of
erosion control in forests. In Proceed-
ings of the Southern Forestry Sympo-
sium, November 19-21, 1985, Atlanta,
Georgia, ed. S. Carpenter, pp. 262-
287. Oklahoma State University
Agricultural Conference Series,
Oklahoma State Univiversity.
Dissmeyer, G.E., and R.F. Stump. 1978.
Predicted erosion rates for forest
management activites and conditions
sampled in the Southeast. USDA
Forest Service, Atlanta, GA.
Dissmeyer, G.E., M.P. Goggin, E.R.
Frandsen, S.R. Miles, R. Solomon,
B.B.Foster, andK.L.Roth. 1987. Soil
and water resource management: A
cost or a benefit? In Approaches to
watershed economics through example.
Vols. 1 and 2. USDA Forest Service,
Watershed and Air Management Staff,
Washington, DC. Vol. 1, p. 99; Vol. 2,
p. 240.
Dystra, D.P., and H.A. Froehlich. 1976.
Costs of stream protection during tim-
ber harvest. Journal of Forestry
74:684-687.
Ellefson, P.V., and P.D. Miles. 1975. Eco-
nomic implications of managing
nonpoint forest source of water pollut-
ants: A midwestern perspective. In
Proceedings of the Mountain Logging
Symposium, June 5-7,1975, ed. P.A.
Peters and J. Luchok, pp. 107-119.
West Virginia University.
Hatchell, G. E. 1981. Site preparation and
fertilizer increase pine growth on soils
compacted in logging. Southern Jour-
nal of Applied Forestry 5:79-83.
Hatchell, G.E., C.W. Ralston, and R.R. Foil.
1970. Soil disturbances in logging:
Effects on soil characteristics and
growth of loblolly pine in the Atlantic
Coastal Plain. Journal of Forestry
68:772-775.
Hickman, C.A., and B.D. Jackson. 1978.
Economic impacts of controlling soil
loss from silvicultural activities: A case
study of Cherokee County, Texas. Texas
A&M University, Texas Water Re-
sources Institute, Tech. Report no. 91.,
p. 116.
Patterson, T. 1984. Dollars in your dirt.
Alabama Treasured Forests, Spring
1984:20-21.
Wert, S., and B.R. Thomas. 1981. Effects of
skid roads on diameter, height, and vol-
ume growth in Douglas-fir. Soil Soci-
ety of America Journal 45:629-632.
-------
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
Preservation and Restoration of
Wetlands: The Challenge of
Economic-Ecological Modeling
on a Watershed Basis
Robert Gates, Alan Woolf
Cooperative Wildlife Research Laboratory and Department of Zoology
Steven Kraft, Roger Beck, Mike Wagner
Department of Agribusiness Economics
John Burde
Department of Forestry
David Sharpe
Department of Geography
Southern Illinois University at Carbondale
E Forts to protect the environment and
onserve natural resources and
iological diversity increasingly
require integration of economic and ecologi-
cal considerations in land use planning and
policy formulation. Our goal was to
develop an interdisciplinary approach to
integrate ecological and economic concerns
in watershed planning. Agricultural
economists, wildlife ecologists, geogra-
phers, and foresters have been working on
ecological and economic evaluation of land
use scenarios designed to preserve, restore,
and maintain natural ecological communi-
ties in a rural watershed in southern Illinois.
Our challenge was to provide a planning
framework for sustainable development of
the local and regional economies that is
compatible with protection and restoration
of biodiversity. We applied the biosphere
reserve concept that includes a core area
(ecological preserve), a buffer area, (water-
shed surrounding the core), and the region
outside the bioreserve.
Our study area was the Cache River
Watershed, encompassing a 1,944-square-
kilometer area of five southern Illinois
counties (Figure 1). The Cache River lies at
the juncture of four major physiographic
provinces: Central Lowlands, Ozark
Plateaus, Coastal Plain, and the Interior Low
Plateaus. Biodiversity is high; 100 plants
and animals on the Illinois threatened and
endangered species list occur within the
Bi Bioreserve Core Area
Watershed Boundary
—' Cache River & Tributaries
Figure 1. The Cache River Watershed in southern Illinois and
boundaries of the Cache River Bioreserve core area, including
current state and federal holdings and the acquisition area for
Cypress Creek National Wildlife Refuge and joint venture areas.
325
-------
326
Watershed '93
watershed. The Cache River basin supports
10 globally rare or endangered species and
ecological communities; the area also is part
of a regional economy.
Health of the human community and
the Cache River ecosystem is closely linked
to how natural and human resources are used
in this rural area. The new Cypress Creek
National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) on the
Cache River supports efforts by The Nature
Conservancy, Ducks Unlimited, Inc., and the
Illinois Department of Conservation to pro-
tect and restore unique ecological communi-
ties, particularly forested wetlands and cy-
press-tupelo swamps within the bioreserve
core (Figure 1). Agricultural and other ac-
tivities within the surrounding buffer area
have profound effects on the human services
and ecological functions that natural com-
munities within the core area provide. How-
ever, purchase of the entire watershed by
joint venture agencies is neither feasible, nor
desired by the local populace. Challenges of
economic development and natural commu-
nity restoration in the Cache River region are
to (1) identify economic development oppor-
tunities in the watershed that will replace or
enhance economic activity after establish-
ment of the bioreserve and (2) propose alter-
native land use scenarios outside the core
area that are ecologically compatible with
preservation of natural communities
throughout the watershed.
Land Use Alternatives
Ecological
Assessment
Economic
Analysis
Figure 2. A conceptual model illustrating a general approach
to model and evaluate economic and ecological impacts
associated with land use changes in a rural watershed.
Geographic information systems (GIS) provide the means to
link economic and ecological analyses with land use planning.
Approach
Benefits and costs of changing land
use patterns were projected based on eco-
logical and socioeconomic perspectives.
Our work provides a replicable framework
to integrate socioeconomic and ecological
parameters, and to model impacts associated
with land use changes in an economically
sparse rural watershed. Our approach ap-
plied geographical information systems
(GIS) to simulate and evaluate ecological
changes resulting from land use changes,
and economic modeling using a hybridized
regional input/output model (IMPLAN)
(University of Minnesota, 1989). Three sce-
narios were evaluated: (1) natural commu-
nity restoration and wildlife habitat develop-
ment within the core area, (2) establishment
of filter strips along streams outside the core
area to control sediment input to the Cache
River, and (3) conversion of highly erodible
land from crop to forage production in the
buffer area. Land use scenarios were com-
pared as to their relative ecological benefits,
and their impact on local and regional
economies. Using our approach, economic
and ecological constraints can be imposed
and evaluated in an iterative process that
will lead to formulation of a watershed man-
agement plan to accomplish socioeconomic
and ecological objectives (Figure 2).
Methods
Current land use (forest, row crop,
forested upland, herbaceous upland) was
determined from an August 1991
LANDSAT 5 satellite scene. Wetland com-
munities and riparian corridors were identi-
fied and mapped by merging National Wet-
lands Inventory (NWI) and Digital Line
Graph (DLG) data with the satellite image.
ARC/INFO and Map and Image Processing
System (MIPS) GIS software was used to
summarize land use and wetland habitat
composition over the entire watershed,
within the core area, and within 90-m stream
buffers (filter strips) outside the core area.
These data were converted to coefficients
for input to a regional input-output (I/O)
economic model. Ecological responses an-
ticipated from implementing the three land
use scenarios were qualitatively evaluated
and compared based on available informa-
tion for the Cache River Watershed. We
focused on control of sediment input to the
lower portion of the watershed and on frag-
-------
Conference Proceed!rigs
327
mentation and connectivity of upland forests
and swamps that provide habitat for native
flora and fauna.
Regional I/O analysis (Miller and
Blair, 1985) was used to assess economic
impacts of land use changes. We used
regional data derived from surveys, empiri-
cally based agricultural budgets, sales tax
data, and other sources to hybridize the
IMPLAN model with technical coefficients
appropriate for the region. Technical
coefficients reflected productive relation-
ships among sectors within the region, and
the extent to which buyers of intermediate
and final goods and services were willing to
purchase regionally produced goods.
We evaluated economic impacts of a
reduction in row crop acreage, increased
nonresident demand for recreation services,
response of local businesses to changes in
recreation demand, and the capacity of the
economy to meet a larger proportion of
demand for recreation services. These
issues are examined in a spatially diffuse
and sparse rural economy, making it
difficult to measure the strength of second-
ary economic impacts (Beck et al., 1990).
Primary and secondary impacts resulted
from net transfer of land from agricultural
production to production of wildlife and
recreation services, through establishment of
a National Wildlife Refuge in the core area.
Economic impacts were developed for
405-hectare (ha) units to assess effects of
filter strips established to control sedimenta-
tion. These units included cropland con-
verted from row crop production to produc-
tion of forage crops. Recreation impacts
were based on conversion of 15,176 ha to
public recreational uses, with 9,470 ha
diverted from agriculture. Analysis as-
sumed that residents will expand their
economic activity over a 15-year period to
provide recreational services required by
visitors. Recreation and tourism effects of a
visitor center and development of private
hunting clubs surrounding the refuge also
were considered. Impacts on final demand,
income at place of work, employment, and
human population of the watershed were
estimated after 5, 10, and 15 years.
Results and Discussion
Ecological Assessment
The Cache River Watershed currently
includes 49,085 ha of upland forest and
14,290 ha of forested wetland and swamp
(25 and 7 percent of the watershed, respec-
tively). Planned land acquisitions and habi-
tat restorations in the core area could eventu-
ally add about 9,000 ha of lowland and
upland forest, prairie, and wetlands to the
watershed. About 10 percent of Cypress
Creek NWR will be retained in row crop ag-
riculture (Roelle and Hamilton, 1992).
Natural community restorations within the
core area will provide the greatest ecological
and recreation benefits of the three land use
scenarios. However, altered surface water
drainage patterns have disrupted natural hy-
drologic regimes in the watershed.
Channelization of major tributaries and di-
version of streamflow from the upper water-
shed directly to the Ohio River causes sedi-
ment deposition in riparian wetlands
associated with the Lower Cache River.
Sedimentation and altered hydrologic re-
gimes have severely degraded cypress-tupelo
swamps and other wetlands that remain in
the lower watershed. Restoration of natural
hydrologic regimes and control of sediment
input to the Lower Cache River are essential
components of ecological restorations.
Establishing riparian filter strips and
converting credible cropland to permanent
herbaceous cover in the buffer area are
projected to have minimal impact on
sediment deposition in swamps within the
core area. Converting cropland to filter
strips would add about 12,144 ha of
herbaceous or wooded vegetation cover to
the watershed outside the core area. Filter
strips would enhance the biological integrity
of riparian corridors, provide wildlife
habitat, and connect fragmented riparian
wetlands.
Sediment input to the Lower Cache
may originate largely from bed and bank
erosion in tributary streams. Much of this
sediment was deposited from agricultural
runoff that occurred when the watershed
was more extensively farmed, and before
soil and water conservation practices were
widely implemented (Davie, 1991). Conse-
quently, establishment of filter strips and
conversion of erodible cropland to forage
production likely will only marginally re-
duce sediment input to the Lower Cache
River. Restoration of channelized streams
to their original channels may be more ef-
fective in reducing sedimentation by slow-
ing flows, thereby reducing bed and bank
erosion and allowing sediment to settle be-
fore entering core area swamps. Increased
streamflow from the upper watershed to the
-------
328
Watershed '93
Lower Cache River may be necessary to
transport some of the sediment previously
deposited in swamps, and to restore natural
hydrologic regimes.
Economic Impacts
Assuming phased in development of
necessary infrastructure and increased
entrepreneurial activity over a 15-year
period, there would be an increase of
$714,000 in final recreation demand by
year 5, $1.3 million by year 10, and $3.7
million by year 15. Total place of work
income would increase by $421,000 in
year 5, $649,000 in year 10, and 1.8
million in year 15. Employment in year 5
would increase by 26 jobs, in year 10 there
would be 52 additional jobs, and by the
end of year 15 there would be a total of
129 new jobs in the region. Increased
economic activity would result in a gradual
population increase of 452 persons by year
15. These effects are not large, given the
size of the overall economy in the five-
county region. However, recreation
development would supplement the
region's chronically poor level of eco-
nomic performance. The economic
changes "twist" the regional economy,
resulting hi a more diversified, service-
based economy.
Although filter strips may have some
indirect long-term recreational benefits,
these were not explicitly considered in the
analysis. Improvements in water quality and
wildlife habitat and their recreational
benefits were implicit in projections used to
determine overall recreation impacts.
Shifting cropland from row to forage crop
production hi filter strips resulted in
substitution of higher value crops (e.g.,
corn, soybeans, vegetables) with lower value
crops (e.g., alfalfa or tame hay). For each
405 ha converted to filter strips, final
demand will fall by $58,000, employment
will decrease by one job, and population
will fall by four.
The Cache River region lacks the
infrastructure necessary to adequately
supply the demands of nonresident visitors
to the core area. Furthermore, the regional
economy lacks the capacity to supply a
high resident demand for goods and
services. Consequently, the degree of
interconnection among economic estab-
lishments hi the region is low. The more
sparse a region's economy is for a given
level of change in a base sector (such as
recreation), the less other business and
household establishments are affected.
Conclusions
Using ecological and land use
analyses in conjunction with I/O modeling
provides a useful basis for assessing effects
of land use changes designed to protect
ecological resources and to diversify a
regional economy. Economic results
combined with iterative assessment of
ecological effects of land use changes
provides a methodological framework for
watershed planning and predicting impacts
of land use change on the regional economy.
Projected changes in the economy can be
used to determine whether anticipated
changes are acceptable to the human
community. Concurrent ecological assess-
ments provide analyses of the impact of land
use changes on the quality of critical
ecological resources. Results can be used to
modify proposed land use changes so that
ecological benefits and economic gains are
maximized. Land use alternatives in the
buffer area can be designed to provide the
greatest ecological benefit. Our framework
also provides a basis for assessing ecologi-
cal and economic impacts of public policies
that might be implemented within a pre-
dominantly rural watershed.
Acknowledgments
This work was supported primarily
through a grant from The Nature Conser-
vancy (TNC). The authors wish to thank
Paul Dye (TNC) for his input and efforts in
securing funding and project planning.
Kevin Davie and Thomas Hollenhorst
performed GIS analyses, and Dina Ralston
gathered primary recreation data.
References
Beck, R.J., K.S. Harris, S.E. Kraft, and M.J.
Wagner. 1990. Potential economic
impacts of the proposed Cypress
Creek National Wildlife Refuge.
Appendix M in Cypress Creek
National Wildlife Refuge: Environ-
mental assessment. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service, Ft. Snelling, MN.
-------
Conference Proceedings
329
Davie, D.K. 1991. Assessment of the
impact of the Conservation Reserve
Program on suspended sediment load
in two southern Illinois Streams. M.S.
thesis, Department of Geography,
Southern Illinois University at
Carbondale.
Miller, R.E., and P.D. Blair. 1985. Input-
output analysis: Foundations and
extensions. Prentice-Hall, Englewood
Cliffs, NJ.
Roelle, J.E., and D.B. Hamilton. 1992.
Cypress Creek National Wildlife
Refuge biological concept plan. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, National
Ecology Research Center, Fort
Collins, CO.
University of Minnesota. 1989. Micro
Implan software manual. University
of Minnesota, Department of Agricul-
tural and Applied Economics, St. Paul,
MN.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Santa Ana River Reuse
Optimization Model
Michael T. Savage, Manager
Water and Wastewater Utilities Department
Mark R. Norton, Project Manager
Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority, CH2M HILL, Inc., Santa Ana, California
Santa Ana Water Reuse
Conceptual Study
The feasibility and methods of market
ing water for reuse in the Santa Ana
River Basin (Basin) were recently
studied by the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority (SAWPA) in Southern California.
The Santa Ana River Reuse Optimization
Model (Model) was developed during the
study to evaluate the interrelationships,
trade-offs, and economic impacts of reuse
projects within the Basin. SAWPA's goals
were to maximize water reuse opportunities
in the Basin and to maintain cooperative
working relationships among the SAWPA
agencies. This optimization model is now
available for more detailed analyses of reuse
in the Basin.
The Model incorporated other studies
by SAWPA member agencies, water
retailers, and dischargers to the Santa Ana
River. These included projects for ex-
panded reuse, desalting of ground water,
remediation of contaminated ground-water
basins, wastewater treatment and discharge,
storm water quality analysis, water supply,
conjunctive use of surface and ground-water
supplies, wetlands enhancement, and export
of water. Many of the previous studies were
conducted without coordination between the
agencies. The basinwide impacts of all
these projects were not always addressed in
each study and can be hard to quantify.
Background
SAWPA is a joint power agency
charged with implementing a 1974 water
quality plan (Plan) for long-range manage-
ment of water resources in the Basin.
SAWPA member agencies are the Chino
Basin Municipal Water District (CBMWD),
the Eastern Municipal Water District
(EMWD), the Orange County Water District
(OCWD), the San Bernardino Valley
Municipal Water District (SBVMWD), and
the Western Municipal Water District
(WMWD).
The Santa Ana River flows through
these five jurisdictions and into the Pacific
Ocean. Water supplies in the basin are
surface water, ground water, and imported
water. The Basin is divided into the Upper
Basin, those agencies above Prado Dam
(CBMWD, EMWD, SBVMWD, and
WMWD), and the Lower Basin, the agency
below Prado Dam (OCWD). Management
of the local water supplies is constrained by
legal judgments and interagency agreements
that specify base flow quantities and quality
at key locations on the river (USER, 1989),
the sources of flow to meet these require-
ments, and the rights to stormflows reaching
Prado Dam.
In the Lower Basin (below Prado
Dam), the river supplies water to Orange
County by ground-water recharge. Re-
charge activities have increased as the
quantity of treatment plant effluent dis-
charged to the river from the Upper Basin
(above Prado Dam) has grown. Riverflows
increased from 49,000 acre-feet per year
(ac-ft/yr) hi 1980 to 125,000 ac-ft/yr in
1990.
The Upper Basin agencies have been
required to substantially improve the quality
of wastewater effluent to meet plan goals.
New waste discharge requirements that are
331
-------
332
Watershed '93
potentially more stringent will drive local
wastewater dischargers to higher levels of
treatment. Current regulatory activities,
such as the Basin Plan for TDS and Nitro-
gen Control and the California Inland
Surface Waters Plan (WRCB, 1991), could
significantly affect the treatment processes,
the effluent water quality, and the econom-
ics of reuse in the Upper Basin. As the rules
for stream discharge are made more strin-
gent, reuse of the effluent becomes a
competitive alternative to discharge.
However, increased water reuse in the
Upper Basin could reduce the river flows
available for riparian habitat and ground-
water recharge in the Lower Basin.
Study Approach
The Basin is a complex, interrelated
system of water supplies with varying water
quality, water demands, and water quality
needs. It is complicated by the range in
goals of the member agencies, by current
and anticipated regulatory requirements, by
water rights and other legal constraints, and
by environmental factors of the river.
S AWPA's Santa Ana River Water Reuse
Conceptual Study used the Model to
organize data, analyze the cost-effectiveness
of reuse projects, and illustrate the interrela-
tions between the ongoing analyses. The
Model, based on linear programming, can
systematically evaluate all feasible reuse
alternatives to identify the combination of
projects to minimize the cost of effluent
reuse and disposal in the Basin.
The study goal was defined by a
mathematical equation (objective function)
developed from discussions with SAWPA
and the member agencies. The objective
function for this study was to minimize the
cost of meeting water demands and dispos-
ing of wastewater effluent. This function is
subject to quantity and quality constraints
that force the optimal solution to meet
regulatory standards, institutional require-
ments, and water rights constraints; satisfy
all water demands; and account for all
effluent so that it is either used to meet a
demand or discharged. The Model also
demonstrates the sensitivity of the optimal
solution to changes in project costs or in the
quantity constraints. The sensitivity
analysis also focused future engineering
analyses on the projects or alternatives that
are most important (or could become
important) with only minor cost changes.
The study approach used data pro-
vided by the SAWPA member agencies
without modification. The cost data varied
considerably in level of accuracy, and can at
best be described as conceptual-level data.
However, these costs did provide a good
basis for comparing alternatives. The
optimization approach allows such prelimi-
nary data to be used without reducing the
value of the solution. This is possible due to
the inherent sensitivity analysis that illus-
trates whether the optimal combination of
reuse and river discharge alternatives are
affected by changes in these data values.
This preliminary analysis, although
limited in depth and short in duration,
produced a tool and a framework for future
analyses. The optimization analysis was
intended to focus on relatively short-term
decisions, and so focused the study 6n costs
and quantity constraints for the year 2000.
Model Overview
The Model was designed to evaluate
opportunities for wastewater reuse in the
basin. The Model uses information on reuse
demands, sources, and costs, along with
information on river base flow and quality
from an existing surface flow model of the
Basin (JMM, 1991; Wildermuth, 1991).
These data are used in the Model to select
reuse projects that minimize the total cost of
water supply and wastewater discharge. The
Model links sources, demands, and dis-
charges with the flow and quality of river
water. The Model then reports the volume
and cost of wastewater discharged, by
treatment plant or agency; the volume and
cost of wastewater reused, by treatment
plant, agency, or demand area; and the flow
and quality (total dissolved solids (TDS)
and total inorganic nitrogen (TIN)) by reach
of the river.
Projects were assumed to be con-
structed in 1994 and fully operational in the
year 2000. All design and construction
costs were escalated to the year 1994, and
all flow and operations and maintenance
(O&M) costs were projected to the year
2000. The cost for each project was then
expressed as a constant unit cost per acre-
foot ($/ac-ft), which implicitly imposed a
linear cost function. As a result, any
projects that were scaled for flows signifi-
cantly different than the predicted levels in
year 2000 could still be compared on a
consistent basis ($/ac-ft).
-------
Conference Proceedings
333
Wastewater was assumed to be
completely utilized by one of the demand
areas in the Model—either conveyed
directly from the treatment plant to a
demand area (for direct nonpotable use or
for ground-water recharge) at a cost, or
discharged to the river, also at a cost.
Water that flows to the river was adjusted
for downstream losses or gains and was
assumed available to the Lower Basin for
ground-water recharge. The wastewater is
valuable in any of these reuse activities
because it allows the SAWPA member
agency to avoid purchasing an alternative
supply (typically, imported water from
Metropolitan Water District of Southern
California (MWDSQ).
Imported water has become increas-
ingly difficult to obtain, especially during
the summer, so the Model can restrict the
availability of imported water to simulate
future shortages. To maintain feasibility
when a shortage exists, the Model allows a
demand area to select shortage as a way of
meeting (reducing) demand. Water agencies
and users bear the cost associated with a
water shortage, which was assumed to be
1.5 times the normal water rate. In other
words, the value of having reclaimed water
available during a shortage was assumed to
be 50 percent higher than the value of using
that water under full supply conditions.
Model Structure
The Model is designed to optimize the
reuse of wastewater; this does not necessar-
ily mean the greatest possible reuse of
wastewater, but rather the most cost-
effective reuse. The Model balances the
cost of reusing wastewater against the
alternative costs of discharging it and
buying imported water to meet demands.
Two different objective functions
were within the Model: the Upper Basin
Model and the Full Basin Model. Both
minimized the combined cost of wastewater
disposal, alternative water purchase,
wastewater reuse, and water shortage. The
difference between them is that the Upper
Basin Model incorporates only the costs and
water values to Upper Basin districts, while
the Full Basin Model considers the value of
the water to all member agencies, including
the Lower Basin. The Model was solved
separately for each objective. The Upper
Basin optimization showed the minimum-
cost solution for the areas generating the
wastewater if they have no incentive to
provide more than the minimum flow to the
river required by legal judgements and
agreements. The Full Basin optimization
showed the overall best solution if the costs
to all SAWPA member agencies are
considered.
The operations of the Upper Basin
agencies must meet certain minimum flow
and quality requirements. The optimization
Model is designed to calculate annual flow,
average TDS, and a preliminary estimate of
average TIN for different segments of the
river. The river reaches in the optimization
Model are directly related to the reaches in
the surface flow model used for setting
Basin Plan objectives, though the two
models are not formally linked. Data and
results from the surface flow model used for
the adopted Basin Plan were used as inputs
to the Model. In addition to using equations
that calculate load and flow at each river
reach, the Model also restricts the load and
flow at certain reaches, based on court
judgments, agreements, and water quality
plans described earlier.
The Model does not consider the full
water demand of the agencies within
SAWPA, but rather only those areas and
demand categories that could potentially use
reclaimed water. Demand categories
include direct, nonpotable use (such as crop
or landscape irrigation) and indirect use
through ground-water recharge. All water
flowing past Prado Dam was assumed to be
available to the Lower Basin for ground-
water recharge.
For the defined areas of potential
reuse, the Model forces total reuse demand
to be met by one of three ways: reuse the
wastewater, purchase water from the
specified alternate supply, or suffer a
shortage. For each wastewater source, the
Model restricts all wastewater flow to either
discharge or reuse.
The Model was written and solved
using the GAMS (General Algebraic
Modeling System) mathematical program-
ming language, a tool for formulating and
solving large optimization problems. Data
entry, data manipulation, mathematical
description of the model equations, model
solution, and processing of model output
can all be done with a single ASCII com-
puter file. The code is portable across many
computers, including IBM-compatible
desktops, UNIX workstations, minicomput-
ers, and large mainframes. GAMS solves
nonlinear models by using the well-known
-------
334
Watershed '93
MINOS 5.2 solver, developed at the
Stanford Systems Optimization Laboratory
(Murtaugh and Saunders, 1987). The Model
was solved on a Compaq 486-33. The base
scenario, including data manipulation and
solution for each of the two objectives, ran
in under 30 seconds.
Results of Initial
Optimizations
Two different objectives were defined
for the optimization: one objective included
the value of wastewater to all SAWPA
member agencies (Full Basin); the other
objective focused on the four Upper Basin
agencies (Upper Basin). There was a
significant difference between the reuse
projects recommended by the Full Basin
Model and those recommended by the
Upper Basin Model, which underscores the
importance of appropriately defining the
project beneficiaries.
The base cases assumed that a full
supply of imported water was available, and
that the Lower Basin could recharge a
maximum of 200,000 ac-ft/yr. The results
discussed below are best used to show the
potential for reuse, rather than to decide
which specific project to implement today.
This is due to the current uncertainty in cost,
demand, and wastewater flow projections.
However, the Model illustrates which issues
are most important in the analysis.
Full Basin Optimization
The results of the Full Basin Model
show that, of the 310,000 ac-ft of wastewa-
ter generated, 106,860 ac-ft are reused in
seven Upper Basin projects, and 203,180 ac-
ft are discharged to the river. The value of
wastewater to the Lower Basin is great
enough to draw the maximum of 200,000
ac-ft down the river after net losses of 3,180
ac-ft. River flow requirements and TDS
quality standards are met easily. Flow below
Prado Dam is 200,000 ac-ft, at 605 TDS.
Upper Basin Optimization
Using the Upper Basin Model, when
the value of reclaimed water to the Lower
Basin was omitted, many more Upper Basin
reuse projects were selected than with the
Full Basin Model. In the initial optimiza-
tion for the Upper Basin, 154,810 ac-ft of
wastewater are discharged to the River,
resulting in about 151,600 ac-ft available to
the Lower Basin. Wastewater reused in the
Upper Basin amounts to 155,240 ac-ft.
Flow below Prado Dam is 151,600 ac-ft, at
630 TDS.
Comparison of Full Basin and Upper
Basin Optimizations
All of the reuse projects chosen in the
Full Basin Model were also chosen in the
Upper Basin Model. The 12 additional
projects chosen in the Upper Basin Model
show a net savings when evaluated by
themselves. However, based on initial cost
estimates, it appears that the water could be
used more beneficially by the Lower Basin.
At the baseline costs in this initial Model,
results suggest that the Lower Basin could
benefit by supporting Upper Basin projects
that would maintain discharge to the River.
Sensitivity Analyses
The initial Model results were
strongly influenced by the assumed values
of certain key parameters. Sensitivity
analysis can be used to assess how changes
in the key parameters will affect the Model
results. Any of the parameter estimates used
hi the Model could be varied, and the choice
of which ones to vary was based on two
criteria: the degree of uncertainty in the
estimated value, and judgment as to how
important the parameter is to the solution.
Sensitivity analyses on four key parameters
were evaluated.
Effect of Reducing Imported Water
Supplies
The Model was used to assess how a
shortage of imported water would affect
wastewater reuse in the Upper Basin. The
restriction was applied uniformly to all
agencies (including those in the Lower
Basin). Model results indicated that some
areas may choose a combination of deficits
and increased reuse as a response to
restricted imported supply. However, this
result was largely determined by the
assumed cost of shortage relative to the
cost of reuse and by the limited reuse
opportunities in some areas. Figure 1
shows the effect on Upper Basin water
reuse of limiting imported water supply to
50, 75, 90, and 100 percent of full supply.
Results are shown for both the Full Basin
-------
Conference Proceedings
335
Model and the Upper Basin Model.
Because the shortage is imposed on all
agencies in the Full Basin Model, it is not
clear whether the effect would be to
increase or decrease reuse. The effect is
indeed insignificant for the Full Basin
Model. Although the total cost of meeting
demands, allowing shortages, and effluent
disposal will increase, the amounts and
locations of reuse do not change. The
Upper Basin Model shows, as expected, a
more pronounced increase in reuse as the
shortage increases.
Effect of the Lower Basin Demand
on Wastewater Reuse
An important lesson in assessing
wastewater reuse in the SAWPA service
area is that wastewater can be either reused
in the Upper Basin, or discharged to the
river and reused by the Lower Basin. The
Lower Basin's ability to use river flow to
recharge the ground-water basin is, there-
fore, a driving force in the optimal solution
to the Full Basin Model. At the assumed
baseline demand of 200,000 ac-ft/yr, Upper
Basin reuse totaled 106,860 ac-ft. Figure 2
shows the effect of changing the Lower
Basin's demand in the Full Basin Model.
(By definition, the Lower Basin's demand
has no effect on reuse in the Upper Basin
Model.) As the Lower Basin's demand
drops, reuse in the Upper Basin rises by the
same volume. Increasing the Lower Basin's
demand results in a rapid decline in the
optimum Upper Basin reuse.
Effect of Imported Water Price
Increase
A major benefit of wastewater reuse is
being able to avoid purchasing water from
an alternative supply. In most areas of the
basin, the alternative supply is water
imported to MWDSC, so avoiding this cost
is a benefit of local reuse. An increase in
the price of imported water beyond the
projected levels causes the avoided supply
cost to rise. Figure 3 shows no impact in the
Full Basin Model due to price increases,
because the Lower Basin's avoided supply
cost rises by the same amount as does the
Upper Basin agencies' cost. The total cost
of meeting demands and of effluent disposal
increases, but the distribution of reuse
projects remains the same. The Upper Basin
Model results show an increase in reuse as
the cost of alternative supply increases.
100000
_ c
fe 1 70 000 -
<.
£
'w 150000 -
to
<]J
rt
o. -j 30 ooo -
.c
1 110,000 j
&
oJ 90 000 -
8 70 000 -
so non -
r- — -
^^
50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Percent Available Imported Supply
— • — Full Basin Model — TJ — Upper Basin Model
Figure 1. Effect of imported water shortage on
wastewater reused in Upper Basin.
170,000 -
ui 150000 -
*w
CQ 130000 -
-------
336
Watershed '93
ta '
s
"2 110000 •
&
£j 90,000 •
S
^D
, i —1
0 200 400 600
Increase of Imported Water Price
($/AF)
-Hi — Full Basin Model — D — Upper Basin Model
Figure 3. Effect of imported water price increase on
wastewater reused in Upper Basin.
1" r
m
ft!
c
~Z 110000 -
K
1
^n
o-^
^»
^^
0 200 400 600
Increased Cost of Discharge to River ($/AF)
— •— Full Basin Model — D— Upper Basin Model
Figure 4. Effect of higher cost to discharge water to
river on wastewater reused in Upper Basin.
by increasing the assumed discharge cost.
In this Model, a higher discharge cost has
the same effect as does an imported water
price increase: it increases the benefit of
reuse. Increased discharge cost shows the
same pattern of response as the imported
water price increase, and for the same reason
(Figure 4). However, in the Full Basin
Model, a higher discharge cost does not fall
uniformly on all agencies, because the
Lower Basin does not discharge wastewater
to the river. Thus, even in the Full Basin
Model, an increase in discharge cost will
improve the desirability of reuse in the
Upper Basin.
Summary and
Recommendations
The Model developed for the study
underscores many of the local existing in-
tuitive assumptions regarding the relation-
ships between water demands, wastewater
disposal, and river flows. However, the
Model quantifies these relationships and
the associated cost impacts of activities of
the individual SAWPA member agencies.
The initial optimization used available data
to provide an enlightening, although some-
what limited, answer to these critical is-
sues. With more refined and consistent
engineering data, the Model inputs can be
easily changed to more deeply evaluate
specific factors (including costs) and their
relationships.
A key facet of the optimization Model
is that it identifies the most cost-effective
combination of projects, minimizing costs to
all in the basin. However, the benefits of an
optimal solution must be distributed
equitably to be an implementable project. A
comparison of the Full Basin Model to the
Upper Basin Model suggests that incentive
payments by the Lower Basin to induce
greater discharge from the Upper Basin
could be beneficial to all SAWPA member
agencies. The payment amount would be
negotiated and must be based on more
detailed cost estimates.
References
CH2MHILL. 1992. Santa Ana water reuse
conceptual study. Prepared for Santa
Ana Watershed Project Authority.
August.
JMM. 1991. Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority Basin Plan Upgrade Task
Force, nitrogen and TDS studies,
Upper Santa Ana Watershed. J.M.
Montgomery Consulting Engineers.
Prepared for Santa Ana Watershed
Project Authority. February.
Murtaugh, B., and M. Saunders. 1983.
MINOS 5.1 User's Guide. S.O.L.
Report 83-20R. Stanford University.
December.
-------
Conference Proceedings
337
USER. 1989. Legal and institutional
inventory, Upper Santa Ana Water-
shed draft. United States Bureau of
Reclamation. September.
Wildermuth, M.J. 1991. Final summary
report, Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority Basin Plan Upgrade Task
Force. Prepared for Santa Ana Water-
shed Project Authority. February.
WRCB. 1991. California inland surface
water plan and water quality control
plan for inland surface water of
California. 91-13WQ. Water
Resources Control Board. April.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Cost Analysis for Nonpoint Source
Control Strategies in the
Chesapeake Basin
Lynn R. Shuyler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD
^•Jhe nonpoint source pollution (NFS)
• costs related to implementation of
M control programs in the Chesapeake
Bay are not site-specific. The costs repre-
sent the diverse conditions over the entire
basin and the limited number of land uses
that the model can simulate. The basin
covers 64,000 square miles and drains
portions of six states and the District of
Columbia. Table 1 provides the distribution
of 1985 watershed model land uses for the
basin.
Table 2 shows the NFS nutrient
loads by the various land uses in the basin.
Agricultural land uses—crops, pasture, and
animal facilities—contribute 58 percent of
the total NFS nitrogen and 82 percent of
the total NFS phosphorus loads to the Bay.
Forest, urban, and water land uses make up
the remaining 42 and 18 percent, respec-
tively. (Water land use represents free
water surfaces such as rivers, lakes, and
streams but not the tidal portions of the
Bay itself.)
Estimates of relative load contribu-
tions from individual land uses are provided.
For example, even though forests comprise
60 percent of the land in the basin, the
nitrogen load from forests is only 27 percent
of the total NFS nitrogen load.
NFS Cost Analysis
As part of the process to reevaluate
the 1988 Basinwide Nutrient Reduction
Strategy, the Chesapeake Bay Program
Office worked with the states to refine and
expand both the watershed and the Bay
models. The models simulated load
reductions and water quality responses to
management scenarios for both point and
nonpoint source control activities. One of
the scenarios tested was a limit of technol-
ogy (LOT) for NFS. This is better defined
as best available technology (BAT)
applied to lands
that are sources of
NFS.
Using the
results from model
simulations and
NFS control tech-
nology cost data
developed for the
Bay program, it is
possible to deter-
mine the overall
costs of reducing
NFS loads within
the basin.
Table 1. Distribution of land use used in the
Chesapeake Basin Watershed Model
Land
Use
Cropland3
Pasture
Forest
Urban
Water
Animal Waste
Total
Acreage
8,237,125
3,740,981
24,457,144
4,032,669
526,115
12,650
%of
Total Basin
20.00
8.96
60.00
10.00
1.00
0.04
Includes conventional and conservation tillage and
hay land.
Watershed
Model Decision
Rules for LOT
Scenario
Decisions
regarding use of the
watershed model to
simulate a LOT or
BAT scenario were
made by the
Nutrient Reduction
Task Force of the
NFS Subcommit-
tee. Because the
model does not
Table!. Nitrogen and phosphorus load-
ings by land use. 1985 base case loads
from Watershed Model.
Land
Use
Cropland3
Pasture
Forest
Urban
Water
Animal Waste
TOTAL NFS
Total
Nitrogen
107,363,945
19,944,389
69,154,496
32,702,583
5,938,403
19,419,035
254,522,852
Total
Phosphorus
9,579,188
988,612
735,042
2,098,749
189,542
2,914,660
16,505,793
1 Includes conventional and conservation tillage and
hay land.
339
-------
340
Watershed '93
simulate all of the NFS best management
practices (BMPs), some practices were
combined. Reduction values were devel-
oped for each grouping used for the sce-
narios. Ground rules were established for
making adjustments to the Watershed Model
input deck for the NFS actions of the LOT
scenario.
There are two types of reductions in
the scenarios: a reduction by conversion of
one land use to another and a percentage
reduction due to actual BMP implementa-
tion.
Application of one or both of these
reductions is dependent on the NFS BMP'
type and the model structure. Some of
the acreage categories receive both types
of reductions, while others only receive
one type. An explanation of the associat-
ed reductions is included with each
category.
• Conventional tillage cropland. All
conventional tillage acres are
converted to conservation tillage
acres.
• Highly erodible land (HEL). The
1991 U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) data base identifies the area
of highly erodible land in each
county. It was used to determine
the HEL land areas greater than 25
percent of the total crop acres in the
county. In these areas, no more
than 25 percent of the county
cropland would be counted as HEL
acres. Total HEL acres in each
model segment were aggregated up
from the county level data. Highly
erodible acres are removed propor-
tionally from conservation tillage
and hay land acres and placed in
pasture land use.
• Structural BMPs. Structural BMPs
include any physical or constructed
practice implemented on cropland,
such as vegetated filter strips or
waterways. This category does not
include the animal waste category.
Structural BMPs were applied only
to conservation tillage land use.
The acres treated by structural
BMPs are assumed to receive a 4
percent nitrogen (N), 8 percent
phosphorus (P), and 8 percent
biological oxygen demand (BOD)
reduction. These reductions are
realized from installing a "farm
plan" on conservation tillage and
hay land acres. "Farm plan" is
defined as the additional structural
BMPs necessary, when added to
conservation tillage, that would
bring the land into compliance with
"T" or the 1990 farm bill require-
ments. (The parameter "T"
represents the soil tolerance level
for erosion, i.e., the maximum soil
loss per acre of cropland that can be
incurred without reducing the
productivity of the soil for the
designated crop.)
Nutrient management. Nutrient
management was applied to all
conservation tillage and some hay
land acres. These acres received the
nutrient reductions calculated for
each model segment from nutrient
reduction data furnished by each
state.
Animal waste. Reductions in manure
runoff loadings are assumed to be
controlled to the level of 75 percent.
Seventy-five percent of the total
manure acres in each model segment
are converted to pasture acres. The
remaining 25 percent of the manure
acres represent residual animal waste
runoff loads of current animal
populations after the full implemen-
tation of controls.
Pasture. Acres treated by grazing
land stabilization systems, stream
protection systems, or spring
development are assumed to be
applied to pasture land and receive
a 4 percent N, 8 percent P, and 8
per-cent BOD reduction. This
reduction applied to all pasture
land.
Urban. Urban loads are reduced in
all pervious and impervious urban
land uses. Urban acres receive a 20
percent P, 20 percent N, and 25
percent BOD reduction based on
estimated reductions for urban
BMPs.
Forest. Forest BMPs provided an
overall reduction in the forest loads
for each state as follows: Pennsylva-
nia NH4= 5 percent, PO4= 5 percent,
and BOD = 5 percent; Maryland
NH4 = 7.5 percent, PO4 = 7.5 percent,
and BOD = 7.5 percent; and Virginia
NH4 = 10 percent, PO4 = 10 percent,
and BOD =10 percent. (NH4 =
ammonium ion; PO4 = phosphate
ion.)
-------
Conference Proceedings
341
Cost Analysis of LOT Scenario for
Agreement States
The NFS cost analysis is based on the
decisions discussed above for the scenario
simulating LOT load reductions.
The costs for LOT are determined by
assigning BMP costs from Table 2.6 of the
draft cost analysis study (Camacho, 1992)
to the acres treated in the LOT model
simulation for the following practices:
HEL-Conservation Reserve Program
(CRP), Animal Waste, Urban Cost,
Conservation Tillage, Nutrient Manage-
ment. Per acre costs for Forest, Pasture and
Farm Plan were developed during a June
16, 1992 conference call among the states,
the Interstate Commission of the Potomac
River Basin (ICPRB), and the Chesapeake
Bay Program Office (CBPO). The agreed
upon cost per acre was applied to the total
acres for Farm Plan of $15.00 and for
Pasture of $2.50, the cost of treating an
acre was adjusted in order to get a cost that
could be applied to the total acres in the
category. The cost for Forest was obtained
from information presented in the South
Journal of Applied Forestry (Lickwar et al.,
1990) and used in the following manner.
The cost to install enhanced BMPs was 5.1
percent of the gross value of the harvest.
In Virginia the gross value is about $1,000
per acre. Annual harvested acres were
estimated to be one percent of the total
forest acres.
NFS costs used for this analysis are
average costs for the entire basin and do not
represent the cost in any one river basin or
tributary. These average cost represents a
very wide range, and, in some cases, may be
misleading when related to a single tract of
land.
• Forest cost. The total forest acres
(20,333,492) were multiplied by 1
percent and $51.00 per acre to get the
total cost of $10,370,081. The $51.00
is the cost for implementing en-
hanced BMPs on harvested land.
This is 5.1 percent of the gross value
of the harvested timber ($1000
dollars per acre in Virginia).
• HEL-CRPcost. The 528,911 HEL
acres were multiplied by the sum of
two cost figures—the average farm
plan cost, based on the average cost
per acre of the examples furnished to
ICPRB by Pennsylvania, and the cost
of permanent vegetative cover on
critical areas. The total cost is
$68,758,430 ($130 per acre treated).
A land rental rate was not factored
into this analysis because the land
would still be in "production" as .
pasture land. Therefore once so
treated, the HEL acres become part
of the pasture acreage.
• Animal waste cost. The model .
simulates a 75 percent reduction by,
applying BMPs to all manure acres.
This cost is applied to the total
manure acres (12,650) used in the
model scenario. This number was
divided by .75 and multiplied by the
cost of $8,187 to get the total cost of
$84,563,523. Once treated, 75
percent of the acres become part of
the pasture acreage.
• Urban cost. The urban costs were
developed by multiplying the total
urban acres (3,215,863) by the cost
of large scale urban retrofit BMPs at
$200.00 per acre for a total urban
BMP cost of $643,172,600.
• Conservation tillage cost. The
remaining conventional tillage acres
(1,909,649) were multiplied by the
cost of conservation tillage, $17.43
per acre, to get a total cost of
$33,285,175.
• Pasture cost. The total pasture acres
(3,606,133, which now include the
original pasture acres plus 75 percent
of the manure acres and the HEL
acres, were multiplied by $2.50 per
acre to get a total pasture cost of
$9,015,332.
• Nutrient management cost. The
conservation tillage acres
(4,088,508) were multiplied by the
cost of nutrient management, $2.40
per acre treated, to get a total cost of
$9,812,420.
• Farm plan. The load reduction for
farm plan is calculated by reducing
the nitrogen load from conservation
tillage and hay land acres after
nutrient management has been
applied. The total acres of farm plan
(6,590,132) (conservation tillage
plus hay land acres) were multiplied
by $15 per acre to get a total cost
$66,169,082.
Cost Summary for the Basin
Total NPS costs and the pounds of ni-
trogen removed for each BMP practice or
-------
r
342
Watershed '93
grouping are shown in Table 3, along with
the cost per pound of nitrogen removed. This
data provides a comparison of the various
BMPs available to control NFS nitrogen.
The least costly of these are nutrient man-
agement followed by animal waste control.
The combination of these two practices re-
Table 3. Cost of implementation of BMPs in the Chesapeake Bay Basin
moves about 66 percent of the total nitrogen
load at about 10 percent of the total cost.
The urban category is most costly, with re-
moval of about 11 percent of the total nitro-
gen load at about 70 percent of the total cost.
References
NFS,
Management
Practice
Urban
Forest
Farm Plan
Hel
Pasture
Low Till
Animal Waste
Nutrient Mgt.
TOTAL
"LOT" N Cost Analysis Summary by Management
Practice for Agreement States - Total
LOT Cost
$X1000
$643,172
$10,370
$66,169'
$68,758
$9,015
$33,285
$84,563
$9,812
$925,146
LOTN
#NX1000
4,509
150
1,462
2,991
910
4,476
11,801
16,096
42,395
%of
Total
10.64%
0.35%
3.44%
7.05%
2.15%
10.56%
27.84%
37.97%
100.00%
Cost/Pound N
$/# N Red.
$142.64
$69.13
$45.27
$22.99
$9.90
$7.44
$7.17
$0.61
Camacho, R. 1992. Financial cost
effectiveness of point and
nonpoint source nutrient reduc-
tion technologies in the Chesa-
peake Bay basin. Draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection
Agency, Chesapeake Bay
Program, Annapolis, MD.
Lickwar, P., C. Hickman, and F.W.
Cubbage. 1990. Costs of
protecting water quality during
harvesting of private forest lands
in the Southeast. Southern
Journal of Applied Forestry
16(1): 13-20.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Cost-Effective Implementation of
Watershed Management Objectives:
Purpose and Approach of the
Analysis Team of North East
Wisconsin Waters for Tomorrow
Paul Thormodsgard, Executive Director
Green Bay Metropolitan Sewerage District, Green Bay, WI
David White, Analysis Team Leader, Waters for Tomorrow,
University of Wisconsin-Green Bay
Introduction and Background
Before describing why North East
Wisconsin Waters for Tomorrow
(N.E.W.) and its Analysis Team were
formed, it is necessary to give a brief
background on water resources problems
and management activities in lower Green
Bay and the Fox-Wolf River watershed.
The Fox and Wolf Rivers drain a watershed
of approximately 17,000 square kilometers
hi northeastern Wisconsin, emptying into
lower Green Bay and Lake Michigan
(Figure 1). While the drainage area is
largely agricultural, it also contains forested
land, urban area, and industrial activity.
Water resources provided by the basin
provide different types of recreation and
drinking water for thousands of people, as
well as valuable wildlife habitat.
Lower Green Bay has had water
quality problems for at least this past
century, if not longer (Ashworth, 1986).
Over the past few decades, water quality in
lower Green Bay has improved greatly, but
significant water quality problems remain
(Harris, 1992). In 1985, the International
Joint Commission (IJC) designated lower
Green Bay and a section of the lower Fox
River from its mouth to the De Pere Dam as
an Area of Concern (AOC). As a result of
a 1985 recommendation of the IJC, the
United States and Canada committed
themselves to developing and implement-
ing Remedial Action Plans (RAPs) to
restore beneficial uses in lower Green Bay
and the 42 other AOCs identified in the
Great Lakes (IJC, 1985).
In 1988, the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources (WDNR), with
support from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and extensive
local involvement, produced a Remedial
Action Plan for lower Green Bay (WDNR,
1988). This document identified problems
hi lower Green Bay and potential remedial
actions; it was the first RAP to be com-
pleted. In the process of completing the
RAP document, many diverse interests
were brought together to decide upon a set
of goals and objectives for water resources
management. In addition, many remedial
actions were listed to address the identified
problems and ranked as to their perceived
importance.
Since its completion, the Green Bay
RAP has moved on to the implementation
stage. However, there continue to be many
obstacles to implementing the plan and
achieving desked conditions, as described
by Harris (1992). Many remedial actions
recommended by the RAP, such as the
reduction of nutrient loading, cleanup of
contaminated sediments, protection of
343
-------
344
Watershed '93
(c)
Figure 1. Location of the Fox-Wolf River watershed emptying into lower Green Bay in the Great Lakes (a)
and in Wisconsin (b), and the location of the Winnebago Pool Lakes (c) and lower Green Bay (d).
habitat, and enhancement of recreation,
require significant effort and funds.
Water quality in lower Green Bay is
greatly influenced by activities throughout
the Fox-Wolf watershed. At the same time,
the RAP process in lower Green Bay is but
one of the many water resources manage-
ment efforts hi the Fox-Wolf watershed.
Many other management efforts are being
undertaken by a variety of agencies in many
political jurisdictions at the state, federal,
and local levels.
Rationale for N.E.W. Waters
for Tomorrow
Concern for the high cost of imple-
menting the Green Bay Remedial Action
Plan led a handful of Green Bay area
citizens to initiate N.E.W. Waters for
Tomorrow. These individuals felt that the
RAP's objectives were sound, but they
recognized that the cost of achieving them
might be prohibitively high. Also, they
realized that resources are scarce, and that
there are other worthy social concerns
besides water quality in need of scarce
funds. They also believed that state and
federal funds for water quality projects
were drying up, and that funds to imple-
ment the RAP would largely come from
local sources. Therefore, the founders were
concerned that dollars for water resources
management be spent where they could have
the greatest effect.
Given these concerns, founders of
N.E.W. Waters for Tomorrow felt that
-------
Conference Proceedings
345
information about the ecological and
economic impacts of water resources
management decisions could be better
presented in terms that will enable decision
makers to better allocate scarce funds.
While the RAP document presented many
recommendations and general cost esti-
mates, it did not explicitly use cost-
effectiveness as a criterion for ranking
management actions. N.E.W. Waters for
Tomorrow was formed to influence policy
so as to ensure that water resources objec-
tives were attained at the least cost to
society.
The Analysis Team
The founders of N.E.W. Waters for
Tomorrow decided that in order to deter-
mine the least-cost way to achieve desired
water resources objectives, an independent
cost-effectiveness analysis was required.
Cost-effectiveness analysis differs from
benefit-cost analysis in that its purpose is to
determine the least cost strategy to achieve
specified objectives. Benefit-cost analysis
seeks to determine the strategy which
maximizes net benefits. Therefore, with
cost-effectiveness analysis, there is no need
to quantify benefits nor to determine the
appropriate level of environmental quality.
The founders of N.E.W. Waters for
Tomorrow realized that cost-effectiveness
analysis was more appropriate because
management objectives were already
determined by the Remedial Action Plan.
Funds were raised from a variety of
local sources to hire an interdisciplinary
Analysis Team to generate information for
resource allocation decisions on water
resources management in lower Green Bay
and the Fox-Wolf watershed. Specifically,
the Analysis Team was hired to accomplish
the following three objectives over a 1- to
3-year period:
1. To identify, where possible, the
most cost-effective management
strategy (including physical mea-
sures, implementation incentives,
institutional arrangements, and
financing packages) to meet desired
water quality, habitat, and recre-
ational objectives in the watershed.
2. To develop an analytical framework
to use in continuing analysis and
planning for water resources
management in the Fox-Wolf
watershed and lower Green Bay.
3. To identify the nature and importance
of uncertainties related to cost-
effective water resources manage-
ment in the watershed.
The Analysis Team Approach
An important aspect of the approach
is that it is directed at the entire watershed.
However, this discussion will first describe
how a cost-effective management strategy
for the lower Green Bay's water resources
management objectives will be determined..
Later, it will discuss how the analysis
framework incorporates the remainder of
the watershed.
The Analysis Team has decided to
analyze three dimensions of water re-
sources objectives:
1. Ambient water and sediment quality
(problems associated with phospho-
rus, suspended solids, and toxic
polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB)
contamination
2. Habitat requirements.
3. Water-based recreation.
These dimensions reflect the most impor-
tant management concerns in the watershed
at the present time, but are not all inclusive.
However, the framework could easily be
expanded to address other problems.
In order to determine the least-cost
management strategy to attain desired
water resource objectives, it is necessary to
define explicitly and quantitatively what
the objectives are. The lower Green Bay
RAP contains a list of goals and objectives,
many of which are specific. However,
some of these objectives are general and/or
qualitative. Before it is possible to estimate
costs and determine a least cost strategy,
the qualitative objectives must be quanti-
fied. '
After explicitly defining the set of
desired objectives, it is then necessary to
quantify what is physically necessary to
achieve the objectives. For instance, to
determine how to most cost-effectively
achieve the water clarity objective of 1.3-m
Secchi disk depth (a relative measure of
water clarity) in lower Green Bay, it is
necessary to estimate the different sources
of the water clarity problems (i.e., phospho-
rus (P) loads that promote algal growth,
total suspended solids (TSS) loads); the
relative contribution of P and TSS from
different sources; and by how much loads of
P and TSS entering lower Green Bay need
-------
346
Watershed '93
to be reduced to meet the desired water
clarity objective. Some of this analysis has
been or is being carried out by the lower
Green Bay RAP process. However, some
additional information must be gathered by
the Analysis Team.
The Analysis Team felt it appropriate
to make as certain as possible that a selected
management strategy would accomplish the
objectives in the future as well as at present.
The Analysis Team will therefore project
what pollutant loads will be circa (ca.) 2010
without any additional funds spent on water
resources management beyond the level
spent today. Because of the uncertainty in
predicting the future, the Analysis Team will
make four projections, or alternative fu-
tures, of conditions ca. 2010. The four
projections result from the combination of
two different sets of economic and demo-
graphic projections, high and low growth,
and two different sets of assumptions about
behavior, factor prices, and technological
changes, or scenarios, which affect dis-
charge coefficients. Of the two scenarios,
one will yield discharge coefficients based
on current trends, while the other will yield
lower discharge coefficients based on more
optimistic assumptions about behavior and
technology. Because of the different as-
sumptions inherent in each scenario, each
alternative future projects different pollutant
loads, impacts on habitat, and recreation
needs.
Develop
least cost
MANAGEMENT
STRATEGY TO
ACHIEVE
DESIRED
CONDITIONS
Are
results
equal to or
better than
desired
conditions
Vfes
Everyone is
happy
Figure 2. Flowchart of basic elements of the analytic framework.
The resulting water resources condi-
tions associated with each alternative future
will be estimated and compared to the
desired objectives. If the water resources
objectives are not going to be met for the
conditions in an alternative future, then a
management strategy is necessary to achieve
the objectives. Then the main task for the
Analysis Team is to determine the least-cost
management strategy for that alternative
future and to compare the costs of manage-
ment options with their effectiveness at
meeting the objectives. The basic frame-
work is diagramed in Figure 2; it is heavily
influenced by the work of Bower (1991).
Alternative Levels of Quality
Attaining some of the goals and
objectives for the desired future state may
require significant financial investments. It
would be useful to approximate the cost of
alternative levels of water resources quality
and the least cost management strategy that
achieves these levels. Such information
may reveal what society would get for
different levels of investment. Approxi-
mating the costs of different levels of
quality in no way advocates what should be
done; that is left to the social, political, and
legal process. However, it provides
information about the ramifications of
choosing a particular course of action.
Approximating the
costs of alternative levels
of water resources quality
is difficult, because
quality levels are hard to
define. The Green Bay
RAP has already pro-
duced a list of desired
objectives, which
represents one level of
quality. The Team
proposes to determine the
least cost management
strategy for only two
other levels of quality. A
second level of water
resources quality is that
resulting from a situation
where there are no
additional management
actions ca. 2010, in
addition to those in
existence and being
enforced ca. 1990. A
third level of water
-------
Conference Proceedings
347
resources quality represents present (ca.
1990) water resources conditions.
Example: Phosphorus
Reduction
The analysis approach can be illus-
trated by an example. One of the desired
objectives for lower Green Bay is to reduce
phosphorus concentrations. Phosphorus
inputs to lower Green Bay come from a va-
riety of point and nonpoint sources through-
out the watershed. Sources include runoff
from agricultural lands, urban storm runoff,
and point sources. To determine the cost-
effective management strategy to reduce
phosphorus, it is necessary to estimate what
reduction in phosphorus load is required to
meet the desired concentration level. The
problem then becomes how to ensure that
the reduction in total phosphorus load, from
the various sources under projected future
conditions, is at least equal to this level.
In the future, phosphorus loads will
depend upon the level of economic and
demographic activity. Phosphorus loads
will also depend upon what happens
regarding technology, individual behavior,
and factor prices. Thus, even before a
management strategy is applied, the four
alternative futures will have different
phosphorus loads associated with them.
Therefore, for each alternative future a
different amount of phosphorus load
reduction is likely to be required, both to
meet the desired objective as well as to
maintain the 1990 phosphorus concentra-
tion. For each alternative future, different
management options that reduce phosphorus
will be analyzed for their total cost and the
amount of phosphorus removed. Thus, the
cost per unit phosphorus reduction can be
calculated for each option. Determining the
least cost management strategy involves
adding measures in order of the lowest cost
per unit phosphorus removed until the
necessary phosphorus load reduction is
attained. Thus, each of the four alternative
futures may have a somewhat different set
of physical measures directed at phosphorus
reduction, with a different price tag.
Watershed Analysis
Because activities throughout the
watershed affect lower Green Bay, it is
necessary for the analysis to focus on the
entire watershed. As described above, the
analysis will first examine actions through-
out the watershed for their costs and effects
on management objectives developed for
lower Green Bay. While developing the
framework, the Analysis Team soon
realized that it may be difficult to imple-
ment actions throughout the watershed to
benefit lower Green Bay. Individuals
upstream of lower Green Bay may be
reluctant to participate hi a management
strategy identified for lower Green Bay
when they are unsure of what it will cost
them and what they will get out of partici-
pating. Therefore, it was deemed important
to determine the most cost-effective
management strategy for management
objectives in other areas of the watershed,
in addition to lower Green Bay.
The approach the analysis will take in
order to incorporate the entire watershed is
as follows. First, the Analysis Team will
identify the most cost-effective manage-
ment strategy to reach the desired objec-
tives for lower Green Bay. While this
management strategy is likely to require
actions upstream from lower Green Bay, it
will also improve water resources condi-
tions upstream. The analytical framework
then must be applied to the objectives for
other parts of the watershed, called sub-
areas of analysis, where management
objectives can be identified and quantified.
For these sub-areas, the following question
will be posed: If the cost-effective man-
agement strategy identified for lower Green
Bay is adopted, will the water resource
objectives in that sub-area be met? If not,
then the Analysis Team will determine the
least-cost set of additional measures needed
to meet the objectives for the sub-area.
Given limited resources, the Analysis
Team has chosen to initially focus on only
one other sub-area of analysis besides lower
Green Bay—the Winnebago Pool lakes
(Figure 1)—for the following reasons:
1. Management objectives have been
specified for Lake Winnebago, as
they have for lower Green Bay.
2. The Analysis Team feels that the
importance of Lake Winnebago to
the quality of the entire watershed
has not been adequately considered
in the past.
3. Many people live around Lake
Winnebago, and depend on it for
recreation and drinking water.
In sum, results of the analysis should
assist and promote watershed management.
-------
348
Watershed '93
Managing Uncertainty
There is uncertainty associated with
many aspects of the approach. Uncertainty
about economic, demographic, social, and
technological changes in the future is
captured to a large degree by having four
alternative futures. There will be uncer-
tainty in much of the background informa-
tion, such as determining the sources of
phosphorous and other pollutants. Also,
there is much environmental uncertainty. It
will therefore be necessary to report results
in ways that reflect the uncertainty in-
volved, such as by bounding estimates or
performing sensitivity analyses. It is
important to avoid the mistake of oversim-
plifying a complex system. Given the
uncertainty, the Analysis Team will only be
able to roughly determine the most cost-
effective management strategy. In so
doing, however, it will assess the impor-
tance of uncertainty on cost-effectiveness.
This is useful information for it will help
guide policy and establish priorities for
further research.
Summary—Relevance to Other
Watersheds
The purpose of the Analysis Team is
to generate information to enable manage-
ment objectives to be achieved at the least
cost to society. Even though initial results
will be rough, cost-effectiveness has not
been a major criterion of previous policy
decisions and programs for improving
environmental quality in lower Green Bay,
nor the Fox-Wolf watershed. Therefore,
the results of the analysis may be very
valuable, perhaps enabling millions of
dollars of public funds to be saved. For
instance, the analysis should indicate
whether the marginal dollar for phosphorus
reduction would be better directed at rural
nonpoint source pollution, urban storm
runoff, or point source improvements.
Furthermore, it will indicate which actions
are more likely to meet management
objectives under future conditions.
N.E.W. Waters for Tomorrow and
efforts of the Analysis Team are extremely
relevant to other watersheds. The experi-
ence over one year will lay down the
framework for incorporating cost-effective-
ness in resource management decisions in a
watershed. This approach to water re-
sources management, the principle of cost-
effectiveness applied at the watershed level,
should be widely applicable. Concern for
costs is likely to become an increasingly
important consideration in implementing
management plans, as traditional sources of
funding dry up. There will be the need for
objective information to help determine
where scarce funds should best be spent.
Therefore, while the framework was
developed for one particular watershed, it
may be viewed as a prototype for other
watersheds in the future.
References
Ashworth, W. 1986. The late, Great Lakes:
An environmental history. Knopf,
New York, NY.
Bower, B. 1991. Purposes and approach of
the proposed Analysis Team. Unpub-
lished manuscript.
Harris, V. 1992. From plan to action: The
Green Bay experience. In Under
RAPs: Toward grassroots ecological
democracy in the Great Lakes Basin,
ed. J. Hartig and M. Zarull. Univer-
sity of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor,
MI.
Hartig, J.H., and M.A. Zarull, eds. 1992.
Under RAPs: Toward grassroots
ecological democracy in the Great
Lakes basin. University of Michigan
Press, Ann Arbor, MI.
IJC. 1985. Report on Great Lakes water
quality. International Joint Commis-
sion, Great Lakes Water Quality
Board, Windsor, Ontario, Canada.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
sources. 1988. Lower Green Bay
remedial action plan for the Lower
Fox River and Lower Green Bay
Area of Concern. Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources,
Madison, WI.
. 1992. Fields and streets (the
newsletter for Wisconsin's Nonpoint
Source Water Pollution Abatement
Program). No. 10, March 1992.
-------
WATERSHED '93
South Platte Basin: Application of
the Total Maximum Daily Load
Approach
Bruce Zander
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII, Denver, CO
In the 1972 Clean Water Act, Congress
included a provision in section 303 that
called upon states to develop and
implement water quality standards for
surface waters. Included in this part of the
act is a provision found hi §303(d) that
requires states to implement their standards
through the development of total maximum
daily loads (TMDLs). Although this
requirement has been in existence for 20
years, most of the effort in implementing
TMDLs has focused on point source
discharge requirements. As water quality
planning takes on a wider perspective,
looking at all activities within a watershed,
TMDLs have become a valuable tool in
translating water quality standards to a
combination of point and nonpoint source
controls needed to achieve in-stream goals.
The purpose of this paper is to provide
a brief introduction to what TMDLs are and
why they are important in the course of
watershed management. In addition, it will
provide a look at the expanding use of the
TMDL concept in the South Platte water-
shed in the Denver metropolitan area.
Water quality-based management in the
South Platte watershed is not new, but it has
recently developed to include the use of
untraditional and innovative approaches to
address problems in their full ecological
context.
What Is a TMDL?
The Clean Water Act provides for a
two-tiered approach in water quality
controls. The most basic controls are those
referred to as "technology-based controls."
These serve as a minimum baseline of
treatment expected of point source discharg-
ers, independent of the type and classifica-
tion of waterbody receiving the discharge.
For example, the water quality requirements
for a steel mill in Gary, IN, are based on the
same baseline requirements as for a steel
mill in Provo, UT. Where the application of
technology-based controls is not sufficient
to achieve in-stream water quality standards,
then additional controls are needed. These
additional "water quality-based controls"
include controls on point and nonpoint
sources of pollution. Point source controls
are regulatory in nature whereas nonpoint
source controls are generally nonregulatory.
The concept of water quality-based controls
comes from section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act—the section that introduces the
TMDL process. This paper will focus on
the relationship between water quality-based
controls and TMDLs.
For purposes of this presentation, the
term "water quality standard" will include
all components of state standards. Use
classifications, numeric standards, narrative
standards, and antidegradation provisions
are all a part of state standards. The TMDL
process has a role in the implementation of
all of these components.
The fundamental challenge in water
quality management is to select the appro-
priate level and combination of controls to
achieve and maintain the goals established
by a state through its standards program.
The process is not as straightforward as it
may appear. Congress recognized this and
established a deliberate step between water
349
-------
350
Watershed '93
quality standards and water quality controls.
This crucial link between standards and
controls is the TMDL process.
The statutory requirements placed on
a state to develop TMDLs follow closely in
many respects with the requirements to
establish water quality standards. The U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has a review and approval responsibility for
both standards and TMDLs. If a state fails
to establish a TMDL where needed or if
EPA disapproves a state TMDL, EPA has a
nondiscretionary duty to establish the
TMDL (Scott v. City of Hammond, 1984)
(Alaska Center for the Environment v.
Reilly, 1991).
The Clean Water Act requires the
establishment of TMDLs as a primary
mechanism to implement water quality
standards, taking into consideration seasonal
variation and a margin of safety. Congress
directed states to first focus on those waters
where water quality-based controls are
needed to achieve or maintain water quality
standards.
A TMDL for a waterbody is a
quantification of assimilative capacity of a
receiving water. The TMDL takes into
account all sources of the particular pollut-
ant of concern as well as dedicating a
margin of safety to account for uncertain-
ties. This concept of TMDLs can be
portrayed in a simple equation that identifies
the cumulative load from point sources as
the wasteload allocation (WLA) and the
nonpoint source plus background loads as
the load allocation (LA). The margin of
safety can be either a distinct reserve load or
it can be integrated into the WLA or LA
through conservative assumptions.
TMDL = SWLAs + ZLAs + (Margin of Safety)
where, TMDL = total maximum daily load
WLA = wasteload allocation (point
sources)
LA = load allocations (nonpoint
sources plus background)
EPA's regulation on the development
and Implementation of TMDLs provides for
flexibility in how TMDLs are described
(USEPA, 1992). There are numeric in-
stream standards or criteria that lend
themselves to the calculation of mass
loadings and concentrations. For example,
an industrial treatment plant may be limited
to a certain amount of pounds per day of
copper to maintain a certain ambient
standard, given in micrograms/liter (mg/1).
Likewise, a number of sources could be
allocated a certain amount of pounds of
phosphorus per year to maintain a target
annual loading requirement into a lake.
Other parameters of concern, such as
sediment from nonpoint sources, may not
lend themselves to a pounds per day
limitation, but may best be described in a
TMDL as a percentage reduction from
current loadings.
Through the years, EPA has published
documents on the technical aspects of
developing TMDLs. More recently, EPA
published a guidance document that is
intended to explain the programmatic
aspects of TMDLs, discussing the roles of
the state and EPA in the development of
TMDLs (USEPA, 1991). This document
also provides a description of how the
TMDL process fits with other EPA water
quality programs.
The Clean Water Act defines the roles
of the states and EPA in developing
TMDLs. Most recently, EPA revised its
regulations on TMDLs to further delineate
the state submittal process. In the revisions
to the rule, EPA has required each state to
submit the section 303(d) list of TMDL
waters every other year, starting in 1992.
This submittal coincides with the states'
biennial section 305(b) water quality report
to Congress. In addition, each state is to
target waters for TMDL development over a
2-year period and submit them to EPA for
review and approval.
The TMDL and Watershed
Management
The most relevant role the TMDL
plays in the watershed management process
is to act as a focus of all technical delibera-
tions used as a basis for water quality
controls hi the watershed. The TMDL
process is designed to determine what level
and what combination of controls are
needed to achieve water quality goals. To
best accomplish this, the TMDL process
must be holistic in nature, considering all
sources of pollution loading within a
watershed. In addition, the TMDL process
accounts for "nonchemical" factors such as
flow, channel morphology, and riparian
habitat that, if in a degraded state, can
contribute to the nonattainment of water
quality standards and in-stream uses. Once
the framework for a TMDL has been
established, it can be used to evaluate
alternative approaches to achieving water
quality goals, including the "trading" of
-------
Conference Proceedings
351
control requirements from one
source to another for the
purpose of optimizing
treatment costs within the
watershed.
The TMDL process has
aspects that coincide with the
spirit and structure of the
watershed management
process. In particular, the
TMDL process calls for the
identification, prioritization,
and targeting of water quality
problems (including existing
problems and future problems
threatening water quality).
Each of these steps in the
TMDL process calls for the
participation of the stakehold-
ers within the watershed. In
addition, the identification of
solutions as defined through
the TMDL is also subject to
public participation (USEPA,
1992).
To best demonstrate
some of the principles
discussed in the previous
paragraphs, a case example using the South
Platte River will be presented that exempli-
fies certain aspects of the TMDL process.
The South Platte River TMDL
Process
The South Platte River begins in the
Rocky Mountains,of Colorado, flowing
quickly through the foothills to the plains
where metropolitan Denver is located
(Figure 1). The focus of attention in this
paper will be on the portion of the South
Platte as it flows through the urbanized area
of Denver.
There exists a history of TMDL
development in the South Platte basin. For
most of the watersheds above the reservoirs,
phosphorus TMDLs have been established
by the Colorado Water Quality Control
Commission for the purpose of controlling
excessive eutrophication. TMDLs have
been developed for conventional pollutants
and toxics throughout the basin on a less
formal basis.
In years past, the portion of the South
Platte River with severe water quality
problems was the reach below the central
urban area of Denver that received storm
water runoff as well as effluent from many
Denver Metro
Treatment Plant
Cherry Creek
'Lake
Figure 1. South Platte River through the Denver area.
point source dischargers, the biggest being
the Metro Wastewater Reclamation District
municipal treatment plant (Figure 2). Low
flow conditions are caused in large part to
the diversion of the River at the Burlington
Canal, immediately upstream from the
Metro facility. At low flow, the River is
comprised almost entirely of effluent from
the facility.
The historic water quality problems
included ammonia toxicity, chlorine
toxicity, high concentrations of metals, and
low dissolved oxygen. The extent of the
problem in the mid-1980s was revealed, in
part, by biological testing of the river water
that demonstrated significant toxicity for
over 25 miles downstream of the Metro
discharge (Figure 3).
Traditional approaches to developing
TMDLs were limited to looking at the
immediate point of discharge from the
Metro treatment facility. Background
loadings at low flow became part of the
equation used to develop end-of-pipe limits
needed to achieve standards. It appears that
for parameters such as chlorine and most
metals this approach was adequate to attain
water quality standards throughout the river
reach.
For other water quality concerns
such as ammonia toxicity and low dis-
t
N
-------
352
Watershed '93
\
N
Figure 2. South Platte River below Metro Denver Wastewater Treatment Plant.
BIOTOXICITY - S. PLATTE BELOW METRO
Ceriodaphnia Profile
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10f
1985
-5 " 0 5 10 15 20
Distance from Metro Discharge (miles)
25
Figure 3. Toxicity profile downstream from Metro Wastewater Treatment
Plant.
solved oxygen, the TMDLs could only be
developed in a logical manner by analyz-
ing the watershed as a whole, and not fo-
cusing only on the point of discharge.
This approach is consistent with the
premise that a watershed
perspective is needed to de-
velop a comprehensive
TMDL.
In the course of
expanding the analysis in a
geographic sense, additional
factors needed to be accounted
for. The quality and quantity
of ground water inflow, the
extent of irrigation withdraw-
als, and the effects of other
point source dischargers and
tributaries needed to be
considered. Again, this is
consistent with the premise
that all sources need to be
considered when developing a
TMDL.
After extensive upgrades
at the Metro facility, the am-
monia toxicity problem has
been solved for all reaches of
the river. A significant re-
maining problem for the River
includes low dissolved oxygen
concentrations at several loca-
tions downstream from the
Metro facility.
In the course of deter-
mining the TMDL to address
this problem, the Metro
Wastewater Reclamation
District has funded studies
with the direction and assis-
tance of the U.S. Geological
Survey, EPA, and the state to
evaluate in a holistic manner
the exact causes and possible
solutions to this water quality
problem. The studies are
addressing issues such as:
• Ambient water quality
monitoring. Biweekly
water quality monitoring
of the mainstem and major
tributaries is being
performed to determine
trends daily variability in
water quality.
• Fish and macroinverte-
brate studies. Extensive
bioassessments of the
South Platte are being
performed to act as an
indicator of biological
health of the River. Such
information provides
information that can be
-------
Conference Proceedings
353
used to judge success after applica-
tion of controls prompted by the
TMDL.
Habitat studies. Analysis and
mapping of stream habitats are
being performed to determine areas
of degraded habitat that may be
candidate areas for restoration and
explain more precisely the role of
degraded habitat in impairment of
the aquatic use. In conjunction
with this, an analysis of the avian
use of the River is being performed
since literally thousands of birds
use the reach below Metro's
discharge.
Ground water interaction with
surface waters. TMDLs need to
have a comprehensive analysis of
loadings to be most useful. It has
been shown in the South Platte as
well as in other western streams
(Valett et al., 1990) that ground .
water inflow is a significant issue
from both a quality and quantity
perspective.
Benthic layer studies. In many of
the traditional TMDL studies related
to dissolved oxygen, benthic
metabolism has often been ignored
or otherwise not well documented.
In the recent literature, the impor-
tance of addressing such an issue is
essential (Rutherford et al., 1991a, b;
Zagorc-Konca et al., 1991).
Dissolved oxygen criteria studies.
The actual "target" water quality
standard needed for the TMDL is
being re-evaluated by performing
site-specific criteria studies. Very
few, if any, studies have been
performed on the warm-water
species of the South Platte. In
addition, few studies have been
performed using a 24-hour pattern of
dissolved oxygen cycling, indicative
of natural conditions. The Metro
study will be considering these
factors in addition to using a
combination of field and lab data to
determine a recommended dissolved
oxygen criterion.
Physical modeling of stream
morphology. An actual scale model
of the South Platte River has been
built to evaluate what changes, if
any, the in-stream shape would have
on increasing the ambient dissolved
oxygen. In particular, certain
reaches of the South Platte have been
mined for gravel or otherwise
reshaped, leaving reaches of deep,
slow-moving pools that are areas of
low dissolved oxygen. It is proposed
that returning these reaches to a
more natural habitat type will solve
some of the problem associated with
the low dissolved oxygen.
• Mathematical modeling of water
quality. All factors that influence
dissolved oxygen will be integrated
into a water quality model that will
be used to determine the TMDL for
achieving the dissolved oxygen
target. This model spatially covers
the full watershed as well as includ-
ing chemical, biological, and
physical factors. Surface water
characteristics, ground-water
interaction, benthic layer processes,
changes to the stream habitat,
loadings from all point and nonpoint
sources as well as tributaries and
irrigation withdrawals and return
flows are considered within the
context of the model.
The Metro District is in the process of
evaluating a series of alternatives to solve
the dissolved oxygen problem. Each
alternative is made up of an assemblage of
activities that, when applied together, are
designed to meet the water quality goals. Of
particular note is the mixture of alternatives
that include both improvements at the
wastewater facility as well as physical
stream improvements in certain reaches.
Included in the evaluation of the alternatives
is the public participation component
through which comments and concerns of
the stakeholders in the watershed will be
solicited.
Through these current studies, there
has been a great leap forward in evaluating
the South Platte River in a broadened
ecological view. The updated TMDL will
integrate results of the studies into an
assemblage of controls needed to meet the
dissolved oxygen requirements of the South
Platte.
Beyond the dissolved oxygen prob-
lems of the South Platte, there is still one
major pollutant source that is subject of
future studies—storm water discharges.
Storm water discharges throughout the
Denver area may be having a cumulative
impact on the South Platte River that could
be preventing full attainment of the aquatic
life use. The TMDL process calls for
-------
354
Watershed '93
spatially as well as temporally comprehen-
sive analyses. The direction of TMDL
development in the South Platte River, then,
is to begin addressing the full hydrologic
cycle of the River, including wet weather
events. One of the significant steps in this
direction is the ambient biological assess-
ment of the river to detect impairments due
to storm water dischargers throughout the
central urban corridor. The City and County
of Denver are currently sponsoring this
work to assess the biological health of
resident species as well as discover areas of
significant impairment due to storm water
discharges.
Summary
As a component of watershed manage-
ment, the TMDL process promotes the
broadening of our perspectives to consider:
• The interaction between all pollutant
sources (e.g., point, nonpoint,
atmospheric, ground-water sources).
• Cumulative impacts through the
watershed.
• The chemical, biological, and
physical causes of impairment in a
watershed.
• The opportunities for innovative
solutions such as pollutant trading
and habitat restoration.
References
Alaska Center for the Environment v. Reilly.
1991. 762 F.Supp. 1422 (W.D. Wash.)
Rutherford, J.C., R.J. Wilcock, and C.W.
Hickey. 199la. Deoxygenation in a
Mobile-bed River—I. Field studies.
Water Research 25(12): 1487-1497.
. 1991b. Deoxygenation in a
Mobile-bed River—II. Model calibra-
tion and post-audit studies. Water
Research 25(12):1499-1508.
Scott v. City of Hammond, Indiana. 1984.
741 F.2d 992 (7th Cir.)
USEPA. 1991. Guidance for water quality-
based decisions: The TMDL process.
EPA 440/4-91-001. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, DC.
. 1992. 40 CFR Part 130, Water
Quality Planning and Management
Program.
Valett, H.M., S.G. Fisher, andE.H. Stanley.
1990. Physical and chemical charac-
teristics of the hyporheic zone of a
Sonoran Desert stream. Journal of the
North American Benthological Society
9(3): 201-215.
Zagorc-Koncan, J., M. Dular, and J.
Soemen. 1991. Evaluation of
dissolved oxygen balance in two
shallow turbulent Slovene streams.
Water Research 25(11):1357-1363.
-------
W A T E R S H E D ' 9 3
Application of a Nonpoint Source
TMDL Approach to a Complex
Problem of Mining Waste Pollution—
South Fork Coeur cTAlene River
Geoffrey W. Harvey
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, Northern Idaho Regional Office,
Coeur d'Alene Basin Restoration Project
The Coeur d'Alene Basin of northern
Idaho is a region of mountain-fed
rivers draining to Lake Coeur d'Alene,
the source of the Spokane River. The lake
provides 33 percent of the recharge to the
Rathdrum-Spokane aquifer, a sole drinking
water source of Spokane and its suburban
areas. The watershed of the lake contains
some of the least impacted drainages in
Idaho, as well as some which are the most
heavily impacted by a long history of
development. Many streams of the upper
St. Joe River drainage have minor distur-
bances confined to a few access roads and
the Impact of an area-wide forest fire in
1910. In contrast, the South Fork Coeur
d'Alene River drainage has been the center
of mineral extraction, milling, and refine-
ment activities. Trace (heavy) metals
contaminate the river and four of its
tributaries at levels exceeding chronic
freshwater biota criteria. Metals and
sediments from the South Fork (Silver
Valley) have been washed downstream to
contaminated sediments of the lower Coeur
d'Alene River and Lake Coeur d'Alene.
Measures are being taken by state and
federal authorities to contain the metals
contaminants in chemical forms unavailable
to fish, wildlife, and the population in these
downstream waterbodies. The objective of
this paper is to discuss the approach of a
nonpoint source based Total Maximum
Daily Load (TMDL) to control metal
sources with a watershed management
perspective.
The Coeur d'Alene Mining Districts
of northern Idaho have produced silver,
lead, and zinc ores over a 100-year history.
The extraction and milling of metals ores
proceeded for 80 years with minor concern
for environmental protection and with very
few measures implemented to protect land
and water resources from heavy metals
contamination. The metals released to the
environment include substantial levels of
cadmium, lead, and zinc with minor
amounts of chromium, copper, mercury, and
arsenate.
Mills often discharged spent ore tail-
ings directly to streams. Some efforts were
made to mitigate downstream impacts in
response to turn of the century law suits, but
the remedies implemented often created
their own suite of problems. Early tailing
impoundments were located directly next to
or in the tributary streams to the South Fork.
Impoundment dams breached, and the
streams of the narrow valleys cut into the
tailing piles. Wooden impoundment dams
were constructed to cross Canyon Creek and
the South Fork in locations of stream gradi-
ent breaks to collect tailings discharged up-
stream. These were breached by a succes-
sion of high-water events. The areas, which
were already natural stream deposition
zones, became broad alluvial flats laced with
all forms of jig and flotation tailings rich in
heavy metals. Shallow valley aquifers asso-
ciated with the natural deposition areas be-
came contaminated with heavy metals. Nar-
row areas of the valley force these aquifers
355
-------
356
Watershed '93
to discharge back to the river at these loca-
tions. The metals load is carried into the
surface waters. Tailings dredged from the
river and deposited on the land to prevent
their further migration downstream continue
to yield metals to the water courses.
The Silver Valley contains the 21-
square-mile Bunker Hill Superfund Site.
The site is the Nation's second largest. The
site boundaries were drawn based on the
lead levels detected in the blood of children
as a result of smelter gas discharges. Only
recently has contamination of water been
addressed by the remedial planning process.
However, the South Fork Coeur d'Alene
River exceeds chronic metals criteria for
freshwater biota upstream of the Superfund
site boundary. Remediation of the
Superfund site metal sources will not fully
address the uses of the river.
As the issue of restoring the waters of
the South Fork and the tributaries was
addressed, Idaho and U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Region 10 were
confronted with the options of using
Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
authorities or a Clean Water Act mechanism
to achieve the clean-up objectives. The state
and federal governments felt a watershed-
based approach to metals source reduction
was preferable and most feasible. The
TMDL requirements of section 303(d) of the
Clean Water Act would be used to develop
the metals source reduction plan. Since the
South Fork had been listed as water quality
limited since 1976, the stage was set for the
TMDL approach.
Beneficial Uses Recovery
Goals
The South Fork Coeur d'Alene River
has the designated protected uses of agricul-
tural water supply and secondary contact
recreation. In addition, state water quality
standards designate cold water biota and
primary contact recreation as uses "pro-
tected for the future." These designations
were made in 1980 when only the most
resistant macroinvertebrates could be found
in the South Fork and trout were not present
below the Canyon Creek confluence and in
limited numbers above that point. Recent
studies have demonstrated the further
recovery of macroinvertebrates in the stream
and use by some trout, where pool habitat is
available (Hornig, Terpening, and Bogue,
1988; Hartz, in preparation). Improvement
in wastewater treatment facilities has
lowered bacteria levels into a range support-
ive of primary contact recreation. Cadmium
concentrations continue to exceed drinking
water standards during the low-flow period
of the year.
Based on a thorough use attainability
assessment, the river was determined to be
physically capable of the support of cold
water biota, primary contact recreation, agri-
cultural water supply, and secondary contact
recreation. The analysis indicates that these
uses exist in the South Fork and its tributar-
ies, although cold water biota, primary con-
tact recreation, and agricultural water supply
are heavily impaired in many of these
stream reaches. The TMDL is being de-
signed to fully recover the impaired uses.
TMDL Approach
Water quality monitoring has been
completed by the state (IDHW, 1975) and
EPA (Hornig, Terpening, and Bogue,
1988). More recently monitoring results
developed for the Bunker Hill Superfund
Remedial Investigation-Feasibility Study
(McCulley, Frick & Oilman, 199 la) and the
State Natural Resource Trust Fund
(McCulley, Frick & Oilman, 1991b;
McCulley, Frick & Oilman, 1992) have
become available. From these data a rough
metals loading analysis of the South Fork
and its tributaries has been completed.
The loading analysis indicates that 3.5
percent of the total metals load (cadmium,
lead, and zinc) is attributable to point
discharges issued National Permit Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits.
Abandoned mine adit drainages, which
could be permitted under the storm water
runoff program, supply another 6.5 percent
of the load. The remaining 90 percent of the
load is attributable to other nonpoint
contributions primarily from abandoned mill
tailing deposits and from tailings deposited
as part of the stream bed load.
The predominance of nonpoint source
load contribution requires application of a
nonpoint source TMDL approach. The
approach was initially implemented to
address nonpoint source sedimentation of
the South Fork Salmon River. The TMDL
will focus on the reduction of heavy metals
and sediment loads throughout the water-
shed. Load reductions of metals and
sediments sufficient to permit fully sup-
-------
Conference Proceedings
357
ported cold water biota use is the goal. This
goal will ensure support of the additional
uses of the stream.
Format of a Nonpoint Source
TMDL
A nonpoint source TMDL is con-
structed very differently than a TMDL
addressing point discharges. Where point
discharges constitute the majority of the
load, the maximum load of a pollutant that a
stream can safely assimilate without
impairment to the beneficial uses is esti-
mated. Margins for error are built into the
estimate. The estimated load is then
parceled out in a wasteload allocation to the
discharging facilities. Since the nonpoint
source component is normally small, in
practice it is usually either neglected or
point dischargers are each allocated a share
of the nonpoint source load.
In a case like the South Fork Coeur
d'Alene River where the permitted point
discharges are 3.5 percent of the load and
other identifiable discharges from discrete
points are at most another 6.5 percent of the
load, the typical approach will not provide
satisfactory results. The nonpoint sources
themselves must be addressed in a load
allocation.
The State of Idaho has not found a
method to allocate loads to nonpoint sources
or nonpoint source activities. The nonpoint
sources are often either a historical legacy or
temporal land disturbance caused by
economically vital activities; e.g., agricul-
ture, grazing, and timber harvest. The state
has found that remediation or restoration
projects can be allocated to land owners
with areas on their property which supply a
steady load of nonpoint source
pollutants. The amount of
pollutant load reduction
expected from a remedial
project can be estimated with
mathematical models or
project effectiveness monitor-
ing. With these estimates of
expected load reduction, an
allocation of remedial projects
expected to lower the pollut-
ant load to a point sufficient to
permit support of beneficial
uses can be developed.
The nonpoint source ap-
proach requires application of
a measure of professional
judgement. It is inherently a less certain un-
dertaking than a wasteload allocation to
point discharges. As a result of the uncer-
tainty, a nonpoint source TMDL contains
provisions for water quality monitoring to
assess if the projected load reduction ex-
pected of an allocation of projects has been
achieved and beneficial use monitoring to
assess progress towards use attainment and
full support of those uses. At some point
after full implementation of the projects and
a period of monitoring to assess the effec-
tiveness of the measures implemented, a de-
cision point is reached. If uses are recovered
the goal is met. If uses are not recovered
another allocation of load reduction projects
is implemented and the cycle repeated. A
nonpoint source TMDL is a repetitive pro-
cess which homes in on the desired goal of
full support of the uses (Figure 1).
Implementation of the provisions of
a nonpoint source TMDL is also a chal-
lenge. Implementation of allocated
projects on federal lands is possible by
inclusion of this approach in section 319
management plans. Section 319(h) of the
Clean Water Act can be used to require
consistency of all federal projects with the
allocation. Compliance by private inter-
ests requires provisions in the state
standards requiring compliance.
South Fork Coeur d'Alene
River TMDL
Application of this approach to the
South Fork Coeur d'Alene River will pro-
vide an example of this approach in use to
recover uses impaired by historic mining
activities. The load reduction required can
be estimated from the results of water qual-
Beneficial Use Support
Estimated Load Reduction
Assessment of Support
Status of Beneficial Uses
Allocation of Load
Reduction Project
Monitoring of Water Quality
and Beneficial Use Responses
Figure 1. Format of nonpoint source TMDL.
-------
358
Watershed '93
ity monitoring and beneficial use support
status monitoring. The metal concentration
in locations where cold water biota is fiilly
supported are used to calculate and extrapo-
late the load reductions required throughout
the river system.
The loading analysis which provided
estimates of the metals contribution from
various sources was completed at sufficient
resolution to identify the stream reaches
yielding the largest metals loads to the
system. The source of these loads could
often be identified as a specific mill site or
stream deposition area. For example, the
loading analysis of the East Fork Ninemile
Creek identified four significant loads
entering the stream at high flow (Figure 2).
At low flow, three of these sources are
greatly reduced, indicating these are
nonpoint sources. The fourth source is more
constant, indicating a more discrete constant
source. Field inspection indicates these
sources include:
• Interstate Mill Dump.
• Rex Tailing Pond Drainage.
• Success Mill Dump.
• Tailings deposited by erosion and
deposition along the lower reach of
the East Fork.
An ingredient is not available for a
full allocation of load reduction projects in
the South Fork. Quantitative data which
would allow estimation of the metals load
reduction that could be attained from a
remediation project are not available. The
solution to this problem is an initial alloca-
tion of demonstration remedial projects.
These projects will be carefully monitored
to assess the load reduction achieved. The
load reduction data will be used to develop
an allocation of load reduction projects
which is expected to lower the load to
acceptable levels.
Demonstration remedial projects are
planned for implementation during the late
summer and fall of 1993. Effectiveness
monitoring of these projects will be com-
pleted after two years. As effectiveness
monitoring proceeds, additional beneficial
use support status and water quality moni-
toring will be completed to clearly delineate
the load reductions required from the initial
project allocation. Implementation of the
projects allocated to achieve the desired load
reduction should begin in late summer or
fall of 1996. Monitoring of water quality
and beneficial uses will determine the need
for additional allocations. The process will
High Flow
66.1
126.5
52.7
158.5 14.7
Interstate
Calahan
(0.6)
419.8
Low Flow
ENM-60
353.7
227.2
174.5 16.0 1.3
Interstate
Calahan (2.2)
2.71
25.14
20.76
13.26
14.51
1.26
77.65
74.94
49.80
15.78
ENM-50
2.18
ENM-60
0.01
Figure 2. East Fork Nine Mile Creek total metals load (Ib/d) at high flow and low flow.
-------
Conference Proceedings
359
be followed until full support of the attain-
able uses is achieved.
References
Hartz, M. 1993. Attainable beneficial uses
and support status of existing uses of
the waterbodies of the Coeur d'Alene
Basin. In preparation.
Hornig, C.E., D.A. Terpening and M.W.
Bogue. 1988. Coeur d'Alene Basin-
EPA water quality monitoring (1972-
1986). EPA 910/9-88-216.
IDHW. 1975. Water quality status report:
Aquatic monitoring South Fork
Coeur d'Alene River Basin industrial
source evaluation and receiving
water survey. Division of Environ-
ment, Idaho Department of Health
and Welfare, Coeur d'Alene Idaho.
March.
McCulley, Prick & Oilman. 199la. Bunker
Hill Superfund site revised draft
feasibility study report. Executive
summary, Vol. 1, 2, and 3. McCulley,
Frick & Oilman, Inc., Boulder, CO.
. 1991b. Draft interim report
upstream surface water sampling
program, spring 1991. High flow
event. South Fork Coeur d'Alene
River Basin above the Bunker Hill
Superfund site. Prepared for trustees
for the Natural Resource Damage
Trust Fund, by McCulley, Frick &
Oilman, Inc., Boulder, CO.
. 1992. Draft interim report
upstream surface water sampling
program, fall 1992. Law flow event.
South Fork Coeur d'Alene River Basin
above the Bunker Hill Superfund site.
Prepared for trustees for the Natural
Resource Damage Trust Fund by
McCulley, Frick & Oilman, Inc.,
Boulder, CO.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
A Status Report on Michigan's
Comprehensive Water Quality
Plan for Sycamore Creek
John D. Suppnick, Senior Environmental Quality Analyst
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Surface Water Quality Division, Lansing, MI
Michigan has a provision in its
water quality standards for a
comprehensive plan to be pre-
pared for a stream that will form the basis
for nonpoint source controls to meet the
dissolved oxygen (DO) standard. The
technical work for the first such plan has
been completed for Sycamore Creek and is
described in detail elsewhere (Suppnick
1992). This paper presents an overview of
this technical work, and a description of
ongoing efforts to implement the plan and
monitor the results.
Sycamore Creek is a warm water
stream that drains 274 square kilometers
of gently rolling sometimes flat land in
central Michigan. The watershed analysis
focuses on the 96 square kilometers
upstream of Harper Road (Figure 1). Land
use is primarily cash crop agriculture.
Although farmers do not typically fall
plow, conservation tillage is not yet widely
used in the watershed despite the fact that
much of the agricultural land is highly
erodible. The monthly median flows vary
from a low of 125 I/sec (4.4 cfs) in Sep-
tember to a high of 991 I/sec (35 cfs) in
March and April.
The City of Mason is near the
downstream end of the watershed. There
are no major industrial discharges of pro-
cess wastewater, but the City of Mason
discharges wastewater from an advanced
wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) with
a design flow of 5,680 cubic meters per
day (1.5 MOD).
Holt Rd.
Harper Rd.
Howe II Rd.
Mason WWTP
City of Mason
Cemetary Bridge
WI I low Creek
Watershed Marshall Drain
Watershed
Ha!nes DraIn
Watershed
Perry Creek
Figure 1, Sycamore Creek and vicinity.
361
-------
362
Watershed '93
Characterizing the Problem
Designated use impairments and DO
standard violations were documented by
qualitative biological surveys, channel sur-
veys, continuous DO monitoring, and DO
modeling. Biological surveys on Sycamore
Creek (Clark, 1990) have revealed im-
paired fish and macroinverte-brate commu-
nities as evidenced by an absence of
intolerant fish species and low macroinver-
tebrate diversity and abundance.
Most of the channels in the watershed
have been dredged at least once. Channel
dimensions and sediment depth were
measured at 49 sites in the watershed using
a survey rod and hand level. Observations
of bank erosion and riparian vegetation
were also made at most sites. The channel
survey revealed that there is severe sedi-
mentation throughout the watershed. The
average sediment depth was 0.3 meter of
mostly fine sand and silt. Active stream-
bank erosion was occurring primarily
where the banks were wooded. Ninety
percent of the stations where signs of active
bank erosion were noted had wooded
banks. All stations where no active bank
erosion was noted were nonwooded.
Nonwooded sites usually had a thick sod
stabilizing the bank, but in wooded sections
herbaceous plants were sparse.
6-
WWTP = Mason WWTP BOD and Ammonia
RESP = Aquatic Plant Respiration
SOD = Sediment Oxygen Demand
Harper
Howel!
Cemetary W Service
Figure 2. Relative contribution of DO sinks to the DO deficit.
Continuous DO monitoring was
conducted at eight locations using recording
electrode style monitors. All but one site
recorded DO concentrations less than the
standard minimum of 5 mg/1. Three sites
upstream of the WWTP that were down-
stream of a marsh violated the DO standard
on every day monitored. At some sites DO
standard violations were recorded during
runoff events.
Cause and effect intensive dissolved
oxygen surveys were conducted twice during
1989 to provide data to calibrate a DO
model. Predictions of DO were made using a
quasi steady state DO model (O'Connor and
DiToro, 1970). Simulations of drought
conditions were performed to determine if
the DO standard would be met and to
determine the relative importance of oxygen
consuming factors under drought conditions.
This modeling showed that most of Syca-
more Creek is not expected to meet the DO
standard under drought flow conditions. The
primary dissolved oxygen sink under drought
conditions is expected to be sediment oxygen
demand followed by aquatic plant respiration
(Figure 2). Model simulations show that a 52
percent reduction in sediment oxygen
demand would allow the DO standard to be
met at all locations except immediately
downstream of the marsh.
The habitat destruction, DO monitor-
ing and DO model-
ing show that
sediment is the
pollutant most
responsible for the
impairment of
Sycamore Creek.
Reducing sediment
sources to the stream
should be the goal of
any corrective
actions. At this time
no models reliably
predict effects of
reduced suspended
solids load on
habitat, aquatic life,
or sediment oxygen
demand. In the
absence of more
precise models, the
target suspended
solids load reduction
for a demonstration
project such as this
should be picked
considering water
-------
Conference Proceedings
363
quality goals, the pollutant reductions that
are achievable with best management
practices, and the level of pollutant
reduction that is likely to achieve a
significant and detectable response in the
stream. Based on the assumption of a
proportional response in the sediment
oxygen demand by suspended solids
reductions, a 52 percent reduction in
suspended solids to the stream would be
required to allow the stream DO standard
to be met at drought flow at all locations
except downstream of the marsh.
Estimating Current Sediment
Loads
Agricultural Areas
Suspended solids loads from agricul-
tural areas were estimated from an ongoing
water quality monitoring program. Continu-
ous flow monitoring and automatic sam-
pling are being performed in three agricul-
tural sub-watersheds (Marshall Drain,
Willow Creek, and Haines Drain). Haines
Drain is outside, but adjacent to, the
Sycamore Creek watershed. It provides a
control watershed that will allow a paired
analysis for determining the effectiveness of
nonpoint control strategies. This control
watershed has soil, slope, and land use
characteristics similar to Sycamore Creek.
The monitoring season is from snowmelt
(March) to the appearance of crop canopy
(July). Monitoring data from 1990 and
1991 were used to estimate sediment loads
from agricultural land. Monitoring is
continuing through 1998 to provide an
assessment of nonpoint source control
effectiveness.
Pollutant loads during non-runoff
periods were estimated for each of the
three sub-watersheds by multiplying the
average non-runoff suspended solids con-
centration by the total annual flow for non-
runoff days in a 12-month period begin-
ning with October 1989. Non-runoff flow
during the unmonitored season was deter-
mined from a correlation to a U. S. Geo-
logical Survey (USGS) gage at Holt Road
(Figure 1).
For storm runoff periods, linear re-
gression models were derived from the data
to predict individual storm loads from the
peak daily average flow at the USGS gage.
These regression models were used to calcu-
late suspended solids loads from each of the
three agricultural sub-watersheds for all the
significant storms recorded at the USGS
gage during the available 6-year period of
record.
The average area! suspended solids
loading rate for the three sub-watersheds
was assumed to be representative of the
nonurban portion of the Sycamore Creek
watershed upstream of Harper Road.
Eroding Streambanks
- Annual average channel erosion for
actively eroding banks was determined
from the product of the height, length,
lateral recession rate and density of the soil
in the eroding banks. Lengths and heights
were estimated from the channel survey
data. The lateral recession rate for a 2.6-
km channel with the worst bank erosion
was determined by comparing channel
cross sections measured in 1989 with
design criteria for the channel when it was
last dredged in 1952. For other actively
eroding banks in the watershed, the lateral
bank recession rate was estimated from
field observations. The fraction of the
eroded channel soil that would travel as
bedload was subtracted from the channel
erosion estimates, to allow direct compari-
son with the agricultural and urban load
estimates based on sampling that did not
include bedload measurements.
Urban Areas
An urban load estimation model
(Driver and Tasker, 1988) was used to
predict pollutant loads from the Mason
urban area. The model was calibrated for
two urban subwatersheds by adjusting the
bias correction coefficient to match loads
measured during two moderately large
summer storms that were monitored with
automatic samplers and flow recorders. The
calibrated model was then used to predict
suspended solids loads for a 6-year rainfall
record. Results for the two modeled urban
subwatersheds were extrapolated to the
entire urban drainage area.
Other Sources
Average annual suspended solids
loads from point sources were calculated
from self monitoring data. The maximum
possible load of suspended solids from
septic tanks was estimated from historical
records of septic tank absorption field
permits and some worst case assumptions.
-------
364
Watershed '93
SEDIMENT REDUCTIONS NEEDED
IN SYCAMORE CREEK
600-
tc
&
4OO-
3OO-
£
0 200-
1OO-
EXISTINO LOAD
REDUCED LOAD
STREAM
BANKS
AGRICULTURE
URBAN
OTHER
Figure 3. Existing sediment sources and recommended reductions for
Sycamore Creek upstream of Harper Road.
Results of Load Calculations
and Recommended Allocation
Figure 3 shows the average annual
load of suspended solids from each source
and the recommended reduction for each
source to achieve an overall reduction of 52
percent. Other reduction strategies are
possible, but the recommended strategy is
reasonable and achievable by carefully
targeting erosion control measures to areas
with high delivery ratios such as agricultural
fields adjacent to the stream, construction
sites in the urban area, and the most severely
eroding stream channels. This plan has not
yet been approved by the Michigan Water
Resources Commission. The final alloca-
tion approved by the Commission may be
different from the one proposed here.
Implementation of Corrective
Actions and Follow-Up
Monitoring
Actions to reduce the sediment load
to the stream have begun. The necessary
load reductions will be achieved in part by
an ongoing program of the U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture (USDA) in the
Sycamore Creek watershed. The goal of
the program is a 50 percent reduction in
erosion on agricultural land
by targeting highly erodible
land. Technical assistance is
available to farmers from the
USDA and the Ingham
County Soil Con-servation
District. In addition, cost-
share money is available to
farmers for the implementa-
tion of conservation tillage,
critical area seedings, grass
waterways, permanent vege-
tative cover, and other best
management practices. Also,
the Ingham County Drain
Commissioner is seeking sec-
tion 319 grant funds for the
implementation of stream-
bank stabilization measures
in the watershed.
Follow-up monitoring is
being conducted to evaluate
the effectiveness of controls.
Monitoring of three agricul-
tural sub-watersheds using a
paired sampling approach
(Spooner et al., 1985) is being
conducted to provide feedback on whether
best management practices reduce sediment
loads to the stream. Agricultural manage-
ment practices are being documented by pe-
riodic site visits during the sampling season
(approximately March-July). These land
use data are being stored in the form of in-
put files for the Agricultural Nonpoint
Source (AGNPS) model. The AGNPS
model output is being compared to actual
runoff data for each runoff event that is
monitored.
Three years of data have been collect-
ed from this monitoring program so far.
Data from the first 2 years of monitoring
were used to estimate loads from agricul-
tural areas as described above. Funding will
be provided by the EPA under the section
319 national monitoring program for an
additional 6 years of monitoring.
References
Clark, K. 1990. A biological investigation
of Sycamore Creek and tributaries,
Ingham County, Michigan. Michigan
Department of Natural Resources,
Lansing, MI.
Driver, N.E., and G.E. Tasker. 1988.
Techniques for estimation of storm-
runoff loads, volumes, and selected
-------
Conference Proceedings
365
constituent concentrations in urban
watersheds in the United States. U.S.
Geological Survey Open File Report
88-191.
O'Connor, D.J., and D.M. DiToro. 1970.
Photosynthesis and oxygen balance in
streams. Journal of the Sanitary
Engineering Division, ASCE,
96(SA2):547.
Spooner, J., R.P. Maas, S.A. Dressing,
M.D. Smolen, and FJ. Humenik.
1985. Appropriate designs for
documenting water quality improve-
ments from agricultural NFS control
pro-grams. In Perspectives on
nonpoint source pollution, pp. 30-34.
EPA 440/5-85-001.
Suppnick, J.D. 1992. A nonpoint source
pollution load allocation for Sycamore
Creek, in Ingham County Michigan.
In Proceedings of the Surface Water
Quality and Ecology Symposium, pp.
293-302. Water Environment
Federation, Alexandria, VA.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Development of the San Luis Obispo
Creek Demonstration TMDL
David W. Dilks, Ph.D., Associate Vice President
Kathryn A. Schroeder, Environmental Scientist
Theodore A.D. Slawecki, Computer Manager
LTI, Limno-Tech, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
requires states to develop total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for
pollutants to waterbodies which will not be
in compliance with water quality stan-
dards, even after implementation of
technology-based treatment. Little
specific technical guidance is presently
available on the development of TMDLs.
The objective of this project was to
provide specific guidance on the TMDL
development process, via case study
application. This paper presents the
development of a demonstration TMDL
for San Luis Obispo Creek, CA. The focus
of the effort was on documenting the
TMDL development process; the San Luis
Obispo site is used to show real-world •
considerations. Particular emphasis is
given to potential problems that those
developing TMDLs in the future may
encounter.
The San Luis Obispo Creek Water-
shed (Figure 1) is located in west-central
California, covering approximately 84
square miles from its headwaters in the
Santa Lucia Mountains to its confluence
with the Pacific Ocean at Avila Beach. The
main stem of San Luis Obispo Creek is 18
miles long and flows in a southwesterly
direction through the City of San Luis
Obispo to the Pacific. The San Luis Obispo
watershed is a rapidly-growing area. Land
use in the San Luis Obispo basin includes
both urban and agricultural uses, with rapid
development removing a significant amount
of agricultural acreage in recent years.
Fertile farmlands exist adjacent to the Creek
and its tributaries, producing vegetable
crops, fruits, and wine grapes. In addition,
cattle raising is an important activity in the
area (SCS, 1984). The Creek is also used
for recreational activities such as hiking,
birdwatching, swimming, and canoeing.
San Luis Obispo Creek provides spawning
habitat for steelhead and native trout. The
Creek also provides endangered species
habitat for tidewater gobies (San Luis
Obispo County Land Conservancy, 1988).
Several water quality problems exist
within the San Luis Obispo Creek water-
shed. The Creek has been listed by the State
of California as impaired by both sediments
and nutrients. Both point and nonpoint
sources are suspected to contribute to these
problems. Sediment deposition is destroy-
ing spawning areas within the Creek, as well
as impairing other beneficial uses. This
problem extends the entire length of the
Creek. Agricultural, urban, and municipal
sources have been identified by the state as
contributing to the sediment problem in San
Luis Obispo Creek. Livestock in the
riparian corridor destroy riparian vegetation
and contribute to streambank erosion.
Agricultural and urban runoff also carry
solids to the stream. Nutrients are a problem
in the Creek downstream of the City of San
Luis Obispo. There are frequent algal
blooms, and aquatic species change below
the point of wastewater discharge to the
stream. Agricultural and urban runoff are
sources of nutrients, as is the wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP). Total phosphorus
concentrations are extremely high below the
treatment plant.
Available water quality data consisted
primarily of nutrient grab samples in the
vicinity of the City of San Luis Obispo.
Limited grab samples of solids and nutrients
367
-------
3<58
Watershed '93
City of
San Luis
Obispo
San Luis
Obispo Creek
Figure 1. San Luis Obispo Creek watershed.
were also available at other locations in the
watershed. Three years of continuous flow
monitoring data were available at the mouth
of the watershed. Discharge monitoring
reports provided a thorough description of
effluent quantity and quality from the San
Luis Obispo WWTP. No data were avail-
able describing the magnitude of nonpoint
source loads.
TMDL Approach
The TMDL development approach
can take many forms, but usually contains
the following steps:
1. Definition of water quality objec-
tives.
2. Development of a model linking
pollutant loads to receiving water
quality.
3. Development of a nonpoint source
model to predict loading under
present and future conditions.
4. Preparation of an allocation strategy,
which dictates the amount of load
reductions required
from each source
category.
The TMDL
approach taken for this
site is shown in Figure
2 and is divided into
two general steps of
determining the
allowable load and
allocating the load
between sources. In
the first step, numeric
water quality objectives
were defined and a
water quality model
applied to determine
the maximum allow-
able load which would
result in compliance
with water quality
objectives. In the
allocation step,
different levels of BMP
implementation and
point source controls
were tested until the
predicted total pollutant
load was in compliance
with the objective.
The various
analytical tools used in
TMDL development
(water quality model, nonpoint source
model) require extensive site-specific data to
be properly applied. Many waterbodies
requiring TMDLs have insufficient data to
allow rigorous application of the required
tools. EPA (1991) has recognized this
limitation, and allows for a phased approach
in the development of TMDLs. The phased
approach consists of a four-step process:
1. Develop a preliminary TMDL.
2. Implement control strategies.
3. Monitor to determine if water quality
.objectives are being met.
4. Perform detailed modeling, if
necessary.
The preliminary TMDL is developed by
replacing the rigorous nonpoint source and
water quality models with simple (yet
reasonable) assumptions regarding pollutant
behavior. The control strategies identified
in the preliminary TMDL are then imple-
mented, followed by additional monitoring.
These monitoring data will be used to
determine if the preliminary TMDL was
sufficient to bring the system into compli-
ance with water quality standards. If the
-------
Conference Proceedings
369
Allocate Load
monitoring data show
the preliminary
TMDL to be inad-
equate, these data can
then be used in the
application of more
rigorous nonpoint
source or water
quality modeling. The
San Luis Obispo
Creek TMDL de-
scribed in this paper
follows a phased
approach to TMDL
development.
Water Quality
Objectives
A necessary step
in the development of
any TMDL is the
specification of
quantitative water
quality objectives.
These are typically
available for most
pollutants in the form
of numeric water
quality standards.
Numeric standards were not available for
San Luis Obispo Creek for either of the
pollutants of concern, suspended solids and
phosphorus.
Solids are a concern because excess
solids loading to the Creek has led to
siltation of fish spawning sites. Setting a
solids criterion is a difficult task. The
objective is to maintain instream solids
concentrations at a level that will prevent
excess sedimentation. Unfortunately, the
exact suspended solids concentration at
which this occurs varies as a function of
stream velocity and solids settling character-
istics, and cannot be easily defined. The
State Water Resources Control Board made
a decision for this demonstration TMDL to
decrease the solids loading to San Luis
Obispo Creek by 50 percent. As part of the
phased TMDL development process, future
monitoring will be conducted to determine
if the solids control strategy implemented
for this TMDL will lead to solids levels
supportive of the stream's designated use.
Nutrients are a concern because excess
nutrient concentrations lead to nuisance
aquatic plant growth and impair the integrity
Determine Total Allowable Load
Define
Water Quality
Objectives
Is Total
Load
(Nonpoint +
Point
Sources)
Less Than
Total
Allowable
Load?
yes
Figure!. TMDL approach.
of the aquatic ecosystem. For purposes of
this demonstration TMDL, an interim
objective of 500 micrograms per liter (mg/1)
of phosphorus was selected. This value was
selected because it is representative of
concentrations observed directly above the
WWTP, where nutrient-related problems
have not been observed.
Water Quality Modeling
The second step in the San Luis
Obispo Creek TMDL development was
application of a water quality model to
predict instream concentrations. The
objective of the model is to predict allow-
able pollutant loading rates which will
maintain compliance with water quality
objectives.
A simple dilution model was selected
for use in the San Luis Obispo Creek
phosphorus TMDL. No water quality model
was required for solids, as the water quality
objective was defined as a 50 percent
reduction in loading to the stream. The
instream decay rate of phosphorus was
assumed to be zero (i.e., conservative
-------
370
Watershed '93
behavior). Conservative pollutant behavior
was assumed because:
• Insufficient data were available to
describe with confidence the fate
processes affecting instream phos-
phorus losses.
• The assumption of no net pollutant
loss will result in prediction of the
highest expected instream concentra-
tion. This provides a margin of
safety required in TMDL develop-
ment.
The total allowable pollutant load was
defined at three different locations in the
Creek to ensure that water quality objectives
will be met throughout the watershed.
Nonpoint Source Modeling
The third step in the San Luis Obispo
Creek TMDL development was application
of a nonpoint source (watershed) model to
predict the total amount of nonpoint source
pollutants delivered to the Creek as a
function of watershed characteristics (e.g.,
soil type, land use) and pollution manage-
ment practices. The model applied for the
San Luis Obispo Creek TMDL was required
to have the following characteristics:
• It could predict loads for both
suspended solids and phosphorus.
• It could be applied to the wide range
of land use activities present in the
San Luis Obispo Creek watershed.
• The model framework was consistent
with the available data.
The model selected was a linkage of the
Universal Soil Loss Equation (for rural
areas) and general loading functions (for
urban areas). Application of these models
followed EPA (1985) modeling guidance.
Watershed characteristics were defined
using a geographic information system
(GIS) data base, to facilitate the large
numbers of repetitive calculations required.
Compilation of the background data
for nonpoint source model application indi-
cated that there were 4 rural land uses, 20
soil types, 7 slope categories, and 6 rainfall
erosivities. This corresponds to over 2,000
individual source areas. To facilitate this
large number of calculations, the nonpoint
source model calculations were conducted
as part of a GIS data base. GIS data describ-
ing watershed characteristics were provided
by the California Polytechnic State Univer-
sity (soil type, slope, drainage basins, tribu-
taries) and the San Luis Obispo Land Con-
servancy (land use, cover type). Rainfall
erosivities and soil erodibility were deter-
mined from soil category based upon infor-
mation provided by the Soil Conservation
Service. The GIS software package PC-
ARC/INFO was programmed to automati-
cally divide the watershed into discrete
source areas. The software then determined
whether land use was rural or urban and ap-
plied the appropriate model equation. Total
loads to the Creek were determined for each
pollutant by summing the loads from each
individual source category.
The next step in the nonpoint source
modeling effort was to define alternative
best management practices (BMPs) which
could be considered for nonpoint source
pollution control. A review of the available
literature on BMPs for the land use concerns
in the San Luis Obispo Creek watershed
indicated a number of BMP options. It is
important to note that there was a wide
range of expected load reductions associated
with each BMP. Determination of the site-
specific effectiveness of any given BMP
requkes a greater level of effort than
allocated for this demonstration TMDL, so
an average of observed literature values was
used for each BMP. Future TMDL develop-
ment projects will likely encounter similar
difficulties in determining site-specific BMP
effectiveness.
Discussions with the California
Regional Water Quality Control Board and
the local Soil Conservation Service office
identified several BMPs currently under
consideration in the area. These include:
• Riparian corridor restoration.
• Conversion of some agricultural
lands from row crops to orchards.
• Improved agricultural practices (e.g.,
irrigation management, contour
farming, conservation tillage).
Street cleaning and retention basins were
also included for consideration as means to
reduce urban nonpoint loadings.
Allocation of Allowable Loads
The final step in the TMDL develop-
ment process was to allocate the total
allowable load between point and nonpoint
sources. This required identifying specific
BMPs to control nonpoint sources and
specific point source effluent limits. Little
guidance is currently available on allocating
allowable pollutant loads between point and
nonpoint sources. Review of the watershed
-------
Conference Proceedings
371
model results and available data provided
for the following strategy in allocating
allowable loads:
• Nonpoint sources are the predomi-
nant source of solids to the stream.
Efforts to achieve the solids TMDL
should focus on nonpoint source
controls.
• The San Luis Obispo WWTP is the
primary contributor of phosphorus to
the Creek. Efforts to achieve the
phosphorus TMDL should consider
this source. Nonpoint source
reductions in phosphorus will be
obtained coincidentally as part of the
BMPs implemented to reduce solids
loading.
The above strategy clearly
defines allocation of
allowable loads between
point and nonpoint sources;
it does not address how to
choose between the
available nonpoint source
reduction scenarios.
A computer spread-
sheet program was devel-
oped to allow the local
water quality manager to
determine the impact of
different levels of BMP
implementation and point
source load reduction on
attainment of water quality
objectives. The user
provides inputs related to
both point and nonpoint
source controls. The
nonpoint source inputs
specify the percentage of
total land in different land
uses that will be converted
to specific BMPs. The
point source inputs specify
the percentage reduction of
present loads required at the
San Luis Obispo WWTP for
solids and phosphorus,
respectively. The spread-
sheet described above was
used to define a load
reduction scenario which
would lead to compliance
with water quality objec-
tives (i.e., the demonstration
TMDL). It is emphasized
that many different alloca-
tion strategies could be
defined which would
constitute a TMDL and that public input and
cost/feasibility analyses are typically a
required component of the final TMDL.
The top half of Figure 3 shows the
TMDL calculation spreadsheet as initially
seen by the user. The left half of the
spreadsheet is used for model inputs,
specifically the percentage of BMP applica-
tion on different lands in the watershed and
the percentage point source load reduction
required at the WWTP. The right hand side
of the spreadsheet contains model results
comparing predicted pollutant loads at three
locations in the watershed to loading
objectives.
The bottom half of Figure 3 shows an
application of the spreadsheet describing a
% of Area
Upper
Land Use/BMP Basin
Open Space
Buffer Strip 0
Agriculture
Controls o
Orchard 0
Buffer Strip 0
Village/Urban
Retention 0
Street cleaning 0
Rural
Buffer Strip 0
WWTP TP Reduction (%)
WWTP SS Reduction (%)
in BMP
Lower
Basin
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Above Below Mouth
WWTP WWTP
New TP Load 1.6 110.6 113.6
TP Objective 1.7 7.8 9.9
New SS Load 2352 2448 6808
SS Objective 1176 1224 3404
a) Blank Spreadsheet
% of Area in BMP
Upper
Land Use/BMP Basin
Open Space
Buffer Strip 0
Agriculture
Controls 35
Orchard 25
Buffer Strip 40
Village/Urban
Retention 30
Street cleaning 0
Rural
Buffer Strip 25
WWTP TP Reduction (%)
WWTP SS Reduction (%)
Lower
Basin
0
35
25
40
30
0
25
95
0
Above Below Mouth
WWTP WWTP
New TP Load 1.0 6.5 8.5
TP Objective 1.7 7.8 9.9
New SS' Load 948 1044 3293
SS Objective 1176 1224 3404
b) Completed Spreadsheet
Figure 3. TMDL allocation spreadsheet.
-------
372
Watershed '93
hypothetical set of load reductions required
to achieve the TMDL. In this application,
improved agricultural practices were
implemented on 35 percent of the agricul-
tural land in both the upper basin (above the
WWTP) and lower basin. 25 percent of the
agricultural land in the upper and lower
basins were assumed converted from row
crop to orchard. Buffer strips were assumed
to be implemented in 40 percent of agricul-
tural land throughout the basin and on 25
percent of the rural land in the basin.
Retention basins were specified for 30
percent of the village/urban land in each part
of the basin.
. Finally, a 95 percent reduction is
imposed at the San Luis Obispo WWTP. It
is again emphasized that the scope of this
demonstration TMDL project allowed only
a cursory approach to allocating allowable
sources. Rigorous TMDL development will
require consideration of the cost and
feasibility of implementing various control
measures, as well as public input into the
decision process.
References
San Luis Obispo County Land Conservancy.
1988. San Luis Obispo Creek
restoration plan.
SCS. 1984. Soil survey of San Luis Obispo
County, California, coastal part. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service.
USEPA. 1985. Water quality assessment:
A screening procedure for toxic and
conventional pollutants in surface and
groundwater - Part I (revised 1985).
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
. 1991. Guidance for water quality-
based decisions: The TMDL process.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
-------
WATERSHED '93
The Use of Geographic Information
System Images as a Tool to Educate
Local Officials About the Land Use/
Water Quality Connection
Chester L. Arnold, Cooperative Extension Educator
Heather M. Crawford, Cooperative Extension Educator
Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program
University of Connecticut, Hamden, CT
Roy F. Jeffrey, Cooperative Extension Educator
C. James Gibbons, Cooperative Extension Educator
Cooperative Extension System
University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT
Land use management is the key to
improving water quality. This is
particularly true for nonpoint source
pollution, which cannot be controlled
solely with standard regulatory permitting
and enforcement techniques. In many
areas of the United States, land use
decisions are made primarily at the local
level by a combination of elected, profes-
sional, and volunteer municipal officials.
Because the cumulative water quality
impacts of these local decisions can be
enormous, educating municipal officials
about the relationship of land use to water
quality is a critical step to watershed
management.
The current proliferation of laws,
regulations, and technical guidance directed
at nonpoint source management will further
increase the need for education. As this
wave of information cascades from federal
to state to local agencies, the task of making
this material understandable, or at least
accessible, to municipal implementers has
been given little consideration. Adding to
these difficulties are the traditional problems
associated with local volunteer decision
makers (e.g., the limited time that most
people can devote to this one issue in the
course of their routine responsibilities, and
the high turnover rate in membership
typically experienced by municipal commis-
sions).
This paper describes an ongoing pilot
project in Connecticut, Nonpoint Education
for Municipal Officials (NEMO), in which a
method for dealing with this educational
challenge is being developed and tested.
One area being explored is the use of
geographic information system (GIS)
technology as a teaching tool to help others
understand the links between land use and
water quality.
Project Overview
Project Development
NEMO is a 3-year project funded by
the U.S. Department of Agriculture Exten-
sion Service (USDA-ES) as part of a
national USDA water quality initiative.
NEMO and a few sister projects in the
Northeast are being funded in an effort to
contribute to the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) National
Estuary Program (NEP). Under the NEP,
partnerships between federal, state, and local
governments, citizens, and other interest
groups are established to research, character-
ize, and develop management plans for
addressing major environmental problems
373
-------
374
Watershed '93
threatening estuaries of national importance.
Nonpoint source pollution has been found to
be a problem in virtually all of the estuaries
in the NEP, and Long Island Sound, upon
which NEMO is focused, is no exception.
NEMO is an outgrowth of several
ongoing projects of the Connecticut Coop-
erative Extension System (CES). CES has
staff working on water quality and natural
resource planning issues, and, as part of the
Sea Grant Marine Advisory Program (a
cooperative venture with the Connecticut
Sea Grant College Program), other staff
working on similar issues along the coast.
CES and Sea Grant's involvement in the
Long Island Sound Study provided the
impetus for NEMO.
As part of the work done under the
auspices of the Long Island Sound Study
Nonpoint Source Working Group, Dr. Dan
Civco of the University of Connecticut
conducted remote-sensing research
resulting in a land cover map for the entire
State of Connecticut. Satellite images
were analyzed for land cover, which is
principally derived from the reflectivity of
the land, and the data were incorporated
into a GIS. The land cover information is
being used by the study in an effort to rank
watersheds according to their nitrogen
export to the Sound.
CES and Sea Grant staff involved with
this aspect of the Study realized that the
educational potential of the land cover GIS
information was at least as great as its
research value. With support from USDA,
the NEMO project team was formed,
composed of CES staff with water quality
and natural resource planning expertise, Sea
Grant staff with water quality and coastal
zone management expertise, the GIS
expertise of Dr. Civco and his students at the
Natural Resources Management and
Engineering/Laboratory for Earth Resources
Information Systems, and Dr. Marilyn
Altobello of the University's Department of
Agricultural and Resource Economics.
Project Structure
Municipal officials, particularly
volunteer commissioners, are the target
audience of NEMO. The core of the project
is an educational slide presentation that
makes heavy use of GIS images. (This
presentation is outlined in more detail later
in this paper.)
Two other educational media will also
be used in support of the slide presentation.
A 12-minute educational videotape is being
made which introduces the viewer to
nonpoint source pollution problems and
solutions. The video is being made both as
part of the introductory section of the core
NEMO presentation for municipal officials
and with an eye to wider use for general
audiences. The video is a cooperative effort
between NEMO and the New York Sea
Grant Extension Program. In addition to the
video, a series of fact sheets are being
written to provide more detailed information
corresponding to the topics covered in the
presentation. The fact sheets cover nonpoint
source issues and management techniques
and are organized by land use type (i.e.,
residential, commercial, etc). Much of the
material is adapted from the work of the
Land Management Project in Rhode Island.
At this point, NEMO is being piloted
in three areas/towns. In order to get a wide
range of experience in the applicability and
usefulness of the program, towns were
chosen that differed in three important
characteristics: the degree of development,
the type of water pollution problem of local
concern, and the complexity and sophistica-
tion of town governance. A common
criterion was a desire on the part of the chief
elected official and/or town planner to
participate in the project. Interest in the
project was high. Although the project was
not publicized, word of mouth resulted in
more towns "applying" for inclusion in the
project than could be accommodated.
Because of the way that land use
decisions are made in Connecticut, it was
decided,to work at the town level. Con-
necticut has no regional or county govern-
ment, and, like much of New England,
municipal "home rule" is strong. As
explained hi the next section, this municipal
orientation does not preclude a watershed-
based approach. However, after working
with two towns in eastern and central
Connecticut in early 1993, NEMO will be
applied to two small watersheds in western
Connecticut, one of which is shared between
two adjacent towns. This third pilot project
is being jointly conducted with the USDA
Soil Conservation Service, which has been
doing an extensive GIS analysis of the area.
GIS as an Educational Tool
Geographic information systems allow
geographically-referenced data to be
manipulated, analyzed, and displayed in
-------
Conference Proceedings
375
ways that would be prohibitively time-
consuming (or impossible) using conven-
tional maps and overlays. Because of this,
GIS is rapidly becoming an invaluable
management and planning tool in a wide
range of professions. GIS is often used for
natural resource management applications at
the national, state, or regional level. At the
local level, GIS, if used at all, seems largely
reserved for demographic and logistic
applications such as tracking property
transactions, or determining optimal bus
routes. In many cases, GIS has been tried
and then abandoned as expensive, overly
complicated, and personnel-intensive.
NEMO's emphasis is not on the
analytical capabilities of GIS, but on its
potenital as a highly effective visual tool to
help nontechnical citizen volunteers
intuitively understand the relationship of
land use to water quality in their town. It is
important to note that we are not advocating
adoption of GIS technology by the target
towns, nor is our degree of GIS sophistica-
tion very great. While the project relies
heavily on the GIS expertise of Dr. Civco
and his students, all of NEMO's work is
done with personal computers (as opposed
to the more powerful workstation environ-
ment typical of GIS work).
The land cover data developed by Dr.
Civco are the primary source of NEMO's
GIS images, but other data layers are used as
well. These data layers are procured from
town, state, and regional planning agency
sources. At this point, the project team has
been lucky in that all data necessary to the
program have already been digitized. For
Waterford, our first target town, we are
currently using hydrography, roadways,
soils, topography, and town zoning. How-
ever, it is anticipated that a different set of
layers may be used for each town, depend-
ing on availability and the problems at hand.
For instance, in our second town, Old
Saybrook, where there are ground-water
problems and controversy over a proposed
sewage treatment plant, the septic versus
sewered areas layer will be an important
NEMO component.
One general comment: GIS technol-
ogy poses pitfalls, as well as opportunities,
for educational programs. The powerful and
colorful imagery creates a desire to use
complicated, multilayer images, simply
because you can. Our feeling is that these
"GIS pizzas" are probably more effective as
modern art than as educational tools. Based
on this intuition and our experience in
working with municipal commissions, our
tendency throughout the project develop-
ment stage has been to continually simplify
the GIS images and shorten the slide
presentation. The core NEMO presentation
described in the following section now runs
about 60 minutes.
The NEMO Slide Presentation
The core NEMO presentation can be
roughly divided into four parts. The first
part makes use of the project videotape to
introduce the audience to nonpoint source
pollution—its causes, effects, and manage-
ment. The emphasis is on the need to
change both personal behaviors and munici-
pal policies and decision-making criteria. In
addition to the video, new federal and state
nonpoint source laws that focus on storm
water management and coastal nonpoint
pollution control programs are briefly
reviewed to emphasize the need for towns to
get up to speed. GIS is described in general
terms.
The second section focuses on water
quality and watersheds. Regional (Long
Island Sound) water quality issues are
mentioned, but the emphasis is on local
water quality problems, both current and
historical. To the extent possible, these are
shown on a GIS map of the town. Examples
of each major type of nonpoint source
pollution (from pathogens, nutrients, toxic
contaminants, sediment, and debris) are
illustrated with local photographs. Follow-
ing the water quality discussion, the water
cycle and the watershed concept are
introduced. It is here that the project makes
the first real use of GIS technology—town
and regional hydrography, drainage basin
boundaries, and topography are used to
show how and why water systems are
connected. The initial reaction of the
NEMO team and other observers is that
these three-dimensional images are very
effective in communicating the concept of
watersheds and the need for watershed
management.
The third section of the NEMO
presentation focuses on land cover/land use.
The original satellite photography and its
resultant 24-land cover analysis are shown
and explained. Although in general the
program does not explain the technical
background or analytical techniques behind
the GIS data, the difference is explained
between land cover (derived by reflectivity
-------
376
Watershed '93
from what is seen by the satellite) and land
use (what is zoned or planned for a given
area).
The 24 land covers are then condensed
into six basic categories, approximating
traditional land use types that municipal
commissioners are familiar with: commer-
cial and industrial land, water, roadways,
residential land, agricultural and open land,
and forested and wetland areas. GIS images
of the town are shown highlighting each of
these "land use types." The images are
interspersed with local aerial and ground-
level photographs, followed by word slides
summarizing characteristic nonpoint source
problems and management options associ-
ated with each land use type. More detailed
information on these topics is contained in
the fact sheets.
The last part of the NEMO project
focuses on impervious surfaces. A growing
body of evidence suggests that there is a
linear relationship between the amount of
impervious surface in a given watershed,
and the impairment of water quality in the
receiving stream of that watershed (Klein,
1979; Schueler, 1987 and 1992; Schueler et
al., 1992). Existing land use (the six-
category GIS information) is used as the
basis for estimating the present degree of
imperviousness of watersheds draining to
key town water resources, such as a coastal
cove or a reservoir. This is compared to a
buildout analysis of imperviousness based
on the zoning regulations of the town,
assuming a scenario of 100 percent develop-
ment to zoning specifications (for instance,
that all land zoned as residential will be
developed as such). The analysis is applied
only to land available and suitable for
development (i.e., all dedicated open space,
wetlands, and other nondevelopable areas
are removed from the buildout scenario).
The resultant estimates of current and future
levels of imperviousness are calculated and
displayed by watershed, which we feel is the
most appropriate and useful way to consider
the implications of the data.
It is not within our capabilities at
present to estimate amounts of impervious
surface directly from the satellite-derived
land cover data. Therefore, both current and
future estimates use literature values for the
percent imperviousness of given land use
types, using the land cover data and the
zoning regulations, respectively, as the basis
to which these values are applied.
By showing which watersheds, and
which sub-basins within these watersheds,
are likely to experience dramatic increases
in the amount of impervious surface, NEMO
allows local officials a "quick and dirty"
look at the present and future effects that
their land use plans and policies might have
on their town's water resources. With this
knowledge in hand, the project team can
suggest a number of options for the town.
Best management practices, site plan consid-
erations, maintenance policies, zoning
changes, and other techniques are briefly
outlined. These options are covered in
greater detail in the NEMO fact sheets
which, in turn, contain reference lists. It
should be noted that the program does not
act as a consultant and offer specific solu-
tions—these are left up to the town officials.
However, detailed follow-up seminars on
such topics as best management practices or
soils-based zoning will be available to inter-
ested commissions, and hard copies of key
GIS images and analyses will be left with
the town officials for future use.
NEMO's emphasis on impervious
surface is admittedly simplistic. NEMO is
an educational program and is not designed
to take the place of technical guidance. It is,
however, our hope that the simple yet
scientifically valid relationship between
impervious surface and water quality can be
used as an underlying theme that town
officials can understand and remember
during the course of their day-to-day
processing of site development applications.
The danger of over-simplification pales in
comparison to the danger that, faced with an
avalanche of technical guidance and
regulations from an army of agencies, local
officials will be too confused and intimi-
dated to act at all.
Project Status and Future
The NEMO program is scheduled to
be conducted in the first target town in April
1993. Obviously, there is no way yet to
evaluate either the effectiveness of the
educational program or its implications as a
model for wider application. Even so,
developmental work is being done to
expand upon the original project, in terms of
both geographic scope and application of
GIS. More detailed GIS analysis, and
larger, multijurisdictional watersheds
(perhaps bistate watersheds) are being
discussed with the CES and Sea Grant
programs in both Rhode Island and New
York, and the National Sea Grant College
-------
Conference Proceedings
377
Program has expressed interest in working
with USDA-ES on advanced pilot projects.
It is difficult to tell whether or not a
model project of this type can ultimately
craft a program capable of overcoming the
twin obstacles of commission turnover and
(for lack of a better term) attention span. To
do so, a program must be simple, inexpen-
sive, and easily implemented, yet effective.
However, several trends in the GIS industry,
including the proliferation of digital natural
resource data, the dropping costs of com-
puter hardware, and the development of
user-friendly GIS "browsing" technology
(which allows users to manipulate and
display existing data sets), make us think
that we are heading in the right direction.
By retaining our focus on devising an
effective educational package, rather than on
providing technical guidance or using our
GIS capabilities primarily for data analysis,
we hope to emerge with a program of
practical use to local decision makers, and
therefore be effective hi helping to manage
nonpoint source pollution.
References
Klein, R.D. 1979. Urbanization and stream
quality impairment. Water Resources
Bulletin 15(4):948-963.
Schueler, T.R. 1987. Controlling urban
runoff: A practical manual for
planning and designing urban
BMPs. Washington Metropolitan
Council of Governments. Publica-
tion no. 87703.
. 1992. Mitigating the adverse
impacts of urbanization on streams:
A comprehensive strategy for local
government. In Watershed restora-
tion sourcebook: Collected papers
presented at the conference "Restor-
ing Our Home River: Water Quality
and Habitat in the Anacostia," held
November 6 and 7,1991, in College
Park, MD, ed. P. Kumble and T.
Schueler, Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments. Publication
no. 92701.
Schueler, T.R., et al. 1992. Developing
effective BMP systems for urban
watersheds. In Watershed restoration
sourcebook: Collected papers
presented at the conference; "Restor-
ing Our Home River: Water Quality
and Habitat in the Anacostia," held
November 6 and 7, 1991, in College
Park, MD, ed. P. Kumble and T.
Schueler, Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments. Publication
no. 92701.
-------
-------
WATERSHED1 93
Using Geographic Information
Systems to Develop Best
Management Practice Programs
for Watershed Management:
Case Studies in the Delaware
River Basin
Wesley R. Homer, Senior Planner
Thomas H. Cahill, P.E., President
Cahill and Associates, West Chester, PA
A geographic information systems
(GIS) approach has been used in
the evaluation of two different
watersheds in southeastern Pennsylva-
nia, the Neshaminy Creek Watershed
and Upper Perkiomen Watershed, both
within the Delaware River Basin (Figure
1). In both cases, the study objective
was to facilitate technical evaluations
through use of GIS technology and then
to develop watershed-wide recom-
mended management actions to accom-
plish water resources objectives. In the
more intensive Neshaminy study, a
detailed pixel/raster format was used for
the GIS to support detailed hydrologic
modeling and water quality analysis.
The Neshaminy Project, part of
Pennsylvania's Act 167 Storm water
Management Program, had as a require-
ment that technical findings be trans-
lated into real-world subdivision regula-
tions to be adopted by all of the 30
watershed municipalities. On the other
hand, the Upper Perkiomen study, by
design, was less detailed both in its GIS
approach and in the level of management
recommendations which evolved. The
projects together indicate that the level
of detail in the GIS approach selected
necessarily should take into account the
specificity of the outputs which are
needed—in this case, management
actions to be implemented watershed-
wide.
Case Study One: Neshaminy
Creek Storm Water
Management
Context of Project
The Neshaminy Project was
mandated by the 1978 Pennsylvania 167
Stormwater Management Act, requiring
that counties prepare storm water
management plans for all watersheds in the
state. After counties have prepared the
plans, including special storm water
management standards and criteria, then
local municipalities must implement them,
through adopting the necessary ordinances
and regulations. In the case of the
Neshaminy, the Bucks County Planning
Commission prepared the storm water plan
with Cahill Associates as technical
consultants. The Watershed included all
or portions of 27 different municipalities
within Bucks County, as well as another 7
municipalities within Montgomery
County. Adoption of storm water plan
elements was made especially challeng-
379
-------
r
380
Watershed '93
/ MASSACHl
MASSACHUSETTS
CONNECTICUT
NESHAMINY
WATERSHED
Cahill Associates
Environmental Consultants
Figure 1. Regional location of Neshaminy Creek and Upper Perkiomen
Creek Watersheds.
ing by the fact that exclusive land use
planning and control occurs in Pennsyl-
vania on the municipal level. In other
words, the Neshaminy Watershed
included 33 different planning commis-
sions with 33 different comprehensive
plans and zoning ordinances, 33
different governing bodies with 33
different sets of subdivision regulations,
and so forth. Such a structure makes the
problem of storm water management—
communicating its various dimensions
and attempting to formulate and
implement technical solutions for 33
municipalities—a tremendous challenge.
The Neshaminy Project
had several water resource
management objectives:
1. Prevention of worsened
flooding downstream,
caused by increased
volumes of runoff from
land development.
2. Increased ground-water
recharge.
3. Reduction in pollutant
loadings.
When this storm water
management program was
conceived, the state's focus
was prevention of flooding.
Because detention basins
have become the primary
mode of storm water
management in most
communities and because
detention basins, while
controlling peak rates of
runoff, result in significant
increases in the total
volumes of water discharged
from sites, increased storm
water volumes have
combined to create wors-
ened flooding, especially
acute in the hilly regions of
Pennsylvania. Conse-
quently, the thrust of much
of the Act 167 planning has
been elaborate hydrologic
modeling, performed
throughout respective
watersheds.
In the case of the
Neshaminy, however, the
initial perception and record
suggested that although
localized flooding could be
an issue here, an existing
network of multipurpose flood control
structures constructed during the 1960s
served to prevent significant flooding.
However, water quality certainly was a
concern, especially in the reservoir
system. And the issue of increased
volumes of runoff—and decreased
amounts of precipitation being infil-
trated into the ground water—was a
concern because a significant portion of
the Watershed relied on ground water
for water supply. Consequently, the
Neshaminy Creek Project established
objectives which addressed these more
comprehensive water resource concerns.
-------
Conference Proceedings
381
Neshaminy Watershed Setting
The Neshaminy Creek Watershed
includes 237 square miles of mixed urban
and rural land uses, primarily in Bucks
County, PA. The Neshaminy flows directly
into the Delaware River and includes a
network of eight existing impoundments,
some of which are multipurpose with
permanent pools and provide critical
recreational functions for a burgeoning
Bucks County population. At the same
time, the proliferation of development which
had occurred in the watershed, with its
increased point and nonpoint sources, had
degraded streams and seriously impacted the
artificial lakes and reservoirs. Although the
total water resources of the Neshaminy
Watershed certainly were the primary
concern, the future of these special lakes and
reservoirs came to be of particular impor-
tance in developing the total storm water
management program for the Neshaminy
Watershed.
The Neshaminy Watershed has
already been heavily developed, although
farmsteads and large areas of undeveloped
land still existed. Many headwaters areas
were largely undeveloped. The Neshaminy
comprises the heart of Bucks County,
Pennsylvania's primary population and
employment growth county. Although
agriculture was a major land use in the past,
farms rapidly were being converted to urban
uses as the wave of urbanization continued
to move outward from Philadelphia and
from the Princeton/Trenton metro areas. In
the lower (southern) portions of the water-
shed were older river-oriented towns,
developed at high densities with much of
their manufacturing base now in decline. In
the central Watershed areas (Doylestown,
Newtown, Oxford Valley, Trevose) were
vast proliferations of residential subdivi-
sions punctuated with large office parks and
mall retail centers, located along major
highways and expressways (Pennsylvania
Turnpike, US 1, US 202, US 611, PA 309,
and others). During the 1980s, large
portions of many of the municipalities here
underwent "buildout." Growth projections
indicated continuation of this rapid growth
with substantial increase in impervious
surfaces.
Physiographically, the watershed
spanned both the Piedmont and Atlantic
Coastal Plain provinces. In the upper
headwaters areas of the Piedmont, the
rolling topography included relatively steep
slopes. Geologically, the watershed
consisted primarily of Triassic formation
rock, including the Lockatong, Brunswick,
and Stockton formations, although diabase
intrusions, areas of carbonate formations,
and other geological types also were
important. The Triassic rock ranges from
being a poor aquifer (typically the
Lockatong) to an excellent aquifer (many
areas of the Stockton) where the many rock
fractures allowed for considerable ground-
water yields. Soils were quite variable,
ranging from good loamy prime farm types
(Hydrologic Soil Groups A and B) to the
more problematic clayey types with poor
drainage characteristics (high water table,
shallow depth to bedrock, and so forth).
Most of the soils in the watershed fell within
Hydrologic Soil Group C, making them
marginal for many storm water management
recharge techniques.
Hydrology of the watershed had been
altered by a system of storm water control
structures, constructed under the federal
P.L. 566 program, which worked to prevent
flooding especially from larger storms. Of
the base average annual precipitation of
45 inches per year, about 12 inches (26.7
percent) was recharged into the ground
water to become stream baseflow, about
10 inches (22.2 percent) ran off immedi-
ately, with the sizable remainder being
either evaporated or transpired by vegetation
(Figure 2). As specific conditions such as
soil type and existing land cover varied in
different sub-areas, these proportions also
varied. For example, in heavily developed
portions of the Watershed, impervious
surfaces combined with numerous detention
basins prevented the bulk of the precipita-
tion from being recharged, and total runoff
was proportionally increased in volume. An
elaborate system of municipal and
nonmunicipal wastewater treatment plants
discharged effluent which, hi some cases,
comprised the bulk of the stream flow
during dry periods.
Hydrogeology of the watershed was
such that surface water and ground-water
basins coincided to a large degree. There
were no large aquifer systems moving
significant amounts of water into or out of
the watershed, as one might encounter in
other geological contexts. Most stream
baseflow emerged usually in a matter of
days or weeks after moving down perhaps a
couple of hundred feet and perhaps a few
thousand feet laterally to the receiving
stream. Maintaining this natural hydrologic
-------
382
Watershed '93
Ground Water
Inflow
0"
12"
32"
Infiltration
33"
1"
Ground Water
Outflow
Ground Water
Reservoir
0"
Net
Soil
Moisture
3"
Depression
Storage
1"
21"
Evapo-
transpi ration
21'
3"
Evaporation
2"
5"
(Base Flow)
Figure 2. Neshaminy Creek Watershed hydrologic cycle.
regime became an important storm water
management planning objective in order to
maintain stream baseflow especially in small
tributaries.
CIS Approach
The GIS developed for the Neshaminy
was dictated by PA Act 167 and the hydro-
logic and other modeling used to support
this total planning process. The GIS
included a 1-hectare-sized pixel format
(49,255 pixels) to encode natural and man-
made features such as soils series, slope,
existing land use, future
land use, hydrologic
sub-basins, and other
data files. Develop-
ment of these different
data files required
major effort. The GIS
was used to calibrate
and verify the hydro-
logic model (TR-20),
using the Soil Conser-
vation Service (SCS)
"cover complex
method" for runoff
analysis. Curve
numbers based on land
use/land cover and soils
series combinations
were calculated for each
of the 49,000 cells and
weighted for each of the
100 different sub-basins
designated in the
watershed. A data file
containing stream
channel characteristics
with overland flow
characteristics by sub-
basin also was created.
A program was
developed to generate
for each sub-basin
estimates of overland
travel time and channel
travel time.
Hydrographs were
computed, combined,
and routed through the
sub-basins and to the
tidal portions of the
Neshaminy, taking into
account existing storm
water management
embodied in detention
basin design and, of
course, the real hydrological effects of the in-
place flood control structures (i.e., the eight
P.L. 566 dams). The U.S. Department of
Agriculture-SCS TR-20 model was selected
for analysis in this Project because other
hydrologic models tended to use generalized
runoff factors by sub-basin, rather than
evaluate in detail the spatial variability of land
cover and soils. TR-20 also more accurately
simulated the flood wave with regard to actual
flow, integrating component hydrographs
from different sub-basins so that analysis
could be analyzed by sub-basin, by groups
of sub-basins, or by total basin. The ability
-------
Conference Proceedings
383
of the model to focus on specific sub-basins
was vital because output had to be disaggre-
gated to 33 different municipalities com-
prising the watershed. In a separate
analytical process, nonpoint source pollut-
ant loadings also were estimated by pixel,
based on assignment of pollutant loading
factors which had been estimated from a
combination of previous studies and
Watershed experience. Cahill Associates
developed software designed specifically
for this project, all of which was conveyed
to Bucks County Planning Commission
(BCPC).
As with the soils data (discussed
below), the approach given to creation of
both existing and future land use data files
in the Neshaminy Project was quite detailed
and fine-grained, reflective of the planning
requirements established in the Act 167
program as well as the outputs needed for
the management program. For example,
detailed municipal population projections
were used from the regional planning
agency, disaggregated into households, and
then loaded into each of the 33 municipali-
ties, on vacant and developable parcels and
in accord with official zoning maps.
Nonresidential growth was similarly
projected. This complicated, highly
informed process produced detailed maps of
future development, which then were
converted into the hectare-based data base.
When combined with other data files such as
the soil data, such a level of refinement
provided the potential of "testing" different
storm water management standards and
criteria being proposed, municipality by
municipality. Because these standards and
criteria were both unconventional and
controversial, such testing for reasonable-
ness was essential, if the 33 different
municipalities were to be expected to
implement this new program and adopt new
ordinances compatible with these new storm
water requirements. The ability to demon-
strate technical feasibility was critical in
terms of assessing future legal challenges
and overall acceptability.
The detailed nature of the land use
data files also had to take into account the
complexity of the watershed, its existing
land use patterns, and the manner in which
growth was projected to occur. Analysis of
the then-current air photos used to develop
the existing land cover/land use data file
indicated that although much of the water-
shed was substantially developed, there did
exist a large number of vacant developable
tracts of land. In many cases, the projected
or future land use data file assumed that
these tracts would be developed. Because of
this "grain" of activity, an appropriately
detailed data base at a 1 hectare/2.4 acres
pixel cell size was selected.
Furthermore, other Act 167 provisions
reinforced the need for such a high resolu-
tion data base. As specifically set forth by
Act 167, new storm water management
program requirements had to be imple-
mented by municipalities on all new land
development. In Pennsylvania, such a
process occurred during the course of the
municipal review of each new land develop- ,
ment, parcel by parcel. Although in some
cases individual proposed land develop-
ments were large, consisting of hundreds of
acres, the vast majority of the developments
were not that large. Most new residential
subdivisions in the watershed had been and
most likely would continue to be less than
25 acres. Consequently, storm water
management was actualized on this small
scale, and new requirements would be
undertaken on such a small scale as well.
Feasibility of new requirements had to be
demonstrated on this same small scale,
which required manipulation of a relatively
detailed or "fine-grained" data base.
Soils types and related underlying
geology of the watershed were factors
critical in development of the storm water
management program requirements.
Consequently, both factors were included in
the data base. Soils features were developed
in detail, including their Hydrologic Soil
Group rating and characteristics related to
the soils ability to infiltrate precipitation
(i.e., the soils recharge potential). This soils
information became essential in the determi-
nation of storm water standards and criteria
to be required and the best management
practices (BMP) which would be necessary
to achieve these standards and criteria.
CIS Use in Watershed Management
In the Neshaminy, both water quantity
and water quality impacts of storm water
were deemed to be important management
issues. Nonpoint source pollutants had
significantly impacted the existing
Neshaminy impoundments and their uses.
Selected storm water management tech-
niques, including infiltration technologies
and a minimum disturbance/minimum
maintenance approach to land development,
were identified as offering important storm
-------
384
Watershed '93
water management potential. However,
soils limitations and other factors made
selection of these different BMPs less than
straightforward. The GIS was used to
evaluate feasibility of different BMP
applications together with their relative
effectiveness for both peak runoff and
nonpoint source pollutant load reduction,
especially insofar as future land develop-
ment was concerned.
A BMP Selection Methodology
(Figure 3) was developed to be incorpo-
rated into the respective codes of the 33
different municipalities within the
Neshaminy Creek Watershed, as required
by Pennsylvania State law. This method-
ology, focusing on new land development
applications submitted to these 33 munici-
palities, was designed to take into consid-
eration both water quantity and water
quality concerns. The method specified an
array of BMPs, most of which were
structural in nature. BMP selection was to
be a function of several factors, including
the need for further peak rate reduction,
the recharge sensitivity of the project site
(defined as a function of headwaters
stream location, areawide reliance on
ground water for water supply, or presence
of effluent limited streams), and the need
for priority nonpoint source pollution
controls (location within impoundment
drainage). Two levels of BMP selection
were developed: the minimum Required
and the more fully effective Recom-
mended. The Selection Methodology also
was made sensitive to type of land use or
development being proposed, with the
typical single-family residential subdivi-
sion being assigned different BMPs than,
for example, multi-family proposals and
other nonresidential proposals (including
commercial and industrial proposals). Size
of site also was determined to be a factor
to be included in the selection process,
differentiating between sites of five acres
or more because of the varying degrees of
cost and effectiveness of different BMP
approaches. In sum, the Methodology
was driven by the need for environmental
Not Applicable
REQUIRED: Multi-rest & non-resi. over 5 acres, porous pave, with
underground recharge beds for paved areas and infiltration devices
for non-paved areas, sized for peak.
RECOMMENDED: All uses, all sizes, should use porous pave, with
underground recharge for paved areas and infiltration devices for
non-paved areas, sized for peak.
Not Applicable
REQUIRED: Multi-resi. & non-resi. over 5 acres, dual purpose
detention basins for paved areas/non-paved areas, sized for peak;
other uses detention basins sized for peak.
RECOMMENDED: AU uses/sizes, porous pave, with underground
recharge beds for paved areas; minimum disturbance or wet
ponds/artificial wetlands for non-paved areas, all sized for peak.
REQUIRED: All uses and sizes, porous pave, with underground
recharge for paved areas; minimum disturbance for non-paved areas.
REQUIRED: MuIti-resL & non-resi. over 5 acres, porous pave, with
underground recharge beds for paved areas and infiltration devices
for non-paved areas.
RECOMMENDED: AU uses/sizes, porous pave, with underground
recharge for paved areas; minimum disturbance and/or infiltration
devices after site stabilization.
REQUIRED: All uses/sizes, first-flush settling basins for paved areas;
for non-paved areas, minimum disturbance/wet ponds/artificial wetlands.
RECOMMENDED: For all uses/sizes, porous pave, with underground
recharge beds for paved areas; minimum disturbance for non-paved
REQUIRED: Multi-resi. and non-resi. over 5 acres, first-flush settling
basin; other uses, detention basins (no change).
RECOMMENDED: Porous pave, with underground recharge beds
for paved areas; for non-paved areas, minimum disturbance/wet
ponds/artificial wetlands.
Note; Peak nic reduction, recharge priority, and impoundment drainage areas have been identified and mapped in the Stonnwater Management Plan.
Figure 3. Proposed best management practices selection methodology decision matrix.
-------
Conference Proceedings
385
performance together with the need to be
legally and economically justifiable,
within the Pennsylvania municipal context
(political acceptability, of course turned
out to be another matter entirely; it should
be noted here that the final program which
evolved and now is being implemented
underwent change and is not the same
program described in this paper). Ulti-
mately, the BMP Selection Methodology
was intended to be written into respective
municipal ordinances (typically, the
subdivision regulations) with localized
provisions being included as necessary.
The Methodology, if properly and fully
implemented, was designed to achieve the
necessary storm water-related objectives—
both quantity and quality—which the
analysis had deemed to be necessary.
The GIS was especially important
in being able to test the reasonableness of
this total Methodology. Such tests included
evaluating, municipality by municipality,
the nature and extent of the development
being projected together with size of
development/size of site assumptions
together with other vital BMP feasibility
factors such as soils and their appropriate-
ness for different BMP techniques. In
certain cases, such testing indicated the need
to further refine the Methodology, possibly
through simplification in those municipali-
ties where some of the Methodology factors
were not appropriate. For example, if
projected growth occurred on areas with
soils predominantly not suitable for infiltra-
tion BMPs, modifications in strategy would
have to be made in that particular munici-
pality.
The GIS enabled analysis of the water
quantity and quality impacts of projected
growth on a baseline basis, assuming con-
tinuation of existing storm water manage-
ment practices. Water quality loadings to
individual impoundments and to the stream
system could be readily demonstrated. Be-
cause overenrichment of the impoundments
was so crucial, phosphorus and nitrogen
loadings from projected development as-
suming existing storm water practices could
be estimated, even on a municipality by
municipality basis. The ability to isolate
pollutant loadings by municipality and to
make explicit these water quality impacts or
the amount of ground water recharge being
sacrificed was an important factor, legally
and politically, in being able to "sett" an
innovative program to the many different
groups involved here.
Case Study Two: The Upper
Perkiomen Creek Watershed
Project
Context of Project
The Upper Perkiomen Creek Water-
shed Water Quality Management Project
evolved as the result of interest by the
Delaware Riverkeeper/Watershed Associa-
tion of the Delaware River, a private
nonprofit environmental organization
dedicated to promoting the environmental
well-being of the Delaware River Water-
shed. The Project was funded by one of
the major industrial point source discharg-
ers in the watershed, Brown Printing, Inc.,
a nationwide printer of magazines and
other materials. Because of this unusual
origin, the Project was not rigidly defined
or constrained by a specific set of govern-
ment regulations or guidelines and was
free to evolve as deemed appropriate by
those directing the work. The water
quality management issues which were
addressed ultimately were approached
from a more macro-scale perspective,
when contrasted with the management
program which emerged in the Neshaminy
Project.
Watershed Setting
The Upper Perkiomen Creek
Watershed (Figure 4) had both interesting
similarities and differences when compared
with the Neshaminy Creek Watershed. Like
the Neshaminy, water resource-related
problems in the Upper Perkiomen, a
tributary of the Schuylkill River in the
Delaware River Basin, included water
quality, particularly pollutant loadings to a
large raw water storage reservoir (Green
Lane Reservoir) which was experiencing
eutrophication. Adjacent to Green Lane
Reservoir were two small impoundments,
Deep Creek Lake and Knight Lake. These
waterbodies received heavy recreational
use and were located within regionally-
important Montgomery County park
facilities. Like the Neshaminy, the 95-
square-mile Upper Perkiomen Watershed
was blessed (cursed?) with a multiplicity of
local governments, including 4 different
counties and 18 different municipalities.
Unlike the Neshaminy, however, the bulk of
the Upper Perkiomen Watershed was still
quite undeveloped and rural in nature.
Many headwaters were of very high water
quality.
-------
386
Watershed '93
UPPER
LANCASTER
o
CAHLL ASSOCIATES
CONOU.TAMT8
Figure 4. Upper Perkiomen Creek Watershed.
Located entkely within the Piedmont
physiographic province, geological
formations resembled the complex geology
of the Neshaminy (Figure 5). Many areas
were Triassic in origin (especially the
Brunswick and Stockton formations).
Areas of diabase were identified, as were
areas of carbonate formations. Soils were
similarly variable, ranging from some
excellent prime agricultural classes to thin
cover on steep slopes with substantial rock
outcroppings. Moving into headwaters
areas, the Water-
shed tended to
become more
steeply sloping.
Most soils here
were of Hydro-
logic Soil Groups
B and C, with
permeabilities
varying from good
to bad and
pollutant removal
capabilities
equally variable
(Figure 6; as soil
permeability
increases, pollut-
ant removal
capability tends to
decrease).
The Upper
Perkiomen
Watershed,
located on the
extreme fringe of
the Philadelphia
metropolitan area,
basically escaped
the growth surge
of the 1980's.
Consequently, the
frequency of new
residential
subdivisions and
other manifesta-
tions of suburban
sprawl were found
to be relatively
rare. The heart of
the Watershed
consisted of
several older
historic boroughs,
linked together in
a lineal pattern.
Much of the
existing housing
was turn-of-the-century at quite high
densities, mixed together with a variety of
commercial and other uses, a pattern
contrasting sharply with what has become
typical in so many suburban areas. These
boroughs resembled the "village" concepts
being advocated by innovative planning
theorists in a variety of important ways.
Population projections and other
growth indicators suggested that additional
development would occur at varying rates
throughout the Watershed. One critical
-------
Conference Proceedings
387
municipality had under-
taken a strongly pro-growth
planning process which
included construction of
new sewage treatment plants
with substantial high-density
residential and nonresiden-
tial development just
upstream from the Green
Lane Reservoir. In this
context, new sewers could
induce build-out of entire
sub-watershed areas in a few
years. In other words,
although overall projections
for the area indicated
moderate levels of develop-
ment on average, a
municipality's approach to
managing its portion of the
watershed could have
dramatic land use and,
therefore, water quality
consequences.
Farming, both crop
cultivation and dairying,
was found to be a major
existing land use in the
watershed, although
agriculture here was not
especially robust and
seemed to be losing
ground. Dairying had
declined in recent years.
This lack of prosperity
came to be a major factor
in determining the
manner in which addi-
tional management
measures could be
imposed on agricultural
pollution sources. Much
of the watershed, espe-
cially the steeply sloped
and igneous rock areas in
the headwaters, remained
in forest cover.
Many streams in the
upper portions of the
watershed were found to be
of excellent quality,
providing trout habitat and
a generally vibrant aquatic
resource. A few municipal
wastewater treatment plants
and several industrial point source dis-
chargers were identified, mostly in the
lower portions of the watershed. Agricul-
ture was determined to be the major
GEOLOGY
\
Homfela
{£§§] Fangtamerale
ESSS Diabase
I-V-I Bnmawlck Formation
LeJthsvBe Formation
I&- | Hardystono Fomatton
HI Precambrtan Diabase
HH Pegmatite
|'<*h| Precambrian Gneba
\ -"\ Formation Contact
PF] Fault Qie
S Dike
^3 Mafa* Stream
^3 Road
|~s~j County Boundary
CAHILL ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Figure 5. Upper Perkiomen Creek Watershed geology.
SOILS
Legend
I I HSG-A
I I HSQ-B
HSG-D
SCAIBBt MILES
CAHILL ASSOCIATES
•IRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
Figure 6. Upper Perkiomen Creek Watershed soil types.
nonpoint pollutant source, although the
developed land uses (both urban and
suburban areas) certainly contributed their
share of pollutants to the system. The
-------
388
Watershed '93
primary waterbody, the Green Lane Reser-
voir, was highly eutrophic. The adjacent
Deep Creek Lake, used for swimming at the
popular Montgomery County park facility,
also suffered from overenrichment and
recent occurrences of bacterial contamina-
tion, attributed to numerous malfunctioning
on-site septic systems upstream. In sum,
although many streams themselves were still
of good water quality, the reservoirs
accumulated and magnified existing
pollutant loadings. The need for better
watershed management in the future in order
to prevent far more serious problems from
occurring as development continued was
apparent.
CIS Approach
The major focus of this project
included innovative use of GIS technology
and computer system capabilities to
analyze watershed characteristics and their
impact on water quality management. The
GIS was used to estimate pollutant
loadings by source (both existing and
future) and then to develop watershed-
wide management actions which empha-
sized preventive nonstructural practices,
especially for nonpoint source pollution
control.
DEVELOPED
AREAS
The Upper Perkiomen study utilized
GIS recently developed software (ArcCAD)
for geographical information system design,
development, and analysis. ArcCAD, a
polygonal-based system, allowed the
advantages of the ARC/INFO and the
AutoCAD system technologies to be
combined. This GIS system provided an
efficient method for both evaluating the
causes and mechanisms of pollutant
transport and aided in the selection of
suitable management measures to reduce or
eliminate pollutant inputs. GIS data files
were developed for geology, soils,
municipality, and land use/land cover, as
well as sub-watershed areas developed for
the water quality modeling. File creation
was expedited by the ability to encode areas
in the form of polygons of developed areas
(Figure 7), in contrast to the pixel-specific
approach used in the Neshaminy Project. In
the case of the geology file, for example, the
entire watershed could be digitized in a
matter of hours. Land use/land cover was
based on high-altitude aerial photography
and encoded as polygons, in a manner
requiring a fraction of the time necessary for
the Neshaminy file preparation. Special
care was taken in the preparation of the
agricultural category in the land use/land
cover file. Because agriculture was believed
to be a significant pollutant
source and because type of
agricultural activity and use
of agricultural BMPs had
major bearing on pollutant
estimates, agricultural
activity was further
disaggregated in order to
develop more precise
estimates of pollutant
generation.
After the GIS data
files were used to analyze
nonpoint source pollutant
generation, a separate res-
ervoir water quality model
(WQRRS) was used to
evaluate existing and fu-
ture water quality condi-
tions in the Green Lane
Reservoir. This modeling
provided a better under-
standing of the eutrophica-
tion dynamics occurring in
the waterbody and the net
improvement expected to
result from various man-
CAHILL ASSOCIATES
ENVIRONMENTAL. CONSULTANTS
Figure 7. Upper Perkiomen Creek Watershed developed areas.
agement actions.
-------
CoY\fe
-------
390
Watershed '93
•water management plan, vol. 1:
Policy document. January.
1992. Neshaminy Creek watershed
stormwater management plan, vol. II:
Plan implementation. January.
Cahill Associates. 1989. Neshaminy Creek
watershed stormwater management
plan technical supplement document
draft. October 27.
. 1989. Neshaminy Creek watershed
stormwater management plan techni-
cal memo to Bucks County Planning
Commission. September.
Delaware Riverkeeper/Watershed Associa-
tion of the Delaware River. 1993.
Upper Perkiomen Creek watershed
water quality management plan draft.
Cahill Associates.
-------
WATERSHED '93
Use of CIS Mapping Techniques to
Inventory Potential Habitat
Restoration Sites in a Highly
Industrialized Urban Estuary
C. Mebane, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
Hazardous Materials Response and Assessment Division, Seattle, WA
P.T. Cagney, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Environmental Resources, Seattle, WA
The Puyallup River Estuary and
Commencement Bay, the adjoining
ieep water embayment, are located at
the southern end of Puget Sound's main
basin. Prior to urban and industrial devel-
opment in the late 1800s, the south end of
Commencement Bay consisted primarily
of mudflats and emergent marsh formed by
the Puyallup River delta (Figure 1). Be-
ginning in the 1870s industrial and port
development caused
tidal areas to be cov-
ered, the meandering
Puyallup River
straightened and
diked, and industrial
and port operations
were built on filled
areas of the delta.
Extensive subtidal
waterways have been
dredged into the
former intertidal
mudflats and wide-
spread sediment con-
tamination further
impairs nearshore
habitats. As a result,
it is one of the most
disturbed estuaries in
the Pacific north-
west. This paper dis-
cusses an approach
for collecting infor-
mation on cumula-
tive impacts using a data base and auto-
mated geographic information system
(GIS) mapping system to interpret habitat
losses to the Commencement Bay-
Puyallup River estuary. Areas that could
potentially be restored to function as
aquatic habitats are mapped and evaluated.
Recommendations for further steps needed
to implement an estuary wide mitigation
and restoration plan are discussed.
Figure 1. Puyallup River Delta and the town of Tacoma ca. 1894.
391
-------
392
Watershed '93
In 1990 the four federal agencies
principally responsible with stewardship and
regulation of coastal areas, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE), the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (NOAA), jointly supported a study
to document the cumulative impacts to the
estuary and to evaluate the potential for
habitat restoration. David Evans and
Associates of Bellevue, WA, conducted a
review of literature and archives to define
historic changes in the marshes, mudflats,
and eelgrass beds in the estuary. The EPA
Environmental Monitoring Systems Labora-
tory, Las Vegas, NV, conducted a similar
evaluation using historical aerial photos.
Shapiro and Associates, Inc. conducted an
inventory of potential restoration areas.
One of the first components of inven-
torying potential restoration areas was to
document and map changes in estuarine
habitats in the Puyallup delta to as early a
date as possible. The term "restoration," as
applied to this study, was defined as return-
ing an estuarine habitat from a condition
altered by some human action, to a previ-
ously existing natural or less altered condi-
tion. Therefore, the previous existing condi-
tions need to be known. The likelihood of
success for habitat restoration is high if his-
toric processes still exist, e.g., hydrology,
sedimentation, connections to other aquatic
or upland habitats. Also, we presumed that
the historical habitat composition of the es-
tuary is the default template for initial steps
in planning restoration projects.
For this study estuarine habitats were
defined as changes to wetland marshes
(estuarine or palustrine emergent marshes);
mudflats (broad flat intertidal areas along
the coast and in coastal rivers to the head of
tidal influence); and vegetated shallows
(eelgrass beds).
Methods
Historical Changes to Estuarine
Habitats
To document changes in the Puyallup
delta a literature, map, and photographic
search was conducted to locate information
on habitat types, waterfront development,
and industry evolution. The data collected
ranged from about 1850 to date. The
literature search included the National
Archives, university and museum collec-
tions, the state historical society, the
Puyallup Indian Tribe, the COE regulatory
files, survey records, maps, and newspapers.
Beginning with 1941, COE aerial stereo-pair
photographs were used to assess remaining
habitats.
The project data and displays were
created using an automated GIS computer
software to automate, manipulate, analyze
displays and store geographic data. Geo-
graphic data was organized using a rela-
tional data base system to store information
about the mapped features. A graphic
manipulation package was used to spatially
analyze and display the mapped data.
Geographical data may be input by digitiz-
ing, scanning, using coordinate geometry, or
converting from other digitizing formats.
The primary map data input method for this
study was digitizing using the Universal
Transverse Mercator (UTM) coordinate
system. The data base was developed from
a variety of historical materials depicting
shorelines, hydrography, and roads. Maps
that were well annotated with latitude/
longitude or UTM values could be readily
digitized. Digitizing uncontrolled map
sources (i.e., without annotated coordinate
control points) was more complicated. They
were set up for digitizing by locating
common points (e.g., section corners or pier
corners) with the controlled maps, and
deriving UTM values from these points.
These points were then used to initialize the
digitizing for the uncontrolled maps.
Analyses included calculations of wetland
and fill areas, and coastline changes. After
developing the data base, a series of plots
was created with areas shaded to show
changes in land cover and use over time. By
changing the manner of display, different
changes may be evaluated. The advantages
of comparing these relatively simple
changes form the main basis for using GIS
on this project (DBA, 1991).
Inventory of Potential Restoration
Sites
The process of identifying restoration
options and identifying candidate sites
began with some preliminary restoration
goal setting and identifying potential
restoration techniques. Agency and tribal
representatives began with a workshop to set
restoration goals for the project. Nine
institutional and functional goals were set.
Institutional goals were to take an ecosystem
-------
Conference Proceedings
393
approach to restoration, to comprehensively
plan for resource protection, and to involve
the public in planning and carrying out
restoration. Functional goals were to restore
nearshore wetlands (mudflats, vegetated
shallows, and salt marshes); restore freshwa-
ter emergent marsh; enhance and protect
existing habitats; control sources and
remediate contaminated areas; restore more
natural riverine systems to the lower
Puyallup; and to include innovative restora-
tion options.
Restoration techniques that had been
proposed or used in West coast estuaries
were reviewed for use hi Commencement
Bay. Five general approaches were consid-
ered; substrate manipulations, shoreline
alterations, planting, dike breaching, and
artificial reefs. This review was followed by
a general evaluation of land use, zoning,
development plans, and acquisition and
easement options along the lower watershed.
General criteria for identifying and ranking
candidate restoration sites were defined:
size, current and historical use, contiguity,
existing habitat, shoreline edge, elevation,
and adjacent uses. Sites were considered for
potential restoration if they were vacant,
underdeveloped, or abandoned river or
shorefront parcels. Unoccupied sites
without structures were defined as vacant;
sites with minor structures, but predomi-
nately vacant, were defined as underdevel-
oped; sites with structures not currently in
use were defined as abandoned and consid-
ered possibly available for restoration. The
approach for identifying, evaluating, and
ranking potential restoration sites was to
first use aerial photographs of the lower
Puyallup River and Commencement Bay to
locate areas. Potential sites were then
visited on foot or by boat. Information was
collected on ownership, value, land zoning
and use, history, chemical contamination,
and institutional constraints on habitat
restoration at the site. Locations and
approximate boundaries were delineated on
a base map and digitized as a GIS data layer.
Historical land use and chemical contamina-
tion information were collected from
Superfund investigations (USEPA, 1989).
Each potential site was given a priority
ranking of high, medium, or low based on
the size of the site, chemical contamination,
existing and surrounding land uses, institu-
tional constraints, existing habitat, potential
for restoration, creation, or enhancement of
habitat functions, and consistency with
restoration goals (Shapiro, 1992).
Findings
Historical Changes to Estuarine
Habitats
About 10 percent of the mudflats,
marshes, and vegetated shallows existing in
1877 remain (Table 1). The emergent marsh
occurred in a broad band between mean
higher high-water level and upland forests,
near the present location of Interstate 5
(Figure 2). Many of the marshes and
mudflats that are present now are not
original, but were formed after the original
habitat was lost (DBA, 1991). Vegetated
shallows are believed to historically have
been scarce in this estuary due to the high
sediment loading from the Puyallup River.
However, historical information on eelgrass
in the area is not available (Thorn and
Hallum, 1990). The lower Puyallup River
historically meandered through a broad
floodplain. In 1911 the White River was
diverted from the Duwamish basin to the
North into the Puyallup River and Com-
mencement Bay, greatly increasing the
Puyallup's drainage area (Blomberg et al.,
1988). Diversion and channeling com-
pletely altered its deltaic, riparian character.
Concrete and rock lined levees constrain the
flow of the river. Trees, woody debris, and
shrubs are routinely removed from the banks
of the levees from the mouth for about 20
km upstream. Remaining wetlands along
the lower river corridor such as old oxbows
are isolated from the river. (DBA, 1992).
Inventory of Potential Restoration
Sites
Forty-three parcels that could be
suitable restoration sites were identified.
For each'site an estimate was made of the
existing ecological functions and previous
functions that could be restored. A general
conceptual design was made for each
restoration site (e.g., a dike breach, fill
excavation, planting, shoreline or substrate
Table 1. Estimated changes in mudflat and emergent marsh
areas from 1877 to 1988 (hectares)
Estuarine
Habitat Type
Mudflat
Marsh
Vegetated
shallows
Habitat Area
in 1877
839
1,568
Unknown
Habitat Area
in 1988
76
23
37
Percent Change
-91
-99
N/A
-------
394
Watershed '93
Figure 2. Commencement Bay in 1988 (after DEA, 1991).
modification), upon which cost estimates
were based. Cost and complexity of
restoration vary greatly depending on the
extent to which the original hydrology,
soils, and biotic communities were altered.
General cost estimates were also made for
restoration projects: construction, mainte-
nance, and monitoring.
Uplands that were considered priority
wildlife habitats by the Washington Depart-
ment of Wildlife have been mapped. These
areas, which included riparian zones,
forested areas, bluffs, and urban natural
open space, were digitized and added to the
GIS data base. Chemical contamination
locations had been digitized in the GIS as
part of EPA's Superfund investigations in
Commencement Bay. Outfall locations for
storm water runoff, combined sewer
overflows, sewage plants, industrial dis-
charges, and contaminated sediment areas
were also plotted as an overlay on the GIS
map of potential restoration sites.
Discussion
Developing a GIS data base has been
an extremely useful tool to compile and
interpret information on the cumulative
effects of many minor disturbances to the
estuary and for initial restoration planning.
Comparisons of historical
and existing estuarine
habitats, locations of
potentially available parcels,
and buffers for upland
habitats and contamination
threats were much more
accessible with the GIS
approach of superimposing
layers. Evaluating these data
sets were valuable first steps
in our restoration planning.
The GIS display approach
was also valuable for
identifying limitations in our
approach and gaps in our
understanding of the physical
and ecological dynamics of
the estuary. For high
likelihood of success in
estuarine habitat restoration,
a large number of factors
need to be considered in the
design: migration corridors,
circulation, salinity, freshwa-
ter discharge, turbidity and
sedimentation patterns, water
and sediment quality, and habitat attributes
identified as being functionally important
for target fish and wildlife species
(Simenstad et al., 1991; Kusler and Kentula,
1990). Some of these factors lent them-
selves well to GIS, e.g., migration corridors,
some habitat attributes, sediment contamina-
tion, and water pollution point sources.
Others were either more dynamic, more
poorly understood, or both.
Examples of important habitat
attributes of which we need better under-
standing are the feeding and refuge
functions for juvenile salmon. Down-
stream migrating juveniles of all Pacific
salmon species use the estuarine habitats
of their natal streams. In less disturbed
estuaries, juveniles may spend either
extended periods rearing, or, varying with
the species, briefly use the estuary for
acclimatization to higher salinity (Healey,
1982; Thorn, 1987). Juvenile salmon still
use the Commencement Bay nearshore
extensively, feeding along the riprap
waterways and in the water column, and
using the underpiers and shore for refuge
(Duker et al., 1989, Ratte, 1985). How-
ever, prey resources are limited by the
removal of shallow flats, marshes, and
quiet estuarine channels due to dredging
and channelization. It is hypothesized that
the juvenile salmon spend less time in the
-------
Conference Proceedings
395
disturbed estuary,
moving on to open
water when they are
smaller; there they
are considered more
susceptible to
predation
(Simenstad et al.,
1982, 1993). The
only emergent
marsh habitat
available in the
estuary is in a
restored four
hectare wetland in
which juvenile
salmon have been
shown to forage and
grow during their
temporary residence
(Shreffler et al.,
1990, 1992). We
would liked to have
included in the GIS
data base an overlay
with critical areas
identified for these
functions, and
criteria for siting
enhancement and
restoration projects.
However, basic life
history questions prevented us from
attempting a template, even though
juvenile salmonid's use of estuaries has
received considerable study. For example,
is there a functional threshold for habitat
scale? Is the configuration of the compo-
nent microhabitats critical? Would many
scattered patches of marsh habitat function
better than one large patch? Is there an
upper threshold distance between patches?
What are the requirements for migratory
corridors and habitat transition buffers for
fish and wildlife access to the habitat?
The approach used here to identify the
43 relatively undeveloped shorefront parcels
was adapted by Simenstad et al. (1993) to
emphasize habitat benefits to benthic and
epibenthic communities and to their
consumer organisms (e.g., shorebirds,
juvenile salmon, flatfish). Using some of
the considerations listed earlier and several
alternatives, they proposed four habitat
types for restoration emphasis based on their
position in the estuary and habitat types.
The four habitat types identified for restora-
tion and enhancement on this basis were low
gradient mudflats, deltaic tidal channels,
Potential estuarine habitat
restoration & enhancement sites
Figure 3. Potential aquatic restoration areas superimposed over existing special
aquatic sites, upland habitat areas, and aquatic contamination problem locations.
emergent brackish marshes, and eelgrass
(Figure 3). For example, vestiges of the
historic delta mudflats exist off the peninsu-
las between the fill peninsulas within the
sediment laden river plume. One such
intertidal flat was constructed in 1988 to cap
highly contaminated sediments from a kraft
pulp mill next to the mouth of the Puyallup.
Monitoring results suggest the project has
been successful thus far with rapid coloniza-
tion by epibenthic and benthic organisms,
functional habitat attributes, and presence of
shorebirds and juvenile salmon (Weitkamp
et al. 1991). A second intertidal flats project
is planned for the opposite side of the river
to mitigate further filling of the estuary.
This will result in a large (by current
standards) contiguous intertidal sand and
mudflat at the mouth of the river. Likewise,
certain drainage channels could be con-
nected to the river, restoring some function
of the former deltaic tidal creeks.
We compared the maps of potential
restoration sites based on their vacancy,
abandonment, or underdevelopment and,
additionally, based on their position in the
estuary and habitat types for food chain
-------
r
396
Watershed '93
support determined areas of overlap (Figure
3). We believe that this combined ap-
proach of methodically identifying,
screening, and mapping potentially avail-
able parcels with the recommendations of
estuarine ecologists who are familiar with
the system was one of the strengths of this
project. We expect that potential sites that
were identified through both approaches
will be further considered for restoration.
Developing a GIS data base has been
an extremely useful tool to compile and
interpret information on the recent ecologi-
cal history of the estuary and for initial
restoration planning. The GIS approach has
also been a helpful aid to identify further
information needed to develop a compre-
hensive bay-wide restoration and manage-
ment plan.
Acknowledgments
Tom Dubendorfer of David Evans
and Associates and John Greene, Kathy
Hall, and Marc Boule of Shapiro and As-
sociates were principal contributors to the
supporting reports on which this overview
is based. Mark Helvey, Lew Consiglieri,
Alisa Ralph, and George Kinter provided
invaluable help in different areas of the
project. We thank the many other review-
ers and contributors to the study for their
efforts and interest. We thank Charles
Simenstad and Ron Thorn for their contin-
ued insistence that restoration and assess-
ment of estuarine habitats be functionally
based and objectively assessed.
References
Blomberg, G.C. Simenstad, and P. Hickey.
1988. Changes hi Duwamish River
estuary habitat over the past 125
years. In Proceedings First Annual
Meeting on Puget Sound Research,
pp. 437-454. Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, Seattle, WA.
DBA. 1991. Commencement Bay cumula-
tive impact study: Historic review of
special aquatic sites. CENPS-OP-RG,
DACW67-90-0008. Report to U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle,
WA. David Evans and Associates,
Inc., Bellevue, WA. May.
. 1992. Commencement Bay
additional inventory: Identification of
potential restoration sites.
COEX0124. Report to U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA, and
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Olympia, WA. David Evans and
Associates, Inc., Bellevue, WA.
December.
Duker, G., C. Whitmus, E.G. Salo, G.B.
Grette, and W.M. Schuh. 1989,
Distribution of juvenile salmonlds in
Commencement Bay, 1983. FRI-UW-
8908. Fisheries Research Institute,
University of Washington, Seattle,
WA.
Healey,M.C. 1982. Juvenile Pacific
salmon in estuaries: The life support
system. In Estuarine comparisons, ed.
V.S. Kennedy, pp. 315-342. Aca-
demic Press, New York, NY.
Kusler, J.A., and M.E. Kentula, eds. 1990.
Wetland creation and restoration:
The status of the science. Island Press,
Washington, DC.
Ratte, L.D. 1985. Under-pier ecology of
juvenile salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.)
in Commencement Bay, WA. M.S.
thesis, University of Washington,
Seattle. WA.
Shapko and Associates, Inc. 1992. Com-
mencement Bay cumulative impact
study: Development of restoration
options. CENPS-OP-RG, DACW67-
90-0100. Report to U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Seattle, WA. Shapko
and Associates, Inc., Seattle, WA.
November.
Shreffler, D.K., C.A. Simenstad, and R.M.
Thorn. 1990. Temporary residence
by juvenile salmon in a restored
estuarine wetland. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Science
47:2079-2084.
. 1992. Foraging by juvenile
salmon in a restored estuarine wet-
land. Estuaries 15(2):204-213.
Simenstad, C.A., and R. M. Thorn. 1992.
Restoring wetland habitats in urban-
ized Pacific northwest estuaries. In
Restoring the nation's marine
environment, ed. G. W. Thayer, pp.
423-472. Maryland Sea Grant
College, College Park, MD.
Simenstad, C.A., H.B. Anderson, J.R.
Cordell, and L. Hallum. 1993.
Analysis of changes in benthic and
epibenthic communities in Commence-
ment Bay, WA. CENPS-OP-RG,
DACW67-90-0008. Report to U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle,
WA. January.
-------
Conference Proceedings
397
Simenstad C.A., K.L. Fresh, and E.G. Salo.
1982. The role of Puget Sound and
Washington coastal estuaries in the
life history of Pacific salmon: An
unappreciated function. In Estuarine
comparisons, ed. V.S. Kennedy, pp.
343-364. Academic Press, New
York, NY.
Simenstad, C.A., C.D. Tanner, R.M. Thorn,
and L. Conquest. 1991. Estuarine
habitat assessment protocol. EPA
910/9-91-037. Report to U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Region 10.
Thorn, R.M. 1987. The biological impor-
tance of Pacific northwest estuaries.
Northwest Environmental Journal
3:21-42.
Thorn, R.M., and L. Hallum. 1990.
Lang term changes in the aerial
extent of tidal marshes, eelgrass
meadows, and kelp forests of Puget
Sound. EPA 910/9-91-010. FRI-
UW 9008. Report to U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency,
Region 10, Seattle, WA. University
of Washington, Fisheries Research
Institute, Seattle, WA.
USEPA. 1989. Commencement Bay
Nearshore/Tideflats Record of
Decision. EPA/ROD/R10-89-020,
NTIS PB90-178906. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Region
10, Seattle, WA. September.
Weitkamp, D.E., R.L. Shimek, and G.T.
Williams. 1991. Monitoring of
habitat restoration and sediment
remediation in the St. Paul Waterway.
In Proceedings Puget Sound Re-
search '91, ed. T.W. Ransom, Vol L,
pp. 376-382. Puget Sound Water
Quality Authority, Olympia, WA.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Data Base Development for the Coeur
d'Alene Basin Restoration Initiative
William B. Samuels, Senior Scientist
Susan Eddy, Environmental Engineer
Brian Wortman, Environmental Engineer
Sid Finley, Environmental Management Specialist
Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA
l"BWhe purpose of this paper is to describe
I the development of an integrated
.M. data base containing digital environ-
mental and spatial data for the Coeur
d'Alene River basin in Northern Idaho.
This data base and its associated retrieval
engine will help support the restoration
initiative currently underway by U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
Region X and the State of Idaho Division of
Environmental Quality. The advantage of
this system is that it provides these agen-
cies with a single system that manages,
accesses, and displays the environmental
data collected for the basin.
Water quality in the Coeur d'Alene
River basin has been seriously degraded
due to the long-term (over 100 years)
activities of mining, milling, and smelting
operations in this region (Savage, 1986). In
particular, the Bunker Hill mining and
smelting complex—a designated EPA
CERCLA (Superfund) site—is responsible
for local environmental and health prob-
lems as well as being the origin of hazard-
ous materials (i.e., heavy metals such as
lead, zinc, and cadmium) that have become
distributed throughout the basin.
A large number of environmental
studies have been carried out in this region
with respect to the effects of the mining
operations on surface and ground water
quality, air quality, aquatic and terrestrial
biota, and human health. These studies are
listed and summarized in Wai et al. (1985)
and Savage (1986). Some of the informa-
tion collected in these studies has been
incorporated into electronic data bases that
can be accessed directly by the EPA or
other federal agencies. Still other data—not
resident within a data base management
system—are available on electronic media.
Finally, a large body of data is only
available in hard copy form.
Given this diversity of information,
our initial focus was to examine and
integrate all the EPA digital water quality
and related spatial/environmental data
bases that pertained to five cataloging units
in Northern Idaho as listed below:
Cataloging Unit
Number
17010301
17010302
17010303
17010304
17010305
Name
Upper Coeur d'Alene
River
South Fork Coeur
d'Alene River
Coeur d'Alene Lake
St. Joe River
Upper Spokane River
Figure 1 shows the location of these
cataloging units in the Northern Idaho
region. Having established this focus on
electronic data bases pertaining to the
cataloging units listed above, the remaining
sections of this paper will describe the
methodology used to build the integrated
data base and the associated retrieval engine,
and examples of the retrieval engine's
capabilities.
Methodology
Data Inventory
Digital water quality data bases,
resident on the EPA ES9000 mainframe
399
-------
400
Watershed '93
Figure 1. Map showing the location of the five cataloging units in Northern Idaho
comprising the Coeur d'Alene Basin.
computer located in Research Triangle Park,
NC, were inventoried to determine their data
content relative to the five cataloging units
comprising the Coeur d'Alene Basin. The
data bases accessed included:
• Reach File (versions RF1, RF2,
RF3).
• STORET water quality file.
• BIOS.
• Daily Flow File.
• Office of Water In-House Software
(IHS) files—Gage, City, Dam,
Drinking Water Supply, Industrial
Facilities Discharge.
• Federal Reporting Data System
(FRDS).
• Permits Compliance System (PCS).
• Toxic Chemical Release Inventory
(TRI).
• Facility Index System (FINDS).
• Facility and Company Tracking
System (FACTS).
• Waterbody System.
hi addition to the above-mentioned
data bases, several EPA data systems that
access water quality and related environ-
mental/spatial data were investigated. These
included the Water Quality Analysis System
(WQAS), particularly procedures such as
the PCS-STORET Interface (IPS5), Map-
ping and Data Display Manager (MDDM),
Environmental Display Manager (EDDM),
and Reach Pollutant Assessment (RPA3),
RF3 Master Selection System (RF3MSTR),
and the Geographic Resources Information
and Data System (GRIDS).
A detailed accounting of the results
of these investigations and the data
element lists for these data bases are
contained in a data base inventory report
submitted to EPA (SAIC, 1992a). In the
following paragraphs, summary level
descriptions of the results of this inventory
are presented.
Reach structure (hydrologic link-
ages) and reach trace (latitude/longitude
coordinates) information exists for both
RF1 and RF2 in this region. To date, RF3
has not been completed for this region;
however, the trace information is available
through either RF3MSTR or MDDM. RF3
traces consist of the hydrography layer of
the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
1:100,000 scale Digital Line Graph data.
Figure 2 shows an example of these data
for cataloging unit 17010303 (Coeur
d'Alene Lake). RF1 and RF2 contain 298
and 386 segments respectively. Each
segment has a set of geographic coordi-
nates describing its trace and up to 78 data
elements (see Table 1) describing its
hydrologic characteristics (i.e., upstream/
downstream linkages, length, etc.).
The STORET water quality file
contained over 400,000 observations for
1,284 stations in the study area (I960 to
present). BIOS contained 22 stations
covering 160 sampling events. The Daily
Flow File contained over 100,000 daily
flow values measured at 35 USGS gaging
stations with some data ranging as far back
as 1911. These files all contain station
-------
Conference Proceedings
4O1
descriptive and locational data as
well as the sample values. Files
that provide ancillary descriptive
data to STORET, BIOS, and the
Daily Flow File, respectively,
include the STORET parameter
file, the BIOS taxonomic file, and
the Gage file.
The Gage, City, Dam,
Drinking Water Supply, and
Industrial Facilities Discharge
(IFD) files contain descriptive,
locational, and reach index data for
USGS gaging stations, dams,
populated places, public water
supplies, and permitted industrial/
municipal dischargers. The reach
number is the common data
element in these files. Thus, the
data can be linked hydrologically
and reach-based queries can be
performed efficiently. Identifica-
tion numbers in these files such as
USGS gage IDs, NPDES numbers,
and FRDS IDs allow a direct link to
the Daily Flow File, PCS, or the
Federal Reporting Data System.
These files contained data for 20
USGS gages, 19 cities, 25 dams, 73
public water supplies, and 49
permitted dischargers in the study
area.
The FRDS data base contained
descriptive, locational, and enforcement data
for over 400 public water supplies (both
surface and ground water) in the study area.
The PCS database contained permit limits
and discharge monitoring reports for 22 of
the 49 dischargers identified in the IFD file.
The TRI data base contained less than 10
facilities for reporting years 1987-1990 with
all releases being to air. FINDs reported 186
facilities monitored by one or more EPA
data bases while FACTS reported on 4,175
facilities contained in the 1991 Dun and
Bradstreet data base. The Waterbody system
yielded no data in Idaho for the five catalog-
ing units.
Additional environmental, spatial,
and geographic data bases are also avail-
able for this region through EPA's GRIDS
system. These data bases include the
USGS Digital Line Graph 1:100,000 scale
hydrography and transportation layers,
USGS state and county boundaries,
hydrologic unit boundaries, Geographic
Data Technology 5 digit ZIP code bound-
ary file, Census Bureau Master Area
Reference File and Summary Tape File 3a,
Figure 2. Digital line graph hydrography layer for cataloging unit
17010303 (Coeur d'Alene Lake).
Census Bureau P.L. 94-171 population
data, Donnelly Marketing population
estimates, Census Bureau TIGER/Line
Files, Defense Mapping Agency 3 arc
second digital elevation model, and EPA
ecoregion boundaries.
As a result of the Remedial Investiga-
tion/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) performed for
the Bunker Hill Superfund site, water quality
(ground and surface) data have been col-
lected and spatial data (ARC/INFO) cover-
ages have been developed by various EPA
contractors. The surface water quality data
cover the period 1987-1988. The ground
water data were collected from 1988 to
1990. ARC/INFO coverages for the 21-
square-mile Bunker Hill tract include 10-
foot contour data, roads and trails, surface
water drainage, building outlines, power dis-
tribution systems, vegetation, slope, and soil
types.
Data Extraction and Translation
After completion of the data inventory
task, data extracts were prepared for each of
the data bases identified. In some cases, new
-------
402
Watershed '93
Table 1. Data element list for the reach structure file (RF2)
G
r
P
RCI1STR I 10QOIMAJ
RCHSTR 2 IOOOIMIN
RCHSTR 3 10002MAJ
RCHSTR 4 20001MIN
RCHSTR S 20002M1N
T D
U y Data e
s p Elmt Key n
A S 1 01
B S 1 01
A S 1 01
B S 9 0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
B S 66 0 1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
Data
Elmt
CU
REACH
CUNAME
GUPINDX
GUPINDX
GPMILE
GJ
GDCSM
GCCSM
GULCSM
GURCSM
GCDNUP
CUSEGMI
SEQNO
RFLAG
OWFLAG
TFLAG
SFLAG
TYPE
SEGL
LEV
J
K
PMILE
ARBSUM
DSSEQ
USSEQ
USDIR
TERMID
TRMBLV
STRTSQ
STOPSQ
PNAME
PNMCD
CNAME
CNMCD
OWNAME
OWNMCD
DSCSM
CCSM
CDIR
ULCSM
URCSM
ULAT
ULONG
Q3LAT
Q3LONG
MDLAT
MDLONG
Q1LAT
Q1LONG
DLAT
DLONG
MINLAT
MINLON
MAXLAT
MAXLON
TWLAT1
TWLNG1
TWLAT2
TWLNG2
TWLAT3
TWLNG3
TWLAT4
TWLNG4
NSTCO
SCFLAG
STC01
STC02
STC03
STC04
STC05
STC06
STC07
STC08
QC1
QC2
77.77,7,
K
e
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
I
n
d
X
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
T
y
A
A
A
A
A
F
B
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
Fixed
Length
8
10
30
28
28
6
4
10
10
10
10
18
16
11
1
1
1
1
1
5
2
2
1
8
8
11
11
]
5
1
11
11
30
U
30
11
30
11
16
16
1
16
16
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
Dec
Pos
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Internal
Length
8
10
30
28
28
4
2
10
10
. 10
10
18
16
11
5
2
2
1
8
8
11
11
1
5
1
11
11
30
11
30
11
30
11
16
16
1
16
16
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
I
1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
Description
CATALOGING UNIT
CATALOG UNITSECMENTMILEPT (PACKED (1 1 ).FL)
CUNAME
UPSTREAM INDEX (SNAU/SNAD FLAG-DI VCODE -)
DOWNSTREAM "(CUSEGMI SEGLDSNAU/DASUM)
PATH LENGTH (FLOAT)
BINARY JUNCT1ONNO.
DOWNSTREAM CUSEGMI (FD(ll)FLOAT)
COMPLEMENT CUSEGMI (FD (1 1) FLOAT)
UPSTREAM LEFT CUSEGM! (FD(ll)FLOAT)
UPSTREAM RIGHT CUSEGMI (FD (1 1 ) FLOAT)
CUSEGMI SNAU (*) SN AD (*)
CU, SEG, MI (16.2-THE 5 MI BYTES BLANK IFAB)
SEQ NUMBERASCENDING DOWNSTREAM (*)
REACH FLAG (0, 1) 0=NOT PRESENT
OPEN WATER FLAG (0, 1 ) 0=NOT PRESENT
TERMINAL FLAG(0, 1)0=NOT PRESENT
START FLAG (0, 1) 0=NOT PRESENT
SEGMENT TYPE
5.1 SEGMENT LENGTH (MI.)
LEVEL
JUNCTION NUMBER
DIVERGENCE CODE
8.1 PATH MILE
ARBOLATESUM
DOWNSTREAM SEQNO
UPSTREAM SEQNO
UPSTREAM REACH DIRECTION (L OR R)
TERMINAL STREAM SYSTEM ID
TERMINAL BASE LEVEL
LEVEL START SEQNO
LEVELSTOPSEQ
PRIMARY NAME
PRIMARY NAME CODE
COMPLEMENTNAME
COMPLEMENT NAME CODE
OPENWATERNAME
OPEN WATER NAME CODE
DOWNSTREAM CU,SEG,MILEPOINT(16.2)
COMPLEMENT CU, SEG, MILE POINT (16.2)
COMPLEMENT BANK DIRECTION (L OR R)
UPSTREAM LEFT CU, SEG, MILE POINT (1 6.2)
UPSTREAM RIGHT CU, SEG, MILE POINT (16.2)
8.4 UPSTREAM LATITUDE
8.4 UPSTREAM LONGITUDE
8.4THIRDQUARTILE LATITUDE
8.4THIRDQUARTILE LONGITUDE
8.4 MIDPOINT LATITUDE
8.4 MIDPOINT LONGITUDE
8.4 FIRSTQUARTILE LATITUDE
8.4 F1RSTQUARTILELONGITUDE
8.4 DOWNSTREAM LATITUDE
8.4 DOWNSTREAM LONGITUDE
8.4 MINIMUM LATITUDE
8.4 MINIMUM LONGITUDE
8.4 MAXIMUM LATITUDE
8.4 MAXIMUM LONGITUDE
8.4TUCKER WINDOW LAT/LONG PAIRS
8.4 TUCKER WINDOW LAT/LONG PAIRS
8.4TUCKER WINDOW LAT/LONG PAIRS
8.4 TUCKER WINDOW LAT/LONG PAIRS
8.4 TUCKER WINDOW LAT/LONG PAIRS
8.4 TUCKER WINDOW LAT/LONG PAIRS
8.4TUCKER WINDOW LAT/LONG PAIRS
8.4TUCKER WINDOW LAT/LONG PAIRS
NUMBER OFSTATE/COUNTY CODES
STATE/COUNTY FLAG
STATE/COUNT Y FIPS CODES
STATE/COUNTY FIPS CODES
STATE/COUNTY FIPS CODES
STATE/COUNTY FIPS CODES
STATE/COUNT Y FIPS CODES
STATE/COUNTY FIPS CODES
STATE/COUNTY FIPS CODES
STATE/COUNTY FIPS CODES
QUALITYCONTROLCONDITIONA-9
QUALITY CONTROLCONDITIONA-9
DUMMY(* SEQUENCE NUMBER ASCEND/DESCEND
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
01
02
03
04
05
06
07
08
09
10 •
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
)
-------
Conference Proceedings
4O3
software was developed to extract the
necessary data elements (i.e., PCS and
STORET); for other data bases (i.e., FRDS,
IHS files), existing data extraction capabili-
ties were employed (i.e., the use of EPA's
General Query capability to build extracts of
the IHS files). The extract files were then
downloaded from the EPA mainframe
computer and converted into dBASE (.dbf)
files for use by the retrieval engine software.
To date, the Reach File (RF2), STORET,
BIOS, Daily Flow, Gage, Drinking Water
Supply, City, Dam,
Industrial Facilities
Discharge (IFD),
Federal Reporting
Data System (FRDS),
and Permits Compli-
ance System (PCS)
have been extracted
and are accessible by
the retrieval engine.
The Facility Index
System (FINDS),
Toxic Chemical
Release Inventory
(TRI), Bunker Hill
Water Quality data,
and spatial data files
(i.e., ARC/INFO
coverages for the
Bunker Hill
Superfund site and
miscellaneous
boundary files) have
been obtained but are
not currently inte-
grated into the
system. The next
stage of retrieval
engine development
will bring in these
data sets. They are,
however, currently
available as separate
data files in their
native format.
Retrieval Engine
Development
The design of
the Coeur d'Alene
Restoration Initiative
Data System
(CDRID) was based
on organizing the data
bases hydrologically
by cataloging unit
and/or reach number and providing access
paths to the data that took advantage of this
level of organization (SAIC, 1992b). After
the data bases were extracted and down-
loaded from the EPA mainframe computer,
they were converted to dBASE files (.dbf
files) and the CDRID application software,
written in CLIPPER, was developed. Figure
3 illustrates the CDRID opening screens
showing the cataloging units available for
selection and the associated, indexed data
bases.
Coeur d'ftlene Restoration-Initiatiue Datasustern(CDBID)
Cbeup dflleneJRestoration Initiative Datasustem (CDRID)
Figure 3. Coeur d'Alene Restoration Initiative Datasystem (CDRID) opening
screens showing the selectable cataloging units and databases.
-------
404
Watershed '93
An example retrieval is illustrated in
Figure 4. In this case, a portion of the
reach structure file (for RF2) is exam-
ined for all reaches in the Upper Coeur
d'Alene River (cataloging unit
17010301). The information displayed
in this example includes the reach
number, mile point, type, segment length,
stream level, upstream direction, and reach
name. The remaining reach structure
Coeur d ftlene Restoration Imtiatiue Datasusten (CDRID)
- . i ..- ...... , - Catalog Selection =====
CU Number CU tlane : :: : ,!i! a :
information (not shown in Figure 4) can be
viewed by scrolling to the right.
Another example retrieval is shown
in Figure 5. This retrieval shows the
display of a portion of a Discharge
Monitoring Report (DMR) from PCS for
the Bunker Hill Mining Company (NPDES
number ID0000078). The information
displayed includes the parameter number,
name, and minimum monthly concentra-
tion of several water
quality parameters.
The remaining
DMR data can be
viewed by scrolling
down or to the right.
EUH D' ALENE H IUEH
• Reach Selection
Reach Hunber Reach Mane , ••?
i^opaoHi?! COEUB D'ALENE R, s FK
17010302002 PINE CB
17010302003 PINE CH
17010302004 ROSS GULCH
17010302005 PINE CR , ;
17010302006 PINE CB : " :
17010302007 CALUSft CB ; :
17010302008 PINE CB, E IK
l=Help F2=Cont F3=A11 F4=CIear Shift+F7=Nain Esc
Coeur d Alene Restoration Imtiatiue Datasysten (CDBID)
——————— Reach Structure File.-"""'",'";,".: •'. ' " •
nile type segl ; lew usdir.. reach name ;,y •;':;, :
17010381081
17010301002
17010301003
17010381084
17010301084
17010301004
17010301084
17010301004
17010301085
17010381005
17010301006
17010301007
17010301000
17810301083
17010301018
17010301011
17010301012
17010301013
80.00 B
80.00 R
80.80 R
GO-GO B
04.09 B
05.72 B
06.99 B
09.88 B
00.08 fl
03.67 S
00.00 B
00.00 B
00.80 R
80.00 S
00.00 S
00.88 R
80.80 S
00.80 S
4.B0
3.90
2.60
1.09
1.63
1.27
2.89
1.92
3,67
0.53
2.50
2.BO
7.70
1.30
0.00
1.58
9.50
10.10 6
COEUH D'ALENE B
COEUR D'ALENE B
COEUR D'ALENE R
COEUR D'ALENE R
COEUR D'ALENE B
COEUR D'ALENE B
COEUR D'ALENE R
COEUR D'ALENE R
BEfiUER CR
BEftUEB CR
COEUR D'ALENE B
FBICHARD CH
PRICHfiRD CH
PBICHftRD CH
UNHAHED
EAGLE CH
EAGLE CB, E FK
EAGLE CH. W FK
Fl=Help F10=0ut Shift+F7=Hain Esc
Figure 4. Example retrieval showing a portion of the reach structure file (RF2)
for all reaches in the Upper Coeur d'Alene River (Cataloging unit 17010301).
Acknowledgments
This study was
funded by the U.S.
Environmental
Protection Agency,
Office of Wastewa-
ter Enforcement and
Compliance—
Contract Number
68-C8-0006 (WA
C-334(P)) to
Science Applica-
tions International
Corporation. The
authors wish to
thank Jackie
Romney, EPA work
assignment man-
ager, Don Martin,
EPA Regional
Technical contact,
and Jim Parker,
SAIC work assign-
ment manager, for
their guidance
throughout the
project. In addition,
we wish to thank
Rick Albright, EPA
Region X; Geoff
Harvey, Idaho
Division of Environ-
mental Quality; Ray
Peterson, EPA
Region X; and Matt
Gubitosa, EPA
Region X for their
comments and
suggestions on the
design and imple-
mentation of the data
-------
Conference Proceedings
4O5
base and retrieval
engine. Finally, we
acknowledge the
assistance of Craig
Lukin, Carl Johnson,
and Help Mai of SAIC
(Bothell, WA) for
providing ARC/INFO
coverages and water
quality, data related to
the Bunker Hill
Superfund site.
References
SAIC. 1992a. Data-
base inventory,
Coeur d'Alene
Restoration
Initiative. Science
Applications
International
Corporation,
McLean, VA.
May 6.
. 1992b.
Database develop-
ment, Coeur
d'Alene Restora-
tion Initiative,
design document.
Science Applica-
tions International
Corporation,
McLean, VA. July
24.
Savage, N.L. 1986. A
topical review of
environmental
studies in the
Coeur d'Alene
River-Lake
System. Idaho
Water Resources
Research Institute,
University of
. Idaho, Moscow,
ID.
Wai, C.M., S.G. Hutchison, J.D. Kauffman,
and F.I. Hutchison. 1985. A bibliog-
raphy of environmental studies of the
Coeur d fllene Bestoration In it iati«e Datasusten (CDBID J
Figure 5. Example retrieval of a portion of the PCS Discharge Monitoring
Report for the Bunker Hill Mining Company.
Coeur d'Alene mining area, Idaho.
Department of Chemistry, University
of Idaho, Moscow, ID.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Nonpoint Source Assessment and
Accounting System NFS Management
and Evaluation Tool
Deborah G. Weller, Project Coordinator
Joseph F. Tassone, Head of Environmental Planning
Elise G. Bridges, Planner
Dawn M. DiStefano, CIS Specialist
Maryland Office of Planning, Baltimore, MD
The control of nonpoint source (NFS)
pollution is a major water quality and
resource concern for the State of
Maryland. To better assess NFS pollution
and improve NFS control programs,
Maryland is developing the Nonpoint
Source - Assessment and Accounting
System (NPS-AAS). The NPS-AAS is a
geographic information system (GIS)-
based model designed to provide a
consistent means of evaluating NFS
nutrient pollution and the effectiveness of
management alternatives. It will be used
to provide cost-effective direction for state
and local watershed management efforts
and track and evaluate results. The .
Maryland Office of Planning (OP), under
the direction of the State's Interagency
NFS Steering Committee, coordinates the
NPS-AAS.
The NPS-AAS is a planning tool
which organizes data on water quality,
management practices, and NFS research.
These data are related to landscape
characteristics in specific geographic areas
using a GIS and a relational data base.
The NPS-AAS estimates relative phospho-
rus and nitrogen loads generated from the
landscape by source categories (defined by
land use and soils) and terrestrial flow
pathway (surface runoff, subsurface flow,
and deep ground-water flow). This
approach could be used in any watershed
in which the required data have been
compiled and properly applied to the
landscape.
The NPS-AAS is being developed for
statewide use, with first application in the
Patuxent River Watershed (Figure 1). The
Patuxent Watershed was selected as the pro-
totype because of the extensive water qual-
ity, research and monitoring data, and mod-
eling work available for developing the
NFS- AAS. This paper will provide an
overview of the
NPS-AAS and
illustrate applica-
tion hi the
Patuxent Water-
shed.
Framework
The NPS-
AAS directly
links the effects
of specific
pollutant sources,
landscape
conditions, and
management
actions to
nutrient loads
through a
relational data
base. The NPS-
AAS incorporates
three major land
based sources of
pollution—on-
site sewage
Sub-basin Outline
........ County Outline
Figure 1. Patuxent River Watershed. Shaded
area corresponds to data presented in Figures
3 and 4.
407
-------
408
Watershed '93
disposal systems (OSDS), land use, and
animal concentration (Figure 2).
Land Use Component
The NPS-AAS estimates nutrient
loads generated from the landscape by land
use (Table 1). Data on land use, soils,
streams, watershed and county boundaries,
Nut
Soils
rient Export
Potential
1
Geographic
Land Use, Soils, am
Organized by Count
1
Data Base
i Hydrological Data
y and Watershed
1
Baseline Inventory
Estimate of Nutrient Loads
1
Anin
Concent
l_
iai
rations
±
On-S
Land use *•
S
i
r
Baseline Loads
No Management Practices
^
r
Partition Nutrient Loads by
Surface Runoff, Subsurface Row,
and Deep Ground Water Row
^
r
Baseline Loads
By Transport Pathway
^ +
^BMPs^ Urba" BMPS
i
r
Baseline Inventory
By Flow Pathway with BMPs
^
r
Forest Buffers
i
r
Evaluate Management Alternatives
Estimate effects of
management alternatives
i
r
Evaluate Implementation of
Management Alternatives
^
ite Disposal
ystems
I
waterbodies, zoning, sewer service, and
comprehensive plans are digitized and
incorporated into OP's GIS. These data
provide a consistent representation of
watersheds across the state.
Soils are classified into Natural Soil
Groups (NSGs) of Maryland (Maryland OP,
1973). Based on soil characteristics of
permeability, runoff potential, water table,
credibility, and slope, the NSGs have been
rated for their potential to export total
nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP)
(James Brown, State Soil Conservation
Service, personal communication, 1992).
Through the GIS, land uses on soils with
low, moderate, or high potential to export
TN or TP have been identified and the
number of acres determined by county and
watershed.
The relative TP and TN contributions
from a given source category (land use and
soil combination) are calculated using
loading coefficients (kilogram hectare year)
representing relative potentials to discharge
TN and TP at the small watershed scale.
The use of nutrient loading coefficients,
although not as precise as loading functions
and simulation models, provides a fast, easy
method to estimate the average annual
nutrient load released from the landscape.
However, care must be taken in the selection
of loading factors to ensure that they
represent conditions characteristic of the
study area.
The nutrient export coefficients used
in the NPS-AAS were compiled from
published and unpublished data and model
results. To decrease uncertainty and
improve reliability, only nutrient coeffi-
cients from locations with climatic condi-
tions, land uses, and soils similar to Mary-
land were used. Coefficients were
assembled into a distribution for each land
Table 1. Land use categories used on
the NPS-AAS
Figure 2. Major components of the Nonpoint Source •
Assessment and Accounting System.
Rural Residential
Low Density Residential
Moderate Density Residential
High Density Residential
Commercial
Industrial
Cropland
Pasture
Forest
Water
Wetlands
-------
Conference Proceedings
4O9
use category to characterize the range of in-
stream loading rates associated with each
land use. The central one-third of each
distribution is used to eliminate extreme
values.
Based on results of research on the
role of soils in nutrient export, loading
coefficients from the distribution are
assigned to a source category. Put simply,
a soil with a higher export potential is
assigned a higher coefficient than the same
land use on a soil with a lower export
potential.
Nutrient loads from the landscape are
partitioned by flow pathway—surface
runoff, shallow subsurface flow, and deep
ground water flow using "partitioning
factors" derived from the Chesapeake Bay
Hydrologic Simulation Program—Fortran
model. This information is important in
estimating the reduction in nutrient loads
which can be attributed to a given Best
Management Practice (BMP).
On-Site Sewage Disposal Systems
OSDS can contribute significant
levels of nitrogen to subsurface flow and
ground water subsequently to surface
water. The NFS-AAS uses the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's
estimate that approximately 65 percent of
the nitrogen leaving the trench in a
drainfield reaches subsurface waters. We
assume that nitrogen from OSDS will
experience additional reductions prior to
reaching surface waters similar to
reductions observed for nitrogen leaving
agricultural lands (Reneau, 1977). The
number of homes on OSDS is estimated
by overlaying the land use and sewer
service data in the GIS.
Animal Concentration
The nutrient contributions of animal
production facilities in the Patuxent were
estimated by determining the area! extent
of animal feeding operations or waste
storage (exposed to rainfall and runoff),
applying the appropriate export coeffi-
cient, and adjusting loads to reflect
percent of time annually spent in the
feedlots. Information on 1990 animal
population, percent time spent, and areal
extent were obtained from the Maryland
Department of Agriculture (MDA) and the
soil conservation districts (SCDs) in the
Patuxent..
Best Management Practices
Information on implementation of
agricultural and urban BMPs was compiled
through a coordinated effort by MDA, the
Maryland Department of the Environment
(MDE), OP, local agencies, and SCDs.
BMP effects are calculated as a percent
reduction in nutrient load by transport
pathway.
An inventory and 'evaluation of data'
on implementation and status of agricultural
BMPs was performed. The most consistent
data base available on agricultural BMPs in
the Patuxent is the use of State Soils
Conservation Service's 901s which is a
measure of the aggregated effect of soil
conservation practices. It is expressed as
tons of soil saved per year.
Data on management of storm water
from developed land was compiled by
MDE and the Patuxent counties.
Forest Buffers
Riparian forests can, under appropri-
ate hydrological and physical conditions,
reduce nutrients loads from adjacent land
uses (Cooper, 1986; Schnabel, 1986). A
riparian buffer component—that area
within 100 feet of any stream—was
incorporated into the NPS-AAS to account
for these reductions. Soils with the ,.
greatest potential for contact between
subsurface flow and the rooting zone with
appropriate ecological characteristics (low
oxidation potential, high water table, high
moisture content, and high organic •
content) were identified through the soil
and land use data in the GIS. These areas
tend to have high rates of denitrification
and plant uptake. ,
The percent of buffer in forest on
appropriate soils is used to represent an
"effective buffer ratio" (EBR). The EBR
represents that portion of the buffer with
greatest potential to reduce nutrient loads.
Surface runoff from land uses with
a high percent of impervious surface was
assumed to be channelized and bypass
riparian zones buffers. Nutrient loads
generated from agriculture, upland
forests, and low-density developed land
uses were assumed to be affected by the
riparian buffer. Nutrient loads moving via
surface runoff from low density develop-
ment were also assumed to bypass forest
buffers.
-------
410
Watershed '93
Output
The NPS-AAS has been applied in the
Patuxent and a draft baseline inventory of
existing conditions produced. The baseline
inventory provides an estimate of relative
nutrient loads by sub-watershed and county
for specific land uses and soil combinations
as well as by transport pathway.
Preliminary results for watershed 02-
13-11-01 in Calvert County, MD, illustrate
how output from the NSP-AAS can address
land use and NFS management concerns
(Figures 3 and 4). Agriculture, occupying
28 percent of the watershed, contributes
Developed
5,762 hectares
Figure 3. Relative contribution of phosphorus by major land
use categories, Calvert County - Watershed 02-13-11-01, based
on 1990 MD Office of Planning land use data.
Figure 4. Relative contribution of nitrogen by major land use
categories, Calvert County - Watershed 02-13-11-01, based on
1990 MD Office of Planning land use data.
approximately 45 percent of the phosphorus
(Figure 3). Soil conservation BMPs are
estimated to reduce the phosphorus load
from agriculture by approximately 29
percent. Developed land contributes 28
percent of the phosphorus load. Urban storm
water management is present on 1 percent of
the developed land and consequently reduces
associated phosphorus loads by only 2
percent. Forest buffers are estimated to have
little effect on phosphorus loads from
development, while reducing loads from
agriculture and upland forest by an addi-
tional 9 percent and 7.5 percent (Figure 3).
Developed land is the major contribu-
tor of nitrogen (50 percent), reflecting a large
nitrogen contribution from OSDS. It is
estimated that 85 percent of the homes in this
watershed are on OSDS. As with phospho-
rus, urban BMPs only reduce nitrogen by 3
percent reflecting the low level of urban
BMP implementation. However, unlike the
case for phosphorus, forest buffers (Figure 4)
have a significant impact on the nitrogen
loads generated from developed land.
Growth/management scenarios are
currently being developed for the Patuxent
and the NPS-AAS will be rerun for these
scenarios. The relative change between
baseline inventory loads and growth/
management scenario loads will be used to
identify the management alternatives to
achieve pollution control objectives.
Examples of some of the basic
questions the growth scenarios will be able
to address, when completed include:
• What Impact will alternative develop-
ment patterns and strategies have on
nutrient loads?
• What impact will clustering and
Maryland's forest Conservation Act
have on nutrient loads from future
development?
• What are the relative benefits of
nutrient management and cover crops
on cropland?
• What are the benefits of confining
new growth to areas with sewer
service?
References
Brown, J. 1992. State Soil Conservation
Service. Personal communication.
Chi, J., W.L. Magette, and A. Shirmo-
hammadi. 1988. Effects of intervening
land use on runoff quality. ASAE
Annual Meeting.
-------
Conference Proceedings
411
Cooper, J.R., J.W. Gilliam, and T.C. Jocobs.
1986. Riparian areas as a control of
nonpoint pollutants. In Watershed
research perspectives, Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center, ed.
E. Correll, pp. 166-192. Edgewater,
MD.
Maryland OP. 1973. Natural soil groups
technical report. Maryland Office of
Planning.
Reneau, R.B. 1979. Changes in concentra-
tion of selected chemical pollutants in
wet, tile-drained soil systems as influ-
enced by disposal of septic tank efflu-
ent. Journal of Environmental Qual-
ity 6:189-196.
Schnabel, R.R. 1986. Nitrate concentration
in a small stream as affected by
chemical and hydrologic interactions
in the riparian zone. In Watershed
research perspectives, Smithsonian
Environmental Research Center, ed.
D. Correll, pp. 263-282. Edgewater,
MD.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Impact of Jurisdictfonal Conflict on
Water Resource Management,
Rosebud Indian Reservation,
South Dakota
Syed Y. Huq, Director
Rosebud Sioux Tribe Office of Water Resources, Rosebud, SD
, osebud Sioux Indian Reservation is a
federally recognized Indian tribe
^incorporated under the Act of June
18, 1934, 48 statute-984 (Rosebud Sioux
Tribe (RST) Constitution, 1935). The
Reservation is located in south central South
Dakota (Figure 1). The original boundaries
of the Reservation (Treaty of 1889) encom-
passed the counties of Todd, Mellette,
Tripp, Lyman, and Gregory, an area of
3,710,400 acres. By a decision of the U.S.
Supreme Court in 1970, the exterior
boundary of the Reservation was reduced to
just Todd County (Figure 2). However, the
tribal government was allowed to exercise
jurisdiction over tribal/trust lands in the
other four counties.
The Indian population on the original
Reservation is 11,737 and that in Todd
County alone is 9,199. The non-Indian
population is estimated to be 1,469 in Todd
County.
For the purpose of this study, the focus
will only be on Todd county or the existing
Reservation, as declared by the U.S.
Supreme Court. The Reservation covers
931,840 acres. It is 52 miles in length and
28 miles in width. The major towns include
Rosebud, St. Francis, Parmelee, Mission/
Antelope, and Okreek (Figure 2). The town
or city of Mission, the largest on the Reser-
vation, is incorporated under the State of
South Dakota. Therefore the City Council
and the state claim that Mission does not fall
under the jurisdiction of the Tribe. The
Tribe on the other hand rejects this claim.
In terms of land ownership, the
Reservation is a checkerboard of Indian
lands and non-Indian lands. Sixty percent
of the lands are owned by the Tribe or tribal
members and 40 percent are fee lands
owned by non-Indians.
The non-Indians within the Reserva-
tion do not acknowledge tribal authority
over them, and look to the State of South
Dakota for it.
Hydrogeology of the
Reservation
The northern tip of the Ogallala/High
Plains Aquifer is on Rosebud Reservation
(Figure 3). It extends from Texas in the
south to South Dakota in the north. Ogallala
and Arikaree Formations are lumped
together under the High Plains Aquifer. The
general water quality of the aquifer is good,
although man-made
activities reportedly are
polluting the aquifer in
a few places. The
thickness of the aquifer
ranges from less than
90 feet to greater than
190 feet.
Ogallala Forma-
tion comprises fine to
medium grained
sandstone and the
Arikaree is siltstone.
The potentiometric
Figure 1. Location of Rosebud Reserva-
tion in South Dakota.
413
-------
414
Watershed '93
•
PA
RMKLKK
S
•
RO
»
1. FMi
EBUD
tfIS
•
tassio
AOTELO
I/
'^
>
XREEK
Figure 2. Todd County, South Dakota,
showing the major towns.
ROSEBUD RESERVATION
tM* 1M* 184'
0 50 100 150 fXOMETEKS
Figure 3. Extent of High Plains Aquifer up to
Rosebud Reservation.
Figure 4. Monitoring wells network on the
Aquifer. (Shading indicates the Aquifer.)
surface of the High Plain Aquifer ranges in
elevation from 2,829 feet to 2,538 feet
above sea level.
The Tribe has a monitoring network of
28 wells installed into the Aquifer (Figure
4). The ground water flow direction is
toward the two perennial rivers, namely the
Little White and Keya Paha, that flow
through the Reservation. There are six
offshoots that flow into the Little White
River and, as determined from a discharge
budget, the river is an effluent or gaining
river. The river gains its discharge from the
High Plains Aquifer. The net discharge
ranges from less then 10 cubic feet per
second (cfs) to more than 50 cfs. The river
traverses for over 32 miles through the
Reservation. The quality of the water is
generally good, but there is potential for
contamination.
The Reservation has 10 lakes/dams on
the various creeks. They cater generally to
recreation and occasionally to irrigation.
The lakes suffer from eutrophication and
nitrates. Phosphates, sulfates, and algae
(Secchi disk reading) are often high.
Impact of Jurisdictional
Conflict
The Tribe monitors the surface and
ground water quality and quantity on a
periodic basis. The South Dakota Depart-
ment of Envkonment and Natural Resources
also has a set of monitoring wells in Todd
County. They periodically monitor the
water levels in those wells.
The Tribe operates 16 center pivot
irrigation systems to irrigate 1,860 acres,
and there are 79 nontribal center pivot
irrigation systems. The nontribal systems
are operated under state permits within the
exterior boundary of Rosebud Reservation.
Upon evaluation of the water table
hydrographs of the 25 tribal monitoring
wells, based on data generated for the last 10
years, it is apparent that the water table is
falling in 12 monitoring wells, it is nearly
status quo in 7 wells, and rising in 6 others.
The hydrographs of some of the wells in
which the water table is falling are depicted
in Figure 5. The areas where the water table
shows falling trends, rising trends, and
status quo are depicted in Figure 6 (Huq,
1992).
It is easily visualized from the
concentration of center pivot irrigation
systems and areas of falling water table that
-------
Conference Proceedings
415
there is over pumpage of ground water for
irrigation. Due to jurisdictional conflict
neither the Tribe nor the state has a total
grip on the problem so as to regulate water
usage for irrigation and thereby stop the
mining of ground water from the Ogallala
Aquifer on the Reservation.
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) provides the authority to the
Tribes for treatment as a state under the
Clean Water Act provided the Tribe is
federally recognized, has a governing body,
has reasonable jurisdiction over the Reserva-
tion area, and has capable staff to manage
the programs (sections 518 and 303 of the
Clean Water Act). Having met all the
criteria, Rosebud Sioux Tribe applied to
EPA for treatment as a state. It was opposed
by the State of South Dakota (Deputy
Attorney General's letter dated September
18, 1990). However, EPA overruled the
state's opposition and granted the treatment
as a state to Rosebud Sioux Tribe (EPA
Regional Administrator's letter dated
December 11, 1990).
It has been reported by EPA that
Rosebud Sioux Tribe can implement its
programs on Water Pollution Control and
Pesticide Enforcement over everyone
including Indians and non-Indians within
the exterior boundary of the Reservation
under the Clean Water Act and the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act
(FIFRA) as amended. The Pesticide
Enforcement Program of the Tribe under
FIFRA has a code and certification plan
approved by EPA in the Federal Register.
However, implementation of the authority
by the Tribe over non-Indians has not been
tested in the court of law and hence the
authority is not fully acknowledged by
many non-Indians. The non-Indians on
tribal or fee lands more often than not takes
orders from the State Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources and
apply for and receive water use permits from
the same department.
Ground water, as mentioned, is
generally of good quality but is polluted in
three areas by nitrates, hydrocarbons, and
arsenic resulting from man-made activities.
There are several sources of nitrate in
the area around the contamination site. A
nitrogen isotope study (Sando, 1992) was
conducted to determine the exact source of
the nitrate. When nitrogen-isotope ratios
relative to a standard are calculated as
nitrogen in units per million (mil), it has
been established that if the values range
-14
Water level fluctuations in well 20
_ -18
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
Water level fluctuations in well 21
I
-19-
-20-
-21
-22-
-23-
-24-
-25
83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92
Figure 5. Hydrographs depicting falling water
table in some of the monitoring wells.
F.IJ...C
minnm *™<*
k\\\\\\N STATUS WIO
OCALLALA AQMlnx WTl SNAZKJ)
Am INDICATING VALLINC. ttSIHC
AW STATUi QUO UATKt TAIL*.
Figure 6. Areas delineated showing the trend of
falling, rising, and status quo water table.
from 10 to 23 per mil, the nitrate is derived
from septic systems and animal wastes; if it
is less than 4 per mil, it is derived from •
commercial fertilizer; and if it ranges from 2
to 9 per mil it is a naturally occurring soil
organic material. It is most applicable
where the area is well drained and has
highly permeable soil with a pH value of 7
or lower so that the nitrate undergoes little
or no reaction. This scenario fits into the site
-------
416
Watershed '93
of nitrate contamination on Rosebud
Reservation. The nitrogen isotope analysis
of water samples from six wells indicated
that the nitrogen isotope ranges from 10.60
to 11.80 in two wells, 1.40 to 3.70 in two
other wells, and 7.30 to 7.90 in the rest.
Hence, the source of nitrate probably is from
animal wastes, leachate from rocks, or
commercial fertilizer; all these sources exist
in the area. There are feedlots and septic
systems owned by non-Indians and the
commercial fertilizer application is also
mainly done by non-Indians, as can be
visualized from the number of center pivot
irrigation systems owned by non-Indians.
Ground water is also contaminated by
hydrocarbons in the city of Mission on the
Reservation. The contamination plumes
have been delineated (Huq, 1990; TCT,
1992) and remedial actions are underway.
Again the source of contamination is the gas
stations owned by non-Indians and Indians.
A study on ground-water contamina-
tion by arsenic is underway and the potential
source is herbicides/pesticides stored in bulk
in the 1960s. The potential responsible
parties of each of the above contaminations
are not liable due to the confusion that exists
on jurisdiction. The non-Indians cannot be
tried in the tribal courts and the Indians in
state courts. The only recourse probably is
the federal courts, but the cost of law suits in
federal courts frightens everybody, particu-
larly the Tribe.
There are production wells that supply
drinking water to several communities. The
production wells are located on tribal lands,
but they are surrounded by nontribal lands.
Hence, Well Head Protection Areas
(WHPA) delineated by the Tribe around the
wells cannot always be implemented due to
the fact that nontribal members in the
delineated area do not have to abide by the
tribal WHPA code.
Recommendations
EPA and other federal agencies must
lay the groundwork for water resource
management on Indian reservations without
any ambiguity even if it displeases one or
the other party.
The Indian tribes and the states must
learn to respect each others' authority within
their exterior boundaries and work in this
direction, instead of trying to torpedo each
others' authority.
In this game of water resource
management, both ground water and surface
water know no boundary and hence mecha-
nisms to resolve differences between states
and tribes on water quality and quantity
management must be in place for easy
incorporation. Antagonism and no coopera-
tion between states and tribes is a no win
situation for both parties and must be
shunned.
Acknowledgments
This paper would not be possible
without the assistance of Mr. Charles Mack,
Mr. John Whiting, and Mr. Kevin Kvame of
Rosebud Sioux Tribe's Water Resources
Program. Ms. Patti Douville's (secretary)
efforts are appreciated for word processing
this report.
References
Huq, S.Y. 1990. Ground water contamina-
tion by hydrocarbons in the City of
Mission, SD. Hazardous Material
Spills Conference, Houston, TX, p. 7.
. 1992. Annual report on water
resource, Bureau of Indian Affairs
P.L. 93-638, p. 137.
Guhin, J.P. 1990. A letter to EPA on
Rosebud Sioux Tribe's jurisdictional
assertion for recognition as a state
under the Clean Water Act, p. 20.
JT&A. 1992. The Clean Water Act: A
primer prepared for US EPA, p. 20.
Rosebud Sioux Tribe. 1935. Rosebud
Sioux Tribe Constitution, p. 26.
Sando, S. 1992. Nitrate sources in Todd
County wells. U.S. Geological
Survey, p. 14.
Scherer, J.J. 1990. EPA Regional
Administrator's letter to Mr. John P.
Guhin, South Dakota Deputy Attorney
General, p. 3.
TCT. 1992. Quarterly Ground-water and
Free Product Recovery System
monitoring report. 3rd quarter 1992.
Twin City Testing Corporation, City
of Mission, SD.
USEPA. 1992. EPA analysis of tribal
jurisdiction preamble to the Indian
Tribes Water Quality Standards
Regulation, implementing sections
518 and 303 of the Clean Water Act,
p. 31.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Lowering Barriers to the P.L. 83-566
Small Watershed Program on the
Navajo Nation
W. Wayne Klllgore, Water Resource Specialist
Soil Conservation Service, Portland, OR
The Navajo Nation consists of
6,736,840 hectares (16,640,000 acres)
in Arizona, New Mexico, and Utah.
This is an area slightly larger than the State
of West Virginia. It is an area of outstanding
beauty, as typified by Canyon De Chelly
National Monument and Monument Valley.
Approximately 170,000 people, half
of whom are under age 21, live on the
reservation. Unemployment is about 20
percent, or nearly three times the national
average. Nearly 50 percent of the Navajo
people live below poverty level as compared
to 13.4 percent for the United States as a
whole. (Choudhary and Begay, 1989).
The Navajo Nation, like any other
large area, has a variety of resource prob-
, lems. These include a scarcity of irrigation
water; erosion of range and forest lands;
sedimentation of streams, rivers, and lakes;
and flooding of villages and farmlands.
These problems are building in magnitude
because of increasing levels of population.
The Watershed Protection and Flood
Prevention Act, Public Law 83-566,
authorizes the Secretary of Agriculture to
cooperate with state and local agencies in
planning and carrying out works of im-
provement for soil conservation and for
other purposes. It provides for technical,
financial, and credit assistance by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USD A) to local
organizations representing the people living
in small watersheds. Enacted in 1954, the
watershed program is administered by the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). The
general purposes of the program are to:
prevent damage from erosion, floodwater,
and sediment; further the conservation,
development, utilization, and disposal of
water; and further the conservation and
proper utilization of land.
Public Law 83-566 was amended in
1975 to allow Indian tribes to be legal
sponsors of small watershed projects. The
SCS established four field offices on the
Navajo Nation between 1982 and 1984 to
work exclusively with Indian cooperators.
The resource problems found on the Navajo
Nation are eligible for assistance under the
P.L. 83-566 Program. However, until very
recently, no watershed work had been
initiated on the Navajo Nation.
Historically, barriers to the small
watershed program on the Navajo Nation
have been many. These barriers can be
categorized into two categories, institutional
and cultural.
The largest institutional barrier has
been the P.L. 83-566 program requirement
that monetary benefits from project action
be greater than monetary costs. This
requirement made it very difficult to justify
any project work in areas where costs of
construction were high, but commercial and
residential property values were low.
Another institutional barrier was the
cost share requirement. The P.L. 83-566
program requires local sponsors to pay for
land rights required for project construction.
Local sponsors are also required to pay for
up to 50 percent of construction costs for all
purposes other than flood prevention. They
are further required to provide the operation
and maintenance needed over the life of the
project. Low-income areas, such as the
Navajo Nation, have had problems meeting
these requirements.
417
-------
418
Watershed '93
A third institutional barrier has been
the length of time required to move a small
watershed project through the planning
stages and into construction. This time
frame can average 2 to 5 years depending
upon the type of project being planned.
This preponderance of planning time is
due to a combination of required steps that
must be followed and lack of personnel to
deal with all of the identified resource
problems.
Several cultural barriers have limited
the effectiveness of the P.L. 83-566 pro-
gram. First and foremost is the ownership
of the land. In most cases individual
ownership does not exist. Thus, it is
difficult to identify the local decision
makers when attempting to formulate a
project. This is a real problem as the
emphasis of the P.L. 83-566 program is on
local participation and decision making.
Another barrier is the Navajo
measurement of wealth. Wealth is mea-
sured in quantity rather than quality. For
example, 100 poorly fed sheep would be
worth more than 50 well-fed sheep. This
philosophy makes it difficult to implement
erosion and sediment preventive practices
on rangeland.
A third barrier is the lack of operation
and maintenance on water resource struc-
tures across the Navajo Nation. This lack of
operation and maintenance appears to be
twofold. First, there is not a good under-
standing of the reasons why operation and
maintenance is so important. Secondly, no
one individual is ever given responsibility
for performing operation and maintenance.
Thus, it is never done.
The SCS, the local soil and water
conservation districts on the Navajo Nation,
and the Navajo Tribe are working to
overcome these barriers. The SCS is now
emphasizing all beneficial effects equally
when comparing benefits to costs. This
means that environmental and social
benefits have as great a weight as monetary
effects when assessing the worth of a small
watershed project.
The SCS has initiated policy that
makes it easier for limited-resource areas to
meet monetary benefit qualifications.
Formulas, based on per capita income,
unemployment rates, and property values,
allow limited-resource areas to qualify for
assistance with monetary benefits being less
than costs.
Other formulas have been developed
that ease the local burden associated with
the cost share requirement. These formulas,
based on per capita income, value of land
and buildings, and percentage of protected
groups, have reduced the local percentage of
cost share required for a number of purposes
under P.L. 83-566. The SCS is also placing
greater emphasis on the local sponsors
performing some of the required installation
work in lieu of cash payments to meet cost
sharing requirements.
The inordinate amount of planning
time is being addressed in a variety of ways.
The SCS has committed a greater portion of
the budget to increasing staff for water
resources planning. Regional water re-
source planners, primarily reviewers, have
been commissioned to assist in planning
projects for Native Americans.
Innovative planning procedures have
been initiated. The Asaayi Lake small
watershed project, on the Navajo Nation, is
being formulated using consensus planning
techniques. Consensus planning brings
together federal, tribal, and individual
technical expertise to discuss problems,
solutions to the problems, and effects of the
solutions. This eliminates many costly and
time consuming studies.
The Navajo Nation leaders and the
SCS are working together to initiate a
comprehensive public participation process
early on for the Asaayi Lake watershed.
This process will help identify the decision
makers in the watershed. It will also help
tribal members gain a better understanding
of the P.L. 83-566 program. They will learn
how these projects become local projects
once installation is completed; why opera-
tion and maintenance are so important to
keep the projects functioning as they were
designed; and why having too many animals
on a piece of land can destroy the productiv-
ity of that land as well as causing sediment
problems in downstream areas.
The Navajo people are a very visually
oriented culture. Reading a watershed
document does not give them a good feel for
what is proposed and how it will look in
relation to the landscape. The SCS will
utilize image processing technology to help
the Navajo people better visualize the
measures that could be installed under a
P.L. 83-566 project.
The P.L. 83-566 small watershed
program has been available to the Navajo
Nation for nearly 20 years. However, it is
just within the last 6 months that the Navajo
Nation has requested assistance under this
program.
-------
Conference Proceedings
419
Their interest has been stimulated for
two reasons. First, SCS, through discussions
with the Navajo and other limited-resource
groups, recognized the need to make the
program more responsive to Native Ameri-
cans, Afro Americans, and Hispanic peoples.
Changes in P.L. 83-566 program policy have
been initiated that make it more conducive
for use by these groups.
Secondly, SCS, working through the
Navajo Tribe and the local soil and water
conservation districts, has worked hard at
establishing real communications with the
Navajo people. This has been accom-
plished by learning about their culture and
tailoring communications in ways the
Navajo people can understand and accept.
These changes should ensure that the
P.L. 83-566 program will be a useful tool
for the Navajo people well into the future.
References
Choudhary, T., and S. C. Begay. 1989. An
overview of the Navajo economy.
Navajo Nation Economic Develop-
ment Forum, Division of Economic
Development, November-December,
pp. 1-2.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Managing Watersheds Through a
Volunteer Teacher Network
Sandra W. Burk, Education Specialist*
Prince William Soil and Water Conservation District, Manassas, VA
Al across the land the single most
important component to any
successful grass-roots conservation
effort is, in the words of concerned
conservationists, "mobilize your popu-
lace!" In this era of shrinking budgets and
cutbacks, the empowerment of the people
with the knowledge and ethics of conser-
vation issues may help to save not only our
environment, but ultimately, ourselves.
When educating the populace there are
three frequently targeted audiences:
students, homeowners, and teachers. By
teaching students, one ensures the future
efforts of a program in addition to recruit-
ing enthusiastic participants. Programs
educate homeowners, based on growing
scientific evidence that residential home
practices have a drastic and direct effect on
our environment, particularly our water-
sheds. It is in the education and recruit-
ment of teachers, however, that the key to
establishing and perpetuating important
conservation programs lies.
It is at the school curriculum level that
the careful environmental strategies of
watershed understanding and management
will become reality. Once set in place, these
programs educate students, their parents,
and communities year after year. One
teacher instructs an average of 90-120
students per day. Increasing public knowl-
edge and awareness, as well as participation
in key watershed issues, can have powerful
results, and agencies have to respond to an
active and responsive community of
residents.
* Currently a planning specialist with the Montgomery
County Department of Environmental Protection,
Rockville, MD.
Methods
Watershed education is a broad-based
topic involving many disciplines ranging
from science and history (effects of land
use) to math (flow rates). To successfully
involve teachers, the teacher stream moni-
toring project started by the Prince William
County Soil and Water Conservation
District not only emphasizes ecosystem
education, the effects of nonpoint source
pollution, and proper nutrient management;
it also strives to meet the state curriculum
requirements (such as the Virginia Common
Core of Learning and Education 2000
goals). The key to this program is integrat-
ing all of the basic studies into a comprehen-
sive presentation that helps participants
understand and solve watershed issues.
There is a tremendous need in U.S.
schools today for environmental programs
that utilize and expand current classroom
curricula, as well as involving students in
hands-on activities. Actual field experi-
ences that utilize the curriculum and prove a
focal point for teachers are in demand. The
cornerstone of the district's watershed
education program is to encourage teachers
to adopt a section of a local tributary near
their school, biologically monitor that
tributary, and participate in reclamation or
revegetation of damaged areas within their
local watershed.
A volunteer teacher network was
established in the summer of 1992; teachers
agreed to "adopt" sections of streams locally
and monitor them at least four times a year
with their class. Instrumental in the forma-
tion of this program was the Prince William
County School's Science Supervisor, who
embraced the program, initiated important
contacts, and assisted in formulating
421
-------
422
Watershed '93
Students from Rockledge Elementary in Woodbridge, VA, sort
through their stream sample net for macroinvertebrates. This
sample site is within one of the larger tributaries of the
Occoquan Reservoir.
curricula for teacher recertification work-
shops. Monthly teacher workshops for
recertification credit were set up at the
Prince William Forest Park Turkey Run
Environmental Education Center (TREC);
teachers were instructed in the Save Our
Streams program (SOS) of the Izaak Walton
League.
The SOS program assesses water
quality through biological monitoring. We
combined the SOS program with Soil and
Water Conservation District programs to
identify and solve point and nonpoint source
pollution problems. Virginia has the
important opportunity to submit student data
to the Izaak Walton League of America. It
then furnishes a yearly summary of data to
the State Water Control Board for use in
management decisions. These data are also
reviewed by Prince William County's
Department of Public Works Watershed
Management Division office, as well as
George Mason University and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Once incorporated into the school
system at grades 3-12, the program acts as a
catalyst for other environmental programs in
watershed assistance: Earth Day cleanups in
area streams, wetland mitigation planting
projects for Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts, and
science fair projects investigating water
quality problems more thoroughly. EPA is
currently coordinating watershed studies in
which the teacher data will be used and
classes will perform stream restoration
projects at identified sites.
The benefit of a teacher-based
program is that it provides reliable and
viable volunteer data. All teachers are
accompanied on their first sampling by a
trained staff member. Teachers dependably
collect data year after year. Attendance at
periodic instructional and quality control
workshops is high due to recertification
credit approval. Volunteer programs
involving the general public do not have
these same long-term results.
Saving Money While
Expanding Horizons
Because this program encourages
monitoring watershed areas near school
grounds, the critical problem of reduced
budgets and field trip expenditures can be
avoided. The program is beneficial to
federal, state, and local agencies that
welcome interaction with the schools and
access to volunteer data they need. Area
farmers, parks, and the Department of
Public Works open their doors to workshops
that show teachers' attempts to curb
different sources of pollution such as
sewage treatment plants and landfills. Tours
of farms implementing best management
practices (BMPs) such as slurry systems are
exceedingly popular.
To introduce the impacts of proper
land use management around the tributaries
of our watersheds, participating teachers are
offered boat trips onto the Potomac and
Occoquan Rivers to observe the watersheds.
The teachers sample water quality at the
mouths of the various tributaries that they
have adopted. At the end of a day of
sampling, they compare the different results.
Comparisons of tributaries with varying
land uses surrounding them are quite
enlightening. Much grant support is
currently available for subsidizing the fees
for conducting shipboard teacher work-
shops. Future plans for teacher collection of
river data to be used by the Maryland or
Virginia Departments of Natural Resources
are in progress.
Interagency Cooperation
Programs that instruct teachers on
watershed management, with a hands-on
approach, attract the interest of a wide
variety of agencies such as the Division of
Public Works, Water Quality Boards,
-------
Conference Proceedings
423
National Park Service, EPA, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, and numerous universities.
These agencies welcome and often seek the
assistance of trained volunteers to help
identify problems and collect needed data
that may go uncollected because of budget
cuts. Projects coordinated with these
agencies include streambank rehabilitation,
wetland mitigation, and water quality
monitoring. These projects often need a
larger work force than these agencies have
available.
The Prince William County Depart-
ment of Public Works Watershed Manage-
ment Division not only provides sites that
need monitoring, but also provides equip-
ment and staff to assist in volunteer wetland
planting operations as well as monitoring
plans for the students. Private wetland plant
contractors donate plant materials. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers donates planting
expertise. The U.S. National Park Service at
Prince William Forest Park donates use of
its Turkey Run Environmental Education
Center for teacher training in stream
monitoring and wetland plant identification.
All agencies benefit by the existence of an
active teacher network; teachers and
students also learn of the vast array of
environmental organizations that exist to
serve them.
Stream Adoptions
When the program began in the fall
of 1992, there was a series of teacher
workshops on stream and watershed
monitoring. The workshops inspired over
40 teachers to sign up to be volunteer
monitors. By the spring of 1993, this
number had doubled. Now more than 80
teachers participate as monitors of Prince
William County tributary segments. The
tributaries being monitored are part of the
Occoquan and Potomac River watersheds,
as well as ultimately part of the Chesa-
peake Bay watershed (Figure 1).
LEGEND
O TEACHER-ADOPTED STREAM REACHES
^— MAJOR STREAMS
—— WATERSHED BOUNDARIES
COUNTY BOUNDARY
CHOPAWAMSIC CREEK
WATERSHED
MARUMSCO CREEK
WATERSHED
NEABSCO CREEK
WATERSHED
T^fPOWELLS CREEK
WATERSHED
PRINCE WILLIAM COUNTY, VIRGINIA
PRIMARY WATERSHEDS
3 0
E=
SCALE IN MILES
Figure 1. Volunteer-monitored stream segments in Prince William County, VA.
-------
424
Watershed '93
Teacher participants are expected to
attend quarterly quality control workshops
that feature inservice development activities:
tests on macroinvertebrate identification,
updates on sediment and erosion control
regulations, and speeches from representa-
tives of local conservation organizations.
Discussions also include logistical consider-
ations, such as transportation of students and
handling private property owners. Teachers
notify the district of their sampling dates;
spot checks are made to ensure proper
macroinvertebrate identification and
sampling site selection. Reference collec-
tions of all insects sampled are encouraged.
Streams hi watersheds with relatively low
human impact are used as a comparison with
the monitored streams. Trips to these areas,
such as Quantico Creek in Prince William
Forest Park, illustrate the benefits of
improving the environment of our water-
sheds.
By comparing their local watershed
areas with the natural bounty and diversity
of preserved watershed areas, teachers and
their students become committed to protect-
ing and rehabilitating their own locales.
Their concern and awareness of the need for
action is sparked by the often stark differ-
ences between local streams full of fly
larvae and worms and preserved area
streams rich in dozens of species of different
macroinvertebrates—from stoneflies to
hellgrammites.
A dedicated and diligent volunteer
network, such as this teacher stream
monitoring group, would be a tremendous
benefit everywhere in the country. A larger
nationwide volunteer effort would
strengthen the comparisons and data base of
such organizations as the Izaak Walton
League; it would also help our nation and
the environmental managers who very well
may hold our future in their hands.
-------
WATERSHED1 93
Successful Grass-Roots Strategies for
Public Education and Participation In
Watershed Protection Policy Making
Jeffrey Fullmer, Program Director
Citizens Campaign for the Environment, Smithtown, NY
I am pleased to have this opportunity to
discuss grass-roots strategies and their
role in promoting public education and
shaping public policy with respect to
watershed protection. I represent a not-for-
profit advocacy organization called the
Citizens Campaign for the Environment
(CCE). The organization's program is
primarily focused on protection and man-
agement of land and water resources in the
State of New York and coastal Connecticut.
As a citizens' organization, CCE has
developed a membership base of over
85,000 New York and Connecticut residents
since its establishment in 1985.
This paper will review three examples
of grass-roots public education and partici-
pation strategies on watershed protection
issues conducted by CCE. All three
examples involve utilization of a canvassing
outreach program that is designed to
implement each strategy.
The Canvass Outreach
Program
A professional canvass outreach
program is operated by CCE as its most
effective method for communicating with
citizens and generating public participation
in policy making on a large scale. Canvass-
ers provide one-on-one contact with citizens
and are trained to supply them with verbal
and written information on watershed
protection and management issues. Addi-
tionally, canvassers provide citizens with
information and guidance on how to
effectively communicate with policy makers
at various levels of government primarily
through letter writing. By encouraging its
members and supporters to become in-
formed on the status of watershed protection
issues over time, CCE has been able to
successfully advance the process of develop-
ing public understanding and support for
specific watershed protection policies and
actions.
Suffolk County, New York,
Drinking Water Protection
Program
In 1987, a program was approved by
Suffolk County government, through
legislation and public referendum, to
dedicate a portion of the existing county
sales tax toward creating a $500+ million
program designed to protect ground-water
supplies. Known as the Suffolk Drinking
Water Protection Program, its mandated
priority was to provide funding and policy
guidance for the public acquisition of
strategic undeveloped watershed lands.
Suffolk County is located on the
eastern half of Long Island, New York. The
ground water under Long Island has been
designated by the federal government as a
sole source aquifer, meaning that a popula-
tion of nearly 3 million residents relies
exclusively on ground water as the only
source of potable water supply. Approxi-
mately 1.5 million people reside in Suffolk
County. Past studies of Long Island's
aquifer system have identified certain
watershed areas or zones that are of critical
importance to the quality, rate, and depth of
425
-------
426
Watershed '93
ground-water recharge. From a policy
perspective, the watershed areas that have
been identified as deep flow recharge and
Special Ground Water Protection Areas are
high priorities for protection. Many water
supply experts agree that the most effective
protection strategy for watershed lands is
through public acquisition when possible.
The Suffolk Drinking Water Protection
Program mandates that a minimum of 52
percent of the total funds generated over the
life of program be used for public purchase
of watershed lands.
Building the necessary public support
for legislative adoption of the Drinking
Water Protection Program, and later
approval of a public referendum was largely
accomplished through implementation of a
comprehensive door-to-door and telephone
canvass campaign throughout Suffolk
County. Over a period of months, CCE
representatives contacted residents in their
homes and began to inform them of the
relationship between watershed protection
and the long-term maintenance of high-
quality water supplies. Residents were
made aware of the source of Long Island's
potable water supply (ground water) and the
negative impacts on ground water quality
from various known and potential contami-
nation sources, including inappropriate
development, industrial discharges, acci-
dents, and spills. Information was distrib-
uted about the general location of remaining
undeveloped watershed lands and their role
in recharging the aquifer system with high-
quality water. Because much of Suffolk
County experienced increasing development
pressure during the 1980s, public concern
about the need to preserve remaining open
spaces was at a relatively high level. When
the public became aware of the long-term
environmental and economic benefits of
comprehensive watershed protection,
enthusiasm and support for legislative action
on the proposed watershed protection
program grew rapidly.
Using informational literature sup-
plied by canvassing staff describing details
of the proposed program, contacted resi-
dents were encouraged to communicate in
writing with their elected representatives to
express their point of view with respect to
legislative adoption of the program. The
literature distributed by CCE contained
specific information on letter writing
techniques, but did not include examples of
letters that could be copied word for word.
Hundreds of letters were generated in this
manner. CCE was able to track the approxi-
mate number of letters generated because
the majority were collected at the end of
each day by the canvassers who originally
made contact with the residents. The letters
were unique in that they could not be
regarded as "form" letters or "canned" mail
by the receiving legislators and, therefore,
each carried increased significance to the
legislators. Each of the letters represented
the point of view of a particular citizen, as
he or she understood the issue, and was
written in his or her own words. This form
of public participation turned out to be
highly effective in translating the public's
awareness of the issue and support for
specific legislative action.
Subsequent to the adoption of county
legislation creating the program and passage
of state enabling legislation to allow
dedication of the sales tax, a required public
referendum was held on election day 1987
to determine voter approval of the program.
For several months prior to election day,
CCE canvass staff distributed voter educa-
tion literature throughout Suffolk County
describing the program and explaining the
language of the referendum. Voters
approved the program by an 84 percent
margin. This turned out to be the greatest
voter plurality on any public referendum in
Suffolk County history. A second referen-
dum was held in 1988 that amended the
program to allow for the issuance of bonds
to accelerate watershed land purchases.
This would enable the county to acquire
some of the most strategic or "core"
watershed parcels that were threatened with
development. The referendum was ap-
proved by an 83 percent margin. The results
of both referenda provided a clear measure-
ment of the impact of comprehensive public
education and participation strategies for
watershed protection.
Albany, New York, Watershed
Rules and Regulations
Approximately 100,000 residents of
the City of Albany, New York, rely on
potable water supplies that are stored in a
system of two reservoirs. Both the Alcove
and Basic Creek reservoirs are located
outside the city limits surrounded by a
relatively rural setting with mostly low
density land uses such as agriculture. The
reservoir watershed has been identified as an
approximately 50-square-mile area. Water
-------
Conference Proceedings
427
quality monitoring by state environmental
agencies has indicated that nutrient-rich
runoff has begun to negatively impact water
quality in one of the reservoirs. As subur-
ban development and intensified agricultural
practices have increased on the outskirts of
the city, pollution threats to the reservoir
watershed have become more visible.
Under New York public health law, water
purveyors, including municipal govern-
ments, are granted legal authority to
develop, adopt, and enforce a system of
Watershed Rules and Regulations. These
regulations control land uses or activities
within identified watershed zones that may
adversely affect potable water supplies.
Historically, these regulations were
first developed prior to the creation of
federal, state, and local agencies with the
specific regulatory task of protecting the
quality of potable water supplies. Over
time, the responsibility for regulatory
enforcement has been largely shifted to
these agencies, although water purveyors are
usually most familiar with the status of the
watershed and are directly responsible for
maintaining water quality. Presently, the
majority of water purveyors in New York
either have not adopted their own specific
watershed protection regulations or have
regulations that are codified but are out of
date and do not adequately address current
water quality threats. This is the case for the
City of Albany.
Albany's watershed rules and regula-
tions were last revised in the 1950s. At the
time, the most serious water quality threats
resulted primarily from the location of
cemeteries or deposition of human or animal
wastes. The watershed regulations reflected
these concerns by prohibiting those activi-
ties within certain distances from the
reservoirs. Since the 1950s, new watershed
pollution threats from a broader range of
sources have become a reality including, but
not limited to, solid waste landfills, indus-
trial waste discharges, leaking septic
systems, tank storage of petroleum and
hazardous substances, erosion caused by
improper development of slopes, road
salting practices, and agricultural applica-
tion of pesticides and fertilizers.
In 1989, CCE began a public educa-
tion campaign in the City of Albany with
the objective of building the necessary
public support for comprehensive revision
of the city's watershed regulations. After
meeting with city officials to explain the
organization's goals, CCE's canvass began
to contact city residents to provide informa-
tion about the source of the city water
• supply, the general location of the watershed
area feeding the reservoirs, the purpose of
watershed regulations, and who was
responsible for implementation and enforce-
ment. It was further explained that the city's
existing regulations did not address many
current watershed pollution threats and were
in need of revision.
An initial challenge was successfully
articulating the need for comprehensive
watershed regulations. Most of the water-
shed area was still largely rural, and it was
hard for the public to visualize pollution
threats such as large industrial operations or
high density residential development
because, for the most part, they did not
exist. It was explained that the primary
purpose of watershed regulations was to
prevent rather than correct pollution
problems in the watershed. Residents were
then asked to sign petitions urging revision
of the watershed regulations as an effective
pollution prevention strategy. Informational
literature describing the role of watershed
regulations was distributed along with letter
writing guidelines. As a result, citizen
generated letters urging specific revisions of
the city's regulations were received by city
water supply officials and the Mayor.
At first, city officials were hesitant to
acknowledge the campaign because they
were not accustomed to responding to the
public on an issue that had been perceived
as being largely technical and not one of
great public interest and involvement. CCE
recontacted Albany city residents during
1990 and continued to generate increased
public interest and support for watershed
regulation revisions. Thousands of signa-
tures were obtained and over 500 letters
were sent to city officials from residents
stressing the need for revisions. As local
print media became aware of CCE's
campaign and started reporting it as a local
environmental issue, city officials began to
respond. In 1991, a review of the existing
regulations was agreed upon along with a
plan to develop needed revisions.
In April 1992, with the support of the
mayor, the Albany Water Board voted to
commit $30,000 for the purpose of conduct-
big a sanitary survey of the watershed. The
survey will comprehensively document land
uses within the 50-square mile watershed
including agricultural, industrial, and
residential development. Completion of the
survey during 1993 will allow the city to
-------
428
Watershed '93
identify existing inappropriate or "non-
conforming" land uses within the watershed
and enable the revised watershed regulations
to properly address existing problems and
most importantly, prevent future pollution
problems within the watershed.
Through the creation of a data base of
Albany city residents who have written to
city officials, CCE is able to update those
residents on the progress of the campaign
and continue to educate citizens on the
importance of watershed protection by
encouraging greater public participation in
the process of policy making.
Building Public Support for
Control of Nitrogen
Discharges into the Long
Island Sound
The watershed of the Long Island
Sound Estuary, bordered by the States of
New York and Connecticut, contains
perhaps the greatest population density of
any major estuary in the United States.
Long Island Sound's drainage basin
includes the heavily urbanized areas of New
York City, Long Island, and Connecticut.
Over 20 million people live in the counties
bordering the Sound.
In 1987, the Long Island Sound was
included in the National Estuary Program
(NEP) to conduct research on growing water
quality problems. The resulting Long Island
Sound Study (LISS) was designed to
identify specific water quality problems and
develop recommendations to improve and
restore water quality. Among the highest
priority problems identified by the LISS is
the increasing incidence of a condition of
little or no dissolved oxygen levels in water,
called hypoxia. Hypoxia seriously impairs
or kills various forms of marine life,
particularly bottom dwellers such as
lobsters, crabs, clams and oysters. The
primary cause of hypoxia has been identi-
fied as an overloading of nitrogen into Long
Island Sound from various sources, includ-
ing sewage treatment plant effluent, storm
water runoff, and atmospheric deposition.
Nitrogen as a nutrient accelerates algal
blooms that in turn decompose, depleting
dissolved oxygen levels during the decom-
position process.
Prior to its completion, the LISS
determined that the problem of hypoxia was
serious enough that it issued an important
recommended action in a 1991 interim
status report calling for adoption of a no net
increase policy for nitrogen discharges.
Adoption of this policy by the States of New
York and Connecticut would limit or "cap"
nitrogen loadings from wastewater treatment
plants discharging into the Sound to a
baseline of 1990 levels. This proposed
action represented an important interim step
towards stabilizing and ultimately reducing
nitrogen loadings into the Sound. While the
no net increase policy had been recom-
mended, official adoption and implementa-
tion of this policy by state and federal
regulatory authorities was not expected until
sometime after completion of the LISS in
1993.
Shortly after the no net increase policy
was initially recommended, CCE began a,
public education campaign within the Long
Island Sound watershed to explain the
problem of hypoxia and its relationship to
nitrogen inputs resulting from human
activity. The primary objective of the
campaign was to build measurable public
understanding and support for early adop-
tion of the proposed no net increase policy.
In May 1991, CCE canvass staff began
contacting residents of the Long Island
Sound watershed in both Connecticut and
New York. Information about hypoxia and
its identified causes was distributed to over
250,000 contacted citizens over a 4-month
period. Once the objective was explained,
citizens contacted through the field canvass
were asked to sign statements supporting
immediate adoption of the nitrogen policy.
An official decision to adopt the no net
increase policy was the responsibility of the
LISS Policy Committee. This committee
represented Regional Administrators from
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), and Environmental Commissioners
from the States of New York and Connecti-
cut.
CCE began encouraging citizens who
supported a nitrogen cap policy to write to
the members of the Policy Committee and
urge immediate adoption of the nitrogen
policy. Again, letters were written that were
the products of individuals based on their
understanding of the issue. As the campaign
progressed, the meaning of hypoxia became
more fully understood by the general public
as the media began paying attention to the
issue and began to report about the causes
and environmental impacts of this water
quality condition.
On September 6, 1991, the LISS
Policy Committee voted to adopt the no net
-------
Conference Proceedings
429
increase policy for nitrogen loadings. The
States of New York and Connecticut agreed
to implement the policy through modifica-
tion of wastewater discharge permits. By
September, over 60,000 signatures of
citizens supporting the policy were obtained
by CCE and submitted to the policy com-
mittee as documentation of public support.
EPA reported a final tally of over 2,000
letters that had been received by the policy
committee supporting the no net increase
policy, while 15 letters in opposition were
registered.
Through its campaign to build public
understanding and support for implementa-
tion of this policy, CCE has been able to
significantly increase public awareness of
the vulnerability of the Long Island Sound
Estuary to human activity within the
watershed. The support created for this
specific policy action has helped create a
base of public understanding and support for
further actions, particularly controlling
nonpoint source pollution from runoff, that
will be necessary to improve and ultimately
restore water quality. Citizens are continu-
ing to become aware that their individual
participation clearly has measurable impact
on the outcome and timing of policy
decisions with regard to issues such as water
quality protection.
Conclusion
The role of grass-roots participation in
advancing public education and shaping
policy on watershed protection and manage-
ment is vital. As with most environmental
issues, successful watershed management
ultimately relies on strong public under-
standing and support. The experience
gained through implementation of the
examples described hi this paper has been
invaluable in helping to meet the challenge
of building a public consensus on policies
that will successfully address watershed
protection and management issues in the
future. From a grass-roots perspective, we :
look forward to meeting that challenge.
-------
-------
WATERSHED1 93
Operation:Future—Creating
Tomorrow's Agriculture
Dennis W. Hall, County Extension Agent
Ohio State University Extension, Columbus, OH
The subtitle "Creating Tomorrow's
Agriculture" is admittedly a bit
grandiose for a group of county
extension agents and a small contingent of
midwestern farmers to claim, but we
subscribe to the theory that one should
"make no little plans, for there is no magic
in them to stir men's souls." Albeit a bold
statement, the counties in the Big Darby
Creek watershed are attempting to do just
that.
In this paper, I hope to describe:
1. The setting in which this initiative
was created.
2. Our vision of the agriculture we
aspire to create.
3. Some of the educational activities we
have conducted to date.
4. A few of the early successes .we have
experienced.
As you read this paper, you will note
that I frequently use the pronouns "we"
and "us." As the author of this paper, I
represent many individuals. They include
the farmer-leaders who have offered their
credibility and experience to make Opera-
tion:Future a reality. They include a team
of talented extension educators who have
facilitated the development of this pro-
active approach. And they include many
other public and private partners, including
The Nature Conservancy, Soil Conserva-
tion Service, Ohio Department of Natural
Resources (ODNR), U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA), and many more.
It would not be fair for any one of these
groups to claim the successes of Opera-
tion:Future without recognizing the
abundance of support given by many,
many people.
Background
The Big Darby Creek, which flows in
six west-central Ohio counties, is a remark-
able natural resource. Although the scien-
tific community has known this for a long
time, it has not been until the last few years
that the local residents have learned of its
significance. Designated by ODNR as a
"State Scenic River," U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) as a "Hydrologic Unit
Area," and The Nature Conservancy as a
"Last Great Place," this natural resource has
been getting lots of environmental attention.
Although it has been preserved in part due
to the rich production agriculture which
dominates its land use, nonpoint source
pollution from farmland now threatens the
stream's health. A diversified agriculture
has been largely replaced by intensive row
crop production of corn and soybeans.
Sediment exists as the pollutant of most
concern.
Farmers in the watershed were not
sure how to deal with all of the new atten-
tion that was being sent their way. Rumors
of outside influences telling farmers how
they were supposed to farm was prevalent.
A negative energy was mounting to resist
the environmental movement they perceived
as a threat to thek values of independence
and free enterprise.
Corresponding with these develop-
ments, extension agents in the four
principal counties were crafting a new
educational initiative called Operation:
Future. This program would help farmers
examine the forces of change in thek
industry and create thek own plan for a
superior tomorrow.
431
-------
432
Watershed '93
A New Model
Through Operation:Future a new and
comprehensive model for production
agriculture has been put forth (Figure 1).
This model illustrates three forces of change
which influence today's agriculture. These
forces are agricultural competitiveness,
environmental soundness, and social/
political issues. Competition has new
meaning when former customers of Ohio
grains are today aggressive exporters of
those same products. Financial pressures
lead fanners to adopt strategies they
perceive to enhance profitability and lessen
risk.
Many of these practices have a
positive effect on the environment, but some
do not Environmental standards continue
to evolve and agriculture must accept its
responsibility in lessening nonpoint source
pollution. The protection of endangered
species and biological diversity is a rela-
tively new challenge for the agricultural
community and where feasible, farmers will
respond.
As nonfarmers become more distant
from today's agriculture, farmers have a
responsibility to help consumers understand
Agricultural
Competitiveness
Figure 1. Operation:Future
agriculture.
-a model for production
their food and fiber industry. Social/
political issues have new meaning when
farmers account for less than 2 percent of
Ohio's population, yet represent 60 percent
of its land use. Nonfarmers are becoming
more vocal about their expectations on
topics such as water quality, food safety, and
animal welfare, to name a few recent issues.
Farmers need to demonstrate they are
worthy of the public's trust if they are going
to avoid the burdens of increased regulation.
Operation:Future seeks to identify and
promote those technologies which are
superior economically, environmentally, and
politically. It is in this domain where
everyone wins. Best management practices
are a great start and will take us a long way
in this area.
The outside circle of this model
.denotes what we call "Barriers to Change."
It reminds us that an educational approach is
insufficient if it enables the learners to
overcome many barriers, which include
financial, physical, and social. Further, we
recognize people like to learn and do not
like to be taught. Consequently, our
educational approach is one which attempts
to place learners in situations in which they
can discover for themselves the underlying
realities of their community.
Operation:Future Activities
Task Force Created
Highly respected farmers in the
counties in which Darby Creek flows
through were recruited to explore the current
state of agriculture, including the water
quality issue. Meetings included speakers
who shared their perspective on agriculture
and water management. Topics have
included ODNR-Scenic Rivers, The Nature
Conservancy, watershed management, and
biological diversity.
Canoe Trip Conducted
Task force members were paired with
conservation and environmental leaders to
canoe Big Darby Creek. Educational
demonstrations were conducted on the
stream to help the participants understand
Big Darby's aquatic diversity. Fish electro-
shocking, macroinvertebrates, and freshwa-
ter mussels were all featured. Discussions
helped fanners gain a better appreciation for
the stream and nonfarmers gain insight into
-------
Conference Proceedings
433
the economic and sociological characteris-
tics of production agriculture. This program
has proven so successful, it has been
replicated 6 times with over 200 individuals
participating.
Strategic Plan Developed
After many educational activities had
been conducted, the task force conducted
an all-day strategic planning workshop. A
mission statement and priority activities
were identified. To emphasize the impor-
tance of this workshop, letters of encour-
agement were sent to the task force
membership by supportive partners in
advance. .The Dean of the College of
Agriculture at Ohio State University
provided opening remarks and described
the important role farmers must play in
charting their future.
Fanners as Co-Teachers
As the Operation:Future Task Force
leadership developed, the farmers took on
more responsibility as educators in the
watershed. By assisting with canoe trips
and on-farm demonstrations, conducting
crop production contests (which include
production, profit, and conservation
components), and speaking at farm and non-
farm meetings, the farmers became the
leading advocates for protecting Darby
Creek.
Nonprofit Association Established
To further their mission, the task force
created the OperationrFuture Association
(OFA). The first annual meeting was held
with over 100 individuals in attendance. In
its infancy, the association already has an
active membership of 55 farm families. An
elected board of 18 directors (3 farmers per
county) now governs the association.
Officers and standing committees provide
OFA leadership.
Public Policy Tour
As the Clean Water Act approaches
reauthorization, the OFA Board decided to
visit Washington, DC, and discuss the
various perspectives helping to shape
nonpoint source pollution policy. Eight
board members met with representatives
from USD A, EPA, environmental and
agricultural interest groups, and legislative
assistants from House and Senate commit- :
tees. After balancing the various views with ,
their own personal experience, the farmers
developed their own policy statements and
shared these recommendations with their
Congressmen. .
Our Success Stories
Operation:Future has seen exciting
success. Fear and uncertainty on the part
of many farmers in the watershed has been
replaced with an empowered voice of ,
cooperation. For many, this ability to
discuss differences and to seek win/win
solutions is our greatest victory. Yet, our
success is much deeper. Consider, for
example, the magnitude of change some of
our farmers have experienced. One
fanner, who started from a very humble
beginning, now farms with his family over
3,000 acres. A great source of pride for
this individual is his ability to take a
neglected piece of land and turn it into
highly productive farmland. Some of the
tools commonly used in years past to
improve cropland (e.g., cleaning out
ditches and subsurface drainage) are now
considered environmentally detrimental,
The notion of planting trees to enhance
habitat and maintain streambanks is
exactly opposite his perspective. This
individual is working hard to learn how to
farm in a manner which is more environ-
mentally friendly and is dealing with a lot
of personal tension trying to understand
what is best.
Another farmer is discovering his own
leadership ability. A highly respected
farmer hi the watershed, he has been a
central figure in involving others in Opera-
tion: Future. Probably better than any other
member, he has helped his colleagues to
understand the water quality issue. Initially
involved because of fears about the influ-
ence of nonfarm groups (government and
others) on his farming operation, he has
adopted a positive and proactive approach to
nonpoint source concerns. Through the
Water Quality Incentives Program, he is
adapting unproved conservation practices to
his farm and working with others to encour-
age the same. Recently elected vice-
president of OFA and expected to assume
the president's duties next year, this farmer
has been a classic example of the kind of
individual OperationrFuture aspires to .
develop.
-------
434
Watershed '93
For other farmers, just learning about
the biological significance of the stream
they have farmed alongside most of their
lives has been an appreciated lesson. Now
when hi discussions of environmental
protection in the Big Darby watershed,
they have a better understanding of why
and what they can do about it. Knowing
that the stream is as healthy as it is today is
in part due to its agricultural land use, has
been an affirmation of their role as
stewards and a cause for rededication to
protect the area from uncontrolled urban
sprawl.
The Operation:Future initiative has
also added value to the overall partnership
effort to protect Big Darby Creek. This
partnership consists of many public and
private organizations and is led by The
Nature Conservancy. OFA's involvement
provides both credible input to partnership
activities and valuable output to the OFA
membership. As the partnership effort
continues to evolve, OFA's participation
will be a valuable component of influencing
positive changes in the watershed.
A Final Note About Success
You may note that this review of our
success stories does not address specific
improvements in water quality as a result of
our educational agenda. While we are
monitoring the behavioral changes via
adoption of reduced tillage and other
conservation practices, the Operation:Future
initiative deals more on a personal level and
with an individual's ability to influence
destiny. Long term, it is the appreciation of
our natural environment and the voluntary
adoption of measures which protect and
enhance it, that will create the success to
which we aspire. We believe that through
OFA we are helping our fellow citizens to
participate in this worthy mission.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Green Shores for Mississippi
Headwaters
Molly MacGregor, Director
Mississippi Headwaters Board, Walker, MN
Green Shores for Mississippi Head-
waters combines local, state, and
federal government, each with related
but varying programs designed to protect
water quality, to provide incentives to
private property owners to keep livestock
animals out of streams, improve shoreland
appearance, maintain vegetated riparian
corridors, enhance wildlife habitat, and
improve water quality problems. This
project enables local government adminis-
trators to use rules and regulations that were
written from the traditional perspective of
land use management, which protects
shoreland corridors, to achieve objectives of
watershed-based management.
Goals of Project
• Establish financial and technical
incentives to enable shoreland pro-
perty owners to establish manage-
ment practices that reduce erosion,
protect water quality, enhance bio-
logical diversity, and maintain vege-
tation on the shoreline.
• Implement watershed-based manage-
ment in an area traditionally man-
aged as a corridor.
• Coordinate local, state, and federal
bureaucracy into a single working
group.
• Build a conservation ethic among
private property owners which is
proactive in addressing management
concerns.
• Create a mechanism to identify and
recognize those who have adopted
best management practices and pro-
vide an ongoing informal network
of like individuals who can serve as
advisors and leaders in local re-
source oriented management ef-
forts.
Maintain green shorelands on
important water resources.
Participants
Aitkin County Land Department:
Manages public lands for multiple
use within the county.
Aitkin Soil and Water Conservation
District: A county organization with
funding from the state.
Aitkin County Local Water Plan
Implementation Committee: A county
organization of individuals represent-
ing public agencies and private con-
cerns, funded hi part by the state.
Aitkin Soil Conservation Service: A
federal organization.
Aitkin Woodlands Council: A
committee of individuals interested
hi forestry on the county's privately
owned lands.
Onanegozie Resource Conservation
and Development Area: An organi-
zation of several counties organized
with federal assistance.
Minnesota Department of Natural
Resources Regional Offices for
Forestry and Wildlife: A state
agency administering forestry and
wildlife locally.
Mississippi Headwaters Board: An
eight-county joint-powers river
protection board.
Project Background
Local government managers want to
maintain a green shoreline.
435
-------
436
Watershed '93
Private property owners want to
minimize governmental interference in their
lives and the operations of their businesses,
such as farming and forestry.
Lawmakers are relying increasingly
on locally administered and enforced
regulations to protect shorelines. These
rules are designed to fulfill a wide variety of
objectives:
• Maintain an attractive appearance to
the shoreland.
• Retain a vegetated corridor suitable
for wildlife movement.
• Provide habitat for aquatic and
water-oriented species.
• Protect fish and waterfowl habitat.
• Reduce erosion and sedimentation
from the shoreline into the
waterbody.
• Create limits that enable historic land
uses to continue.
These rules are administered by
officials at the county and municipal level.
Administration and enforcement is
necessarily limited by the resources of the
counties. For example, two or three people
may have responsibility for a county that is
one million acres in size and has approxi-
mately 20,000 property owners who may be
affected by the rules. Secondly, enforce-
ment of the rules depends to a large extent
on the property owner's willingness to
actually abide by the rules.
As has been noted frequently,
effective administration and enforcement
of local land use regulations and rules
depends on the willingness of the private
property owner to accept the limits
prescribed by government. Even the most
envkonmentally-minded property owner is
likely to dispute the necessity of imple-
menting rules on his or her property. Yet,
most farmers and large lot owners are well
aware of practices in which they com-
monly engage that contribute problems
and are likely to become subject to
regulation in the future.
Minnesota was one of the first states
to implement shoreland management rules;
yet, in the initial draft of those rules and in a
substantial revision of those rules 15 years
later, Minnesota avoided regulating the
practice of allowing livestock to trample
down river or lake banks along public
waters.
Local land use regulators often find
themselves in an awkward position when
other shoreland owners understandably
question the continuance of this practice
when they are subject to rules on setback of
buildings, wells, and individual on-site
septic systems. And, the farmers, who '
constitute a strong enough voice to prevent
adoption of the rules at present, do believe
that they will be subject to such rules
eventually. However, these farmers are
unwilling to make changes in current
practices, especially changes desired by
government, without compensation for
making the change. Local government
believes it is cost-effective to encourage
property owners to adopt desired best
management practices in a friendly atmo-
sphere—before the level of regulation is
extended.
A final limitation of the current
system of rules and practices is that most
were developed with the goal of protecting
corridors along streams and lakes and did
not take a watershed-based approach. While
most local government officials have
accepted the challenge to manage a
waterbody from its watershed, most avail-
able management tools are oriented either to
corridors or to specific problems. Thus, a
final outcome of the Green Shores project is
that combining levels of government into a
single organization moves the county
toward watershed-based management of its
important waterbodies.
Description of Resource and
Resource Managers
The Mississippi River is a major
watershed in Minnesota. The first 400 miles
are under the jurisdiction of the Mississippi
Headwaters Board (MHB), an eight-county
joint powers board organized to preserve
and protect the natural, cultural, scenic,
scientific, and recreational values of the
river (Figure 1). The MHB achieves this
through administration of regulations that
limit land use and building, water quality
monitoring, and information and education
programs designed to promote water and
land conservation. The MHB was organized
in 1980, when river protection was estab-
lished according to a corridor, and maintain-
ing attractive aesthetics was the primary
goal. In recent years, the MHB has worked
to establish a watershed perspective for river
management.
For example, the MHB assisted the
member counties in developing county
Water Plans, a state-guided activity which
resulted in the collection of relevant
-------
Conference Proceedings
437
CLEAR-
WATER I
Lake Itasca
Jaco SOT
MORIRISON
Little Falls
Figure 1. The Mississippi River in north central Minnesota.
-------
438
Watershed '93
information about the county's water
resources by watershed and the development
of specific management strategies for each
watershed. These plans have been adopted
by each of the MHB's eight member
counties. The MHB is now using its
resources to assist its counties in adopting
the watershed-based management strategies.
Because the reduction of erosion and
sedimentation in the Mississippi River and
related waters and improved administration
and enforcement of land use regulations are
goals of each county's Water Plan, the
Green Shores pro-ject is being extended to
all counties. However, it was established in
Aitkin County.
Aitkin County is 1.1 million acres in
area. The Mississippi River bisects the
county, running more than 100 miles. The
predominant land ownership in the county is
public; however, the predominant land
ownership in the river corridor is private.
There are nearly 800 operating farms in the
county, of which slightly more than half
work with soil management programs.
Issues and Concerns from a
Resource Perspective
Erosion and sedimentation are
considered major water quality problems in
the Mississippi River and its tributaries in
northern Minnesota. The county is partici-
pating in the MHB's River Watch Project,
which is an ambient water quality monitor-
ing program. The water quality monitoring
team is composed of a combination of
students at the Aitkin Middle and High
School and volunteers who live along the
river corridor.
Maintaining a vegetated corridor
along the river and lakes is considered a
desirable outcome for water quality and the
other values managed by the MHB, includ-
ing cultural, recreational, natural, and
scientific. Due to development, many
riparian forest areas have become frag-
mented, lowering their suitability for many
wildlife species.
Nearly half of the forest dwelling
wildlife species found in Aitkin County are
associated with riparian forest habitat.
These forested riparian areas are traditional
travel corridors for wide ranging mammals
such as black bears, lynx, and fisher. Bird
species associated with forested riparian
areas, include bald eagles, wood ducks,
barred owls, northern waterthrushes,
pileated woodpeckers, and veerys. The
majority of reptiles and amphibians utilize
forested riparian areas for breeding pur-
poses, including redbelly snake, common
snapping turtle, blue-spotted salamander,
and 10 species of frogs and toads.
Studies have shown that fish biomass
was up to 127 percent higher in the river
along rangeland in fenced study zones than
in unfenced study zones. Grazing in
forestland can reduce wildlife populations
by up to 75 percent. Grazing of forestland
lowers forest diversity by tree injury, soil
compaction, and elimination of palatable
species which promotes the unpalatable
species.
Existing Programs
There are numerous rules and regula-
tions guiding shoreland protection in
Minnesota. Most of these are oriented to the
shoreline and do not take a watershed
perspective. Minnesota's Shoreland
Management Standards, written by the
Department of Natural Resources and
administered by the counties, are intended to
"preserve and enhance the quality of surface
waters, conserve the economic and natural
environmental values of shorelands, and
provide for the wise use of water and related
land resources of the state."
In 1987, the Minnesota Legislature
authorized the county Local Water Planning
process, which established comprehensive
planning committees in Minnesota's 80
rural counties. With the assistance of the
MHB, each of the Mississippi Headwaters
counties has completed a plan, which lists
reduction of erosion and sedimentation in
important waterbodies and improves
administration and enforcement of existing
rules. Plans are administered by an imple-
mentation task force from public and private
agencies.
There are a number of cooperative
programs in Minnesota (as in other states)
that encourage private property owners to
manage lands to achieve publicly desired
solutions. These includes the Woodland
Stewardship Program run by the Minne-
sota Department of Natural Resources and
the University of Minnesota's Extension
Service. The Minnesota Department of
Natural Resources has written best
management practices for forestry, through
a cooperative effort with a variety of public
and private land managers. A current
-------
Conference Proceedings
439
challenge before the
Department is recruit-
ing private woodlands
owners to adopt these
best management
practices. Approxi-
mately 80 percent of
the state's private
woodlands owners
have waterbodies on
their property.
Green Shores
takes advantage of
numerous federal cost-
sharing programs for
farmers, administered
by the Soil and Water
Conservation District
and the Soil Conserva-
tion Service. These
programs do not
specifically list water
quality protection as a
desired outcome.
Project
Organization
The Mississippi
Headwaters Board is
the fiscal agent and the
responsible governing
unit for the Green
Shores project. A
local sponsor is
designated within each
participating county.
In Aitkin County, this
is the Aitkin Soil and
Water Conservation
District. A technical committee is con-
vened with representatives of appropriate
agencies. The MHB has developed
guidelines (above) and a contract for
property owners that is tailored to meet
each county's needs (next page). We are
indebted to the Maryland's Green Shores
project for this concept and basic organiza-
tion.
The local sponsor is the chief recruiter
for the project. Property owners who
express an interest in participating are
evaluated according to the following
criteria:
• Location of property and affected
waterbody.
• Current land uses and future land
uses.
•'-, ^e fallowing lands are eligible foj^rppation:'; -~5£r '"f
I apfxft&j 'of' thJ'ap^Miftt's-V^r -
,-&$/-0^errtIrta;-/
I3ss tiawJh^establjsliici-mrltis «aftajj|Snent; c: J
j f-/ " ""-.fT' ^^-"V,, ^ ^ wsX " "v" ' V*J*0 '''^ s^p-^ „ -. \^SSys;i:-.
* ' "*"* " ' "
• Current management concerns and
anticipated concerns.
• Goals of the property owner.
Following the initial contact, the
technical committee reviews each applicant
property, and where appropriate, assists in
the preparation of a management plan,
which identifies appropriate strategies,
including planting grasses, shrubs, or trees;
fencing; and construction of stock watering
pits and others, that would reduce environ-
mental impacts of current land use practices.
The technical committee then assists the
property owner in seeking appropriate cost-
share funds. The Green Shores project
provides up to $100 per acre of the land-
owner share for participating in these federal
cost-share projects.
-------
440
Watershed '93
CONSERVATION CONTRACT
Green Shores for Mississippi Headwaters Conservation Project
1. The State of Minnesota, the Mississippi Headwaters Board, and Ctearwater, Beitramt, Hubbard,
Cass, Itasca, Aitkin, Crow Wing, and Morrison counties, are mandated to protect the natural,
cultural, scenic, scientific and recreational values of the first 400 mites of the Mississippi River.
This can be achieved, in part, through the maintenance of vegetation on the shoreiands of trie
river, and the reduction of activities that lead to erosion, " ,, "
2. The undersigned individual is interested in promoting long:term conservation o/the Mississippi
RIvor and ils shoreiands. ' „ /-"
3, The county and the individual have agreed to a Management Plan, a copy of which is attached
hereto, which will protect the shoreiands of the Mississippi River, by improving" water"q.«aiity,
promoting wildlife and enhancing the appearance of the river, the terms and conditions of the
attached plan are incorporated in and made a part of this contract, .
-------
WATERSHED '93
Educating Youth About Watersheds:
ions and Actions
Elaine Andrews
University of Wisconsin Cooperative Extension, Madison, WI
Water quality is a critical environ-
mental issue that has received
deserved attention from educators
in recent years. There are now a variety of
educational materials for young people mat
can be used both in school and in after-
school settings.
However, educators and youth leaders
often do not have enough training to de-
velop a water education program. They
need help in including multiple objectives
and information on curriculum activities for
specific programs. The Cooperative Exten-
sion Water Curriculum Needs Assessment
Project addressed this problem (Andrews,
1992a). We summarized information about
water curricula, provided guidance for fed-
eral investments in water curriculum devel-
opment, and created a network among na-
tional groups and agencies that promote
youth water education.
Background
In 1988 state Cooperative Extension
directors and administrators named water
quality their highest national priority. These
leaders head major county-based outreach
programs at all 50 state land-grant universi-
ties. Cooperative Extension programs offer
education to people of all ages in nonformal
settings.
Water education became a focus for
Cooperative Extension nationally. Leaders
recognized that, while people of all ages
need to understand water quality issues,
there are bonuses when working with young
people. Young people can also learn about
leadership, identify career opportunities, and
improve their science knowledge.
The Cooperative Extension National
Water Quality Initiative Team soon began to
support curriculum development. In 1991,
wanting to maximize their investment by
targeting the greatest needs, they began the
assessment project and set up a review
group of experts from private and federal
organizations.
The plan was to guide Cooperative
Extension policy and summarize water
curricula for national, state, and regional
water education leaders. Informal educa-
tion needs were central to the project
because that is the type of education
Cooperative Extension generally provides.
Project Goals
This study is unique because it began
with national water quality needs and issues
rather than specific science or local resource
education objectives. From these national
resource policy issues we developed
national goals and objectives for water
quality education.
Water education materials are so many
and varied it could take years to do a
thorough assessment. To quickly meet
educators' immediate needs for resources,
we developed a short-term, initial project.
The objective was to review and classify a
selection of available curricula as a basis for
understanding what was missing and
needed. The results from this 6-month study
should provide a strong beginning for future
work.
The specific objectives of this study
were:
1. Use national water quality issues to
identify key water quality topics and
441
-------
442
Watershed '93
learning goals for youth in a
nonformal setting (such as 4-H, for
example).
2. Select water curricula to be re-
viewed. Identify water topics,
environmental education goals, and
delivery methods in each.
3. Determine strengths and weaknesses
of available curricula.
4. Establish objectives for 4-H and
youth water quality education, and
provide direction for Cooperative
Extension investment in curriculum
development.
5. Present information about materials,
delivery styles, and model programs
in an easily understandable and
accessible format.
National Water Education
Needs
To determine national water education
needs, we reviewed a number of federal and
state Extension reports and national plans of
work. We also reviewed reports from the
U.S. Department of Agriculture, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the Great
Lakes National Program Office, and the
U.S. Geological Survey. Members of
numerous federal agencies contributed to
our National Review Team. We sought the
perspective of private organizations through
a report by the Freshwater Foundation.
Members of private organizations also
served on the Review Team.
This process affirmed four critical
national water resource issues that
nonformal education could address, and
developed a list of nine key water quality
education topics.
Critical Water Quality Issues
(Extension Review, Fall 1988)
1. Interaction of human activities and
water quality.
2. Use and disposal of agricultural,
industrial, and household chemi-
cals.
3. State and local water problems such
as drought-induced shortages,
declining water tables, increased
pumping costs, and increased
production and treatment costs.
4. Protection for community water
resource quality.
Key Water Quality Education
Topics and Major Subtopics
A wide variety of water education
material has been available for the last 10
years. It has not been easy for the educator,
however, to choose the topics that help
society meet its water quality goals or to
find materials that teach those topics and
concepts.
The National Review Team identi-
fied the nine key topics in the list that
follows. Discussion also produced a set of
important subtopics. These add detail that
the educator can use and that we used in
reviewing curricula. They are listed in
Appendix A.
Key Water Quality Education Topics
1. The science of water.
2. Water-related ecosystems.
3. Drinking water supply: quantity
and quality.
4. Water use.
5. Sources of water pollution and
contamination.
6. Water quality: risk assessment and
reduction.
7. Management and protection
strategies for specific uses.
8. Government and citizenship issues.
9. Water-related careers.
In reviewing curricula, we looked
only at whether the topics were present in
the activities and information. We did not
evaluate the quality of the activity or its
relevance to the particular topic.
Environmental Education and
Instructional Format Choices
In addition to learning about water,
young people also need broader environ-
mental problem solving skills, general
science literacy, and awareness of water
career options. The best way to learn these
is through action and experience.
Because each person's choices and
actions affect the environment, it is particu-
larly important for young people to learn to
think critically about and solve environmen-
tal problems. The Review Team based its
choice of environmental education goals on
the international effort to identify environ-
mental education needs (Tbilisi Intergovern-
mental Conference on Environmental
Education, 1978) and on a taxonomy of
-------
Conference Proceedings
443
environmental education objectives
(Hungerford et al. 1980). We also used
Gardella's inventory forms to help verify the
environmental education goals we selected
(Gardella, 1986).
Environmental education goals
adopted for use include: ecological
foundations, awareness of environmental
issues and values, investigation skills,
evaluation skills, and environmental action
skills. Many of these goals also describe
science literacy goals (American Associa-
tion for the Advancement of Science,
1989).
Learning through experience is both
vital to critical environmental thinking
skills and easier to achieve in nonformal
education. Furthermore, nonformal
educators serve a diverse audience. We
reviewed curricula for their attention to
these needs.
Results
The report, Assessing National Water
Quality Education Needs, identified a
number of needs of interest to all youth
water educators and some specific to the
needs of watershed educators.
Appendix B summarizes some
statistics about the availability of materials
on topics relevant to watershed education. It
is important to note that:
• Only half of the materials addressed
ecosystem topics in general. Limited
resources are available on specific
ecosystems such as lakes, rivers,
wetlands, or streams.
• Half of the materials provided
activities about point source
contaminants, but less than a
quarter presented information about
nonpoint source contaminants.
• Forty-two percent of the materials
reviewed identified risks related to
specific contaminants, a quarter
described impacts of contaminants,
but only 2 percent helped youth
think about how risk decisions are
made.
• About a quarter of the materials pro-
vided education about government
and citizenship issues related to
water.
Other key findings indicate that
activities created by a partnership between
the school, community groups, and resource
professionals are most likely to achieve
water education goals. They can help by
providing:
• Training for teachers and youth
leaders about water topics.
• An integrated approach to the
significance of ecosystem compo-
nents to water topics (many materials
present each ecosystem separately
and do not relate them to each other
or to water issues).
• Assistance to integrate ecology and
science study into everyday life
activities.
• Opportunities to learn by doing, in
the community.
Review of materials designed specifi-
cally for watershed education identified
some strengths and some gaps. Community-
based educators can provide opportunities
that fill in the gaps and enhance the youth's
ability to grasp the concept of the watershed
and what it means to his or her life. To
identify further resources, consult a publica-
tion available through the Cooperative
Extension Service, Educating Young People
About Water (Andrews, 1992b).
To help youth understand why we are
concerned about watersheds, the educator
can:
1. Create a sense of place through field
trips and activities within the
watershed.
2. Identify what activities take place
within the watershed.
3. Investigate how these activities
affect water.
4. Provide opportunities to investigate
why we care about water quality,
especially its impact on: drinking
water, habitat, recreation, and human
habitation.
5. Practice taking personal actions to
prevent water contamination.
Activities likely to improve youth
understanding include:
1. Talcing trips to sites within the
watershed that demonstrate varied
land uses.
2. Having youth create their own map
of what's happening where in their
watershed.
3. Interviewing local water officials
about water quality impacts and
pollution prevention activities.
4. Identifying and carrying out restora-
tion activities, such as streambank
restoration.
5. Inventorying home and/or school
waste management and property care
-------
444
Watershed '93
activities. Identify ways to reduce
nonpoint source pollution through
improving these activities.
6. Studying a specific municipal
activity and make recommendations
to keep or change it, such as measur-
ing chloride present in storm drain
outflow.
References
American Association for the Advancement
of Science. 1989. Science for all
Americans, summary. Project 2061.
American Association for the
Advancment of Science, 1333 H
Street, NW, Washington, DC 20005.
Andrews, E. 1992a. Assessing national
water quality education needs for the
nonformal youth audience. USDA
Cooperative Extension, Washington,
DC.
. 1992b. Educating young people
about water—A guide to goals and
resources with an emphasis on
nonformal and school enrichment
settings. U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture, Cooperative Extension Service.
Extension Review 59(3), Fall 1988. Water
quality issue.
Gardella, R. 1986. Environmental educa-
tion curriculum inventory forms A and
B. Northern Kentucky University,
Highland Heights, KY.
Hungerford, H., R.B. Peyton, and R.J.
Wilke. 1980. Goals for curriculum
development in environmental
education. Journal of Environmental
Education ll(3):42-47.
Roth, C. 1990. Definition and clarification
of environmental literacy, a working
paper. ASTM Environmental
Literacy Project, Philadelphia, PA.
Tbilisi Intergovernmental Conference on
Environmental Education. 1978.
Toward an action plan: A report on
the Tbilisi Conference on Environ-
mental Education. A paper developed
by the FICE Subcommittee on
Environmental Education. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, DC. Stock No. 017-080-
01828-1.
-------
Conference Proceedings
445
APPENDIX A
Water quality education topics and major subtopics
As you select or develop activities and curriculum materials for water education, consider these water topics. This
list will also help you better understand the curriculum summaries in the curriculum summary chart.
7. Management & protection
strategies for specific uses
Zoning strategies
shorelands/floodplains
wetlands
wellhead/groundwater
recharge areas
Chemical storage
Recreational use
Wastewater treatment
Solid waste management
decisions
Agricultural management
practices
Wildlife habitat/land
stewardship management
Natural disasters
Chemical emergencies
Development issues/pressures
/. Science of water
. Properties
Importance to living things
Hydrologic Cycle
Geology/hydrology
dynamics
surface water
•'•• ' groundwater
regional supply
2. Water-related ecosystems
Types of ecosystems
___ lakes
wetlands
estuaries
rivers
watersheds
ephemeral systems
ponds
oceans (intermittent)
; streams
• riparian
Major regional
resource:
(insert name)
.Ecological concepts
3. Drinking Water Supply:
Quantity &. Quality
Delivery
community/public
private
treatment of drinking
water
public drinking
water
home treatment
Water Quality Control
well concerns
testing
public
private
Lifestyle impacts/
conservation
4. Water use
Use of water by many groups
commercial
municipal
recreation
industry
domestic
agricultural
power production
__ Conservation by user groups
Issues/conflicts between user
groups
5. Sources of Water Pollution/
Contamination
; Point source
agricultural sources
public and/or private
wastewater
industrial and business
hazardous wastes
energy production
wastes
Nonpoint source
atmospheric deposition
agricultural
forestry
urban
mining
6. Water quality: risk
assessment &. reduction
Curriculum addresses the
concept of how risk decisions
are made
Impact of water quality on
health
Impact of water quality on
human food sources
Impact of water quality on
plant and animal communities
Understanding and reducing
risks for specific contaminants
bacteria
nitrates
pesticides
salinity
sediments
other chemicals:
8. Government &. citizenship
issues
'- Policy issues
water quality
water quantity
Role of local government in
developing protection
strategies
Citizen involvement and
participation
Legislation, regulation,
incentives/disincentives
9.
Water-related careers
Technical:
Professional:
Water quality indicators
Water quality education topics and major
subtopics was developed by Elaine Andrews
and Karen Poulin, University of Wisconsin
Cooperative Extension, Environmental
Resources Center, 1992.
-------
446
Watershed '93
APPENDIX B
WATER-RELATED ECOSYSTEMS
Types of ecosystems
lakes
rivers
ponds
streams
wetlands
watersheds
oceans
riparian
estuaries
ephemeral systems (intermittent)
Major regional resource
Ecological concepts
% CURRICULA
54%
12% -
11%
12%
23%
22%
20%
14%
2%
11%
9%
22%
48%
POLLUTION/CONTAMINATION SOURCES
Point source
• agricultural
• wastewater (public or private)
• hazardous waste - industry or business
• energy production wastes
Nonpoint source
agricultural
urban
forestry
mining
atmospheric deposition
% CURRICULA
51%
18%
42%
35%
15%
22%
31%
32%
6%
8%
12%
-------
WATERSHED '93
The Save Our Streams (SOS) Program
Karen Firehock, Save Our Streams Program Director
Izaak Walton League of America, Arlington, VA
Mobilizing Volunteers to
Monitor and Restore River
Water Quality
The Izaak Walton League of America's
Save Our Streams (SOS) Program is a
grassroots river protection and
restoration program active for 24 years in
more than 37 states. SOS provides volun-
teers with a simple and effective way to
survey their watersheds for pollution
sources, monitor water quality using a
biological approach, and initiate restoration
activities to solve pollution problems.
Thousands of volunteers around the United
States currently use SOS to provide personal
stewardship for their rivers.
SOS Program Goals
The goals of the SOS Program are
twofold: to educate the public about water
quality and to collect vital data on the
condition of rivers and streams. The goals
of public education and collection of water
quality data are considered equally impor-
tant. An educated and motivated public is
critical to protecting the health of rivers and
streams while information on the status of
those waterways is needed to recognize and
solve pollution problems.
Many government programs require
soil erosion control and animal waste
management, and advocate wise nutrient
and pesticide use with the primary goal of
protecting water quality. However, very
few data exist on the quality of receiving
streams, rivers, and lakes. In addition,
farmers are asked to use best management
practices (BMPs). However, they do not
often have adequate knowledge of the
effects on water quality of thek farming
operations and the benefits that could be
gained from instituting expensive BMPs.
The SOS Program enables citizen
groups, farmers, local businesses, and state
and local governments to have a cost-
effective tool to assess current water quality
status. SOS can also be used to document
improvements made through installation of
BMPs. SOS uses a biological monitoring
technique to assess the quality of a stream or
river. SOS volunteer collected data have
been used in state 305(b) reports, county
watershed assessments and growth plans,
resource mapping, pollution compliance
monitoring, long-term trend analyses, and
for educational purposes such as state park
interpretive programs and environmental
education seminars. By using a partnership
approach that involves government, schools,
citizens, and business, SOS can achieve
unique solutions for watershed stewardship
and ongoing resource protection.
The SOS Network
The League runs statewide SOS
programs in Virginia and West Virginia.
SOS staff conduct workshops, publicize the
program through press releases and media
interviews, review and approve volunteer
collected data, instruct volunteers in
monitoring and watershed survey tech-
niques, and run quality assurance and quality
control procedures for the program. SOS
staff also write fact sheets and books on
water quality and resource protection issues.
In other states, such as Louisiana or Minne-
sota, SOS staff may provide guidance to
states on how to set up thek own statewide
networks and provide training in working
with volunteers and setting up volunteer
monitoring programs. The MONITORS
data base is used to track projects in all 50
states and some foreign countries. SOS staff
447
-------
448
Watershed '93
can provide information to the public,
media, or government programs located in
their states or other states.
SOS volunteers include all types of
people. SOS volunteers include ambulance
drivers, professional jockeys, scientists,
teachers, students, families, employee
unions, developers, recreationists, and
anyone who cares about the future of the
nation's waterways. SOS volunteers range
in age from 2 to 92.
Many Ways to Get Involved
Participants become involved in the
SOS program in many different ways. The
public may learn about an SOS project
through one of the Izaak Walton League's
400 chapters. They may also read about
SOS in many educational or scientific
journals, or they may learn of SOS through
articles in newspapers and magazines.
Word-of-mouth is another, not to be
overlooked, method of advertising. Many
volunteers and government agencies refer
contacts to the SOS Program. People may
also become involved in SOS through
attending a hands-on SOS workshop hi their
local community sponsored by a League
chapter or SOS program staff.
Participation in the SOS Program is
free. Volunteers can sign up to monitor a
particular river or stream using a postage-
paid card in their SOS kit. That information
in managed by the SOS database called
MONITORS. When a volunteer signs up to
conduct a project, SOS staff make sure that
the adopted river is not currently being
monitored by other volunteers. If the river
is already adopted, SOS staff ask the
volunteer to work hi cooperation with the
Save Our Streams volunteers learn to identify aquatic
insect larvae and test water quality.
other volunteers. There are two reasons for
this. First, duplication of effort by volun-
teers should be avoided whenever possible;
second, rivers should not be monitored to
the point where the resource may be harmed.
For instance, SOS monitoring stations are
usually spaced at least a quarter mile apart
and monitored only once every 2 months to
minimize disturbance of the river bottom.
A Hancls-On Approach
The SOS program has grown rapidly
for the past 24 years because it provides the
public with a hands-on approach to resource
protection. As knowledge of environmental
problems has become widespread, people
want to know what they can do personally to
protect the environment. The SOS Program
offers volunteers a way to get involved to
protect rivers and streams in their own
backyards.
Simple Steps to Success
People who are concerned about their
role hi protecting the Earth find a great deal
of gratification hi SOS because it provides a
step-by-step way to attack environmental
problems and solve them. Simply stated,
the SOS methodology can be summed up as
follows:
1. Do your homework.
2. Form a network.
3. Create a workable plan.
4. Implement the project.
Doing your homework involves
learning about the problems facing the river
or stream by surveying land uses in the
watershed, reviewing industry discharge
permits, state river assessments and manage-
ment plans, interviewing landowners and
community planners, and researching
relevant scientific issues.
Forming a network requires enlisting
the help of others to determine and address
environmental problems. Utilizing commu-
nity groups such as League chapters, other
conservation groups, schools and universi-
ties, state agency personnel and community
planners, volunteer agencies, and interested
community members should maximize the
success of the project.
Creating a workable plan requires
identifying the problem or the main goals of
the project such as gathering data on the
river to develop a management plan;
-------
Conference Proceedings
449
preventing excessive stream sediment by
reducing storm flows and stabilizing
streambanks; conducting river trash clean-
ups; improving fish habitat through struc-
tural and water quality modifications;
restoring native fish species; or many other
projects. A successful plan has both short-
and long-term goals and divides the work up
among many diverse participants.
Implementing the project involves
getting the project started and having regular
meetings with participants to discuss
problems and reevaluate the approach as
needed. Implementing the project also
requires rewarding hardworking volunteers
and utilizing the media to enlist community
support for the project. If needed, grants
can be sought to provide for short- and long-
term project funding.
The key to building public support for
the project is in motivating the public to par-
ticipate and involving many different people.
The main message of SOS is rivers and
streams need help from people. SOS com-
municates to the public that government can-
not do the job alone. Since only 36 percent
of U.S. rivers and streams are monitored by
government agencies, volunteers are needed
to help cover the remaining 64 percent that
are unmonitored and unprotected. In addi-
tion, stream pollution problems can best be
solved by participation at the local level
where pollution problems often start.
Something for Everyone
SOS involves many different people
because it offers something for everyone.
Projects can be as simple as a stream
cleanup or as complex as a watershed
inventory and river monitoring program
including restoration projects. SOS projects
can also make use of participants' many
different talents: writing, newsletter design,
knowledge of stream chemistry or biology,
computer data management, word process-
ing, public speaking, gardening, tree
planting, carpentry—for wood duck boxes
or bird blinds for wildlife viewing, artwork
for the project, teaching skills or just
enjoying getting wet.
The SOS Monitoring Method
Volunteers also gain an understanding
of water quality issues in their watersheds.
SOS volunteers use a simple water quality
monitoring method that involves collecting
stream macroinvertebrates—aquatic
organisms large enough to be seen without a
microscope—and recording the numbers
and types of organisms present in their
stream. The macroinvertebrates include
familiar stream organisms such as crayfish,
stoneflies, clams, aquatic worms, and other
common stream organisms. The organisms
are collected with a fine mesh net supported
by two poles, known as a kick-seine. After
collection and identification of the
macroinvertebrates, volunteers fill out a
simple SOS survey form that results in a
water quality rating for their stream of
excellent, good, fair, or poor.
Volunteers are also taught how to
solve the pollution problems they discover
after surveying their watershed. SOS staff
and materials provide advice for solving
pollution problems from sources as diverse
as factories to golf courses. SOS volunteers
are able to call a toll-free helpline for advice
on solving stream pollution problems.
Easy~to~Understand Materials
The key to the SOS program's success
is that all materials have been written to be
easily understood by a lay audience;
scientific issues and terms are clearly
explained. All materials in the program
receive extensive field testing and review
before they are printed. A 28-minute VHS
training video takes volunteers step-by-step
through the monitoring procedure and
explains the volunteer's role in monitoring
and protecting rivers and streams. The SOS
Kit, available from the League for $8,
contains brochures on water quality and
guides to recognizing and solving pollution
problems. Other guides to restoring stream
habitat or enforcing state laws are also
provided. All materials are priced to be
easily affordable to the general public.
Overcoming the Skeptics
Obstacles faced by the program have
included skeptical scientists, wary govern-
ment agencies, and apathetic volunteers.
However, SOS staff and volunteers make a
point of meeting with scientists and govern-
ment agencies to educate them about the
SOS program. They are invited to review
and critique methods, materials and quality
assurance, and quality control procedures.
-------
450
Watershed '93
TV and radio interviews and press releases
are used to educate the public on the need
for their involvement. The SOS philosophy
is one of cooperation.
SOS staff meet with state and local
agencies before a monitoring project is
begun to ensure that all users of the
information agree with the methods,
training, and review that are planned. SOS
staff have improved and revised materials
based on input from state and federal
agency participants. SOS staff field-test
new materials with volunteers on a pilot
basis first to make sure that materials are
easy-to-understand and provide credible
results. SOS staff also periodically review
and revise materials to make sure that they
are consistent with new scientific knowl-
edge. An approved quality assurance
quality control plan is always available for
review by interested parties and is periodi-
cally reviewed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA).
Keeping Volunteers Motivated
and Active
Volunteers stay active in the SOS pro-
gram for many years because there are al-
ways new projects for them to do and new
information for them to learn. If SOS were
simply a water monitoring program, volun-
teers might become complacent or bored
with the program. However, SOS water
monitors have become involved in review-
ing discharge permits for industry and
wastewater treatment plants, writing county
zoning ordinances, working with local
schools to implement SOS projects, improv-
ing stream habitat by stabilizing
streambanks, stocking fish in restored
streams to bring back native species, work-
ing with golf courses and farms to imple-
ment integrated pest management programs,
constructing wetlands for reducing storm
flows or treating wastewater, working with
dairy or beef cattle operators to fence cattle
out of streams and install other cattle BMPs,
and many other projects.
SOS materials provide "how to"
guidelines for many of these projects, and
SOS staff offer technical advice to volun-
teers in getting projects implemented. SOS
also sponsors workshops and conferences to
bring participants together to share good
ideas and opportunities. SOS co-sponsored
and organized the Third National Citizens'
Volunteer Water Monitoring Conference in
1992 at which 40 states were represented by
governments, educational institutions,
environmental groups, businesses and
volunteers.
Rewarding Volunteers
Most successful volunteer programs
include a method for motivating volunteers
on a personal level. However, to keep
volunteers motivated and make them feel
appreciated, it is important to say "thank
you." SOS staff provide volunteers with
adoption certificates for their particular
stream project; they also have appreciation
certificates for a job well done. Unlike
some programs, SOS operates on a shoe-
string budget and does not offer T-shirts and
hats to volunteers as some programs are able
to do. However, regular communication
with volunteers by staff as well as recogni-
tion at retraining workshops and confer-
ences are one way to show support for
volunteers. Most volunteers want to know
that their work is important. SOS staff
make a point of showing volunteers how
their data are used by state agency personnel
and provide feedback on collected data.
In summary, the key aspects of any
successful public participation program are:
• Clearly defined goals and a clear
plan of action.
• Easy-to-understand materials.
• Involvement of many diverse people
and skills.
• Review by interested parties.
• Different levels of participation from
simple to complex.
• A reward system for volunteers.
• Regular publicity for the project.
-------
WATERSHED'93
The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
Initiative: A Local Partnership at
Work
Amy S. Johnson, Associate Director
Northwest Michigan Resource Conservation and Development Council, Inc., Traverse City, MI
Michael Stifler, P.E., Supervisor
Michigan Department of Natural Resources, Cadillac, MI
Background
The Grand Traverse Bay is a high-
quality embayment in northern Lake
Michigan, widely recognized for its
outstanding recreational features and rela-
tively nondegraded water quality. The Bay
itself covers approximately 360 square
miles. The surrounding Grand Traverse Bay
watershed encompasses approximately 973
square miles of land, which serves primarily
agricultural, forestry, and recre-
ational uses. Population in the wa-
tershed was approximately 80,000
in 1990, with the town of Traverse
City accounting for about 15,000
of those people. Population in the
watershed has increased dramati-
cally over the past two decades
(about 30 percent between 1970
and 1980, and more than 15 per-
cent between 1980 and 1990). An-
other 20 percent increase is fore-
casted over the next two decades.
In response to this significant
growth, early efforts to maintain
the high quality of natural re-
sources focused on addressing
specific problems or threatened
resources, such as erosion sites and
nonpoint source pollution along
the Boardman River and Mitchell
Creek, two major tributaries to the
Bay. Broader evaluation efforts
(Battelle, 1992) began to indicate
that nonpoint sources of nutrients,
and possibly sediment and other
pollutants, were the primary factors control-
ling the quality of watershed resources. As
the scientific community began to widely
recognize nonpoint source pollution as a
major threat in the Great Lakes basin,
leaders in the Grand Traverse Bay watershed
made a conscious shift to begin managing
resources on a watershed-wide basis.
The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
Initiative was formed in 1990 as a local,
long-term watershed management program.
The Grand Traverse Bay offers spectacular views.
451
-------
452
Watershed '93
Initial efforts of the small group that was
working to coordinate the Initiative centered
around gaining recognition for this preven-
tion-oriented approach as a priority in the
Great Lakes. A successful campaign to host
the International Joint Commission's (IJC)
biennial meeting in Traverse City demon-
strated to agencies and political leaders in
Lansing, MI, and Washington, DC, that
Grand Traverse Bay residents were commit-
ted to gaining status as a model for pollution
prevention. This week-long event also
served to strengthen the local partnership
that had been building.
The Initiative is currently managed
under a partnership agreement between
more than 100 citizen, agency, economic
development, natural resource, and local
government groups who seek to balance
increasing development pressures with the
need to preserve the high quality resources
essential to the area's tourism and recreation
industries. The strong participation and
broad range of interest sectors represented
during the Initiative's first year demon-
strated that local people felt the time had
come to work together to address issues
affecting the watershed. A Partnership
Steering Committee, comprised of represen-
tatives from each of the signing organiza-
tions, meets on a quarterly basis and
continues to be the decision-making body.
Meetings of the Partnership Steering
Committee have typically attracted 40 to 60
people representing the partner organiza-
tions. In the early Steering Committee
Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
Initiative Vision and Goals
"The ecological integrity of the Grand Traverse Bay Water-
shed will be sustained or restored to ensure regional eco-
nomic viability and quality use by future generations."
Goal #1: Identify water quality and other resource problems
in the watershed and restore the environment
where possible.
Goal #2: Create a computer model to simulate and/or pre-
dict ecological results of watershed activities.
Goal #3: People in the watershed are knowledgeable of
their link to the area's environment and take re-
sponsibility for their actions.
Goal #4: Local units of governments make well informed
decisions which consider regional impacts on
water quality and other resources.
Goal MS: Develop, implement, and enhance conservation
programs focused on protecting land and other
resources within the watershed.
Figure 1. Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
Initiative vision and goals.
meetings, consensus was reached on a vision
statement and five specific goals that would
drive the Initiative's future. Standing
subcommittees have recently formed to
pursue action items needed to meet each
goal (Figure 1).
The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
Initiative has been largely supported by the
grass-roots efforts of local volunteers. The
coordinating function has been filled during
the initial phases by a 10-member Task
Force led by the Northwest Michigan
Resource Conservation and Development
(RC&D) Council, Inc. and the Northwest
Michigan Council of Governments
(NWMCOG). The Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (DNR) Surface Water
Quality Division, the Grand Traverse
County Drain Commissioner, and several
key agricultural, conservation, research, and
educational organizations are represented on
the Task Force. In addition to the large
local partnership representation, several key
Great Lakes organizations, including the
Great Lakes Commission and the Center for
the Great Lakes, have signed the Grand
Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative Partner-
ship Agreement. (See list of Partnership
members hi Figure 2.) These organizations,
along with the IJC, serve a clearinghouse
function to disseminate the Initiative's
learning experiences to other watersheds and
resource areas in the Great Lakes basin. The
Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative
has been endorsed by the IJC as a model for
pollution prevention in other rapidly
developing Great Lakes communities:
We are extremely impressed by the
community's commitment to develop a
model program, and support its desire to be
the first area designated as a high-quality or
sustainable development area worthy of
long-term protection. IJC
The Initiative continues to gain
recognition as a model program. The local
partnership is seen as an alternative to the
agency-driven or enforcement approach
commonly used elsewhere. If successful,
the Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative
model will be especially applicable to other
rapidly developing rural areas and for
newly-restored resource areas of the future.
The Partnership Agreement
and Process
The Northwest Michigan RC&D
Council and the Michigan DNR have used
-------
Conference Proceedings
453
partnership agreements and
other innovative techniques to
solve complex resource
problems in the region. A
partnership agreement is
defined as "... a concise
document that unifies diverse
groups around a common
cause or project." (Northwest
Michigan RC&D Council,
Inc., 1991.) The issue of
watershed resource manage-
ment in the Grand Traverse
Bay region was seen as a key
opportunity to use a partner-
ship agreement as a means of
identifying common ground.
This partnership agreement,
however, was likely to be
extremely large, due to the
large land area, number of
local jurisdictions, and the
diverse interests—from
agriculture, hunting, and
fishing to tourism and com-
mercial development—
represented in the watershed.
A partnership agreement
was drafted in 1991 by the
Initiative Task Force members
(Figure 3). This document set
forth the basic values and
principles that would serve as
the common ground between
the partners. The document
itself simply reaffirmed those
concepts that most interested
groups already believed: the
high-quality natural resources
of the watershed region were
critical to its ecological and
economic future and therefore
must be maintained, protected,
or restored. Most importantly,
the Partnership Agreement set
the tone of "balance" between
economic growth and ecologi-
cal integrity, establishing early
on that the Initiative would not
adopt a confrontational, "no-
growth" philosophy.
Initial signatures were
solicited through direct
mailings. A personalized letter explained
that the partnership agreement was not
legally or financially binding, indicating that
signatories would be represented on a
Partnership Agreement Steering Committee
that would ultimately define the direction
GRAND TRAVERSE BAY WATERSHED INITIATIVE PARTNERS
(Updated February 24,1993)
Acme Township
Antrim Soil and Water Conservation District
Antrim County Cooperative Extension Service
AuSable Institute of Environmental Studies
Banks Township
Belanger Creek Watershed Neighbors Network
Bellaire Public Schools
Bingham Township
Blair Township
Boardman Township
Central Lake Township
Central Lake Public Schools
Chartevoix County Planning Commission
Charlevoix County Soil Conservation District
Charter Township of Elmwood
Citizens for Regional Solutions
City of Traverse City
District Health Department #3 (Charlevoix)
East Bay Township
Elk Rapids Schools
Elk-Skegmog Lake Association
Forest Area Community Schools
Forest Home Township
Garfield Charter Township
Grand Traverse County Planning Commission
Grand Traverse Soil and Water Conservation District
Grand Traverse County Road Commission
Grand Traverse County Health Department
Grand Traverse County Cooperative Extension Service
Grand Traverse County Solid Waste
Grand Traverse Fruit Growers Council
Grand Traverse Regional Land Conservancy
Grand Traverse County Drain Commissioner
Grand Traverse County Soil Conservation Service
Grand Traverse Yacht Club
Grand Valley State University
Great Lakes Commission
Great Lakes Environmental Center
Helena Township
Home Builders Association of the GTArea, Inc.
Inland Seas Education Association
Kalkaska Soil and Water Conservation District
Kalkaska County Road Commission
Katoska County Board of Commissioners
Kalkaska County Drain Commissioner
Kalkaska County Farm Bureau
Kalkaska County Health Department
Kalkaska Public Schools
Kearney Township
Kingsley Area Schools
Lake County Gazette
League of Women Voters
Leelanau County Board of Commissioners
Leelanau MSU Extension
Leelanau Soil and Water Conservation District
Leelanau County Planning Commission
Leelanau County Health Department
Leelanau Conservancy
Leelanau County Extension Sen/ice
Leelanau County Road Commission
Leelanau County Drain Commissioner
Leland Township
Long Lake Township
Michigan Department of Commerce
Michigan Department of Natural Resources
Michigan Senator George McManus Jr.
Michigan State University Cooperative Extension/Sea Grant
Michigan State University Extension Service
Michigan Department of Agriculture
Michigan Farmer Magazine
Michigan Farm Bureau
Michigan Department of Transportation
M ichigan Golf Associates
Milton Township
Neahtawanta Research and Education
Northern Michigan Environmental Action Council
Northport Public Schools
Northport Sportsmen's Club
Northwest Michigan Council of Governments
Northwest Michigan RC&D Council
Northwestern Michigan College
Norwood Township
Old Mission Conservancy
Operations Management International, Inc.
Peninsula Township
Rotary Club of Traverse City
Saginaw Basin Alliance
Suttons Bay Public Schools
Suttons Bay Township
Suttons Bay Village
The Center for the Great Lakes
Three Lakes Association
Tip of the Mitt Watershed Council
Torch Lake Township
Traverse City Area Chamber of Commerce
Traverse City Area Public Schools
Traverse Bay Area Intermediate School District
Traverse Bay Economic Development Cooperation
Traverse City Board of Realtors
Traverse Area Arts Council
Traverse City Education Association
Traverse City Light and Power
Union Township
U.S. Coast Guard Auxiliary
U.S. Coast Guard Water Resources Division
United States Congressman Bart Stupak
United States Fish and Wildlife Service
United States Senator Donald Riegle, Jr.
USDA, Farmers Home Administration
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Village of Mancelona
Village of Elk Rapids
Village of Northport
Whitewater Township
Figure 2. Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative partners.
taken by the Initiative. Initial response was
tremendous; by early 1992 more than 60
organizations had signed the agreement.
The Task Force subsequently targeted
additional groups that were felt to be critical
to the "balance" (e.g., growers associations,
-------
454
Watershed '93
The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative:
Protecting Our Quality Resources For Future Generations
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT
This document serves as a partnership agreement between various units of government,
education, economic development groups, special interest groups and private sector
organizations interested in the future of the Grand Traverse Bay Watershed region.
The parties committed to this partnership are united by a mutual concern for the
protection of the integrity of the Grand Traverse Bay Watershed for quality use by future
generations. The parties recognize that the region's future quality of life and economic
health are dependent on the maintenance and sustainability of the natural resources of
the Grand Traverse Bay Watershed.
Vision Statement The integrity of the Grand Traverse Bay Watershed will be sustained
(or restored) for quality use by future generations.
Background
Grand Traverse Bay is a unique resource to the Great Lakes and to the State of
Michigan. The Bay is unique because it is one of the few remaining Great Lakes bays
which exist in a relatively unpolluted condition. The Bay has 132 miles of shoreline, is
over 600 feet deep in the East Arm, and contains 39 species of fish. The Grand Traverse
Bay Watershed encompasses approximately 973 square miles and includes parts of five
counties (Grand Traverse, Antrim, Leelanau, Kalkaska, & Charlevoix). The Bay can also
be viewed as a model of the whole of Lake Michigan (having a populated urban area at
its southern end).
Proposed Action I
We the undersigned, considering the best interest of the water, natural resources, and
the future development of the region, mutually agree to fully cooperate and to provide
technical and financial assistance, as available, to support the multi-year Grand Traverse
Bay Watershed Initiative. Coordination of the Initiative will be accomplished jointly through
tho Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative Steering Committee, comprised of members
signing this partnership agreement.
Figure 3. Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative Partnership
Agreement.
economic development groups, road
commissions). A second recruiting effort in
late 1992 targeted changeover in govern-
ment representatives after elections, several
missing local government units, and wider
participation by chambers of commerce and
special interest groups, such as sporting
groups and clubs. By early
1993, the Partnership Agree-
ment Steering Committee
included more than 100
organizations.
Although the Partnership
Agreement is not binding, the
process tends to instill a
significant sense of commit-
ment, and perhaps peer
pressure. In many cases a
school district, for example,
has been more willing to sign
the agreement or participate in
a project when they are shown
that other districts in the
watershed have done the same.
The Partnership Agree-
ment process currently in-
volves quarterly meetings.
Over the course of the first
three meetings, the Steering
Committee reached consensus
on the vision statement and
five major goals that would
drive the Initiative's future
(Figure 1). Recent meetings
have included report-back
sessions from each of five
standing subcommittees that
have formed to address the
Initiative's goals. Typically a
natural resource or economic
development project is featured
at each quarterly meeting. The
partnership process has helped
instill a regional cooperative
spirit between the mostly local
organizations involved. The
extensive Steering Committee
membership has paid off in
numerous instances where
overlapping projects and grant
proposals have been consoli-
dated or information has been
shared, simply by virtue of the
communications link provided
by the Initiative. The partners
also have a periodic reminder
that the decisions they are
making in their own jurisdic-
tions have an impact on other
parts of the watershed. The Partnership
itself provides a strength in numbers that is
critical to levering technical, political, and
financial assistance. Grant funding and
agency staff resources have been more
readily available where there is such a broad
and clear consensus on needs, much more so
-------
Conference Proceedings
455
than when fragmented, independent organi-
zations request the support.
The Grand Traverse Bay region is
fortunate to have a vastly talented and
experienced population, and the Initiative
efforts tap this resource regularly. Slowly,
the Partnership Agreement process has
brought forth lay public leaders, who have
volunteered to chair task forces or projects
and to deliver status reports back to the
larger Steering Committee. There is often a
natural hesitation in this process, a tendency
on the part of the groups to cling to the
established leadership structure (in this case,
the Task Force agencies). But given time
and support, the lay public leaders develop
confidence to lead meetings, deal with
conflicts, and learn how to call in technical
and financial assistance, as needed, from the
region's established agencies or organiza-
tions. This is the "empowerment" part of
the partnership agreement process. On
smaller projects in the past, and hopefully
on the Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
Initiative, the end result is a locally-owned
and locally-driven resource management
coalition or system that effectively utilizes
government and agency assistance as
needed, rather than taking direction "from
the top down."
The Successes
It has proven critical in the very large,
long-term Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
Initiative to constantly remind the partners
of their successes. The Initiative's goals are
10- to 20- year goals, compared to the daily,
weekly, or monthly goals most people set in
their daily jobs.
Many of the early Initiative projects
addressed sub-watershed plans and studies
on major tributaries to the Grand Traverse
Bay. These projects emphasized best
management practices to reduce nonpoint
source pollution and involved the public,
watershed landowners in particular, in the
solutions. Another early success of the
Initiative, credited to the grass-roots efforts
of a small town, was hosting the IJC's Sixth
Biennial Meeting in Traverse City in
September of 1991. The Initiative was
featured in presentations to the attenders of
this meeting. Local and national press
provided excellent coverage of the
Initiative's first year at a time when
"sustainability" and "pollution prevention"
were emerging as international priorities.
Combined, these endeavors established the
Grand Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative as
a viable effort with solid local and state
support.
In early 1992, standing subcommittees
were formed to address each of the
Initiative's five major goals. Subcommittee
membership typically includes individuals
whose "regular jobs" and/or personal
interests lie in the area of the goal. Some of
the subcommittees promptly went out to
recruit specific technical or policy expertise,
or form ad hoc work groups to accomplish
interim action items. At the present time, a
temporary facilitator from the original
Initiative Task Force works with each
subcommittee to fine-tune objectives,
initiate action items, recruit additional
support, and maintain communications
between subcommittees. In the next year
(1993), the subcommittees are likely to
appoint a permanent chairperson from the
public representation. Specific accomplish-
ments of the overall Steering Committee and
the subcommittees over the past year
include:
• The Public Education and Aware-
ness Subcommittee is sponsoring the
first annual "Watershed Week" in
April 1993 to help establish "water-
shed consciousness."
• The Resource Problems Subcommit-
tee has developed lists of problem
types and known problem sites and
is drafting a prioritization strategy
for addressing those problems.
• Various Steering Committee
organizations have completed
watershed management planning and
implementation projects on the
Boardman River, Elk River, Mitchell
Creek, and Belanger Creek.
• The Conservation/Protection
Subcommittee has launched a project
to identify and map priority wetlands
in the watershed.
• The Regulations and Structure
Subcommittee is interacting with a
consultant to review options and case
studies that will be used by the
Partnership Agreement Steering
Committee to identify preferred
strategies for future watershed
management. At a "Management
Summit" during Watershed Week
'93, the Steering Committee will
work through a facilitated process to
reach their own consensus on what
next steps should be taken.
-------
456
Watershed '93
The Initiative Steering Committee
submitted comments on the EPA's
Lake Michigan Lakewide Manage-
ment Plan, and has gained a position
on the public input Forum group for
this important process.
Current Challenges
As the Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
Initiative enters its third active year,
organizational, publicity, funding, and
communications challenges continue to
grow commensurately with the expanding
partnership representation. These chal-
lenges are somewhat characteristic of a
bottom-up, grassroots effort. No line
organization is in place, and communica-
tions (mailings, grant coordination, meet-
ings) are imperfect. Individual member
organizations do not have large sums of
cash to contribute to projects, publicity, or
grant matches, while at the same time state
and federal funding sources are dwindling.
Perhaps most importantly, the Grand
Traverse Bay Watershed Initiative feels the
eyes and ears of Great Lakes and interna-
tional groups upon it, waiting to see if such
a large, locally-driven partnership can really
succeed. There is a strong sense inside and
outside the Initiative that now is the time for
action, and that there may only be one
chance to fulfill the vision statement of
preserving the resource.
Several key actions are underway to
address the current challenges. A project
administered by NWMCOG and funded by
the Michigan DNR has employed a consult-
ant to assist the Partnership Steering
Committee to plan for the future watershed
management organization. Under this
institutional analysis, various legal and
financial options, relevant case studies, and
existing organizations will be examined and
presented to the Partnership Steering
Committee as options for managing the
watershed in the future. In this way, the
local Partnership members themselves will
drive the important decisions affecting the
future of the region's watershed.
A recent proposal sponsored by the
Northwest Michigan RC&D Council seeks
private foundation funding to institutional-
ize the Initiative over a two-year period. A
full-time watershed coordinator would be
employed over this period to provide a
communications and publicity point of
contact and to maintain the Partnership
Agreement process (i.e., meetings, subcom-
mittee projects, membership). The same
individual would implement the preferred
options identified in the Institutional
Analysis project, positioning the Initiative to
become self-sufficient at the end of the
interim period.
The Task Force and other members of
the Steering Committee are committed to
maintaining progress on the priority actions
identified under the Initiative's goals.
Individual organizations and collaborative
teams continue to pursue research, inven-
tory, public outreach, and conservation
projects with increasing success. As new
members continue to join the Partnership,
existing representatives meet with them to
identify areas of common interest that will
tend to increase the efficiency and likeli-
hood of support for the priority projects.
Financially, there is an increased
emphasis on the value of individual organi-
zations' contributions. Steering Committee
member organizations are confident enough
in the benefits of achieving the Initiative's
goals that their staff are able to specifically
allocate time to participate on Subcommit-
tees and in Partnership meetings. Organiza-
tions such as the Grand Traverse County
Planning Commission, the Michigan DNR,
and regional land conservancies have been
willing to donate staff time, equipment,
facilities, and hard dollars to the Initiative's
projects. The sum of these contributions
adds up to a substantial value that is critical
in levering additional "outside" funding
from public or private sources. In addition,
available funding is going farther in each
project with the enhanced sharing of
information and resources. For example,
land owner handbooks and watershed signs
designed for a recent project on Mitchell
Creek can literally be duplicated for use on
several additional sub-watersheds.
Future Challenges
Future funding of the Initiative
presents the most significant challenge, as
well as the greatest opportunity for demon-
strating a model approach to benefit other
regional resource managers. Recent
experiences with other local partnerships for
resource management suggest that creative,
nontraditional and non public funding will
be needed to sustain the Initiative over time.
This may involve establishing a trust fund,
memberships, or even a for-profit financial
-------
Conference Proceedings
457
basis. Options for organizational format of
the Initiative will also be considered. The
Partnership Agreement Steering Committee
may elect to operate under the current
arrangement, relying on cooperation
between existing organizations, or may ,
decide that a new public agency or private
coalition is appropriate.
Certain requirements-can be antici-
pated. The future arrangement must
accommodate political and regulatory
change, and still be able to maintain forward
progress on the Initiative's goals. Also, the
regional nature of the watershed resources
will requke that diverse interests and a large
number of local jurisdictions (townships,
counties, villages, school districts) all have a
voice in and responsibility for resource
management. Most importantly, the
organizational, legal, and financial strategy
for watershed management must be a
decision of the local partners.
The Grand Traverse Bay Watershed
Initiative truly serves as a model, with local
citizens taking ownership and accountability
for managing an important and complex
natural resource. Institutional arrangements
to date have centered around problem
identification and restoration activities, and
have struggled to involve the local public.
In contrast, the Grand Traverse Bay Water-
shed Initiative was begun and seeks to
remain a locally-driven process for manag-
ing regional resources through protection
and prevention.
References
Battelle Great Lakes Environmental Center.
1992. Final report for the Grand
Traverse Bay Initiative: Part II, water
quality of the Bay and tributaries.
Northwest Michigan Resource Conservation
and Development Council, Inc. 1991.
Developing partnership agreements, a
process to resolve resource manage-
ment issues in the 1990 's. Handbook
produced in cooperation with Michi-
gan State University Cooperative
Extension Service, funded by the
W.K. Kellogg Foundation.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Public Survey and Pollutant Model
For Prince George's County
Jennifer Smith, Senior Engineer; Stephen Paul, Planner;
and Cheryl Collins, Engineer
Prince George's County, Landover, MD
Alan Cavacas, P.E., Manager, and Mohammed Lahlou, Senior Engineer
Environmental and Water Resources, Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Prince George's County's nonpoint
source public outreach program is
intended to give residents an aware-
ness of water quality problems in their
neighborhood. The program focuses on
teaching residents how they can make minor
changes in their behavior to reduce the
amount of pollutants getting into their
streams. Motivational factors unique to the
Kettering community were targeted to
maximize public involvement.
The program is being currently
implemented on a pilot scale in the
Kettering watershed. The Kettering
watershed houses approximately 2,800
residents, is about 20 years old, and was
constructed without water quality controls.
The public education program in the
Kettering neighborhood utilized a public
survey, in part, to assess how effective
public involvement may be toward reducing
nonpoint sources of pollution. This activity,
coupled with a water quality model, was
designed to measure the success of the
public outreach program.
Public Survey
A public survey was developed and
administered to all residents in the Kettering
watershed. The purpose of the survey was
threefold:
1. The survey acted as a tool to
measure the level of environmental
awareness of the community
residents.
2. The survey was used to determine
the extent to which community
residents engaged in daily activities
affecting nonpoint source pollution.
3. The survey helped determine how
the community perceived the project.
Additionally, the public survey helped
identify the target audience, identify special
cultural communication needs, and most
importantly, identify key motivators.
The survey asked questions about
specific pollutants, their affect on water
quality, and how the county's environmental
programs could be used to minimized these
pollutants. The questions on lawn and car
care practices were included to gain an
estimate of the amounts of fertilizers,
pesticides, detergents, oil, grease, and
antifreeze being applied or discharged
throughout the watershed. Questions
regarding current programs such as recy-
cling, household hazardous waste collection,
and reporting pollution problems were
intended to provide an indication of the
level of community knowledge regarding
water pollution issues.
Results
Out of 1,125 households surveyed,
403 or 36 percent were returned by early
September. This response rate was quite
high compared with similar public survey
efforts by the county's Office of Recycling,
and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Due
to the large response rate, it was assumed
that the results were representative of the
watershed and community as a whole.
Figure 1 illustrates the survey response
summaries.
459
-------
460
Watershed '93
KETTERING PUBLIC SURVEY RESULTS
TOTAL RESPONSE RATE "
DO HOT KNOW SW RUNOFF CAUSES POLLUTION
00 NOT KNOW HOW TO REPORT POLLUTION PROBLEMS
DO NOT PARTICIPATE IN COUNTY RECYCLING "
00 NOT USE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE PRO
DO NOT COMPOST YARD WASTE
DO NOT RECYCLE USED OIL
CHANGE OWN ANTIFREEZE _
j_ USE CAR WASH H
P NEVER WASH CAR H
§WASH CAR WEEKLY
WASH CAR MONTHLY "
., WASH CAR ZX/YEAR
* WASH CAR YEARLY
USE LAWN SERVICE .
FERTILIZE OWN LAWN IN SPRING
FERTILIZE OWN LAWN W SUMMER
FERTILIZE OWN LAWN IN WINTER .
FERTILIZE OWN LAWN IN FALL
USE HERBICIDES
USE INSECTICIDES.
USE FUNGICIDES
sassB836
£££&g&£*S58
rxxfxw.xxM-f?
£913
ra?wwww4H77
asio
¥25325
SSSH29
SIO
KSH24
JSE&8S39
S5H23
14
S$^H32
SES5H43
SIO
S7
Jffi^EKfl^O
BSSSSO
SSHSSI42
35
0 20 40 60 80100
10 30 50 70 90
PERCENT OF RESIDENTS
Figure 1. Public survey results.
RESIDENTIAL CAR WASHING
WEEKLY (21.8%)
CAR WASH (9.5!?)
NEVER (9.355)
YEARLY (3.9%)
2X/YEAR (20.6%)
MONTHLY (34.9%)
Figure 2. Residential car washing.
Discussion
General Knowledge and
Participation
The initial public survey results
revealed that Kettering residents lacked a
general knowledge and awareness of basic
nonpoint source water quality issues. Fifty-
eight percent of the residents did not know
storm water runoff from residential neigh-
borhoods causes water pollution. An
alarming 72 percent of the Kettering
residents did not know how to report illegal
dumping or other pollution problems to
local officials.
Participation levels in various widely
publicized county environmental programs
were also low. Although 72 percent of the
residents were aware of the county's house-
hold hazardous waste collection program,
only 38 percent of the residents used it. In
addition, although 87 percent of the resi-
dents participate in the county's curbside
recycling program, only 23 percent of the
residents followed the county's yard waste
composting program. These composting
participation levels compare favorably with
1992 national survey results, which showed
an estimated 18 percent of Americans com-
post yard waste (Allen et al., 1992).
Automobile Care
The public survey responses on
residential automobile care provided
considerable insight into the pollution
potential of this type of activity. Approxi-
mately 32 percent of the residents in the
Kettering community change their own car
oil compared to a national estimate of 25
percent (MSSCC, 1987). The survey
showed that an overwhelming 90 percent of
the Kettering residents who change their
own car oil recycle it. However, 10 percent
of the used oil is still being disposed of
improperly. It has the potential to cause
environmental damage.
Similarly, 25 percent of Kettering
residents change their own antifreeze.
Antifreeze is a highly toxic household
chemical containing ethylene glycol. It is
estimated that all of the used antifreeze from
this neighborhood contaminates storm drain
systems and nearby waterways through
dumping and discharges.
Residential car washing primarily
occurs on impervious areas where detergent-
laden water discharges directly to nearby
storm drain systems. Other studies (Pitt,
1990) indicate that residential car washing,
can be a major contributor to detergents
entering nearby stream systems. Detergents
contain high levels of phosphorus and other
pollutants potentially toxic to the aquatic
system. In spite of this hazard, little
information is available to educate the
public on how this daily activity can become
a major source of nonpoint source pollution
to nearby stream systems.
Figure 2 illustrates the distribution of
residential car washing activity throughout
the Kettering community. The majority of
Kettering residents, or 57 percent, wash
their car one to four times a month. Only
10 percent prefer using a commercial car
wash.
-------
Conference Proceedings
4<5t
Lawn Care
Americans spend an estimated
$6 billion a year to obtain the greenest lawn
possible (Rutgers, 1992). Kettering single-
family residents are among these "green
lawn" enthusiasts. Survey results show that
approximately 87 percent of all of the
residents apply fertilizers to their lawn, and
80 percent use pesticides. In spite of these
efforts, approximately 49 percent are not
satisfied with the appearance of their lawn.
Figure 3 describes fertilizer applica-
tions for the single-family residents in the
Kettering community who do not use a lawn
care service. The majority of fertilizer
applications occur in the spring and fall.
Applying fertilizers in the spring can
increase irrigation needs, mowing require-
ments, and may weaken grass roots. The
Maryland Cooperative Extension Service
has developed an environmentally sensitive,
low cost lawn care program which recom-
mends restricting fertilizer applications to
the fall only (Stewart, 1982). Figure 4
illustrates that only 11 percent of the
Kettering single-family residents currently
follow this fertilizer application program.
Figure 5 describes pesticide usage by
single-family residents who do not use a
lawn care service. Our public education
program proposed options that would reduce
the percentage of homeowners who use
pesticides by recommending using pesti-
cides only on an identified problem.
Pollutant Load Model
The results of the public survey were
combined with the results of the field
reconnaissance study and information
gathered from the Cooperative Extension
Service and garden centers to estimate the
potential application of chemicals within the
watershed. The estimates were generated
with simple mathematical expressions which
determine the quantity of chemicals based
on average homeowner application rates.
The data generated was used to make
informed decisions regarding how water
quality improvement programs should be
tailored to be most effective for this particu-
lar community. The pollutants studied
included total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
detergents, motor oil, and antifreeze.
Table 1 illustrates general watershed
characteristics and chemical application
rates. Table 2 lists the mathematical
FERTILIZER APPLICATIONS
FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
SPRING (43.0%)
FALL (40.0%)
WINT£R (7'°%)
Figure 3. Fertilizer applications.
HOMEOWNERS CURRENTLY USING
RECOMMENDED LAWN CARE PROGRAM
OTHER PROGRAM (89.0%)
RECOMMENDED PROGRAM (11.0%)
Figure 4. Recommended lawn care program users.
PESTICIDE APPLICATION
FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES
FUNGICIDES (4.9%)
NONE (22.8%)
HERBICIDES (29.7%)
INSECTICIDES (42.6%)
Figure 5. Pesticides.
-------
462
Watershed '93
Table 1. Model input parameters
Single Family
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Townhouse
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
All Owners
Detergents
Motor Oil
Antifreeze
Amount
Fall Winter Spring
3 lb/1000 ft2 2 lb/1000 ft2 3 lb/1000 ft2
6 lb/1000 ft2 4 lb/1000 ft2 6 lb/1000 ft2
5 lb/1000 ft2 applied evenly throughout the year
10 lb/1000 ft2 applied evenly throughout the year
4 quarts per car per change
4 quarts per car per change
Summer Rate
3 lb/1000 ft2
6 lb/1000 ft2
1/8 cup/wash
4x/year
2 x/year
Land Use:
Residential
Commercial
Open Space
= 256.31 acres
= 21.66 acres
= 83.03 acres
Single Family = 965
Dwelling Units:
Townhouse =160
Townhouse lawn area: 387,000 ft2
Single family lawn area: 5,000 ft2
Table 2. Pollutant load expressions
Nitrogen
Phosphorus
Motor Oil
Antifreeze
Detergents
Yn = [L(Nsas + N^ + Nwaw + N a ) +L(at]/1000
Y = r[(L)(NA + NA + Nwaw + N a ) + (Ltat)]/1000
Y = (x)(n)(P)(f)(a)(l - R)
Y = (x)(n)(P)(f)(a)(l - R)
+ P3f3 + P4f4](a)(l - R)
Yd =
Where:
Y = total amount of pollutant applied per year (Ib or quarts)
x = number of cars per dwelling unit
n = total number of dwelling units
N = number of applications
P = participation of residents in activity (%)
a = amount of pollutant per application (jb/1000 ft2 or quarts)
f = frequency of participation
R = participation in recycling (%)
L = lawn size for single family residents (ft2)
Lt= lawn size for townhouse (ft2)
r = ratio of phosphorus to nitrogen in fertilizer
CHANGES IN POLLUTANT LOADS
AFTER PUBLIC EDUCATION PROGRAM
DETERGENT MOTOR OB. ANTIFREEZE NITROGEN PHOSPHOROUS
POLLUTANT
PRE PROGRAM
POST PROGRAM
Figure 6. Predicted changes in applications.
expressions used to compute the estimated
applied pollutant load. Figure 6 illustrates
the estimated load of pollutants applied per
year in the Kettering watershed for total
nitrogen, total phosphorus, detergents,
motor oil, and antifreeze.
Discussion
Application Rotes
The pollutant application estimates
indicate relatively high amounts of
nitrogen and phosphorus applications in
the Kettering watershed. Although these
estimates are conservative, they only
reflect residential fertilizer applications.
Additional sources of nitrogen and
phosphorus present in the watershed may
-------
Conference Proceedings
463
increase these numbers. The estimated
amount of detergents, antifreeze, and
motor oil are alarming. Approximately
1,496 quarts of motor oil and 2,413 quarts
of antifreeze are improperly disposed of
each year in the Kettering watershed.
These numbers pointed to a need to focus
our source reduction programs for automo-
tive fluids. Although the Kettering
application estimates appear to be very
high, they do not take into account such
hydrologic and watershed characteristics
as soils, infiltration, rainfall runoff, and
time of concentration.
Figure 6 illustrates estimated potential
reductions in applications using the math-
ematical expressions, assuming a 70 percent
participation in our public outreach pro-
gram. There is a direct correlation with
pollutant reductions for motor oil, deter-
gents, and antifreeze due to the nature of
their application. Therefore, public
education programs focusing on these
pollutants may dramatically reduce their
concentrations in nearby stream systems.
As nitrogen and phosphorous loading rates
depend on watershed characteristics not
considered in the simple spreadsheet model,
their concentrations in nearby stream
systems may be further reduced by infiltra-
tion, nutrient uptake, evaporation, etc.
Assessing Benefits—Water
Quality Model
Water quality modeling was used to
evaluate pollutant washoff reductions based
on application rates collected from the
public survey and representative of existing
conditions and anticipated post education
program conditions. The results presented
will be focused on nutrient reductions in
residential areas based on anticipated
benefits from lawn care educational pro-
grams. Specific benefits evaluated with the
model include reductions in application
rates and shifting application periods from
spring to fall. Due to seasonal application
interests and the importance of storm size
and hydrology on nutrient washoff, a
continuous simulation model was selected to
provide insight on the potential benefits of
the public education program.
The Hydrologic Simulation Pro-
gram—Fortran (HSPF) continuous simula-
tion water quality model (USEPA, 1983)
was used to represent the fate and transport
of pollutants in the Kettering watershed.
The model will be used to simulate how
nutrients originating from residential lawns,
based on practices documented by the public
survey, will be transported through overland
and soil infiltration pathways to ultimately
enter a waterbody. The model will be
calibrated to monitoring data for several
pollutants and flow over the next year;
however, at this point it has been adjusted to
literature values and available data in the
County (TetraTech, 1993).
The modeling of phosphorus and
nitrogen runoff was performed to predict the
annual, seasonal, and monthly reductions in
pollutant loads. Seasonal and monthly load
reductions are important as program
initiatives may be directed to reduce
pollutant loads during critical spring and
summer periods. Spring and summer
represent critical periods for spawning. In
addition, spring and summer storms have
higher pollutant transport capacity allowing
a greater percent of nutrients from lawn
fertilizers to make its way to the receiving
waterbody.
To demonstrate how managing
fertilizer applications can reduce watershed
pollutant loads, an assessment of conditions
before and predicted conditions after the
public education program was performed
using the HSPF model. Figure 7 identifies
how the educational program regarding
lawn care, which assumes 70 percent
participation, will reduce mean monthly
nitrogen concentrations downstream of
residential areas. The variation in applica-
tion rates and seasonal distribution used in
the HSPF model is also shown in Figure 8.
K
16-
14-
/->.
V2'
E IB
c
ID
g, 8-
i e-
"5
'o 4
2-
0-
4ean Monthly Nitrogen Concentration
(Est. from HSPF for 8-yr simulation)
JAN F
~
i-i
n
.
1
1
¥
1
1
n
I
1
1
EB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Month
I I Pre-Program •
| Post-Program
Figure 7. Nitrogen concentrations.
-------
4<54
Watershed '93
40
35
§30
&Z5
|20
V.
1O
!».
Monthly Nitrogen Application Rate
(Est. from Kettering Public Survey)
i_,.. _
FL
JAM FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Month
1 1 Pre-Program ^H Post-Program
Figure 8. Nitrogen application rates.
Mean Monthly Phosphorus Concentration
(Esf. from HSPF for 8-yr simulation)
1
I
17
8
m
"
a:
1
JAM FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Month
I I Prs-Program {•§ Post-Program
Figure 9. Phosphorus concentration.
Monthly Phosphorus Application Rate
(Est. trom Kettering Public Survey)
?7°"
>°'
13°
•s za
£ in.
n • n
JAM FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC
Month
1 1 Pre-Progrom •• Post-Program
Figure 10. Phosphorus application rates.
These data are based on simulating an 8-
year period of historic hydrologic condi-
tions. Mean total phosphorous concentra-
tions (Figure 9) are also significantly
reduced. Nitrogen reduction is less signifi-
cant partly due to the high mobility of
nitrogen and the lower reduction in applica-
tion rates proposed in the education pro-
gram. It is important to note, however, that
the seasonal reductions in nitrogen are
greater in the spring/summer period due to
the timing shift of fertilizer applications
from spring to fall. This seasonal shift alone
may yield significant ecological benefits.
The preliminary HSPF results indicate
that a 78 percent reduction in phosphorus
application rates would be further reduced to
82 percent when considering the fate and
transport losses and seasonal displacement
of nutrient application from spring to fall
(Figure 10). Because phosphorus is highly
adsorbed to sediment particles, it has a
higher likelihood to be removed in transport
to the stream. However nitrogen is more
likely to transport through the system, which
is why a 29 percent application rate reduc-
tion did not exhibit further reductions due to
fate and transport losses.
Conclusions
The public survey acted as a catalyst
for getting the community residents involved
in the project from the beginning. Their
responses helped us to tailor the public out-
reach program by determining the commu-
nity educational and environmental needs.
Although a few public surveys on
water polluting activities have been pub-
lished, little has been done to quantify the
survey results into actual pollutant runoff.
Using the public survey results, the pollutant
loading estimates provide baseline data
which quantitatively describe the nature and
scope of nonpoint pollution sources in the
Kettering watershed. The data generated are
very useful in targeting public education
programs. The methods used were simple
and relatively inexpensive, and provide an
ideal alternative to extensive, costly, and
difficult water quality monitoring.
References
Allen, F., and G. Sekscienski. 1992.
Greening at the grassroots. EPA
Journal 18(4):52-53.
-------
Conference Proceedings
465
Maryland State Soil Conservation Commit-
tee. 1987. Baybook. October.
Pitt, R. 1991. Cross-connection investiga-
tions for storm water permit applica-
tions. In Proceedings, Water
Pollution Control Federation 64th
Annual Conference, Toronto,
October 1991.
Rutgers Cooperative Extension. 1992.
Swamp solutions. Vol. 1, No. 4, May.
Stewart, R. 1983. Green lawns the smart
way. Prince George's County, MD.
Tetra Tech, Inc. 1993. Storm water NPDES
part 2 permit application—Character-
ization data. Interim report. Prince
George's County, MD.
USEPA. 1983. Guide to the application of
the Hydrologic Simulation Program—
Fortran (HSPF). U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, ERL, Athens, GA.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
The Missouri SALT Program:
Local People Solving Local
Problems
Steven K. Taylor, SALT Program Manager
Missouri Department of Natural Resources, Jefferson City, MO
Mssouri has very diverse natural
and agricultural resources and as
a result the soil and water
conservation needs also vary. The Mis-
souri Soil and Water Districts Commission
(SWDC) is charged with addressing the
soil and water conservation needs of the
state. Specifically, the mission of the
SWDC, with staff provided by the Soil and
Water Conservation Program (SWCP) of
the Department of Natural Resources, is to
formulate policies and general programs
for saving soil and water through
Missouri's soil and water conservation
districts (SWCDs). The prime goal is to
effect, by the year 2000, the reduction of
erosion on cropland, pasture, forestland,
and rangeland in the state to "T," i.e., the
amount of soil loss that may be tolerated
and still maintain a high level of produc-
tivity over a long period of time. The
citizens of Missouri expressed their
commitment to the goal by approving a
parks and soil sales tax of one-tenth of a
percentage. This tax makes several land
assistance programs possible including the
Special Area Land Treatment (SALT)
Program.
SALT: Land Treatment Is
the Goal
The SALT program can be defined as
a locally managed program that targets
watersheds for land treatment.- Land
treatment is the goal of the program. The
primary goal is soil erosion control. Every
project in the state has the goal that 75
percent to 80 percent of the agricultural land
in the watershed identified as having a soil
erosion problem receives conservation
treatment by the end of the project. The life
span of these projects ranges from 5 to 8
years.
In addition to the primary goal of soil
erosion control, each project has its own set
of goals as part of a total resource manage-
ment plan. Improved water quality is a goal
for several projects. These projects focus on
reducing the threat of agricultural nonpoint
source pollution to the state's pristine
streams and lakes. The source of these
threats may be sedimentation, nutrients,
pesticides, or animal waste. For several
projects, the watershed drains into a
recreational or water-supply lake; therefore,
improved water quality is a natural goal. In
addition to improved water quality, other
local goals include improvement hi other
land resources such as timberland or
pastureland, unproved wildlife habitat, or
promoting sustainable agriculture practices
in the project area.
SALT: Targets Watersheds
SALT seeks to achieve the goal of
land treatment by targeting small manage-
able areas and those areas are watersheds.
The program makes use of the targeting
mechanism to focus on well-defined land
resource problems. As stated earlier,
Missouri is a very diverse state. There are
different resource needs throughout the
state. SALT focuses on small, manageable
areas to provide specific solutions to
467
-------
468
Watershed '93
specific problems. With a mission of soil
and water conservation, a watershed
provides the SALT program a natural
focusing mechanism. By focusing on
watersheds, the SALT program brings
together the people that affect and are
affected by the watershed.
SALT: Locally Managed
Finally, SALT is a program that is
locally managed. The administering soil
and water conservation district board of
supervisors is responsible for planning and
organizing the activities of the project.
The board is assisted by a project commit-
tee. The project committee is composed of
at least four land representatives from the
project area. Others can serve on the
project committees. City managers,
industry, and private organization repre-
sentatives are examples of different
individuals who have served on SALT
project committees.
Program Effectiveness
The SALT program began in 1986
with four projects. Today there are over
100 SALT and EARTH projects operating
across the state (Figure 1). EARTH
projects began in 1990 and were added to
the SALT program to address the needs of
larger watersheds. The goal and adminis-
tration of the EARTH projects are much
the same as those of the SALT projects
with the main difference being EARTH
projects are allowed additional resources
to address the needs of the larger water-
sheds. SALT project watershed areas vary
from 1,000 acres to 30,000 acres, whereas
EARTH project watershed areas range
from 10,000 acres to 60,000 acres. Over
one million acres have been enrolled in the
SALT program to date, and the program is
efficiently and effectively addressing the
land resource needs.
The SALT program has gained re-
cognition for its efforts, recently receiving
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Special Area Land
Treatment Program
SALT Projects
EARTH Projects
Figure 1. SALT and EARTH projects funded as of July 1,1992.
-------
Conference Proceedings
469
(EPA) Region VII Regional Administra-
tor's pollution prevention award and a
certificate of environmental achievement
from the national environmental awards
council. Considerable attention has also
been received from local, state, and national
media.
The Key to Building Public
Support
Perhaps the greatest success of the
SALT program is in its ability to generate
public support for watershed management.
There are three key reasons why the SALT
program enjoys such high public support
(Figure 2). First local people initiate the
project. A SALT project comes into being
through local initiatives. Without local
initiatives, there can be no project. With
local initiative, local people have owner-
ship of the project. Local SWCDs submit
SALT project applications to the state and
the applications are reviewed and ap-
proved through a competitive process.
The local SWCD has to take the initiative
to target a watershed area, inventory the
resources and needs of the watershed area,
and propose specific solutions. Also, indi-
vidual landowners in the area are made
aware of the proposed project and the
project receives state approval only when a
majority of the landowners indicate they
want the project in their area and have
agreed to participate.
Second, local people determine the
problems. As discussed earlier, the
primary goal of the project is the control of
soil erosion. However, due to the diverse
nature of the resources across the state, all
projects have a variety of resource prob-
lems to address. The local SWCD's
watershed landowners and community
leaders work together to determine the
problems that they face in their particular
area. In this process, these people become
intimately aware of the problems and have
a personal stake in seeing these problems
addressed.
Finally, local people determine the
solutions. Once the problems facing the
area are known, solutions to address the
problems must be decided upon. The local
people managing the project are afforded a
great degree of flexibility in planning and
implementing solutions to the problems
identified. Several different resources are
available including cost-share to landown-
ers for installing conservation practices
and loan-interest share to reimburse land-
owners for a portion of the interest on
loans for conservation equipment or prac-
tices. In addition, the state provides an
annual grant to the administering SWCD
to support the project. This grant may be
used for items such as personnel to provide
the project technical assistance, for the
purchase of field, office, or technical
equipment, or for information/education
programs. Examples of such information/
education programs include field days,
tours, and demonstrations of innovative
conservation practices for project partici-
pants. Allowing the local people to decide
how to address the problems they have
identified generates a much greater sense
of local responsibility for the success of
the project.
Individual Projects
Each of the over 100 projects across
the state is unique. In what follows,
several projects are presented which
especially represent the total resource
management planning being done by the
local people administering the project.
Knox SWCD: Troublesome Creek
EARTH Project
The Troublesome Creek EARTH
Project is located hi a 23,000-acre water-
shed in northeast Missouri and serves as an
>^^^^s^^^^^^^^-^?^^^^^^^^^^^•^^^^^
Keys to Building Public Support
Local People initiate the project
Local people determine the problems
Local people determine the solutions
iJ»^*^^^*^^^s^^^^^^
-------
470
Watershed '93
example of a project that has identified
multiple goals. Control of sheet, rill, and
gully erosion is a primary concern. In
addition, the district wants to improve the
productivity of the woodlands,
pastureland, and wildlife habitat. To
improve the productivity of the area
woodlands, the project is working with a
local woodland support group that includes
the area timber industry and U.S. Forest
Service. Together, they have developed a
woodland demonstration project that
shows the profitability of preserving the
woodlands by releasing existing silver
maple trees from surrounding tree compe-
tition. The project has sponsored several
tours of the demonstration area. Also, the
EARTH project is working with the state's
conservation department to increase the
use of native warm season grass for
wildlife habitat and are assisting landown-
ers in establishing woodland edges that are
productive for wildlife.
MontgomerySWCD SALT Projects
The Montgomery SWCD has devel-
oped an extensive information/education
program for its SALT and EARTH projects.
One specific example of a successful
information/education project is a field day
that was held in the Little Coon Creek
SALT project. The field day began with a
University of Missouri forage specialist
discussing pasture management with area
landowners. Afterwards, participants
boarded tractor-drawn wagons and viewed
the actual management practices in the field.
This field day brought together in a unique
way the people that managed the pasture
resources in that area with an expert in
pasture resource management The field day
was advertised through paper and radio and
resulted in over 100 landowners attending.
This SALT project field day, therefore, had
an effect on the management of the pasture
resources well beyond the boundaries of the
SALT area.
Warren SWCD: Peruque Creek
EARTH Project
The Peruque Creek EARTH Project is
in a 11,300-acre watershed located in east-
em Warren county with nearly 75 agricul-
tural landowners. The outlet of the water-
shed flows directly into Lake St. Louis,
which is a highly developed recreational
lake. A major objective of this project is to
reduce the amount of sediment being deliv-
ered to the lake from the watershed.
As a result of the Peruque Creek
EARTH project, a unique partnership has
been formed between the farmers in the
watershed and the members of the lake
association. Several joint meetings have
been held by the project for the interested
parties to discuss the problem and solutions
for the problem, and to plan and prioritize
those solutions.
Wright SWCD: Woodsfork SALT
Project
The Woodsfork SALT project is a
6,200-acre watershed located in the south-
central Ozark region of Missouri. The pri-
mary objective of the project was the im-
provement of pastureland in the watershed.
However, the SWCD was also concerned
about poor management of the animal waste
from dairy operations in the watershed. Al-
though the SALT program does not directly
fund animal waste systems, the Wright
SWCD used the project to organize a pack-
age of funding to support a five year project
to treat animal waste problems. Several dif-
ferent agencies provided funds so that la-
goons and containment systems could be
built and pump-down and irrigation equip-
ment could be purchased. The Woodfork
SALT project was completed in December
1992, with 83 percent of the project area re-
ceiving treatment and 12 animal waste man-
agement systems installed.
Monroe SWCD: Otter Creek EARTH
Project
The Otter Creek EARTH Project is lo-
cated in a 67,000-acre watershed that spans
three different counties. The watershed is a
sub-watershed for Mark Twain Lake, a rec-
reational and water supply lake. The pri-
mary goal for the project is the prevention of
soil erosion with a secondary goal of im-
proved water quality for Mark Twain Lake.
The project has just begun a partner-
ship with the University of Missouri (UMC).
Researchers at UMC applied and received an
EPA section 319 grant to work with land-
owners in the Otter Creek watershed on a
nonpoint source water pollution demonstra-
tion and education program. The expected
results include a reduction in the use of
pesticides (particularly atrazine) and
fertilizers with an overall promotion of
sustainable agriculture.
-------
Conference Proceedings
Summary
SALT is a unique program that has
taken a novel approach to watershed
management. The SALT program utilizes
an extremely "bottom-up" approach, letting
the local people in the watershed initiate the
project, determine the problems, and
implement the solutions.
State management of the SALT
program through the Missouri Soil and
Water Conservation Program basically
occurs in three ways. First, the state is
responsible for initially reviewing and
approving project applications. Second,
the state provides the project the financial
resources for accomplishing the goals
relating to soil and water conservation.
The SWCD, however, is responsible for
acquiring the necessary funding for any
other goals. Third, the state closely
monitors the progress of each project.
When a project is identified as experienc-
ing a lack of progress or "struggling," it is
given extra attention from state staff to
assist the local managers in identifying
why the project is struggling and how to
correct the situation. In some cases,
projects have been canceled due to lack of
progress. Overall, the success rate of
individual projects has been very high. To
date, nearly 95 percent of all projects
initiated are successfully meeting their land
treatment objectives. Local interest
remains high throughout the life span of
the projects because all the members of the
group—the participants in the watershed
area—encourage and motivate each other.
There have been obstacles along the
way. Projects have suffered when they
were initiated in a "top-down" manner
rather than the "bottom-up" manner. This
may occur, for example, when an overly
enthusiastic government official "sells" the
local people on starting a project. This
takes away the local initiative and the local
ownership. Other obstacles occur when
the local people initiate the project for the
wrong motives. Some projects are initi-
ated simply for the financial grant. In
these cases, the goal is not land treatment;
instead, the goal is to obtain funds and thus
the means become the goal.
Finally, people in SALT project wa-
tersheds realize that the natural resources
in their watershed need to be protected.
Although there are often many challenges
involved in solving a resource manage-
ment problem in a watershed, the SALT
program has helped bring together the
tools to meet that challenge—people, tech-
nical expertise, and funds. On the basis of
its current success, it is highly likely that
the SALT "concept" will continue to be
used in the future to address watershed
management issues.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Clean Water Strategy
Arleen O'Donnell, Assistant Commissioner
Bureau of Resource Protection
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA
Goal
The purpose of the Clean Water Stra-
tegy is to provide a conceptual
framework for the Department of
Environmental Protection's (DEP) water
resources programs, centered in the Bureau
of Resource Protection (BRP). The overall
goal of the Strategy is to protect the envi-
ronmental integrity of the Commonwealth
of Massachusetts' water resources by
putting the necessary tools in place to set
resource-based priorities, integrate programs
geographically, and improve the effective-
ness and efficiency of programs that cross
division lines. There are three major
elements of the Clean Water Strategy—river
basins, geographic information systems
(GIS), and improved program coordination.
River basins are the basic planning
unit for focusing and integrating water
resource protection programs. To the
maximum extent practical, BRP's monitor-
ing, permitting, compliance, enforcement,
and public outreach programs will be
coordinated within river basins, which will
be examined in depth every 5 years, in
accordance with the renewal schedule of
major withdrawal and discharge permits. In
this way, water quality and water quantity
issues can be simultaneously evaluated,
cumulative impacts can be better addressed,
a more informed public can participate in
the information gathering and decision-
making process, and program efficiencies
and effectiveness can be realized by
planning in advance the convergence of
several related activities. Pilot projects in
the Stony Brook sub-basin of the Merrimack
River and the Housatonic River Basin have
been undertaken, which DEP will build
upon hi fiscal year (FY) 1994 and beyond.
GIS is the most critical management
information system for establishing water
resource protection priorities. GIS will be
used to identify the most sensitive water-
sheds in the Commonwealth by overlaying
water resource attributes of statewide
significance. The co-occurrence of such
characteristics will identify critical areas for
extra protection efforts, such as stricter
regulatory controls via designation of
Outstanding Resource Waters or Areas of
Critical Environmental Concern, or prime
sites for state land acquisition. By evaluat-
ing the relationship between critical areas
information in GIS and DEP's regulated
facility data base, the Facility Master File
(FMF), DEP can further target permitting,
compliance, enforcement, and technical
assistance efforts to those facilities and
activities that threaten critical resource
areas. The GIS/FMF interface, which will
integrate these two systems, is currently
under development. In addition to FMF,
resource threats will be assessed using water
quality data bases, the 305(b) report of
statewide water quality, nonpoint source
assessments (and information in the state's
Nonpoint Source Management Plan),
hazardous waste site locations (using sites
data base), and other information systems.
Thus, for each river basin and statewide,
DEP can set priorities with regard to critical
resource areas and those activities that pose
the greatest threats and can target its
programs accordingly.
In the third element of the Strategy,
improved program coordination, the theme
of "less process, more protection" plays
out. This aspect of the Strategy borrows
from the concept of Total Quality Manage-
ment, which calls for continuously improv-
ing ways to effectively and efficiently
deliver services. Regulatory agencies need
to be sensitive to issues of procedural
delay while striving to accomplish the
highest level of environmental protection
473
-------
474
Watershed '93
possible. By operating programs effi-
ciently, agencies can build credit and
support for taking tough positions on
resource protection. Improved program
coordination is key to the adage "Don't
give away in process what you can take
away in substance." The Bureau of
Resource Protection has embarked on a
series of cross-program coordination
projects, including transfer of the water
quality certification program from the
Division of Water Pollution Control to the
Division of Wetlands & Waterways to
consolidate two closely related and
sometimes duplicative programs. In this
process, certain minor activities, which
should be adequately regulated under state
wetlands law, are exempted from the
federally-derived water quality certifica-
tion program (section 401 of the Clean
Water Act); other activities that may cause
significant impacts are screened for
compliance with the state wetlands
program; and other activities, such as
filling of Outstanding Resource Water
wetlands, are prohibited under the author-
ity of section 401. Thus, processing delays
are eliminated for all projects, most (85
percent) of the projects get little or no
section 401 review, but those projects
occurring in critical areas (about 15 percent
of the total) are much more strictly regu-
lated. Similar coordination efforts are
underway for the management of storm
water and water supply residuals. Dredging
activities will be examined in the future.
Any resource protection strategy must
recognize two categories for priority setting:
areas where critical resources exist and must
be protected and areas where resources have
been degraded and need to be restored. Spe-
cific goals must be set for both preventative
and remediation activities.
Pollution Prevention Coals
Pollution prevention as implemented
under this Strategy will encompass protec-
tion of ecosystems for their full range of
' values, including flood prevention, wildlife
habitat, and recreation as well as water
quality protection and enhancement.
Specific goals include:
• Water resources should be protected
to ensure that the state's existing and
potential public drinking water
supplies do not present adverse
health risks and are preserved for
future generations.
• Water resources should be protected
to ensure the integrity of aquatic
ecosystems.
• Water resources should be protected
to ensure that ground waters that are
closely hydrologically connected to
surface waters do not interfere with
the attainment of surface water
quality standards, which are neces-
sary to protect the integrity of
associated ecosystems.
• Water resources should be managed
with watersheds as the basic hydro-
logic planning unit: water resources
need to be assessed basin-wide, and
regulatory actions need to be
coordinated on a watershed basis
(taking into account critical resource
protection and restoration needs).
• Water resources protection can and
should be achieved through a variety
of means, including pollution
prevention, source controls, siting
controls, land use controls, best
management practices, and land
acquisition/restriction.
Remediation
Remediation activities must:
1. Minimize significant risk to human
health.
2. Restore currently used and reason-
ably expected sources of drinking
water.
3. Maintain the integrity of ecological
systems. Ground water hydrologi-
cally connected to surface water re-
source areas should be cleaned up to
meet surface water quality stan-dards
for protection of aquatic life.
Given the costs and technical
limitations associated with water resource
remediation, DEP must take a realistic
approach to restoration based on actual and
reasonably expected uses of the resource.
To this end, this Strategy calls for a three-
tiered classification system for cleanup of
ground-water resources: Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) standards for existing
and potential drinking water supplies;
surface water quality standards under the
Clean Water Act (sometimes stricter than
SDWA standards), in accordance with
anti-degradation policy, for aquatic
habitats; and less than SDWA/CWA
standards for areas that do not involve
releases into the above two categories. In
doing so, we should strive for compatibil-
-------
Conference Proceedings
475
ity between ground-water and surface
water standards.
statewide. Progress can be measured in
terms of improved water quality.
Purpose
The Strategy will be used for six
major purposes—protection, restoration,
pollution prevention, permitting and
planning, public education and outreach,
and compliance and enforcement.
Protection
Critical water resource areas will be
used to set priorities and target resources.
The objectives are to:
• Develop a consolidated federal
grants program to focus federal
programs on the most important
water resource problems.
• Target state grants (federal pass-
through and State Revolving Fund)
to address most critical water
resources problems.
• Target land acquisition/restriction
activities to priority resource areas.
• Direct further regulatory controls to
most critical areas while decreasing
process generally; for example,
target extra protection efforts to most
critical areas while reducing process
elsewhere.
Permitting and Planning
Objectives are to:
• Develop watershed-based permitting
to integrate surface water discharge
permit renewals (e.g., National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System [NPDES]), water withdraw-
als under the Water Management
Act, and water resources assessment/
monitoring.
« Evaluate potential of developing
watershed-based nonpoint source
program implementation (including
storm water permitting and control).
• Identify critical water resource
areas to ensure consistency of
statewide transportation and
economic development plans with
protection of statewide critical
resource areas and to develop state
critical areas plans.
• Assist project proponents in identify-
ing environmental constraints of
facility siting and, generally,
permitting requirements of site
development through the Massachu-
setts Environmental Policy Act
(MEPA) and regional customer
service centers.
Restoration
Objectives are to:
* Identify most important resources for
DEP oversight of waste site cleanup.
• Determine level of cleanup to protect
water resources.
• Develop water resources restoration
plans to address critical resource area
enhancement where natural resource
damages or other funds are available
for restoration activities.
Pollution Prevention
Target such activities as pretreatment
compliance and Facility-wide Inspections to
Reduce the Source of Toxics (FIRST)
inspections and Toxics Use Reduction
efforts to priority water resource areas.
Pollution threats to specific river and stream
segments are identified in the 305(b) report.
By identifying those facilities that discharge
the offending constituents, we can better
target efforts to meet water quality standards
Public Education and Outreach
Objectives are to:
• Identify roles of outside groups and
target educational efforts (e.g.,
mailings, workshops, conference
presentations) to state and regional
nonprofits and key professional
associations (e.g., attorneys, finan-
cial community, engineers, munici-
pal officials, enforcement officials,
etc.) in those areas where DEP will
rely on these outside groups the most
to help implement the Strategy. In
particular, seek out the assistance of
groups such as the Soil Conservation
Service, Massachusetts Coalition of
Watershed Associations, and
Massachusetts Waterwatch Partner-
ship to assist DEP in conducting
basin assessments.
• Use media opportunities: press
releases, develop relationships with
key reporters, publicize key
accomplishments of the Strategy.
-------
476
Watershed '93
• Provide technical assistance at the
local municipal level.
Compliance and Enforcement
Target compliance and enforcement
activities in areas where pollution threats
overlap critical resources that need to be
protected or restored, and coordinate
compliance and enforcement activities with
basin assessment and permitting.
Watershed-Based Permitting
Currently, DEP issues permits for
water withdrawals, as required by Massa-
chusetts General Law Chapter 21 (Water
Management Act [WMA]), for four river
basins each year, and permits are renewed
every 5 years. The safe yield of each basin
dictates the quantity of water available to be
permitted. Reasonable instream flow is
supposed to take into account ecological
needs of the river basin (e.g., fisheries,
wetlands) and water quality needs for such
purposes as waste assimilation.
Permits for new and renewed direct
surface water discharges (NPDES) are
issued jointly by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) and DEP. Permits
come up for renewal every 5 years. The
amount of waste allowed to be discharged is
based, in part, on the flows of the receiving
water. Typically, NPDES permits acted
upon each year are scattered throughout the
Commonwealth; they are not issued on a
watershed-by-watershed basis. As NPDES
permits come up for renewal, they must
meet the stricter 1990 Water Quality
Standards. Unless site-specific criteria can
be developed and met, existing discharges
must comply with toxics limits established
in the EPA "Gold Book." DEP staff have
developed protocols for site-specific limits
and have conducted some in-stream toxicity
testing at discharge sites currently pending
renewal decisions. Site-specific criteria and
total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) need
to be developed for entire river basins, and
need to take into account point and nonpoint
pollution sources.
Integrating Water Quality Surveys
By coordinating DEP's water quality
assessment with DEP's water quantity
analysis, essential pieces of river basin
planning will be merged, which will provide
more meaningful data upon which reason-
able streamflow, safe yield, and water
withdrawal limits can be based.
Issuing Watershed-Based NPDES
and WMA Permits Simultaneously
A logical extension of coordinating
water quality and water quantity data is
coordinating water withdrawal permits with
surface water discharge permits. The
amount of water available for withdrawal
from a river basin is limited, in part, by the
volume necessary to assimilate discharged
water. Similarly, water quality limitations
for discharges must be based, in part, on the
volume of the receiving water available for
waste assimilation. To address issues of
withdrawal and discharge limits simulta-
neously, all Water Management Act and
NPDES permits should be issued in a given
river basin at the same time. Such coordi-
nated basin reporting and permitting would
also facilitate the establishment of site-
specific criteria on a river basin basis, rather
than strictly on a site-by-site basis. Water-
shed-based criteria should save DEP staff
time as well as result in more fully informed
decisions.
Developing a Comprehensive Water
Quality Data Base
The third, and longer-term, compo-
nent of this effort is development of a
comprehensive water quality data base and
a compliance assessment data base. In
order to provide the most comprehensive
water quality assessments, and to facilitate
trends analyses, it would be beneficial to
access water quality data bases developed
by all major state and federal agencies that
conduct water quality monitoring. Issues
of QA/QC, compatibility of data bases,
and entry/storage/access of data need to be
carefully examined. By combining
monitoring data from all government
sources, agencies can more specifically
target their programs so that they augment
rather than duplicate one another's efforts.
In addition, private entities (NPDES
permit holders) may be required to conduct
upstream- and downstream-of-discharge
monitoring, and volunteer groups can be
directed to monitor needed sites and
parameters to fill specific holes in the data
base. This comprehensive data base can
then be fed into withdrawal and discharge
permit decisions.
-------
Conference Proceedings
477
Developing an Automated
Compliance Assessment Program
Finally, compliance problems can be
more effectively targeted by computerizing
discharge monitoring reports that are
periodically submitted to PEP for all
surface and ground-water discharges.
Currently, review of the monitoring reports
involves time-consuming paperwork,
which staff do not always find time to do.
Electronic entry and analysis of the data is
needed to automatically "flag" permit limit
violations. At the end of the year, a report
would be published, based on the analysis,
showing those permittees that are in
compliance with their permit limits nearly
all of the time, most of the time, or only
some of the time. Regulated facilities can
by ranked as to their compliance record,
and a "Good, Bad, and Ugly" report can
help reward well-operated facilities as well
as publicize records of poorly-operated
ones. It is hoped that by publicizing
facilities with poor compliance records,
DEP can more effectively target enforce-
ment actions and public pressure will help
achieve compliance.
Setting Water Resources
Priorities Using GIS
Priorities will be established in
accordance with the multiple-use overlay
concept, similar to the one developed by Ian
McCarg. First^ water resources-related
attributes of statewide significance (Table 1)
will be mapped on GIS and highest priority
watersheds (the basic planning unit used in
this Strategy) will be flagged by the greatest
number and extent of attributes that are
found to occur. A ranking system will be
developed if needed.
Statewide implementation of the
multiple-use concept in resource protection
will be greatly enhanced by the completion
of a statewide GIS program. This informa-
tion system will allow better assessment of
the relative importance of the various water
resources across the Commonwealth. A
high priority goal of DEP is to work with
the Massachusetts Executive Office of
Environmental Affairs (EOEA) to prepare a
GIS plan for completing critical resource
area data layers in the statewide GIS
inventory (see Table 2 for list of attributes
already mapped or in progress). The next
step is to overlay pollution threats to those
resources, some of which are mapped on
GIS; others can be accessed from the FMF,
which contains all DEP-permitted facilities
currently under development at DEP, to
GIS. The FMF-GIS interface is one of
DEP's Management Information System
priorities for FY93.
In addition to knowing where the
greatest water resource attributes and
pollution threats occur among the water-
sheds in Massachusetts, a certain amount of
judgment is needed to match the priority
resource areas with the tools that are most
appropriate for protecting them. This
evaluation includes such factors as: sensi-
tivity of the resource; major pollution
threats; use(s) of the resource; existing water
quality and water quantity goals; the
feasibility of protecting or restoring the
resource; and political support for taking
action. These elements are shown in the
"Water Resources Impact Analysis" table,
which outlines the issues to be considered in
the decision-making process when it is time
to match priority resource areas with
appropriate protection/restoration tools.
While a general GIS mapping can be
developed statewide, more specific informa-
tion can be added to GIS when resource
assessments are conducted according to the
basin permitting schedule.
Cross-Program Coordination
A number of programs which involve
activities regulated by more than one
Division in the Department have been
identified for improved coordination.
Cross-program coordination involves an
analysis of existing legal structures and
requirements, existing staff resources, major
problems that need to be addressed, and
maximum efficiencies that can be attained
while meeting protection goals. Opportuni-
ties are examined for leveraging more
responsibility to the private sector or other
responsible parties for meeting state
regulatory standards while using limited
DEP resources for the most important cases
and for tracking program success. These
coordination activities occur both within the
Bureau of Resource Protection, between
Bureaus within DEP, and between state
agencies. To date, the following program
coordination issues have been identified and
are being worked on:
• Water Quality Certification Activi-
ties for wetlands and the State
Wetlands Act and regulations.
-------
478
Watershed'93
Table 1. Water use evaluation matrix (multiple use categories for prioritizing
geographic areas)
Ground-Water Supply
I. Public water supply wells
- Tans II designations
II. Sole source aquifers
IH. Potential sources
- as defined by DEP medium- and high-yield aquifers
Surface Water Supply
I. Water Supply
A. Public reservoirs
B. Rivers (direct withdrawal, induced infiltration)
II. Special Designations for Resource Protection
- ACEC (Areas of Critical Environmental Concern)
- Outstanding Resource Water (MA Surface Water Quality Standards)
- National Wild & Scenic Rivers
- Massachusetts Scenic Rivers and Designated Scenic Landscapes
- Prime agricultural land (designated by Mass. Dept. of Food &
Agriculture)
- Natural valley flood storage area (designated by US Army Corps of
Engineers)
- Rare habitat
III. Fishing/Shellfishing (designated by Department of Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Environmental Law Enforcement-Division of Marine Fisheries)
- Productive, open shellfish areas
- Productive, closed shellfish areas
- Prime commercial fisheries
- Prime recreational fisheries
- Significant nurseries (salt marshes, estuaries)
- Eel grass beds
IV. Recreation
- National and state parks/beaches/forests
Prime noncontact areas (e.g., canoeing, Whitewater kayaking) (designated
byEOEA)
- High-visitation private, nonprofit conservation/recreation areas
V. Waterfront Areas
- Commonwealth Udelands
- State/federal waterfront parks
- Designated Port Areas
VI. Industrial/Energy
- Prime rivers for hydropower
- Intensive industrial/agricultural use
- Massachusetts historical and/or archaeological designation
Certification Program,
Water Pollution Control
regulations, water quality
standards, and federal
Clean Water Act general
permits.
Management of water
supply and wastewater
treatment residuals under
water supply, water
pollution control, and
solid waste regulations.
Dredge disposal and
dredging activity regula-
tion under waterways,
water pollution control,
wetlands, solid waste, and
hazardous waste programs.
Cross-agency issues
include regulation of
forestry operations and
dam safety controls.
Hydrogeological reviews for
ground-water discharge permits,
solid waste siting, and new source
approvals consolidated in one unit.
Streamlining and coordinating storm
water regulatory pr ograms under
the Wetlands Act, Water Quality
Process and
Schedule
The process for accomplish-
ing the above goals is as
follows:
• Establish a Clean Water
Strategy Work Group to
facilitate retreat on
implementing the strategy
and provide follow-up
input as needed (1993).
• Recommend organiza-
tional relationships within
the Bureau of Resource
Protection to carry out the
Strategy (1993). By
reorganizing (in FY90) the
Department into four
Bureaus—waste preven-
tion, resource protection,
waste site cleanup, and
Municipal Facilities—
DEP already has a basic
organizational structure
in place to implement the
Strategy.
• Conduct four basin
assessments/basin-wide permit-
ting efforts each year (Water
Management Act, NPDES, water
resources monitoring, and GIS-
based resource assessment) and
update data base and applicable
permits at 5-year intervals; pilot
-------
Conference Proceedings
479
additional program
likely to fit the basin
approach and
evaluate for full
evaluation (1993+).
Propose consoli- .
dated federal grant
work plan based on
the Clean Water
Strategy (FY94).
Identify and map on
GIS water resource
attributes of state-
wide significance,
including inland and
coastal wetlands of
the Commonwealth
on a scale of
1:5,000, and
investigate feasibil-
ity of mapping other
resource areas on the
same scale and, if
not, of ensuring that
scales are compat-
ible (1995).
Identify and map on
GIS, using in part
the GIS/FMF
interface, major
sources of water
pollution, existing
water quality, and
water quality
classifications
(1995).
Implement a specific
action plan for the
Clean Water Strat-
egy by assessing
existing water re-
sources protection
programs to identify
gaps that need to be
filled through the Comprehensive
Statewide Water Resources Protec-
tion Plan (1995).
Fill the gaps by improving upon the
elements laid out in this Strategy,
seizing opportunities to streamline
and better coordinate existing pro-
grams for more effective use of lim-
ited resources first, and only propos-
ing new programs/regulations as a
last resort and then in a way that
complements existing programs
(1995+).
Plan integration with Bureau of
Waste Prevention (FY94).
Table 2. Summary of GIS datalayers
CURRENT MASSGIS DATALAYERS
DEP DATALAYERS STATUS
Topographic Quadrangle Template (1:25,000)
Massachusetts State Plane Grid and Points
Community Boundaries
Community Boundaries without Coast
1:25,000 Coastline
Major Roads
Road Quadrangles
Land Use
Major Drainage Basins
Drainage Subbasins
Hydrography
Aquifers
Public Water Supplies"
DEP Approved Zone IIs"
EPA Designated Sole Source Aquifers
Surficial Geology
Protected Open Space
Areas of Critical Environmental Concern
(ACECs)
Census TIGER Data
Hypsography
1:250,000 Contours
Permitted Landfills and TSDsa
MassGIS Datalayer Development -
Layers Requested by DEP Staff
1:25,000 Streams
1:25,000 Landuse
Soils
Cultural Resources
Pesticide Application Areas
FEMA Floodplains
Continuous Streams w/Flow Direction
Coded Stream Segments
In Progress Now
Community/NC Water Supplies"
WS Watersheds"
Stream Classification
WMA Datalayers
Discharge to Ground Permits"
WS Wells Over 100K GPDa
Dependent upon Orthophotos
1:5000 Streams
1:5000 Wetlands
1:5000 Digital Terrain Models
1:5000 Landuse
1:5000 Roads
Logical Next BRP Layers
Wetlands Permits
Chapter 91 Permits
Historic Shorelines
WS, WPC Treatment Plant Locations"
Sampling Locations
NPDES Locations"
UST Datalayer
DEP Outside BRP
Waste Site Locations3
TURA Locations"
RCRA Sites"
Applications
Water Quality Testing System (WQTS)"
FMF/GIS Integration project"
Compliance/Enforcement Application"
MSCA Automated Search Function"
"FMF/GIS Linked Development.
Implement Waste Prevention Integra-
tion Pilot (FY95).
Once DEP's strategy is established,
begin discussions with the Water
Resources Commission to facilitate a
similar effort among EOEA agencies
(1993-1994).
Outreach to environmentalists, local
officials, and regulated community
(ongoing).
Identify measures of success (1993-
1994), develop tracking system for de-
termining performance (1993-1994),
and modify strategy as appropriate to
achieve success (every 2 years).
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
A Statewide Approach to Watershed
Management: North Carolina's
Basin wide Water Quality
Management Program
Alan Clark, Basinwide Program Coordinator
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section
Raleigh, NC
The North Carolina Division of Envi
ronmental Management (DEM) has
initiated a new statewide water quality
management approach called basinwide
management. Basinwide management is not
a new regulatory program. Rather, it is a
watershed-based management approach that
features basinwide permitting, integrating of
existing point and nonpoint source control
programs, and preparation of a basinwide
management plan report.
DEM is applying this approach to
each of the 17 major river basins in the state
as a means of better identifying water
quality problems; developing appropriate
management strategies; maintaining and
protecting water quality and aquatic habitat;
and ensuring equitable distribution of waste
assimilative capacity for dischargers. Other
important benefits of the basinwide ap-
proach include improved efficiency,
increased cost-effectiveness, better consis-
tency and equity, and improved public
awareness and involvement in management
of the state's surface waters.
A basinwide management plan
document is prepared for each basin in order
to communicate to policy makers, the
regulated community, and the general public
the state's rationale, approaches, and long-
term strategies for each basin. The plans are
circulated for public review and are pre-
sented at public meetings in each river
basin. The management plan for a given
basin is completed and approved preceding
the scheduled date for basinwide permit
renewals in that basin. The plans are then to
be evaluated, based on follow-up water
quality monitoring, and updated at 5-year
intervals thereafter.
Basinwide Goals: Balancing
Water Quality Protection and
Economic Growth
The primary goals of basinwide
management are (1) to identify and restore
full use to unpaired waters; (2) to identify
and protect highly valued resource waters;
and (3) to manage problem pollutants within
each basin through development of consis-
tent and effective long-range water quality
management strategies that both protect the
quality and intended uses of North
Carolina's surface waters and allow for
reasonable economic planning and growth.
How Did Basinwide
Management Get Started—
And Why Now?
North Carolina, like many other
states, has been faced for years with a
number of critical water quality manage-
ment issues brought on by an increase in
the number and size of wastewater treat-
ment plants, population growth, changes in
land use, protection of endangered species,
and the emergence of nonpoint source
pollution as a significant cause of water
481
-------
482
Watershed '93
quality degradation. These and other
factors, such as the need to accommodate
economic expansion, to meet Clean Water
Act reporting requirements (305(b),
303(d), and total maximum daily loads)
and to improve the efficiency of the water
quality program have been pushing North
Carolina to consider a watershed-based
management approach. However, it was
not until recently that several prerequisites
to adopting this approach could be met.
These included availability of appropriate
technology (GIS, far-field wasteload
allocation models, centralized data
management), an experienced
multidisciph'nary staff, and upper manage-
ment support. Once staff could see the
pieces begin to fall into place about 6 years
ago, development of the basinwide
approach began to progress.
The North Carolina basinwide
program stemmed from a series of staff
meetings and facilitated workshops from
1987 through 1989. Ideas generated by
these meetings were summarized in a draft
program plan that was taken to public
hearing and reviewed by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA). A
basinwide permitting schedule was imple-
mented hi 1990, and a final detailed
basinwide program document entitled North
Carolina's Basinwide Approach to Water
Quality Management: Program Description
(Creager and Baker, 1991) was published in
August 1991. This document presents the
objectives and rationale for basinwide
management; outlines the procedures, time
schedule, and format for preparation of
basinwide plans; and describes the staff
responsibilities for carrying out basinwide
management. A basinwide program
coordinator position was established in
1992. The first basinwide plan (Neuse
River) was completed hi February 1993 and
issuance of NPDES permits will begin in
April of 1993. Development of the
basinwide management program was
conceived and carried out by the Water
Quality Section of the Division of Environ-
mental Management. It was not the result of
nor has itrequked any legislative action.
Structure and Basinwide
Responsibilities Within the
NCDEM Water Quality Section
The Water Quality Section is the lead
state agency for the regulation and protec-
tion of the state's surface waters. It is one of
five sections located within the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM), an
agency of the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Re-
sources. The other sections in DEM are
Ground Water, Ah* Quality, Construction
Grants, and the Laboratory. The primary
responsibilities of the Water Quality Section
are to maintain or restore an aquatic
environment of sufficient quality to protect
the existing and best intended uses of North
Carolina's surface waters and to ensure
compliance with state and federal water
quality standards. Policy guidance is
provided by the Environmental Management
Commission. The Water Quality Section is
composed of over 200 staff members in the
central and seven regional offices (Fig-
ure 1).
The major areas of responsibility are
divided among four branches: water quality
monitoring (Environmental Sciences
Branch), permitting and enforcement
(Operations Branch), water quality planning
(Planning Branch), and wasteload alloca-
tion/TMDL modeling (Technical Support
Branch). All four branches report to the
Water Quality Section Chief, and the
activities of all four branches are integrated
into the basinwide management effort.
Basinwide management is coordinated by
the Program Coordinator located in the
Planning Branch.
Water Quality Program
Benefits of the Basinwide
Approach
Three important program benefits of
the basinwide approach include (1) im-
proved efficiency, (2) increased effective-
ness, and (3) better consistency and equity.
First, by reducing the area of the state
covered each year, monitoring, modeling,
and permitting efforts can be focused; as a
result, efficiency is increased as more can be
achieved for a given level of funding and
resource allocation. Second, the basinwide
approach is in consonance with basic
ecological principles of watershed manage-
ment, leading to more effective water
quality assessment and management.
Linkages between aquatic and terrestrial
systems are addressed (e.g., contributions
from nonpoint sources), and all inputs to
aquatic systems and potential interactive
effects are considered. Third, the basinwide
-------
Conference Proceedings
483
1
•QPERA1
UtfjQHTPR -T3I fAl^tTY RP'iftf'ilfiW''"
5 ¥Vr>* CrVAiPJ/^U* 1 T OC*WMWIv —
-":"•- ^pitefsCHjigg) x ,,T/
1
1QJl
I
FACILITY
ASSESSMENT UNIT
COMPLIANCE
GROUP
r
1
OPERATO
TRAINING
CERT. GRO
1
i
PERMITS &
ENGINEERING UNIT
1
1
R NPDES STATE
& GROUP GROUP
UP
fEC^i5@Q^R|B^pH<
INSTREAM PRETREATMENTUN1T
ASSESSMENT UNIT
1
COMPLEX RAPID
ISSUES ASSESSMENT
GROUP GROUP
SCIENCES BRANCH
ECOSYSTEMS
ANALYSIS UNIT
1
BIOLOGICAL
ASSESSMENT
GROUP
1
INTENSIVE
SURVEY
GROUP
ASHEVILLE
REGIONAL OFFICE
FAYETTEVILLE
REGIONAL OFFICE
|PIA|NIN(|^^|
1 1
AQUATIC
TOXIC. UNIT
CLASSIFICATION &
STORMWATER UNIT
PROGRAM
PLANNING
UNIT
11 1
1 1
SS1^ rJ°,XIS5XM STORMWATER
ASSES. EVALUATION GROUP r
& CERT GROUP vanuur
GROUP
L_ CLASSIHCAI IONS
&STDS GROUP
REGIONAL OFFICES
MOORESVILLE WASHINGTON
REGIONAL OFFICE REGIONAL OFFICE
RALEIGH WILMINGTON WINSTON-SALEM
REGIONAL OFFICE REGIONAL OFFICE REGIONAL OFFICE
IMPLEMENTATION
& PLANNING
GROUP
WETLANDS &
TECH. REVIEW '
BASINWIDE
MANAGEMENT
Figure 1. Organizational structure of the NCDEM Water Quality Section.
plans will provide a focus for management
decisions. By clearly defining the
program's long-term goals and approaches,
these plans will encourage more consistent
decision making. Consistency, together
with greater attention to long-range plan-
ning, in turn, will promote a more equitable
distribution of stream waste assimilative
capacity, explicitly addressing the trade-offs
among pollutant sources (point and
nonpoint) and allowances for future growth.
Features of Basinwide
Management
• Basinwide NPDES permitting. A
basinwide NPDES permitting
schedule was formalized in January
1990. All discharge permits for each
basin are now scheduled to expire
and be renewed in the same year
beginning with the Neuse River in
1993. They are then to be reviewed
and reissued at 5-year intervals
thereafter. Prior to that time, permits
were reissued randomly across the
state as they came up for renewal.
Five-Year planning cycle. The
NPDES permit renewal schedule
drives the schedule for water quality
monitoring, wasteload modeling,
total maximum daily load develop-
ment, and basin plan development.
Being able to schedule major work
activities years in advance allows
more efficient and effective use of
staff resources. In addition, each
ensuing cycle provides an opportu-
nity for evaluation of the success of
previous strategies toward meeting
established goals.
Focusing all water quality programs
and activities on one river basin at a -
-------
484
Watershed '93
time across the state. NCDEM is
applying the basinwide approach to
each of the 17 major river basins in
the state as a means of better
identifying water quality problems;
developing appropriate management
strategies; maintaining and protect-
ing water quality and aquatic habitat;
and ensuring equitable distribution
of waste assimilative capacity for
dischargers.
Sound ecological planning.
Basinwide management entails
evaluating an entire river system at a
time and not just stream fragments
and individual facilities. This
approach allows for better under-
standing and correction of water
quality problems where the problems
are far removed from the source or
where downstream impacts result
from cumulative effects of point and
nonpoint sources. Understanding
and maintaining the health and
productivity of a river's ecology is a
requirement of a successful
basinwide management program.
Integrating point and nonpoint
source pollution control programs.
Basinwide management will facili-
tate the integration of point and
nonpoint source pollution assess-
ment and controls through total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs).
The TMDL concept, which is
introduced in the Clean Water Act, is
based on the ideal of determining the
total waste (pollutant) loading, from
point and nonpoint sources, that a
waterbody can assimilate while still
maintaining its water quality
classification and standards. While
actually determining the allowable
total maximum daily load for a river
or waterbody is extremely difficult,
due, in part, to difficulties hi
accurately quantifying nonpoint
source loading, the TMDL approach,
with reservations, is still useful for
developing point source control
strategies and targeting areas for
nonpoint source management. Once
a TMDL has been established for a
basin and/or its components such as
lakes, streams, or estuaries, point and
nonpoint source control strategies
can be developed to prevent over-
loading of the receiving waters; to
allow for a reasonable margin of
safety; and to optimize assimilative
capacity.
Preparing basinwide management
plans. A basinwide management
plan is an educational and informa-
tion document, written in lay
language, that is prepared for each
basin in order to communicate to
policy makers, the regulated commu-
nity, and the general public the
state's rationale, approaches, and
long-term strategies for each basin.
The plans are circulated for public
review and are presented at public
meetings in each river basin. The
management plan for a given basin is
completed and approved preceding
the scheduled date for basinwide
permit renewals in that basin. The
plan does not include actual waste
limits for individual dischargers.
Wasteload allocations are developed
for each individual facility in
consonance with the TMDL strategy
outlined in the basin plan.
Flexibility. An underlying philoso-
phy of the basinwide approach is to
create a management framework that
can evolve over time to accommo-
date new EPA requirements or take
advantage of advancements in point
and nonpoint source controls. North
Carolina sees basinwide plans
improving from basin to basin and
from cycle to cycle.
Long-range planning. A major
intent of the basinwide approach is
to utilize the TMDL approach and
predictive modeling to show the
consequences of growth and devel-
opment activities on water quality
and to develop long-range protection
strategies. With sufficient lead time
and involvement in the planning
process, local governments, industry,
and others can plan their activities to
work in consonance with these
strategies.
Promoting increased public involve-
ment in and understanding of the
state's water quality program. As
indicated above, public involvement
and cooperation in the basinwide
planning process is extremely
important. NCDEM promotes
involvement in the early stages of
the basin planning effort in each
basin through meeting with local
leaders and interest groups. Forma-
-------
Conference Proceedings
485
tion of basin associations is encour-
aged, often through councils of
governments. In addition to partici-
pating in the planning process,
public support for water quality
protection programs, particularly
nonpoint source programs, is needed
if they are to be successful. Such
support is needed for passage of
meaningful laws and regulations and
for approval of funding to allow
legislation and water quality protec-
tion programs to be effectively
implemented. Basinwide manage-
ment attempts to accomplish this
through documenting and explaining
the causes and sources of water
quality problems in the basin plans.
Basinwide Plan Preparation,
Review, and Public
Involvement
Preparation of an individual basinwide
management plan is a 5-year process that is
broken down into 15 steps in Figure 2 and is
broadly described below.
Years 1 to 3—Water Quality Data
Collection/Identification of Goals and
Issues (steps 1 through 7). Year 1 entails
identifying sampling needs and canvassing
for information. It also entails coordinating
with other agencies, the academic commu-
nity, and local interest groups to begin
establishing goals and objectives and
identifying and prioritizing problems and
issues. Biomonitoring, fish community and
Other
Agencies
And
.Dischargers/
I1
Canvas for Information
o
J 2 Define Management Goals
^
I3
i4
I5
Identify Problems and Critical Issues
<>
Prioritize Problems and Critical Issues
^>
Define Management Units
6
Evaluate^
Data X
Needs*
No
Yes
| 9 Evaluate and Describe Management Options
I
10
Select Management Approach
Prepare Draft Basin Plan
Review/Public Hearings
Adoption of Final Plan by EMC
13
14
Implement Approved Basin Plan
* Contingent on available resources
Source: Creager and Baker, 1991.
Figure 2. Major steps and information transfers involved in the development of a basinwide management plan.
-------
486
Watershed '93
tissue analyses, special studies, and other
water quality sampling activities are
conducted in years 2 and 3 by DEM's
Environmental Sciences Branch (ESB) to
provide information for assessing water
quality status and trends throughout the
basin and to provide data for computer
modeling.
Years 3 to 4—Data Assessment and
Model Preparation (steps 7 to 9). Modeling
priorities are identified early in this phase
and are refined through assessment of water
quality data from ESB. Data from special
studies are then used by DEM's Technical
Support Branch (TSB) to prepare models for
estimating potential impacts of waste
loading from point and nonpoint sources
using the TMDL approach. Preliminary
water quality control strategies are devel-
oped as the modeling results are assessed.
Further coordination occurs with local
governments, the regulated community and
citizens' groups during this period.
Year 4—Preparation of Draff
Bas'mwide Plan (Steps 9, 10 and 11). The
draft plan, which is prepared by DEM's
Planning Branch, is due for completion by
the end of year 4. It is based on support
documents prepared by ESB (water quality
data) and TSB (modeling data and recom-
mended pollution control strategies).
Preliminary findings are presented at
informal meetings through the year with
local governments and other interested
groups, and comments are incorporated into
the draft.
Year 5—Public Review and Ap-
proval of Plan (Steps 12, 13 and 14). Dur-
ing the beginning of year 5, the draft plan,
after approval of the Environmental Man-
agement Commission (EMC), is circulated
for review, and public meetings are held.
Revisions are made to the document, based
on public comments, and the final docu-
ment is submitted to the EMC for approval
midway through year 5. Basinwide permit-
ting begins at the end of the year 5.
Each basinwide management plan
includes seven chapters: (1) An introduc-
tion describing the purpose and format of
the plan, Water Quality Section responsibili-
ties and enabling legislation; (2) a general
basin description including land use,
population trends, physiographic regions,
and classifications and standards; (3) an
overview of existing pollutant sources and
loads within a basin and a more generic
description of causes and sources of point
and nonpoint source pollution for the lay
person; (4) an assessment of the status of
water quality and biological communities in
the basin including use-support rating and
Clean Water Act section 305(b) informa-
tion; (5) a description of the TMDL ap-
proach and the state's NPDES and non-
point source control programs; (6) priority
water quality issues and recommended
control strategies, including TMDLs; and
(7) implementation, enforcement, and
monitoring plans.
Table 1. Basinwide permitting schedule for North Carolina's 17 major
river basins
Month/Year
April 1993
November 1994
January 1995
April 1995
August 1995
November 1995
January 1996
Basin
Neuse
Lumber
TarPamlico
Catawba
French Broad
New
Cape Fear
Month/Year
January 1997
June 1997
August 1997
September 1997
October 1997
December 1997
January 1998
January 1998
April 1998
July 1998
November 1998
Basin
Roanoke
White Oak
Savannah —
Watauga
Little Tennessee
Hiwassee
Chowan
Pasquotank
Neuse (2nd cycle)
Yadkin
Broad
Basinwide Plan Schedule
Table 1 presents the overall basin
schedule for all 17 major river basins in
the state. The dates represent the time at
which permit reissuance begins. The
management plan for a given basin is due
for completion prior to the scheduled
date for permit renewals in order to be
available for the permit renewal decision-
making process. The final basin plan is
due for completion 4 to 6 months prior to
that date. Draft plans are due for
completion a year in advance for public
review.
The number of plans to be devel-
oped each year varies from one to six and
is based on the total number of permits to
be issued each year. For example, the
Cape Fear basin, the state's largest, has
about as many dischargers as all six of
the small basins in 1997. This has been
done in order to balance the permit
-------
Conference Proceedings
487
processing workload from year to year. In
years where more than one basin is sched-
uled to be evaluated, an effort has been
made to group at least some of the basins
geographically in order to minimize travel
time and cost for field studies and public
meetings.
The earliest basin plans, particularly
the Neuse, may not achieve all of the long-
term objectives for basinwide management
outlined above. However, subsequent
updates of the plans, every 5 years, will
incorporate additional data and new assess-
ment tools (e.g., basinwide water quality
modeling) and management strategies (e.g.,
for reducing nonpoint source contributions)
as they become available.
Conclusions
North Carolina is still faced with
basically the same water quality challenges
that were outlined earlier in this document.
The major difference now, however, is that
the state, through implementation of
basinwide management, now has an
established plan and the tools for taking
significant steps toward addressing these
issues. The basinwide approach reduces the
seemingly endless set of water quality issues
into more manageable units defined both
geographically (by river basin) and tempo-
rally (by 5-year permit review/renewal and
basin plan update intervals). The NPDES
permit rescheduling provides structure to the
state's water quality program, enabling
program activities to be conducted in a more
effective, efficient, and consistent manner.
The geographic breakdown allows for closer
evaluation of water quality status, identifica-
tion of impaired waters, and development of
appropriate management strategies within
each basin. The 5-year update intervals
offer a convenient and realistic time frame
for measuring the progress of pollution
reduction strategies. And a mechanism has
been developed to encourage broader public
understanding and participation in water
quality protection and the development of
long-term management strategies.
References
Creager, C.S., and J.P. Baker. 1991. North
Carolina's basinwide approach to
water quality management: Program
description -*• Final report/August
1991. Report no. 91-08. North
Carolina Division of Environmental
Management.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Minnesota's Comprehensive
Watershed Management Initiative
John Pauley, Natural Resource Planner
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, St. Paul, MN
Background
In 1991, resource managers across the
State of Minnesota were queried as to
their views on aquatic resource manage-
ment in the state. In this study, managers
were asked a series of questions about
opportunities, programs that were working,
those that had outlived their usefulness,
management problems, and obstacles to
effective management.
While this investigation provided
much useful information, it was especially
noteworthy that the following themes
appeared with regularity in the interviews:
• Symptoms of water resource
management problems are treated,
rather than the sources of those
problems.
• Land and water resource manage-
ment responsibilities are fragmented,
making it impossible to manage
resources in a comprehensive and
holistic manner.
• It is time to redirect dollars and staff
to managing land and water re-
sources from a watershed rather than
a program perspective.
While these findings are noteworthy,
they are not surprising. They are obvious to
natural resource managers who see the
effects of cumulative impacts on resources.
They do so without the benefit of a holistic
framework or an array of comprehensive
management tools with which to address the
problem of cumulative impact. Other water
resource management efforts across the
country have reached parallel conclusions.
The major recommendation coming out of
this study was to develop and put into place
several prototype comprehensive watershed
management projects spread geographically
around Minnesota. That recommendation
also identified the need for each project to
be staffed by a coordinator who would be
instrumental in all phases of the project
from start-up through implementation and
monitoring and evaluation.
Several criteria were developed to
solicit project proposals. The most important
criterion was a strong nucleus of local
support and interest. A summary of the
criteria is as follows:
• Strong nucleus of local support and
interest.
• Presence of a variety of natural
resource elements.
• Strong potential for intergovernmen-
tal coordination and effective
partnerships.
• Results of prototype projects
forthcoming within a reasonable
time frame.
• Existence of potential funding
sources.
• Sufficient data to initiate the project.
• Strong agency and local leadership
available to guide project.
Out of nearly 20 project proposals
submitted, 8 were chosen (see attached
map). These eight best met the stated criteria
and were representative of the wide range of
ecosystems that occur in Minnesota. As of
this date (March 1993), four projects are on-
line, with the other four awaiting funding
for project coordinators.
Project Themes
Four themes are intertwined through-
out each of these pilot projects. The first
theme is the comprehensive nature of the
projects. Each project addresses resource
489
-------
490
Watershed '93
issues from an ecosystem perspective.
One of the keys to this approach is under-
standing the capabilities and limitations of
the natural systems in a given watershed.
The approach is flexible hi that it can be
used in settings that range from nearly
pristine—where the goal is to protect the
status quo—to highly perturbed water-
sheds, where the objective is aquatic
ecosystem rehabilitation.
Genuine and extensive citizen
participation is the second theme. The
success of comprehensive watershed
management will depend on extensive
citizen participation and ownership of the
process. The process has to be convenient
and friendly for the public to use. Existing
paradigms of inaccessible government and
the widely held feeling that individuals
cannot make a difference need to be
discredited. These efforts will only be
successful if there is strong local commit-
ment and interest.
Effective partnerships are the third
theme of this effort. All state and federal
resource agencies with land and water
resource management responsibilities, local
units of government, private organizations,
and citizens will be invited, encouraged,
goaded, or shamed into participating.
Inherent in this mix of partners will be skills
that can be applied to technical and organi-
zational matters; programs with various
diagnostic, implementation, monitoring, and
evaluation components; and general support
and funding assistance. All partners agree to
manage for common goals and objectives
developed in the planning process. This will
often require development of formal multi-
jurisdictional arrangements. Improved
efficiency and economy of government
operations will result as these cooperative
efforts progress.
The last theme has to do with the
long-term orientation of comprehensive
watershed management. A true long-term
outlook is difficult to achieve as most
people are accustomed to thinking about a
short-term perspective. It is more difficult
to achieve by also having to think in the
large spatial perspectives of a watershed.
Initially, some boundaries that restrict
thinking will have to be knocked down.
These boundaries are being overcome in
project watersheds through a series of
focused educational activities. These
activities describe and inform project
partners about the geomorphological history
of the watershed; human-induced change;
and various ecosystem metrics (e.g., land
use, demographics, water quality, plant and
animal communities). Most importantly,
these efforts inform the public about the
future of the watershed if we continue to
manage as we have in the past.
Project Approach
The approach being used to imple-
ment pilot watershed projects is simple and
straightforward with variations peculiar to
each project watershed. The general outline
is as follows.
The first step is to provide information
to project partners about the existing
condition of the natural resource systems in
the watershed, how existing conditions
compare to historical conditions, and the
capabilities and limitations of natural
systems in the watershed. The second step is
to describe what the watershed should be
like in the future using a 50-year time frame.
This involves gathering extensive public and
agency input about the desired future
condition of the watershed. The process of
defining the desired future condition allows
for the development of a collective long-
term vision of the preferred environmental,
societal, and economic conditions in the
watershed.
The third step involves development of
a comprehensive watershed management
plan—a plan that is developed and agreed
upon by all project partners. The statements
about the desired future condition of the wa-
tershed, developed previously, constitute the
basis for the plan's goals, objectives, strate-
gies, and actions. The intent is to develop
and agree to implementation of a compre-
hensive watershed management plan that
makes the desired future condition a reality.
These actions are logically followed
by the implementation of the comprehensive
watershed management plan replete with
monitoring and evaluation components
designed to assess the effectiveness of
project efforts over the long term.
Benefits
The benefits of engaging in compre-
hensive watershed management as it is
described in this paper are the following:
• Needs and action are prioritized.
• Dollars and personnel are used
efficiently.
-------
Conference Proceedings
491
There is extensive development of
partnerships among land and water
resource management agencies, local
units of government, landowners,
and special interest groups.
Everyone participates and agrees to
actions developed in a comprehen-
sive watershed management plan.
Long-term solutions to issues and
problems are developed.
Natural resource systems are
protected or improved.
Outcomes
What does all of this lead to? From
the project standpoint, it leads to a compre-
hensive watershed management plan that is
citizen owned, an organization to implement
the plan, long-term monitoring and evalua-
tion, and multijurisdictional agreements on
implementation, evaluation and future
needs. It also leaves in place a process that is
conducive to new ideas and can accommo-
date changes in ecosystem understanding
and societal values.
From an agency standpoint, the
intent is to use this initiative as a first step
in changing the way we do business as
natural resource management agencies. In
Minnesota, we are seeing an evolution
toward more intergovernmental coopera-
tion, co-location of offices, teams working
on watershed units, reorganization of
natural resource management agencies
along watershed or other natural bound-
aries, and an increased and genuine
emphasis on involving the public early
and often.
-------
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
A Problem-Solving Partnership
Dayle E. Williamson, Director of Natural Resources
Nebraska Natural Resources Commission, Lincoln, NE
The need to pursue soil and water
conservation measures on a "water
shed" or "problemshed" basis is
certainly not a new idea. When the first soil
conservation districts were organized in
Nebraska in the late 1930s, they were
organized along hydrologic boundaries.
Even then, the necessity for landowners to
work together to solve common problems
was recognized.
Unfortunately, the watershed bound-
ary idea was short-lived. As the soil
conservation district movement spread
rapidly, an easy and simple procedure called
for organization along county lines. The
entire state was blanketed with soil conser-
vation districts between 1938 and 1949.
The county boundary system worked well
for that decade of the '40s and on into the
early '50s because most of the soil and
water conservation efforts were directed at
individual farms. Then things started to
change.
Congress enacted a pilot watershed
program and followed with the National
Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention
Act (P.L. 566) in 1954. As Nebraska's soil
and water conservation district leaders
considered sponsorship for small watershed
projects, they soon recognized the necessity
of a "watershed team" approach. The
district supervisors also learned quickly that
a source of local funding would be neces-
sary to acquire easements and rights of way.
Furthermore, they were told that local
sponsors had to assume operation and
maintenance of the watershed structures
once they were built, and at times they also
might need the right of eminent domain.
The solution to that problem was
fairly simple. The course of the past was
followed—when a new problem came up,
you went to the Nebraska Legislature to
organize a special purpose district to help
solve the problem. Thus, in 1957, the
Watershed Conservancy District Act was
passed. The districts were to be established
to coincide with boundaries of proposed
watershed projects. The Legislature also
granted the new Watershed Conservancy
Districts the right of eminent domain as well
as a small taxing authority. Once again,
after the law passed in 1958, until about
1968, districts were formed rapidly to
support the rising demand for the small
watershed program in the state. Some
districts were small as the watersheds were
small. This fact presented a problem right
away.
It wasn't long until it became apparent
that once again taking the easy way out
wasn't the right way. While the Watershed
Conservancy Districts were doing the best
they could to carry out their responsibilities,
the necessity to move the watershed
program ahead at a more rapid pace was
apparent.
In 1964 conservation leaders began
discussing the future for conservation
districts in the state. As they looked around,
some called the situation "districtitis," as
there were many overlapping districts with
similar authorities. As is often the case,
though, this group found that they were not
the first to study the problem in the state. In
1939 the Legislative Council in Nebraska
had conducted a study on the "Multiplicity
of Governmental Units." The conclusion of
that study revealed that the state had "too
many small governmental units with single
functions to ever do an efficient job, or in
some cases to ever get the job done."
No one took heed of the 1939 study
when at that time there were 172 special-
purpose districts dealing with some type of a
natural resource problem. By the time
things were moving in 1964, the Nebraska
Legislature had permitted the organization
of over 500 special-purpose districts to deal
with aspects of soil and water resources.
493
-------
494
Watershed '93
Something had to be done, and a great
effort took place between 1964 and 1972,
the year when Nebraska's 24 Natural
Resources Districts became operational.
One hundred and fifty-four existing districts
were consolidated into 24. The new districts
were organized on hydrologic boundaries
and had broad powers, including taxation
authority to ensure projects could be carried
to completion. The law also limited the
formation of new special-purpose districts in
the future to avoid continuation of overlap-
ping functions.
The task was not easy. Any reorgani-
zation involving many interests can be
overwhelming at times. But after a long
hard battle, the Nebraska Unicameral
Legislature passed the reorganization
legislation on September 18,1969. The
vote was 29 for, 9 against, and 11 not
voting. The districts were to become
operational in 1972. Even after that, there
were many problems to confront before the
new districts became operational.
Steve Gaul (Gaul, 1993) adds some
historical perspective as he gives due praise
to Warren Fairchild, who was Executive
Secretary of the Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Commission at the time and the leading
proponent of the restructuring. Two
decades after the districts came into being in
Nebraska, Fairchild was asked to return to
Nebraska and accept an award that would
praise his political courage for efforts in
creating the Natural Resources Districts.
Gaul relates, "In 1968 it probably didn't feel
like courage. It may have felt more like the
insanity to brave hell on a warm day."
With the Natural Resources District
(NRD) organization, Nebraskans have been
solving resource problems on a watershed
basis for 20 years. While flood control is
still an important aspect, there is now a
greater emphasis on many environmental
issues. The districts have many responsibili-
ties, including water quality protection. The
NRD organization lends itself well to
addressing nonpoint pollution problems that
also must be solved on a watershed basis.
Take, for example, the Lower Platte
North Natural Resources District hi eastern
Nebraska, which is doing extensive work in
updating a proposal to build flood control
structures in the Wahoo Creek Watershed.
The Soil Conservation Service has devel-
oped a flood control project through the
P.L. 566 program in the 249-square-mile
project area. The proposed project has an
excellent cost-benefit ratio, but the NRD
wants to do more before deciding on a future
plan for the watershed. They recognize that,
through a careful analysis, even greater
benefits could be recognized. The district is
now working with the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) to gather water quality data.
They have made a careful evaluation of the
flood plain study in the area and are now
directing great deal of attention toward ,
nonpoint source pollution control in the
watershed area. At the request of the
district, a consulting firm has developed an
Agricultural Nonpoint Source Model to
provide a better base upon which to make
proper, prudent land treatment decisions.
Here is a district taking an extreme interest
in water quality benefits as well as flood
control benefits, and if successful their work
will mesh with the work of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, the USDA Soil
Conservation Service, USGS, and others.
An updated soil survey is also underway to
make sure a "holistic" view of the entire
watershed can be made. Through the efforts
of many, benefits can far exceed the flood
control and recreation benefits from the
watershed project.
Over the past several years, it has
become more obvious that many states are
having a great deal of difficulty working
with water- and soil-related issues at the
local government level. In fact, it probably
does not come as a surprise to learn that
nearly all states are having difficulty
working things out at their own level.
Much has been said about "water
decision gridlock." Since May 1991, the
Western Governors' Association and the
Western States Water Council have held a
series of workshops at Park City, Utah. The
workshops were called for the purpose of
exploring innovative solutions to resolve
complex water management problems. The
Park City Principles, the resultant work
product, outlines the concept that a
"problemshed" approach must be incorpo-
rated into important natural resources
decisions. Often, ideas for solutions to
problems can "bubble up" and these
localized ideas may prove to be more
reasonable and cost-effective. It is easy to
recognize that problem solving costs are
high when standardized Washington, DC,
solutions are put into effect.
States have also found themselves in a
constant reactive situation. With federal
"command and control" legislation, states
spend a great deal of time in an "offensive
posture." States must find themselves in the
-------
Conference Proceedings
495
role of providing solutions to problems long
before a national edict is presented. In order
to be on the positive side, representatives of
state government also feel strongly that
states should assume a strong "pivotal" role
in handling natural resources issues.
However, if you are to pivot, to whom do
you pivot if a strong local natural resources
agency does not exist?
At the 1992 National Water Policy
Roundtable, sponsored by the Interstate
Council on Water Policy, participants
responded to the question, "What is not
working and needs improvement?" Two of
the issues listed were:
• In water planning and management,
the fundamental unit of analysis
should be the watershed or
problemshed.
• We must advance a more system-
atic and clearly articulated concep-
tual base for decision making—one
that matches the puzzles encoun-
tered at the watershed or
problemshed level.
These are just a few of the ideas that came
out of the Water Policy Roundtable, but the
ideas leave little doubt that it is very impor-
tant to address needs in an area that encom-
passes the problem and a wide variety of
affected interests must participate in the
decision-making process.
In summary, in any self-assessment
that states may do on their own accord,
"building capacity" to handle natural
resources issues surely will be judged as a
high priority. In order to build such capac-
ity, local government must also be empow-
ered to handle a wide variety of natural
resource problems. Approaching the
problem on a watershed basis makes good
common sense.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Fifteen Years of Progress:
Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program
Jim Baumann, Nonpoint Source Policy Specialist
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI
Fifteen years ago, the Wisconsin legisla-
ture stepped ahead and created one of
the first state nonpoint source programs.
Most legislators would admit that they knew
very little about water quality problems
caused by pollutants in runoff. However,
they knew that something had to be done to
abate the water quality problems that
weren't caused by point sources.
Wisconsin prides itself on its pristine
lakes, sparkling streams, and drinkable
ground water. Water quality is an important
part of Wisconsin's quality of life and its
economy. However, reality differs from the
image the tourism promotions convey. In its
"111 Waters" series on nonpoint sources of
water pollution, the Milwaukee Journal
stated,
Once-pristine lakes now choked with
weeds and algae. Winding rivers clog-
ged with mud. Rippling trout streams
dammed into oblivion. Drinking wells
contaminated with nitrates. (Milwaukee
Journal, November 10, 1989)
The purpose of this paper is to review the 15
years of progress of the Wisconsin Nonpoint
Source Water Pollution Abatement Pro-
gram, to relay its success, and to discuss its
inadequacies.
Water Quality Problems
In Wisconsin, the Department of
Natural Resources estimates urban and rural
nonpoint sources threaten or degrade about
40 percent of the 30,000 miles of streams,
over 75 percent of the 15,000 inland lakes,
and much of the ground water. While the
extent of the water quality problems is great,
they do not describe the impaired and lost
uses. In 1968, some outdoor publications
boasted of southwest Wisconsin's small-
mouth bass fishery. Today, the smalhnouth
bass fishery is nearly gone. Fish kills caused
by manure in runoff from animal lots occur
almost every year.
Trout streams in the coulee region of
western Wisconsin have sediment covering
spawning beds, and vegetative cover on
streambanks is less than adequate. Grazing
cattle and eroding croplands are the major
cause. Sediment carried by these streams
has nearly filled many Mississippi River
backwater areas.
Throughout Wisconsin, many deep
lakes have severe algae problems. For
example, Tainter Lake in the northwestern
part of the state is pea green, and bacteria
levels restrict swimming. Lake Mendota, a
heavily used lake near Madison, no longer
supports a cold water fishery due to the loss
of dissolved oxygen in its bottom waters.
Algae in Green Bay, a part of Lake Michi-
gan, is so dense that it significantly de-
creases oxygen levels. It also causes
turbidity levels high enough to prevent
rooted aquatic vegetation from growing.
Because of extensive monitoring in
recent years, the extent of ground-water
contamination has become evident. On the
average, about 14 percent of Wisconsin's
private wells have nitrate levels exceeding
the 10 mg/1 enforcement standard. This does
not include sandy areas, such as the central
sands area, where nitrate levels of 30 mg/1
are common.
497
-------
498
Watershed '93
Wisconsin's Approach
Wisconsin's approach to urban and
rural nonpoint source control emphasizes
management on a watershed approach. The
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement Program's watershed projects are
called "Priority Watershed Projects." There
are three types. The large-scale projects
range in size from 30 to nearly 300 square
miles, averaging about 150 square miles.
Small-scale projects dealing with an
individual lake or stream range from three-
fourths of a square mile to 12 square miles.
Priority lake projects do not have a size
limit, but deal with problems in a lake or
chain of lakes. In 1978, the program started
with five large-scale projects.
Key aspects of Wisconsin's program
are as follows:
• State-level administration and over-
sight. The Department of Natural
Resources, the state water quality
agency, administers the nonpoint
source program with involvement of
the Department of Agriculture, Trade
and Consumer Protection. The De-
partment of Natural Resources de-
velops and approves priority water-
shed plans, provides grants for cost
sharing and local staff support, and
monitors water quality. The Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Trade and Con-
sumer Protection participates in pri-
ority watershed planning, assists
counties, and takes a lead role in ag-
riculture best management practice
development.
• Local implementation and technical
assistance. Counties, through their
land conservation departments;
cities; villages; and lake districts
participate in priority watershed
planning, and are responsible for
project implementation, especially
technical assistance. Counties must
approve priority watershed plans that
guide implementation. The program
fully supports local staffing.
• Water quality-based projects. Each
priority watershed project is tailored
to meet the specific problems in the
watersheds, lakes, streams, and
ground water.
• Critical sites identified. Using a
variety of urban and rural nonpoint
source models, critical sites are
identified in each priority water-
shed.
Voluntary participation. Landown-
ers, operators, and municipalities of
critical sites, as identified in
approved priority watershed plans,
may voluntarily participate in the
program. To participate, the
landowner, operator, or municipal-
ity must agree to install and
maintain best management prac-
tices needed to control all critical
sites.
Educational assistance. Educational
assistance is provided to each
priority watershed project. Newslet-
ters, demonstration sites, and local
coordinating committees are a few of
the methods used.
Cost-share assistance. State funds
are available to cost share the
installation of best management
practices. Generally the cost-share
rate is 70 percent. In each project,
landowners or operators have 3 years
to sign cost-share agreements and 5
years to install the needed cost share
agreements.
Focused water quality monitoring.
To most effectively use staff and
financial resources, water quality
monitoring is focused into a small
number of sites where intensive
monitoring is conducted.
Where Is Wisconsin Today?
Since 1978, Wisconsin's efforts have
grown dramatically in many ways. As
shown in Figure 1, the number of priority
watershed projects has grown from the
initial 5 to 60, encompassing about 7,500
square miles. The magnitude of the pro-
gram is also illustrated through a number of
factors, including:
• Substantial state investment.
Presently, the program is projected
to spend over $10 million in 1993
and increase to over $16 million in
1994 and again in 1995. Overall,
Wisconsin has spent nearly $50
million to implement its efforts.
• Significant local support. In 1993,
the program is fully supporting over
100 county and other local-level
staff.
• Ample education budget. Wisconsin
is supporting over $600,000 annu-
ally for education efforts, not includ-
ing demonstration practices.
-------
Conference Proceedings
499
3,000 cost-share
agreements. Since
1978, about 3,000
cost share agree-
ments have been
signed to control
critical nonpoint
sources. This in-
cludes over 800
during the last
3 years. Also in the
last 3 years, best
management prac-
tices have been in-
stalled to control:
nearly 500 critical
animal waste sites;
about 32,000 criti-
cal cropland acres;
and about 177,000
feet of critical
streambanks.
Successes
While Wisconsin's
efforts over the last 15
years have been substan-
tial, true success is not
measured by the dollars
spent or number of cost
share agreements signed.
Wisconsin's legislature and
public want to see success
hi terms of improved water
quality. Water quality
improvements have been
documented, but improve-
ments have been limited to small trout
streams with degraded habitat caused by
unmanaged cattle access.
Vance Creek in the Hay River Priority
Watershed Project in northwestern Wiscon-
sin is an example of documented water
quality improvements. Department of
Natural Resources staff conducted fish
population surveys on this small trout
stream before and after fencing cattle out of
the stream and controlling runoff from an
animal lot. As shown in Table 1, the
number of trout doubled and the population
shifted from the more tolerant brown trout
to the less tolerant brook trout. Similar
results have been documented on other
small streams across Wisconsin.
Water quality improvements have not
been documented in larger streams and lakes
for a number of reasons, particularly:
Large-scale Priority Watershed Projects
Small-scale and Priority Lake Projects
i
PORTAGE JWAUPACA J
I ' :OUTAGAMI£
OSS-90-3
8343
WFVREV 1-93
Figure 1. Priority watershed projects in Wisconsin, 1992.
• Insufficient levels of participation by
owners or operators of critical sites
and
• Response time of the body of water.
In small streams similar to Vance
Creek, water quality improvements have not
been seen where owners or operators of
critical sites decline to participate. Gener-
ally, degraded or impaired streams need
high levels of pollutant reduction to accom-
plish a measurable water quality improve-
ment. Overall, the level of participation for
critical sites ranges from about 25 percent to
about 75 percent. The average is just about
50 percent.
The reasons for declining to partici-
pate are many, for example potential
participants may:
• See no economic advantage.
• Be against government programs.
-------
500
Watershed '93
Thble I. Brook and brown trout captured, Vance Creek, 1975,1981,
1983, and 1990 (2,100 feet surveyed)
Brook
Year
1975
1981
<4"
10
31
>=4"
33
10
Total
43
41
Best Management Practices
1983
1990
112
145
104
262
216
407
Brown
<4"
34
51
Installed
73
9
>=4"
73
117
165
44
Total
107
168
238
53
. All Trout
<4"
44
82
185
154
>=4"
106
127
269
306
Total
150
209
454
460
Source: Hay River Priority Watershed Project: Final Report, Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources, January 1991.
• Not see any reason to change.
• Plan to retire.
• Not be able to afford the
participant's share.
The response time for a body of water
varies with the type of problem and the
type of body of water. For example, the
response time for streams with dissolved
oxygen depletion during runoff events
should be very short. On the other hand,
the response time for lakes may be the
equivalent of two or three residence tunes.
The Near Future
Over the last 2 years, the Legislature,
Governor, and citizens of Wisconsin have
discussed and debated the future of the
state'snonpoint source program. They
expressed a need to see improvement in
Wisconsin lakes, streams, and ground water
at a much faster pace than the nonpoint
source program has been pursuing. Last
May, Governor Thompson signed legisla-
tion establishing a goal to start implementa-
tion of all needed priority watershed
projects by the end of the year 2000.
This acceleration requires doubling the
number of new projects started each
year from about 6 to 12 or 13.
The voluntary nature of the
program has also been discussed at
length. A committee of legislators and
citizens concluded that Wisconsin's
water quality goals cannot be achieved
with a strictly voluntary nonpoint
source program. Much of the debate is
focusing on what form of mandatory
compliance is needed, and less on
whether it is needed. Recently, the
Governor's budget included provisions
to require participation in priority watershed
projects.
Conclusion
Fifteen years of effort has shown
substantial progress toward achieving water
quality in Wisconsin's lakes, streams, and
ground water. These efforts represent a
major financial commitment from the
Wisconsin legislature and significant work
by state and local governments with assis-
tance from federal agencies. Progress to date
shows that water quality improvements can
be achieved. Despite these commitments and
efforts, it must be concluded that the "glass
measuring accomplishments" is "half full."
Many policy makers and citizens have
concluded the Wisconsin is nearing the level
of accomplishment that can be achieved
through a strictly voluntary program.
Proposals are being made to add a mandatory
component to the priority watershed projects.
Wisconsin is poised at the threshold,
determining when—not whether—to step
across.
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
Assessing the Impacts of USDA
Water Quality Projects: Monitoring
Donald W. Meals, Research Associate
School of Natural Resources, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
John D. Sutton, Agricultural Economist
Strategic Planning and Policy Analysis, USDA-SCS, Washington, DC
Nonpoint source pollution, particu-
larly from agricultural land, is
widely recognized as a significant
cause of surface and ground water
impairment throughout the United
States. Land treatment programs foster-
ing implementation of improved man-
agement practices are thought to be the
most effective approach for the protec-
tion and improvement of water quality
impaired by agricultural nonpoint source
pollution. Evaluation of performance
and documentation of lessons learned
has been an essential part of land treat-
ment-water quality programs from the
Black Creek Project (Lake and Morrison,
1977) to the Model Implementation
Program (Harbridge House, Inc., 1983)
to the Rural Clean Water Program (Gale
et al., 1993).
While we have learned a great deal
about how to plan, organize, cooperate,
and administer land treatment projects and
programs, documented cases of water
quality restoration have been rare. We
must now try to go beyond land-based
notions of success and show project effects
directly on water quality. Measurement of
success in watershed management must
include assessment of project impacts on
the impaired resource. If a program goal is
to control lake eutrophication, for example,
success should be measured by change in
the condition of the lake, not simply by the
number of practices implemented in the
watershed. Water quality monitoring can
play a key role in such evaluation.
The current programs of the U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture (USDA) Water
Quality Initiative—the Demonstration
Projects (DPs) and the Hydrologic Unit
Area projects (HUAs)—are now being
evaluated. The overall evaluation consid-
ers project organization, producer adop-
tion, and economic cost-effectiveness, as
well as physical impacts—success at pro-
tecting or improving water quality. The
Physical Impact Assessment, under the
leadership of the USDA-Soil Conservation
Service (SCS) is the subject of this paper.
Specifically, the paper will analyze the
role of water quality monitoring in the as-
sessment of project effects.
Approach
Progress of a subset of 16 USDA DPs
and HUAs toward goals relative to pre-
project baseline conditions is being evalu-
ated. The central concept of the Physical
Impact Assessment (Assessment), which is
described hi detail elsewhere (Sutton et al.,
1992) is that projects must document their
impacts hi one or more of three ways:
1. Documented changes in use and/or
application of agrichemicals and
animal wastes.
2. Simulated changes in sediment or
agrichemical losses from the edge of
field or bottom of root zone as
predicted by models.
3. Monitored changes in surface or
ground water quality.
Case-Study Croup
Sixteen USDA-sponsored projects, the
eight original (FY 1990) DPs and eight se-
lected HUAs, were chosen as a case-study
501
-------
502
Watershed '93
group for the Assessment. These projects
encompass a full range of geographic set-
ting, agriculture type, and water quality
problems characteristic of agricultural non-
point source water pollution problems in the
United States today. The projects selected
are:
Demonstration Projects
Sacramento River Rice Herbicide, CA
Lake Manatee, FL
Monocacy River Waterhsed, MD
Anoka Sand Plain, ME
Mid-Nebraska, NE
Herrings Marsh Run, NC
Seco Creek, TX
East River, WI
Hydrologic Unit Areas
Sand Mtn/Lake Guntersville, AL
Inland Bays, DE
Illinois River Sands, IL
Upper Tippecanoe River, IN
Sycamore Creek, MI
East Sidney Lake, NY
Ontario, OR
Little Bear River, UT
Most of these projects fall into one of two
groups based on the type of impaired
waterbody, pollutants, and agriculture type.
The DPs in Maryland, North Caro-
lina, and Wisconsin and the HUAs in
Alabama, Indiana, Michigan, New York,
and Utah are concerned primarily with
surface waters impaired by sediment,
nutrients, animal wastes, or bacteria
generated by livestock production and/or
nonirrigated cropland. Eutrophication,
sedimentation, and oxygen demand have
impaired rivers, lakes, and reservoirs for
fisheries, drinking water, recreation, and
aesthetics. Common agricultural manage-
ment problems include lack of cropland
and streambank erosion control, sediment
delivery from cropland, excessive fertilizer
application, lack of nutrient crediting for
animal waste application, poor animal
waste management, and inadequate dead
animal disposal practices.
The Florida, Minnesota, and Nebraska
DPs and the Delaware, Illinois, and Oregon
HUAs focus primarily on contamination of
ground water and associated surface waters
with nitrates and pesticides leaching from
irrigated cropland. High nitrate levels in
ground water, excessive nitrogen loading to
surface waters in base flow, and presence of
pesticides in drinking water are typical
water quality impairments. Common
agricultural management problems include
excessive nitrogen applications, cultivation
on extremely sandy soils, poor irrigation-
water management, and high pesticide
applications. The Illinois HUA and the
Nebraska DP work with threatened, rather
than currently impaired, aquifers.
Two DPs do not fit into either of
these groups. The Texas DP focuses on a
closely interconnected surface water/
ground water system in which improper
animal waste and rangeland management
threaten the drinking water aquifer for San
Antonio. Nitrates and pesticides are the
primary pollutants of concern.
The California DP is concerned
with reducing transmission of
residues of herbicides from irri-
gated rice production to the Sacra-
mento River system. Irrigation
tailwater management is the pri-
mary agricultural management
issue.
The overall goal of these
USDA projects is voluntary and
cost-effective protection or
improvement of water quality
from agricultural nonpoint source pollu-
tion. Within this broad charge, the
Assessment projects have a variety of
general goals:
• Demonstrate or bring about pro-
ducer adoption of improved agricul-
tural practices.
• Reduce nutrient and/or pesticide
use
• Reduce nutrient and/or pesticide
leaching and/or runoff to receiving
water.
• Bring about improvement or
protection of water quality in
receiving waterbody.
Although the importance of setting
specific and measurable water quality
goals for agricultural water quality projects
has been emphasized in the past
(Harbridge House, 1983; Gale et al.,
1992), most of the Assessment projects
have not done so. Highly general goals do
not provide a useful yardstick against
which to measure progress.
To achieve their goals, the Assess-
ment projects promote voluntary adoption
of cost-effective agricultural management
and land treatment practices to control or
reduce nonpoint source pollutants within
the project area. Because HUAs are
located in areas with documented water
quality impairments and emphasize
management systems of proven effective-
ness, they tend to promote widespread
adoption of established practices. In
contrast, DPs focus on testing innovative
practices on a few sites and promoting
wider adoption through demonstration and
education.
-------
Conference Proceedings
503
Physical Impact Assessment
Land Treatment Implementation
The agricultural management and land
treatment practices promoted in each project
are generally derived from current SCS and
Cooperative Extension Service recommen-
dations and are tailored to the type of
agriculture and nonpoint source problems in
the project area. In the surface water
projects, for example, practices implemented
focus on erosion control, animal waste
management, nutrient management, and
riparian/streambank treatment to protect
surface waters from sediment, nutrients,
organic matter, and bacteria. Among the
ground-water projects, the most common
land treatment practices are integrated crop
management, integrated pest management,
and irrigation water management. Several
projects are demonstrating highly specific,
innovative practices such as fully enclosed
seep irrigation in the Florida DP and
irrigation tailwater holding and recirculating
systems in the California DP.
All of the Assessment projects track
practice adoption at some level, ranging
from basic records on contracts signed to
collection of detailed agrichemical manage-
ment data. In 1992, the projects began to
use new progress tracking software—
Automated Data System for Water Quality
(ADSWQ)—to facilitate documentation and
reporting of practices installed to protect
water quality (USDA-SCS and Texas A&M
University, 1992).
Based on the information reported by
the projects in FY 1992, there has been a
substantial installation of practices between
FY 1990 and 1992. A total of 118 different
conservation practices have been installed.
Nutrient management practices have been
implemented in all 16 projects; pesticide
management and erosion/sediment control
practices have been applied hi 11 of the 16
projects. The most widely-applied practices
are shown in Table 1.
It should be noted that, while record-
ing numbers or acres of practices imple-
mented provides essential basic informa-
tion, such information does not by itself
constitute documentation of project impact
on water quality.
Changes In Agrichemical Inputs
A first indication of project impact on
water quality is documented change in
nutrient and pesticide inputs. Reduced
inputs should ultimately lead to reductions
in agrichemical losses from the edge of
field or the bottom of the root zone,
thereby reducing pollutant loads to
receiving waters.
The Assessment projects have
reported estimated reductions in nitrogen,
phosphorus, and pesticide applications
relative to baseline conditions in their FY
1992 annual reports. However, firm docu-
mentation of actual improvements in
agrichemical use has been complicated by
a number of factors, including reliance on
assumptions that producers have followed
plans and that changes in pesticide use may
be in timing and formulation, not simply
reduction of quantity applied.
Data on actual changes in
agrichemi-cal use have been well
documented in several projects through
collection of field data from producers
on chemical or animal waste applica-
tions. While collecting such data
requires a high level of effort from field
staff, the effort is justified by the
resulting documented evidence of
management improvement. Complete
field-by-field data may not always be
necessary; a statistical sampling ap-
proach may provide sufficient data
while controlling staff time costs.
Physical Process Modeling
Nearly every project in the case-
study group is using one or more physical
process simulation models, such as to
Table 1. Summary of most commonly installed practices, sixteen
assessment projects
Practice
Waste Mgt. System (#)
Cons. Cropping Seq. (ac)
Cons. Tillage (ac)
Cover/Green Manure (ac)
Irrigation Pipeline (ft)
Irrigation Water Mgt. (ac)
Nutrient Mgt. (ac)
Waste Utilization (ac)
Soil Testing (ac)
Pest Mgt. (ac)
HUAs
96
71,161
69,829
23,312
27,351
16,094
57,612
20,222
5,458
11,409
DPs
2
19,013
6,512
26,761
318,401
58,388
61,230
10,596
9,554
31,444
Total
98
90,174
76,341
50,073
345,752
74,482
118,842
30,818
15,012
42,853
Source: FY 1992 project Annual Progress Reports.
-------
504
Watershed '93
estimate project impacts. Simulation
models can be used in project planning to
identify critical areas, predict levels of
sensitivity in the hy-drologic system, and
help evaluate EPIC (Erosion-Productivity
Impact Calculator), GLEAMS (Groundwa-
ter Loading Effects of Agricultural
Management Systems), or AGNPS (Agri-
cultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model),
alternative treatment plans based on
predicted changes in pollutant loads. In
cases where no current water quality
impairment exists or when very long lag
times are likely to prevent documentation
of actual water quality changes, simu-lation
models may offer the only alternative to
project impact assessment. Use of models
to assess project impacts is discussed in de-
tail elsewhere (Sutton, et al., 1993; Griggs
and Sutton, 1993).
Water Quality Monitoring
Unlike simulation models which pre-
dict possible water quality response, water
quality monitoring can, if conducted prop-
erly, document actual changes in receiving
waters impacted by agricultural nonpoint
source pollution. Monitoring can focus on
physical conditions, chemical concentrations
and loads, or the status of biological commu-
nities. Monitoring is considered the most
convincing and defensible approach to evalu-
ating water quality response to management
changes (Gale et al., 1992; Coffey et al.,
1993). Thus, monitoring results could be an
important instrument of project impact as-
sessment.
However, from the outset, policy
guiding the DP and HUA projects has been
that monitoring was the responsibility of
other agencies. Monitoring was not includ-
ed in the original designs of the Assessment
projects. Most of the Assessment projects
now include some form of water quality
monitoring, generally added after the project
began and not well-integrated into projects
activities. Monitoring efforts underway
include site-level monitoring of particular
practices such as constructed wetlands;
ambient monitoring of project area streams,
lakes, or aquifer; extensive regional moni-
toring; and—in just a few cases—intensive
studies specifically designed to evaluate the
particular project. Most monitoring focuses
on physical/chemical evaluation, but
biomonitoring is an important activity in
several projects. Mon-itoring hi the
Assessment projects typically suffers several
limitations, including lack of financial and
personnel resources, lack of specificity to the
water quality impairment or land treatment
program, and inadequate design^
The rest of this paper will focus on an
analysis of the use of water quality monitor-
ing in the Assessment and recommendations
for monitoring in future evaluation programs.
Use of Water Quality
Monitoring to Assess Project
Impacts
Status of Monitoring and Evaluation
Nearly all of the projects that incorpo-
rate monitoring rely at least partially on
state environmental or natural resource
agency programs, which include:
• Ongoing, ambient monitoring pro-
grams which happen to include some
stations or sites in the project area.
• Short-term intensive programs foe-,
used on some specific area or prob-
lem which overlaps the project area.
• Specialized monitoring programs
specifically designed to serve the ''
project.
The Michigan Department of Natural
Resources, for example, is conducting a
paired watershed study specifically to
evaluate treatment impacts in the Sycamore
Creek watershed (Suppnick, 1992).
Federal or regional agencies such as
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), USDA-
Agricultural Research Service (ARS), and
Tennessee Valley Authority are participat-
ing in some projects through ongoing,
ambient programs or efforts specifically
supporting the water quality project. The
USGS, for example, is monitoring
streamflow and water chemistry in the
Texas DP). The USDA-ARS is operating
stream monitoring stations in the North
Carolina DP.
University researchers are conducting
monitoring in some projects through the
Cooperative Extension Service (CES) or
through the Agricultural Experiment
Stations (AES). The University of Florida
and the CES, for example, are conducting
intensive studies of fertilizer and pesticide
movement in ground water under vegetable
fields and citrus groves in the Florida DP.
The Malheur County AES is evaluating
irrigation and fertilizer management ,
practices in the Oregon HUA project.
Finally, regional or local agencies are
contributing to water quality monitoring in a
-------
Conference Proceedings
505
few projects. The Kosciusko County Health
Department, for example, is conducting a
monitoring program specifically in support of
the Indiana HUA. In the Nebraska DP, sev- ,
era! state Natural Resource Districts are
monitoring the vadose zone on project area
fields.
Water Quality Data Use and
Management
Water quality data can be important to
guide project management, target implemen-
tation, and evaluate progress if used and
managed effectively. The effectiveness with
which projects use and/or manage water
quality data can be gauged by how data are
presented, discussed, and evaluated and
whether the data and evaluations are
integrated into project reporting.
Good presentation and analysis of data
have been rare among the Assessment pro-
jects. Half of the 16 projects presented some
water quality data in their FY 1992 reports,
but reports have provided little discussion or
evaluation of available data. Only three
projects integrated water quality data results
into their evaluations to the extent that the
results were useful in guiding or interpreting
project progress; in these cases water quality
data will help target land treatment efforts,
assess treatment needs, and support recom-
mendations for management systems.
The general weakness of water quality
data use and analysis among the Assessment
projects stems from inability to integrate
water quality concerns into project plans and
activities at the program level. Water quality
information should not be treated as an
isolated appendix to the land treatment
program. Water quality data can and should
be used to assess, guide, and fine-tune project
activities. It is essential that project staff
involved in land treatment also become
involved in looking at water quality re-
sponse. Neither land treatment nor water
quality monitoring programs should take
place in a vacuum; without significant
interaction, both efforts are weakened.
Ability of Monitoring Networks to
Detect Change
The primary purpose of water quality
monitoring in this context is to detect
change in response to treatment. With a
few exceptions, it will be extremely
difficult for the monitoring networks
operating hi the Assessment projects to
detect and document changes in water
quality. It will be more difficult still to
attribute any changes observed to the land
treatment program.
Among the projects, the ability of
monitoring networks to detect response to
land treatment is a function of many factors
including:
•• Specificity of the monitoring system.
• Monitoring design.
• Land treatment tracking.
• Nature of the hydrologic system and
the impaired waterbody.
Monitoring systems that have been
developed specifically in support of a
project and its land treatment program
obviously stand a much better chance of
detecting changes in water quality than do
monitoring networks with other objectives.
Specifically designed monitoring programs
are found in few projects. The California
DP is an exception, where pesticide levels
above and below three demonstration
irrigation systems are being closely moni-
tored to evaluate the ability of each systems
to reduce tailwater pesticide residues. In the
Michigan HUA, the paired watershed study
was specifically designed to evaluate the
impact of the Sycamore Creek project.
In contrast, even the extensive
regional monitoring efforts that overlap
some project areas are not likely to detect
changes resulting from the project because
sampling sites are not near areas of land
treatment and because the goals of the
ambient monitoring network are to charac-
terize regional water quality patterns, not to
detect localized changes.
Monitoring design is a fundamental
determinant of ability to detect change.
While collecting occasional grab samples
may sometimes be adequate for inventory or
assessment of regional water quality, effec-
tive monitoring for the purpose of detecting
change must be carefully designed. Effec-
tive monitoring programs must:
• Evaluate variables and/or impair-
ments expected to change following
treatment.
• Be located near the impaired use
and/or the treatment area.
• Be collected at enough locations
with sufficient frequency to docu-
ment the inherent variability of the
system.
• Be capable of controlling for the
inevitable variability hi climate,
season, and hydrology that tends to
obscure the effects of treatment
-------
506
Watershed '93
Monitoring efforts in two projects
meet these criteria. In the California DP, a
combination of above/below demonstration
site monitoring with an established long-
term trend monitoring network in the
Sacramento River should be capable of
detecting changes resulting from the DP. In
the Michigan HUA, the use of a control
(untreated) watershed in a paired-watershed
design will account for hydrologic variabil-
ity and should facilitate detection of water
quality changes at the watershed level.
Monitoring programs that look only at
the outlet of a treated watershed or that rely
on before/after sampling without accounting
for likely differences in year to year
precipitation cannot detect and document
water quality changes convincingly.
Without the ability to control effectively for
seasonal or year-to-year hydrologic varia-
tions, a monitoring program will be largely
unable to attribute observed changes to land
treatment.
The lack of accurate tracking of land
treatment and absence of good information
on agrichemical management can obscure
the relationship between treatment and water
quality response. Assumptions of nutrient
reductions, for example, based on counting
the number of nutrient management plans
signed rather than on enumerating actual
quantities of fertilizer applied provides little
or no information about water quality
protection to be expected. Such assump-
tions, if false, may lead to the erroneous
conclusion that treatment was ineffective if
no water quality response is observed.
The nature of the hydrologic system
influences detection of water quality
change. Long hydrologic lag times, such as
very slow rates of ground-water move-
ment, essentially prevent the detection of
change in the project time frame. In one
HUA, for example, an estimated 80-year
time of travel in ground water between
source areas and the impaired resource
makes response to treatment unlikely
within the project period. Similar lag
times may affect surface water projects
where large quantities of pollutants have
accumulated in soils and sediments.
The relationship between the impaired
waterbody and the land treatment area can
also make detection of water quality change
problematic. Monitoring in an impaired
waterbody such as a reservoir, for example,
is not likely to show a response when there
are other major unmonitored sources of
pollutants, when the project area contributes
only a small proportion of the total water or
pollutant load causing the water quality
problem, or when the extent of treatment is
small. Monitoring would be more effective
pulled back up into the tributaries.
In summary, with a few exceptions,
existing monitoring programs among the
sixteen Assessment projects should not be
expected to be highly effective in detecting
changes in water quality. Most of the
monitoring programs lack the specificity,
design, land treatment tracking, and link to
the impaired use to clearly document
changes in water quality.
Results of Water Quality Monitoring
and Evaluation
For the most part, there have been no
significant water quality findings reported
from the Assessment projects at this time.
Even with appropriate monitoring, definitive
results should not be expected in just three
years. A few of the projects have presented
good analyses of background water quality
and problem definition which can serve as
the basis for project impact assessment
through continued monitoring.
Only in the California DP have water
quality monitoring results documented
response to treatment. Early monitoring
efforts at demonstration sites have shown
that the improved irrigation water manage-
ment systems reduce potential pesticide
discharge by 60 to 96 percent compared to
conventional systems (UC Cooperative
Extension, 1992).
Current Issues in Use of
Monitoring to Assess Project
Impacts
Direct assessment of project impacts
through water quality monitoring will be
difficult. Evaluation of monitoring activi-
ties among the 16 Assessment projects has
revealed some common issues concerning
use of monitoring for project evaluation.
Some of these can be addressed in present
projects; other issues are more fundamental
and should be considered in the develop-
ment of future projects:
• Failure to give water quality moni-
toring and evaluation adequate
priority at the program level when
project plans were formulated has
resulted in reliance on outside
agencies for monitoring work.
-------
Conference Proceedings
507
• As a consequence, the monitoring
activities often have goals and
capabilities poorly suited to project
operation and evaluation. Monitor-
ing, not surprisingly, is not well
integrated into total project operation
and management.
• As a result, water quality monitoring
efforts in most of the sixteen
Assessment projects suffer from one
or more technical limitations in
design and/or execution, including
lack of adequate resources for
operation, analysis, and interpreta-
tion; lack of specific focus on the
project area or land treatment
program; and lack of control for
spatial and temporal variability.
• Some project areas are poorly suited
for successful demonstration of
water quality response to treatment
in a realistic time frame due to large
size of the project area, significant
hydrologic lag time, or relatively
small contribution to the targeted
water quality impairment.
• Because of the above factors, water
quality monitoring programs in most
of the 16 projects are not likely to be
capable of detecting and document-
ing water quality changes.
• Lack of emphasis on land treatment
tracking, collection of agricultural
management data, and documenta-
tion of actual levels of chemical use
has impaired the ability of the
projects to tie land treatment to water
quality.
Recommendations for Future
Monitoring Programs
Despite the current limitations
discussed above, water quality monitoring
can make significant contributions to
watershed project evaluation. The key
recommendation is that water quality
monitoring and evaluation must be fully
integrated into project planning, design, and
operation. It should not be a separate effort
by other agencies.
The following recommendations are
presented to strengthen agricultural
nonpoint source control programs and
policies based on experiences of this case-
study group of USD A water quality
projects. While most of these recommenda-
tions are aimed at the program level, it is
important to note that many of them deal
with topics that are already part of the
USDA guidelines. In such instances, the
issue is to more aggressively provide
technical and program direction and to
support project staff.
• Project effectiveness and success
should be evaluated primarily on the
basis of achievement of water quality
goals, and only secondarily on
attainment of land treatment goals.
Inventory of practices installed does
not adequately reflect project
impacts on improving or protecting
water quality.
• Projects must state quantitative goals
for improvement and/or protection
of water quality. These goals should
be directly related to background
conditions of the impaired or
threatened use and must be realistic
and attainable.
• Projects must also set specific
numerical goals for installation or
adoption of specific land treatment
practices and actual acres treated so
that progress toward adequate
treatment of pollutant sources can be
documented. Data reported would
be treated as a secondary indicator of
reaching project goals.
• Land treatment and agricultural
management activity must be tracked
in detail, focusing pn actual manage-
ment activities like agrichemical
application rates, not simply records
of practices installed. Cost-effective
and statistically reliable survey
methods should be developed that
reduce staff time required for land
treatment data collection.
• Water quali ty monitoring to evaluate
project impacts must be given
adequate priority when project plans
are formulated. This priority must
begin at the program level and be
carried through to the project level.
Monitoring activities conducted
outside the project mainstream, with
goals and capabilities unsuited to the
project, are likely to be ineffective in
project evaluation.
• To be effective in assessing project
impacts, water quality monitoring
systems must be developed specifi-
cally in support of the project and
must be designed appropriately, par-
ticularly with regard to the hydro-
logic system in the project area.
-------
508
Watershed '93
Some projects may consider design-
ing a coordinated monitoring and
simulation modeling network as part
of a planned evaluation effort.
• Water quality monitoring data from
the project must be presented, ana-
lyzed, and discussed as an integral
part of project reporting and evalua-
tion. Data should be presented and
discussed in project reports and
should be used, to the extent pos-
sible, to help target land treatment
and assess interim progress.
• Funding agencies should improve
institutional support for water
quality and land treatment monitor-
ing to provide better training and
support systems for staff in project
evaluation.
In some past land treatment/water
quality projects, inadequate monitoring has
yielded inconclusive or disappointing
results, often leaving policy-makers and
the public with the impression that land
treat-ment is not capable of protecting or
improving water quality. This group of
USDA Demonstration Projects and
Hydrologic Unit Area Projects is not likely
to be an exception to this pattern. We
must take the time to apply the lessons of
the past that sometimes have been over-
looked. While there are certainly cases
where land treatment has not brought
about major water quality improvements in
a relatively short time, we must apply what
we have learned from our exper-iences to
design and implement effective monitoring
programs in concert with water-shed
management to document the successful
achievement of water quality goals.
Acknowledgments
The work discussed in this paper was
supported by a cooperative agreement
between the USDA-Soil Conservation
Service and the University of Vermont. The
hard work, dedication, and cooperation of
staff of the 16 projects in the case study is
gratefully acknowledged.
References
Coffey, S.W., J. Spooner, and M.D. Smolen.
1993. The nonpoint source manager's
guide to land treatment and water
quality monitoring. NCSU Water
Quality Group, Department of Bio-
logical and Agricultural Engineering,
North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC.
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W.
Coffey, J. Spooner, and J.A. Arnold.
1992. Summary report: Evaluation of
the experimental Rural Clean Water
Program. National Water Quality
Evaluation Project, NCSU Water
Quality Group, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC.
Griggs, R.H., and J.D. Sutton. 1993. Using
field-scale simulation models for
watershed planning and/or evaluation.
In Proceedings Watershed '93, March
21-24, 1993, Alexandria, VA.
Lake, J., and J. Morrison. 1977. Environ-
mental impact of land use on water
quality final report on the Black
Creek project. EPA-905/9-77-007-A.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Great Lakes National
Program Office, Chicago, IL.
Harbridge House, Inc. 1983. The Model
Implementation Program: An
evaluation of the management and
water quality aspects of the Model
Implementation Program. National
Water Quality Evaluation Project,
NCSU, Raleigh, NC.
Soil Conservation Service and Texas A&M
University. 1992. Automated data
system for water quality, user's guide,
Version 1.1. Texas A&M University,
Blackland Research Center, Temple,
TX.
Suppnick, J.D. 1992. A nonpoint source
pollution load allocation for
Sycamore Creek, Ingham County,
Michigan. In Sycamore Creek
HUA annual progress report, SCS,
CES, and ASCS, SCS State Office,
East Lansing, MI.
Sutton, J.D., R.H. Griggs, D.W. Meals.
1992. Assessing physical impacts
of water quality projects. Strategic
Planning & Policy Analysis Staff
Report, U.S. Department of Agri-
culture, Soil Conservation Service,
Washington, DC.
Sutton, J.D., D.W. Meals, R.H. Griggs.
1993. Physical impact assessment
of USDA water quality projects -
Draft interim report (unpublished).
Strategic Planning & Policy
Analysis Staff Report, U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Soil Conser-
vation Service, Washington, DC.
-------
Conference Proceedings
509
University of California Cooperative
Extension, Soil Conservation
Service, and Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion and Conservation Service.
1992. Sacramento River rice water
quality demonstration project,
FY92 annual progress report.
University of California Agronomy
and Range Science Extension,
Davis, CA.
-------
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
Maryland's Targeted Watershed
Project: Establishing Baseline
Water Quality
John L. McCoy and Niles Primrose
Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD
Stuart W. Lehman
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD
The Targeted Watershed Project is a
multi-agency state initiative to
improve water quality and restore
living resources in several tributaries to the
Chesapeake Bay. The project is using
water quality and living resources monitor-
ing programs to characterize water quality
and living resources in the streams, guide
restoration activities, and monitor effec-
tiveness of these restoration activities.
The targeted watersheds are stream
basins that are either threatened by multiple
sources of degradation from urbanization or
contribute a disproportionately high level of
nutrients to the Chesapeake Bay from agri-
cultural nonpoint sources. The watersheds
are similar hi size and small enough that
measurable results are expected from the
implementation of an array of nonpoint
source pollution controls. In addition, citi-
zen assistance via stream restoration projects
and water quality monitoring is incorporated
to help collect data and increase public
awareness of watershed planning.
The project was set up in four phases.
The first phase involved planning, initiating
the project, and recruiting the cooperators.
The second phase involved selecting the
basins to be targeted. The third phase is the
implementation of the control measures and
the assessment of the project. The final
phase of the project will involve reporting
and disseminating the results.
The project is currently hi its third
year. The first two phases of the project are
complete. Four basins have been targeted
by the project: Sawmill Creek in Anne
Arundel County, the Bird River in Balti-
more County, the Piney/Alloway Creeks
basin in Carroll County, and the German
Branch basin in Queen Anne County (Figure
1). Sawmill Creek, a 5,440-acre sub-basin
of the Patapsco River, is in an urbanized
basin. Sawmill Creek suffers from elevated
storm water flows that cause excessive
channel erosion, the impacts of runoff from
a major airport in the basin, and habitat
degradation in the stream corridor. The Bird
River, a 17,280-acre sub-basin of the
Gunpowder River, is located hi a rapidly
urbanizing basin and suffers from high
sediment loads, high storm water flows and
excessive stream channel erosion, and
habitat degradation. Piney/Alloway Creeks,
a 31,040-acre sub-basin of the middle
Potomac River, and German Branch, a
12,100-acre sub-basin of the Choptank
River, are located in agricultural watersheds
and suffer from excessive nutrient and
sediment loads.
The project is currently in the assess-
ment and implementation phase. Water
quality and living resource assessment and
monitoring plans and implementation plans
have been developed in each of the water-
sheds. Restoration activities are focused on
water quality problems identified by water
quality data collected prior to the project or
through the project's water quality assess-
ment program.
The data being generated by the
Targeted Watershed Project's water quality
and living resource monitoring program are
being used for several purposes:
511
-------
512
Watershed '93
PINEY/ALLOWAY
VA
I Chesapeake Bay
Targeted Watersheds
County Boundaries
Major Highways
Figure 1. Maryland's targeted watersheds.
1. To establish baseline water quality
and biotic conditions in the water-
sheds.
2. To estimate pollutant loads for each
watershed.
3. To evaluate water quality trends in
each watershed over time.
4. To detect any changes in biotic
conditions in each watershed during
the project
Improvements in water quality and/or biotic
conditions within each watershed relative
to baseline conditions or as measured with
a trend analysis are the measures of success
for this project.
This paper will focus on the monitor-
ing program used to establish baseline water
quality conditions in each of the targeted
watersheds.
Methods
The targeted watershed monitoring
program was designed by a group of scien-
tists and managers from
various state, federal, and
county agencies. The goal
was to structure the moni-
toring program to be able
to characterize water qual-
ity, habitat value and pro-
ductivity of the streams
that were to be managed.
The project monitoring
team agreed that the num-
ber of stations should be
the minimum necessary to
isolate major sources of
pollution in the watersheds
and yet not exceed the
project's manpower and
resource limitations. Moni-
toring stations were chosen
to provide even area cover-
age on the mainstem of the
stream and to characterize
any major tributaries within
each watershed (Figure 2).
Nine monitoring sites were
selected in the Sawmill
Creek watershed. Six of
the sites are on the
mainstem and three are in
major tributaries. Nine
monitoring stations were
selected in the Piney/
Alloway Creeks watershed.
Three sites are on the
mainstem of Alloway creek and five are on
the mainstem of Piney Creek. There is one
monitoring site located on a tributary of
Piney Creek. Five monitoring stations were
located in the German Branch watershed.
Four of the stations are on the mainstem
and one on a tributary. There are 10 moni-
toring stations in the Bird River watershed.
The stations are located on three of the ma-
jor tributaries of the Bird River.
The water quality assessment and
monitoring plans have four components;
finfish sampling, macroinvertabrate sam-
pling, water quality sampling, and hydro-
logic characterization. The water quality
sampling and hydrologic characterization
can be further subdivided into two catego-
ries:
• Water quality samples collected
manually during predominately
baseflow conditions.
• Water quality samples collected by
automated water quality sampling
stations during stormflow condi-
tions.
Towns
-------
Conference Proceedings
513
-------
514
Watershed '93
Flow data can be similarly subdi-
vided into two categories: flow data
collected manually and flow data collected
continuously by automated stations.
Automated water quality sampling and
discharge monitoring stations were estab-
lished at the outlets of Piney Creek,
Sawmill Creek, and German Branch. In the
Bkd River watershed, automated stations
were installed at the outlets of Windlass
Run, Honeygo Run, White Marsh Run, and
at the outlet of the North Fork of White
Marsh Run.
Hydrology
Staff gauges were installed at each
sampling station in the Piney/Alloway
Creeks watershed, the German Branch
watershed, and the Sawmill Creek water-
shed. Flow measurements were taken
periodically at each station by project staff
using a portable Marsh/McBirney current
velocity meter (Model 201D).
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
has been contracted to collect flow data
continuously at the automated sampling
stations in all four watersheds. The gauging
stations were operated using USGS standard
operating procedures (Buchanan and
Somers, 1969; Rantz et al., 1982).
Water Quality
Water quality samples were collected
monthly at each monitoring station in Piney/
Alloway Creeks watershed, the German
Branch watershed, and the Sawmill Creek
watershed. Water quality samples in the
Bkd River watershed were collected
biweekly at each station. Field measure-
ments for temperature, dissolved oxygen,
pH, and conductivity were made at each site
with a Hydrolab Surveyor n. Discrete water
quality samples were collected manually
using standard sample handling techniques
(Marshall et al., 1992). Samples were
analyzed for the following constituents: total
nitrogen, ammonium, nitrite, nitrate+nitrite,
total phosphorus, orthophosphate, total
suspended solids, hardness, sulfate, chloride,
alkalinity, and silicate.
Storm event water quality samples
were collected at the automated sampling
stations in Piney Creek, Sawmill Creek,
and the Bkd River watershed as discrete
samples taken at predetermined flow inter-
vals over the storm hydrograph. Three dis-
crete samples were retrieved from each
storm: one discrete sample on the rising
limb of the hydrograph; one at or near the
peak; and one during the falling limb of the
hydrograph. Storm event water quality
samples were processed using the same
procedure described above for the discrete
monthly samples. Water quality samples
from three to four storm events per quarter
were collected at each automated station.
The Smithsonian Environmental
Research Center was contracted to conduct
the storm event based water quality monitor-
ing at the outlet of German Branch. The
storm event water quality data collected at
the outlet of the German Branch watershed
was collected as flow weighted weekly
composites. The sample collection and
preservation techniques used by the
Smithsonian are described by Correll
(1981).
Citizen Monitoring
Citizen monitors were recruited to
conduct monitoring weekly at each station
in Piney/Alloway Creeks watershed, the
German Branch watershed, and the Sawmill
Creek watershed. Citizen monitors used
colorimetric test kits to test for dissolved
oxygen, pH, and turbidity. The monitors
also collected data on ak temperature, wa-
ter temperature, rainfall and, stage height.
Citizen monitors are collecting benthic
macroinvertabrate data in the Bkd River
watershed.
Toxlctty
A suite of toxicity tests were con-
ducted on several species of invertebrates
and fish at each station in each watershed in
Piney/Alloway Creeks watershed, the Ger-
man Branch watershed and the Sawmill
Creek watershed. The toxicity tests were
conducted using U.S. Envkonmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) methods for testing
effluents with some modifications to ac-
count for the use of ambient water (Peltier
and Weber, 1985; Weber et al., 1989).
Tests on Pimephales promelas (larval and
embryo 7-day survival and 7-day growth),
Daphnia pulex and D. magna (both 48-hour
and 96-hour survival), and Ceriodaphnia
dubia (7-day survival and neonate produc-
tion) were conducted on 24-hour composite
samples collected from all stations. In ad-
dition a "Microtox" bacterial luminescence
assay was performed on samples from each
station.
-------
Conference Proceedings
5/5
Benthic Macroinvertebrates
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
was conducted at each station in Piney/
Alloway Creeks watershed, the German
Branch watershed, and the Sawmill Creek
watershed in the spring and fall according
to EPA Protocol II Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols (Plafkin et al., 1989). The
procedure was modified as described by
Marshall et al. (1992). The data were used
to calculate an index of biological integrity
(IBI).
In conjunction with the
macroinvertabrate sampling, a habitat
assessment was made. Various physical
features of the adjacent watershed visible
from the sampling site were scored, e.g.,
riparian zone, banks, and channel (Plafkin et
al. 1989). The scores were used to develop
a habitat assessment index (HAI). The HAI
was used with the IBI to develop a relation-
ship between habitat and the benthic
community structure in the stream.
Hnffsh
Fish were collected during the spring
and fall at each station in the German
Branch, the Sawmill Creek, and the Piney/
Alloway Creeks watersheds, and at the four
automated sampling sites in the Bird River.
The finfish sampling procedures are
described by Marshall et al. (1992)
The finfish data were used to calculate
an IBI modified for use in Maryland's
coastal plain streams (Fischer et al., 1992).
The index was developed to assess biologi-
cal quality in streams by measuring species
composition, trophic composition, fish
abundance, and health. In the piedmont
streams species richness, trophic structure,
and feeding strategies were used to evaluate
conditions.
Results
The initiation of monitoring in each
watershed was staggered over a period of
time to allow for cooperator recruitment,
station installation, and staffing. The
reporting period for the baseline water
quality data in each watershed covers
approximately one year from the initiation
of monitoring in the watershed. The
German Branch and Sawmill Creek results
were reported for the period October 1989
to September 1990. The Piney/Alloway
Creeks results are reported for the period
April 1990 to September 1991. The
Targeted Watershed Project's water quality
monitoring in the Bird River was not
initiated until June 1992.
As part of the baseline water quality
description, the monitoring program has
developed chemical and physical constituent
concentration profiles, toxicity assessments,
habitat assessments, biotic indices for finfish
and benthic macroinvertebrates, and annual
loads for chemical and physical constituents
of each stream. Given the volume of data
generated by this process, it is not possible
to present all of the results in this paper.
Therefore, the results of the German Branch
nutrient concentration profiles and annual
loads for nutrients will be used as an
example of the chemical and physical
constituent concentration profiles developed
for each stream. The highlights of the
results from each baseline assessment will
be discussed. The results of the habitat
assessments, toxicity assessments, and biotic
assessments for finfish and benthic
macroinvertebrates have been compressed
and summaries for the targeted watersheds
are presented.
Water quality results were analyzed
for differences in constituent concentra-
tions between stations within each water-
shed (Figure 3). Significant differences in
nutrient concentrations between stations
were found in Alloway Creek, German
Branch, and Sawmill Creek. Total
nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen concentra-
tions at the uppermost station on Alloway
Creek were significantly higher than those
at the other stations on the stream. In
German Branch total nitrogen and nitrate
nitrogen concentration in Wildcat Branch
and in the mainstem down stream of
Wildcat Branch were significantly higher
than concentrations in the headwaters.
Total nitrogen and nitrate nitrogen concen-
trations at tributary station 9 were signifi-
cantly higher than concentrations at the
other stations in Sawmill Creek. Overall,
total nitrogen and total phosphorus
concentrations were higher in German
Branch and Piney/Alloway Creek than
Sawmill Creek. .
Constituent loads were estimated for
Piney Creek and Sawmill Creek from the
flow and concentration data collected at the
automated sites using a "ratio estimator"
(Dolan et al., 1981). Constituent loads in
German Branch were calculated using the
flow weighted weekly mean concentration
and the total flow for the week (Table 1).
-------
516
Watershed '93
N03 CONCENTRATION HG/L
N03
6
081
— I
GB2
GB3
STATION
TN CONCENTRATION MG/L
—I—
G84
GB1
GBS
TP CONCENTRATION HG/L
C81
GB2
STATION
DISCRETE OBSERVATIONS PLOTTED
LINE THROUGH MEAN VALUE
BARS tl- 2 STANDARD DEVIATIONS
Figure 3. Nutrient concentrations in German Branch (October
1989-September 1990)
The loading estimates for TN (total
nitrogen) and TP (total phosphorus) were
used to calculate loading coefficients for
each watershed (Table 2). When compared
to loading coefficients reportel in the
literature, the targeted watershed's nutrient
export rates for the baseline monitoring
period were well within the reported range
and close to the average reported values for
agricultural and urban watersheds (Frink
1991).
Toxicity
The results of the ambient toxicity
bioassays were analyzed for detrimental
toxic responses (Table 3). Toxic responses
were observed in Wildcat Branch, a tribu-
tary of German Branch, at the upper most
stations of Piney and Alloway Creeks, and
at most stations in Sawmill Creek. Two of
the three tributary stations on Sawmill
Creek, stations 3 and 6, yielded the most
toxic responses. The toxicity bioassays
were repeated with water samples collected
during storm events in Sawmill Creek and
Piney/Alloway Creeks. The results indi-
cated that toxic responses increased in both
streams during the rain events, but the same
sampling sites yielded the most toxic
responses. The toxicity bioassays were
repeated for the Wildcat Branch, station 2,
on German Branch during a rain event, and
stations 3 and 6 on Sawmill Creek during
ambient conditions. The water samples
were fractionated for this assay into three
components; whole water, water filtered for
particulates, and water filtered for particu-
lates and organic compounds. Significant
reductions in the toxic response to the
fraction that was filtered for particulates and
organic compounds (over the whole water
and the fraction filtered for particulates)
indicates that organic compounds are
contributing to the toxic conditions in both
these streams.
Benthlc Macrolnvertebrates
The results of the habitat assessments
and the IBI were plotted and used to make
inferences about impacts on the benthic
community (Figure 4). Stations with
relatively high biological scores and
relatively low habitat scores cluster near the
upper left sector of the graph and suggest
artificially induced enhancement of biologi-
cal productivity may be present. Stations
with relatively low biological scores and
-------
Conference Proceedings
517
relatively high habitat scores cluster in the
lower right sector and suggest that water
quality or other inconspicuous factors are
impacting the benthic community.
The results of the benthic macroin-
vertebrate surveys indicates that German
Branch and Piney/Alloway Creeks support
healthier benthic communities and have
better habitat than Sawmill Creek. German
Branch, except station 2, and Piney Creek
actually support healthier benthic communi-
ties than would be expected given their
habitat scores. This may be due to elevated
nutrient levels in the two streams. At station
2 in German Branch, the biological score is
less than would be expected given the
habitat score. This may be due to the toxic
effect demonstrated by the toxicity assays.
All of the stations at the lower end of
Sawmill Creek had low biological and
habitat scores.
Finflsh
The results of the finfish surveys were
used in conjunction with the habitat data to
evaluate the condition of the finfish commu-
nity in each stream. For all of the water-
sheds, species richness (number of species)
and habitat quality were plotted for X-toxic
response each station (Figure 5). Stations in
the lower left portions of the graphs tend to
be more degraded as far as habitat and fish
community than stations in the upper right.
Alloway Creek stations 1, 2, and 3 exhi-
bited the best overall species richness and
habitat, Sawmill Creek the worst. Other
stations showed varying degrees of habitat
Table 1. Loads discharged by Piney Creek,
Sawmill Creek, and German Branch
1990-1991 (mt/yr)
Constituent
Total P
PO4
Org. Carbon
NO3
NH4
TKN
Sediment
Total N
Piney
Creek
12.714
3.903
N.A.
55.450
2.439
N.A.
3797.25
95.959"
Sawmill
Creek
0.70
0.205
N.A.
9.283
1.485
N.A.
246.91
16.135"
German
Branch
3.83
2.09
144.91
53.29
2.73
16.75
620.21
70.04"
a Analyzed as total N.
b Total N= (TKN + NO3).
N.A. = Not analyzed/collected.
Table 2. Targeted watershed loading coeffi-
cients, 1990-1991 (kg/ha/yr)
Watershed
Sawmill Creek
Piney Creek
German Branch,
TP Loading
Coefficient
.3375
1.586
.7367
TN Loading
Coefficient
7.998
11.969
13.4608
Table 3. Results of the ambient toxicity bioassays in Piney/Alloway Creeks, German Branch, and Sawmill Creek,
1989
Test
1. D. magna
2. D. pulex
3. C. dubia
4. F. Minnow
F. Minnow
5. F. Minnow
F. Minnow
6. C. dubia
1 . Micro tox
Totals
(L)
(E)
(L)
(E)
Endpoint
Survival-48h
Survival-96h
Survival-48h
Survival-96h
Survival-7d
Survival-7d
Survival-7d
Growth-7d
Growth-7d
Reproduction-7d
Lurninosity-5min
Luminosity-15min
Piney Creek
P1P2P3P4 P5P6
X X
X X
x*x*
XXX
X*
22 1 11
(3) (2)
X
X*
X*
1
(3)
Alloway Creek
Al A2 A3
X
X
X*
X
X*
3
(5)
X*
X*
X
X*
1
(4)
X*
X
X*
1
(3)
German Branch Sawmill Creek
12345 134678
X
X
X
X*
X*
030
(2)
X
x*x*
x*x*
0 0 1
(2) (2)
X
XXX
X
X X
X X
X X
XXX
X
627
X X
X
X X
X X
X*
4 3
(5)
L = larvae 0 = total responses, including enhancements
E = embryos * = enhancement
X= toxic response
-------
518
Watershed '93
•<0-
35-
30-
LJJ
DC
O -
o *
CO
s ~
o
o
CD
10-
0-
&
GB = GERMAN BRANCH "
SAW = SAWMILL CREEK sg||g
PINE = PINEY CREEK «QB#I
ALLO = ALLOWAY CREEK
«QB#3 «PINE,M ,SAW#2
"PINE #2
« PINE #4 . ., ,„ j.~
«ALLO#1 "ALL0*3
» PINE #5 » ALLO # 2
> PINE # 6
« PINE # 3
» SAW # 1
« SAW # 4
« SAW # G
«SAW#9 «SAW#7 ciiu^o
«SAW#3 «SAW#8
"SAW #5
0 65 70 75 60 85 90 95 100 105 110
HABITAT SCORE
Figure 4. Results of the benthic macroinvertebrate surveys in Sawmill Creek, Piney/
Alloway Creeks, and German Branch, 1989-1990.
w
03
'o
a
CO
u—
o
L_
|
sc =
Pine
HGR
Electrofishing Data
PQ Means from 89, 90, 91
18-
16-
14-
12-
10-
8-
6-
4-
2-I
A2
A1 A3
P4 P6
P3P1P5
GB5P2
HGR
GB3 GB1
WMR GB4 WR
SC8 SC7
GB2
SC2 SC4 SC5 SC9
SC6BFD SC1
40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
Habitat Score
Sawmill Creek GB = German Branch
= Piney Creek A - Alloway Creek
, WMR, WR, BFD = Bird River
Figure 5. Results of the finfish surveys in all targeted watersheds, 1989-1991.
-------
Conference Proceedings
519
degradation or enrichment. German
Branch, for example, had better fish
diversity than would be expected given the
poor habitat scores. This may be due to
the higher levels of nutrients in this stream.
Station 2 on Wildcat Branch exhibited the
worst number of species and habitat scores
in the German Branch system. Station 6
on Sawmill Creek had the worst number of
species and habitat scores in the Sawmill
Creek system.
Discussion
The data being generated by the
monitoring program are being used to
evaluate the effect of the restoration effort
on water quality and habitat conditions. The
results of the baseline water quality and
living resources monitoring program
suggest that Piney/Alloway Creeks and
German Branch are nutrient-enriched
systems. The restoration programs under-
way in Piney/Alloway Creeks and German
Branch are targeting agricultural sources of
nutrients to these streams. The Sawmill
Creek system is the most degraded system
of the targeted watersheds. Habitat appears
to be the largest problem in the system. The
restoration strategy that has been developed
for Sawmill Creek is targeting storm water
management as a means of restoring habitat
to the system. The data suggest there is a
toxicity problem at station 6 on Muddy
Bridge Branch, a tributary of Sawmill
Creek. Following an investigation of
potential sources of toxicity on Muddy
Bridge Branch and some anecdotal informa-
tion, the project has begun monitoring the
levels of airplane deicer in runoff from the
Baltimore Washington International Airport
and in Muddy Bridge Branch during winter
storm events. The baseline data also suggest
that station 2 on Wildcat Branch in the
German Branch watershed was an impacted
site. The toxicity bioassays indicated that
the site exhibited toxic responses but did not
isolate the cause. The biological data
indicated that the finfish and benthic
macroinvertabrate communities were
impaired in Wildcat Branch. Nutrient
loading data from the second year indicated
that total phosphorus and orthophosphate
loads increased 40 percent over the first
year, and concentration profiles indicate that
total phosphorus and orthophosphate levels
in German Branch are the highest in Wildcat
Branch. The project has begun to investi-
gate the possibility that an agricultural
operation on the tributary may be behaving
as a point source and heavily influencing
water quality in Wildcat Branch.
The baseline water quality and living
resource monitoring program has developed
a water quality and living resource database
that will be used to determine the effect of
the restoration programs under way in
Piney/Alloway Creeks, German Branch, and
Sawmill Creek. Continued monitoring will
allow the project to measure changes in
water quality and living resources that occur
over time as a result of the restoration
projects underway and to locate and identify
new problems in water quality or living
resources as they develop within each
watershed.
References
Buchanan, T.J., and W.P. Somers. 1969.
Discharge measurements at gaging
stations: Techniques of water-
resources investigations of the
United States Geological Survey,
Book 3, Chapter A8, p. 64. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, DC.
Correll, D.L. 1981. Nutrient mass balances
for the watershed, headwaters inter-
tidal zone, and basin of the Rhode
River Estuary. Limnology and
Oceanography 26:1142-1149.
Dolan, D.M., A.K. Yui, and R.D. Geist.
1981. Evaluation of river load
estimation methods for total phospho-
rus. Journal of Great Lakes Research
7(3):207-214.
Fisher, S.A., et al. 1992. A pilot study
for assessing environmental
degradation in Maryland coastal
plain streams by using biotic
integrity and qualitative habitat
indices. Unpublished report.
Frink, C.R. 1991. Estimating nutrient
exports to estuaries. Journal of
Environmental Quality 20:717-724.
Marshall, D., J. Christmas, S. Lehman, D.
Jordahl, J. McCoy, M. Haddaway, F.
Paul, and N. Primrose. 1992. Sawmill
Creek: Baseline monitoring report
October 1989-September 1990.
WGM-TAR-92-2. Maryland Targeted
Watershed Program, Maryland
Department of Natural Resources.
Peltier, W.H., and C.I. Weber. 1985.
Methods for measuring the acute
-------
520
Watershed '93
toxicity of effluents to freshwater and
marine organisms. EPA/600/4-85/
013. Environmental Monitoring
Laboratory, Cincinnati, OH.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter,
S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughs. 1989.
Rapid bioassessment protocols for use
in streams and rivers: Benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/
444/4-89-001. U.S Environmental
Protection Agency, Assessment and
Watershed Protection Division,
Washington, DC.
Rantz, S.E., et al. 1982. Measurement and
computation of streamflow: Vol. 1.
Measurement of stage and discharge.
Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 2175. U.S. Department of the
Interior, Geological Survey. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Wash-
ington, DC.
Spooner, 3., R.P. Mass, S.A. Dressing,
M.D. Smolen, and F.J. Humenik.
1985. Appropriate designs for
documenting water quality improve-
ments from agricultural NPS control
programs. In Perspectives on
nonpoint source pollution. EPA 440/
5-85-001.
Weber, C.I., W.H. Peltier, T.J. Norberg-
King, W.B. Horning II, F.A. Kessler,
J.R. Menkedick, T.W. Neiheisell, P.A.
Lewis, D.J. Klemm, Q.H. Pickering,
E.L. Robinson, J.M. Lazorchak, L.J.
Wymer, and R.W. Freyberg. 1989.
Short term methods for establishing
the chronic toxicity of effluents and
receiving waters to freshwater
organisms. EPA/600/4-89/001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Monitoring Labora-
tory, Cincinnati, OH.
-------
WATERSHED '93
Watershed Project Monitoring and
Evaluation Under Section 319 of
the Clean Water Act
Steven A. Dressing, Acting Chief, Rural Sources Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Jean Spooner, Assistant Professor
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Jo Beth Mullens, Faculty Research Assistant
Water Resources Research Institute, Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Background
Monitoring to document water
quality improvements that result
from implementation of nonpoint
source (NFS) control practices and practice
systems is essential to continued public
support for NFS control programs. The
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) annually awards state grants for
implementing state NPS control programs
under section 319 of the Clean Water Act, as
amended in 1987.
To address the need to report on
section 319 program implementation,
progress made in reducing pollution from
nonpoint sources, and water quality im-
provements resulting from program imple-
mentation, EPA issued guidance that called
for monitoring in all funded watershed
projects and established a 5 percent set-aside
of grant funds for a "National Evaluation,"
hereafter referred to as the "National
Monitoring Program" (USEPA, 1991a).
EPA specified monitoring protocols for
National Monitoring Program projects to
provide a consistent, minimum set of water
quality and land treatment data that would
support a national evaluation (USEPA,
1991b).
This paper summarizes the require-
ments for National Monitoring Program
projects and describes three of the approved
projects. EPA's plans for analyzing data
from the projects are also described and
illustrated with examples.
Overview of National
Monitoring Program
Requirements
Selection Criteria
EPA selects projects for the National
Monitoring Program based on their likeli-
hood of achieving and documenting water
quality improvements. The selection criteria
include:
1. A clear documentation of water
quality problems to be addressed.
2. Clear and concise water quality and
land treatment objectives.
3. Project areas less than 30,000 acres.
4. A clear description of institutional
roles and responsibilities.
5. A concise definition of critical areas.
6. A project implementation plan that
includes NPS controls that address
the identified water quality problems,
pollutants, and sources.
7. A long-term (6-10 years minimum)
monitoring and evaluation plan that
includes tracking of both land
treatment and water quality.
8. A quality assurance and quality con-
trol (QA/QC) plan (USEPA, 1991b).
Many of these requirements are based upon
lessons learned from the Rural Clean Water
521
-------
522
Watershed '93
Program (USEPA, 1990; Gale et al., 1992)
and related NFS programs.
Monitoring
The monitoring protocols focus on
clear objectives and experimental ap-
proaches to achieving them. EPA recom-
mends paired-watershed studies as the first
choice for experimental design, followed by
upstream-downstream designs. Single-sta-
tion designs are discouraged. Lotic environ-
ments are emphasized since greater success
in documenting the water quality benefits of
NFS implementation has been achieved in
stream systems.
Parameters
Chemical, physical, biological, and
habitat monitoring programs are all accept-
able under the National Monitoring Pro-
gram, but minimum criteria are established
for each. In addition to the specific report-
ing formats specified below, all raw water
quality data are to be entered into STORET,
BIOS.orWATSTORE.
For chemical monitoring, EPA has
developed an approach that uses quartile
values for each monitored parameter at each
monitoring station (USEPA, 199 lb.). These
quartile values are computed from a frequ-
ency distribution of pre-project data or data
Chemical/Physical Parameters
Trend Plot
VfeaM
\fear2
Year 4
Years
Year
Lowest H Low 03 High Q Highest
Years
Years
Figure 1. Bar charts illustrating quartile counts.
from the first year of the project. Subse-
quent measured observations are compared
against quartile values to determine which
quartile the observations fall within. The
number of observations that fall within each
quartile is reported as the quartile count for
the monitoring period (Figure 1). Trends in
the distribution of quartile counts will be
tested to indicate whether or not water qual-
ity has improved.
For biological and habitat data, EPA
uses benchmark scores to provide for
interpretation of index scores (USEPA,
199 lb). For closed-end indices, such as the
index of biotic integrity (IBI) (Karr, 1981), a
maximum potential value (e.g., 60 for IBI)
is recorded as the highest value that can be
scored. For open-ended indices, such as the
index of well being (Iwb) (Gammon, 1980),
states are expected to use best professional
judgment to estimate the highest possible
score for the area. EPA recommends the use
of data from reference sites (sites that reflect
conditions in the area in the absence of envi-
ronmental disturbance or impact) (Ohio
EPA, 1988) to determine reasonable attain-
ment levels and index values (expressed as
percent) for various levels of beneficial use
support. Observed values are then com-
pared with benchmarks to determine
percentages and the corresponding use
support status.
Samp/Ing
Projects are expected to
identify and focus monitoring
efforts on those seasons or peri-
ods during which NFS impacts
are greatest and for which the
implementation of NFS controls
is likely to cause the greatest im-
pact. Water quality monitoring
plans should cover 6-10 years,
including at least 2-3 years of
monitoring prior to implementa-
tion of NFS controls, and at least
3 years of monitoring after NFS
controls are in place.
A minimum of 20 samples
annually for chemical and
physical parameters, evenly-
spaced during the key season, is
required. Fishery surveys are to
be performed at least one to three
times per season, while benthic
macroinvertebrates are sampled
at least once per season, with at
least one to three replicates or
-------
Conference Proceedings
523
composites per sample. Bioassays can be
performed once per season and habitat
sampling should occur once or twice per
season. Sampling frequency and sampling
methods should remain unchanged through-
out the monitoring effort.
Explanatory Variables
Since seasonal fluctuations are not
the only source of variability in water
quality data, explanatory variables are
tracked to help account for variability in
the values of primary monitoring param-
eters, thus increasing the sensitivity of
statistical analyses by adjusting for
climatic and hydrologic variability
(USEPA, 1991c). Such variables may
include flow, precipitation, changes in land
use, and other water quality parameters
(Spooner, 1992).
Land Treatment
Land treatment and land use monitor-
ing are needed to quantify the status of land
management. Appropriate land treatment
parameters will indicate in quantitative
terms the treatment strength (Spooner,
1992). Point sources, land use, and land
activity must be monitored in watershed
projects to account for their influence on
water quality (Meals, 1991).
National Monitoring Program projects
are to identify implementation goals for
each best management practice or practice
system to be used in the monitored water-
sheds, and relate these controls to the water
quality problem, pollutants, and sources to
be addressed (USEPA, 1991b). Point
sources are to be avoided if possible, and
otherwise monitored to determine their
contributions to the water quality problems
being tracked. Land treatment and land use
are both tracked, and land treatment
reporting units are expected to be reliable
indicators of the extent to which the
pollutant source is controlled. Distinct land
treatment data must be collected for each
drainage area served by a water quality
monitoring station.
Testing of EPA's Protocol for
Chemical and Physical
Parameters
EPA's plan to track water quality
trends using quartile counts was tested using
8 years of data collected at seven down-
stream (upstream-downstream pairs used)
monitoring stations in the Rock Creek, ID
Rural Clean Water Program project (NCSU,
1989). Only data collected during the
irrigation season were analyzed. The results
of applying the nonparametric Cochran-
Mantel-Haenszel (CMH) statistics (SAS
Institute, 1985) on the data summarized
using EPA's quartile approach were
compared with the results of parametric
linear regression on the raw data.
Quartile ranges for each monitoring
station were developed using the 25
percent, 50 percent, and 75 percent quartile
values from the frequency distribution of
observed values from the first year of
monitoring at the station (Figure 2). The
number of observed values for each irriga-
tion season (year) that fell within each
quartile was recorded as the quartile count
for that station and year. Quartile cutoffs
were unique to each station but did not
change over time.
In the first comparison, downstream
suspended sediment concentrations were
regressed against time ("year" variable) for
the parametric test (column A in Table 1),
while for the CMH nonparametric test the
relative frequency of counts in each
quartile was correlated with "year" in a test
of linear association (column D). The sig-
nificance levels of the tests of linear trends
were similar for the two approaches, but
the correlation coefficient was larger in all
cases in the parametric test (column C ver-
sus column F).
PARAMETER
VALUE
25 50 75 100
CUMULATIVE % OF SAMPLES
Figure 2. Cumulative frequency distribution.
-------
524
Watershed '93
Table 1. Comparison of linear trend detection using analysis of covariance on raw data versus using
CMH statistics on frequency count data
Analysis of Covariance
Percent
Change
Observed
Monitoring
Station
1-2
2-2
4-2
4-3
5-2
7-4
S-2
over 8
Years*
-22
-62
-77
-83
-74
+35
+15
A
Significance
of linear
trend (no
covariate)b
**
**
*
+
*
NS
*
on Raw Data
B
Significance of
linear
trend (with
upstream
concentration
as covariate)b
NS
**
*
**
*
NS
NS
CMH Statistics on Quartile Data
C
r (linear
trend with
no
covariate)
-.47
-.54
-.60
-.56
-.54
-.59
-.54
D
Significance
of CMH
correlation
(no
covariate)b
**
**
**
*#
*#
NS
*
E
Significance of
CMH correla-
tion (with
upstream
concentration
as covariate)b
*
**
**
**
*#
NS
*
F
r(CMH
correlation
with no
covariate)
-.32
-.46
-.42
-.25
-.33
-.08
-.27
• Change versus average concentration for upstream station pair during 1981-1988 (1983 to 1988 for Station S-2).
* NS ~ No statistical evidence of a linear trend.
+ *t There is evidence of a linear trend at the 90 percent confidence level.
* * There is evidence of a linear trend at the 95 percent confidence level.
** » There is evidence of a linear trend at the 99 percent confidence level.
In the second comparison, paired
upstream suspended sediment concentra-
tions were used as covariates in the paramet-
ric (column B) and nonparametric (column
E) tests. Again, the conclusions that can be
drawn from the two approaches are similar,
but the significance levels are different. The
CMH correlation statistic (column E)
yielded a higher significance level for four
of the seven stations, while in three cases the
significance levels were the same.
hi conclusion, EPA's quartile ap-
proach was determined to be applicable to
the assessment of trends hi water quality for
the National Monitoring Program. Specific
recommendations were made regarding the
protocol, including the suggestion that
statistical test results using quartile counts
be considered preliminary, to be supported
by detailed analyses of raw data.
Software Support for National
Monitoring Program Projects
EPA developed the NonPoint Source
Management System (NPSMS) software
program to facilitate the standardized
information tracking and reporting estab-
lished for National Monitoring Program
projects (USEPA, 1991b). This software
has three data files:
1. The Management File, which
includes information regarding
project implementation plans and
water quality problems within the
project area.
2. The Monitoring Plan File, which
includes the experimental design,
monitoring stations and parameters,
monitoring seasons, quartile values
for chemical and physical param-
eters, and reference values for
biological and habitat parameters.
3. The Annual Report File, which
contains annual implementation and
water quality data.
A series of standard reports and graphics can
also be generated from NPSMS.
Currently Approved Projects
EPA has approved five projects to
date—the Sny Magill watershed project in
Clayton County, IA; the Elm Creek project
in Webster, County, NE; the Long Creek
project in Gaston County, NC; the Sycamore
Creek project in Ingham County, MI; and the
Mono Bay project in San Luis Obispo
County, CA. EPA has also included a pilot
ground-water project in the Snake River
Plain of south-central Idaho. Three of these
projects are summarized below, with key
-------
Conference Proceedings
525
aspects highlighted. These three projects are
also profiled by Osmond et al. (1991).
Sny Magill, I A
Identification of Water Quality
Problems
Sny Magill watershed covers 22,780
acres and includes Sny Magill and North
Cedar creeks, which are both coldwater
streams managed for "put and take" trout
fishing. They are both classified as high-
quality waters, but currently only partially
support wildlife, fish, semi-aquatic life, and
secondary aquatic uses. Problems are
primarily due to agricultural nonpoint
sources, particularly sediment, nutrients,
pesticides, and animal waste.
Sny Magill watershed is entirely
agricultural with no significant point
sources. Cropland (42 percent), pasture
(32 percent), and forest (23 percent) are the
major land uses. Half of the cropland is
typically in corn, with the rest primarily oats
and alfalfa in rotation with corn. There are
about 140 producers, with farm sizes
averaging 275 acres.
Implementation Plan
The project is planned for 8 to 10
years. A U.S. Department of Agriculture
(USDA) Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA)
project covers 19,560 acres (86 percent) of
the Sny Magill watershed. The remaining
area is included in the North Cedar Creek
Watershed Agricultural Conservation
Program (ACP)—Water Quality Special
Project (WQSP), which began in 1988.
Excessive sheet and rill erosion occurs
on 4,700 acres of cropland and 1,600 acres
of pasture. Gully erosion problems have
been identified at 60 locations. Over 30
livestock facilities need improved runoff
control and manure management systems.
Grazing management is needed on over 750
acres of pasture and 880 acres of grazed
woodland. A mile or more of stream
corridor is in need of cattle exclusion or
riparian repair.
The overall plan is to reduce sediment
delivery by 50 percent. A 90 percent
participation rate is expected. Fertilizer and
pesticide inputs are expected to be reduced
by more than 25 percent. Approximately
100 water and sediment and control basins
are planned to address the gully erosion
problems.
Monitoring Plan
A paired watershed approach is being
used with the adjacent Bloody Run Creek
watershed (24,064 acres) serving as the
control with Sny Magill Creek as the study
watershed. These watersheds are similar in
size, ground-water hydrogeology, and
surface hydrology. Available nitrate data
indicate that the watersheds respond
similarly to precipitation events. Sub-basins
within the Sny Magill watershed will be
compared using upstream-downstream
studies.
Suspended sediment, discharge,
nitrogen forms, total phosphorus, fecal
coliform bacteria, and a few other standard
chemical and physical parameters will be
tracked. In addition, habitat assessments,
fisheries surveys, and benthic macro-
invertebrate sampling will also occur.
Implementation will be tracked
through a coordinated process with the Soil
Conservation Service and Cooperative
Extension Service (CES).
Long Creek, NC
Identification of Water Quality
Problems
Long Creek, the primary water supply
for Bessemer City, is impaired by sediment,
bacteria, and nutrients. Frequent dredging is
required near the water supply intake and
habitat is degraded downstream from the
intake. Fishing and contact recreation on
the portion of Long Creek within the project
area are listed as threatened uses by the State
of North Carolina. Agricultural activities
related to crop and dairy production in the
28,480-acre watershed are believed to be the
major nonpoint sources causing these
problems. Watershed land uses are 53
percent forest, 25 percent agriculture, 19
percent urban, 2 percent mining, and 1
percent construction.
Implementation Plan
To achieve the water quality objec-
tives for this 10-year project, it is estimated
that a 60 percent reduction in sediment, a 50
percent reduction in nutrients, and reduc-
tions in bacteria levels are needed. The
principal measures to be implemented are a
range of agricultural practices, including
animal waste management, permanent
vegetative cover, conservation systems,
-------
526
Watershed '93
diversions, stream protection, nutrient
management, pest management, woodland
improvement, and sediment retention
structures. Additional measures will include
erosion and sediment control for forestry,
storm water retention for urban sources,
vegetated buffers and silt fencing for
construction, septic system management and
reduced lawn/garden chemical use for
residential areas, and proper disposal of
household hazardous waste.
Monitoring Plan
Three designs are proposed: paired,
upstream-downstream, and single-station.
Rainfall will be monitored at two locations
in the watershed. One single-station study
will take place at the water supply intake
below cropland where runoff and erosion
controls will be implemented. In accordance
with the North Carolina Water Supply Pro-
tection Act, strict land use requirements will
be imposed on land within one-half mile of
the intake. Weekly grab sampling from De-
cember through May will be conducted, as
will occasional storm event sampling. Pa-
rameters include suspended sediment (SS),
temperature, conductivity, dissolved oxygen
(DO), pH, turbidity, and flow.
The effects of improved waste
management, nutrient management, and
grazing management will be evaluated with
upstream-downstream monitoring on Long
Creek. Weekly grab sampling from
December through May is planned. Param-
eters include coliform bacteria, DO, total
suspended solids (TSS), phosphorus,
nitrogen, and flow.
The paired study involves erosion
control and nutrient management on crop-
land. Storm-event monitoring will be per-
formed, with samples analyzed for flow, SS,
nitrogen, and phosphorus.
Land treatment and land use tracking
will be based on a combination of voluntary
farmer record-keeping and frequent farm
visits by CES personnel. Data will be stored
and managed in a geographic information
system (GIS) located at the county CES
office.
Sycamore Creek, MI
Identification of Water Quality
Problems
Water quality problems in the 67,740-
acre watershed are caused primarily by sed-
iment, and include habitat destruction, im-
paired macroinvertebrate communities, and
dissolved oxygen standard violations. Based
upon sampling, surveys, and modeling, the
major sediment sources are reported to be
agriculture (most of 34.2 percent nonurban),
streambanks (36.8 percent), and urban (29.0
percent). The watershed is a USDA hydro-
logic unit project.
Monitoring and Implementation
The paired-watershed approach will
be used. Haines Drain (848 acres) re-
ceived most of its best management prac-
tices (BMPs) before 1990 and will be the
control watershed since few additional
BMPs are expected there. Willow Creek
(1,087 acres) and Marshall Drain (422
acres) will be the study watersheds.
Implementation plans for Willow Creek
are to control erosion, nutrients, and pesti-
cides on cropland and hayland; control
erosion from urban areas; and control
channel erosion problems. The full ben-
efits of these control efforts are not ex-
pected to be measured until 1996. Imple-
mentation in Marshall Drain will consist
primarily of erosion, nutrient, and pesti-
cide control on cropland, hayland, and pas-
ture.
Analysis of data collected between
April 1990 and May 1991 shows strong
associations between the TSS loadings of
Haines Drain and both Willow Creek and
Marshall Drain (Table 2). Plots of TSS
concentration data for storm events show
that Willow Creek has higher concentrations
than Haines Drain, but that Haines Drain has
higher concentrations than Marshall Drain
(Michigan DNR, 1992). Table 2 also
illustrates similar base and peak flow
between the study and control watersheds.
The sampling season is from March
through July, and monitoring parameters
include TSS, turbidity, nutrients, and
chemical oxygen demand (COD); with
continuous flow, total rainfall, and the
erosion intensity index as covariates.
Runoff samples (6-12 per storm) will be
collected for at least 4 runoff events (load
and runoff volume), and weekly sampling
will provide at least 20 samples per year.
Field reconnaissance will be used to
track land use and land cover in each
watershed. AGNPS (agricultural nonpoint
source pollution model; Young et al., 1985)
data cells (10-acre cells) will be used for
tracking the information.
-------
Conference Proceedings
527
Table 2. Correlation analysis for total suspended solids loads and flow parameters
Willow Creek Marshall Drain Willow Creek
TSSLoad TSS Load Base Flow
Haines Drain 0.79** 0.81**
TSS Load (n=9) (n=9)
Haines Drain 0.55*
Base Flow (n=13)
Haines Drain
Peak Flow
Marshall Drain Willow Creek Marshall Drain
Base Flow Peak Flow Peak Flow
0.70*
(n=10)
0.76** 0.65*
(n=13) (n=10)
* Pearson Correlation Coefficient significant at 95 percent confidence level.
** Pearson Correlation Coefficient significant at 99 percent confidence level.
Future
EPA anticipates approving a total of
20 to 35 National Monitoring Program
projects if resources allow. The Agency is
currently exploring the potential for
developing ground-water monitoring
protocols for the program and hopes to
eventually address monitoring in lakes,
estuaries, and coastal waters as well. Much
work lies ahead, however, before these goals
can be achieved.
Data from the existing projects will be
reported annually to EPA, and EPA will
develop annual reports that incorporate the
findings of North Carolina State University
and Oregon State University, which are both
under grants to perform watershed project
studies. Annual workshops will be planned
to provide assistance to projects. The first
workshop is scheduled for September 13-16,
1993, in Gaston County, NC, and will be
hosted by the Long Creek project.
Summary
EPA has developed and tested
monitoring protocols to be applied in a
subset of NPS watershed projects nation-
wide for the purpose of providing consistent
data from which conclusions can be drawn
regarding the success of implementation
under section 319 of the Clean Water Act.
Five projects are currently in the National
Monitoring Program, and EPA seeks an
additional 15 to 30 projects.
Projects in Iowa, North Carolina, and
Michigan were summarized to illustrate the
approaches taken to meet EPA's program
criteria. All three projects have incorporated
paired-watershed studies as a key compo-
nent. Upstream-downstream studies are also
being conducted. Land treatment is being
collected and recorded in a variety of ways,
including farmer record-keeping and GIS.
The section 319 National Monitoring
Program is in its nascent stage. EPA,
however, has high expectations that the
projects included in the program will
demonstrate water quality improvements
resulting from land treatment efforts.
References
Gale, J.A., D.E. Line, D.L. Osmond, S.W.
Coffey, J. Spooner, and J.A. Arnold.
1992. Summary report: Evaluation of
the experimental Rural Clean Water
Program. National Water Quality
Evaluation Project, NCSU Water
Quality Group, Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department,
North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC.
Gammon, J.R. 1980. The use of community
parameters derived from electrofishing
catches of river fish as indicators of
environmental quality. In Seminar on
Water Quality Management Tradeoffs.
EPA 905-9-80-009. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Washing-
ton, DC.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic
integrity using fish communities.
Fisheries 6:21-27.
Meals, D.W. 1991. Developing NPS
monitoring systems for rural surface
waters: watershed trends, In Seminar
Publication - Nonpoint Source
Watershed Workshop. EPA/625/4-91/
027. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Research and
-------
528
Watershed '93
Development, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Michigan Department of Natural Resources.
1992. Sycamore Creek Watershed
monitoring program: Fiscal year
1992. Surface Water Quality Divi-
sion, Lansing, MI.
NCSU Water Quality Group. 1989. Evalua-
tion and recommendations for the
proposed annual reporting format for
watershed implementation grants
federally funded under section 319 of
the 1987 Clean Water Act. Biological
and Agricultural Engineering Depart-
ment, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC (printed in 1990).
Ohio EPA. 1988. Biological criteria for the
protection of aquatic life: Vol. II.
Users manual for biological field
assessment of Ohio surface waters.
Ohio Environmental Protection
Agency, Division of Water Quality
Monitoring and Assessment, Surface
Water Section, Columbus, OH.
Osmond, D.L., J.A. Gale, D.E. Line, J.B.
Mullens, J. Spooner, and S.W. Coffey.
1992. Summary report: Section 319
national monitoring program projects,
nonpoint source watershed project
studies. Water Quality Group,
Biological and Agricultural Engineer-
ing Deparment, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC.
SAS Institute, Inc. 1985. SAS user's guide:
Statistics, version 5 edition. SAS
Institute, Inc., Gary, NC.
Spooner, J. 1992. Linking land treatment to
water quality—Section 319 national
water quality monitoring program.
Presented at National Monitoring and
Evaluation Conference, Chicago,
March 10-12, 1992. Biological and
Agricultural Engineering Department,
North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, NC.
USEPA. 1990. Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram—Lessons learned from a
voluntary nonpoint source control
experiment. EPA 440/4-90-012. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC.
. 199 la. Guidance on the award
and management of nonpoint source
program implementation grants
under section 319(h) of the Clean
Water Act. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
-. 1991b. Watershed monitoring and
reporting for the section 319 national
monitoring program projects. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Young, R.A., C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and
W.P. Anderson. 1985. AGNPSI—
Agricultural nonpoint source pollu-
tion model—A large watershed
analysis tool, a guide to model users.
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service and
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency,
Minneapolis, MN.
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
Multidisciplinary Approach to
Nonpoint Source Nutrient Control
Gaiy). Hitter, Supervising Professional
Alan L. Goldstein, Assistant Division Director
Greg Sawka, CPSS, Research Environmentalist
South Florida Water Management District, Okeechobee, FL
Eric G. Flaig, Ph.D., Staff Civil Engineer
Susan Gray, Ph.D., Senior Environmental Scientist
South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach FL
Lake Okeechobee is an 1,891-square-
kilometer (730-square-mile) multiuse
lake located in south central Florida
and is the second largest lake within the
continental United States. It provides South
Florida residents with many beneficial uses
such as municipal water supply, agricultural
irrigation, cooling water for power genera-
tion, recreational activities, and a large sport
and commercial fishing industry. It is also
the home of many species of fish and
wildlife, including species listed as threat-
ened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
The dominant land use in the region is
agriculture, which includes dairy, beef, truck
crops, sod, nursery, hog, sugarcane, and
citrus. The supporting industries include
fertilizer, feed, and heavy equipment
subsidiaries. The largest sources of net
phosphorus imports to the basin are feed and
fertilizer (Fonyo et al., 1991).
Topography of this region ranges from
23 meters (75 feet) National Geodetic
Vertical Datum (NGVD) at the basin
headwaters to 5 meters (18 feet) NGVD at
the lake. The soils are poorly drained sandy
spodosols that have a wet season average
depth to water table within 0.3 meter (1 foot)
of the surface. These soils typically have a
high potential for phosphorus transport. In
those areas where organic soils are domi-
nant, drainage practices can result in soil
oxidation and subsequent nutrient transport.
Average annual rainfall for the
region is approximately 127 centimeters
(50 inches), most of which occurs during
the summer rainy season from June
through October. Rainfall is the primary
source of water to the lake. Other sources
include the Kissimmee River and surface
runoff from 40 other tributary basins
(Figure 1). Primary outlets are evapotrans-
piration and a series of canals that convey
water to the lower east coast (Miami-Ft.
Lauderdale area) and on the west coast, the
Caloosahatcb.ee estuary near Fort Myers.
Gate structures control all inflows and
outlets to the lake except one inflow
tributary, Fisheating Creek. Structures and
conveyance canals leading to and from the
lake are the heart of a regional Central and
Southern Florida Flood Control Project, a
congressionally authorized public works
project built by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers under the local sponsorship of
the then Central and Southern Florida
Flood Control District. That agency is
now the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD), one of five regional
resource management agencies created by
the State of Florida and charged with the
preservation, protection, and management
of the region's water resources.
The objectives of this paper are to
examine three resource management
strategies directed at controlling phospho-
rus discharges from intensive agricultural
land uses located north of the lake and to
briefly discuss the coordination and
communication among experts from
various internal SFWMD line management
529
-------
530
Watershed '93
.tilt KIIIIM**
1339
Ulan Application Deadline by No«enbcr 1339
j Bam Ptiolt Application Deadline bj Ho
-------
Conference Proceedings
531
r
VBerQjality
Advisory Committee
(LOTAC) to review this
body of research. The avail-
able scientific information
generated from these
projects concluded that
excessive nutrient inputs are
being generated from agri-
cultural land use activities.
LOTAC identified dairies
and other intensive animal
use operations as the primary
source of phosphorus inflow
to the lake and recom-
mended a series of water
management actions to con-
trol or reduce these nutrient
sources (LOTAC, 1986;
LOTAC II, 1988).
In response, the
Governor initiated the first
management strategy by
directing the FDER to
develop and implement a
"Dairy Rule" to regulate the
control and treatment of
animal wastes generated from the dairy
industry located within the Lake
Okeechobee drainage basins.
Secondly, the Florida legislature
passed the Surface Water Improvement
and Management (SWIM) Act (Chapter
373.451-373.4595 F.S.) in 1987 that
directed the state's five Water Manage-
ment Districts to identify, develop, and
implement resource management plans for
restoration and protection of priority
waterbodies throughout the state (Figure
2). Given the high level of concern for
Lake Okeechobee a specific element of the
legislation was the development of
phosphorus control targets for the lake, a
major objective for the SFWMD. In 1989,
the SFWMD completed the interim Lake
Okeechobee SWIM plan (SFWMD, 1989;
SFWMD, 1993). The resource manage-
ment goal for the first phase of this plan
was to reduce the phosphorus load to the
Lake by approximately 40 percent. Fifteen
of the 41 basins that make up the SWIM
planning area for Lake Okeechobee were
identified as priority basins. These basins
were targeted based on the severity of their
historical total phosphorus load to the lake
and represent a drainage area of approxi-
mately 3,298 square kilometers (1,273
square miles) or roughly 75 percent of the
total drainage from the northern area of the
Lake.
T
Wfer Supply
Bnironmrtal
Rotation
EhMiontrentai
Enhancorent
Flood Rotation
Figure 2. Organization of State Environmental Resource Management
Strategy.
Resource Management
Strategy
The SWIM plan called for three
primary phosphorus control strategies
directed at reducing phosphorus imports
and subsequently reducing basin phospho-
rus loads. These strategies are the FDER
Dairy Rule BMPs, a Dairy Buy-Out
program, and the regulation of nonpoint
sources of runoff, from nondairy land uses,
through the Works of the District Rule
40E-61, Florida Administrative Code
(Figure 3). Regulation of the FDER Dairy
Rule program is based on the management
of specific BMPs rather than the perfor-
mance of the designed technology in
achieving regional phosphorus targets.
The Dairy Buy-Out, and Works of the
District, Rule 40E-61 programs represent
a major shift in the SFWMD's lake
management strategy from an emphasis
on technology-based research and demon-
stration support to one of performance
and regulation-based resource management
(Figure 4). However, SWIM phosphorus
targets are used as an index to measure
the effectiveness of the Dairy Rule
program.
The goal of each of these programs is
to reduce the phosphorus load entering the
lake from agricultural nonpoint source
runoff. The FDER and the SFWMD are
-------
532
Watershed '93
1
WODRule
40E-61
FDER
SFWMD
SWIM !
Mission
Dairy \
Buy-Out |
•&
:•;
1
1
•:
•
:
Dairy Rule
Figure 3. Organization of Regional Nonpoint Source Phosphorus Control
Strategies.
1.20 mg/l
0.35 mg/l
0.18 mg/l
Land Uses With Discharges Greater than Must Achieve 1.2 mg/l
Average Annual Phosphorus Limitation for Improved Pasture
Land Uses With Discharges Less than Can Come up to 0 .18 mg/l
All land uses other than improved pasture which currently
fall between 0.18 mg/l and 1.2 mg/l must maintain current
off-site discharge concentrations.
Figure 4. SWIM Works of the District, Rule 40E-61 Phosphorus
Concentration Standards.
committed to these programs through the
coordinated utilization of various disci-
plines to perform support for administra-
tion, data collection, data assessment,
technology evaluation, model develop-
ment, and program assessment efforts.
FDER Dairy Rule
The FDER Dairy Rule
was promulgated in 1987.
It required all dairies in the
Lake Okeechobee basin to
implement BMPs designed
to reduce nonpoint source
runoff from the high inten-
sity area around the milking
barn. Best available infor-
mation indicates that by re-
ducing on-farm phosphorus
discharges, from the high-
intensity area, to no greater
than 1.2 milligrams/liter
(mg/l), coupled with the
reduction in phosphorus
imports achieved through
the Dairy Buy-Out and the
Works of the District pro-
grams, the assimilative ca-
pacity of the basin would
provide enough nutrient up-
take necessary to achieve
the average annual phos-
phorus discharge target of
0.18 mg/l at the basin out-
fall structures to the lake.
Dairy Rule BMPs are
designed to capture and
collect all runoff from the
high intensity areas around
the milking barn and then
recycle this nutrient enriched
water for reuse on forage
pastures through center pivot
irrigation systems. The
system is designed to reduce
the amount of phosphorus in
surface runoff from the farm
as well as provide a mecha-
nism for water management
and water conservation
through water retention and
reuse. Engineers from SCS
and two private consulting
firms, hired by the SFWMD,
designed and provided
construction supervision for
all 30 farms participating in
the Dairy Rule program.
The SFWMD is
responsible for the water quality monitoring
and evaluation of this program. Information
is disseminated through regular coordination
and communication between the FDER, the
SFWMD, and local dairy operators. In
addition, the University of Florida Institute
-------
Conference Proceedings
533
of Food and Agricultural Science, in
conjunction with county Agricultural
Extension Agents, and the SFWMD are
working together to design and develop
computer models to optimize nutrient
management strategies for each farm. The
SFWMD is providing pre- and post- Dairy
Rule water quality monitoring data in
support of this effort.
Dairy Buy-Out Program
The purpose of the Dairy Buy-Out
program, initiated in 1989 by the Florida
Department of Agriculture and Consumer
Services and the SFWMD, was to provide
an economic option to dairy owners who
were unable to or chose not to comply with
the FDER Dairy Rule. The Agency ratio-
nale was that removal of the cows from the
basin also eliminated phosphorus imports
into the basin. Eighteen dairies participated
in this program, which required the removal
of all dairy milk herds and suspension of all
dairy milking activities on the property.
Implementation of alternative land use
practices subsequent to the program
required compliance with appropriate
average annual phosphorus discharge
limitations consistent with Works of the
District, Rule 40E-61.
The Water Resources and Evaluation
Department of the SFWMD is responsible
for the data collection in support of a regula-
tory compliance based water quality moni-
toring program on those Buy-Out farms that
converted to another animal intensive opera-
tion. Water quality monitoring data are be-
ing evaluated by the SFWMD to determine
the effectiveness of the Dairy Rule BMPs
and the Dairy Buy-Out programs in meeting
SWIM off-site phosphorus discharge stan-
dards in addition to determining their effec-
tiveness in reducing loads to the lake. The
data also serve as input to mathematical
models to predict the time necessary for
relic dairies to achieve the SWIM 1.2 mg/1
phosphorus discharge target.
Works of the District, Rule 40E-61
The SFWMD, Works of the District,
Rule 40E-61 became effective in 1989. The
objective of the Rule is to identify, permit,
monitor for compliance, and enforce for
noncompliance on all nondairy land uses in
the Lake Okeechobee basin. The Works of
the District permit requires that all users
within the defined boundaries of the basin
meet average annual phosphorus discharge
concentration standards regardless of the
manner in which their water enters the
system.
The Regulation Department of the
SFWMD is responsible for the administra-
tion, regulation, and enforcement of the
rule with support from a separate line
management department (Water Resources
and Evaluation) providing water quality
monitoring. The data are used by the
Regulation Department to verify compli-
ance or noncompliance with the rule. A
third line management department (Re-
search) utilizes the data collected through
the Dairy Rule and the Works of the
District monitoring programs along with
lake inflow data to determine the effective-
ness of the combined programs in achiev-
ing the Lake Okeechobee SWIM plan
phosphorus reduction goals.
Keys to Success
The key elements of these three
programs involve the commitment,
coordination, and communication of
resources from various disciplines (engi-
neers, scientists, planners, and lawyers)
both internal and external to the SFWMD.
In addition, the key to the success of any
performance- or technology-based regula-
tory program is (1) a firm foundation in the
legal process which empowers the regula-
tory agency to effectively carry out the
designed mission and (2) a basis of review
which, in this case, provides for the
development of on-farm nutrient manage-
ment strategies designed to balance
nutrient imports and exports to improve
runoff water quality. Lastly, regulatory
agencies must have the respect of the
regulated community. This can be
accomplished primarily through frequent
contact and communications, through
public workshops, frequent dissemination
of written information, and one-on-one
meetings with landowners.
Seven line management departments
(Planning, Water Resources and Evaluation,
Research, Regulation, Office of Council,
Land Management and Construction
Management) were involved in implement-
ing various facets of these programs.
Commitment, communication, and coordi-
nation between and among them is also
essential. The biggest problems in the
program implementation occurred in those
-------
534
Watershed '93
cases where the communication and coordi-
nation links were inadequate.
Measures of Success
The Dairy Rule and the Works of the
District programs combine technology based
regulation for all regional dairy operations
along with performance based regulation for
compliance with nonpoint source phospho-
rus discharge standards on nondairy land
uses to implement regional resource
protection strategies. The success of the
Dairy Rule is measured by the degree of
phosphorus reduction in surface discharges
from the farm. The ultimate measure of
success will be the achievement of the 1.2
mg/1 total phosphorus discharge target
required by SWIM. The success of the
Works of the District is measured quantita-
tively through documentation of permits
issued, amount of surface area permitted, the
number of sites in compliance with water
quality standards, and the implementation of
effective corrective action plans on noncom-
plying parcels.
To date, all 30 dairies participating in
the Dairy Rule program have completed
construction of the required BMPs. Total
phosphorus concentrations have decreased
by 50 percent at 75 percent of the 30 active
dairy farms. Currently 15 of the dairies are
meeting the 1.2 mg/1 SWIM phosphorus
concentration target based on 1 to 3 years of
monitoring (Gunsalus et al., 1992).
Eighteen dairies participated in the
Dairy Buy-out program. To date, total
phosphorus concentrations have signifi-
cantly improved at half of the buy-out sites
although total phosphorus concentrations
remain unacceptably high, greater than the
0.35 mg/1 SWIM phosphorus discharge
target (Gunsalus et al., 1992).
The Works of the District permitting
of nondairy land uses is essentially com-
plete. To date, 666 applications have been
permitted throughout these basins covering
approximately 3,298 square kilometers
(1,273 square miles). Of these, 400 sites
(186 permits) have been monitored for
compliance. Seventeen farms have been
identified as noncomplying parcels and have
developed formal management strategies to
come into compliance with phosphorus
discharge standards.
The implementation of these three
resource management strategies within the
target basins has resulted in a 20 percent
reduction in phosphorus loadings to the lake
(Gunsalus et al., 1992). The ultimate goal is
a 40 percent reduction in phosphorus loads
to Lake Okeechobee.
Summary and Conclusions
Numerous state and federal agencies
have participated in this environmental
pro-tection effort for Lake Okeechobee.
Within the SFWMD individuals from
multiple scientific, planning, legal, and
regulatory backgrounds, across many
organizational lines, have been involved in
this effort.
The Dairy Rule and the Works of the
District programs appear to be effective in
reducing phosphorus loads to the lake. It is
still uncertain whether or not these programs
will achieve a 40 percent reduction in the
average annual phosphorus load to the lake.
The programs have resulted in BMP
implementation or voluntary closure of all
dairy sources in the basin and implementa-
tion of corrective actions for phosphorus
control on nondairy land uses found to be
out of compliance.
Phosphorus dynamics research,
current modeling efforts, and water quality
monitoring continue with the purpose of
evaluation of BMP effectiveness and
development of new BMP alternatives.
These three programs have created a
greater awareness among landowners and
operators of the need for pollution control
and help in the design and implementation
of nutrient management strategies to
improve the quality of nonpoint source
runoff from individual farms. The SFWMD
remains committed to these programs as the
backbone of the agency strategy to preserve
and protect the water quality in Lake
Okeechobee.
References
Davis, F.E., and M.L. Marshall. 1975.
Chemical and biological investiga-
tions of Lake Okeechobee: January
1973 - June 1974 interim report. Cen-
tral and Southern Florida Flood Con-
trol District, West Palm Beach, FL.
Federico, A.C., K.C. Dickson, C.R. Kratzer,
andRE. Davis. 1981. Lake
Okeechobee water quality studies and
eutrophication assessment. Technical
Publication 81-2. South Florida
-------
Conference Proceedings
535
Water Management District, West
Palm Beach, FL.
Flaig, E.G., and G.J. Ritter, 1989. Water
quality monitoring of agricultural
discharge to Lake Okeechobee.
American Society of Agricultural
Engineers Paper no. 89-2525. St.
Joseph, MI.
Fonyo, C., et al. 1991. Final report: Basin
phosphorus mass balances. Bio-
geochemical behavior and transport
of phosphorus in the Lake Okeechobee
basin. Contract C91-2394, South
Florida Water Management District.
Institute of Food and Agricultural
Science, University of Florida,
Gainesville, FL.
Goldstein, A.L. 1986. Upland detention/
retention demonstration project,
final report. Technical Publication
no. 86-2. South Florida Water
. Management District, West Palm
Beach, FL.
Gunsalus, G.E., E.G. Flaig, and G.J. Ritter.
1992. Effectiveness of agricultural
best management practices imple-
mented in the Taylor Creek/Nubbin
Slough watershed and the Lower
Kissimmee River basin. In Proceed-
ings, National RCWP Symposium,
1992, Orlando, FL.
Joyner, B.F. 1971. Chemical and biological
conditions of Lake Okeechobee,
Florida, 1969-1970. Open File
Report 71006. U.S. Geological
Survey.
LOTAC. 1986. Lake Okeechobee Technical
Advisory Committee, final report.
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation, Tallahassee, FL. August
1986; revised November 1986.
LOTAC II. 1988. Lake Okeechobee
Technical Advisory Committee,
Interim Report to the Florida Legisla-
ture. South Florida Water Manage-
ment District, West Palm Beach, FL.
February 29.
MacGill, R.A., S.E. Gatewood, C.
Hutchinson, and D.D. Walker. 1976.
Final report on the special project to
prevent the eutrophication of Lake
Okeechobee. DSP-BCP-36-76.
Florida Department of State Planning,
Tallahassee, FL.
Marshall, M.L. 1977. Phytoplankton and
primary productivity studies in Lake
Okeechobee during 1974. Technical
Publication no. 77-2. South Florida
Water Management District West
Palm Beach, FL.
Ritter, G.J., and L.H. Allen. 1982. Water
quality trends in the Taylor Creek/
Nubbin Slough Basin: Phase I.
Technical Publication no. 82-8. South
Florida Water Management District,
West Palm Beach, FL.
South Florida Water Management District.
1989. Interim Surface Water Im-
provement and Management (SWIM)
Plan for Lake Okeechobee—Part I:
Water quality and Part VII: Public
information. West Palm Beach, FL.
. 1993. Surface Water Improvement
and Management (SWIM) Plan update
for Lake Okeechobee: Public infor-
mation. West Palm Beach, FL.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Using Field-Scale Simulation
Models for Watershed Planning
and/or Evaluation
Ray H. Griggs, Agricultural Engineer
Texas Agricultural Experiment Station, Blackland Research Center, Temple, TX
John D. Sutton, Agricultural Economist
Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC
In this decade of the environment,
agriculture is being called upon to
quantity its effects on the quality of
water. In that the environmental system is
quite complex and demonstrates a remark-
able capacity for buffering change, the
effects are somewhat masked. Even though
it takes a long time (several years) to detect
degradation, it takes at least as long to detect
remediation effects.
There are at least two types of data to
be utilized when analyzing effects on water
quality: monitored and simulated. While
monitored data are directly measured,
simulated data are predicted through the
application of a computer physical process
simulation model. There are numerous
advantages and disadvantages to both types
of data. The lessening of resource invest-
ment (time, money, and equipment) is the
major advantage to modeling, but the
absolute accuracy of simulated data is
always questionable. Even though it is quite
common to debate which is better, moni-
tored or simulated data, this discussion
recognizes two important points:
1. All models are built from monitored
data.
2. Models work best when used in
conjunction with monitored data.
There are at least three scales of
nonpoint source (NFS) models:
1. Watershed or basin scale models
cover large geographic areas at an
abbreviated level of detail and
subdivide smaller areas into homo-
geneous cells or sub-basins.
2. Ground-water models concentrate on
the saturated zone with little interac-
tion with the soil surface.
3. Field-scale models focus on smaller,
homogeneous areas such as one
field, in great detail.
Both watershed and ground-water models
focus on pollutant concentrations (parts per
million (ppm) or milligram per liter) within
a waterbody, while field-scale models
generally concentrate on loadings (grams
per hectare or milligrams per liter per day)
leaving the edge of the field or the bottom of
the root zone.
Most water quality problems are
recognized off-site from the original source
of the pollutant. For example, if there is a
siltation problem in a lake, the sediment
actually comes from somewhere upstream in
the watershed. We know that most land
erodes, but the rates vary significantly. Is
our problem from one single field, a
construction site, or is it the aggregate of a
little from numerous sources? Is one storm
per year causing the problem, or is the
sediment problem the combination of many
storms? Watershed-level (basin-scale)
models can assist us in ranking and targeting
these type of questions and in estimating the
cumulative sensitivity of the watershed to
alternative solutions.
Field-scale models provide greater
detail concerning the management practices
and their effects on changes in loadings
from the edge of the field and bottom of the
root zone. They also naturally fit the
perspective of most field level professionals
537
-------
538
Watershed '93
such as District Conservationists with the
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), County
Extension Agents with the Cooperative
Extension Service (CES), and the main
client, the farmer/producer. In much the
same way that we could use monitored and
simulated data in combination, so we can
use the outputs from both field- and basin-
scale models to complement each other in
our effort to link land practices with water
quality. In summary, this paper is limited to
applying field-scale simulation models to
watershed planning and evaluation of effects
on the loading of waterbodies with NFS
pollutants such as sediment, nitrogen,
phosphorus, and pesticides.
Background
Simple models have been around for a
long time, but the use of complex system
models is a relatively recent endeavor
mainly due to the availability of computers.
A typical 30-year simulation or run of a
field-scale model takes less than 2 minutes
on a 486 class personal computer, but the
same data processing would take an expert
the better part of a lifetime using hand
calculations.
The four models included in this paper
encompass a large amount of work from
numerous scientific disciplines including:
agronomy, soils, agricultural mechanization,
hydrology, geology, erosion/sedimentation,
1. Basic capabilities of four field-scale water quality models
CMLS
EPIC
GLEAMS
NLEAP
CMLS
EPIC
GLEAMS
NLEAP
CMLS
EPIC
GLEAMS
NLEAP
Simulated
Crop Yields
X
Single (storm)
X
X
X
X
Pesticides
X
X
X
Surface
X
X
X
Daily
X
X
X
X
Nitrogen
X
X
X
Base (subsurface)
Flow
X
Annual
X
X
X
X
Phosphorus
X
X
Root Zone
X
X
X
X
Continuous
X
X
X
Buffer strips
X
plant physiology, weed science, chemistry,
biology, mathematics, economics, and
general agriculture. The development of
such systems models takes years of collect-
ing, organizing, programming, validating,
and refining to produce a usable tool. In
truth, that usable tool is only then a rough
draft which will need additional years of
trial and error use to become a polished,
reliable tool. Quite often when we assemble
all that we know about a specific system we
find that there are holes in our understand-
ing. The weakness is not in the model but
rather in our knowledge of the systems.
Three of the four models to be discussed
were developed by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture - Agricultural Research Service
(USDA-ARS) and the fourth by University
researchers. The development period for
each has stretched over 10 to 15 years, and
the models are all still being supported and
refined even though they are being used in
various parts of the world. The four models
are the Chemical Movement through
Layered Soils (CMLS), the Erosion-
Productivity Impact Calculator (EPIC), the
Ground water Loading Effects of Agricul-
tural Management Systems (GLEAMS), and
the Nitrogen Leaching and Economic
Analysis Package (NLEAP). Table 1
contains a comparative matrix of the basic
water quality capabilities for each model.
Simulation models are systems tools.
Most use a combination of physical and
empirical relationships to track a specific
resource to a complete mass balance.
For example, nitrogen enters the system
in various forms or pools (fertilizer,
manure, through legumes, irrigation
water, etc.), leaves the system (in
harvest, runs off of fields, volatilizes,
percolates, etc.), or remains in the
system even if the form or location
changes (denitrification, mineralization,
plant uptake, residual in the soil,
erosion and deposition, etc.). In short,
all nitrogen is accounted. If we have a
nitrogen concentration problem in a
lake and we reduce the amount of
nitrogen in runoff by incorporating our
fertilizer rather than broadcasting it on
the surface, where did the nitrogen
reduction occur? If one pool was
decreased, which other pool was
increased? Were there larger crop
yields, more carryover to subsequent
years, or larger amounts of nitrogen
leaching out the bottom of the root zone
headed for the ground water? Did we
-------
Conference Proceedings
539
mitigate one problem and create another?
All environmental quality work must
address the issues in a system fashion.
Saying that the nitrates in the lake were
reduced is not enough.
There are many field-scale simulation
models available; we have a choice of
which to use. Most models are good, as
long as we are interested in the same output
and assumptions as the developers. No one
model is the best tool for all water quality
questions; although, some are better than
others. In addition, some models are more
detailed/robust/sensitive in certain areas
than are others. The right model is the one
that does the best job for you (Griggs,
1990).
SCS has identified nine steps in the
watershed planning process (USDA-SCS,
1991) and has elaborated on their applica-
tion to water quality concerns (USDA-SCS,
1992):
1. Identify the problem.
2. Determine the objectives.
3. Inventory the resource.
4. Analyze the resource data.
5. Formulate alternative solutions.
6. Evaluate alternative solutions.
7. Client determines a course of action.
8. Client implements the plan.
9. Evaluation of the results of the plan.
Field-scale simulation models could and
quite often should be directly or indirectly
part of all of these steps with the exception
of steps numbered seven and eight. Rather
than a list of nine sequential steps, in real-
ity this planning process is a continuum.
For example, after analyzing the resource
data, the problem can be further identified,
or after the evaluation of the results, other
alternatives can be formulated and evalu-
ated.
Evaluation (assessment) is an
important mid-stream step as well as a
final grade for water quality project efforts.
As input data become more detailed and
more reliable, original objectives and
methods should be re-evaluated and
refined. Project goals may be unchanged,
but the steps to reach the goals might need
some refining. Changing our direction due
to additional understanding is not a crime,
but continuing on in the wrong (even the
second best) direction due to pride or
worse yet because we failed to take time to
evaluate mid-stream is! On the same note,
field workers must have access to and be
included in the evaluation (mid-stream and
final) process. Communication becomes
even more critical because self-evaluation
can be an excellent teaching tool if, and
only if, the results are shared with the field
staff.
Example Planning/Evaluation
Scenarios
The following is a generic example of
how field-scale models could be a part of
the nine-step watershed water quality
planning process.
First, identify the water quality
problem(s) or challenge(s) and then
prioritize them (e.g., Atrazine concentra-
tion (parts/million—ppm) in ground water,
preventing sediment deposition (metric
tonnes) in a planned reservoir, and
eutrophication in a nitrogen limited stream
(ppm)).
Second, determine specific and mea-
surable objectives directly related to the
identified problem(s) and/or challenge(s)
(e.g., reduce the amount (gram/hectare) of
Atrazine leaving the bottom of the rootzone
by 30 percent, reduce the amount of sedi-
ment (tonnes/hectare) leaving the edge of
the fields by 50 percent, and reduce total
nitrogen leaving the edge of the fields
(kilogram/hectare) by 25 percent). These
example percentages are a first draft and
should be back-calculated from the
problem(s). Note that the objectives include
specific points of interest for measurements
and are within the realms of most field-scale
models (edge-of-field and bottom-of-
rootzone).
Third, inventory the resources. Which
field-scale models address the desired water
quality indicators? A water quality indicator
is defined as a measurable parameter (e.g.,
daily mass of Atrazine leaving the edge of
the field in runoff water). Determine the
inputs (requked and optional) needed by the
selected model(s). The sensitivities of
different models to specific input parameters
are often times very different (Table 2 and
Table 3).
The fourth step of the watershed wa-
ter quality planning procedure is to analyze
the resource data. That would include
making baseline simulations (before
project). Check the hydrology of the simu-
lation. Is it reasonable? Determine the
sensitivity of the system being simulated
(e.g., How much do I have to reduce the
nitrogen input (kilogram/hectare) or
change the management practices by to see
-------
540
Watershed '93
Table 2. Water quality indicators
Pesticides CMLS
in runoff (g/ha)
in runoff (ppm)
in subsurface flow (g/ha)
in subsurface flow (ppm)
attached to eroded sediment (g/ha)
attached to eroded sediment (ppm)
in percolate (g/ha) X
in percolate (ppm)
EPIC GLEAMS NLEAP
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Table 3. GLEAMS model pesticide mass balance worksheet
a 25 percent reduction in nitrogen surface
losses?). If historical data are available,
past/present/future trends can be simulated
at this time. Additional resource needs may
be determined.
Fifth, from the preceding step and using
the knowledge and experience of the local
field staff, alternative Resource Management
Systems (RMS) solutions should be formu-
lated. These might include:
• Different chemical formulations of
nitrogen and phosphorus.
• Stickers, emulsifiers, extenders, and
inhibitors for nitrogen and phosphorus.
Description of Pool
Start of Simulation:
residue on foliage (concentration)
residue in soil layers (concentration)
Additions:
applied
Losses:
in runoff (mass)
in lost sediment (mass)
leached below the root zone (mass)
in runoff (mass)
End of Simulation:
on foliage at the end of a day
in the soil at the end of a day
Other:
in the soil (mass by layer)
in the soil (concentration by layer)
in loss sediment (concentration)
leached below the root zone (cone.)
total losses (mass)
in HiO (concentration by soil layer)
in soil (concentration by soil layer)
Parameters
Input Output
FOLRES
RESDUE
APRATE
601-610
651-660
701-710
611-620
PFOL
PSOL
801-810
811-820
611-670
711-720
751-760
821-830
831-840
Units
mg/g
mg/g
kg/ha
g/ha
g/ha
g/ha
mg/1
kg/ha
kg/ha
mg/g
mg/g
mg/g
mg/1
g/ha
mg/1
mg/g
• Reduced application rates for
nitrogen and phosphorus without
reducing crop yields.
• Different nitrogen and phosphorus
application methods: over the top,
incorporated, injected, or banding.
• Alternative timing of nitrogen and
phosphorus applications, split
applications.
• Crop rotations.
• Irrigation practices: center pivot,
Low Energy Precision Application
(LEPA), sprinkler, furrow, drip,
chemigation, or fertigation.
• Tillage practices: fall plow, spring
plow, no-till, reduced till, ridge till,
type, depth, timing, and number of
passes.
• Residue: high, medium, or low.
• Structures: ponds, terraces, wetlands,
grassed waterways, filter/buffer
strips, and riparian zones.
Sixth, evaluate the effects of alterna-
tive individual and systems of practices on
the entire hydrologic system. Remember
to compare effects on all of the following:
water, sediment, nitrogen, phosphorus, and
pesticide losses from the system. Note,
changing the surface losses will generally
affect the bottom of the rootzone losses as
well. The models and the environment
maintain a mass balance (conservation of
matter) for all of the potential contami-
nants. "After" RMS simulations are
compared to the "before" simulations to
determine the best RMS considering all of
the goals of step two. At this point, the
goals may need to be refined and/or the
alternative RMS solutions might need
further development in order to meet the
goals of step two.
Seventh, the client (usually the
producer) determines a course of action.
Eighth, the client implements the
chosen course of action.
The ninth and final step is to evaluate
the results that the RMS had on the problems/
challenges of step one. This is a refinement
of the chosen course of action after simula-
tions of step number six using monitoring
data, actual historical climate data, actual
land treatment tracking (percentage adop-
tion), and any other additional developments.
Needs
Among these four models, there are
issues and/or practices that the models
-------
Confevewce Proceedings
541
cannot address, are not validated for
addressing, or the documentation is not clear
on exactly how to address. Many of these
practices are already being prescribed as part
of the RMSs for maintaining and/or im-
proving water quality, but the models are
lagging behind in technology. Following is
a list of some of the model weaknesses
concerning water quality issues:
• Animal grazing: Handling both
animal grazing and water quality
indicators.
• Banding of nutrients and pesticides:
None are spatially distributed within
a field area. Pesticide and nutrient
applications are considered to be
homogeneous for the entire area.
• Gully erosion: Another spatially
distributed parameter similar to
banding. The models handle sheet
and rill erosion as it is homoge-
neously distributed over the field.
Since gully erosion is not homoge-
neously distributed most of the
models do not address it.
• Buffer strips/riparian zones/grassed
waterways: GLEAMS is the only
one of these that does simulate
buffer strips, but does not simulate
crop yields (one of the most critical
nutrient cycling aspects).
• Chemical interactions (pesticides):
None address interactions between
pesticides even though we know that
chemically there are interactions.
Currently, one simulation with two
pesticides is in reality just two
separate simulations with one
pesticide each.
• Flood irrigated (paddy) rice: None
completely handle saturated condi-
tions. Many of the chemical
processes take different metabolic
pathways under anaerobic than under
aerobic conditions.
• High water tables: Another phenom-
enon similar to the anaerobic condi-
tions described in the flood irrigated
rice deficiency described above.
• Furrow/surge irrigation: Water is
not distributed evenly along the
furrow in the real world and water is
the principle, if not the only, carrier
of chemicals in these models.
• Trickle irrigation: Another distrib-
uted activity like the banding and
furrow irrigation questions.
• Maximum contaminant level/health
advisory level warnings (habitat
suitability): The models give output
numbers but do not address the
differences in risk factors for very
different compounds (e.g., one
gram of nitrate is not as much of a
risk factor as one gram of Atra-
zine).
Minor crops (e.g., vegetables): The
crop growth subroutines do not gen-
erally have growth parameters for
cucumbers and other minor crops.
Vegetables are sometimes examples
of worse case scenarios since three
and four crops can be grown on the
same field in one year.
Mixed plant populations: Rangeland,
pasture land, and weed/crop sce-
narios are very different from a
monocrop situation.
Rangeland: In addition to the mixed
population and grazing questions,
rangelands ecosystems are very dif-
ferent than row cropped land. Even
if the models will work well in
rangeland situation, very little valida-
tion work has been documented.
Integrated crop management (ICM)
or integrated pest management
(IPM): Herbicide applications are
generally made in response to weed
pressures which vary from year to
year and likewise insecticides are
applied only when a predetermined
threshold is exceeded. The models
must be able to interactively make
adjustments throughout the simula-
tions rather than only repeat uniform
management practices.
Nitrogen inhibitors: This is an
additive which reduces the rate in
which nitrogen is transformed.
Pesticide additives (emulsifiers,
stickers, and wetting agents): Like
the nitrogen inhibitor example
above, these additives alter the
chemical and physical properties of
pesticides. The degradation and
attachment to foliage is altered sig-
nificantly and can have a major ef-
fect on the fate and transport of pes-
ticides.
Stochastic input/output variables:
Variability is more common in na-
ture than are averages (e.g., the av-
erage annual temperature of Hono-
lulu, Hawaii, and Bismarck, North
Dakota, are similar but the ranges
are significantly different). Average
• annual amount of Atrazine in the
-------
542
Watershed '93
water may be well below the 3 parts
per billion U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (EPA) drinking wa-
ter standard, but if this standard is
exceeded even part of one day out
of the year some life forms may be
in danger. This variability in soils,
application rates, and plant densities
in addition to climate is important in
environmental risk determinations.
• Sub-surface drainage (tile drain-
age): Vegetable, fruit, and some
row crops use tile drains to reduce
anaerobic conditions. This can
accelerate the translocation of
agricultural chemicals to surface
waterbodies.
• Sub-surface flow (base flow):
Depending on soil and geological
conditions, significant portions of
stream base flow return to streams
under the surface and not only as
overland runoff.
• Volatilization: Some forms of
nitrogen and some pesticides are
mainly lost through this form of
transformation. Most of the
models ignore some portion of
this.
• Wetlands: Another of the saturated
or anaerobic situations. Several of
the EPA surface water quality
models address this phenomenon in
great detail.
Some Recommendations for
Proper Field-Scale Model Use
Models are very complicated collec-
tions of science which were assembled in an
attempt to simplify the work of potential
users. Since proper use is still not too
simple, there are some basic steps to follow.
First, the user must be able to choose the
best model(s) for each water quality situa-
tion or collection of situations. Then, in
order to use the model(s) correctly, the user
must invest a lot of time to understand the
theory, become accustomed to the software,
learn where and how to obtain the needed
input data, be able to troubleshoot the simu-
lations, and become familiar with the output.
It is much easier to misuse models and to
approach the science as a blackbox (accept
the output as truth). Models are not expert
systems or artificial intelligence tools. They
require expert human planning, interpreta-
tion, and analysis.
It is important that national program
leaders give sufficient guidance and
technical support to individuals who are
given assignments to prepare modeled
output data in annual progress reports.
Using a simulation model two or three
tunes per year is not efficient. If used
correctly the user must be very familiar
with the tool; this means that literally
hundreds of hours must be experienced on a
regular basis. For example, if a progress
report states, "Our modeling efforts predict
little to no reduction in nitrogen loadings
in the lake down-stream even after increas-
ing residue left on the surface," the reader
still needs to know (1) how staff are using
the output data and (2) what difference this
self-evaluation process is having on the
project activities and its expectations for
impact on water quality. Hopefully, the
example above would have the following
statement added to it "...; therefore, we
are now exploring alternatives such as split
spring nitrogen applications and no-till."
Teams, not individuals, should use
and support modeling efforts. Soil science,
hydrology, economics, entomology, plant
physiology, chemistry, biology, weed
science, erosion, sedimentation, entomol-
ogy, geology, and tillage are all major
components of these models.
Models should be used as one of a
battery of tools to be used within a plan of
analysis.
Users should take special pains to
thoroughly document model use. For
example, EPIC has choices for calculat-
ing erosion/sediment yield—the Univer-
sal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) predicts
erosion; while the Modified USLE
(MUSLE) and Onstad-Foster (OF)
methods calculate sediment yield at the
edge of the field. Depending on which
choice the model user makes, the results
are quite different in quantity and
meaning.
References
Griggs, R.H. 1990. The right computer
simulation model for the right water
quality question. Presented at the
Texas Water Quality Issues-Legal
and Regulatory Aspects Meeting,
October 4, 1990, College Station, TX.
Texas Section of the American
Society of Agricultural Engineers,
Paper no. TX90-5.
-------
Conference Proceedings
543
Knisel, W.G., P.M. Davis, and R.A.
Leonard. 1992. GLEAMS version
2.0, Part HI user manual. Tifton, GA.
Nofziger, D.L., and A.G. Hornsby.
1987. Chemical movement in
layered soils: User's manual.
University of Florida.
Shaffer, M.L., M.K. Brodahl, andP.N.S.
Battling. 1992. NLEAP reference
guide for version 1.13. USDA-ARS.,
Fort Collins, CO.
USDA-SCS. 1991. SCS planning pro-
cess. Section 502 of National
planning manual. National Bulle-
tin 180-2-7; November 27, 1991.
Washington, DC.
1992. Project planning for water
quality concerns. Technical Note no.
1706. South National Technical
Center, Fort Worth, TX. November.
Williams, J.R.. P.T. Dyke, W.W. Fuchs,
V.W. Benson, O.W. Rice, and E.D.
Taylor. 1990. EPIC - Erosion/
Productivity Impact Calculator,
Part 2 user manual. USDA-ARS
Technical Bulletin no. 1768.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
*^
Consequences of Urbanization on
Aquatic Systems—Measured Effects,
Degradation Thresholds, and
Corrective Strategies
Derek B. Booth and Lorin E. Reinelt
King County Surface Water Management Division, Seattle, WA
Urbanization imposes a variety of
watershed changes that profoundly
affect runoff processes and the
downstream surface-water drainage system.
These changes include not only the most
obvious manifestation of urban develop-
ment, namely impervious surfaces that cover
the land, but also the associated vegetation
clearing, soil compaction, water-conveyance
modifications, riparian-corridor alterations,
human intrusion, and import of chemical
contaminants that invariably accompany
such development. These pervasive,
landscape-level changes commonly affect
virtually all areas of an urban watershed.
Downstream channels reflect these
watershed changes in a variety of ways.
Increases in peak flows have been best
documented, with the discharge of floods of
a given recurrence interval typically
increasing by factors of about 2 to 5.
Recent, more sophisticated monitoring and
numerical modeling of urbanizing drainage
basins show that the duration of any given
flood discharge, summed over the time
period of gage record or simulation, may
increase by an order of magnitude. Such
modeling also shows that the frequency of
"large" flows, recognized by the discharge
necessary to accomplish significant erosive
work on the channel form, may increase by
nearly two orders of magnitude—from once
or twice per decade to several times per
year (Booth, 1991).
Physical conditions in channels also
change as a result of urbanization. Some of
those changes are a direct consequence of
development and human habitation—
riparian corridors are cleared, channels are
straightened, and logs are removed from
channels in the name of tidiness or for fire-
wood. Other changes result from the
increase in flows delivered from the up-
stream basin. These flows transport more
sediment as a result of increased flow dura-
tions and accomplish more channel erosion
as a result of the increased frequency of
large floods. Geomorphic work on the
channel is increased even as the resistance
of the channel to that work, typically de-
rived from the roughness and armoring
properties of bank vegetation and large
woody debris, is reduced. Urban channels
are therefore deeper, wider, and commonly
incised; they are also more homogenous
with little of the morphological variability,
such as alternating pools and riffles, that
characterizes channels in more undisturbed
settings.
The chemical composition of urban
storm water also differs, sometimes drama-
tically, from predevelopment conditions.
Although measured data vary widely be-
tween systems, increases of up to one order
of magnitude are typical for most pollutant
classes, including solids, nutrients, metals,
and bacteria. Construction-phase impacts
can be particularly severe on stream sys-
tems and wetlands with small drainage
areas.
In summary, landscape alteration
affects aquatic system function, primarily
545
-------
546
Watershed '93
by the physical processes of reduced soil-
moisture storage by compaction and
paving, direct human intrusion into streams
and wetlands, and import of pollutants. In
recognition of these dominant processes,
we have collected sets of physical, chemi-
cal, and biological data from a wide variety
of lowland streams and wetlands in King
County, western Washington State. We
seek both a threshold of significant aquatic
system degradation, which appears from our
data to occur at a rather well-defined level
of urbanization, and insight into the pro-
cesses by which that degradation occurs.
Only with such insight are subsequent
efforts at mitigation or protection likely to
be successful.
Choice of Parameters and
Methods of Data Collection
We have chosen to consider data
from both streams and wetlands because
these two classes of aquatic features are
intimately interconnected in the water-
sheds of western Washington. The
structure of these features is evaluated
through measurement of physical
parameters, such as bankfull width and
depth for channels, or fluctuations in
water level and water chemistry for
wetlands. The function of these aquatic
systems is measured by biological
utilization, which is judged to integrate
the suite of urban induced effects and to
provide the best aggregate measures of
"quality" or "degradation." We have
evaluated biological parameters quanti-
tatively by species and population
counts, and more qualitatively by rapid
field assessment of habitat quality.
Urbanization is similarly diverse in
characterization. Several parameters have
been used by past workers (e.g., percentage
of area urbanized, percentage of area served
by storm sewers); all are strongly cross-
correlated, and so to some extent the choice
is a matter of personal preference. We have
elected to cast all data in terms of the
percentage impervious area in a watershed,
using typical impervious-area ratios for
individual land uses; this parameter can be
unequivocally measured and is particularly
well correlated with the runoff processes
that we judge are most significant. We also
have independently measured conditions of
the riparian corridor because these areas are
directly connected to aquatic systems and
because many jurisdictions are actively
regulating these zones independent of
broader, watershed-level controls.
Correlations Between
Urbanization and Aquatic
System Function
In aggregate, the physical changes
imposed by urban development on the
landscape result in a decline in function of
aquatic systems. This fact is evident to any
resident of such a watershed; similarly
intuitive is the observation that degradation
increases as development progresses.
However, it is much more difficult to
quantify decline in function and identify its
relationship with upstream urbanization.
We have sought such a relationship
by use of both new and existing data,
relying heavily on biological indicators of
stream and wetland function. Fish use in
streams has been investigated directly by
Lucchetti and Fuerstenberg (1993), who
considered the differences in relative
abundance between two species of salmon,
cutthroat trout (Onchorynchus clarki) and
coho salmon (O. kisutch), that have
significantly different life cycles and
habitat requirements. Cutthroat trout are
tolerant of small-sized and relatively
homogenous habitat; coho salmon, in
contrast, require a varied physical environ-
ment that includes large pools and a stable
substrate. Figure 1 shows the relationship
between populations and watershed
impervious-area percentages for eight
similarly sized drainage basins in western
Washington (ranging in drainage area from
10 to 30 km2). The data show little in the
way of a discrete "threshold" but indicate
that population changes may be measurable
at rather low levels of urban development
and become quite significant much beyond
10-15 percent.
Similarly, the relationship between
fish habitat and urban development was
evaluated by rapid field assessment along
140 km of stream channel in two drainage
basins (Soos and Hylebos Creeks) in King
County. Habitat was classified as excel-
lent, fair, or poor on the basis of pool:riffle
ratio, channel roughness and diversity, and
observed fish use. The total contributing
area and impervious-area percentage of the
watershed above each channel reach was
measured, with total areas ranging from 2
to 110 km2 and impervious areas ranging
-------
Conference Proceedings
547
from 2 to 50 percent. The results are
graphed in Figure 2; marked degradation
occurs at about 8-10 percent impervious
area with almost no exceptions on either
side of that value.
Data collected from 19 wetlands
throughout King County (Reinelt and
Horner, 1991; Richter et al., 1991) suggest
a similar pattern. Wetland function was
characterized by measurement of hydrol-
ogy, water quality, soils, plants, and
animals in these wetlands from
1988 to 1990. Water-level fluc-
tuation (WLF) was chosen as the
primary measure of hydrology
because it integrates numerous
factors governing wetland hydrol-
ogy, including wetland-to-water-
shed area ratios, level of water-
shed development, wetland
morphometry, outlet conditions,
and soils. Mean WLF was used
in this analysis because it is less
influenced by evaporation and
summer drying. Water quality
analyses examined 21 variables,
including nutrients, metals, and
bacteria, with a majority of
samples collected during the wet
(November-February) and dry
(July-September) seasons; con-
ductivity, total suspended solids
(TSS), and fecal coliforms (FC)
showed the greatest systematic
variation (Reinelt and Horner,
1991). The diversity and abun-
dance of amphibians, collected in
pitfall traps and supplemented by
egg-mass observations, were used
to characterize animal use in wet-
lands (Richter et al., 1991).
The five variables noted
above (WLF, conductivity, TSS,
FC, and amphibian species) were
used to compare wetland function
with percentage impervious area
in the wetland watersheds. Each
variable was scored from 0 to
100, where 0 represented the least
degraded value in the entire data
set and 100 the most degraded
value. Other scores were as-
signed proportionally between
these two extremes. A "water
quality" score was calculated as
the mean of the three water qual-
ity variables; it was then averaged
with WLF and amphibian scores
(Figure 3). These data support
the intuitive knowledge that
increased levels of urban development yield
increased degradation, although this par-
ticular data set is deficient in impervious-
area percentages between 4 and
14 percent. With one exception (JC28,
with only moderate water quality degrada-
tion and almost no WLF as a result of
exceptionally permeable watershed soils
and a very stable regional ground-water
table), all wetlands with impervious-area
% OTHER SPECIES
% COHO SALMON
% CUTTHROAT
% IMPERVIOUS
Source:
Figure
Adapted from Lucchetti and Fuerstenberg, 1993.
1. Relative fish use, King County streams.
BIG SOOS AND HYLEBOS BASINS
1 r
I O
15
1 4
1 3
VI
W 1 2
O
£ 10
fyj 9
fe 8
O
y
frl /;
2 6
S 5
z ^
3
2
Q
-
-
_
-
-
-
-
-
rp
X
y
'/
^
if
7
X
^
^
X
-<:
!,;
^
^
x
x
X
1
/;
x
•^
KXXX)
-------
548
Watershed '93
percentages above 14 percent had scores
greater than 50 percent, whereas those
below 4 percent had scores below 40.
Causal Relationships Between
Development and Function
Although the above examples clearly
display a linkage between aquatic system
function and urban development, they do
not offer much insight into the causal
relationship(s) between the likely vectors of
urban impacts (e.g., flow, water quality,
o
^ 90
i 8°
1 70
£ 60
5 so
MAGNITUDE OF REL.
-* IO CJ *•
3 O 0 O 0
0
ii
8 $
:•;•:;
i
\
6
PE1
3C
12
RCEb<
.84
I
JC
;
i
s
IT
'
R
as -
1 '
S *
IS
IM
ES
K2
Wl E
LPS9 ELS39
i g
i
24
PERVIOU
M4»« AMPHIBIANS
CXXX1 WATER LEVEL
rv^l WATER QUALITY
FC1
i
3
i
K
X
K
!S
s
s
V
30 36 42 <•
S AREA IN CATCH
1 e
t8 5
MENT
3
[
X
X
X
X
'•XXXXXW////SS////
4
_
-
-
6
0
Figure 3. Relative wetland degradation.
6
s
1
^ 3
^3 o
1
0
0 +
- +_ L^2
O-1"0 °4
0
1 . 1 . 1 . 1
o
0 +
>°o0o0°
0 0
SYMBOLS:
+ MODIFIED
O UNMODIFIED
i.i.i
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
-tt-
+ "*" """
sC" ' ^ -
-
1600 1800 2000 2200
-
DISTANCE (m downstream of datum)
Figure 4. Correlation of channel width and bank vegetation, Leach
Creek, Washington.
physical intrusion) and the resulting
changes in function. To achieve such
insight, we must seek data that successfully
isolate the effects of one urban develop-
ment parameter from all others. To date,
our information is largely restricted to
measures of flow quantity, channel size,
and condition of the riparian corridor; but
additional investigation of water chemistry
changes is probably warranted as well.
The effects of changing the riparian
corridor can be evaluated by measurement
of channel characteristics along a stream
reach with varying adjacent land use.
Along one such western Wash-
ington stream (Leach Creek, with
a drainage area of about 9 km2),
bankfull channel widths and
adjacent bank conditions were
measured at 20-m intervals along
2 km of channel (Figure 4). An
average 0.6 m of channel
widening has occurred wherever
the native bank vegetation had
been altered or removed. This
increase, about 17 percent, is
trivial in comparison to the
potential magnitude of cata-
strophic channel incision but a
substantial fraction of the total
"equilibrium" channel widening
normally associated with urban-
induced flow increases (Hammer,
1972; Booth, 1990). More
generally, corridor condition and
habitat quality were correlated in
two other basins (Figure 5); note
that good habitat quality is not
guaranteed by corridor condi- .
tions, but an absence of signifi-
cant riparian vegetation virtually
assures degraded habitat.
Changes in flood discharge
from urbanization are likely to
affect aquatic systems most
directly by an increase in
streambank instability and
channel erosion. We discriminate
between stable channels, with
little or no erosion of their bed
and banks, and unstable channels
that display long continuous
reaches with bare and destabilized
banks indicative of severe
downcutting and widening. To
characterize the increase in flows
imposed by urbanization, we have
used a continuous hydrologic
model (HSPF; USEPA, 1984) to
-------
Conference Proceedings
549
simulate the increased frequency of equaling
or exceeding the discharge with a recurrence
of 10 years under forested conditions (Q10
for). This discharge was chosen as an index
value of the total hydrograph because
moderately large storm flows are commonly
observed to affect stream-channel form and
to move large streambed material (e.g.,
Sidle, 1988). The correlation between
observed channel stability (indicated by the
X's and O's of Figure 6) and frequency of
Q1Mor under current conditions (vertical
scale of Figure 6) was determined for four
basins having HSPF simulation of both
forested and current land cover. A consis-
tent threshold of change is seen for those
basins with a present-day recurrence of 2
years or less for the discharge equal to Q10 for
(solid horizontal line in Figure 6, using the
annual flood series). This threshold of
instability also can be recognized simply by
measuring impervious area percentage in the
upstream basin; again, a value of about 10
percent (dashed vertical line in Figure 6)
seems pivotal.
These two factors, decreased corridor
integrity and increased flows from the
upstream basin, are typically interdepen-
dent because urban development tends to
affect both. Different management strate-
gies apply to these two areas, however, and
so discriminating their respective effects on
the stream system is valuable. Steedman
(1988) correlated the biologic function at
209 stream sites in southern Ontario,
Canada, with land use and riparian corridor
(Figure 7). As with our data (Figures 2 and
5), both watershed
and riparian land
uses must be
favorable (i.e., non-
urban) for best
conditions. If
corridor clearing is
proportional to
basinwide urban land
uses (the diagonal
dashed line of Figure
7), stream conditions
can be no better than
"fair" once the basin
achieves about 30
percent urban land
use. At typical
suburban densities,
this corresponds to
about 7-10 percent
impervious area.
Even with virtually
complete retention of streamside buffers
(i.e., "percentage riparian forest" equals 100
percent), impervious-area coverage much
beyond this range will lead to nearly certain,
measurable degradation,
Conclusions
These results suggest remarkably
clear and consistent thresholds of aquatic
system degradation. In this region, ap-
proximately 10 percent impervious area in
a watershed typically yields demonstrable,
and probably irreversible, loss of aquatic
on
ta
B,
O
z
MINIMAL BROKEN INTACT
CONDITION OF CORRIDOR
Figure 5. Quality of observed fish habitat,
corridor conditions—Soos and Hylebos.
RATIO OF FLOWS, 10-YR FOREST/2-YR CURRENT
O O |-" -• N> N>
b 01 b ui b ui
-6 .s\ • ' •
•i'
teg
i"!
1 ' 1 ' 1
0 STABLE CHANNELS
X UNSTABLE CHANNELS
» LARGE-LAKE SOBCATCHMENTS
O .E:*1
I*3 «°'
•fl^0 Ol GENERALLY STABLE CHANNELS
^o° I
n 0° ! 1 0-yr forested discharge =
o§> Q oXx^ ° » 2-yr current discharge
X^oi *%
- ° h "£,3 "** « -
i GENERALLY UNSTABLE CHANNELS
, , i . i . i . i . i
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
PERCENT IMPERVIOUS AREA IN CATCHMENT
Figure 6. Channel stability and land use, Hylebos, East Lake
Sammamish, Issaquah Basins.
-------
550
Watershed '93
100
75
50
25
GOOD
EXCELLENT
K
•"%
25 50 75
PERCENT URBAN LAND USE
100
Source: Adapted from Steedman, 1988.
Figure 7. Urban effects on biotic integrity.
system function. This loss is reflected by
measured changes in channel morphology,
fish and amphibian populations, vegetation
succession, and water chemistry. Even
lower levels of urban development cause
significant degradation in sensitive
waterbodies and a reduced, but less well
quantified, degree of loss throughout the
system as a whole. In the restricted context
of western Washington aquatic systems, dif-
ferences between watersheds are not appar-
ently critical in determining this threshold;
but those differences do determine the mag-
nitude of the aquatic system response and
what strategies might provide effective miti-
gation.
These findings suggest that successful
corrective measures must not simply protect
or restore the structure of individual stream
or wetland elements. For example, buffers
around waterbodies are necessary but must
be combined with watershed-level restric-
tions on the rate and duration of storm water
discharge; loss of instream fish habitat can-
not be repaired by engineered structures
alone. Yet the changes to the landscape im-
posed by urbanization are probably beyond
our best efforts to fully correct them. Thus
some downstream loss is probably inevitable
without limiting the extent of development
itself, a strategy that is being used with in-
creasing frequency in this region's remain-
ing resource-rich watersheds.
References
Booth, D.B. 1990. Stream-channel incision
following drainage-basin urbanization.
Water Resources Bulletin 26:407-417.
. 1991. Urbanization and the natural
drainage system—impacts, solutions,
and prognoses. Northwest Environ-
mental Journal 7:93-118.
Hammer, T.R. 1972. Stream and channel
enlargement due to urbanization.
Water Resources Research 8:1530-
1540.
Lucchetti, G., and R. Fuerstenberg. 1993.
Relative fish use in urban and non-
urban streams. Conference on Wild
Salmon, Vancouver, Canada.
Reinelt, L.E., and R.R. Homer. 1991.
Urban storm water impacts on the
hydrology and water quality of
palustrine wetlands in the Puget
Sound region in Puget Sound Re-
search '91 Proceedings, Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority, vol. 1, pp.
33-42.
Richter, K.O., A. Azous, S.S. Cooke, R.W.
Wisseman, and R.R Horner. 1991.
Effects of storm water runoff on
wetland zoology and wetland soils
characterization analysis. Puget
Sound Wetlands and Stormwater
Management Research Program, King
County, WA.
Sidle, R.C. 1988. Bed load transport
regime of a small forest stream.
Water Resources Research 24:207-
218.
Steedman, RJ. 1988. Modification and
assessment of an index of biotic
integrity to quantify stream quality in
Southern Ontario. Canadian Journal
of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences
45:492-501.
USEPA. 1984. Hydrological simulation
program—Fortran, Release 8.0. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Southeast Environmental Research
Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, Athens, GA.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Use of Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols to Evaluate the Effects of
Combined Sewer Overflows on
Biological Intregrity
James B. Stribling
Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD
Marjorie Coombs and Chris Faulkner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water, Washington, DC
There is increasing interest in the effects
of combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
on the biological integrity of streams
and rivers and the ability to detect those
effects. Instream communities act as
continuous monitors of water quality; they
assimilate impacts from CSOs, storm water,
nonpoint sources, and other urban sources
that may be missed during sporadic chemi-
cal sampling (Ohio EPA, 1987; USEPA,
1990). Characterization of the biological
community provides a good measure of the
cumulative instream effects. Rapid
bioassessment protocols (RBPs) were
developed to provide a relatively time-
efficient and systematic process for detect-
ing changes in biological condition due to
chemical and physical habitat alteration
(Plafkin et. al., 1989). For stream-dwelling
macroinvertebrates, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) has established
three protocols of progressively increasing
detail; this study utilizes the most compre-
hensive version, RBP III.
This project was initiated by EPA's
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
(OWOW) and Office of Science and
Technology (OST) to evaluate the impact of
CSOs on biological integrity, determine the
usefulness of RBPs in detecting those
effects, and compare the RBP assessment to
available historical data from the targeted
waterbodies. Three study areas were
selected within the State of Ohio (Figure 1)
based on the substantial Ohio Environmen-
tal Protection Agency (Ohio EPA) historical
database of biological assessments along
CSO-impacted river miles. For each study
area RBP III was used. This procedure, as
in RBP I and n, provides for an interpreta-
tion of biological condition in the context of
habitat quality. Habitat quality is evaluated
by using the RBP habitat assessment
procedures.
Habitat is a critical determinant of
biological potential and should be used in an
integrated assessment of biological condi-
tion (Barbour and Stribling, 1991). The
RBP habitat assessment includes an exami-
nation of the substrate, instream cover,
channel morphology, riparian zone, and
bank structure. By comparing the habitat
characteristics at a study site with the
characteristics at a reference site, which
represents minimally impacted conditions in
an ecologically similar waterbody, a
determination can be made as to whether
biological impairment is due to habitat
degradation, excessive pollutant loads, or a
combination of both.
The observed biological condition at
the reference site, either the ecoregional or
upstream reference, is used to develop
scoring criteria for the study area. This is
done by associating the biological condition
with the habitat condition at the reference
site. If habitat conditions at the sampling
stations within the study area are degraded
relative to the habitat condition at the
reference site, then any detected impairment
551
-------
552
Watershed '93
Figure 1. State of Ohio; three river systems within which the CSO study occurred: the Scioto
River at Columbus, the Sandusky River at Bucyrus, and the Little Cuyahoga River at Akron.
of the biological condition at the sampling
station may be attributable to either water
quality impairments due to CSO pollutant
loads or to habitat degradation. Only when
habitat conditions at the sampling stations
are comparable to habitat conditions at the
reference site will impairment of the
biological condition be most certainly
attributable to CSO impacts. As habitat is
degraded, the degree of certainty of estab-
lishing the cause of impairment of biological
integrity decreases (Figure 2) because in
such situations there are normally multiple
stressors on the ecosystem.
The biological community analysis
consists of calculating a series of "metrics,"
each measuring a different aspect of com-
munity structure, balance, and trophic struc-
ture. The assessment integrates the metrics
and compares them to reference values.
This assessment allows calculation of the
biological potential at the test site if habitat
and pollutant impairments were corrected.
Evaluations can be made of the generic
causes of impairments by examining the in-
dividual metrics (Yoder, 1991; Shackleford,
1988). Different types of organisms have
distinct reactions to various types of
-------
Conference Proceedings
553
100
90
8
d>
CD
•fc 80
tc
H- 70
60
"
o
O
"5
o
"5)
_o
o
m
50
40
30
20
10
stresses. For example,
metrics that focus on inver-
tebrates relying on particu-
late matter such as leaf litter
for food could be used as a
screening tool for assessing
the impact of toxics bound
to the particulate matter or
the impact of riparian veg-
etative degradation^ The
ability of biological metrics
to accurately diagnose the
cause or causes of biologi-
cal impairment is still lim-
ited, but continues to im-
prove as the metrics are
refined.
The benthic
macroinvertebrate metrics
used to describe biological
condition in this study are:
1. Taxa richness.
2. Hilsenhoff Biotic
Index.
3. Scrapers/(Scrapers
+ Filter-collectors).
4. EPT/CEPT + Chironomidae), where
EPT stands for Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera, and Trichoptera.
5. Percent contribution of dominant
taxon.
6. EPT Index.
7. Shredders/Total organisms.
8. Hydropsychidae/Total Trichoptera.
9. Pinkham-Pearson Community
Similarity Index.
10. Quantitative Similarity Index for
Taxa.
11. Dominants-in-Common-5.
12. Quantitative Similarity Index for
Functional Feeding Groups.
For a full description of these metrics, see
Plafkin et al. (1989) and Barbour et al.
(1992).
Three CSO-impacted rivers were
identified by the Ohio EPA (Figure 1): the
Scioto River at Columbus, the Sandusky
River at Bucyrus, and the Little Cuyahoga
River at Akron. Four sampling stations
were located in each river:
1. Upstream of CSO influence
(upstream reference).
2. Downstream, but within the zone
of CSO influence.
3. Further downstream, but possibly
still within the zone of CSO
influence.
4. Outside of the zone of CSO
influence, either further down-
A
Noiji impaired
T.
'Com-
"Supporting ^Supporting parable
-"if • -tf-^^'f"- »S.CT-^ ^_
10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Habitat Quality (% of Reference)
80
90
100
Figure 2. Relationship between habitat quality and biological condition.
stream or in a separate, nonaffected
subwatershed (ecoregional refer-
ence).
Biological assessments were based on
a single, composited macroinvertebrate
collection from riffles at each station. The
organisms were identified to the lowest
possible taxonomic level, in most cases the
generic level. The selected community
metrics were calculated, scoring criteria
assigned, and a determination made of
biological condition relative to the reference
condition (percent comparability).
The Scioto River is a major tributary
of the southern Ohio River (Figure 1) and
has a long history of degradation from
upstream water withdrawals, old channel
modifications, urban runoff, and the input of
organic matter and nutrients from CSOs.
Historical monitoring by Ohio EPA has
generally rated the biological conditions in
the Scioto near Columbus as "poor" or
"fair." Results from the current study were
consistent with historical data. Habitat
conditions were judged to be sufficiently
similar so that any biological differences
should be due to water quality effects. The
two stations within the zone of CSO
influence (S2 and S3) were found to exhibit
"moderate" and "slight" impairment relative
to the ecoregional reference station (S4)
(Figure 3). Examination of individual
metrics indicated that impairment may be
due to organic enrichment and an increase in
-------
554
Watershed '93
Olentangy River
Scloto
Range
ofCSO
Outfalls
.Columbus
% Comparability
to Reference
Habitat Biology
Habitat Biology
' Scioto River
REF.
REF.
Figure 3. Scioto River at Columbus; percent comparability of
sampling sites to reference condition.
Honey Creek
% Comparability
to Reference
Habitat Biology
REF.
REF.
SA4
Sandusky River
Habitat Biology
w
Range of
CSO
Outfalls
SA1
SA2
SA3
107%
51%
81%
67%
83%
73%
Figure 4. Sandusky River at Bucyrus; percent comparability of
sampling sites to reference condition.
suspended organic participates. The
upstream reference station (SI) exhibited
only slight impairment, likely due to other
human activities occurring upstream and
adjacent to this station.
The Sandusky River is a major
tributary to Lake Erie, running through
predominantly agricultural land in
north central Ohio (Figure 1). Past
biological monitoring of the
Sandusky River at Bucyrus revealed
significant impacts to the fish and
macroinvertebrate communities from
CSOs and the Bucyrus wastewater
treatment plant (WWTP). Improve-
ments in the biota were reported in
1990, subsequent to upgrades at the
WWTP; however, slight biological
impairment remains. Results of the
current study indicated only slight
impairment of the macroinvertebrate
community at the downstream CSO-
receiving station (SA3), which
agreed with Ohio EPA historical data
(Figure 4). Impairment appears to be
due to a combination of habitat
degradation and associated water
quality impacts.
The Little Cuyahoga River
flows through Akron in northeastern
Ohio, where it joins with the
Cuyahoga River (Figure 1). The
study area extends from downstream
of the Mogadore Reservok to just
upstream of the Cuyahoga River
confluence. Past sampling by Ohio
EPA indicated "fair" and "poor"
biotic conditions due to a combina-
tion of urban runoff and enrichment
problems from lake and wetland
drainage. In the current study, the
Little Cuyahoga was found to exhibit
moderate biotic impairment at the
station farthest downstream (CR3)
while the upstream station (CR2) was
nonimpaired (Figure 5). (Sampling
at Ohio EPA's regional reference site
was not possible due to flood
conditions, so comparisons are
possible only with the site-specific
reference.) Habitat conditions were
somewhat degraded, but comparable
at all three sites, so biological
impairments at the furthest down-
stream station (CR3) can be attrib-
uted to water quality. There was a
distinct depression in overall
biological condition including
decreases in abundance and low
diversity. These conditions may indicate
the presence of toxicants contributed by
CSO and/or industrial inputs. The first
downstream station (CR2) was originally
expected to be CSO-impacted. However,
given our study results, we further investi-
gated the history of the CSOs and discov-
-------
Conference Proceedings
555
ered that the outfalls upstream of
the middle station had been
recently eliminated. The biotic
improvement shown here reflected
their removal.
Conclusions
Three CSO sites with
varying degrees of historical
information were identified by the
Ohio EPA. Results of the present
study agree favorably with most of
the recent findings of Ohio EPA
and demonstrate the usefulness of
bioassessments in identifying
impaired waters.
Objective 1: Evaluating
Biological Impact of CSOs Figure 5.
Attributing "cause-and- sampling
effect" to the specific CSO activity
is complicated by other related problems
associated with urbanization, e)g., habitat
alteration and industrial discharges.
However, reasonable technical support for
identifying potential sources, including
CSOs, was possible with bioassessments.
An impairment due to CSO outfalls was
noted in biological data collected by both
Ohio EPA and U.S. EPA (this study) for a
15-20-mile reach of the Scioto River, a 4-
mile reach of the Sandusky River, and a 10-
mile reach of the Little Cuyahoga River. In
the cases of the Scioto and Little Cuyahoga
Rivers, the upstream stations, also located in
urbanized areas, had relatively healthy
biological communities and were effective
for comparisons showing that CSO outfalls
had an adverse impact on the
macroinvertebrate assemblage. Results
from the Sandusky River indicated that the
CSO outfalls are having only slight biologi-
cal impacts due to secondary controls that
had been installed.
Range of
CSO Outfalls
Cuyahog, River "SSSSSS*
to Reference
Habitat Biology
107%
108%
REF.
47%
95%
REF.
Akron
FLOW
Little Cuyahoga River at Akron; percent comparability of
sites to reference condition.
enabled a characterization of the alteration
to the physical habitat structure that
strengthens the ability to identify additional
potential sources of impairment.
Objective3: Comparison of RBP
Results with Ohio EPA Historical Data
A comparison of results suggested
that a reasonably good fit between Ohio
EPA findings and that those of the present
study. Subtle discrepancies between the
data sets are most likely a result of the lack
of regional calibration for the RBP analysis
technique that may have weakened the
interpretive power of the approach.
Bioassessment, as exemplified by the Ohio
EPA ICI (an index for macroinvertebrates)
and the RBPs applied in this study, is a
valid and technically-sound tool for
evaluating impaired waters, particularly
when calibrated on a regional level as is
done for the ICI.
Objective!: Determining the
Usefulness of RBPs In Detecting
Those Effects
The bioassessments were instrumental
in identifying impaired reaches of each river
at periods that reflected residual and
cumulative effects of CSO outfalls that were
not necessarily active. Sampling was
performed during normal low-flow condi-
tions. The associated habitat assessment
References
Barbour, M.T., J.L. Plafkin, B.R. Bradley,
C.G. Graves, and R.W. Wisseman.
1992. Evaluation of EPA's rapid
bioassessment benthic metrics: Metric
redundancy and variability among
reference stream sites. Environmen-
tal Toxicology and Chemistry 11:437-
449.
-------
556
Watershed '93
Barbour, M.T., and J.B. Stribling. 1991.
Use of habitat assessment in evaluat-
ing the biological integrity of stream
communities. In Biological criteria:
Research and regulation. Proceed-
ings of a symposium, pp. 25-38. EPA-
440/5-91-005. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Ohio EPA. 1987. Biological criteria for the
protection of aquatic life: Volume 1.
The role of biological data in water
quality assessments. State of Ohio,
Environmental Protection Agency,
Divisions of Water Pollution Control
and Water Quality Monitoring and
Assessment, Columbus, OH.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter,
S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989.
Rapid bioassessment protocols for use
in streams and rivers: Benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/
440/4-89-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Shackleford, B. 1988. Rapid
bioassessments oflotic
macroinvertebrate communities:
Biocriteria development. State of Ar-
kansas, Department of Pollution Con-
trol and Ecology. Little Rock, AK.
USEPA. 1990. Biological criteria:
National program guidance for
surface waters. EPA-440/5-90-004.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Water Regulations
and Standards, Washington, DC.
Yoder, C.O. 1991. The integrated biosurvey
as a tool for evaluation of aquatic life
use attainment and impairment in
Ohio surface waters. In Biological
Criteria: Research and Regulation.
Proceedings of a symposium. EPA-
440/5-91-005. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
James T. Wulliman, P.E., Senior Project Manager
CH2M HILL, Denver, CO
Application of Nonpoint Source
Loading Relationships to Lake
Protection Studies in Denver,
Colorado
Estimating nonpoint source pollution
loading is an important element of
watershed management. Loads must
be quantified to determine to what extent
nonpoint source pollution presents a
problem in a particular watershed and to
plan for solutions. For the purpose of this
paper, nonpoint source loading is that
pollution loading originating from surface
flow runoff during storms and baseflow
conditions in watersheds comprised of urban
and nonurban land uses.
Various approaches are available to
estimate nonpoint source loads from
watershed areas. To provide useful results
for watershed planners, these approaches
must represent changes in watershed
conditions over time. It is generally
necessary to estimate loads for
predevelopment watershed conditions,
existing conditions, and anticipated future
development conditions. This places current
loading in the context of the watershed's
history; the magnitude of projected loading
relative to changes that have already taken
place can then be considered. Also, load
estimating approaches need to reflect
projected load reductions that would result
from the implementation of best manage-
ment practices (BMPs). Load reduction
predictions may consist of applying
representative percent removal values found
in the literature or may be estimated
deterministically, based on the physical
processes involved in the BMPs.
The purpose of this paper is to assist
those involved in watershed management
with their selection of one or more options
for estimating nonpoint source loads.
Therefore, 10 options for estimating
nonpoint source loads, each fulfilling the
objectives stated above, are compared here.
The options consist of various levels of
analyses, using four general methods
available for estimating loads. The options
examined range from simple calculations to
approaches based on comprehensive
hydrologic modelling and site-specific
monitoring. A number of these options
have been used effectively in lake protection
studies in the Denver area. The 10 options,
designated A through J, are shown in Tables
1 and 2. Table 1 indicates the general .
method and level of analysis represented by
each option. Table 2 lists the major compo-
nents of each option and discusses how the
option is applied, how the option reflects
changes in watershed conditions and BMP
load reductions, and option benefits and
limitations. Complete water quality
simulation models such as SWMM, HSPF,
and STORM represent a higher degree of
Table 1. Options for estimating nonpoint source loads
Unit
Load EMC Regression Sediment
Method Method Method Method
Level 1. Average Annual
Values
Level 2. Single Storm Basis
Level 3. Single Storm Basis
with Site Monitoring
Option A Option B Option E Option H
N/A Option C Option F Option I
N/A Option D Option G Option J
557
-------
558
Watershed '93
O E S £
c,
O
u a
u
-------
Conference Proceedings
559
1
o
•3
a
3
I
§•§ 5
Sis
€
"3
K a
esS
mill
S.2
-------
560
Watershed '93
1
a
1
s>
B3
•O
a
if a*
E -a -a .a
3 o S.-I g
g»sii
S«3|&
8-3 I |l
e-3
v I •5.-S a
§ S E 2 -|.
§ g -e I "3
0 E § E i
Illl
— o o
.§ §
2 -3
•-< bo 4-.
•= .S g
fis
E a^ I S
a a a o a
sSas
S =" 2 13
IJfr-«
^<
o
O
-------
Conference Proceedings
561
•8
i
1
!
1
s »
i!
a >
2 ° "2
il'5l
•8 1 §>'S
_. m -g o,
>, s
vo '
•o
is
•* o
•e >.
-------
562
Watershed '93
complexity than the options compared in
Tables 1 and 2. In cases where a high
degree of precision in load estimating is
desired, complete simulation models may be
considered. Documentation for these
models is readily available (USEPA, 1991).
The following paragraphs provide back-
ground information on general load estimat-
ing methods and levels of analysis.
Load Estimating Methods
Four general methods for estimating
nonpoint source loads comprise the basis of
the individual options discussed in this
paper. These are the unit load method, the
event-mean-concentration (EMC) method,
the regression method, and the sediment
method (USEPA, 1991). Each method
results in an annual estimate of the mass of a
constituent generated by the upstream
watershed. Units for load estimates are
typically gm/yr or mt/yr (Ib/yr or t/yr).
Unit Load Method. Nonpoint source
loads in the unit load method are expressed
as the product of a unit loading rate and
upstream drainage area. The unit loading
rate, also known as an export coefficient, is
a value of mass per area per time (gm/m/yr
or mt/ha/yr [Ib/ac/yr or t/ac/yr]) representa-
tive of average watershed conditions.
Unique unit loading rates are often associ-
ated with specific watershed land uses, such
as industrial, residential, or rural areas (Rast
and Lee, 1983).
EMC Method. Watershed loads in the
EMC method are expressed as the product
of the constituent concentration (often flow-
weighted) and the runoff volume. Constitu-
ent concentrations may be median or mean
values of local, regional, or national storm
water monitoring data, often correlated to
land use (USEPA, 1983). Runoff volumes
may be assumed percentages of annual
rainfall amounts, annual sums of estimated
single-storm event runoff, or measured
runoff volumes.
Regression Method. Watershed loads
in the regression method are estimated using
regression relationships developed from
local, regional, or national storm water
monitoring data. Regression relationships
are based on variables relating to physical
watershed or rainfall characteristics that are
statistically significant. Regression relation-
ships may compute constituent load directly
or may predict pollutant EMCs, in which
case the EMCs must be multiplied by annual
runoff volume to estimate loads (Driver and
Tasker, 1990).
Sediment Method. The sediment
method is essentially the same as the EMC
method, only applied to the quantity of
sediment, not water, generated by a
watershed. Pollutant loads in the sediment
method are expressed as the product of the
constituent concentration in eroded
sediments and the quantity of sediment
delivered by a watershed on an annual
basis (Tim et al., 1992). The constituent
concentration in sediment, also known as
the content or potency factor, is expressed
as the mass of the constituent to the mass
of sediment. Concentration values consist
of locally measured data. Sediment loads
may be measured or calculated values
representative of the watershed. The
sediment method is most appropriate for
constituents having an affinity for sedi-
ment adsorption, such as nutrients, metals,
and radionuclides. The method is suited
to watersheds where sediment yield is a
significant source of nonpoint loading and
the ratio of suspended to dissolved
constituents is high. These conditions
generally represent the Denver area and
the rest of the semi-arid western United
States. Suspended loads estimated using
the sediment method can be adjusted
(divided by unity less a fraction of sus-
pended to total constituent forms) to
represent total load.
Levels of Analysis
Methods used to estimate nonpoint
source loads can be applied in various levels
of detail. These levels of analysis range
from simple calculations (taking a minute or
two to complete) to comprehensive ap-
proaches requiring significant data collec-
tion and hydrologic modelling (taking
months to complete). For the purpose of
this paper, these levels have been grouped
into three types of analyses:
• Level 1—Average Annual Values
• Level 2—Single Storm Basis
• Level 3—Single Storm Basis with
Site Monitoring
Level 1 consists of using average
annual values for unit loading, concentra-
tion, volumes of runoff or sediment, or
regression variables. The annual values may
be representative of the watershed as a
whole, or of unique land use areas within
the watershed.
-------
Conference Proceedings
563
Level 2 is based on computing loads
for single storm events and summing the
loads for a representative annual storm
pattern. Annualizing individual storm
loads can be accomplished using one of
two approaches. The first approach
involves examining single storm events,
which can comprise design storms in a
series of return periods, such as 2-, 5-, 10-,
50-, and 100-year events. Loads for these
storm events can be plotted versus storm
probability (the inverse of return period
(for instance, 0.50, 0.20, 0.10, 0.02, and
0.01) for the return periods identified
above). The area under the load probabil-
ity curve can be measured or calculated to
represent a long-term average annual load
(ADWR, 1985). Sediment and sediment-
adsorbed constituent loads are highly
dependent on the size and intensity of
rainfall events; therefore, a significant
portion of the long-term loads may be
generated during a few large, infrequent
events. (This phenomenon may be more
pronounced in the semi-arid West than
other climatic regions of the United
States.) The return period analysis would
offer the benefit of factoring the effect of
large, infrequent storms (such as the 100-
year event). However, actual constituent
loads in most years (assuming average
rainfall) would be less than long-term
average estimates using this approach.
A second and somewhat more
complex approach is available for convert-
ing single-storm event loads to an average
annual load. This approach involves using
long-term records of local rainfall to identify
actual storm hyetographs for the period of
record (CH2M HILL, 1992). A manageable
number of the largest, most intense storms
may be used as the basis of single-storm
load estimates. The numerous smaller
storms may be sorted and categorized by
size, and then represented by a single storm
for each category. These representative
storms can be used as the basis of load
estimates, which, when multiplied by the
number of storms in each category, would
equal total loads by category. The sum of
the loads for all the storms in the rainfall
record divided by the number of years of the
record is representative of a long-term
average annual load. This approach is most
suitable for geographic areas that have a
long rainfall record available (30 years or
more). Like the return period approach,
using the long-term local rainfall record has
the benefit of factoring the effect of large,
infrequent storms that have occurred during
the period of record.
Whether the design storm approach or
the rainfall record approach is used to
annualize loads, the single storm event basis
of Level 2 allows constituent loads to be
estimated in a more deterministic manner
than Level 1. On the other hand, the data
needs and time requirements to conduct a.
Level 2 analysis are substantially greater
than for a Level 1 analysis.
Level 3, like Level 2, is based on
computing loads for single storm events and
summing the loads for a representative
annual storm pattern. Level 3, however,
uses site-specific monitoring data to
calibrate the single-storm load estimates. As
such, the load estimates resulting from a
Level 3 analysis will likely match actual
watershed loads more consistently and .
closely than the results of Level 2 or Level 1
analyses. Compared to Level 2, additional
time and effort would be required to design
and conduct a site-specific monitoring
program.
Application Guidelines
When using Tables 1 and 2 to select a
specific option to estimate watershed
loading, it is important to keep in mind the
trade-offs between simplicity and precision.
Level 1 approaches can be used to generate
a load estimate quickly and simply; how-
ever, the lack of sensitivity to physical
hydrologic processes and site-specific data
creates a high degree of uncertainty in the
results. There is a positive correlation
between the reduction of uncertainty and the
amount of complexity and time involved in
the approach. Level 2 analyses can reduce
uncertainty in load estimates by factoring in
the hydrologic processes involved in
individual storm events. Improving the
estimation of watershed hydrology, espe-
cially the relative contributions of baseflows
and storm runoff, is an effective means of
increasing the precision of nonpoint load
estimates. Level 3 analyses further improve
precision and accuracy by calibrating results
using site-specific monitoring data. If the
degree of precision warrants, complete water
quality simulation models may be prepared.
Because of their simplicity, it would
be reasonable to apply one or more of the
Level 1 analyses to a watershed to develop
an initial range of load estimates. Using
multiple approaches provides insight into
-------
564
Watershed '93
the correlation (or lack thereof) between
assumed values used for response vari-
ables. It is important to establish the
relative importance of sediment processes
to the watershed and constituents in
question. From this point of reference, it is
recommended that one or more options
representing higher levels of analysis be
pursued, based on the degree of precision
desired by watershed managers. Using
combinations of methods or multiple
approaches, can improve the selection of
response variables. One strategy for
enhancing efficiency in estimating loads is
to apply a detailed approach in a represen-
tative area of a watershed, then use the
results to "calibrate" Level 1 loading
values for application to the rest of the
watershed.
References
ADWR. 1985. Design manual for engineer-
ing analysis of fluvial systems.
Arizona Department of Water Re-
sources.
CH2MHILL. 1992. Final report:
Standley Lake Canal separation study.
Prepared for the Cities of Arvada,
Golden, Northglenn, Thornton, and
Westminster, and Jefferson County.
Donigian, A.S., and W. Huber. 1991. Mod-
eling ofnonpoint source water quality
in urban and non-urban areas. EPA/
600/3-911-039. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Research
and Development, Environmental
Research Laboratory, Athens, GA.
Driver, N.E., and G.D. Tasker. 1990.
Techniques for estimation of storm-
runoff loads, volumes, and selected
constituent concentrations in urban
watersheds in the United States. U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 2363.
Rast, W., and G.F. Lee. 1993. Nutrient
loading estimates for lakes. Journal of
Environmental Engineering 109(2).
Tim, U.S., et al. 1992. Identification of
critical nonpoint source areas using
geographic information systems and
water quality modeling. American
Water Resources Association. Water
Resources Bulletin 28(5).
USEPA. 1983. Results of the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program. Vol. I, final
report. NTIS no. PB84-185552. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Water Planning Division.
-------
WATERSHED '9-3
Robert W. Brashear, Ph.D., Project Manager
Camp Dresser &1 McKee Inc., Dallas, TX
John Promise, P.E., Director of Environmental Resources
•North Central Tejjas Council of Governments, Arlington, TX
George E. Oswald, P.E., Associate
Camp Dresser &. McKee Inc., Austin, TX
Alan H. Plummer, Jr., P.E., President
Alan Plumrrier ^Associates Inc., Arlington, TX
Development of a Regional
Framework for Storm Water
Permitting in North Central Texas
The North Gentral Texas Metroplex
cities that must comply with the
Federal Clean Water Act NPDES
regulations for controlling pollutants in
municipal separate storm sewer system
(MS4) discharges have joined forces
through the North Central Texas Council of
Governments (NCTCOG) to pursue a
regional approach that meets the technical,
legal, and jurisdictional coordination needs
of the regulations through a unified ap-
proach and which takes an important first
step toward dealing with urban runoff from
a watershed perspective rather than on a
jurisdictional basis.
Seven cities in the Metroplex area with
an aggregate population of 2.3 million are
subject to the NPDES MS4 regulations—
Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, Garland,
Irving, Mesquite, and Piano. Additionally,
the Texas Department of Transportation, the
Home Builders Association, the Association
of General Contractors, and numerous
nondesignated cities in the region are
participating in the regional effort. These
cities and agencies, working together
through NCTCOG, selected a regional
consultant team headed by Camp Dresser &
McKee Inc. to provide assistance on -
coordinated needs to ensure consistency in
technical approach and supporting legal
authority for addressing storm water quality
management on a regional basis.
Area cities, working with the regional
consultant through NCTCOG, reached
consensus on an innovative and cost-saving
regional strategy that addresses the follow-
ing major permit application development
issues:
• Coordination of permit application
submittals.
• Regional water quality assessments
in association with the U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey (USGS).
• Assessment of funding alternatives
to support program implementation.
• Development of model instruments
for legal authority (an ordinance and
interjurisdictional agreements).
• Development of best management
practice (BMP) manuals for residen-
tial, commercial, and industrial land
uses and for construction site
management.
• Selection and application of water-
shed management models for
estimation of discharge pollutant
loads/concentration and for evalua-
tion of pollution management plan
alternatives.
• Development of technical, institu-
tional impact, and cost-effectiveness
565
-------
566
Watershed '93
criteria for selection of management
plan alternatives.
• Public information/involvement for
the North Central Texas region to
inform the populace on the NPDES
storm water mandate, and on what
actions individual citizens may take
to reduce pollutants in storm water
runoff and to report possible illegal
discharges.
Each of these efforts was developed
with technology transfer to municipal staff
as the ultimate goal, allowing cities to more
effectively address permit application sub-
mittals and post-permit issuance compliance
needs.
agency support for urban runoff and
because county governments in Texas
typically do not have a great deal of legal
authority, NCTCOG (a regional planning
agency) became the focal point of the
regional storm water effort.
Through NCTCOG, the cities in the
region (regulated and nonregulated alike)
have created a Regional Urban Storm Water
Task Force with two subcommittees to deal
with storm water quality and development/
management issues. The Task Force and its
subcommittees are composed of municipal
staff who manage storm water issues.
NCTCOG coordinates the efforts and acts as
a clearinghouse for information.
Regional Coordination
Since Texas is a nondelegated state,
negotiations have been conducted with
EPA Region VI to develop a unified MS4
permitting approach for the Cities of
Arlington, Dallas, Fort Worth, Garland,
Irving, Mesquite, and Piano, Texas, that,
because of size and census date, had three
different permit application deadlines
(November 1992, May 1993, and August
1993). The unified approach provides the
needed envkonment for coordination and
cooperation among the cities (and other
agencies involved) to accomplish NPDES
permit applications that are consistent,
technically sound, and fiscally responsible.
EPA Region
VI strongly
supports coordina-
tion in permitting
efforts. While the
seven municipali-
ties must still
submit significant
portions of their
Part 2 applications
by their original
designated
deadlines, several
components of
their applications
were consolidated
under a unified
deadline to
facilitate regional
programs. Be-
cause the State of
Texas does not, at
present, have
regulations or
Regional Efforts
The major focus of the regional efforts
is the development of an iterative process
designed to configure and assess proposed
management plans (PMPs) for managing
urban storm water quality in light of current
and anticipated future land use conditions.
The overall process is structured to arrive at
the optimal combination of BMPs for each
municipality's PMP and is illustrated in
Figure 1. There are four essential elements
to this process: (1) development of regional
BMP manuals for construction activities,
industrial land uses, and residential/commer-
cial land uses; (2) selection and application
of a regional watershed model to determine
Q MODEL JP^SK^
>tf '
m
/• Negotiate with
\_ Regulatory Agency
• Technical Effectiveness
• Cost-Effectiveness >\
• City Preferences
Load Reductions
J • Cost-Effectiveness
i • Legal Authority
|j City Preferences
Figure 1. Process for configuration and assessment of proposed
management plans.
-------
Conference Proceedings
567
pollutant loads/concentrations and to
evaluate BMP alternatives; (3) technology
transfer to municipalities on the use of the
BMP manuals and the watershed model; and
(4) providing assistance to cities in applying
the manuals and models to develop their
individual PMPs. In addition, public
information, discharge characterization, and
legal authority efforts are being addressed
regionally
Construction Activities BMP Manual
For management of runoff quality
from construction sites, a regional BMP
manual (including standard details and
specifications) has been produced and will
include a training curriculum. The construc-
tion site runoff management program is
designed to achieve regional consistency in
the use, implementation, and maintenance of
construction site BMPs for the North
Central Texas area. The manual focuses on
compliance with the NPDES General Permit
for Construction Activities. It provides
innovative means to assess the anticipated
effectiveness of the erosion and sediment
control aspect of Storm Water Pollution
Prevention Plans (SWPPPs). Using
effectiveness criteria established in the BMP
manual, a rating factor can be calculated for
an SWPPP. On a pass/fail basis, this allows
cities in the region to review plans more
consistently.
Because of the wide applicability of
the General Permit, NCTCOG was able to
convince those cities in the region not under
the NPDES mandate to help offset the costs
associated with this effort. NCTCOG and
member cities will distribute this manual to
owner/operators in the area for a nominal
cost. NCTCOG is also endeavoring to
establish long-term training programs on the
use of the manual.
Industrial Activities BMP Manual
In addition to the construction activi-
ties manual, a BMP manual for industrial
activities has been developed to assist area
industries in meeting the General Permit for
Industrial Activities. The manual has a
pollution prevention orientation by encour-
aging consideration of source controls first,
although a full discussion of treatment alter-
natives is provided. As with the construction
activities BMP manual, the industrial BMP
manual provides guidance in developing
SWPPPs, provides information on source
and treatment BMPs, and discusses monitor-
ing options. NCTCOG and member cities
will distribute this manual to area industries
for a nominal cost and long-term training for
this manual is being considered as well.
Residential/Commercial Land Uses
BMP Manual
A third BMP manual for residential/
commercial land uses has been produced to
provide selection/design/performance crite-
ria for both source control and structural
treatment control management practices
appropriate to the area and to provide further
guidance to municipalities as they develop
their PMPs. As with the industrial BMP
manual, fact sheets on source and treatment
BMPs appropriate for the North Central
Texas region are provided along with meth-
odologies for selecting BMPs and guidance
on building a storm water quality manage-
ment program. BMPs are coordinated with
the regional watershed model (discussed
later), and the manual also discusses options
for compliance monitoring.
Assessment of Existing Conditions
and Proposed Management
Programs
A consistent methodology for assess-
ing the pollution abatement performance of
PMPs is also being developed—again for
regional consistency. The foundation of this.
methodology is a storm water model for esti-
mating pollutant discharge concentrations
and loads and for evaluating management
plan alternatives (such as source and treat-
ment controls). Major public domain storm
water quality management models were re-
viewed in terms of input data requirements,
ease of use, ability to model management
practice pollution control performance, and
model output detail. Cities will apply the
selected model in-house and, with guidance,
are developing then" own PMPs based on
cost-effectiveness, technical effectiveness,
administrative burden, and public accep^-
tance.
The Watershed Management Model
(WMM) developed by Camp Dresser &
McKee Inc. was selected for use by the re-
gion. Originally developed for Florida's De-
partment of Environmental Regulation,
WMM has been significantly upgraded for
the NPDES storm water permitting process.
WMM simulates annual/seasonal storm wa-
ter discharge pollutant loadings/concentra-
-------
568
Watershed '93
tions as a function of land use, and the
model can simulate the pollutant control ef-
fectiveness of alternative BMP implementa-
tion scenarios. The model is spreadsheet-
based and relies on land use-related pollutant
event mean concentrations (EMCs) and an-
nual/seasonal rainfall-to-runoff conversion
coefficients to generate combined land use
storm water discharge pollutant loadings and
concentrations. The model can simulate the
statistical EMC and loading exceedence val-
ues associated with the expected variance of
specific land use-related storm water dis-
charge EMC data. The model can simulate
BMP implementation scenarios through
specification of BMP pollutant removal per-
formance and watershed areal extent of BMP
application.
One reason WMM was selected by the
cities is that it is user-friendly. Cities
desired the ability to take the model in-
house for use during the permit application
process and as a planning tool in the future.
The regional consultant has produced a
user's manual for the model and provided
extensive training to municipal staff who
will use the model. Through NCTCOG, the
cities agreed on regional input data for
WMM (impervious percentages for land use
types, EMCs, and BMP efficiencies) for
consistency and equity. The region will also
use WMM as one means to estimate existing
loads.
Wet Weather Discharge
Characterization
The USGS is working with area cities
to collect and analyze discharge quality for
210 storm events in the region (30 sites, 7
events each). Monitoring sites have been
located in areas of new and residential land
use, industrial land use, commercial land
use, and major roadways. To date, over 170
events have been sampled and reported. The
regional consultant team is analyzing those
data and will create a set of EMCs for the
region.
Because current wet weather discharge
water quality data are being collected in a
period of unusually high rainfall, the re-
gional consultant is also looking at historical
wet-weather receiving water quality data for
the region. This provides an additional per-
spective on historical water quality critical to
justifying the performance of the manage-
ment plans municipalities must propose as a
part of their NPDES permit applications.
Available surface water quality data from
local municipalities, the State of Texas, and
federal agencies are being reviewed in com-
parison to rainfall records to determine
which data are representative of discharges
or in-stream flows during storm events.
Without this separation of data types, no
meaningful interpretation can be made on
storm water impacts to receiving waterways.
Legal Authority
Besides addressing the technical as-
pects of storm water quality management,
efforts are being put forth to assist cities in
the area of legal authority. Municipalities in
the region typically have only minimal ordi-
nance authority to control storm water qual-
ity. There was great interest among the cit-
ies for the development of a comprehensive
model storm water ordinance, largely be-
cause of regional equity. Model interjuris-
dictional agreements with entities such as
the Texas Department of Transportation are
being produced as well. The model ordi-
nance and interjurisdictional agreements are
for cities to refine and adopt. Many compo-
nents of these legal instruments have menu
options for cities to select from as they re-
fine and adopt them.
Public Information
In the area of public education, a num-
ber of regional public education efforts are
being undertaken to make the public aware
of storm water quality issues and actions
individuals can take to improve storm water
quality. Brochures, flyers, water bill mes-
sages, press releases, and articles are being
produced for municipalities to use as they
educate their citizenry and for use during the
permit term. Visual aids, such as videos,
slide shows, and standing exhibits (for
malls, etc.), are also being produced as re-
sources for these cities. Essay and poster
contests at the school level are under way as
well.
"Sticky" Issues
Not all aspects of storm water
management can be agreed upon by
municipalities. Because municipalities in
the region have not dealt with the manage-
ment of urban runoff quality previously,
the NPDES storm water regulations have
required city managers to adopt a "new"
perspective on their drainage facilities.
-------
Conference Proceedings
569
The potential fiscal implications for city
programs, coupled with the fact that only
the larger of the area cities are currently
regulated, has created a somewhat negative
attitude toward storm water quality
management in municipal staff.
Issues such as the regulation of devel-
opment and industrial activities within these
cities, the perceived lack of need for treat-
ment controls, and costs associated with per-
mitting spark a great deal of discussion
among area cities. The principal challenge
in the development of a cost-effective PMP
is the goal established by the NPDES regula-
tory requirement to reduce storm water pol-
lutants to the maximum extent practicable
(MEP). To assist the decision-making (and
eventually the negotiating) process for storm
water managers, the regional consultant
team provided discussions on many of these
"sticky" issues surrounding MEP. Each of
these discussions was designed to help cities
develop PMPs that are rational and, above
all else, cost-effective. One of the critical
activities that the regional consultant is par-
ticipating in is discussions with EPA Region
VI on what constitutes MEP, based on con-
sideration of receiving water quality condi-
tions and fiscal constraints.
Benefits of Regional
Coordination
Besides the benefits of regional consis-
tency, participating municipalities are ben-
efiting from the opportunity to develop man-
agement programs in-house and, as a result,
are better prepared to address permit compli-
ance and renewal issues. Area cities are also
recognizing economic benefits through cost-
sharing throughout the permit application
development process. The largest potential
fiscal benefit will be realized as the NPDES
permits are implemented. By coordinating
efforts and building strong relationships, the
cities will more readily achieve the most
cost-effective means to control storm water
pollution on an integrated watershed man-
agement basis through the application of re-
gionally consistent technical criteria and le-
gal authority.
This successfully implemented
unified approach provides significant
benefits to the affected cities, including:
• Allowing comprehensive character-
ization of water quality data to sup-
port management program develop-
ment.
Providing an opportunity to estab-
lish unified BMP manuals for use
by all of the affected cities, thereby
ensuring equity and consistency.
Allowing a cost-effective and consis-
tent approach to storm water dis-
charge control ordinance develop-
ment.
Providing sufficient opportunity to
give full consideration to funding
needs and available funding alterna-
tives for comprehensive storm water
management.
Allowing for a coordinated approach
for addressing coordination with
non-municipal entities such as the
Texas Department of Transportation.
Allowing public information and
participation programs to begin well
ahead of management efforts,
helping to ensure public acceptance.
Providing better information on
which to base continued monitoring
efforts and BMPs throughout the life
of the permits.
Conclusions
The goal of the regional urban storm
water management activities is the develop-
ment of a flexible and phased permit appli-
cation development and compliance process
that allows each municipality considerable
freedom in developing and implementing its
individual programs through the application
of consistent technical criteria and support-
ing legal authority, based on integrated con-
sideration of the following management
practice selection criteria:
• Effectiveness to reduce pollutants.
• Cost-benefits comparison consider-
ing management/staff needs,
equipment, and construction cost.
• Time to results—the time between
practice implementation and the
realization of significant pollutant
reduction.
• Ability to implement—funding
availability, legal authority needs,
logistics, and jurisdictional issues.
• Public acceptability.
• Compatibility with other environ-
mental management objectives.
The Metroplex cities will complete
and submit their coordinated Part 2 permit
applications to EPA Region VI in August
1993.
-------
-------
WATERSHED1 93
Agricultural Watershed Planning
Over Shallow Ground Water
John Bischoff, Assistant Professor
Water Resources Research Institute, South Dakota State University, Brookings, SD
Jeanne Goodman, Natural Resources Engineer
William E. Markley, Natural Resources Administrator
Ground Water Quality Program, Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Pierre, SD
Agricultural nonpoint source contami
^nation of surface and ground water
L.has been of increasing concern to
scientists and the general public. The Rural
Clean Water Program (RCWP) was initiated
in 1977 to evaluate several objectives, one
of which was to improve the impaired water
use and water quality in approved project
areas in the most cost-effective manner,
consistent with the production of food and
fiber (Smolen and Smith, 1989). South
Dakota's project was one of five compre-
hensive monitoring and evaluation (CM&E)
projects designed to monitor the effective-
ness of the RCWP. The CM&E projects
were selected for intensive monitoring and
were designed to determine the cause-and-
effect relationships between best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) and water quality.
Specifically, the South Dakota RCWP
project intensively monitored ground water
and the vadose zone at specific sites to
evaluate the impact of BMPs on the shallow
ground water and the water moving through
the vadose zone toward the ground water.
From the site-specific monitoring
activities, conclusions were drawn relating
land use to water quality impacts. Of
particular importance at the end of this
project was that unless detailed subsurface
geology was known within each of the
watersheds where the sites were located,
applying the results from the sites may not
necessarily apply across the watershed.
Interactions of surface and ground water,
and run-on to monitoring sites from off-
site activities, may have significant
impacts when evaluating the entire
watershed. The South Dakota RCWP
project evaluated the impacts of a manage-
ment practice on the movement of water to
the ground water from certain precipitation
events; it did not evaluate how a particular
event impacted the surface vs. ground
water or the trade-offs between the two for
a given site—nor did it evaluate the impact
of an event to both the surface and ground
water for the entire watershed. This paper
addresses the results obtained from this 10-
year project that may have specific
significance when applying these results to
the entire watershed. Problems and
instances of suspected cases of uncorrobo-
rated data are specifically discussed to
heighten awareness of those who may need
information in developing strategies for
watershed management.
Discussion
Nitrate in Shallow Ground Water
In rural areas where row crops are
abundant, nitrate contamination of surface
and ground water from commercial nitrogen-
based fertilizers is of particular concern. In
shallow ground water systems, where the
recharge is known to be from precipitation
through the soil, there tends to be a stratifi-
cation of nitrate-nitrogen (NO3-N) with
higher concentrations near the water table
and decreases with depth (Oakwood-Poinsett
Report, 1991). Figure 1 represents data from
several subsurface geologies (geozones).
The description of the geozones and the
number of wells that were installed in each
571
-------
572
Watershed '93
30 40 50
NO3-N Concentrations (ppm)
Figure 1. Ground water monitoring well nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of 3,092
samples from 106 wells collected between January 1984 and December 1990.
geozone for the South Dakota RCWP project
are listed in Table 1. In the Oakwood Lakes-
Poinsett RCWP area, all geozones exhibited
the same trend of decreasing nitrate with in-
creasing depth below water table. Table 2
shows the statistical data of the mean and
median NO3-N concentration for each
geozone for the 10-year
time frame. Three of the
five highest median NO3-N
concentrations were taken
from geozones with lower
drainable porosities. This is
probably attributable to the
lower volume of water in
the ground water that is
present for dilution.
This implies that, if
the shallow ground water is
used for drinking water pur-
poses, well(s) should be
installed to remove water
below the water table to
limit the inflow of nitrates
from near the top of the wa-
ter table. In aquifers where
the water can be economi-
cally pumped, and there is
adequate depth of more porous material, the
wells should be screened near the bottom of
the material to ensure that the well does not
go dry. This method may improve the qual-
ity of water pumped, and if future installa-
tions are considered, knowing this informa-
tion may assist developers in locating wells
Table 1. Geozone abbreviations and definitions for the RCWP Saturated Zone Study
WTLT15
WTGT15
UT
SC
SS-A
SGLT5LT10
SGLTSGT10
SG5-1SLT10
SG5-15GT10
SGGT15
SG-UA
Weathered till (brown color) or silty clay (reworked till) with the screened interval of the well at a
depth b.g.s. of less than or equal to 15 ft (4.6 m). (19 wells)
Weathered till or transition zone (greenish brown zone interpreted as a transition zone between
the weathered and the unweathered till) with the screened interval at a depth b.g.s. of greater than
15 ft (4.6 m). (11 wells)
Unweathered till (gray color). (7 wells)
Silty clay aquitard located between an upper and a lower aquifer system. (2 wells)
Alternating layers of thinly bedded fine sand and silt. (4 wells)
Sand and gravel with less than or equal to 5 ft (1.5 m) of overlying soil material, with the
screened interval less than or equal to 10 ft (3 m) below the water table. (30 wells)
Sand and gravel with less than or equal to 5 ft (1.5 m) of overlying soil material, with the
screened interval greater than 10 ft (3 m) below the water table. (15 wells)
Sand and gravel with greater than 5 ft (1.5 m) and less than or equal to 15 ft (4.6 m) of overlying
soil material, with the screened interval less than or equal to 10 ft (3 m) below the water table (2
wells)
Sand and gravel with greater than 5 ft (1.5 m) and less than or equal to 15 ft (4.6 m) of overlying
soil material, with the screened interval greater than 10 ft (3 m) below the water table. (3 wells)
Sand and gravel with greater than 15 ft (4.6 m) of overlying soil material. (5 wells)
Sand and gravel located under an aquitard as the lower unit of a two aquifer system. (16 wells)
NOTES: Overlying soil material refers to all silt and clay rich sediments overlying a sand and gravel layer. It includes silt and/or clay
loams and, in some cases, glacial till.
While it may appear the SGGT15 and SG-UA may both apply to a monitoring well, SG-UA specifies an aquitard between
two sand and gravel units that both have some portion of their thickness saturated. SGGT15 only implies that there is 15 feet
of overburden above the mentioned sand and gravel unit. If there is an upper sand unit, it was not saturated.
-------
Conference Proceedings
573
Table 2. Geozone statistical data for NO.-N for the RCWP Saturated Zone Study
No. of
Geozone wells
SS-A
SG5-15GT10
SGLT5LT10
SGGT15
SG-UA
SGLT5GT10
SC
SG5-15LT10
WTLT15
WTGT15
UT
4
30
15
2
3
5
2
16
19
11
1
N-Species
NO3-N
NO,-N
NOJ-N
NO3-N
NO3-N
NO3-N
N03-N
NO3-N
NO3-N
NO3-N
NO3-N
Minimum
0.02
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
0.00
1.60
0.00
0.00
0.08
0.02
Maximum
26.20
4.05
75.25
4.07
34.91
28.54
23.50
0.20
54.75
28.00
15.26
Median
5.25
0.65
4.32
0.03
0.14
0.29
7.18
0.05
7.03
2.20
0.37
No. of
Samples Mean
147
57
869
730
433
427
43
64
504
338
185
6.78
0.92
6.97
0.24
4.64
3.29
10.08
0.05
9.96
6.32
0.56
NOTE: Concentrations are in parts per million (ppm) of water, which is equivalent to milligrams
per liter (mg/1).
properly to improve both quantity and qual-
ity in areas of shallow water where the major
recharge is known to be from precipitation
through the soil.
If shallow glacial till wells located in
agricultural row crop areas are used for low-
volume domestic use, it is important to
understand that the concentrations of NO3-N
hi this water can contain concentrations of
NO3-N higher than the drinking water
standard of 10 milligrams per liter (mg/1).
Nitrates in the Vadose Zone
In the vadose zone study (Bjorneberg
and Bischoff, 1989), on a Poinsett silt loam
with a glacial-till clay loam
subsoil, the trend for the
NO3-N concentrations for
the moldboard plow tillage
treatment was similar to the
ground water results—
decreasing concentrations
of NO3-N with increasing
depth below the land
surface (Oakwood-Poinsett
Report, 1991). In 1990, in a
year of above-normal
precipitation, NO3-N
concentrations for both the
no-tillage treatment and
moldboard plow treatments
were higher at the 1.2-m
and 1.8-m depths than in
1989, when precipitation
was 16 percent below
normal. The no-tillage
treatment showed results for
both years that had a peak of higher average
seasonal NO3-N concentrations at the 1.2-m
depth and lower concentrations at the 0.6-m
and 1.8-m depth (Figure 2). This indicates
that the moldboard plow system holds
nitrates higher in the soil profile than the no-
tillage system and results in higher concen-
trations.
In dealing with mass transport of
NO3-N toward the ground water, however,
the concentrations of nitrates are only part
of the story. Determination of mass flux of
water to the water table is difficult to assess
for any subsurface geology. Although the
magnitude of the results of the analysis of
water flux may not be completely accurate
140-
Lysimeter Soil Water NO3-N
of
8
120-
100-
8
80-
60-
40-
CO 20-
1988
MP
NT
4.6
0.6
1.2 1.8 4.6 0.6
Depth below Soil Surface (m) by year
1.2
1.8
4.6
Figure 2. Mean seasonal nitrate-nitrogen concentrations of water collected from
the RCWP vadose zone study for 2 years by depth for moldboard plow and no-till
for corn and oats.
-------
574
Watershed '93
(using this method) relative to the "true"
flux in these two systems, by using the same
method to evaluate the two tillage systems, a
relative comparison of the loadings may be
quite good. For determining flux in glacial
till soils, where there is substantial fluctua-
tion of the water table, this method may be
as good as any method for determining total
annual loading of nitrates to the ground
water.
It is necessary to know the average
depth of water that moved to the ground
water as well as the concentrations. The
concentration of the solute multiplied by the
mass transport of water gives total loading.
Thus, Figure 3 (a-d) gives a more accurate
picture of the loading of NO3-N to the
ground water over the season. Figure 3a
shows a typical response of the water table
to rainfall events on com for 1989. Earlier
in the season, the no-tillage system had
higher total water moving to the water table
(Figure 3b) but at lower concentrations of
NO3-N (Figure 3c) compared to the mold-
board plow treatment. This translates to
more loading of NO3-N to the ground water
for each leaching event (Figure 3d) for the
no-tillage treatment. The total seasonal
loading for 1989 (when precipitation was 16
percent below normal) was 23 kg/ha for no-
tillage and 11 kg/ha for moldboard plow
when broadcast-applied ammonium nitrate
was used on corn at 225 kg/ha.
Although the broadcast method of
applying fertilizers in high amounts did
contribute to leaching for both moldboard
plow and no-tillage treatments, the contribu-
60*
0 GO-
£ 20-
CO
@
1 •
1 *
£ -to-
"5
to .100,
•d
j
/
J
llr
I"
l
i
>K 18-Fob 09 Apr
I^A
l^K
' \
,
f.
\
\
\
\
'
29-Mgy 18Jul
Date, 1989
s
I
J
\
J
0&,
i '
V
, I
^ep 26-bct 15-
-60
•50
i
r40 f
1
•30 ^
•20
•10
-0
3ec
Figure 3a. Typical seasonal continuous water table levels as shown by a 1.8 m soil
pressure potential monitoring device (transiometer) for 1989 on corn.
tion was relatively low (4.2 percent and 10.2
percent of applied, respectively). For water-
shed planning to determine if the implemen-
tation of more conservation tillage will im-
prove ground water quality, a question arises
whether an increased 5 percent loading to
the ground water offsets the reduced loading
to surface water. In the 2 years of monitor-
ing runoff from 5-meter by 11-meter plots in
the vadose zone study, there was no signifi-
cant differences in the runoff between tillage
treatments for low and moderate precipita-
tion events. There were two large events
(7.6 cm and 13.3 cm) which washed out the '
border dikes, and runoff loading compari-
sons could not be made between the two
tillage systems.
For the above case, the increased
leaching for no-tillage would not be justifi-
able if the runoff loadings were the same.
However, it is well known that conservation
tillage (including no-tillage) reduces sedi-
ment loading and total water runoff. If more
water is placed into the unsaturated soil
reservoir for storage for no-tillage, less
water is available for runoff or leaching for
a given event compared to moldboard plow.
By implementing conservation tillage over a
greater area, for a given precipitation event,
the specific surface and soil storage for
rainfall is increased because the retention
time of water on the soil surface is increased
with subsequent increases in infiltration.
Baker (1992) indicated that much more
information is needed in the area of surface
and ground water quality trade-offs, but that
preliminary information points to the total
increased benefits for water
quality and that conservation
tillage should be encouraged
to protect water quality in
general.
Pesticides In Shallow
Ground Water
Pesticides in ground
water from agrichemical
use are becoming more fre-
quent for two main reasons.
First, the research and regu-
latory communities are
looking for it more closely;
and second, technology
continually enables detec-
tion at lower concentra-
tions. It should be empha-
sized that a pesticide's
being detectable does not
-------
Conference Proceedings
575
80-
mean that it is a problem
for drinking water.
In the RCWP project,
there were certain instances
that indicated that a
problem of runoff of
adjacent water onto a
ground water monitoring
site took place carrying
wash-off of a pesticide
applied to a road ditch up-
gradient of two wells.
Tordon (picloram) was used
to control leafy spurge in a
ditch approximately 0.8 km
from the monitoring well.
There was no history of
picloram use for that year at
the ground water monitor-
ing location; however, there
was earlier spraying of
picloram up-gradient to the
site. This suggests that off-
site runoff can have impacts
on on-site-specific monitor-
ing within watersheds in
field situations.
In another case, at a
specific ground water
monitoring site, Sencor was
detected three times in the
same well during the
summer months of sam-
pling. There was no history
of use of Sencor on the
field, or any documented
use of this herbicide on
adjacent fields up-gradient
of this site. All up-gradient
fields were checked for any
history of use, but it may
point to an example of
surface water carrying some
contaminants to ground
water some distance away.
It is important to
understand that the concentrations of
pesticides that were carried with the water
run-on in these two examples were not
significantly high enough to pose a problem
with drinking water. The mass loading of
the pesticide to the ground water in these
two cases could not be calculated from
rhythmic water sampling and monitoring
water levels. The depth of "new" water
added to the system and an indication of the
concentration levels of only the "new" water
needs to be known before calculations of
mass loading of a solute can be accurately
Water Table Response to Rainfall
34mm
70-rj
E 60-
<§ 50-
£
CJ
c~
= 40-
^ 30-
B
co
5 20-
1
S 10-
e5fi
Thaw
|
\
i
g
g
%
i
'fy
\
\
\
i
g
g
g
I
Seasonal Total 1 989
NT = 254 cm
MP = 212cm
41 r
nm
\
\
i
t,
%
t
!
42mm
I
•i
•k
P
88m
T1
|L
|
fy
^
y
K
!
56mm
34mm
|H
MP
g^
NT
° 4/25 4/26 4/28 6/17 6/25 7/10 7/18 8/13
Date
Figure 3b. Mean water level responses to rainfall/leaching events for the vadose
zone study for two tillage treatments.
Storm Event N03-N Cone, by Tillage
03
-------
576
Watershed '93
7.
a e-
1" B
13 5-
0
f 4-
Ir
Nitrogen Loading to Groundwater
Seasonal Loading 1939
NT = 23 kg/ha
MP = 11 kg/ha
P-level =
0.2
£
j
j
2
J
\
0.8
J
D
U.D
^
!
^
i
|
j
u
^
I
'%
I
j
j
4/25 4/26 4/28 6/17 6/25 7/10 7/18
Date
^
MP
NT
8/13 '
Figure 3d. Mean NO3-N loadings to the ground water from individual rainfall
events (calculated from Figures 3b and 3c).
of these cases. Ground water loading may
be significant in the most severe instance,
i.e., when surface-applied chemicals are
used and a storm with a high intensity
causes significant runoff shortly after
application. Wauchope (1978) found in
his review that surface runoff pesticide
losses are usually the greatest for the first
runoff event after application. The
implementation of BMPs may help to hold
more of the rainwater on the area where it
falls and reduce the potential impacts from
off-site runoff.
Pesticides In the Vadose Zone
In monitoring the vadose zone for
pesticides for 2 years, there was a slightly'
higher number of detections of pesticide per
water sample collected on the moldboard
plow treatment compared to the no-tillage
treatment for the upper 1.8 meters of soil for
each of the 2 years (Figures 4a and 4b). The
pesticide detection rate follows the same
pattern as the NO3-N concentrations in the
vadose zone—decreasing number/concen-
tration with increasing depth below ground
surface. The water samples that were
collected from below the water table at the
4.5 meter depth showed the reverse—the no-
tillage treatment has a higher number of
detections per sample collected than the
moldboard plow tillage treatment. This may
be attributable to the fact that more pesti-
cides are held higher in the soil profile (thus,
more detections) for the moldboard plow
system compared to the no-
tillage system. This would
parallel the results associ-
ated with the nitrate
concentrations between the
two tillage systems. It
should be emphasized that
the differences that are
shown in pesticide detection
between the tillage systems
are not significant at the
0.05 level of probability.
In evaluating the
number of pesticides de-
tected from unsaturated
water samples taken at dif-
ferent levels below the
ground surface, all indica-
tions point to decreasing
detection per sample col-
lected as the depth in-
creases. The detection level
of the ten pesticides ana-
lyzed were quite different, but were lumped
into the same database for analysis. Triflu-
ralin (Treflan), terbufos (Counter), and
fonofos (Dyfonate) had detection limits of
10 nanograms per liter (ng/1) and almost 50
percent of the pesticide detection in the un-
saturated zone were from these three pesti-
cides, when only one of these pesticides
(terbufos) was applied.
Watershed Planning for Pesticide
Control
Precipitation patterns and other
climatic factors affect the potential for
runoff and infiltration to a specific site.
If there is higher seasonal precipitation
between years, there is probably more
runoff and more infiltration into the soil
profile and, possibly, more leaching
toward the ground water. The potential
for leaching of a pesticide to the ground
water is a function of: (1) the method of
pesticide application, (2) the time
between application and the first precipi-
tation event, (3) tillage practice and
surface residue, (4) crop and stage of growth,
(5) pesticide properties, and (6) soil organic
matter. In agricultural watersheds where
pesticides are used regularly, the most
volatile time for movement of pesticides to
either surface or ground water occurs im-
mediately after application. As time in-
creases after application, the dissipation,
volatilization, and adsorption mechanisms
are developed, and movement with rainfall
-------
Conference Proceedings
577
tends to decrease. With increased adoption
of conservation tillage practices, there is
also an increased need to more efficiently
apply herbicides to reduce losses to
waterbodies. The engineering profession is
challenged to develop new methods of
application, yet still maintain effectiveness
of the applied herbicide. One mechanism
that may help would be to place the
herbicide slightly below the soil surface.
With increased residue on the soil surface,
this becomes increasingly more difficult.
The present question of whether there
should be more, or less, conservation tillage
practices implemented in the watershed to
protect water quality comes down to which
waterbody is more important to protect.
Second, the subsurface geology is evaluated
to determine the potential for significant
drinking water contamination in the ground
water. When both surface and ground
water are of equal priority, all indications
are that the benefits of increased implemen-
tation of conservation tillage practices to
reduce surface erosion and runoff losses
exceed the potential detriment to the
ground water through increased leaching
(Baker, 1992).
Although protection of ground water
for drinking water purposes from nonpoint
source agricultural contamination is less ex-
pensive than any clean-up effort may be, it
should be emphasized that the "jury is still
out" relative to the potential for degradation
of most pesticides already present in ground
water. Subsequently, it should not be con-
strued mat the mere presence of a pesticide
in ground water implies that the process of
reducing the contaminant is either an irre-
versible or economically reversible process.
There may be mechanisms and/or processes
that degrade the contaminant(s) in shallow
ground water systems that have not yet been
established in the literature.
Summary
Watershed planning for nonpoint
source agrichemical contamination of sur-
face and ground water is a complex issue.
Planning to protect all waterbodies for all
events and situations all the time may not be
possible. In planning for the protection of
water resources within the watershed the
key resources need to be prioritized. The
presence of a pesticide in shallow ground
water should not be thought of as an irre-
versible process. The research community
1989 Average # of Pest. Detections
Per Water Sample - All Chemicals
50
100
150
200 250 300
Depth, cm
350
400
450
Figure 4a. The average number of pesticide detections per water
sample collected from the vadose zone study for two tillage treat-
ments for 1989. (Ten different pesticides analyzed; total samples
collected were from 23 to 166; 5 leaching/rainfall events)
1990 Average # of Pest. Detections
Per Water Sample - All Chemicals
50
100
150
200 250 300
Depth, cm
350
400
450
Figure 4b. The average number of pesticide detections per water
sample collected from the vadose zone study for two tillage treat-
ments for 1990. (Ten different pesticides analyzed; total samples
were from 28 to 189; 16 leaching/rainfall events)
will continue to determine methods of
agrichemical management to minimize the
potential for movement into both ground wa-
ter and surface water. Commercial
agrichemical producers will develop alterna-
tives for problem pesticides in the environ-
ment, as more emphasis is placed on the envi-
ronment by the public.
Factors that need to be considered for
long-term agricultural watershed planning are:
• Prioritize the resource. Determine
which is the more important re-
-------
578
Watershed '93
source—the surface or ground
water, or both; (e.g., shallow
ground water in glacial till soils
may be less important than ground
water in outwash soils).
• Plan for long-term climatic patterns
based on historical records. Particu-
lar attention should be paid to early
spring rainfall patterns, intensities,
and the percentage of time that rain
falls in these vulnerable time frames.
If this information is not available, it
should be processed from raw data.
• Gather detailed information about the
subsurface geology within the
watershed.
• Determine site-specific interactions
between ground water and surface
water.
• Determine average seasonal ground
water flow direction and approxi-
mate velocity.
• Consider run-on potential and off-
site up-gradient land use when
applying BMP's for the protection of
ground water.
• Determine strategies for implementa-
tion of fertilizer and pesticide man-
agement or conservation tillage.
Management over shallow aquifers
may be different from areas not over
aquifers.
The use of watersheds to evaluate the
impact of agricultural management on
loading of agrichemicals and runoff water
is expensive, but of value, and there are
parameters that can be determined from
watersheds that cannot be obtained by
site-specific field monitoring, plot
studies, or laboratory studies. This is
not to de-emphasize the importance of
these methodologies to determine the
micro-environment.
References
Baker, J.L. 1992. Effects of tillage and
crop residue on field losses of soil
applied pesticides. In Fate of pesti-
cides and chemicals in the environ-
ment, ed. J.L. Schnoor. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Baker, J.L., and H.P. Johnson. 1983.
Evaluating the effectiveness of BMP's
from field studies. In Agricultural
management and water quality, ed.
F.W. Schaller and G.W. Bailey, pp.
281-304. Iowa State University,
Ames, IA.
Bjorneberg, D.L., and J.H. Bischoff. 1989.
An automated soil •water monitoring
and leachate sampling system. Paper
no. 89-2533. American Society of
Agricultural Engineers, St. Joseph,
MO.
Oakwood-Poinsett Rural Clean Water
Program ten year report. 1991. South
Dakota Project 20. (Available from
Water Resources Institute, South
Dakota State University, Brookings,
SD 57007.)
Smolen, M.D., and D.A. Smith. 1989.
Overview of the Rural Clean Water
Program. Paper no. 89-2524.
American Society of Agricultural
Engineers, St. Joseph, MO.
Wauchope, R.D. 1978. The pesticide
content of surface water draining from
agricultural fields—A review.
Journal of Environmental Quality
7:459-472.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Measuring the Drinking Water
Impacts from Two Agricultural
Watershed Management
Programs in the Midwest
). Alan Roberson, P.E., Associate Director for Regulatory Affairs
American Water Works Association, Washington, DC
The benefits of pesticides and herbi-
cides are well-known. They have done
much to reduce the ravages of disease,
crop infestation, noxious animals, and
unwanted weeds. Approximately 1.1 billion
pounds of pesticides and herbicides are
produced with a total production value of
about $5 billion. Approximately 77 percent
of the production is used in agriculture; 16
percent in industry, commerce, and govern-
ment; and 7 percent in home and garden
activities. However, some of the more
commonly used herbicides could pose a
potential compliance problem for water
utilities.
The 1986 amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) directed the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) to develop national drinking water
standards for a list of 83 compounds. EPA
was directed to develop Maximum Contami-
nant Level Goals (MCLGs) and Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for each of
these 83 compounds. In this list are several
of the more commonly used herbicides,
including atrazine and alachlor. MCLs for
atrazine and alachlor became effective on
July 1, 1992. The standardized monitoring
framework for all the regulations began
January 1, 1993. Once the standardized
monitoring begins for the more commonly
used herbicides, surface water supplies in
the Midwest could face a potential compli-
ance problem with the MCLs for these
herbicides.
Watershed management is an alterna-
tive to installing additional treatment for
utilities with potential compliance problems
from these herbicides. For watersheds
dominated by agriculture, the use of best
management practices, such as buffer strips
and grassed waterways, can have a signifi-
cant impact on the concentrations of
herbicides in the drinking water supply. The
effectiveness of best management practices
in two agricultural watersheds will be
evaluated by examining the concentrations
of the herbicides in the drinking water
reservoirs in the two watersheds. :
SDWA Regulations :
Since the 1986 SDWA amendments,/
EPA has been in a crash program of
regulatory development for drinking water.
Final MCLs for 22 pesticides and herbicides
have been established in both the Phase n
and Phase V regulations. The Phase II
regulation established MCLs for 13 pesti-
cides and herbicides. These MCLs became
effective on July 1,1992. The Phase V
regulation established MCLs for nine
pesticides and herbicides. These MCLs
become effective on January 17,1994. The
standardized monitoring framework,
including the Phase II regulations, began
January 1, 1993. However, the monitoring
for the Phase V regulations began January 1,
1993, for only the large systems, serving a
population of greater than 10,000. Monitor-
ing for the Phase V regulations for the
medium and small systems does not begin
until January 1,1996. Table 1 lists the
579
-------
580
Watershed '93
Table 1. MCLGs and MCLs for pesticides and herbicides in
Phase II and Phase V regulations
Pesticide
MCLG(mg/l) MCL(mg/l)
Phase II Regulation
Alachlor
Atrazine
Carbofuran
Chlordane
l,2-Dibromo-3-
Chloropropane (DBCP)
2,4-D
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB)
Heptachlor
Heptachlor Epoxide
Lindane
Methoxychlor
Toxaphene
2,4,5-TP (Silvex)
Zero
0.003
0.04
Zero
Zero
0.07
Zero
Zero
Zero
0.0002
0.04
Zero
0.05
0.002
0.003
0.04
0.002
0.0002
0.07
0.00005
0.0004
0.0002
0.0002
0.04
0.003
0.05
NOTE: The MCLGs and MCLs for aldicarb, aldicarb sulfone, and aldicarb
sulfoxide have been stayed indefinitely, pending review of new
lexicological data
Phase V Regulation
Dalapon
Dinoseb
Diquat
Endothall
Endrin
Glyphosate
Oxamyl (Vydate)
Picloram
Simazine
0.2
0.007
0.02
0.1
0.002
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.004
0.2
0.007
0.02
0.1
0.002
0.7
0.2
0.5
0.004
pesticides and herbicides in the Phase II and
Phase V regulations, and their respective
MCLs and MCLGs.
The pesticides and herbicides listed in
Table 1 are monitored for compliance on a
quarterly basis, using a specific analytical
method developed by EPA. Compliance
with the MCL is based on a running average
on four quarterly samples. If a utility
violates the MCL, then the public has to be
notified, and additional treatment must be
installed to bring the utility back into
compliance.
The author believes that utilities using
surface water as their source will have a
greater potential for compliance problems
man systems using ground water as their
source. Certain pesticides and herbicides,
such as aldicarb, can leach into ground
water and create compliance problems.
While the potential compliance problems for
ground water should not be ignored, recent
monitoring studies show that surface water
may be a larger problem. Sixty-seven
percent of the population of the United
States served by community water systems
use surface water as their source. Two
scenarios could create potential compliance
problems for utilities using surface water as
their raw water source. First, the effect of
the spring flush on rivers and streams could
provide a volume of reservoir inflow with a
high concentration of pesticides and/or
herbicides. Even with mixing in the
reservoir, this mixing could create a single
sample at a concentration of four times the
MCL. Based on a running annual average
of four quarterly samples, even with no
detections of pesticides and/or herbicides in
the other three quarterly samples, one
sample at four times the MCL would be an
MCL violation. Second, reservoirs and
lakes with a watershed dominated by
agriculture can accumulate levels above an
MCL on a year-round basis.
West Lake
West Lake is the surface water
reservoir for the cities of Osceola and
Woodburn, in south-central Iowa. The lake
covers 306 surface acres at normal pool, and
has a 6,350 acre drainage area. Cropland,
primarily in corn-soybean rotation, occupies
4,188 acres (approximately 2/3) of the
watershed.
EPA sampling of West Lake in 1987
detected levels of atrazine and cyanazine
above the federal drinking water standards
Extensive sampling in 1991 confirmed
continued high concentrations of atrazine
and cyanazine in West Lake. Pilot testing
was conducted in 1991 using Powdered
Activated Carbon (PAC) to adsorb the
herbicides to maintain compliance. As an
alternative to the PAC treatment, a water-
shed management plan was developed by
the Clarke Soil and Water Conservation
District.
The goal of the 5-year watershed
management plan is to lower the concen-
trations of atrazine and cyanazine in West
Lake. Twenty-five hundred acres with 41
landowners were targeted for farmer incen-
tives, including financial payment for acres
contracted into undertaking soil conserving
practices, soil fertility analysis, sprayer
calibration; evaluation of land use; assis-
tance in implementing reduced or no-till
-------
Conference Proceedings
581
systems; and fertility and crop pest consul-
tation.
Due to continual high levels of atra-
zine or cyanazine in West Lake in 1991,
90 percent of the fanners in the watershed
agreed to reduce or eliminate their use.
This agreement resulted in only 15 percent
of the fanners using a product that con-
tained atrazine and cyanazine in 1992
compared to almost 100 percent in 1991.
Figures 1 and 2, which indicate the con-
centrations of atrazine and cyanazine in
1991 and 1992, show the results of these
agreements. Atrazine and cyanazine levels
in West Lake dropped substantially in
1992. Average atrazine levels in 1992
were below the MCL of 3 parts per billion
(ppb), and average cyanazine levels in
1992 were closer to the new lifetime
Health Advisory Level of 1 ppb.
Perry Lake
Perry Lake is a reservoir on the
Delaware River in northeastern Kansas. The
reservoir is used as raw water supply for
several rural water districts and for state
parks that border the reservoir. EPA
sampling in 1991 detected atrazine levels
above the MCL of 3 ppb. On the basis of
that sampling, the Kansas State Board of
Agriculture established a Pesticide Manage-
ment Area (PMA) for
atrazine within four
watershed districts:
Delaware, Nemaha
Brown, Little Delaware
Mission Creek, and
Thompsonville. The
establishment of this
PMA generated inten-
sive controversy within
the agricultural commu-
nity. The pesticide
management plan
include management and
conservation practices,
education, monitoring,
research, enforcement,
and evaluation.
The voluntary
management and
conservation practices
include limitations of the
atrazine application rate,
the use of a 33-foot
stream buffer zone, and
promotion of integrated
pest management and alternative weed
control. An intensive educational and
outreach program has been developed, along
with an intensive monitoring program to
evaluate the effectiveness of the PMA.
As shown in Figure 3, which indicates
the atrazine concentrations at three locations
hi Perry Lake, the effectiveness of the PMA
is difficult to evaluate after only one year of
implementation. The atrazine levels in
Perry Lake have fluctuated above and below
the MCL of 3 ppb. Additionally, the rainfall
hi May and June of 1992 was below
average, and the impact of the below-
average rainfall is difficult to quantify.
Several years of monitoring will need to be
conducted in order to evaluate the long-term
effectiveness of the PMA.
Conclusions
The use of herbicides can have a
significant impact on drinking water utilities
using surface water. These utilities can face
potential compliance problems with the
MCLs established for the herbicides and
may have to install additional treatment in
order to maintain compliance. Watershed
management is a promising alternative to
the additional treatment.
The watershed management program
for West Lake has been successful due to the
MEASURED -1991
MEASURED-1992
TWM (12 months)
MCL
50
100
150 200 250
JULIAN DAY
300
350
400
Figure 1. Atrazine in finished water (1991 and 1992).
-------
582
Watershed '93
MEASURED -1991
MEASURED-1992
TWM (12 months)
HAL (old)
HAL (now)
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
JULIAN DAY
Figure 2. Cyanazine in finished water (1991 and 1992).
KDHE LOWER KANSAS-DELAWARE STUDY - JAN. THROUGH NOV. 1992
AVERAGE ATRA2INE CONCENTRATIONS (ELISA AND GCMS)
8-
6-
4-
2-
5/7 5/21 6/3 G/17 7/0 7/23 e/S 8/19 9/9 9/23 10/a 10/2111/4 11/13
PERRY Q
UPPER PERRY HALF MOUND
Cfctteton tio-j< plotted as 1/2 detection limit prior 5/7/92 (no ELISA performed).
Aftff S/7/92 av
-------
WATERSHED'93
Assessing Ground Water
Contributions to Pollutant
to the Middle Folk of the Snake River,
Idaho
Iris Goodman, Manager Groundwater/Surface Water Interaction Program
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Las Vegas, NV
Paul Jehn, Associate Director
Idaho Water Research Institute, University of Idaho, Boise, ID
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to assess
he role of ground water in sustaining
adequate quantity and quality of flows
to the Middle Fork of the Snake River in
Idaho and to relate the significance of these
findings to existing watershed management
alternatives. Over the past 5 years, intense
algal and macrophyte blooms have oc-
curred along the river near Twin Falls, ID.
This eutrophication limits beneficial uses of
the river, including recreational uses and
salmon spawning, and has impeded
issuances of National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permits and
Water Quality certifications. Nutrient
loading from both point and nonpoint
sources, combined with low river "flows are
creating one of the region's worst water
pollution problems.
Several agencies are addressing
this problem of eutrophication, including
the Idaho Department of Environmental
Quality (IDEQ), Region 10 of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA), the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS), and the University of Idaho. To
date, however, their management plans
and research activities have largely
treated surface water resources sepa-
rately from ground-water resources and
have not explicitly investigated the ef-
fects of ground-water quantity and qual-
ity on river water quality.
Study Area
The study area is composed of the
northern part of the eastern Snake River
Plain, south to the Snake River, from Twin
Falls to King Hill. This stretch of the river
is commonly known as the "1000 Springs"
reach since it contains 11 of the 65 largest
springs in the United States, as well as
innumerable and unnamed smaller springs
(Covington et al., series).
The eastern Snake River Plain aquifer
is 10,800 square miles in area and is
composed of thick sequences of thinly
layered Quaternary basalt flows. The
interflow zones are characterized by
intensely fractured vesicular basalt and
cinders. Horizontal ground-water flow
through these interflow zones is several
orders of magnitude greater than is flow
through the rest of the basalt, and transmis-
sivity values of 100,000 feet squared per
day are common. On a regional basis, the
eastern plain aquifer acts as an unconfined
aquifer (Whitehead, 1992).
Conceptual Model of Land
Use Effects on Ground-Water
Discharge to the Snake River
Existing data on land uses on the
eastern Snake River plain were reviewed
and synthesized to develop a conceptual
model of how land uses and water resource
583
-------
584
Watershed '93
development affect the quality and quantity
of Snake River flows. Six types of land
uses are considered: irrigated agriculture,
underground injection of irrigation
tailwater, animal feedlots, aquaculture,
septic systems, and land application of
wastewater. The effects of each of these
activities on the Snake River were esti-
mated in terms of:
1. The magnitude of the activity's
effect on water quantity.
2. The magnitude of the activity's
effect on water quality.
3. The immediacy of the effect on
water quantity.
4. The immediacy of the effect on
water quality.
5. How widespread the activity is, in
terms of spatial distribution across
the Snake River plain.
This assessment is summarized in
Table 1, along with a qualitative ranking of
the priority that the activity should receive
for management action or for targeted,
applied research to verify the estimated
effects. As shown in Table 1, three activi-
ties received high-priority rankings. These
are irrigated agriculture, feedlots and dairies,
and aquaculture. Each of the lower priority
activities may contribute nitrate to ground
water. Their aggregate effects, however, on
the quality and quantity of Snake River
flows were estimated to be far less. For
example, septic systems and land applica-
tion of wastewater were each estimated to
contribute about 0.003 million acre feet to
recharge of the regional aquifer, or fully
three orders of magnitude less than recharge
from irrigated agriculture. Similarly, it is
clear that injection of irrigation tailwater
into numerous "drain" wells completed in
basalt fracture patterns or into shallow wells
dug by backhoes can directly contaminate
ground water, despite the fact that existing
data cannot support estimates of quality or
quantity effects to the river. Nonetheless,
this activity received a "moderate" priority
ranking because other factors are decreasing
the amount of tailwater requiring disposal.
These factors include the continuing trend
toward replacement of gravity irrigation
systems by more water-efficient center pivot
and sprinkler irrigation systems and the
increasing efforts to educate farmers to
irrigate in amounts established on agro-
nomic water need data for specific crops.
Results for Irrigated
Agriculture
Water development for irrigated
agriculture is the single dominant use of
water on the Snake River plain. .Water
budgets show that more than 60 percent of
the total annual recharge—or about 5.1
million acre-feet for the 1980 water year—is
returned to the aquifer system through
Table 1. Summary of the effect of watershed activities on the quantity and quality of ground water discharging
to the Mid-Snake River
Stressor
Irrigated
agriculture
Underground
injection of
irrigation
tailwater
Feedlots and
dairies
Land
application
of wastewater
Septic systems
Aquaculture
Water
Potential
Magnitude of
Impact
High
Low-moderate
Moderate
Low
Low
Low
Quantity
Immediacy or
Effect
Rapid
Moderate
Unknown
Moderate
Moderate
N/A
Water
Quality
Potential
Magnitude of Immediacy of
Impact Effect
High
Low-moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
Slow
Rapid
Slow
Slow
Slow
High
Existing
Spatial
Distribution
of Activitiy
Widespread
Localized
Localized
Localized
Localized
Locallized
Priority for
Further
Action
High-Targeted
Research
Moderate
High-Targeted
Research
Low
Low-Moderate
High-Targeted
Research
-------
Conference Proceedings
585
infiltration, return drains, and canal seepage
(Hughes, 1991). Similarly, USGS has
estimated that if there were no irrigation
development within the entire Snake River
Plain, the average annual flow in the Snake
River would be 4 million acre-feet greater
at King Hill, and 6 million acre-feet greater
at Weiser, located about 205 miles further
down river (Kjelstrom, 1986).
Moreover, changes in agricultural
practices have been correlated to changes in
the quantity of flows to the Snake River. In
1910, prior to extensive water development
within the basin, ground-water discharge to
the 1000 Springs reach of the river was
approximately 4,300 cubic feet per second
(cfs). By the late 1940s, approximately 2.5
million acres were being irrigated on the
plain, largely by water-inefficient, gravity-
fed irrigation systems which return 25 to 50
percent of the irrigation water to the aquifer
system via infiltration (Lindholm and
Goodell, 1986). By the mid-1950s, ground-
water discharge from this reach increased
to about 6,800 cfs (Hughes, 1991).
About 1945, irrigators began to pump
ground water to supplement surface water
supplies, thus removing water from aquifer
storage. Irrigation canals were lined to
conserve water, concomitantly decreasing
recharge to the aquifer. Ground-water
discharge along the 1000 Springs reach
began declining in 1956 and reached a low
of about 6,200 cfs in 1964 (Kjelstrom,
1986). As a result of increased use of more
water-efficient center pivot and sprinkler
irrigation systems during the 1980s,
ground-water discharge, continued to •
decline to about 5,500 cfs in 1991 (Hughes,
1991).
It is clear that irrigated agriculture
has a major effect on the quantity of water
available to the 1000 Springs stretch of the
Snake River and that these quantity effects
are evident within a only a few years. With
irrigated agriculture widespread and
upgradient of the localized ground-water
discharge to the Snake River, it is qualita-
tively evident that irrigation has high
potential for nitrate loading. There is,
however, scant nitrate data for ground
water to quantify estimates of nitrate
loading due to agriculture (Yee and Souza,
1987).
The best available information on
nitrate loading potential comes from two
relatively small-scale studies of irrigation
districts. In one district, located about 5
miles east and upgradient of the central
study area,: 24 wells were sampled for
nitrate within about a 125 square mile area.
Nitrate levels varied from about 3.8 to
336.7 milligrams per liter (mg/1) as dis-
solved nitrate, with a median value of 41.2
mg/1. Thirteen of the 24 samples had
dissolved nitrate nitrogen values greater
than 38.9 mg/1, and these concentrations
were collected from water table depths of
from 16 to 97 feet below the land surface
(Young et al., 1987). While the second
district is not located within the study area,
the data corroborate the high potential for
nitrate loading from irrigated agriculture.
The nitrate values from 76 wells varied
from 1.6 mg/1 as dissolved nitrate nitrogen
to 132.9 mg/1, with a median value of 35.4
mg/1. Twenty-five percent (19 of 76) of the
wells sampled yielded dissolved nitrate
nitrogen values of greater that 44.3 mg/1.
Depth to water for these wells varied from
6 to 216 feet below land surface (Young et
al., 1987).
Thus, irrigated agriculture has
significant potential to contribute nitrate to
the Snake River and to also affect the
timing and quantity of stream flows. It is
important, however, to distinguish between
the timing of these effects. Previous
studies have shown that changes in pressure
head, and thus ground-water discharge,
occur rapidly with recharge quantities of
this magnitude. In contrast, studies at two
springs along the 1000 Springs reach
suggest there may be up to a 40-year lag
before changes in the chemical quality of ,
spring flow will be evident (Wood and
Low, 1988). In addition, the pattern of
agriculture on the plain has been relatively
constant since about the 1950s; thus the
distribution of agricultural nutrients is
likely to be in a comparatively steady-state
condition (W. Low, USGS, personal
communication). These conditions suggest
an expected lag of several years before the
beneficial effects of improved agricultural
practices would be evident in the in-stream
flows of the Snake River.
Results for Dairies and
Feedlots
The U.S. Department of Agricul-
ture estimates that there are 600 feedlots
and dairies containing about 270,000
head of cattle within just 4 counties in the
study area (USEPA, n.d.). An additional
100,000 to 150,000 head of dairy cattle are
-------
586
Watershed '93
anticipated within the next several years to
support a new cheese plant in Jerome.
Currently, potential discharges to ground
water from animal feedlots are not ad-
dressed by any permit mechanism. The
volume of water and wasteloads from
existing feedlots were estimated to be from
0.23 to 0.41 million acre-feet/year. This
volume is roughly a factor, of 2 times
greater than the combined wasteload from
the entire human population of Idaho and
is the second highest loading rate esti-
mated for the six land uses.
There is insufficient existing data on
water quality in the Snake River mainstem
down gradient of the major feedlot areas to
assess feedlots as source areas for water
quality impacts. Data from one sampling
station near Buhl, however, showed
average colony values of 71/100 milliliters
and 173/milliliter for fecal coliform and
streptococci fecal, respectively (Harenberg
et al., 1991). Existing data did not permit
assessment of how rapidly river water
quality could be affected. Overall, the
potential water quantity effect was rated as
moderate and the potential water quality
effect was rated as high.
Results for Aquaculture
The IDEQ estimates that as much as
80 percent of the spring flow along the 1000
Springs reach is used by fish hatcheries.
The hatcheries collect the springflow in
flumes and use it as a water source for fish
ponds. Although existing data did not per-
mit an assessment of total discharge from
hatcheries, a gaged estimate for a single
hatchery was 19,200 acre feet in one year
(Harenberg et al., 1988). There are 124 fish
hatcheries on the mainstem and tributaries to
the Snake River within the study area
(USEPA, n.d.). Aggregate effluent volume
is likely to be second only to ground-water
discharge volume for irrigated agriculture.
Unlike agriculture, however, aquaculture
has the potential only for altering the quality
of the springflow to the Snake River, not for
changing the quantity of discharge. That is,
the aquaculture industry is making tempo-
rary use of what would otherwise be direct
springflow to the river and perhaps altering
its quality in the process.
Aquaculture effluent is covered under
NPDES permits for 85 of these hatcheries.
New hatcheries or expansions to existing
hatcheries will not be certified unless the
facility can demonstrate that the new or
additional effluent will not produce a net
increase in nutrients. Brockway (1992)
conducted a 12-month study of nutrient
loading from aquaculture to the middle fork
of the Snake River. His data showed
effluent concentrations of nitrate nitrogen
that varied from 1.3 to 9.9 mg/1. A separate,
unpublished study by MacMillan (1992)
concluded that there was no significant
increase in nitrate nitrogen between the
hatchery effluent and influent. Additional
studies of the quality of hatchery effluent
are scarce. Aerial photography, however,
shows elongated algal blooms emanating
from where the effluent enters the river,
suggesting the hatcheries as a source of
nutrient enrichment (M. Rupert, USGS, ID,
personal communication).
Conclusions
This preliminary analysis suggests
that irrigated agriculture, animal feedlots,
and aquaculture have the potential to
contribute, via ground-water discharges,
significant nitrate loadings to the middle
fork of the Snake River. This potential
ground-water link to surface water quality
and quantity has been little studied; further
research is warranted to verify or refute
these estimated effects. Ideally, the
structure of such research would be
designed to dovetail with the efforts of
long-term, field-based studies planned by
several agencies, such as the USGS's
National Water Quality Assessment study
for the area or the Nutrient Management
Plan being developed by EPA's Region X,
IDEQ, and the Water Resources Institute at
the University of Idaho. The analysis
begun in this study could be substantially
refined and nutrient loading estimates
locally disaggregated if existing data were
pooled for collaborative interpretation. In
this way, progress toward developing
nutrient loading estimates and water
budgets could rapidly proceed on the basis
of informed estimates, while incorporating
these estimates into an iterative, ongoing
process for refinement as data become
available.
References
Brockway, C.E., and C.W. Robison. 1992.
Middle Snake River water quality
-------
Conference Proceedings
587
report, Phase I. Unpublished report
submitted to the Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare, Division of
Environmental Quality.
Covington, H.R., and J.N. Weaver. 1990.
Geologic maps and profiles of the
north wall of the Snake River
Canyon, Jerome, Filer, Twin Falls,
and Kimberly Quadrangles, Idaho,
scale 1:24,000.
. 1990. Geologic maps and
profile of the north wall of the
Snake River Canyon, Eden,
Murtaugh, Milner Butte, and
Milner Quadrangles, Idaho, scale
1:24,000.
-. 1991. Geologic maps and profiles
of the north wall of the Snake River
Canyon, Thousand Springs and
Niagara Springs Quadrangles, Idaho, ,
scale 1:24,000.
Harenberg, W.A., M.L. Jones, I.O'Dell,
and S.C. Cordes, 1988. Water
resources data Idaho water year
1988. U.S. Geological Survey,
Water-Data Report ID-88-1.
Harenberg, W.A., M.L. Jones, I.O'Dell, T.S.
Brennan, and A.K. Lehmann. 1991.
Water resources data Idaho water
year 1991, Vol. 1. Great Basin and
Snake River Basin above King Hill.
U.S. Geological Survey, Water-Data
Report ID-91-1.
Hughes, J.R. 1991. 1000 Springs as an
indicator of water use on the
eastern Snake River plain. Unpub-
lished presentation.
Kjelstrom, L.C. 1986. Flow characteristics
of the Snake River and water budget
for the Snake River plain, Idaho and
eastern Oregon. U.S. Geological
Survey hydrologic investigation atlas,
scale 1:500,000.
Lindholm, G.F., and S.A. Goodell. 1986.
Irrigated acreage and other land uses
on the Snake River plain, Idaho and
eastern Oregon. U.S. Geological
Survey hydrologic atlas, scale
1:500,000.
USEPA. n.d. Fact sheet: Middle Snake
River issues. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Idaho Operations
Office, Boise, ID.
Whitehead, R.I. 1992. Gehydrologic
framework of the Snake River plain
regional aquifer system, Idaho and
eastern Oregon. U.S. Geological
Survey, Professional Paper 1408-B.
Wood, W., and W. Low. 1988. Solute
geochemistry of the Snake River plain
regional aquifer system, Idaho and
eastern Oregon, regional aquifer
system analysis. U.S. Geological
Survey, Professional Paper 1408-D.
Yee, J.S. Johnson, and W.R. Souza. 1988.
Quality of ground water in Idaho.
U.S. Geological Survey, Water-
Supply Paper 2272.
Young, H.W., et al. 1987. Selected water
quality data for the Barley Irrigation
District, south-central Idaho. U.S.
Geological Survey, Open File Report
87-240. March-April.
. 1987. Selected water quality data
for the Minidoka Irrigation District,
south-central Idaho. U.S. Geological
Survey Open File Report 87-465.
June.
-------
-------
WATEKSHED'93
The C~51 Basin: Evolution of a
Single-Purpose Project to Achieve
Multipurpose Water Resource
Objectives in a Changing
Public Policy Arena
Tilford C. Creel, Executive Director
Len Wagner, Senior Planner
Tommy Stroud, Senior Civil Engineer
Alan Hall, Deputy Director
Operating and Maintenance Department, South Florida Water Management District
West Palm Beach, FL
The southern half of Florida possesses a
unique subtropical, water-based
ecosystem. This large natural system
begins with a chain of lakes south of Or-
lando that feeds the Kissimmee River, which
flows into Lake Okeechobee—the second-
largest freshwater lake in the Nation. The
lake in turn is the source of water for that
famous "river of grass," the Everglades,
which historically covered most of the terri-
tory to the south and still feeds Florida Bay
at the tip of the peninsula. (See Figure 1.)
That is the big picture for this incred-
ible ecosystem which man has subdivided
into many compartmentalized basins. In
fact, the history of development in South
Florida for more than 100 years is one»of
"dredge and drain the swamp" to create dry
land out of wet land. The South Florida
Water Management District, an agency
created to manage the region's water
resources, faces a huge challenge to bring
together the appropriate federal and state
agencies and local stakeholders to restore
those important links in this unique environ-
mental corridor. Bruce Babbitt, Secretary of
the Interior, recently said he wants restora-
tion of the larger Everglades ecosystem to
be a model of environmental restoration for
the Nation, an indication of the Clinton
administration's support for these efforts.
A related part of the overall effort to
restore the Everglades is the water manage-
ment district's recent initiative to develop a
new, multiobjective design for an existing
flood control canal and its adjacent basins.
The objectives of this ambitious redesign
include restoring the water flow to the
northern end of the remnant Everglades,
reestablishing the canal basin's natural link
to a nationally prized coastal riverine
system, and reducing harmful storm water
discharges to downstream estuaries.
In addition to these vital features to
enhance the basin's environment, this new
design proposal will be an important
element in the water management district's
"water supply planning" process, while still
accomplishing the flood protection improve-
ments that were the basis of the original
project. This project, once considered a
threat to the northern Everglades, now will
provide benefits for Everglades restoration.
The remarkable evolution of this one-time
flood control project will be a model for
future agency projects and serve as proof of
Florida's commitment to save the Ever-
glades.
589
-------
590
Watershed '93
Figure 1. Ecologic map of southern Florida.
The State of Florida originally
constructed this canal more than 70 years
ago in east central Palm Beach County to
link agricultural lands on the south side of
Lake Okeechobee with seaports along the
east coast. The old Everglades Drainage
District christened this man-made channel
the West Palm Beach Canal. It has been
called the C-51 canal since becoming part of
the federal Central and Southern Florida
Flood Control Project. The South Florida
Water Management District is local sponsor
for this project—one of the world's largest
and most complex water control systems,
consisting of 1,400 miles
of canals and levees with
181 structures and 18
pumping stations. The
District operates and
maintains the project not
only to accomplish its
original flood control
mission, but also to keep
pace with the region's
changing water demands,
growth, development, and
environmental needs in a
16-county region with
more than 5 million people.
During the 1930s and
until the hurricane of 1947,
South Florida endured
periods of prolonged
droughts interspersed with
years of above-normal rain.
During the mid-1940s,
water levels in regional
aquifers dropped, allowing
salt water from the ocean to
creep into coastal
wellfields. Then the'47
hurricane hit South Florida.
Water levels from the
resulting,floods took
months to recede. These
weather extremes showed
the need for an overall plan
to balance the flood control
and water supply require-
ments of the region. (As a
side note, South Florida
was fortunate that Hurri-
cane Andrew, in 1992, was
not a "wet" hurricane.)
In 1948, Congress
authorized the Central and
Southern Florida Flood
Control Project. The next
year, the State of Florida
created the Central and Southern Florida
Flood-Control District to be the project's
local sponsor. Many works in the federal
project incorporated and improved on those
of early drainage efforts, such as the
Everglades Drainage District.
To expand on the flood control
district's work, the Florida Legislature
passed the 1972 Water Resources Act,
which created water management districts
throughout the state. The legislation
charged all the districts to control and regu-
late the use of ground water and surface wa-
ter supplies and required a comprehensive
-------
Conference Proceedings
591
state water use plan, emphasizing the need
to plan for current and future water de-
mands. It also emphasized the need for the
districts to protect environmentally sensitive
waters. Legislation in 1976 changed the
name of the Central and Southern Florida
Flood Control District to the South Florida
Water Management District to reflect more
accurately its new multiobjective mission of
environmental protection and enhancement,
water supply, flood protection, and water
quality protection.
The Natural System of the
C-51 Basin
Since the turn of the century, man's
modifications to the topography and
drainage patterns in the area of the C-51
basin—to accommodate extensive growth—
have inextricably altered the natural
environment of the basin. Remnant uplands
and wetlands still remain in small areas in
and around the C-51 basin, but the original
hydrologic patterns that created those
habitats are mostly gone. These man-made
changes have compromised the viability of
the remnant natural systems, and so they
eventually may disappear, unless specific
actions are taken to ensure their long-term
viability.
A "watershed divide" separating the
Everglades from the Loxahatchee Slough to
the northeast is the dominant hydrologic
feature that shaped the area's historic
environment. The slough drains to the
ocean through the Loxahatchee River. This
divide lies along a broad sandy flatland
ridge which slopes gently to the southeast
from Indiantown in Martin County to Lake
Park in Palm Beach County. Pine and
palmettos dominated the ridge, interspersed
with seasonally inundated wetland ponds
that provided food and water for wildlife.
The northern reaches of the Ever-
glades lie west of this divide. Deep organic
soils of peat and muck with widespread
deposits of calcareous marl characterize the
Everglades region. Its flat topography,
sloping slightly southwest, stayed wet
throughout the year. This vast wet prairie
supported sawgrass, sedges, and
maidencane, with isolated tree islands that
contained dahoon holly, bald cypress, sweet
bay, red maple, willow, and other species.
Northeast of the Everglades, the
Loxahatchee River system is another very
important environmental feature near the
C-51 basin. It is Florida's only federally
designated "Wild and Scenic River." The
District hopes its work to reconfigure part of
the C-51 basin will result in some
"relinkage" of the two watersheds of the
canal basin and the river.
Despite development in surrounding
drainage basins, significant areas of the
Loxahatchee River's floodplain and slough
still remain in a natural state. However,
diversion of rainfall runoff, because of
nearby suburban growth, has reduced the
river's base flow and altered its
hydroperiod. The Loxahatchee Slough has a
diverse wetland plant population, with
cypress and broadleaf trees, and is vital
habitat for alligators, osprey, endangered
Florida panthers, and others.
The C-51 Canal and the
Western Basin Project
When the federal government created
the Central and Southern Florida Flood
Control Project, plans included redesignat-
ing the eastern part of the old West Palm
Beach Canal as the C-51 canal to control
floods and supply water. (The C-51 now
links two canals—the western part of the
West Palm Beach canal and the L-8 canal
from Lake Okeechobee through the north-
ernmost Everglades to the Lake Worth
estuary.) Agricultural and urban develop-
ment in the lowlands of the western C-51
basin created demands for increased flood
protection.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) completed its design of the entire
C-51 canal project in 1972. Plans for this
single-purpose project consisted of three
major elements:
1. Replacing the coastal Palm Beach
Locks with a modern water control
structure, designated as S-155.
2. Constructing a major pumping
station, S-319, at the west end of the
C-51 canal to pump water into one
of the federal project's water storage
areas constructed in the northern
Everglades (Water Conservation
Area-1, which is managed as the
Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee
National Wildlife Refuge).
3. Constructing a "divide structure,"
S-155A, to separate the eastern and
western C-51 basins.
The COE plan promised to provide
flood protection for a "one-in-30-year"
-------
592
Watershed '93
rainfall event for the eastern C-51 basin and
"one-in-10-year" storm protection for the
western basin, and to capture excess water
from the western basin to store in the
Loxahatchee Refuge (or Water Conservation
Area 1). In reality, the eastern basin
receives flood protection for a "one-in-8- to
10-year" storm, while the western basin
receives less than "5-year" protection.
Objections arose to such a massive
undertaking so close to the northern Ever-
glades. These included concerns about the
quality of the storm water runoff discharged
into an environmentally sensitive area (i.e.,
the Loxahatchee Refuge), the effects on the
hydroperiod of the national wildlife refuge
with the proposed annual discharge of up to
325,000 acre-feet of water into that area, and
the creation of a "moral hazard." This "haz-
ard" refers to the creation of a project built
to relieve flood control problems that would
then encourage overdevelopment in the ba-
sin and thereby create even greater flood
control problems and needs. Because of
these objections, COE shelved the western
elements of the C-51 plan, but allowed the
eastern segment, including the S-155 coastal
structure, to proceed. Most storm water run-
off from the C-51 basin flows through S-155
into Lake Worth.
After two severe storms in the C-51
basin in 1984, COE proposed modifying its
1972 plan to reduce the scope of the ele-
ments in the western portion of the project.
The COE suggested a smaller pumping sta-
tion, S-319, at the western end of the canal.
This new pump station would have limited
operational criteria that would reduce the
proposed annual pumping of water into the
Loxahatchee Refuge by 90 percent from the
1972 plan. The COE also established strin-
gent planning and regulatory criteria for the
western C-51 basin, which provided some
assurances for water quality and growth
management concerns. Still, environmental
interests opposed the approval of such a
project on the grounds that excessive
amounts of poor-quality urban storm water
from the east would be pumped west into
the national wildlife refuge.
In 1988, after many public hearings
and interagency meetings, COE proposed a
plan to include a 1,600-acre storm water
detention area at the western end of the C-51
project. The net effect of this proposed
modification to the western C-51 project
would have reduced the annual amount of
water discharged into the refuge from
32,000 acre-feet (10 percent of the original
325,000 acre-feet) to less than 1,000 acre-
feet. The COE predicted that the storm
water detention area would have some
filtering and cleansing effects on the runoff
before it flowed into the refuge. This 1988
plan still did not satisfy members of the
environmental community or the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, which manages the
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge.
The Future for the Western
C-51 Project
In 1989, the Governing Board of the
South Florida Water Management District
approved a joint COE-District proposal for
the western C-51 basin. This plan included
enlarging the western 6 miles of the C-51
canal, building a 1,600-acre detention area
to contain storm water runoff for a "one-in-
10-year" storm, and constructing the
necessary pumping stations and structures to
operate the system. The proposed detention
area was designed to reduce "backpumping"
floodwaters into the Loxahatchee Refuge for
rainfall amounts of less than the planned
"10-year" design capacity of the western
C-51 basin.
Following the Board vote, the District
applied for the required permits from the
Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation. However, the District still
needed to resolve the proposed discharge of
lesser quality storm water to the
Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge,
which the Department of Environmental
Regulation had designated as an "Outstand-
ing Florida Water." (The department
regulates Outstanding Florida Waters
through a "nondegradation policy." These
waters are designated for special protection
because of their natural attributes.)
Between 1988 and 1991, South
Florida endured yet another severe drought
and water shortage. The District and other
governmental entities realized the need to
capture more storm water during the
summer "rainy season" to use during the
traditional winter and spring "dry season."
Water demands always increase during the
winter in South Florida because of the vast
amount of agricultural production (sugar
cane, tomatoes, lettuce, etc.) and seasonal
population increases.
By this time, the District had begun its
"water supply planning" process, which
identified the "needs and sources" of the
water supply for the entire lower east coast
-------
Conference Proceedings
593
of Florida (Palm Beach, Broward, Dade, and
Monroe counties). Because of the need to
make the best use of the region's freshwater
supplies, the District reevaluated its historic
flood control practices, the main objectives
of which were to discharge the maximum
amount of storm water to the ocean. The
District is examining environmentally sound
methods to store that water until it is needed
for future use, which is one of the proposals
of the western C-51 plan.
Recognizing the need to complete the
western C-51 project as a multiobjective
water resource initiative, the District's
"Palm Beach County Water Supply Plan
Advisory Committee" asked the agency to
establish a subcommittee comprised of fed-
eral, state, and local officials and other inter-
ested parties who ultimately would become
the beneficiaries of the comprehensive
project. The District directed the "C-51 De-
sign Review Group" to initiate the concep-
tual modifications for the western basin.
To address these new multiobjective
issues, the District—under the leadership of
Governing Board member Leah G. Schad,
also chair of the Palm Beach County water
committee—expanded the scope of the
western C-51 ba-
sin project by in-
corporating water
quality and supply
as major features
of the revised
western C-51
plan. The District
continues to in-
clude flood con-
trol benefits asso-
ciated with the
COE project to
preserve the fed-
eral government's
share of funding
for the project.
The C-51
Design Review
Group requested
that the District
provide the initial
concept for the
physical structures
needed for pro-
posed project.
This work would
incorporate the
feasibility of a
multipurpose
project for the
western C-51 basin beyond its original flood
control mission. It also would provide the
basis for the review and possible modifica-
tions of the plan by the design review group.
The District contracted with Burns &
McDonnell, an architectural/engineering
firm, to develop this initial design concept.
Burns & McDonnell then developed two
alternatives for the western C-51 project.
Significant elements of those two plans
include building a 14,025-acre reservoir
system, making minimum modifications to
the flood control plan, capturing and using
the runoff from the western C-51 basin and
adjacent L-8 basin, supplementing the water
flow to the Loxahatchee Slough and River,
and reducing storm water discharges to Lake
Worth. These elements are not mutually
exclusive for either plan. (See Figure 2.)
After reviewing the Burns &
McDonnell plans, the C-51 Design Review
Group requested that the District reevaluate
several of the options for the proposed
facilities—such as the structures, pump
stations, and canals—that the group sug-
gested during its review process. The
District then selected Brown & Caldwell, a
consulting firm, to develop additional
Figure 2. C-51 preliminary conceptual plan.
-------
594
Watershed '93
options and to prepare a more detailed
analysis of the project with the assistance of
the C-51 Design Review Group. This
analysis would include the elements needed
to develop these structural options and
would evaluate the options based on
environmental, water supply, engineering,
and economic criteria. The final phase of
the analysis would include selecting and
ranking three alternative configurations for
the western C-51 project.
After the Governing Board selects the
best design option for the western C-51
basin, the agency then-will incorporate that
alternative into its Palm Beach County
Water Supply Plan. The District's water
supply plans ultimately will determine the
water needs for all >South Florida. These
plans also will aid to increase the region's
water supply, regulate water use to increase
efficiency, and make the public aware of the
water needs in this growing area.
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
The Effectiveness of Environmental
Mediation in the Relicensing of
Kingsley Dam and Keystone
Diversion Dam
Michael T. Eckert
Degree Candidate: Masters of Community and Regional Planning
University of Nebraska-Lincoln
The Platte's Predicament
The Platte River is a major hydrological
system within Nebraska, an agricul-
tural state whose farmers are depen-
dent upon its water for the irrigation of their
crops. Additionally, the "Big Bend" of the
Platte, an 80-mile bow in the heart of the
state, is a month-long stopover during the
spring for 500,000 sandhill cranes. This
stretch of the Platte—in the narrowest part
of the cranes migratory tract—is extremely
important to them because it is shallow
enough to allow them to roost, less than 15
cm (6 niches), and wide enough, more man
607 meters (2000 feet), to provide them with
security from predators (Gruchow, 1989).
The Platte therefore provides them with a
resting and feeding sanctuary on route to
their breeding homes of Siberia, Alaska, and
Canada (Fish and Wildlife Service, 1981).
M addition to the sandhill cranes,
several threatened and endangered species,
such as bald eagles, whooping cranes,
piping plovers, least terns, and peregrine
falcons, are found on the Platte. As a result,
the National Audubon Society has made the
preservation of the Platte River one of its
major national initiatives (Winckler, 1989).
Conflicting demands between envi-
ronmental advocates, recreational users,
agricultural users, power production and
irrigation facilities, and federal agencies
surfaced recently in light of the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission's (FERC)
relicensing of the power permits related to
Kingsley Dam (project #1417), a major New
Deal dam, and Keystone Diversion Dam
(project # 8135), used to divert water for
power production and irrigation (Cook,
1992). This long-term relicensing will
manage the instream and diversion flows of
the Platte far into the 21 st century.
Kingsley Dam created Lake
McConaughy as a reservoir to serve the
power production and irrigation interests of
central Nebraska's farmers following the
droughts of the 1930s. As intended, it is
now used for hydropower production and
the irrigation of over 94,290 hectares
(233,000 acres) of farmland by the Central
Nebraska Public Power and Irrigation
District (CNPPID) and the Nebraska Public
Power District (NPPD) (Platte River
Whooping Crane Maintenance Trust Inc.,
1991). Additionally, Lake McConaughy
serves as an annual recreational retreat for
over 700,000 visitors, generating significant
amounts of revenue. Finally, McConaughy
acts as an upstream retainer of water (1.7
million acre-feet) that is critical to maintain-
ing the downstream reaches of the Platte
where the threatened and endangered
species reside (Winckler, 1989).
Since FERC originally licensed these
dams hi July 1937, the growth of environ-
mental concerns over such projects has been
reflected in the passage of (1) the National
Environmental Policy Act in 1969; (2) the
Endangered Species Act in 1973; and (3) the
Electric Consumers Protection Act in 1986.
The combination of this legislation and the
595
-------
596
Watershed '93
designation of the "Big Bend" portion of the
Platte River as an area of critical habitat for
the endangered whooping crane in 1978
(Aiken, 1990) has significantly affected this
relicensing process. Today, the Platte is
identified as a critical habitat area for seven
other threatened and endangered species.
Subsequently, FERC's Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement (DEIS) has been
subjected to the task of trying to balance the
interests of these disputants. Although
EERC is currently relicensing several
facilities, few match the magnitude and
complexity of Kingsley and Keystone
(McKitrick, 1993). This is due to the
number of endangered species present on
the Platte, the tremendous distance—322
kilometers (200 miles) on average—
between the dams and the areas of critical
habitat, and the passion of the disputants.
While most EERC relicensings take 2 to 4
years, this relicensing has taken 10 years to
date, at a cost of $20 million (Cook, 1993).
The Primary Disputants and
Their Interests
The specific groups involved in this
dispute are too numerous to mention here.
The most important issue is to identify the
fundamental groups that are most critical to
the relicensing process. Quite simply, those
groups are CNPPID and NPPD who
represent the power production and irriga-
tion interests, and the environmental
community represented by The Platte River
Whooping Crane Maintenance Trust Inc., or
the Trust, and several national environmen-
tal groups. The Trust was legally estab-
lished in 1978 as a dispute conciliation over
the construction of Gray Rocks Dam on a
major tributary of the Platte in Wyoming.
Their mission is to act as a legal and
biological watchdog over the critical habitat
of the Platte River (Aiken, 1990).
It is these two interests, the power
production and irrigation groups and the
environmental communities headed by the
Trust, that represent the primary clash of
perspectives on the management of the
Platte. The problem inherently lies hi three
basic issues:
.1. The amount of water each group
feels is needed to maintain critical
habitat for the endangered species on
the central Platte.
2. The amount of money needed to
restore lost habitat from
channelization and sedimentation
changes on the Platte over time.
3. The future water conservation
measures to be implemented within
the diversion canals and systems and
on the Platte (Chaffin, 1993; Currier,
1993; Mazour, 1993; Maher, 1993).
If these interests could come to a point of
resolution on these three fundamentals, with
guarantees that they will be enacted without
significantly harming power production or
irrigation—while protecting the endangered
species—there is a strong probability that
this dispute would be resolved.
Thus we have a conflict bora of
pluralism. There is an equal distribution of
power, which is fundamentally good in a
decision-making process. It also signifies
that this conflict is not the result of chaos or
bad intentions, but the result of an equaliza-
tion in the manner in which this nation
views its economic and environmental
resources. This scenario presented a case
that seemed primed for the mediation as a
dispute resolution tool.
The Background of the
Mediation Attempts
In order to address and resolve this
controversy, the use of mediation as a form
of alternative dispute resolution was
initiated on two separate occasions. The
unique attributes of mediation were seen as
an option in resolving this environmental
and economic conflict (Bingham, 1986). It
was the hope of parties involved that a
successful mediation attempt would keep
them from resorting to pronounced legal
battles over FERC's preferred management
alternative.
Mediation was seen as the most
efficient means of facilitating communica-
tion among the parties and drawing them
together in a management agreement that
would be acceptable to all sides. Despite
this hope, the significance of the issues
outlined above along with flaws in the
relicensing process provided an atmosphere
of negotiation that was not conducive to
mediation procedures.
The first mediation took place in 1989
with John Folk-Williams as the mediator..
The initial attempt of this mediation was to
resolve a dispute over the annual permits
that CNPPID and NPPD were operating
under. However, the ultimate goal of the
mediation was to resolve the conflict
-------
Conference Proceedings
597
(Chaffm, 1993; Czaplewski, 1993). Resolu-
tion in this mediation was hinging on three
disputes, the primary one being how much
money the districts would spend to restore
critical habitat on the Platte. Although a
rough agreement had been discussed on the
two other issues—instream flows and
diversions, and water conservation mea-
sures—they were not written in stone.
However, if the disputants had been able to
resolve the issue of habitat restoration costs
(the difference was several million dollars)
mis specific mediation attempt may have
been successful (Mazour, 1993; Maher,
1993; Cook, 1993; Chaffin, 1993).
The second mediation took place in
1991 and was mediated by Howard
Bellman. The attempt of this mediation was
to establish a "Nebraska Solution" to submit
to FERC as a management alternative in
their DEIS. Although a majority of the
disputants felt that Bellman did everything
in his power to resolve the issue, there were
too many delays in the process and several
disputants appeared to be unwilling to
negotiate with concession. It appears that at
this point a great deal of polarization was
beginning to take place, probably due to the
longevity of the dispute and the issues being
addressed. It turned out that the process was
not ripe for mediation (Bellman, 1993).
The following nine elements have
been consistently identified in mediation
literature (Bingham, 1986; Crowfoot and
Wondolleck, 1990; Moore, 1986) as being
critical to obtaining a resolution:
1. Selecting the appropriate time for
mediation intervention.
2. Identifying, incorporating, and
educating all disputants.
3. A belief by the disputants that
mediation is better than litigation.
4. Effectively gathering data.
5. Creating ample and/or unique
options for solution.
6. Displaying incentives for resolution
and facilitating a willingness to
compromise.
7. Establishing the goals of the parties.
8. Creating the presence of a deadline.
9. Including the implementation agency
in the mediation process.
To summarize, in the first mediation
attempt it appears that the only elements
present were numbers 1, 4, 7, and 8. In the
second attempt the only elements present
were 4 and 7. The significant lack of the
other elements critical to the process
prophetically forecasted the outcome of the
mediation attempts. It is imperative to
examine why these elements were missing
and what groups contributed to the ineffec-
tiveness of the mediations.
Why the Mediation Attempts
Failed
Environmental mediation attempts are
often addressing such extensive, complex,
and polarized issues that selecting specific
points of failure may not comprehensively
critique the process. However, in the
research that has been conducted, there were
several rebccurring areas of failure that were
corroborated by the disputants in contro-
versy. The five factors that have been
identified as the critical aspects that contrib-
uted to the failed mediations are:
1. The timing of intervention, the lack
of deadlines, and the lost sense of
urgency.
2. The lack of incentives for the parties
to expediently resolve the dispute.
3. The unwillingness to bargain due to.
perceived litigative strength.
4. The lack of information and concrete
data for unresolved issues.
5. The absence of active participation
by FERC and the Fish and Wildlife
Service (Currier, 1993; Mazour,
1993; Maher, 1993; Czaplewski,
1993; Barels, 1993).
Coincidentally, these areas are direct
antitheses to the elements critical for
effective mediation previously mentioned.
It is the cumulative effect of these problem
areas that is fundamentally responsible for
the flaws in the mediation processes and the
prolonged state of dispute on the Platte.
There are several unique situations that
contributed to these five failure factors that
are examined below.
The Timing of Intervention,
the Lack of Deadlines, and
the Lost Sense of Urgency
A highly debated topic in the media-
tion field is the point at which intervention
by the mediator should occur (Moore,
1986). Arguments are made for late
intervention and for early intervention with
quality reasoning given for each (Moore,
1986; Bingham and Haygood, 1986).
However, in both of these mediations it was
clear that the intervention was premature.
The conditions for compromise were not
-------
598
Watershed '93
ripe and several of the parties involved were
unwilling to compromise. Howard Bellman
felt that his intervention was much too early;
he feels that late intervention rarely takes
place. His argument was rooted in the fact
that a fundamental lack of urgency was
present during the mediation. He felt this
lack of urgency was based on the fact that
no deadline was established for the media-
tion or the relicensing. Additionally, during
the mediation FERC was in the process of
publishing their first DEIS, which gave the
parties an incentive to "wait and see" rather
than decisively mediate (Cook, 1993;
Currier, 1993; Mazour, 1993; Barels, 1993).
This intrinsic lack of urgency to
resolve the dispute was apparent in many
areas. Currently, CNPPID is operating on
annual permits (that have been legally
forced by the Trust to take into consider-
ation the endangered species). It has been
argued by the environmental community
that this annual permit process gives
CNPPID no major incentive for resolution
(Currier, 1993). On the other hand,
CNPPID would argue that the national
environmental communities that are
involved lack a sense of urgency to resolve
this issue because of the valued attention it
is drawing to their cause (Mazour, 1993).
Both of these arguments may be valid, while
reemphasizing the fact that this resolution
was not pending enough to move these
groups to conciliation.
To further distract from the urgency of
resolution, FERC issued a DEIS and is now
issuing a revised DEIS. Following its
submission and a period for comments by
the disputants, the Fish and Wildlife Service
will enter the arena to evaluate the impact
on endangered species. Examining this
sequence, it becomes strikingly clear that the
basic sense of urgency to resolve this
dispute was, and is, absent. In this author's
opinion, this would also seem to indicate
that the Platte River and its endangered
species are in no immediate danger.
The Incentives of the Parties to
Resolve the Dispute Expediently
This area goes hand-in-hand with the
urgency area discussed above. However,
the distinction is that the lack of urgency can
exist in the entire process, while the lack of
incentives can reside within one party and
ultimately destroy the mediation process.
For example, the national environmental
interests are perceived to have minimal
incentive for resolution. However, the Trust
argues that that point is negated by the fact
that they are performing the role of those
national interests in this scenario. As a
result, the Trust feels, contrary to the public
power districts, that the absence of the
national environmental interests would not
bring this dispute closer to resolution
(Currier, 1993).
The views expressed above indicate
that the presence of parties that were unwill-
ing to negotiate may have created a sense of
antagonism "across the table" that promoted
further polarization of the parties. It is
somewhat self-evident that the parties have
to have an incentive to resolve the issue. If
they do not, perhaps their place at the
mediation table should be reserved for those
who do.
The Unwillingness to Bargain Due
to a Perception ofLttigative
Strength
One of the basic concepts of media-
tion is that it is an alternative dispute
resolution measure to litigation. In a
mediation attempt it is imperative that all of
the groups come to the table with the idea
that they can conceive a win/win outcome
that will be more acceptable than the risking
a win/lose verdict in court (Crowfoot and
Wondolleck, 1990). In this case, the
perception on the part of several groups that
their chances in court were better than the
alternatives being offered through mediation
was widespread and severely handicapped
the process. In essence, when it came time
to negotiate the incentive was not there and
thus the fundamentals of mediation were
unattainable.
The Lack of Information and
Concrete Data for Unresolved
Issues
This problem primarily refers to the
science of identifying exactly what type of
habitat maintenance is needed for the
endangered species. The use of models to
examine the possible scenarios present
under certain operating conditions was one
method used to explore the needs of the
species. The use of models was a concern in
the second mediation because of the
interpretation of results and possible biases
in the data processing (Barels, 1993;
Czaplewski, 1993; Mazour, 1993; Maher,
1993).
-------
Conference Proceedings
599
This problem is often a major obstacle
for environmental mediation. To determine
with accuracy the amount of water that these
species need takes a vast amount of time and
resources, and the results may never be
certain. In fact some of the first biological
studies on the Platte were conducted as a
result of this relicensing (Barels, 1993;
Czaplewski, 1993). Consequently, groups
are consistently lacking concrete data that is
critical to making river management
decisions. Eventually it must be accepted
these this insufficient data are inherent to
any environmental dispute and mediation
should be carried out with such a perspec-
tive.
The Absence of Active Participation
by FERC and the Fish and Wildlife
Service
In both of the mediation attempts a
resolution by the groups did not guarantee a
resolution of the relicensing. If they had
reached an agreement, that agreement would
then have to be accepted by FERC as their
preferred alternative in their DEIS, and then
that alternative would have to be rendered a
"non jeopardy" judgment for the endangered
species by the FWS. It therefore seems
reasonable to expect willing and active
participation by both of these groups at the
mediation table. However, in these media-
tions, FERC consistently did not participate
in the mediations because of the very
tedious steps they had to go through to
prevent ex-parte communication (Cook,
1993). FWS passively participated in some
sessions, but their feedback was minimal.
They waited until after the mediation
attempts, when the State of Nebraska came
up with a plan on their own, to severely
criticize its effects on wildlife, rather than
making those criticisms at a point when they
could have been addressed.
Perhaps the most important point in a
mediation attempt is to have all of the
critical groups present. Their active and
consistent participation is crucial. If
FERC and the FWS expect future
relicensing processes to proceed more
expediently, they are going to have to
revise their guidelines for participating in
mediations. Although FERC is proposing
regulations to do this under a plan called
consolidated application process (Barels,
1993; Czaplewski, 1993), the complete
incorporation of FWS will be vital to
preventing these prolonged disputes.
Conclusions for the Platte
Controversy
Environmental controversies are never
simple. The "nature of nature" presents us
with a world of uncertainties. For mediation
to be effective in disputes as complex as the
Platte's, several changes will have to occur.
First, the underestimation of such
controversies will have to be avoided.
Earlier communication between the dispu-
tants and earlier scientific research is going
to have to take place. All of the disputants
contacted in this case study agreed that if the
initial efforts toward resolution would have
been more spirited, the escalation of this
dispute could have been curtailed.
Second, groups that have little at
stake, such as the national environmental
groups whose interests were represented by
the Trust, should perhaps be omitted from
the process. These groups are usually
geographically, economically, and socially
separated from the dispute; and it is a
common perception that the hardline
approach these groups foster creates major
resolution obstacles. Perhaps the dispute
could be more conveniently resolved by
those interests that have a direct stake in the
outcome along with the implementing
agencies. They are the ones who will have
to live with the implemented decisions, not
the national environmental interests.
Finally, FERC and the FWS may have
to reevaluate the manner in which they
relicense these projects. Previously identi-
fied problems indicate that the current
relicensing process creates no sense of
urgency to resolve conflicts. Additionally,
even if the disputants conceive a resolution
alternative, there is no guarantee that FERC
or FWS will accept it. Therefore it is
essential that FERC and FWS become
intrinsically involved in the decision making
attempts by the parties. If they do not, in
future relicensings, vast amounts of time and
money will continue to be fruitlessly
invested into resolution processes that will
be doomed because they are severely
lacking adequate incentives.
The pluralism of this dispute, although
it may not appear to be, is to the benefit of
all. The Platte's predicament is unique. The
future of the world's species is as important
as the future of agriculture in central
Nebraska. The reason that this dispute has
yet to be resolved is partially due to the very
convincing arguments that both sides
espouse. Resolution of this controversy •
-------
600
Watershed '93
should not reside in a decision dictating
which side is correct, it should be found in a
management plan that balances the multi-
plicity of interests. Environmental media-
tion is a tool that can accomplish this if it is
appropriately formatted and conducted.
In conclusion, the fundamental issue
underlying an environmental dispute is the
rudimentary call for compromise and
conciliation. We need to accept the fact that
our heightened awareness of our impact on
the environment has thrust us into era that
places the need for coordinated management
alternatives that place environmental needs
above individual beliefs and desires. In this
case study, it is important for the disputants
to realize this before they are left with a
management alternative, dictated by an
outside agency, that may be less attractive
than what they could have mediated
themselves.
NOTE: Funding for this study has
been partially provided by a Grant-in-Aid
from the Center for Great Plains Studies at
the University of Nebraska-Lincoln.
References
Aiken, D. 1990. Perspectives on Platte
River conflicts. Transcript from a pre-
sentation for the 1990 Water Re-
sources Seminar Series. Lincoln, NE.
Barels, B.L. 1993. Nebraska Public Power
District, Columbus, NE. Interviewed
by author March 2, 1993.
Bellman, H. 1993. Madison, WI. .Inter-
viewed by author February 26, 1993.
Bingham, G. 1986. Resolving environmen-
tal disputes: A decade of experience.
The Conservation Foundation,
Washington, DC.
Bingham, G., and L.V. Haygood. 1986.
Environmental dispute resolution:
The first ten years. The Arbitration
Journal 41 (December):3-14.
Chaffm, G. 1993. Nebraska Game and
Parks Commission, Lincoln, NE.
Interviewed by author February 26,
1993.
Cook, J. 1992. Nebraska Natural Resources
Commission, Lincoln, NE. Inter-
viewed by author November 5,1992.
. 1993. Nebraska Natural Resources
Commission, Lincoln, NE. Inter-
viewed by author March 5, 1993.
Crowfoot, J.E., and J.M. Wondolleck. 1990.
Environmental disputes: Community
involvement in conflict resolution.
Island Press, Washington, DC.
Currier, P.J. 1993. Platte River Whooping
Crane Trust Maintenance Habitat Inc.,
Grand Island, NE. Interviewed by
author March 1, 1993.
Czaplewski, M.M. 1993. Nebraska Public
Power District, Columbus, NE.
Interviewed by author March 2, 1993.
Fish and Wildlife Service. 1981. The Platte
River ecology study. U.S. Department
of Interior, Jamestown, ND.
Gruchow, P. 1989. The ancient faith of
cranes. Audubon 91 (May): 40-55.
Maher, J. 1993. Central Public Power and
Irrigation District, Holdrege, NE.
Interviewed by author March 1, 1993.
Mazour, D. 1993. Central Public Power
and Irrigation District, Holdrege, NE.
Interviewed by author March 1, 1993.
McKitrick, R. 1993. Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, Washington,
DC. Interviewed by author March 8,
1993.
Moore, C.W. 1986. The mediation process.
Jossey-Bass Publishers Inc., San
Francisco, CA.
Platte River Whooping Crane Maintenance
Trust Inc. 1991. McConaughy
relicensing: New hope for the Platte
River. Platte River Trust, Grand
Island.
Winckler, S. 1989. The platte pretzel.
Audubon 91 (May): 86-112.
-------
W AT E R S H E D V93
limatilla Watershed Restoration:
Success Through Cooperation
Antone Minthom
Chairman of the General Council
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
The Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation have been
caught up in several conflicts over the
management of natural resources. We are
committed to resolving these conflicts in a
cooperative and proactive way and have
been very successful in doing so.
Before describing some examples, I
would like to give you some background on
my tribe. The Confederated Tribes of the
Umatilla Indian Reservation is made up of
the Umatilla, Cayuse, and Walla Walla
Tribes. Before the Treaty of 1855, our
tribes had a thriving fishing economy. We
traded salmon up into Canada, down into
California, and far to the East for goods
from those regions. We were a wealthy,
self-sufficient nation at that time.
In 1855, our tribes entered into a
treaty with the U.S. government in which
we ceded 6.4 million acres in what are now
the States of Oregon and Washington.
Certain rights, however, we never gave up
and we reserved them in the treaty. These
rights include the right to fish and the right
to a sufficient quantity and quality of water
to maintain these fish runs. The .reservation
of our treaty fishing rights meant the
protection of our culture, our religion, and
our economy.
Over the last several decades, we have
watched the salmon in our treaty- protected
fishing areas disappear. The construction of
the Hell's Canyon Dam on the Snake River
resulted in the complete extinction of all
anadromous fish in the entire Powder,
Burnt, and Malheur watersheds. Mainstem
dams and tributary habitat destruction have
driven salmon to the verge of extinction in
the Grande Ronde, Imnaha, and Tucannon
watersheds, where they have become listed
under the Endangered Species Act. The
Umatilla watershed, however, stands out in
a bright contrast even though it started out
in just as bad a situation.
As those of you who work with
federal agencies know, the federal govern-
ment has a trust responsibility to tribes.
This special relationship requires that the
federal government protect tribal treaty
rights and treaty resources. It also recog-
nizes that states and neighbors of tribes are
often hostile and that the federal government
has a special obligation to protect tribes
from this hostility.
In the early 1900s, however, the
Bureau of Reclamation built five major
dams on the Umatilla River. It then took the
water which our tribe had reserved under the
treaty and gave it to irrigation. What had
been desert became farmland, but during
many months of the year no water reached
the mouth of the Umatilla River. This drove
the salmon in the Umatilla River into
extinction over 70 years ago. It also pitted
our treaty-reserved water rights against
water rights issued to irrigation interests by
the state and federal governments. In doing
so, it pitted our fishing economy against this
ne / irrigation economy.
Instead of fighting against the irriga-
tion interests, however, we worked with
them and with the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife to develop the idea of the
Umatilla Basin Project. Then we took it to
the Bureau of Reclamation and in 1988
Congress authorized the project. This
project exchanges Umatilla River water for
Columbia River water, leaving flows in the
Umatilla River for fish.
By developing this cooperative
solution, not only are we preserving the
601
-------
602
Watershed '93
stability of the local economy, but we expect
to add over $8 million annually to the
regional economy through the restoration of
the Umatilla River salmon runs. Conflict
between treaty reserved water rights and
historic non-Indian usage exists throughout
the West. Where tribes are beginning to
exercise their water rights, hostile conflict is
usually the result. What makes our "win-
win" solution especially unique is that we
sat down and began developing a solution
before the conflict had developed into
litigation.
This cooperative solution has also
become a model for salmon restoration. We
have begun to bring salmon back to the
Umatilla River, with the Umatilla Basin
Project and with other cooperative efforts.
While the numbers of salmon are declining
throughout the other Columbia and Snake
River tributaries, the number of salmon are
increasing hi the Umatilla River.
My tribe's commitment to developing
cooperative solutions when possible resulted
in another success last year. Some environ-
mental groups, trying to make changes in
western water policy, gained attention by
asserting that state and federal water policies
would undermine the fish benefits of the
Umatilla Basin Project. The resulting
conflict became increasingly divisive and,
due to the failure of the parties to negotiate a
solution, was headed for litigation. This
tribe stepped into the conflict and took the
lead in establishing real negotiations.
The parties to the negotiations
included three environmental groups
(including the Oregon Natural Resources
Council, one of the primary plaintiffs in the
spotted owl litigation), four irrigation
districts, two state agencies, two federal
agencies, a local chamber of commerce
group, and this tribe. After two and a half
months of intensive negotiations, the 13
parties developed a consensus solution to all
of the issues that had been raised. This
cooperative approach not only resolved the
conflict but expanded the coalition support-
ing the Umatilla Basin Project.
In the Grande Ronde watershed, we
are putting together a similar coalition to
cooperatively restore salmon and salmon
habitat. The salmon hi this Snake River
sub-basin are listed under the Endangered
Species Act Working with some of the best
watershed ecology and fish biology experts
in the United States, we developed the
Upper Grande Ronde Salmon Habitat Plan.
This plan is the state of the art in terms of
forest management standards aimed at
restoring watershed level salmon habitat.
This plan has been recognized as a model
for salmon habitat restoration by the
Endangered Species Act Recovery Plan
Team. We are now working with timber,
grazing, irrigation, and environmental
interests as well as with state and federal
agencies to implement this plan.
This tribe, through the Northwest
Power Planning Council's and Bonneville
Power Administration's model watershed
process, has extended the application of the
plan's objectives to the entire sub-basin.
We have developed a coalition with two
counties to implement these habitat restora-
tion measures throughout the watershed.
Again, the underlying principal in
developing and implementing this plan has
been to address everybody's needs. We
have demonstrated that environmental
restoration does not have to severely impact
other resource users. Relatively minor
modifications of existing practices may have
major benefits for fish.
We see no reason why the conflict
over Columbia and Snake River salmon
recovery could not be resolved in a similar
manner. The Umatilla Basin Project should
serve as a model for addressing Snake River
flow and passage problems. We have
shown that water can be reallocated for fish
needs without putting people out of busi-
ness. We have also shown that apparently
impossible legal and political conflicts can
be resolved through cooperation. The
Upper Grande Ronde Plan should serve as a
model for tributary habitat restoration
throughout the Columbia and Snake River
basins. We have shown that a technically
sound approach to salmon recovery can be
compatible with other uses of the resource.
I have discussed two watersheds as
examples. One is under Endangered Species
Act constraints; the other is not. Both,
however, are focused on salmon restoration.
We have an opportunity to make both work.
Salmon is the resource which defines
the Pacific Northwest. This is probably our
last opportunity to restore this critical
resource. For this effort to be successful,
the federal agencies will need to begin to
play a greater leadership role.
Lastly, I want to point out the obvious.
Many different entities have attempted in
the past to restore habitat and salmon in the
Umatilla, Grande Ronde and in the Colum-
bia River system as a whole. The tribes
have been successful because they can break
-------
Conference Proceedings
603
down the traditional barriers separating
factions such as environmental groups and
industry. Further, because of our govern-
ment-to-government relationship with the
federal government, we can work closely
with federal agency representatives—more
closely than most of you are used to
working with entities outside of your agency
sphere.
When my ancestors negotiated the
Treaty of 1855, they planned for seven
generations into the future. That is why
they specifically reserved our right to fish in
the treaty. I am one of those children that
they were thinking of and planning for in
1855. I have a duty to them to see that the
salmon are restored. I also look to the
people of the United States who were parties
to the treaty as well to ensure that the treaty
promises are fulfilled. It is time for all of us
to begin working together to plan for the
next seven generations.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Large-Scale Collaboration—
Lessons Learned
Marcelle E. DuPraw, Senior Associate
Program for Community Problem Solving, Washington, DC
If watershed management is to be a
sustainable reality, proponents must
develop the knowledge and skills to
effectively initiate and participate in inter-
organizational collaboration on community-
wide and regional scales. A substantial
track record has been built up in the
application of consensus-building tools to
specific disputes over natural resource
management and environmental quality, but
community-wide consensus-building efforts
("community collaboratives") are a newer
"animal"—particularly in the environmental
arena.
This paper extracts the lessons learned
from the growing number of community
collaboratives under way in the social
services arena and integrates them with the
author's 9 years of experience in environ-
mental dispute resolution to generate
suggestions for what watershed management
proponents should know about community-
wide and regional collaboration to maximize
chances of success in watershed manage-
ment. In identifying the lessons learned
from social services collaboratives, the
author draws extensively from a literature
review conducted at the request of the
Program for Community Problem Solving
by Kathleen A. Blank (unpublished mimeo,
1993).
"Community Collaboratives"
Defined
For purposes of this paper, the term
"community collaborative" means a project
that is designed to address a specific policy
or administrative issue in a particular
community and has the following character-
istics.
1. Representatives of all stakeholders
are involved. As in environmental
dispute resolution efforts, stakehold-
ers who need to be represented
include those individuals or organi-
zations significantly affected by the
issue, those who could help ensure
implementation of a solution, and
those who could block implementa-
tion of a solution.
2. Collaboratives entail broad,
significant, and continuous outreach
to, and involvement of, organizations
in both the public and private
sectors, as well as individual
members of the public (Himmelman,
1992). While environmental dispute
resolution processes frequently
involve some form of supplementary
public involvement (e.g., a public
comment period on a regulation that
has been negotiated by a representa-
tive core group of stakeholders),
public involvement plays more of a
driving role in the most effective
community collaboratives.
3. Participants rely upon consensus as
their primary method of decision-
making. This characteristic is also
similar to environmental dispute
resolution forums. For purposes of
this paper, the term "consensus"
refers to a method of decision-
making in which participants discuss
a shared problem and possible
solutions until they come up with a
solution that all can accept. Each
participant, in effect, has veto power
over proposed solutions.
4. Participants think of the project as a
long-term undertaking, and one that
involves implementation as well as
605
-------
606
Watershed '93
decision making. In contrast to
many other kinds of consensus-
building forums that culminate when
a consensus decision is reached,
community collaboratives tend to put
considerable emphasis on implemen-
tation of such decisions. For this
reason, collaboratives typically have
a multiyear time-frame.
5. Participants' interactions go beyond
networking, coordination, and nego-
tiation to encompass (a) resource
and risk sharing and (b) changes in
the way participants do business,
both of which reflect participants'
shared "meta-strategy" for achiev-
ing a common goal. Collaboratives
typically entail the creation of new
and modified organizational struc-
tures, policies, and procedures. This
might take the form of a new
governing entity for the collabora-
tive project as a whole or changes in
the way participating organizations
operate. Such structural changes are
undertaken in the service of a shared
"meta-mission" and "meta-objec-
u'ves"—components of a strategy
that cannot be achieved without the
joint efforts of participants in the
collaborative (Huxham and
Macdonald, 1992).
While negotiated agreements resulting
from environmental dispute resolution
processes sometimes include provisions for
resource and risk sharing and structural
changes within participating organizations,
these things are typical in a community
collaborative and are generally worked out
early in the course of the project, rather than
as a part of a final agreement.
Community collaboratives have
typically been initiated in the social services
arena to address issues such as how the
delivery of various social services (e.g.,
health care, income subsidies, job training,
etc.) can be integrated to more effectively
meet the needs of individuals and families.
However, a growing body of experience
with, and support for, watershed manage-
ment suggests that community
collaboratives may be effective vehicles for
operationalizing this approach to natural
resource management.
Relevant traits shared by the social
services and watershed management arenas
include the fact that both require intensive
cooperation and coordination among
federal, state, regional, and local organiza-
tions, as well as between the public and
private sectors, to accomplish technically
complex goals. They both require the active
participation of the public to be effective,
and programs in both of these arenas must
be tailored to unique characteristics of a
particular locale. The remainder of this
paper discusses community collaborative
models transferable to watershed manage-
ment and relevant design criteria for
translating such a model into action. .
Collaborative Models—
"Betterment" Versus
"Empowerment"
One of the themes that characterize the
literature on social services collaboratives is
the importance of designing the collabora-
tive in a way that is empowering to the
community. Himmelman (1992) delineates
two distinct models upon which community
collaboratives have been patterned—the
"collaborative betterment" model and the
"collaborative empowerment" model.
Under the betterment model, the
project is initiated by large institutions,
sometimes based inside the community and
sometimes outside it. The governance
functions of the collaborative are often
controlled by the most powerful of these
institutions, and the collaborative's action
plan tends to reflect primarily the ideas of
associated professionals. While community
involvement is elicited as a way of gaining
acceptance for the action plan, this tends to
happen late in the game and control of
resources and the decision-making process
remains with the initiating institutions.
Under the empowerment model, the
genesis of the collaborative lies in local
dialogue about community values, beliefs,
assumptions, activities, and needed
changes; such dialogue lays the foundation
for the development of the community-
wide vision needed to sustain a long-term
change effort. The community residents
themselves determine the focus of the
collaborative, the issues to be addressed,
the local and external organizations that
will be invited to participate in collabora-
tive activities, and how power and respon-
sibilities can most equitably be shared. It
is community representatives who negoti-
ate the details of the collaborative's
concluding phase in such a way that the
community is left with the resources and
capacity needed to sustain implementation
-------
Conference Proceedings
607
activities over the long run. Community
involvement is continuous.
A variety of writers have argued in
favor of the empowerment model, whether
or not they called it by this name
(Himmelman, 1992; Chavis et al., in press;
Brunner, 1991; Meltzer, 1991; and Jones
and Silva, 1991). The key advantages of
this model are that (a) the community has a
much stronger sense of ownership in the
collaborative project, which is critical in
designing a project that is responsive to
community needs and in developing and
sustaining the resources and commitment
needed to carry the project through imple-
mentation, and (b) the community's capacity
to effectively solve local problems is
enhanced, reducing the need for external
support in the future.
However, community collaboratives
are not cheap; and in the current economic
climate, it is difficult for many communities
to finance such projects solely with local
resources. External funding institutions,
such as federal and state agencies and
foundations, may be interested in supporting
a series of concurrent community
collaboratives in different localities around
the country as a way of accomplishing a
particular policy objective (e.g., reducing
infant mortality rates or nonpoint source
pollution); yet they may be wary of the
empowerment model because it calls for
relinquishing some of the control they are
used to having over projects they are
supporting. Representatives of such
institutions may worry about how success
will be ensured and about issues of account-
ability, both internally (e.g., to boards of
directors or agency administrators) and
externally (e.g., to Congress). These
concerns are understandable; the following
section offers one way of addressing them.
Designing a Community
Collaborative for Watershed
Management
External funding entities can be
reassured about accountability and the
likelihood of the success of a collaborative,
although they are sharing control of it with
all other participants, by including certain
design elements in the project that have been
associated with successful collaboratives.
Drawing from the literature on social
services collaboratives, a community
collaborative initiated as a vehicle for
watershed management should include the
following characteristics.
1. The project should be convened by
someone whose leadership reputa-
tion, interpersonal skills, and group
management capabilities convey a
sense of legitimacy (Mattesich and
Monsey, 1992).
2. The collaborative should be adminis-
tered by a carefully-thought-out
governance entity. For example, an
organizing committee might be
established to handle preliminary
administrative tasks, such as meeting
with representatives of organizations
the community suggests as potential
participants to determine which of
these organizations should be asked
to participate. Once membership
stabilized, the organizing committee
might give way to (a) a policy board
that meets quarterly to provide
overall project guidance and to
advocate for policy changes sought
by the collaborative; (b) an executive
committee that meets monthly to
provide ongoing administrative and
program guidance; and (c) action
groups, each responsible for devel-
oping an action plan for a single goal
(Himmelman, 1992). Meltzer (1991)
suggests that the governing entity
should combine planning and
communication functions with
"more authoritative efforts to
redirect financing and assess system
performance."
3. The project should be adequately
and consistently staffed and funded,
"with a staff composition reflecting
the diversity of communities served
(Meltzer, 1991; Chang, 1992). The
number of staff needed will vary
according to the collaborative's
mission and scope and the degree of
member involvement in day-to-day
functions of the collaborative
(Meltzer, 1991).
4. The collaborative's public outreach
and internal interactions should
reflect an understanding, accep-
tance, and accommodation of
cultural differences in values,
communication methods, and
approach to the target issue (e.g.,
health care or waste disposal)
(Center for Community Education,
1991; Himmelman, 1992; Chang,
1992). Such outreach should begin
-------
r
60S
Watershed '93
very early (i.e., at the problem
definition stage) (Meltzer, 1991) and
should not be limited to groups who
have previously participated in
community decision making (Center
for Community Education, 1991).
Mattesich and Monsey (1992) urge
that open communication should be
the watchword and that it should
occur both in writing and in person.
Chang (1992) points out that "the
outcome of a collaborative is often
determined by the ability of the
individuals involved to respect each
other as equals, establish trust and
work constructively together. But
group dynamics are often shaped by
historical power relationships which
are neither respectful or equal, and
the complexity becomes greater
when members of different racial
groups are involved." Participating
organizations need to be open to
making changes in their policies and
procedures based on input from
other participants and the public
regarding the impacts of existing
practices.
5. Goals, objectives, roles, rights,
responsibilities, and lines of ac-
countability should be clearly-
delineated, agreed-upon by all
participants, and communicated to
the public (Himmelman, 1992;
Meltzer, 1991; Mattesich and
Monsey, 1992). To ensure adequate
assessment of problems and out-
comes, the collaborative's gover-
nance entity should be accountable
for the overall welfare of those
served by the collaborative and for
the results of the services provided
(Meltzer, 1991).
6. Participants should focus on only a
few key, attainable goals. This will
help ensure timely progress, which is
vital to sustaining momentum
(Himmelman, 1992). These goals
should not completely overlap those
of any of the member organizations
(Mattesich and Monsey, 1992).
7. Participants should remain open to
reviewing and, if necessary, modify-
ing the collaborative's mission
statement, goals, and action plans
throughout the project. The willing-
ness to do this is important in
sustaining the full support of the
community, institutional partici-
pants, and new members of the
collaborative (Himmelman, 1992), as
well as in accommodating changes in
the external environment (Mattesich
and Monsey, 1992).
8. Participants should develop prob-
lem-assessment instruments that they
use in common (Meltzer, 1991).
This will support the development of
a shared understanding of the
problem and minimize conflicts over
data.
9. Participants should collect data on
similar projects in other communi-
ties. Such information can be
invaluable in developing an effective
local strategy (Himmelman, 1992).
10. Participating organizations should
involve both management and
operations staff in the collabora-
tive's activities, and should initiate
internal steps to ensure that their
"bean-counting" systems reward,
rather than discourage, employees
from contributing to the collabora-
tive project (Mattesich and Monsey,
1992; Brunner, 1991).
11. When conflicts or technical chal-
lenges arise, tightly structured
processes should be devised to
address them effectively (Jones,
1990). Project plans should make
provisions for obtaining facilitation
services, training in problem-solving
skills and cross-cultural dynamics,
and technical assistance as needed
(Himmelman, 1992; Chang, 1992).
In some cases, local government
agencies may be able to provide
qualified personnel to perform these
functions; however, if neutrality or
other credibility issues make this
problematic, consultants may be
needed.
12. Participants should establish a
project evaluation mechanism.
Progress should be measured in
terms of outcomes in relation to
resources expended (Brunner, 1991),
and strategies and action plans
should be adjusted accordingly.
Meltzer (1991) recommends that the
governing entity serve as a central
repository for evaluation data and
that these data and the collabora-
tive's analysis of it should be
available to the public.
13. Throughout the project, partici-
pants should attend not only to
-------
Conference Proceedings
609
problem solving, but also to
community building and systems
.interaction (Jones and Silva, 1991).
i When problem solving is pursued
without concurrent attention to
community-building efforts,
resulting actions are likely to occur
. without a ,sense of ownership by
, .community members. Pursued
without awareness of the ways in
.which collaborative activities will
trigger changes in surrounding
systems, action will lack direction
and have unintended results.
Mattesich and Monsey (1992) also
note that the success of collaborative efforts
is increased where there is a history of
collaboration in the community, where
community leaders support the collabora-
tive's mission, and where participants share
a vision and believe that the benefits of
collaboration in realizing that vision
outweigh any associated loss of autonomy.
Conclusion
In the current climate of economic
austerity, the relationships between federal,
state, regional, and local governments are
shifting, as is that between the public and
private sectors. This era calls for national
flinders in both the public and private
sectors to increasingly leverage their
assistance to state, regional, and local
entities in a way that helps the smaller
jurisdictions to help themselves. The
community collaborative model is an ideal
vehicle for implementing such efforts on
behalf of watershed management. Parties
wishing to speak with those who have
piloted such programs in other policy arenas
may call the Program for Community
Problem Solving (202-783-2961) for contact
information.
References
Blank, K.A. 1993. Creating a culture of
public problem-solving: Community
empowerment through collaborative
partnerships. Unpublished mimeo
prepared for the Program for Commu-
nity Problem Solving.
Brunner, C. 1991. Thinking
collaboratively: Ten questions and
answers to help policy makers
improve children's services. Educa-
tion and Human Services Consortium,
Washington, DC.
Center for Community Education. 1991.
Supporting community initiatives:
What works? Conference proceed-
ings, Center for Community Educa-
tion, Rutgers University, Newark, NJ.
Chang, H.N. 1992. Diversity: The essen-
tial link in collaborative services. In
California perspectives: An anthology
from California Tomorrow. Fall
1992, 3:55-61. California Tomorrow,
San Francisco, California.
Chavis, D.M., P. Speer, I. Resnick, and A.
Zippay. In press. Building commu-
nity capacity to address alcohol and
drug abuse: Getting to the heart of the
problem. In Drugs and community,
ed. R.C. Davis, A J. Lurigo, and D.
Rosenbaum. Charles Thomas,
Springfield, IL.
Himmelman, A.T. 1992. Communities
working collaboratively for a change.
Himmelman Consulting Group,
Minneapolis, MN.
Huxham, C., and D. Macdonald. 1992.
Introducing collaborative advantage:
Achieving inter-organizational
effectiveness through meta-strategy.
Management Decision 30(3):50-56.
Jones, B. 1990. Community problem
solving around homelessness: The
social construction of consensus.
Journal of Community Development
Society 21(2): 1-20.
Jones, B., and J. Silva. 1991. Problem
solving, community building, and
systems interaction: An integrated
practice model for community
development. Journal of Community
Development Society 22(2):1-20.
Mattesich, P.W., and B.R. Monsey. 1992.
Collaboration: What makes it -work: A
review of literature on factors
influencing successful collaboration.
Amherst H. Wilder Foundation, St.
Paul, MN.
Meltzer, J. 1991. Building a community
agenda: Developing local governing
entities. The Center for the Study of
Social Policy, Washington, DC.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Mushing Watershed Projects
Together in Iowa
LyleW. Asell
USDA Soil Conservation Service, Des Moines, 1A
Gitrary to popular belief, Iowa has a
reat deal of variety in landscapes.
com the Mississippi on the east to
the Missouri River on the west, from the
Karst topography of northeast Iowa to the
depth loess in western Iowa, we have a great
deal of variety in our soils and resources.
Agriculture is an extremely important
industry in Iowa. Of 36 million acres, we
have 27 million in cropland, of which
approximately 21 or 22 million will be in
corn or soybeans each year. We also
produce 26 percent of the pork, are one of
the top beef producers in the United States,
and have a growing poultry industry.
Water is an economic issue hi Iowa.
We either have too much, too little, or not
enough good quality water. For the same
reasons, water is an environmental issue.
Iowa has been a leader in conservation
issues with soil conservation laws, state
erosion control cost-share programs, and
ground water protection.
Iowa is not a very densely populated
state with approximately 2.8 million people.
There is a diversity of concerns, interests,
and almost universally inadequate funding.
We have concluded that the best way to
implement projects for whatever reason is to
use a variety of programs, agencies, skills,
groups, etc. We call it mushing.
From the Soil Conservation Service's
(SCS) standpoint, we have developed skills
through planning and installing watershed
projects since the late 1940s. We currently
have 20 operational P.L. 566 watersheds and
17 operational P.L. 534 subwatersheds. We
have learned many valuable lessons from
this experience, have developed many
important partnerships over the years, and
have used this knowledge to help develop
many other projects. As a result we are
actively involved in approximately 70
operational water quality improvement
projects in the state with support from 13
different funding sources. Approximately
50 are operated on a watershed basis.
No one knows exactly how to mush
correctly. In fact, I'm not even sure how to
spell it, but here is how we do it. First of
all, we talk to each other. As simple as it
seems, this is the most important factor in
making our process work. We do not really
have a formal organization, but we do have
an informal but fairly tight knit group of
people who work together quite often. This
includes representatives from different
divisions of the Iowa Department of Natural
Resources; Iowa Department of Agriculture
and Land Stewardship, Division of Soil
Conservation; the Cooperative Extension
Service; and the SCS. In addition, there is a
much larger coalition involved in the issue
made up of other agencies, commodity, and
environmental groups.
When planning individual projects,
each group needs to think in terms of what
they can give to the project, not what they
can get from the project. You have to leave
your individual egos as well as agency egos
at the door and work for the best interest of
the individual project. You will all win
eventually. If you do not win on this one,
you will win on the next one.
The second important factor in
making this effort work is talking to the
local people, getting them involved in
determining what the problems are and what
the solutions are. We try to be comprehen-
sive and help local people develop informa-
tion from which they can agree what
problems will be dealt with or opportunities
developed. We always have private
landowners involved since about 98 percent
611
-------
612
Watershed '93
of the state is privately owned. In most
cases there are multiple sponsors including
Soil and Water Conservation Districts,
Department of Natural Resources, municipal
water supplies, and county governments.
Once we have an agreement on the
problems, we can begin looking at the
solutions. We work through the alternatives
with the sponsors to see which ones are the
most acceptable socially, economically, and
environmentally. Then and only then do we
start worrying about money. There are too
many cooperative watershed projects that
fail because people worry about fitting
problems into specific programs. If you are
blind to a problem because of program
constraints, you will dismiss it because you
cannot pay for it, not because you can not
solve it. That is why we identify the
problems and the solutions before we start
worrying about how or who is going to pay
for it.
In water quality projects, for example,
I mentioned earlier we use about 13 funding
sources. These include local, state, SCS,
and EPA financed programs. For mushing
water quality projects together, we use a
generic application procedure. The applica-
tion is reviewed by people from several
agencies that may assume responsibility for
all, part, or none of the project. If an
application is chosen, it is then decided who
has money that could go towards solving the
problem.
Another prerequisite for cooperative
projects is to keep administrative procedures
tolerable. A variety of funding can be very
confusing to the local people, especially
when dealing with multiple budgets. We
have one project, for example, that has
seven funding sources. We administer the
programs as consistently as possible with
the way local people are used to doing
business. For example, Iowa has a state
cost-sharing program. Through section 319,
funds are passed through the Division of
Soil Conservation, which passes them on to
the involved soil and water conservation
district It is business as usual for coopera-
tors and staff except they are using a
different accounting number for that
individual project.
Now we have financing in place and it
is merely a matter of implementing the
program. Another key element is to make
sure everyone is informed about the pro-
gram, what it is intended to accomplish, and
what it is actually doing. This includes the
landowners as well as leaders at the local,
state, and national levels. Some projects
publish newsletters; all write articles for the
local paper and, of course, make one-on-one
contacts. We try to build in funding on the
larger projects for a project coordinator.
With the heavy workload in our part of the
world we feel it is important to dedicate a - •'
person to the project. Part of this person's
responsibilities is to make sure the public is
informed and knowledgeable about what is
going on in that project. On larger projects
a person with communication training may
be assigned to do this job. We also establish
a local Steering Committee made up of area
farmers who are involved in implementing
the project and make sure they have a
complete understanding and are involved in
the decision making and guidance of the
project. This helps cut down on the coffee
shop rumors and provides the public with an
informal but effective way of transforming
their wishes and their thoughts on that
particular project to the governing board.
Every good news story tells who,
what, when, where, why, and so what. The
"so what" is very, very critical to us and we
always try to address it as part of the
program. The "so what" is: What did you
actually do? What did you actually accom-
plish? How do you measure it? How do
you relate it to people who are important in
the decision making process? This is
probably one of our major oversights in
P.L. 566. We tell people what we did but in
terms that make little sense to them, e.g., BC
ratio, acre-feet. We need to tell them the "so
what" in terms they can understand.
We do a little bit of everything to
address the "so what" question. One of
them in water quality projects comes down
to measuring or gauging social changes. It
is very difficult to identify water quality
impacts from implementing projects in the
short run. What we are trying to do is
change behavior. We are trying to change
the way landowners take care of the land,
water, and wildlife. We also try to approach
it from the standpoint that we have some-
thing to give them and are not just wanting
to ask them to do something. In this case
the "so what" to the producer is improved
profitability of the farm and environmental
protection for society. For example, as a
result of various programs around Iowa
dealing with commercial fertilizer applica-
tion, the nitrogen rate has decreased from
about 145 pounds per acre on corn to
approximately 117 pounds since the mid
'80s. This saves farmers money because
-------
Conference Proceedings
613
yields have been maintained and costs
reduced, while at the same time it is protect-
ing the environment by reducing nitrogen
loadings.
Our social survey at the beginning of a
project tells us what farmers are doing or
think they are doing. This provides valuable
data to fine tune the project so that it meets
their needs as well as society's needs. This
might be in the form of incentives, cost-
share, or information-education that leads to
changes in how they farm. We go back
midway through the project to see how the
project is being accepted, how they have
changed their farming practicing, and what
they are now thinking. We can then make
mid-project adjustments. The results from
some of our work in northeast Iowa show
that nitrogen application, for example, does
not show up through the ground water
system until 2 years after the changes have
been made. Physical data are nice, but it is
important to get a reading on what is
happening in the project before it is too late
to make changes. The final survey docu-
ments changes in attitudes, perceptions, and
practices of producers in the project area. It
also gives us excellent information to use
with the decision makers to show that
adjustments are being made, and the
program is being accepted, implemented,
and working to decrease adverse environ-
mental impacts.
Everyone who has ever baked cookies
knows that you burn a batch every once in a
while. We have burnt our share having had
both successes as well as failures. The
important part is "WE." It is always easy to
take credit for successful projects and place
blame for failure. I am certainly not here to
tell you we always agree and we maybe
even mumble once in a while. By working
together we can all take part of the credit, if
due, or part of the blame, if it is due. It
strengthens all agencies, groups, and
individuals involved. Mushing is an inexact
science but with the magnitude of the
problem and limited resources it is the only
game in town for Iowa.
HAPPY MUSHING!
-------
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
Improving Local Efforts to Resolve
Watershed Management Problems
Kevin Campbell, Chair
Karl Niederwerfer, Coordinator
Columbia-Blue Mountain Resource Conservation and Development Area, Inc.
Pendleton, OR
Wen most people think of Oregon,
icy usually think of dense
vergreen forests, snow-capped
peaks and abundant precipitation. Although
rain and snow equivalents can be up to 100
inches, people are really surprised when
they hear about vast areas within the state
that receive only 10-20 inches of precipita-
tion annually. These differences create a
very complex hydrology within the 18
drainage basins of the state.
In addition, most of Oregon drains
into the Columbia River. At one time, the
mighty Columbia was the gateway to
millions of salmon and steelhead that
returned from the Pacific Ocean to spawn.
Today, even with an extensive hatchery
program that provides 80 percent of all fish
returning to the Columbia, only one-fifth of
the original numbers make their way
upstream to spawn. Wild strains of sockeye
and Chinook salmon have been listed as
threatened or endangered species, putting
even greater emphasis on the need for
watershed management. More listings
appear to be on the horizon.
Numerous other issues have come to a
head hi recent years. Excessive water
temperature, industrial contamination,
agricultural and municipal pollutants, and
other water quality concerns have been
identified as serious problems. Treaty rights
for Indian tribes date back to the 1850s.
These include the right to fish not only
within their reservations, but throughout the
area originally ceded by tribes, which
includes virtually the entire Columbia Basin
system.
These issues and others have brought
water resource problems to the forefront of
discussion within the State of Oregon.
Citizens from all backgrounds have become
more aware of water issues in recent years.
Various groups have formed to challenge
traditional water use and others are continu-
ally petitioning to list additional fish as
endangered species. Legislators have been
paying close attention to their constituents
in attempts to draft water resource laws that
address the issues. Population growth in
western Oregon has driven laws to address
water quality and quantity concerns along
with federal mandates which must be met.
Underlying these issues are the
concerns of local landowners and users of
the water resources. A way of life that had
its foundation set by the pioneers who came
over the Oregon Trail 150 years ago has
come under question. Water used by
irrigators has come under closer regulation
with stricter enforcement and interpretation
of water right laws. Permits issued by the
State Water Resources Department for the
use of water by individuals, municipalities
and economic development districts are
becoming harder to obtain. In-stream needs
must be determined and protected with in-
stream water rights. State and federal wild
and scenic river designations have placed
further restrictions on water use. The finger
of blame for fish habitat problems and
reduced runs of salmon and steelhead has
pointed more and more toward the rancher
and irrigator.
On the other hand, many of the
landowners themselves recognized the need
to improve the water resources. State
legislation created the Governor's Water-
shed Enhancement Board (GWEB). This
board provided grants to approved appli-
cants for watershed improvements that could
be showcased to encourage increased
615
-------
616
Watershed '93
management and educate the public about
watershed and riparian improvements.
Landowners aware of the problems and
local elected officials from the Soil and
Water Conservation Districts and county
governments began applying for funds
through GWEB and other programs to
address the problems.
Despite these positive steps, polariza-
tion between water interest groups was
increasing. In 1989, the Columbia-Blue
Mountain Resource Conservation and
Development (RC&D) Council formed an
ad hoc group to discuss the needs to address
water resource concerns. (Columbia-Blue
Mountain RC&D is a nonprofit corporation
composed of Soil and Water Conservation
Districts, Port Commissions, and County
Governments within a five-county area in
East Central Oregon.) The work group
identified several problems that not only
propagated polarization, but were detrimen-
tal to solving water resources issues:
• A lack of understanding by statewide
public water resource interest groups
of local water problems.
• A lack of concern for the effects of
regulation and court decisions on the
social and economic needs of local
communities.
• The need to bring all interest groups
to the table to communicate their
concerns.
• A lack of trust between interest
groups.
• The lack of knowledge throughout
the state that local people and
individuals are implementing
projects to improve water resources.
• A trend for continued polarization of
groups and the trend to resolve water
management problems by the courts,
which is inefficient and creates a
win-lose situation.
• The acceptance that fish issues and
other water resources concerns are
real and that positive cooperative
efforts are needed to resolve the
problems.
With these things in mind, the
Columbia-Blue Mountain RC&D Council
determined there was a need to bring all
water interest groups together to discuss
these issues and others. The trend for
polarization needed to be abated. In order to
have any chance of success, this idea had to
be sold to key decision makers of diverse
water interest groups throughout the state.
The idea came from the ad hoc group made
up largely of landowners, farmers, ranchers,
and locally elected officials. It was contrary
to most ideas for statewide action that
usually come through agencies, legislators,
or powerful political action committees. In
addition, the problems listed did not focus
only on the resource problems, but were
largely social concerns. Water resource
agencies and interest groups that focused on
the resource concerns were not accustomed
to working on these issues.
Nevertheless, virtually all interest
groups and agencies recognized the need
and acknowledged the importance of
addressing the problems resulting from
confrontation. They realized a better way
must be found to promote communication
and cooperation and improve trust. State
legislators within the five-county RC&D
area were briefed on the concept and gave
their support to the effort. A grant was
obtained from the Oregon Community
Foundation, and the Oregon Water Re-
sources Department joined the planning
effort. Additional funds were provided by
the USDA Soil Conservation Service and
the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.
The Columbia-Blue Mountain RC&D
Council set up an organizational meeting.
In May of 1991, during the state legislative
session, various interest groups met to
discuss setting up a program that promoted
cooperative problem solving efforts.
Groups involved included state and federal
agencies, livestock owners, irrigators,
industrial water users, tribal representatives,
environmental groups, local elected offi-
cials, and fish and wildlife groups. The
Governor's office was also represented.
This group began the process of
identifying communication problems. It
was the first step in demonstrating that
groups with different water resource
objectives could work together.
The group then began planning the
Oregon Watershed Forum, with three main
objectives involving the mobilization of a
broader public to achieve:
1. Interrelated watershed planning and
management.
2. Cooperation on win-win solutions
for the enhancement of water
resources.
3. Participation at the local level in
watershed management.
The group set up a steering committee
that contained a variety of interest groups,
agency personnel, and tribal representation
to plan the forum.
-------
Conference Proceedings
617
A resource consultant helped the
steering committee work through the
process to plan the forum. The consultant
also provided facilitators whose help was
crucial to the effort. In addition, profes-
sional help was needed during the forum
itself and for writing the final report. The
agenda was finalized and the forum itself
was held in March 1992 on the Oregon
coast.
The steering committee decided to
feature eight watershed problem-solving
efforts by grass-roots organizations that
included various interest groups. These
groups were asked to focus their presenta-
tions on how and why they formed, rather
than their accomplishments. Watershed case
studies that were featured included entire
basin areas and smaller sub-watersheds
where locally initiated problem-solving
activities were under way.
Some of the featured case studies were
in the very early stage of identifying issues
and organizing appropriate working groups.
Other case studies were further along in
their planning and had achieved some
results. Still other case studies had a well-
defined planning process and had accom-
plished several notable tasks, including the
acquisition of staff and securing funds for
water resource construction projects.
The issues addressed in the case
studies varied from an exclusive focus on
water quality, to an emphasis on satisfying
Indian treaty rights, to more "general
purpose" programs that were designed for
overall watershed improvement.
The descriptions of organizational
structure of the watershed management
efforts also varied. In one watershed, for
example, the organizational structure is
based on the jurisdictional boundaries of the
counties, which have very little relationship
to the watershed boundaries. The other
groups, however, have tried to organize
around watershed boundaries, which may or
may not resemble jurisdictional boundaries.
Some of the case studies were driven by
municipal interests while others were driven
by rural concerns. Finally, some of the
watershed management efforts are linked
directly with existing decision-making
authorities, such as county governments,
while other efforts are independent.
The watershed management case
studies presented at the Oregon Watershed
Forum also had different origins. While
some of the efforts originated from legisla-
tive mandates to address water quantity and/
or quality problems, many originated from
grassroots-oriented planning processes. Still
others emerged in response to some threat,
such as litigation.
From the case study discussions, 10 '•'
principles to achieve success were identi-
fied. These items are taken directly from the
report from the Oregon Watershed Forum
tided Improving Local Efforts to Resolve
Watershed Management Problems.
1. Organize around a problem or a
threat. Without an identifiable
problem or the threat of a problem or
dispute, it is very difficult to
motivate individuals and groups.
Several of the watershed manage-
ment case studies emphasized this
principle. They also emphasized
how important it is to start on some
small, identifiable problem; to
achieve some success; and then to
build on that success.
2. Include all affected interests. To be
successful, any effort to resolve local
watershed management problems
must include all affected interests—
including those with a responsibility
to implement any proposed solutions
and those who may seriously oppose
any proposed solution. The affected
interests must be involved as early as
possible. They must also be moti-
vated by a feeling or perception that
they are likely to achieve something
out of a collaborative process that
they cannot get elsewhere. The
participants must be willing to give
and take, not point fingers.
3. Identify a leadership group. Every
successful watershed management
effort has been driven by a small
group of highly motivated and
talented individuals. Without such a
committed group it is very difficult,
if not impossible, to keep the
momentum of a collaborative
problem-solving process going. In
many cases, it may be possible to
address watershed management
issues within existing community-
based organizations, such as land use
advisory committees or local
commissions. This can save time
and reduce the amount of frustration
associated with organizing a water-
shed management group.
4. Create local ownership. Several of
the case studies and participants
made a clear distinction between
-------
618
Watershed '93
local participation and local
ownership. Local interests must
not only have an opportunity to
participate in watershed planning
and management, but also must be
allowed to develop some "owner-
ship" in the process and the
solutions. This local ownership
significantly increases the likeli-
hood that recommendations will be
supported and implemented.
Successful watershed management
efforts must also provide ample
opportunities for public informa-
tion, education, and involvement.
5. Develop an adequate data base. One
of the common frustrations was the
difficulty of developing an adequate
database. Most agreed that some
type of joint data base, created by all
the participants, was the most effi-
cient way to gather relevant informa-
tion. A joint data base also helps
prevent disputes over technical infor-
mation. However, most also agreed
that the required information does
not always exist. The case studies
suggested that one of the most im-
portant roles that local and state gov-
ernment agencies can play is to col-
lect, analyze, and manage technical
information for each watershed.
6. Seek consensus solutions. Most of
the watershed management efforts
provided an effective forum to seek
consensus, which differs from other
forms of decision making, such as
decision by majority rule (voting) or
decision by an authority (legislative,
administrative, or judicial body).
These other modes of decision
making typically result in winners
and losers, whereas decision making
by consensus seeks to find a com-
mon solution that can satisfy most of
the needs of all parties. Consensus
means that all parties agree to the
decision, or perhaps more accurately,
no party substantively disagrees with
the decision. Most major decisions
that a watershed management group
will face cover a set of issues or
items. Any member's support on an
item-by-item basis may vary from
enthusiastic to "willing to live with,"
but it is essential that each member
agree to the decision as a package.
In other words, the participants may
not agree with all aspects of a
decision, but the overall level of
support from each member to the
decision as a whole is sufficient to
achieve consensus.
7. Be patient and persevere. Another
principle echoed by many case stud-
ies and commentators was the need
to be patient and persevere. Resolv-
ing local watershed problems is tech-
nically complex and typically in-
volves multiple interests and
jurisdictions. It takes time to build
trust and understanding among the
participants, to collect and analyze
information, and to seek solutions
that are acceptable to all affected
interests. Individuals and groups
trying to resolve local watershed
problems need to adapt their vision
of success to a realistic, typically
long-term time horizon. However,
they must also be aware of the lack
of patience on the part of external
groups. These groups may not fully
understand the complexity of issues,
and often turn to their legislators to
develop remedies that are then im-
posed throughout the state or Nation.
8. Monitor and evaluate results.
Resolving watershed management
problems is a dynamic process. It
never ends. Once a problem has
been identified and a solution agreed
to, that solution needs to be imple-
mented, monitored, and continuously
evaluated. By monitoring and
evaluating implementation, the
participants will learn more about the
watershed and the efficacy of their
initial solution. On the basis of on
this new information, the partici-
pants should then redefine the
problem and appropriately adapt
their management strategies. By
adopting this type of perspective, the
participants in a particular watershed
do not develop "the" plan for all
time, but rely on "living documents"
that guide their actions and adapt to
evolving experiences.
9. Provide an ongoing forum. Since the
management of watersheds does not
end with the publication of a plan,
many of the case studies suggested
that it is important to provide an
ongoing forum for communication,
cooperation, and collaborative
problem solving. This forum does
not need to be mandated by the
-------
Conference Proceedings
6t9
legislature, the state government, the
county, or some other formal body.
The most important ingredient to
maintain the viability and effective-
ness of local watershed groups over
time is the commitment of individu-
als and groups living in the water-
shed. Without this commitment at
the local level it is very difficult, if
not impossible, to resolve watershed
management problems effectively
and efficiently.
10. Establish a link with existing
decision-making processes. Several
of the watershed management efforts
presented in the case studies were
initiated by local citizens. These
efforts were not part of any formal
government agency or decision-
making process. However, most of
the case studies suggested that it is
very important to be closely linked
to existing, more formal decision-
making processes. One way to do
this, as mentioned above, is to
involve, from the beginning,
representatives from decision-
making, funding, and resource
management entities—including
Congress, the state legislature, and
state, federal, and tribal govern-
ments. By creating these links as
early as possible in the problem-
solving process, the likelihood of
successful implementation is
significantly increased.
During the forum, lessons learned by
groups trying to solve watershed problems
at the local level were discussed. These are
too numerous to list here but covered
objectives, planning, decision making,
solutions, and process. (See report Improv-
ing Local Efforts to Resolve Watershed
Management Problems.)
Five separate work groups provided
interesting insights into difficulties to
resolve watershed problems at the local
level. Each group responded to the follow-
ing questions:
• What are the major obstacles to
resolving watershed problems at the
local level?
• What specific steps can be taken,
beyond this forum, to improve
watershed management at the local
level?
This effort produced positive results for
local people trying to resolve watershed
problems. It brought numerous groups
together that were acquainted with one
another but usually in an adversarial
manner. These groups were able to interact
in group sessions and identify their frustra-
tions in working together. Through the 2-
day program, they were able to get to know
one another and began to develop the trust
that is so desperately needed to work
together. Groups that had only tried to meet
their objectives through rules and regula-
tions saw eight case studies where local
people are taking the initiative to solve
problems by cooperative efforts.
The result of the forum exceeded the
expectations of the sponsors and the steering
committee. Recommendations from the
forum were taken to the Oregon Strategic
Water Management Group (SWMG). This
organization was formed through legislation
and is composed of the state natural re-
sources agencies. Federal agencies are
advisory to SWMG, which is responsible for
coordination of water planning activities
within Oregon. SWMG is chaired by the
Governor's assistant for natural resources.
SWMG utilized the Oregon Watershed
Forum information as thek main tool in
developing a water policy statement.
Legislation has been introduced to the
Oregon Legislature through SWMG to
develop local watershed councils that will
perform many of the activities needed to
develop and implement watershed manage-
ment plans.
This all began as an idea of the local
work group from the Columbia-Blue
Mountain RC&D Area, but it could not have
been possible without many other groups
creating a common vision.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Complicated Questions,
Creative Solutions
Frank Gaffhey, Project Director
Northwest Renewable Resources Center, Seattle, WA
Miame is Frank Gaffhey and I am
Project Director with the
orthwest Renewable Resources
Center in Seattle, Washington. The Center
is a 9-year-old not-for-profit organization
that provides mediation and facilitation
services on matters of public policy or
natural resource management. Our work is
conducted primarily in the region made up
of Washington, Oregon, Idaho, and
Alaska, but occasionally goes beyond to
other areas.
The Center has a volunteer Board of
Directors made up of those who would
normally come into conflict over natural
resources. For example, my board in-
cludes industry executives, leaders of envi-
ronmental groups, local government offi-
cials, and the chairmen of Indian tribes.
The board must approve all of the projects
that we take on.
I'm going to talk to you today about
the process of developing watershed
management plans and the subject of natural
resource conflict hi general.
The Nature of Watersheds
As you have heard from the previous
speakers and throughout this entire
conference, a watershed is a place filled
with resources and diversity. Maintaining
this diversity in a way that is both healthy
for the ecosystem and acceptable to all of
those that live, work, or just recreate
within the watershed boundaries is a very
challenging task indeed. The issues that
bring this shared utilization to a head are
usually distinguished by several common
characteristics.
The Nature of Conflict
Most have been marked by long-
standing and often bitter controversy. In
many of these cases, the battle itself has
taken on a greater importance than the
resources at issue. These battles have
resulted in win/lose outcomes.
The people most interested in the
outcome have stopped listening to one
another. Many are guilty of pre-judging
how their adversaries are thinking, and then
taking actions accordingly. Instead of
communicating about goals and needs, they
attack what they presume are their oppo-
nents' positions, thus taking the debate two
steps from reality.
Administrative and legislative bodies
often base their decisions on the strength of
the advocate, not the merit of the testimony,
thereby encouraging posturing and position-
ing instead of candid discussion of the
issues.
Many people hold the opinion that
each of these conflicts is just the latest
skirmish in a war that is going to go on
forever. With no end in sight, there is little
incentive for trust, creativity, or finding
lasting solutions.
Litigation may be the answer, but it
doesn't take much courage to pick up the
telephone and tell your attorney to sue
someone. Litigation can be very expensive,
which eliminates it as an option for some; it
can take years to get a decision from the
courts, longer yet if appeals are made.
Courts may choose to rule only on a narrow
point of law and not address your issue at
all, and it can take years to see change on
the ground after a court decision, even if
you win.
621
-------
622
Watershed '93
So what each person involved in a
situation like this needs to do is to weigh all
of their options to negotiation. If there is
some other way to get to the best answer for
you and your constituents, take it! If,
however, the crystal ball is a little cloudier
than that, making use of the collective
creativity of all interests involved in a
dispute can frequently provide far better
answers than any one party or a court can
come up with.
Convening a Group
In disputes of this type, the parties will
usually be organizations and government
entities.
So how do organizations and individu-
als involved in conflict break this chain and
begin to address these issues in a cooperative
fashion? As in many things, timing is cru-
cial, but some of the following elements may
act as a trigger to get things underway:
• A fact-finding or technical panel will
be approaching conclusion with no
clear answer on some or all of the
issues.
• A legislative or regulatory entity will
be about to make a decision.
Intervention can be requested either
before or after the public hearings.
If all or most of the disputants
support negotiations, they can begin.
• Litigation has been instigated and
the judge or hearings officer directs
the parties to try to negotiate the
issue.
• Legislation to resolve an issue is so
bitterly contested that neither side
can muster enough support for
passage
or
As in a case that I actually mediated,
legislation is passed, not once, but
twice, and then vetoed by two
different gpvernors.
• The conflict creates enough political
pressure that someone with sufficient
stature (conflicting parties, governor,
legislature, agency) calls for negotia-
tions.
• Finally, one party is winning most of
the time, but the costs are high in
effort and expense, or the long-term
assessment indicates this trend will
change. Predictability or long-term
stability becomes more important
than short-term gam.
So the first thing you need to decide is
whether the parties can resolve the issues on
their own or if the addition of a neutral third
party will be necessary. This question is
partly one of expense, but also has to do
with the nature of the controversy itself,
how much is at stake, and who will have the
ultimate decision making authority. If there
is a single agency with jurisdiction over the
entire watershed, can they act as the
convener/facilitator or do they need to be a
party at the table actually working on
solutions? It is unlikely that serving in both
roles will be acceptable to all parties.
I have met many agency employees
over the years who are dedicated, energetic,
intelligent, and committed to finding
solutions to difficult questions. Many of
them serve as facilitators during public
review periods, and they do an excellent job.
But the perceived balance of power in a
negotiation is crucial to its success, and
anyone who can be construed to be part of
the conflict will never be viewed by all sides
as neutral. This is no reflection on their
talents or their dedication, it is just a product
of the circumstances. Whatever the deci-
sion, if you choose a third party, they must
be acceptable to the representatives at the
table.
The choice of who comes to the table
can rest with the convener. If it's the
governor, for example, he or she can
determine what agencies and private parties
must be included. The overriding consider-
ation should be an evaluation of who must
be party to any eventual agreement for it to
be acceptable and implementable. For the
government to implement any decisions, for
example, do agency or legislative represen-
tatives need to be included at the table, or
just consulted afterward? Will this group
simply be advisory to the agency that has
jurisdiction, or will that agency participate
and move forward with a group consensus?
Will implementation require a public review
and adoption process? Issues like these
must be decided up-front so that all parties
are clear on the type of process they are
being asked to join.
I mentioned earlier that the parties at
the table will most likely be representing
agencies or organizations. Because of this,
each of the parties should describe their
internal decision making process to the
others at the outset. If agreements at the
table must be taken back to constituents .for
ratification, these individual processes may,
be quite different from one another and take
-------
Conference Proceedings
623
varying lengths of time. You don't want
any surprises at the end, so discuss this
thoroughly in the beginning.
If you are going to use a consensus
process, know what that means. In short, it
means that votes will not be taken. All
parties must agree, or in other words, each
party has veto power. Obviously, this type
of approach will take longer, but if success-
ful, it carries a tremendous amount of
weight with it at the end.
I cannot overestimate the importance
of finalizing these procedural matters at the
beginning. One of these efforts can fail just
as easily for bad process as it can for
difficult substance and once a difficult issue
is facing the group, it is not the time to
create a process to handle it. I know the
process part of these projects is boring to
most. People want to wade into the issues
that divide them and thrash mem out.
The process decisions should be
documented into groundrules or protocols
and distributed to everyone at the table so
they can refer to them later.
After the process decisions are out of
the way, it is usually helpful to have a
period of briefings or joint education. If
you recall the level of dysfunction that I
discussed earlier, people are often quite
misinformed about the needs and goals of
others. It is critical that those goals and
desired outcomes are presented in an
atmosphere where people are inclined to
listen for perhaps the first time. A facilitator
can be quite helpful in organizing the issues
in a fashion that makes it easier to package
solutions to related problems.
In environmental or natural resource
issues, and especially in watersheds,
everything is connected to everything else.
For this reason it is often helpful to look at
all the issues as a package. While you may
have 10 issues that need to be resolved and
you address them one at a time, no one has a
deal until you've addressed them all and can
view any agreement as a package. Since no
one party is likely to get everything they
want on every issue, each party has to
consider the cumulative gain possible once
all outstanding issues have been settled.
Plus, you have the advantage of the parties
having to give back any gains on individual
issues if the whole package is rejected. It
encourages people to stick it out until the
end.
If the parties can agree, it is fre-
quently helpful to view a problem for one
as a problem for all in the context of
developing a watershed plan. It forces
each of them to work as hard on solutions
for everyone's issues as they do on their
own. It also makes an agreement that
much stronger.
I guess the final point I want to make
is that every individual agreement on an
issue must be made with implementation in
mind. As difficult as the negotiations are,
and they take a tremendous amount of time
and energy, implementation is going to be
harder. For this reason, everyone must be
thinking about how various parts of the
agreement will be implemented. Will it
require public funding to make it happen?
Where will that come from? Will it require
a change in statute? How will that be
accomplished? If the baseline information
you need to make the decision is not
available, how will it be gathered, by whom
and when?
I'm also a big fan of making agree-
ments that don't last forever. Things
change, and people need to be able to adapt
to new information and changes on the
ground. It may be that a big part of the
agreement will depend on an ongoing
process of meetings with a major review
scheduled in three or five years or whenever
the group feels is appropriate. In addition,
people need to come back together and
recommit to each other after implementation
has begun. While the actual negotiators
may be quite clear on the intent of this new
policy, the people out on the ground are
going to have to make it work and they will
still be operating under the rules of the old
relationships. As I said, implementation is
difficult and it almost never occurs without
a hitch.
I don't mean to say that it is hopeless.
People have done this quite successfully all
over the country.
Looking at the way we have managed
resources historically and considering
approaching these issues in a watershed
management fashion, I am reminded of a
Winston Churchill quote. Many years ago
Churchill-was asked about the wishy-
washiness of the United States over getting
into World War II. He replied, "Don't
worry about the Americans, in the end they
will do what's right, after exhausting all
other alternatives."
Thank you for your attention, and the
panel now would be happy to answer your
questions.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Consensual Decision Making for
Watershed Management
Trudie Wetherail, ADR Program Manager*
C. Mark Dunning, Ph.D., Program Analysis Division Chief*
Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ft. Belvoir, VA
Different priorities, different views
about the use of resources, ques-
tions about jurisdiction, overlapping
authority, and other considerations have
made water resource management ripe for
conflicts, often convoluted and litigious.
Legislation, such as the National Environ-
mental Policy Act, has given public interest
groups the legal standing to contest agency
decision making and to intervene in water
resource management. Consequently, a need
has developed to make resource management
decisions that overcome the ensuing animos-
ity and resulting adversarial positions.
The use of Alternative Dispute
Resolution (ADR) procedures is emerging as
a viable approach to address water resources
issues (Bingham, 1985). These are consen-
sual decision-making processes that encour-
age separating the people from the problem;
focusing on interests, not position; inventing
options for mutual gain; and using objective
criteria (Fisher et al., 1992).
When parties in a conflict engage in
these behaviors, resolution of conflicts are
highly likely. However, it has often been
found that parties in conflicts have a great
reluctance to begin such cooperative proce-
dures; parties' resistance to actually begin-
ning an ADR process has proved to be a
difficult obstacle to overcome. However,
once parties have overcome this barrier, they
can often engage in cooperative, decision-
making activity and reach mutually agreeable
outcomes.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(COE) has been interested in implementing
*The views expressed in this paper are those of the
authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
consensual decision making and interest-
based negotiation for the past two decades.
The Institute for Water Resources (IWR)
began encouraging public participation in
decision making over the use of water
resources in the early 1970s. Ten years
later, in 1984, the Office of Chief Counsel
began using the mini-trial as a means to cut
losses in time and expense in construction
claims disputes and, since 1988, has funded
a program on ADR implemented by IWR.
Through the ADR Program at IWR, a
model has been developed for joint training
as a first step in bringing parties "to the
table" for engaging in consensual decision
making. Of three applications of this model,
all have been successful in helping parties to
develop a process for intervention or
conflict resolution.
This paper includes an outline of the
model; a description of the process; a
description of the dispute; a description of
third-party entry and intervention opportuni-
ties; termination of the intervention and
follow-up; and an analysis of the success of
the training and intervention.
This case study analyzes the use of
joint training in one application for bringing
parties "to the table" and takes the perspec-
tive of the facilitator/mediator, who is the
ADR Program Manager at IWR. The model
used for this training was developed solely
by her, under the supervision of the Chief of
the Program Analysis Division.
Rationale for Joint Training
Previous cases have suggested that
water resources decision-making environ-
ments in conflicts are most productive for
625
-------
626
Watershed '93
rendering solutions when there are incen-
tives for parties to "come to the table"; there
are opportunities to exchange information
and negotiate over interests; and there is a
credible, impartial third party to assist in the
resolution efforts (Dunning, 1987). Imple-
menting a means to provide for the above
factors is extremely pertinent because the
tendencies of parties in any conflict are to
withdraw from one another; reduce commu-
nication with each other and withhold
information; misperceive each others'
actions by stereotyping, projecting, and
mirror-imaging; move toward extreme
positions; and take on adversarial roles.
(See, for example, Wehr 1979.)
Joint training can be used as a means
to relieve the above tendencies and to more
easily allow third-party entry for ADR by
bringing parties face-to-face, initiating
communication, reducing stereotypical
images, and softening polarized positions.
Joint training is essentially a communication
process wherein parties can learn of the
others' perspectives and teach each other
about their interests and needs. Conditions
that favor third-party intervention include a
complex, drawn-out conflict; a deadlock of
the parties over their own efforts for
resolution; continuation of the conflict as an
exacerbating factor; and a level of coopera-
tion among the parties (Bercovitch, 1984).
A Joint Training Model
The model provides training to the
participants in the following elements of
ADR application:
• Characteristics and benefits of ADR.
• Principles of interest-based negotia-
tion.
• Types of conflict and overview of
ADR processes.
• Conflict assessment.
• Case study analysis.
• ADR principles applied to this
conflict.
• Next steps.
The training includes exercises in interest-
based negotiation, identifying parties, and
conflict analysis.
Case Study of a Watershed
Management Dispute
The case being presented here came to
the attention of IWR on May 22, 1992,
when the Planning Division of the Kansas
City District, COE asked for help in resolv-
ing a dispute over the alignment of a levee
in a flood control project. The City of
Kansas City provided funding and sponsor-
ship for this project.
Background to the Dispute
This dispute had developed over the
placement of a levee on the Big Blue
Battlefield on the banks of the Blue River
within what is now the city limits of Kansas
City, MO. The specific issue was the City
of Kansas City's use of eminent domain
through a Civil War battlefield. Byram's
Ford Industrial Park is now located on the
west bank, the site of the proposed levee and
most of the battle's action. The battlefield
on the east bank has been less affected by
modern development (Ziegler).
The U.S. Department of the Interior
placed the Byram's Ford Historic District on
the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP) on October 16, 1989 (Civil War
Round Table (CWRT) pamphlet). The
Byram's Ford Historic District includes the
Byram's Ford Site of 12 acres and the
Byram's Ford Road Site of 5 acres (Ziegler).
Actual construction of The Blue River
Channel Project for flood control com-
menced in 1983. For ease of construction
administration, construction was divided
into three stages: Stages One and Two, the
lower portions of the project, had been
under construction while plans and specifi-
cations for Stage Three were under develop-
ment. To keep the project on schedule,
plans and specs for Stage Three had to be
finalized so that the City of Kansas City
could acquire the necessary rights-of-way
by July 1993.
The Dispute Develops
The Civil War Round Table (CWRT)
is a Kansas City organization "dedicated to
the study and preservation of our Civil War
heritage" and has been the active force in
maintaining and preserving the battlefield
(CWRT pamphlet). After the CWRT had
shown, in 1983, that Byram's Ford still
existed, the Kansas City District committed
to protecting the site. To effect this protec-
tion, the flood control design was altered so
that a grade control structure would be
moved from its original site downstream
from the Ford. The proposed grade control
structure would have affected approximately
-------
Conference Proceedings
627
8 acres of the battlefield to the north of the
Byram's Ford NRHP site.
The primary disagreement was over
the placement of a levee to protect the
Byram's Ford Industrial Park from flood
damage. Of four levee placements pre-
sented, CWRT gave one a positive response;
but the CWRT indicated that it preferred no
levee at all. From the CWRT's perspective,
any levee would have been viewed as
another intrusion into the battlefield. The
placement most acceptable ran east-west,
parallel to the movement of the battle, and
avoided one of the most heavily contested
battle sites. The City of Kansas City had
chosen another levee alignment that ran in a
north-south direction across the battlefield
and along the riverbank. The City consid-
ered this a compromise. From the Kansas
City perspective, this alignment would have
protected most of the buildings in the
industrial district and, as it was set far back,
would not have any effects on Byram's
Ford. The CWRT had objected to this levee
placement because it would have crossed the
main battle area. A concern for the other
parties was that the CWRT would protest
the location of the grade control structure if
there were not a satisfactory levee align-
ment. CWRT's approval was felt to be
crucial for timely completion of the project
(Ziegler).
The Kansas City District was con-
cerned that the disagreement would affect its
overall project construction schedule and
that there would be adverse public reaction
if the CWRT used political pressure to gain
support for protection of the site. At the
request of the CWRT, several public
officials visited Kansas City—the Secretary
of the Interior, the Chief Historian of the
National Park Service, the Dkector of the
Missouri Department of Natural Resources,
the State Historic Preservation Officer of
Missouri, and local Congressman Alan
Wheat.
The FIfst Intervention Opportunity
Kansas City District wanted to attempt
resolution of this dispute without resorting
to litigation, but the CWRT was reluctant to
agree. The City of Kansas City, although
taking a fixed position at that time, had
indicated that it would participate in a
consensual process. The business and
property owners had not yet become a
cohesive group with clearly delineated
interests of its own. Lack of knowledge
about ADR and consensual processes
limited the scope of the District and the
other parties in developing a nonlitigative
solution.
Kansas City District initially asked
IWR for a facilitator to help the parties
become comfortable interacting. IWR
agreed to send a professional in dispute
resolution to meet with the District officials
and representatives of the other parties. The
Chairman of CWRT's Board of Directors
had arranged for the board members and the
officers of CWRT to meet with the District's
Chief of Civil Works Project Management
Branch and the intervener at the home of the
secretary of the CWRT on the evening of
June 17,1992. The intervener had been
asked to offer a brief overview of ADR,
especially in reference to a public policy
dispute.
The intervener spoke very briefly and
informally on consensus-building as a
component of ADR, positional bargaining
versus interest-based negotiation, and the
application of ADR in public policy
disputes. She emphasized that we all use the
principles of ADR in everyday business and
personal life and pointed out to the group
that they were at that moment engaged in
the first step in a consensual process—
looking at the dispute as a joint problem,
listening to each other, and being open and
honest about needs and expectations. The
CWRT group was cautious but interested.
After concerned hesitation, the CWRT, by
unanimous decision, agreed to participate in
IWR's 1-day joint training on ADR pro-
cesses and application. The City of Kansas
City, the Kansas City District, and the
CWRT cooperated in arranging for that
training.
The Second Intervention—Joint
Training
On July 29,1992, the intervener
conducted a 4 1/2-hour ADR training/
workshop at the District headquarters. The
District invited representatives from the
CWRT, the City of Kansas City, and the
Byram's Ford Industrial Park Association to
a joint training on the principles of ADR. In
addition to the representatives from the four
principal parties, the 21 persons attending
the meeting included officials from the
National Park Service, the Fish and Wildlife
Service, the Missouri Department of Natural
Resources, and the Missouri State Historic
Preservation Office.
-------
628
Watershed '93
After welcome, introductions, review
of session objectives, and agenda review,
the rest of the agenda followed the model
previously described. The last exercise was
an analysis of the conflict at hand. In that
exercise the attendees identified all parties,
primary and secondary; interests; issues; a
list of obstacles to resolution; and next steps.
During the discussion of the next steps, two
of the principal parties—the CWRT and the
City of Kansas City—moved away from
fixed positions. The City of Kansas City
declared an interest in resolving the problem
by developing a "creative process," and the
CWRT moved from a position of no levee to
accepting a levee but wanting a say in its
placement.
The principal parties agreed to meet
again, as soon as possible, to identify a
process for coming to consensus on the
levee placement. The secondary parties
were happy to see a resolution in sight and
felt no necessity to be there.
Another Intervention Opportunity—
Process Identification
On August 21, 1992, the intervener
returned to Kansas City to help the parties
identify a process for resolving their
dispute and to give direction in selecting a
neutral third party. After the welcome,
introductions, a brief review of where the
parties stood, and a presentation of the
agenda for the day, a planner with the City
of Kansas City indicated that they "just
wanted to get on with it." The group
immediately reached consensus to mediate
and asked the intervener to mediate.
The initial phase of the mediation
was essentially an information exchange.
Each party—COE, CWRT, City of Kansas
City, and Byram's Park Industrial Park As-
sociation—had an opportunity to present
its requests. The Corps was essentially
neutral. The COE's project manager, us-
ing maps and photographs, presented the
different levee alignments that had been
proposed. Kansas City's representative
presented the City's position, also, as be-
ing neutral—it just wanted the property
owners and the CWRT to come to an
agreement. The CWRT presented its over-
all plan for the development of the Big
Blue Battlefield as a historical site, and its
perceived need for open space on the site
of the industrial park, i.e., a levee place-
ment behind the industrial park. The
property owners presented a surprise—
after presenting a neutral position at the
joint training, they expressed a desire for a
levee placement to protect a major prop-
erty owner's site.
After discussion of the issues and a
seeming impasse, the parties caucused in
the middle of the afternoon. Upon return-
ing to the table, further discussion revealed
some common points for settlement; and
the basic elements for an agreement were
realized by the end of the afternoon when
the intervener listed on the board common
elements that she was hearing. This list
turned out to be the basis for the outline of
a written settlement agreement and was
initialed by the party representatives. The
parties determined that the legal division
of the Kansas City District would write the
draft agreement and established a schedule
for producing the product, for its review by
the parties, and for a meeting of all parties
to develop a final agreement document.
The parties asked the intervener to attend
that meeting to help in developing a final
agreement.
Termination of the Intervention
On September 24, 1992, the intervener
returned to Kansas City to mediate for the
four principal parties to the levee placement
dispute over the terms of a final draft of a
settlement agreement. The session com-
menced at 9:00 am and adjourned at
approximately 12:30 pm upon the signing of
the final draft agreement. The Kansas City,
MO, City Council and the CWRT Board
gave the agreement final approval, and the
four principal parties signed the settlement
document on December 1,1992.
Analysis and Summary
The parties' desire to cooperate and
the availability of a forum to "come to the
table" with an impartial third party for
information exchange enabled the resolu-
tion of this water resource management
dispute.
The dispute met conditions for favor-
able third-party intervention: it had been
ongoing for several years; the parties had
expressed fixed positions to the intervener
at the initial meeting with her; continuing
the conflict while waiting for waivers and
reports would have further distanced the
parties and exacerbated the situation; and
the willingness of the parties to come to
-------
Conference Proceedings
629
the table for joint training indicated a high
level of cooperation among the parties.
The only obstacle was the lack of a suit-
able forum to begin cooperatively solving
the problem.
The joint training gave the parties
the "safe" forum to begin the process of co-
operation in that the training venue provided
the opportunity for parties to begin the ex-
change of information and to interact with
each other in a nonthreatening situation.
The ADR principles presented during the
training provided the parties with the tools
to analyze the issues, interests, parties, and
obstacles to effect resolution for their own
dispute.
Our experience suggests that joint
training of parties in water resources man-
agement disputes is a viable option for start-
ing the process of consensual decision mak-
ing. Through exercises and analysis, parties
can learn the skills to recognize a common
interest in nonjudicial resolution and can
identify areas where other, indivi-dual party
interests can often overlap. By creating a
forum conducive to clear communication,
joint training can engage parties in conflicts
to overcome the difficult first step of
"coming to the table." Consensual decision
making can begin.
References
Bercovitch, J. 1984. Social conflicts and
third parties: Strategies of conflict
resolution. Westview Press, Boulder,
CO.
Bingham, G. 1985. Resolving environmen-
tal disputes: A decade of experience.
Conservation Foundation, Washing-
ton, DC.
Dunning, CM. 1987. Alternative dispute
resolution in water resource manage-
ment. In The role of social and be-
havioral sciences in water resources
planning and management, proceed-
ings of the Engineering Foundation
Conference, Santa Barbara, CA, May
3-8,1987. American Society of Civil
Engineers, New York, NY.
Fisher, R., and W.Ury. 1991. Getting to
yes. B. Patton, ed. Penguin Books,
New York, NY.
The Monnett Battle of Westport Fund, Inc.
of the Civil War Round Table of
Kansas City. The Civil War Round
Table of Kansas City. Pamphlet.
Wehr, P. 1979. Conflict regulation.
Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Ziegler, R. n.d. Archaeologist, Kansas City
District COE, unpublished paper.
-------
-------
WATERSHED1 93
Streams of Dreams: If You Restore
Them, Fish and Wildlife Will Come
David C. Frederick
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Olympia, WA
Washington's Olympic Peninsula is
a unique blend of marine climate,
lush vegetation and mountainous
terrain. Snowcapped peaks spawn rivers
filled with salmon and steelhead of legend-
ary size. Its towering forests enckcle a span
of biological diversity so wide it has been
designated a world biosphere reserve.
Tragically, much of the area has been
scarred by decades of past management
activities. This mismanagement has resulted
in damaged ecosystems and declining fish
and wildlife populations. In an area where
annual rainfall often exceeds 100 inches,
entire watersheds are at risk from earlier
land use practices. This combination of land
use practices, heavy rainfall, and steep
slopes has produced catastrophic results. On
one forest district alone, over 35,000 earth
giveaways have already been identified.
Anadromous fish, returning to
Olympic Peninsula streams, face over 400
known blockages to upstream passage,
according to a Washington Department of
Fisheries study. Forty-one stocks of
Washington Coast/Puget Sound area
anadromous fish have been identified by the
American Fisheries Society as at risk of
extinction. Seventeen of these stocks occur
in streams flowing through the Olympic
National Forest alone. Four Olympic
Peninsula wildlife species are currently
listed as threatened or endangered under the
Federal Endangered Species Act, and
another nine are candidates for listing, as are
five native plant species.
The damaged ecosystems on which
these and other species depend are criss-
crossed with a web of private, state, and
federal ownerships. To be effective, efforts
to avert future Endangered Species Act
listings and possible adverse social and
economic impacts must face these problems
on an ecosystem-wide scale. To proactively
address these needs, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Olympic
National Forest have joined with other
natural resource agencies to form the
Olympic Peninsula Watershed Management
and Restoration Alliance. Using methods
already proven by the enormously success-
ful Washington Ecosystems Conservation
Program, the alliance is a partnership of
state, federal, tribal, and private landowners
that sets the stage for future interagency
partnerships.
Recognizing that over half of Wash-
ington, including most of the remaining fish
and wildlife habitat, is in private ownership,
the Olympia Ecological Services Office of
the FWS and the Washington Department of
Wildlife formed the Washington Ecosys-
tems Conservation Program as a partnership
to share costs, knowledge, and expertise to
enhance and improve fish and wildlife
habitat on privately-owned agricultural
lands. Since the program began in 1991,80
projects have been completed, affecting
2,835 acres of wetlands, 119 miles of
streambank and riparian habitat, and
improving habitat on 12,940 upland acres.
In one ecosystem alone, its activities have
affected over 57 miles of streambed,
improving water quality by over 70 percent
and removing the need for five sewage
treatment plants, a savings of over $100
million. Contracts with 182 cooperators
have opened another 258,500 acres of
private land to resource and public access
management. Thirty-four more projects are
currently under construction or in advanced
planning stages. These projects will
631
-------
632
Watershed '93
improve or restore habitat functions and
values on 780 acres of wetlands and 6,720
acres of uplands.
Taking a page from the Ecosystems
Conservation Program's success, the
Olympic Peninsula Ecosystems Manage-
ment and Restoration Alliance is employing
similar techniques across federal, state,
tribal, and private lands on the Olympic
Peninsula. Cooperative agreements and
partnerships between state and federal
agencies, native American tribes, and local
landowners will provide for a combination
of funding assistance, technical support, and
in-kind services. Working with local groups
like the Hood Canal Coordinating Council
will ensure effective utilization of resources.
Restoration activities will include hillside
stabilization and erosion control, road
removal, and revegetation with native
species. Enhancement of riparian corridors
and stream restoration for improved fish and
wildlife habitat will also be undertaken.
Experienced operators familiar with local
conditions will help restore natural condi-
tions, speeding resumption of natural
processes. Timber workers and equipment
already displaced by changes in the timber
industry are natural candidates for these
restoration jobs. It is estimated that between
FWS and the Olympic National Forest, 850
displaced workers could be employed on
restoration work for the next 10 years. By
combining vital watershed management and
restoration work with efforts to alleviate
social and economic impacts of past
management activities, the Olympic
Peninsula Watershed Management and
Restoration Alliance can provide local
employment opportunities.
The Olympic Peninsula Watershed
Management and Restoration Alliance will
also improve local fish and wildlife habitat
and populations, resulting in improved
recreational and commercial opportunities
while decreasing the chances of future
endangered species act listings and their
potentially adverse effects. Soil productiv-
ity will be increased, resulting in better and
healthier timber stands and ensuring
valuable natural resources for the 21st
century. Recovery will depend on leader-
ship, cooperation, financial investment, and
long-term commitment. But if we restore the
habitat, the fish, wildlife—and the future—
will come.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Watershed Restoration Through
Integrated Resource Management on
Public and Private Rangelands
Sid Goodloe, Owner/Operator
Carrizo Valley Ranch, Capitan, NM
Susan Alexander, Water Quality Specialist
Terrene Institute, Pineland, TX
Background
The shortgrass rangelands found in the
western United States are generally
harsh ecosystems. Typical rainfall
ranges from 25-65 cm, precipitation patterns
are erratic and evaporation losses high,
temperatures are often extreme, the topogra-
phy rough, and the soils can be shallow and
rocky. Careful management of these areas is
essential if they are to maintain sustained
production or recover from past land
management mistakes (Stoddart et al.,
1975). The USDA estimates that 85 percent
of the nation's rangeland is in fair to poor
condition (Chancy et al., 1990). Many of
these watersheds contribute massive loads of
sediment, washed from the land surface or
scoured from eroding gullies and
streambanks, to the streams and rivers that
drain them. The New Mexico Environment
Department reports that 95 percent of the
state's surface water is impacted by
nonpoint source pollution (NMED, 1990)
and that turbidity is one of the major causes
of use impairment in these waters (NMED,
1988). Reports by early surveyors, natural-
ists, and trappers detail the abundance of
grass and clear clean water found on these
watersheds (Leopold, 1933/1991), a sharp
contrast to the conditions seen today.
Many factors have contributed to the
drastic changes that can be seen in the
rangeland watersheds of the western United
States, but most range management profes-
sionals agree that the heavy stocking rates
and the continuous grazing practiced by
stockmen at end of the 1800s, followed later
by the suppression of fire, are the leading
causes of these changes. Historians note
that the 1860s marked the beginning of
large-scale western livestock production.
High market prices and abundant grasslands
encouraged speculation and lax management
(Stoddard et al., 1975). H.L. Bently and
E.O. Woolen, early agricultural agents in
Texas and New Mexico, described the
situation, "In a short time every acre of grass
was stocked beyond its fullest capacity
The grasses were entirely consumed; thek
very roots were trampled into the dust and
destroyed" (Bently, 1898). "The stockman
could not protect the range from himself,
because any Improvement of his range was
only an inducement for someone else to
bring stock in upon it; so he put the extra
stock on himself (Wooten, 1908). As a
result, native grasses were replaced by
sagebrush, mesquite, juniper, and other
invading brush species that were less suited
for holding soil in place (Chaney et al.,
1990) and more efficient at water extraction
(Stoddart et al., 1975). Topsoil, which
requires thousands of years to develop in
harsh ecosystems (Brady, 1974), washed
away; gullies formed from unchecked,
concentrated runoff; streambanks eroded
and downcut; water tables lowered; and
perennial streams became intermittent or dry
(Chaney et al., 1990; Platts, 1990).
The ability of the land to recover from
these effects has been greatly reduced be-
cause the entire ecosystem had been so radi-
cally altered. The harshness of the environ-
633
-------
634
Watershed '93
ment contributes to the difficulty in reestab-
lishing the climax or the highest ecological
condition of the range. As a result, simple
manipulation of a single range management
factor, such as reducing livestock numbers,
is not sufficient to result in significant envi-
ronmental improvement (DeBano and
Schmidt, 1989). These systems will take
thousands of years to recover by themselves.
Direct actions aimed at total watershed reha-
bilitation and applied in a holistic and inte-
grated system are necessary to ensure the
restoration of western watersheds and asso-
ciated natural resources of water, timber,
grass, wildlife, and fisheries (Platts 1990).
This type of integrated or holistic resource
management has been successfully demon-
strated on the Carrizo Valley Ranch by
owner and operator Sid Goodloe for more
than 30 years. He describes his experiences
as follows:
Integrated Resource
Management on Private Lands
There are many definitions of Inte-
grated Resource Management (IRM) but I
like to define it as the integration of all
components—economic, human, and
environmental—into a synergistic, compre-
hensive plan that allows management for
long-term sustainability rather than short-
term production. This type of management
is essential for protecting valuable natural
resources found in our western watersheds,
but is also an essential management tool for
protecting the entire planet. There are many
examples of poor natural resource manage-
ment in every state of the US and in every
country in the world; clearly, we are now
charged with the responsibility of not only
managing the resources under our jurisdic-
tion in an integrated manner, but also
informing politicians and populations
everywhere that we are no longer in the
pioneering and unplanned development
mode. We have reached the point that
resource interrelationships must be recog-
nized and development planned accordingly.
Pressing needs of growing populations must
be met, but not at the expense of ecosystem
sustainability.
Initial Actions
I began IRM as a survival mechanism;
I needed to use all of the resources available
on my ranch in a manner that provided for
my family and guaranteed sustained or
improved production of salable end prod-
ucts. I began to inventory my resources,
isolate problems, and set goals based upon
my experiences with range management in
Kenya and the United States. My ranch is
located in the South Central Mountains of
New Mexico at about 7000 ft. elevation.
Average annual precipitation is about 46 cm
(18 inches), one-half of which falls as snow.
The soils range from gravelly hillsides to
clay and clay loam bottoms. Watercourses
on the ranch were actively eroded and brush
infestation flourished when I purchased the
property. My most demanding problem was
the homogeneous vegetative composition
and low herbage production. The major
grass found was an almost pure, tightly
packed turf of bluegramma that grew very
little because of its sod-bound condition. A
major portion of the ranch had scattered to
thick stands of pinon-juniper of even aged
populations. Areas between the trees as well
as directly under the canopy were bare and
subject to erosion.
I began to study the origin of this
eroded, brush infested condition. I realized
that year-long grazing and brush infestation
was severely limiting herbage production.
My initial strategies were (1) to divide the
ranch into summer and winter pastures so I
could at least reserve some winter grazing
and (2) to begin a systematic brush control
program. Although these changes were
beneficial, it was not until I spent time in
Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) in 1964 that I
experienced first hand and began to under-
stand the principles of Short Duration
Grazing Systems in action and the dynamics
of an open savannah ecosystem. I recorded
my findings in a paper published in the
November 1969 issue of the Journal of
Range Management, returned to my ranch,
and after installing some very low-cost
fencing, put these principles into practice.
Rotational Crazing System
I divided large paddocks into much
smaller ones using posts cut from timber on
the ranch to support a three-wire suspension
fence. Paddock division was planned
according to topography, existing fences,
and available water—not in the wagon
wheel or grazing cell pattern often advo-
cated. Once the rotation had become
established, the cattle practically moved
themselves, anticipating paddock changes. I
-------
Conference Proceedings
635
found that I must pay very close attention to
the herbage off-take, so that graze and rest
periods could be adjusted to fit the current
precipitation and season of use. I also found
that as the vegetative growth rate increases
so should the frequency of rotation, and that
rotation during the dormant season was not
necessary. My initial goal now became "to
produce the maximum pounds of marketable
beef per hectare while improving range
condition." This naive, but commendable,
goal was economically impractical in a
period of low beef prices, so I needed to find
other profitable uses of available resources.
Additional Income Source
Fee hunting of deer and turkey
became a significant income producer ,
immediately after I built a cabin to facilitate
game harvest. As a result, improved
wildlife habitat and overall aesthetic quality
became my secondary goal.
Return to Climax Condition as
the Primary Goal
The pieces of the puzzle then began to
fall into place. I realized that if fish and
beaver appeared on the 600-year-old Indian
petroglyphs on my place, there certainly
must have been running streams where I
now found only arroyos with steep banks
and dry rocky bottoms. I researched 100-
year-old surveyors' notes that described the
terrain as an open savannah rather than an
almost solid canopy of invading brush
species. I realized that the invading brush,
resulting from year-long grazing and 80
years of total fire suppression, was not only
removing most of the moisture from the soil,
but was also shutting down herbage growth,
thereby causing sheet and gully erosion. I
recognized that, although I had previously
discounted a return to climax or near climax
condition, I might be able to make economic
sense out of that approach if it became my
primary goal. I visualized the open savan-
nah as it was over 100 years ago, with
mixed conifers on the north slopes and the
highly productive riparian areas that made
up the mosaic of the Carrizo Valley.
Brush Management and Watershed
Stabilization
I then began to implement a cautious
return to climax in a manner that was
economically justifiable hi my situation.
Mechanical removal of invading pinon-
juniper in an area that requires 10-15
hectares per animal unit could not be
justified because costs were higher than land
values. However, some mechanical brush
control in the better soil types was required
as was erosion control (i.e., reseeding,
pushing invading brush into active gullies,
and building water retention dams). It was
necessary to finance this using other
available resources.
Selective thinning of young invaders,
followed by prescribed burning and reseed-
ing with native grass species, became the
major thrust of the plan to return to a climax
ecosystem. The by-products—fence posts,
fuel wood, vigas, trees for landscaping, and
Christmas trees—financed the plan. An-
other beneficial by-product was the increase
in mule deer population, not only because of
habitat improvement, but because ponderosa
pine vigas must be cut and peeled during the
winter months. This provided an adequate
supply of green browse (tree tops) through-
out the winter, resulting in significant (30-
50 percent) increases in the fawn crop. The
newly created open savannah contains 500-
to 800-year-old juniper trees, scattered
ponderosa pines, and is carpeted with a mix
of warm and cool season grasses and forbs.
I have found that because deer and turkey
evolved under this type of ecosystem they
seem to prefer it to the contiguous brush
infested public land. This is what I call an
"eco-recreation benefit." These factors
sharply increased income from hunting and
paid for more of the necessary mechanical
rehabilitation work.
The Role of Fire
The long sought-after open savannah
is now well established in the Carrizo
Valley, but it must be maintained with
periodic fire. Tree ring research in New
Mexico indicates that, before fire suppres-
sion began, most forest areas burned at 7- to
10-year intervals (Stoddart et al., 1975).
The key to the successful maintenance burn
is the fuel load (as well as the climatic
conditions, of course). There must be
enough herbaceous material to carry a fire
that is hot enough to kill brush but cool
enough not to damage the beneficial species.
The damaging fire in Yellowstone a few
years ago demonstrated that the no-burn
policy, which originated in the ecologically
different European forests, was an incorrect
-------
636
Watershed '93
choice for western watersheds. Now after
many years of fire suppression, similar fuel
loading is evident throughout the Western
United States, and has made the initial
prescribed burn risky, to say the least.
Burning is quite expensive when the
planning and execution of a fire are taken
into consideration. It is necessary to defer
grazing before the fire (to accumulate the
needed litter to carry the burn) and after (to
avoid damaging the range as it recovers).
Timing to fit the prescription is extremely
difficult. However, herbage production has
doubled or even tripled where broom-snake
weed was killed by fire, and oak brush
produces much more palatable and nutri-
tious browse after burning. Aro (1971) and
Wright (1972) have also demonstrated this
in controlled studies on demonstration plots
and watershed areas.
Crazing Management
Grazing management has proven just
as important as brush control on the road
back to climax range condition. Using a
Short Duration Grazing (SDG) System for
more than 20 years, I have been able to shift
my vegetative complex from a warm season
monoculture to a varied population of warm
and cool season grasses and legumes,
complemented by an increasing variety of
browse species. Other subtle changes have
occurred, such as an increase in the ratio of
younger plants to older plants of all species,
and the disappearance of barren areas and
trails. This, of course, is the result of SDG,
which prescribes that you concentrate
livestock in each paddock a very short time
during rapid growth, and then move the
livestock on, allowing plants that have been
bitten enough tune to rest. This allows for
adequate leaf growth so that root reserves
are replenished and in some cases seed is
produced.
Livestock Suited to Their
Environment
The pivotal economic component of
my operation is the production of weaner
calves, both for breeding and beef. Low-
input, sustained production is my goal. It is
achieved by using an animal that is fine
tuned to the environment and produces a
desirable, marketable product. The hostile
factors in our environment are snow, cold,
wind, and dry weather. A cow that can
produce under these conditions must be,
first of all, fertile in that environment. She
should be black so that wind and snow will
not cause or aggravate pink eye and cancer
eye. Black, of course, absorbs as much
sparse winter sunlight as is possible and
black udders do not blister in spring snow
storms. The animal that fulfills all these
requirements is a composite breed, which I
have developed through 20 years of selec-
tive breeding, called the Alpine Black—
three-quarters Angus and one-quarter beef-
type Brown Swiss. Just as the Zebu
composites fit the Gulf Coast and southern
deserts, the Alpine Black fits the western
mountains of Northern America.
Tangible Benefits
The road back to climax has revealed
many changes in 30 years. Water sources
that were dry now have permanent running
water and lush riparian areas. Wildlife is
attracted to the open areas and burns. Grass
production has increased dramatically and
provided more carrying capacity. Weaner
calf weights are now over 600 pounds
because Alpine Black cattle are in sync with
their environment and their habitat has
improved as well. Recreation potential is
greatly enhanced due to a more pleasing
aesthetic atmosphere and larger wildlife
populations. The future holds many
opportunities for even more innovative
approaches to IRM. It is almost time to
bring back the beaver and turn the erosion
control over to them.
Applicability of Case Study
Results to Western
Watersheds
The pinon-juniper complex com-
prises more than 63 million acres of the
rangeland in the Southwest. This ecotype
is a critical component of the semi-arid
region. Considerable debate regarding the
density of the pinon-juniper canopy in
climax conditions has hindered some
watershed restoration efforts. Most range
conservationists agree, however, that much
of the pinon-juniper found on the lower
slopes has escaped it original range and
modified some of the original savannah
type ecosystem to a more woodland type.
Work on the Goodloe ranch, especially on
the lower mountain slopes with the most
productive soils, has been an important test
of range rehabilitation techniques during a
-------
Conference Proceedings
637
time when little research on this subject is
ongoing.
Originally the pinon-juniper occupied
a discrete ecotone in many watersheds but
lack of fire and overuse by livestock have
left these once stable areas in poor condi-
tion. Many, however, have a high potential
for range improvement and re-vegetation.
In areas where the pinon-juniper complex is
in especially poor condition, range improve-
ment can substantially reduce the erosion
and sedimentation originating from these
degraded areas (Stoddart et al., 1975).
Some of the most informed members of the
environmental community support restora-
tion of western watersheds but question the
removal of pinon and juniper vegetation
from those areas where the species are the
climax community. As opposed to brush
removal and range reseeding on areas
historically known or reasoned to be
grassland, brush removal on certain areas
can have the potential to increase sedimenta-
tion and erosion rather than decrease it
(DeBano and Schmidt, 1989; Chancy et al.,
1990). Information gained from the Carrizo
Valley Ranch can be useful to managers
needing to determine how far up-slope brush
management efforts can be reasonably and
safely completed and a sustainable system
established.
Riparian areas and the water they
surround are of especial consequence in
arid ecosystems. These areas constitute
only about 2 percent of the total western
acreage yet they are among the most
productive and valuable lands. These
areas can strongly influence how water-
sheds function by influencing the timing
and quality of water produced (Chaney et
al., 1989; Platts, 1990). EPA (1993) has
stated that one of the most effective Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for
improving and maintaining high quality
water resources is a healthy, functioning
and intact riparian area. DeBano and
Schmidt (1989) have described the
relationship of upland watershed condition
to riparian condition and found, not
surprisingly, a direct correlation between
degraded upland watershed condition and
degraded riparian area condition. They
concluded that adequate treatment of all
critical areas in the upper watershed is
necessary to provide a stable and sustain-
able riparian area and is critical when
attempting any riparian restoration project
Goodloe demonstrated the practical
application of this principle on a smaller
scale at his ranch by completing most of
the upper watershed work (stabilizing
gullies, removing invading brush, and re-
vegetating bare ground) before being able
to maintain a stable riparian area. Chaney
and his coworkers (1990) and Platts (1990)
found that maintenance of riparian areas,
once restored, requires a different grazing
strategy than upland sites. Often one of
the most controversial BMPs recom-
mended for rangeland is riparian corridor
fencing that works to protect the riparian
area from livestock access. Goodloe
demonstrated that as long as the prin-
ciple—limited and managed access—is
applied, fencing is not always a required
component. The key to the effective
riparian protection demonstrated at Carrizo
Valley Ranch was protection during the
growing season if possible and rapid
rotation when not.
IRM on Public Lands—Carrizo
Demonstration Area
The watershed above the Carrizo
Valley Ranch is part of the Smokey Bear
Ranger District of the Lincoln National
Forest. In 1989 the U.S. Forest Service
(USFS) began a watershed restoration and
demonstration project on 55,000 acres of
National Forest and private land as part of
the New Perspectives Initiative. The project
area contains large expanses of continuous
canopy pinon-juniper woodland, not only on
the steep and rocky slopes where these
species are the climax community, but also
on the less sloping and more productive
sites, that prior to the introduction of
livestock in the 1800s and subsequent fire
suppression supported a wide variety of
native grass plants. As the range degraded,
trees out-competed grass for available
moisture and soon much of the productive
soil beneath these dense woodland stands
eroded away leaving behind an extensive
and active gully system that continues to
transport silt-laden water into streams and
rivers (Edwards, 1990). With the urging of
private landowners who for years had to
contend with the deposition of millions of
tons of sediment that originated on National
Forest land, and who had demonstrated that
watershed rehabilitation was possible on
their private landholdings, a unique,
cooperative watershed based project was
begun. The planning team consisted not
only of USFS hydrologists and other
-------
638
Watershed'93
specialists but 13 grazing permittees, three
private landowners, researchers from New
Mexico State University (NMSU), the New
Mexico Department of Game and Fish, the
New Mexico Division of Forestry and
Resource Conservation, The New Mexico
Range Improvement Task Force and the
NMSU Cooperative Extension Service.
The project focuses on soil stabilization
practices, vegetation management, water
resource development, vehicular travel
management, and sound grazing manage-
ment practices. The project's goals include
control of soil erosion, stabilization of steep
gully slopes, restoration of permanent
riparian vegetation, and the rehabilitation of
native rangelands to support a sustainable
mix of native grass and woody plants.
Recognizing fiscal and management
limitations in so large a watershed, the
planning team identified high priority
treatment areas as those with unsatisfactory
watershed condition and high soil productiv-
ity. The best management practices applied
to the high-priority areas include small
dams, gully reshaping, reestablishing native
soil-protecting vegetation, thinning trees for
fuel wood, and removing unwanted excess
tress through mechanical means and
prescribed fires.
As the result of treatments—begun in
1989—cool season native species of grass
and forbs long absent from the National
Forest have returned, in several drainage
areas springs have begun to flow again, and
a wide variety of upland and riparian
wildlife species have returned making use of
the increased edge areas, water supplies, and
additional food sources. To date 1,550 acres
of unsatisfactory condition watershed have
been treated through vegetation manage-
ment (mostly timber and fuel wood harvest)
to increase herbaceous ground cover, 3.4
miles of gullies have been stabilized, and
4 miles of roads have been obliterated.
Additionally 900 acres were treated with
prescribed fire for creation of wildlife
openings, two wildlife water developments
were installed, and 15 acres of existing
riparian area were fenced to exclude
livestock. On private lands adjacent to the
forest benefits have also been reported. In
one area, 4,800 cubic yards of sediment
from gully and sheet erosion originating on
National Forest land was cleaned out of a
pond. The following spring, after imple-
mentation of watershed restoration treat-
ments on the forest, a spring that had not run
for 50 years began to flow and continued to
flow throughout the summer, filling the
pond with clear water. The pond has now
been stocked with trout and catfish. It is
noteworthy that the Forest Service used on-
site resources for much of the rehabilitation
work and supplemented the project with
funds from the sale of forest products,
including 4,000 board feet of timber, 500
small and medium poles, and 2,850 cords of
firewood. As an additional benefit, USFS
has realized a cost saving by working
directly and cooperatively with permittees,
providing sufficient training to these
cooperators so that Forest Service employ-
ees no longer have to mark leave trees on
fuel and timber harvest areas.
Summary
Integrated resource management is
the professional vernacular describing
what managers do when they are in tune
with efficient, sustained use of the re-
sources that are their responsibility. If the
use of one resource affects the health or
production of another adversely, then the
whole is diminished and economic and
environmental costs are guaranteed to
surface somewhere sometime. Common
sense and vision provide the foundation for
bringing all parts of the whole together
into a comprehensive management plan.
Interestingly enough, as are many things in
life, it is elusive because it is so simple.
Yet, if we intend long-term survival we
must implement this approach in every
phase of natural resource management. As
watershed restoration and rehabilitation
work continues, it is important to under-
stand that there will never be sufficient
government resources to treat every
problem in every area. Thus, success lies
in demonstrating those techniques which
provide internal and self-sustaining
motivation for adoption on both private
and public lands
References
Aero, R.S. 1971. Evaluation of pinon-
juniper conversion to grassland.
Journal of Range Management
24:188-197.
Bently, H.L. 1898. Grasses and forage
plants of central Texas. Bulletin no.
10. USDA Special Agent in Charge
of Grass Experiments, Abilene, TX.
-------
Conference Proceedings
639
Brady, N;C. 1974. Nature and properties
1 of soils. 8th ed. MacMillan Publish-
ing Co., New York, NY.
Chaney, E., W. Elmore, and W.S. Platts.
: 1990. Livestock grazing on western
riparian areas. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Denver, CO.
DeBano, L.D., and L.J.Schmidt. 1989.
Improving southwestern riparian
areas through watershed manage-
ment. USD A Forest Service General
Technical Report RM-182. Rocky
Mountain Forest and Range Experi-
ment Station, Ft. Collins, CO.
Edwards, R. 1991. Carrizo Demonstration
Area. U.S. Forest Service, Lincoln
National Forest, Smokey Bear Ranger
District.
Goodloe, S. 1990. Twenty years of
integrated/holistic resource manage-
ment. Integrated Resource Manage-
ment Symposium, Morelia, Mexico,
March 27,1990.
Leopold, A. 1933/1991. The virgin
Southwest. Reprinted in The River of
the Mother of God and other essays
byAldo Leopold, ed. S. Flander and J.
Baird. University of Wisconsin Press.
NMED, 1988. Nonpoint source assessment
report for the State of New Mexico.
New Mexico Environment Depart-
ment, Santa Fe, NM.
-r-. 1990. Biennial water quality
report. New Mexico Environment
Department, Santa Fe, NM.
Platts, W.S. 1990. Managing fisheries and
wildlife on rangelands grazed by
livestock. Nevada Department of
Wildlife. December.
Stoddart, L.A., A.D. Smith, and T.W. Box.
1975. Range management. 3ded.
McGraw-Hill Book Co., St. Louis,
MO.
USD A, National Agricultural Research and
Extension Users Advisory Board
(UAB). 1990. Watershed research
issues and needs in the Southwest.
Recommendations of the UAB.
USEPA. 1993. Guidance specifying
management measures for sources of
nonpoint pollution in coastal waters.
EPA-840-B-92-002. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Office of
Water, Washington, DC. January.
' Wooten, E.G. 1908. The range problem in
New Mexico. In Bulletin no. 10.
Agricultural Experiment Station, New
Mexico College of Agriculture and
Mechanical Arts.
Wright, H.A. 1972. Shrub response to fire.
In Wildland shrubs - Their biology
and utilization. USFS General
Technical Report INT-1-1972, pp.
204-217.
-------
-------
W AT £ R S H E D '93
Multiple Objectives Planning at
Portland, Oregon, for the Balch
Creek Watershed
Jean Ochsner, Environmental Specialist
City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental Services, Portland, OR
Tom Davis, Principal Engineer
Montgomery Watson, Portland, OR
Background and Setting
The Balch Creek Watershed is a unique
urban wild area, close to one of the
largest urban parks (Forest
Park), and within a 10-minute
drive from downtown Portland
(Figure 1). For the last year the
City of Portland, Oregon, Bureau
of Environmental Services (BBS)
has been preparing a multiple
objectives plan for managing the
storm water and related resources
of the Balch Creek Watershed in
Portland's West Hills. Comple-
tion of this Storm water Manage-
ment Plan (SMP) is expected this
summer. The watershed area is
approximately 2 square miles of
steeply-sloped forest land and
contains small amounts of urban
residential development, particu-
larly in the southeast corner and
along the ridges. At the lower end
of the watershed, Balch Creek
enters an 84-inch diameter pipe
and flows approximately 1 mile
under an industrial area before
flowing into the Willamette River
(Photo 1). In the piped portion, a
combined sewer overflow and
small amounts of additional storm
water enter the pipe.
The SMP includes elements
which address flood control,
water quality, fish, wildlife, and
recreation-education. The project
includes the design and construc-
tion of an early action "pilot project" which
combines a wetland to enhance water
quality with a detention storage facility to
reduce downstream flooding.
Figure 1. Balch Creek watershed vicinity map.
<541
-------
642
Watershed '93
Photo 1. View to the southwest of the Balch Creek Watershed and canyon, with residential
and lower industrial area in the foreground.
As part of the planning effort, the
Balch Creek Citizens Task Force (BCCTF)
worked with BBS to prepare a Concept Plan
that will guide the planning, and this plan is
one of the project's more unique features. It
was developed early in the process and
consists of short policy statements which are
recommendations to BBS. The benefits of
the process are that interested citizens
formally expressed their views at the
beginning of the planning which allowed the
project team to locate the political "hot-
spots" early. It also provided a low-pressure
opportunity for the project team to provide
educational information to the task force.
An important watershed resource for
the plan to protect and enhance is a popula-
tion of cutthroat trout in Balch Creek which
has been isolated for over 70 years due to
the downstream pipe. One of the most
important objectives of the plan is to reduce
the threat of damaging floods such as those
which occurred in 1955 and 1970 hi the
lower industrial area. The plan will also
address water quality, since runoff from the
entire watershed flows into the Willamette
River through an outfall which the Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality will
permit under National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) constraints.
Wildlife, although less tied to the Creek and
its resources than the fishery, is also an
important aspect of the project. The SMP
will address erosion-sedimentation by
augmenting the Balch Creek Watershed
Management Plan previously adopted by the
Portland City Council. The most controver-
sial issue has been recreation-education use
at the pilot project due to site neighbors
being concerned about the additional
visitors in the area.
The following discussion has been
taken from the Balch Creek Watershed
Storm water Management Plan Background
Report (City of Portland, 1993).
Geology and Soils
The Columbia River Basalt, overlain
by the Troutdale Formation and the Sandy
River Mudstone, are the primary geologic
units in the basin. The Troutdale consists of
sandstone, siltstone, and claystone; and the
Sandy River Mudstone consists of siltstone
and claystone. The Columbia River Basalt
consists of dense, fractured rock.
-------
Conference Proceedings
643
Much of the Balch Creek Watershed is
covered by an erodible soil know as
"Portland Hills Silt," which often has a
"fragipan" soil layer about two feet below.
Fragipan soils allow little water to flow
through, so the ratio of surface runoff and
shallow groundwater flow to infiltration and
deep ground-water movement tends to be
high in the portions of the watershed where
these soils occur. The high runoff rates and
steep slopes create high flow velocities
which are more likely to cause erosion of
the silt-fragipan soils and others in the
watershed. The Soil Conservation Service
classifies the silts as the Goble and Cascade
Series. The Wauld Series predominates in
Macleay Park near Balch Creek and
comprises eroded-deposited soils from the
watershed.
Vegetation
Much of the Balch Creek Watershed
has been logged and is covered by decidu-
ous tree species such as red alder, big leaf
maple, Scouler's willow, and bitter cherry.
Conifers are also abundant and include
Douglas fir, grand fir, western red cedar,
western hemlock, and western yew.
Erosion-Sedimentation
When protective cover, usually
vegetation or small amounts of forest litter,
is removed and the mineral soil is disturbed
and exposed, erosion in the Balch Creek
Watershed increases dramatically. Erosion
may occur in small increments over a large
area through "surface" erosion processes, or
in concentrated flow rivulets which turn into
gullies. It may also occur in large volumes
through deep underground soil movements;
some barely noticeable at the surface. Such
"mass" erosion can be caused by the
destruction of plants and root structure, high
soil moisture, cuts into the slope which
remove soil support, or a combination of
these factors.
Erosion is important in the watershed
because the eroded soil, which is eventually
deposited as sediment at downstream loca-
tions, smothers fish spawning areas and fills
the scarce pools needed by the Balch Creek
cutthroat trout. The sediment also impairs
the aesthetics of the creek, recreational val-
ues at Macleay Park, and Balch Creek water
quality. In addition, when sediment fills
stream channels and culverts the potential
for damage due to flooding is increased.
In February of 1992, a mass move-
ment of soil occurred in the watershed due
to improper soil storage and the effects can
be seen all the way through the downstream
reaches of Balch Creek and Macleay Park
(Photo 2).
Hydrology and Hooding History
The large proportion of the watershed
which is covered by vegetation should favor
lower surface runoff rates and volumes, but
this is offset somewhat by the steep slopes.
The shallow, relatively impervious fragipan
soil layer impedes the deep percolation of
precipitation into the soil and forces it to
reemerge relatively quickly in small
channels and rivulets. The net effect is
surface runoff volumes during actual flood
events that are relatively high for the size of
watershed and type of soils involved. The
flood peaks are slightly less than the
volume would indicate due to travel time
delays caused by the shallow ground-water
flow, or "interflow," which reemerges as
streamflow slightly after the peak of the
surface runoff component. The
hydrograph peak also occurs a little later
than expected, and possibly extends over a
longer period of time. The comparison of
the HEC-1 hydrograph with real
hydrograph data confirms that this is
occurring.
The Balch Creek flood peaks and
volumes based on the hydrologic modeling
in Lower Macleay Park at the storm sewer
entrance are as listed in Table 1. At the low-
flow end of the hydrologic regime, the flow
at Lower Macleay Park during September
1992 (a drought year) was usually less than
0.5 cfs, and this extended over a number of
months.
The Balch Creek Basin has experi-
enced serious flooding problems twice
Table 1. Balch Creek flood peaks and volumes
Peak Flow
Recurrence
Interval
2-year
5-year
10-year
25-year
50-year
100-year
cubic feet per second (cfs)
Existing
125
220
273
366
448
529
Buildout
170
272
327
423
507
593
Volume
acre-feet (ac-ft)
Existing
137
193
230
298
356
417
Buildout
158
232
272
345
406
470
-------
644
Watershed '93
Photo 2. Deposits from the mudslide that occurred in a southern tributary in the upper
portion of the Balch Creek Watershed.
since 1921 when the industrial area was
filled and lower Balch Creek was con-
tained in the storm drain pipe. In 1955,
during high flows a stump lodged in the
pipe, which pressurized and ruptured, and
flooding of property occurred. In 1970,
the pipe again pressurized due to surcharg-
ing at the Macleay Park inlet, ruptured,
and caused significant amounts of property
damage to industries, a highway, and a
railroad. The upper one-fourth of the
storm sewer has been replaced with 84-
inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe but
the rest is 66-inch diameter and provides
the hydraulic capacity constraint (410 cfs)
to the system (Barrett et al., 1975).
Fish
The primary fish species in Balch
Creek is the native cutthroat trout. The
viable population of 2000 to 4000 fish has
apparently been isolated since 1921 due to
the construction of the storm sewer.
According to the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) this isolation
may have created an important genetic
resource (Blaylock memo to Ochsner,
1992). Fishing is not allowed but the trout
contribute to valuable education and
passive recreation uses. Due to fish
migration for spring spawning, the ODFW
has stated that fish passage structures are
needed at all detention/water quality
facilities. The most important fish en-
hancement needs are additional pools,
riparian habitat for cover, and the removal
of passage blocks.
Water Quality
Balch Creek water quality is generally
good with elevated levels of nutrients and
suspended solids. The nutrient concentrations
are sometimes above the regulatory limits
usually established in Oregon. The suspended
solids alter stream structure and degrade fish
habitat when they settle in the pools. The
most likely source of phosphorus and
suspended solids is eroded soil, and the most
likely nitrogen source is septic tank effluent.
Fertilizers may also contribute nutrients to the
system. Since future water quality problems
may be implied but are not currently a
regulatory or technical issue, preventative
action based on the SMP is timely.
-------
Conference Proceedings
645
Wildlife
The Balch Creek watershed is part of
the West Hills area which supports 11
species of amphibians, 10 species of
reptiles, 112 species of birds, and 62
mammal species (City of Portland, 1990).
Since the watershed is adjacent to a popu-
lous urban area, the wildlife is one of its
most valuable resources.
Recreation-Education
A considerable portion of the water-
shed is managed as parks (292 acres),
sanctuaries (109 acres), or open space (67
acres) according to the Portland Bureau of
Planning (1990). This is approximately
one-third of the watershed and illustrates the
importance of passive recreation and
outdoor education in the area. The park and
sanctuary lands are managed by the Portland
Bureau of Parks and Recreation and the
Portland Audubon Society, and are utilized
by the Portland School District and citizens
throughout the region.
Land Use/Institutional
The Balch Creek Watershed includes
land both within the Portland city limits and
within unincorporated Multnomah County.
The City of Portland's land use and environ-
mental protection regulations are generally
viewed as adequate for managing new
development on lands within the city limits.
In unincorporated Multnomah County,
development of the lands outside the Urban
Growth Boundary is regulated by the State
Forest Practices Act. These regulations may
not provide adequate protection for all
development activities and resource values.
The Storm Water Management
Plan
The evaluation of alternatives for
managing storm water and related resources
for the Balch Creek Watershed is currently
being completed. The techniques which are
likely to be recommended are discussed in
the following sections.
Citizen Participation
The Balch Creek Watershed has a
history of citizen involvement in govern-
mental matters that affect the area. One of
the Nation's largest urban parks, Portland's
Forest Park, runs into the watershed from
the north. The Portland Audubon Society
owns or manages a significant amount of
land in the watershed and operates its office,
educational activities, and wildlife care
center from a building complex within the
watershed. In addition, many schools and
special education programs use the water-
shed since it is relatively natural and close.
Because of the active citizen interest
in the watershed the BCCTF was formed to
provide plan formulation advice. It was
decided to ask for such advice early in the
planning process through the BCCTF
development of a Concept Plan which
recommended planning policy in six
categories—flood control, water quality,.
fish, wildlife, recreation-education, and land
use/institutional. That plan contains 58
recommended policies—some that are basic
and noncontroversial and some that have
major implications and are controversial. A
few paraphrased recommendations are as
follows:
• Provide funding assistance to
homeowners who may need to
improve on-site wastewater facilities
to resolve water quality problems,
but who cannot afford them.
• Develop on-site and regional water
quality and quantity facilities such as
wetlands.
« Implement cooperative, intergovern-
mental programs that are consistent
with each other, particularly involv-
ing land use and fish.
0 Assign a high budgeting priority to
monitoring watershed conditions and
facility performance.
• Regional flood detention facilities
should be evaluated in conjunction
with water quality wetlands through-
out the watershed.
• Protect and enhance the cutthroat
trout population.
• Provide additional pool habitat for
the trout (this appears to be the
limiting factor).
• BBS and ODFW should jointly
prepare a fish management plan for
Balch Creek, which fits ODFW
criteria for such plans.
•> Provide fish passage at all water
quality wetlands.
• Provide limited public education-
recreation access at water quality and
flood control facilities, including the
Pilot Project.
-------
646
Watershed '93
• Consider public-private cooperative
programs, including funding, for the
watershed, particularly involving
educational activities.
Erosion-Sedimentation
Erosion and the related sedimentation
constitute one of the most serious watershed
problems. The slopes are steep and the soils
are credible. The generally sparse develop-
ment, the amount of land in public owner-
ship, and the strict land development
requirements have offset these factors
somewhat.
The plan will address erosion-
sedimentation on both a preventative and
mitigation basis. The preventative measures
could involve watershed controls that
support and augment the Balch Creek
Watershed Protection Plan prepared by the
Portland Bureau of Planning in December
1990. The basic approaches to controlling
erosion-sedimentation involve:
• Minimizing the total area, duration,
and season of soil exposure (much of
this is being done now).
• Requiring new developments to be
designed to minimize storm water
runoff velocities, surface flow rates,
and erosion through minimum road
widths and impervious areas,
vegetated swales, detention storage,
and infiltration systems.
• Enforcing tight controls on soil
excavation, fill, and storage.
• Providing mitigation facilities such
as sedimentation ponds and wetlands
in or below existing developments
and problem areas.
Water Quality
The Balch Creek water quality is
generally good, but elevated levels of
phosphorus, nitrogen, and suspended solids
have been observed. Future problems can
be avoided through preventative actions.
The most likely sources in need of control
include soil disturbance and exposure due to
land development/clearing, chemical
applications of fertilizers or herbicides,
septic tank effluent, and impervious area
runoff.
Water quality improvement can be
accomplished through a number of ap-
proaches including:
• Additional erosion-sedimentation
controls.
• Additional watershed and water
quality monitoring to identify
problem areas and suggest mitigation
measures.
• Reducing the impact of nutrient
sources such as septic tank effluent.
• Pond-wetland facilities designed for
water quality improvement.
• Vegetated swales and other
biofiltration facilities.
• Infiltration of runoff in carefully
selected soils that will accept
additional water.
Flood Control
Flood problems have occurred in the
past (1955 and 1970) and the hydrologic
modeling performed for this project indi-
cates that peak reduction is needed. The
goal is to reduce the future 50- and 100-
year recurrence interval storm runoff to the
410 cfs capacity of the downstream pipe
which runs through the industrial area.
The approaches being considered to
reduce the potential for flood damage
include:
• Detention-storage facilities, usually
including pond-marsh water quality
functions.
• A maintenance plan that integrates a
number of objectives and methods.
• More emphasis on conveyance
techniques that reduce runoff
, velocities.
• Infiltration of runoff from develop-
ments where geotechnically feasible.
• Increasing the size of the down-
stream pipe. (This option was
estimated to cost over $3 million in
1982, not considering hazardous
materials disposal which would
likely be involved due to the soil
excavation.)
Fish Habitat Enhancement
The cutthroat trout in Balch Creek
have been determined to be a viable
population requiring protection and en-
hancement. A more intensive fish evalua-
tion using a quantitative analysis method
entitled the Instream Flow Incremental
Methodology (IFIM) (Bovee, 1982) is now
being performed on Balch Creek and
includes an intensive evaluation of the Pilot
Project site.
Previous fish assessments have
indicated that unlike many northwest
-------
Conference Proceedings
647
streams, the limiting factor in Balch Creek
is pool habitat rather than riffle-gravel
habitat. Cutthroat trout move upstream to
spawn in the spring and a number of
barriers to fish passage exist, primarily
involving culverts. Riparian vegetation is
absent along much of the main reach of
Balch Creek, primarily due to heavy
recreational use from a trail which paral-
lels the Creek. During low-water periods
fish harassment occurs from domestic
animals and recreationalists.
The fish habitat enhancement tech-
niques being considered include:
• Increasing the amount of pool
habitat available in the creek and
, new pond-wetland/detention
facilities.
• Providing fish passage components
in the pond-wetland/detention
facilities.
• Removing or mitigating existing fish
passage barriers.
• Improving riparian habitat and cover
to enhance shading for temperature
control, reduce predator/nuisance
access, and increase food supply.
• Improving in-stream structure for
cover/protection.
• Possibly increasing the spawning
area available.
Wildlife
The most promising wildlife manage-
ment techniques involve creating wetland
habitat in association with storm water
detention and water quality projects: Access
and observation areas could be included at
various levels in the design of such projects
to provide for education and passive
recreational uses. The educational use
would emphasize integrated natural resource
values such as the fish and wildlife habitat
and water quality improvement characteris-
tics of wetlands. Interpretive information
would be made available and possibly other
means of watershed/environmental educa-
tion sponsored.
Research and Concept
Development
Although it was not initially envi-
sioned as a research and development
project, it is now obvious that the SMP and
the Pilot Project will establish a number of
technical and regulatory precedents, and
provide an excellent opportunity for long-
term performance monitoring. The primary
areas of interest are:
• Designing flood detention in
conjunction with water quality
wetlands.
• Designing fish enhancement features
for water quality wetlands.
• Constructed, on-stream water quality
wetland design.
« Creating fish passage at existing
culvert barriers and into/through on-
stream wetlands.
• Obtaining water rights for con-
structed wetlands (which has turned
out to be a significant time con-
straint).
• Evaluating water quality wetland
treatment performance.
• Developing analytical methods for
estimating performance of combined
flood detention and water quality
facilities.
The Pilot Project
The Pilot Project involves the con-
struction of a flood detention facility to
reduce peak flows; one or two wetland units
in the lower part of the detention facility to
improve water quality; and the inclusion of
fish pools in the wetlands (Figure 2). The
project also includes native riparian and
shading vegetation, a fish passage structure
from the existing culvert to the wetland
pool, recreation-education access and
observation areas, and an initial sedimenta-
tion unit.
The project utilizes an existing road
fill to create flood storage volume and the
wetland units. Optional features include
spawning gravel enhancement upstream and
raising the road fill by 5 or 6 feet to create
additional storage capacity.
Flood Control
Approximately 2 miles below the Pilot
Project, Balch Creek enters an 84-inch
diameter reinforced concrete pipe, which
transitions after approximately 1,000 feet
into a flatter 66-inch diameter monolithic
concrete pipe. The smaller pipe has less
capacity and provides the hydraulic con-
straint of 410 cfs to the system (Barrett et
al., 1975). The total length of pipe is
approximately 6,000 feet.
The 50-year and 100- year recurrence
interval storms produce peak runoff of 450
-------
648
Watershed '93
STREAM OR EDGEOFFLOW
CHANNEL/POOL
n
!
Figure 2. Conceptual plan of the early action "Pilot Project" site.
and 530 cfs, respectively, for current
conditions, and 510 and 600 cfs for future
conditions. The Pilot Project can provide
over 30 percent of the 120-cfs peak reduc-
tion needed to match the 100-year, current
conditions runoff peak with the pipe
capacity. It can provide over 20 percent of
the future conditions, 100-year peak
reduction. If 5 or 6 feet is added to the road
fill, the percentage of peak reduction
benefits needed become 55 and 35 percent,
respectively.
It is important to note that it was never
anticipated that the Pilot Project could
achieve all of the peak reduction needed by
itself. The intent is to implement enough
detention-storage projects in the watershed
to reduce the flooding risk in the industrial
area and avoid the need to replace approxi-
mately 5000 feet of pipe at a probable cost
of over $4 million.
The storage space will be created by
two existing road fills and the natural
topography. An orifice plate will be placed
on the existing culvert under Cornell Road
to limit the peak flow passing through the
culvert. The storage capacity behind the
road fills will be used like a "surge tank" to
reduce the peaks during a range of events,
with emphasis on the 100-year recurrence
interval storm. A spillway will be included
to divert water back into the existing pipe if
blockage of the orifice-outlet occurs.
Water Quality
The State of Oregon is currently estab-
lishing total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)
for many streams, and this may eventually
include Balch Creek. The most likely possi-
bility that TMDLs would apply to the Creek
is that they would be established for the
Willamette River, to which Balch Creek is a
tributary, and load allocations would be
implemented for tributaries, such as Balch
Creek. The other water quality performance
objective for BBS is to implement most ef-
fective practices (MEP) for the watershed to
comply with NPDES storm water require-
ments, which will apply soon.
Since specific water quality targets
have not been established for Balch Creek,
the informal water quality target for the pilot
project is assumed to be 0.100 milligrams
per liter (mg/l) to 0.200 mg/1 total phospho-
rus, which is close to the 0.070 mg/l TMDL
-------
Conference Proceedings
649
established for the Tualatin River, a slow
stream with algal growth problems south-
west of Balch Creek. Water quality samples
from Balch Creek show total phosphorus
levels in excess of the 0.100 to 0.200 mg/1
target.
, The water quality portion of the
project is conceptualized as consisting of an
initial sedimentation unit to reduce impacts
on the lower wetland unit(s) and to concen-
trate maintenance activities. The total
surface area of the wetland and initial unit is
anticipated to be approximately one acre.
The objective of the wetland unit is to
provide approximately 30 percent reduction
of total phosphorus, 20 percent reduction of
nitrate-nitrogen, and 50 percent reduction of
suspended solids during the runoff from
storms which are exceeded twice per year
(the "6-month" storm). Since there are no
regulatory targets at this time, the water
quality objective is an informal guideline.
The intent is tp design the facility for
maximum effectiveness, monitor its perfor-
mance, and use the information to refine the
design approaches for such facilities in the
future. Maximum removal is expected to
occur at a flow less than the design storm
runoff.
Fish Habitat Enhancement
The Oregon regulatory agencies,
including the federal agencies, are attempt-
ing to approve permits for projects involv-
ing wetlands expeditiously but in a manner
which is consistent. For projects like the
Pilot Project, which is small and will create
and restore wetland and stream habitat, this
presents timing problems. Every permit and
review check-off required of large, environ-
mentally-damaging projects is necessary for
the pilot project. One of the most difficult
review check-offs is from the ODFW for
fish protection.
Balch Creek's remnant cutthroat trout
population requires additional pool habitat,
adequate spawning gravel, fish passage in
the spring, adequate water quality, tempera-
ture, cover, and food. The Pilot Project is
being designed to provide more pool habitat,
instream and riparian cover, and food. It
will also mitigate spawning gravel if
necessary, provide fish passage during a
mid-range of spring flows, and provide
riparian vegetation which protects against
temperature increases.
The sinusoidal nature of the Pilot
Project wetland is designed primarily to
prevent short circuiting and lengthen the
flow path for water quality. By deepening
the channel at certain locations, low-flow
pools will be created for fish refuge during
drought years. The fish ladder will be near
the outlet and fits with northwest fish
passage criteria. The native riparian habitat
will consist of brush along the bank which
can overhang the water, fast-growing
medium-height trees, and taller trees for
long-term shading. Depending on the IFIM
fish survey results, spawning gravel mitiga-
tion will be provided if needed. One of the
most important aspects will be the perfor-
mance monitoring after project construction
since the integration of fish provisions in
small projects such as this is not well
understood.
Wildlife, Education, and Recreation
The Balch Creek Watershed is rich in
wildlife and much of it is well protected
despite its proximity to an urban area.
However it does not contain very much
wetland habitat, and the project will increase
that type of habitat and the wildlife diver-
sity. Currently the site is primarily veg-
etated by Himalayan blackberries, which are
not native and have low to moderate wildlife
value.
The educational/recreational values
will be provided primarily through modest
public access, interpretive signs, and one or
two viewing areas. Although this aspect of
the project is not a major design consider-
ation, and the BCCTF Concept Plan states
that such use should be provided, it appears
to be the only major, controversial issue,
Three neighboring property owners have
objected to any public access, apparently
because of a fear of increased crime.
Special Issues
A number of special issues add
interest, and difficulty, to the project.
Interagency Cooperation
Although the Pilot Project and SMP
provide increased levels of environmental
benefits, the permits intended to protect the
environment are difficult to obtain at this
time. This primarily involves the time
required for communication, information
collection and presentation, and application
processing. It is made more difficult by the
-------
650
Watershed '93
lack of credible precedents from a regula-
tory perspective, and the Balch Creek work
should help future similar projects in this
regard.
a vital policy level. It also supports sound
but sometimes controversial planning
objectives while warning the project team of
futile pursuits, thereby saving money.
Concept Development
Some of the Pilot Project features and
SMP methods are somewhat new in Oregon.
The work performed is intended to provide
performance information on a number of
planning and design concepts, which could
be applied to other watersheds.
Earfy Action Projects
The Pilot Project was intended to
demonstrate BBS' commitment to imple-
menting storm water solutions involving
flood control, water quality, and fish
management. It is also strengthening the
SMP by forcing the BBS-Montgomery team
to address issues and details often over-
looked in planning.
Concept Planning
The BCCTF Concept Plan has resulted
in two types of process benefits. It allowed
early public participation in the planning at
References
Barrett, S.L., R.C. Bledsoe, C.B. Chambers,
H.G. Edmonds, T.L. Friedman, and
R.G. Sunnarborg. 1975. A feasibility
study Balch Creek flood control
project. Portland State University,
Oregon.
Blaylock, W.M. 1992, July 28. Memo to
Jean Ochnser concerning Balch Creek
Reconnaissance.
Bovee, K.D. 1982. A guide to stream
habitat analysis using the Instream
Flow Incremental Methodology.
Instream Flow Paper no. 12. FWS/
OBS-82/26. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Washington, DC.
City of Portland, Bureau of Environmental
Services. 1993. Balch Creek storm
water management plan background
report. Draft report.
City of Portland, Bureau of Planning. 1990.
Balch Creek watershed protection
plan. Draft final report.
-------
WATERSHED1 93
The West Maui Algal Blooms and
Watershed Management
Shannon FitzGerald, Environmental Scientist
Clarence Tenley, Chief, Ground Water Pollution Control Section
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX
San Francisco, CA
The Problem
Beginning in 1989, blooms of
macroalgae (seaweed) began to
appear in great quantities off the
west coast of Maui, Hawaii (Figure 1).
These blooms consisted of the green alga
Cladophora sericea and an introduced red
alga Hypnea musciformis. The
Cladophora drifted on the sea floor,
tangling in coral heads, damaging coral,
and driving fish and divers away from the
reefs. The more buoyant Hypnea formed
floating mats that came to rest on the
beaches where it was a nuisance to beach
goers and residents. Residents living next
to storm water channels that had filled
with rotting algae lodged numerous health
complaints.
The problem of the West Maui algal
bloom was brought to the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency's (EPA)
attention in the fall of 1991 as a result of
four congressional inquiries. Also that
fall, the Hawaii Department of Health
(HDOH) created the West Maui Algal
Bloom Task Force. The Task Force is
composed of members of the West Maui
community and local government
agencies. The purpose of this Task Force
is to collect information on the Maui algae
and recommend necessary studies and
possible abatement actions. In the spring
of 1992, EPA formed its own Maui Algae
Team consisting of staff from various EPA
programs. EPA and HDOH, together,
have developed a preliminary watershed
management strategy, outlining needs for
applied research and suggesting nutrient
source controls.
West Maui Geography
The West Maui Watershed is a 16-
mile stretch of mountains, plains, and
coastline where sugar cane and pineapple
fields may be found alongside golf courses,
resort hotels, and one of the most popular
diving meccas in the United States. In this
watershed, land use falls in distinct bands
that parallel the coast (Figure 1). In the
upper reaches of the watershed, rainforest
covers the mountains. At the base of the
mountains, sugar cane and pineapple are
cultivated on steeply sloping plains. Along
the coast, urban development is rapidly
replacing agriculture.
Over two dozen streams deeply incise
the coastal mountains. To the south the
streams are perennial, whereas to the north
they are annual because of greater precipita-
tion. West Maui is the dry side of the
island, receiving at the coast approximately
8 inches of rainfall per year. In the
watershed's mountains, however, rainfall
exceeds 400 inches annually. This, coupled
with the steep topography, can cause brief
but torrential flooding. In an attempt to
control flooding, agencies are installing
storm water channels and sediment retention
ponds in the major streams.
Underneath the watershed is a fresh-
water aquifer that floats on top of a saltwater
aquifer (Figure 2). The freshwater aquifer is
recharged by mountain rains and irrigation
that induce a net seaward flow of fresh
water. In some locations, the freshwater
aquifer extends seaward of the shoreline and
causes fresh water to seep from the shallow
sea floor. Like surface water, pollutants
discharged to the ground water in this
651
-------
652
Watershed '93
KlUlt
Stats of Hawaii
watershed eventually reach the ocean unless
they are transformed or removed in the
aquifer.
Tropical waters are naturally nutri-
ent-poor, which means that any increase in
nutrients, especially nitrogen and phospho-
rus, could produce an algal bloom if other
conditions are favor-
able. In the West Maui
area, there are many
potential nutrient
sources that may affect
ground water and sur-
face waters flowing
LAHAINA DISTRICT
^.Hswall
into the ocean. These sources include
treated sewage effluent disposed into
coastal injection wells; fertilizers that are
used on sugar cane and pineapple crops,
golf courses, and resort landscaping;
sewage from cesspools, septic systems,
and leaking sewer lines; and nutrients
released back into the water from algae
decomposing on the shore. To assess the
magnitude of these sources EPA is cur-
rently conducting a preliminary nutrient
assessment, the results of which will be
used to direct further research and nutrient
source controls.
LAHAINA DISTRICT
Kapalua
Honokowai
%
Kaanapali
PACIFIC OCEAN
U Urban Resort
A Agriculture
C Conservation
Algal Bloom
Sewage Effluent
Injection Wells
Olowalu
1 mile
Figure 1. Land use zoning in the Lahaina District of Maui and the
reported extent of the algal blooms.
EPA/HDOH Watershed
Strategy
To help investigate the causes
of and possible solutions to the algal
blooms, Congress appropriated
$400,000 and $450,000, respectively,
to EPA and the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration
(NOAA). In cooperation with
HDOH, EPA and NOAA are pres-
ently determining what further studies
and actions will be needed. Maui
County, sugar cane and pineapple
agribusinesses, the U.S. Soil Conser-
vation Service (SCS), and the
University of Hawaii are also being
consulted.
EPA and HDOH have devel-
oped a joint watershed strategy to
understand and combat the algae
bloom. This strategy outlines several
applied research projects to determine
how and why the algae grows so
prolifically, and lists several immedi-
ate steps that can be taken to reduce
the flow of nutrients into the near
coastal waters.
To date, funded applied
research projects include a tracer
study to determine if effluent from the
sewage injection wells is reaching the
ocean; an algae mapping effort; an
assessment of the biodiversity of the
coral reefs to determine if algae-
eating predators are missing; and a
study of algae physiology. Additional
projects under consideration include
employment of a watershed coordina-
tor on Maui to review the various
research projects and work with the
Maui community; the monitoring of
surface water, ground water, and
-------
Conference Proceedings
653
Air
submarine ground water
seeps; and a cost assessment
and feasibility study of
nutrient removal from the
injected sewage effluent.
EPA is also pursuing,
in conjunction with HDOH,
Maui County, SCS, and
agribusiness, a number of
nutrient source control
activities, including reclama-
tion of the treated sewage
effluent and demonstration
projects hi which best
management practices
(BMPs) would be used on
agricultural land. Another
course of action that might
help mitigate the algae
problem is removal of algae
from beaches and removal of
sediment from sediment retention basins and
storm water drainage channels.
Summary
The West Maui Watershed is home
to a unique combination of land use, from
large-scale agriculture to resorts, set in a
terrain that extends from mountainous rain
forest to a semi-arid coastline. Though it
may take years of study to determine the
Figure 2. Vertical cross-section of an island depicting the Ghyben-Herzberg
lens that is a lens of fresh water floating on saline water.
precise cause of the algae bloom, an
attempt must be made to abate the bloom
by reducing nutrient loading from all
potential sources. EPA and HDOH have
devised a watershed strategy blending
applied research and nutrient source
controls. The success of this strategy
hinges on active participation of all those
who have a stake in protecting the coastal
waters of West Maui. This includes Maui
County, SCS, NOAA, local citizens'
groups, and agribusinesses.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Conserving a River Ecosystem:
A Missouri River Partnership
Kent Keenlyne, Missouri River Coordinator
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Pierre, SD
During the past 50 years, over 95
percent of the Missouri River's
original wetland habitat, 90 percent
of its sandbar habitat, 75 percent of its
stream aquatic habitat, and 66 percent of its
wooded riparian habitat have been lost,
largely through human activities. This has
resulted in the elimination or reduction of
native species. At present 50 plant or
animal species are listed under the Endan-
gered Species Act or are under one of the
review categories for listing consideration.
Increased competition for the
resources of the Missouri will likely
perpetuate a growing list of litigation
challenges. And, those processes set in
motion will further reduce natural heritage
values of the river. The U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) believes that an
approach exists to help resolve use
conflicts along the river through active
protection of the river system. The
Service, in its responsibility for encourag-
ing the protection of the Nation's fish and
wildlife resources, proposes the establish-
ment of a Missouri River Partnership to
facilitate the planning and coordination
needed to protect and enhance the river's
diversity and health.
The Service, through informational
inquiry, determined the level of concern
about Missouri River resource issues. The
following questions were posed to interested
federal, state, tribal, and local governments,
and to nongovernmental groups in the
Missouri River Basin:
• Do you see long-range resource
problems on the Missouri River?
• Do you see the development of a
broad restoration plan for the River
as a needed activity and the offer of
the Service to act in a facilitator role
in plan development as a proper role
for the Service to play?
• What programs or activities are you
now doing, or do you plan to do, that
could be utilized in a river restora-
tion partnership program?
The response to the first question was
an overwhelming YES. Numerous issues
and resource problems, as well as recom-
mendations, were identified. These include
the following:
• Continuing and prolonged disagree-
ment within the Basin over resource
uses is accompanied by continuing
litigation which appears to have no
visible end.
• There is a lack of meaningful
dialogue based on sound biological
information and processes to
improve communication and,
thereby, avoid conflicts.
• Competing use for limited resources
is growing and plans and invest-
ments to expand future use of the
resources are faced with slowly
diminishing and deteriorating natural
resources.
• There is a growing concern over
contaminants and the sources of
resource contamination.
• A process to interface cooperative
efforts between the many manage-
ment and regulatory entities having
impact on the welfare of the resource
is sorely needed.
• There is a need for an agency, like
the Service, to begin facilitation of
communications and cooperative
efforts between the wide range of
Missouri River resource users.
655
-------
656
Watershed '93
• There are growing concerns over
the allocation of limited resources.
The Service was encouraged by the
positive nature of these responses, and is
proposing the following goal:
Facilitating; in cooperation with
interested governmental, tribal and
private parties; the recovery of the
natural resource values and environ-
mental health of the Missouri River
Ecosystem, for the benefit of Basin
residents, consistent with existing
resource uses.
The Service proposes that the Missouri
River Partnership involve all interested
entities in the Basin. We need to empha-
size that the program is not designed to
change current uses, compete with other
programs, or impede ongoing efforts. We
believe that mechanisms can be found to
restore many of the River's natural
functions in a manner that is compatible
with existing river uses. The task ahead is
formidable, but the potential benefits to
all Basin residents makes the effort
worthwhile.
Program Objectives
• Facilitate establishment and
coordination of an operational
Missouri River environmental
resource management, restoration,
and enhancement program involv-
ing federal, state, tribal and local
governments, and public interest
groups.
• Coordinate the preparation, facilita-
tion, and implementation of a
comprehensive action plan for the
management, restoration and
enhancement of fish, wildlife and
related environmental and recre-
ational resources within the Mis-
souri River ecosystem hi concert
with existing uses.
• Develop and implement plans for
providing fish and wildlife re-
source-based recreational opportuni-
ties for the people of the Missouri
River ecosystem.
• Establish a functional outreach pro-
gram to involve and exchange infor-
mation with the public concerning
problems, opportunities, and resource
management and restoration needs in
the Missouri River ecosystem.
Proposed Program Legislation
(Missouri River Fish and
Wildlife Cooperative
Restoration Act)
Review suggests that additional
legislation would assist in directing such a
complex coordinating activity. Within
2 years of enactment, the Director of the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service would be
required to conduct an evaluation and
submit a report to congress concerning the
status and the management, protection, and
restoration needs of fish and wildlife in the
Missouri River Basin.
• The evaluation would be conducted
in cooperation with the states,
tribes, other federal agencies, and
with private groups within the
Basin.
• The report would include specific
recommendations for projects that
could be implemented to halt the
decline and restore populations of
fish and wildlife that are or may be
subject to provisions of the Endan-
gered Species Act.
• The report would also include
broader recommendations on other
actions that might be taken to protect
and restore the natural biodiversity
of the Missouri River ecosystem.
Such actions might include the
development of additional informa-
tion, as well as joint projects or
management activities that might be
undertaken in a coordinated manner
by the study partners.
Program Initiation Process
• The Service would facilitate estab-
lishment of a Steering Committee
with representatives of all interested
local, state and federal agencies,
tribes, private organizations and
individuals from throughout the
Missouri River Basin.
• Service and other agency employees
would serve as staff to the Steering
Committee.
• The Steering Committee would
identify resource management
problems, information needs and a
format for a basin-wide Missouri
River Plan of Action. Working
groups then would be established to
-------
Conference Proceedings
657
develop information and alternatives
for problem solutions. Steering
Committee staff would chair each
working group.
Products of the working groups then
would be incorporated by the
Steering Committee staff into a
Missouri River Plan of Action, with
emphasis on utilization of existing
authorities, capabilities and pro-
grams to better manage the Basin's
natural resources.
Program Implementation
Process
• The Missouri River Plan of Action
would identify existing authorities,
capabilities, programs, and activities
of participating partners which could
be utilized to address resource
management problems.
• The Plan of Action would include a
Cooperative Agreement for signature
by participating partners, indicating
that each will abide by the provisions
of the Plan and utilize identified
authorities, programs and activities
to accomplish the goal of the Plan.
• The Cooperative Agreement would
commit the participating partners to
obtaining funding commensurate
with the responsibilities identified in
the Plan of Action.
• The Plan of Action also would
identify appropriate new authorities
and funding sources which may be
needed to achieve the goal of the
Plan.
• The Plan of Action would include
provisions for long-term documenta-
tion of the environmental and
economic benefits derived from
implementation of the Plan.
Program Products
• A system-wide approach to deter-
mine the status, trends and effects of
activities on the Missouri River.
• Summary information for managers
to guide efforts for impact preven-
tion, remediation, restoration, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife
resources.
• The Plan of Action and Cooperative
Agreement.
Other Related Activities that
Could Complement the
Missouri River Partnership
• Missouri River Master Manual
Review. Water management is the
primary activity that impacts all
river-jelated resource management
in any river basin. The Partnership
Program would utilize products
from the Master Manual Review
process to update plans, make
recommendations, and identify
possible projects.
• Missouri River Mitigation Project.
The Missouri River Mitigation
Project is a program with a finite
limit of funds and projects. The
Partnership Program could be
coordinated with the Mitigation
Project to ensure that both programs
are complementary by incorporating
information from the mitigation
projects into other projects or
activities. The Partnership Program
would want to review the successes
of the Mitigation Project and
monitor the contributions the
projects make in restoring health to
the system as a whole.
• Missouri River National Fish and
Wildlife Refuge Studies. This
ongoing Service activity will be
conducted in full coordination with
the Partnership Program. Various
Service programs could be used to
contribute to the partnership
packages.
• Mississippi Interstate Cooperative
Resource Agreement (MICRA).
MICRA is a state-sponsored group
which focuses on the fishery
resources of the entire Mississippi
River Basin, of which the Missouri
River is a part. The Partnership
Program is narrower in geographic
scale, but broader in terms of the
resources being targeted.
• Missouri River Natural Resources
Committee (MRNRC). The MRNRC
is a state-sponsored group involved
with coordination of river resource
activities of interest to the seven
state fish and wildlife conservation
agencies on or along the Missouri
River. It is anticipated that the
MRNRC will be an important
coordination point for partnership
planning and priority setting.
-------
658
Watershed '93
Wing Beats Over the Prairie. The
Great Plains tribal natural resource
departments, with assistance from
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
have developed a wetland and
watershed enhancement initiative.
Wingbeats Over the Prairie is an
interagency and intertribal initiative
to enhance wetlands and associated
habitats for migratory birds, threat-
ened and endangered species, and
fisheries.
Great Plains Initiative. The Great
Plains Initiative is an attempt at an
ecosystem-wide approach at manag-
ing wildlife and habitat instead of
focusing on individual species. It
offers an opportunity for the Great
Plains states to take early action to
prevent the listing of troubled
wildlife species under the Endan-
gered Species Act. The premise of
the Missouri River Partnership
Program is similar but focuses on the
river ecosystem.
The System—As It Was
Until this century, the Missouri River
was characterized by ever-eroding banks,
shifting side channels, heavily wooded
islands, and myriad sandbars. The River's
constantly changing nature supported one of
North America's most diverse and extensive
riparian ecosystems. Its meandering nature,
abundant side channels and oxbows,
wooded islands, backwater areas, floodplain
wetlands, sandbar complexes, extensive
floodplain forests, and wet prairies sup-
ported an abundant and diverse assemblage
of aquatic and terrestrial organisms. This
oasis provided sustenance and served as a
mode of conveyance for distribution of
lifeforms across the grassy plains of the
mid-continent.
The Big Muddy once flowed through
sparsely populated areas settled by Native
American peoples and served as a natural
travelway between the Eastern woodlands
and the Rocky Mountains. In 1803, the
United States purchased much of the
Missouri River basin through the Louisiana
Purchase, and a new era of human develop-
ment and settlement began. In the relatively
short span of 150 years, the Missouri River
and its basin were dramatically transformed
to serve a growing country. As settlement
expanded, human needs and desires focused
on the unpredictable River and its rich
alluvial floodplain.
The federal government initiated nu-
merous activities in 1912 intended to tame
the Missouri River ecosystem. A process of
closing side channels and constricting the
River between dikes and wooden pilings
was begun to create a navigation channel 6
feet deep from the mouth to Kansas City,
MO. In 1933, the federal government began
construction of the first large dam on the
mainstem of the Missouri River in support
of navigation. This structure, Fort Peck
Dam, was later included in multipurpose
plans adopted in 1944, commonly termed
the Pick-Sloan Plan.
In 1941, the federal government
began constructing a system of levees
along the lower Missouri River to protect
thousands of acres from the threat of
periodic flooding. A more comprehensive
plan to alter the lower river was authorized
in 1945 as the Missouri River Bank
Stabilization and Navigation Project. This
project deepened the channel to a mini-
mum of 9 feet, and extended construction
works to Sioux City, IA. This project and
the Pick-Sloan Plan forever altered the
River's anatomy. The succeeding 28 years
found the unpredictable Missouri River a
tamed system, controlled by over $10
billion worth of dams, reservoirs, and
channelization works.
The System—Changes
Physical Changes
Today, the Missouri River is vastly
different from that of even 50 years ago.
Originating in the Rocky Mountains of
south-central Montana, it flows 2,300
miles, traversing seven states and passing
through seven mainstem dams, built and
maintained by the federal government.
Over 900 miles, or nearly 60 percent of the
former upper River, now lie under perma-
nent multipurpose reservoir pools. The
lower 733 miles consist largely of a highly
constricted navigation channel regulated
by flows released from the upstream
reservoirs. Channelization works have
shortened this lower River section by 127
miles.
Although less than 1 percent of the
River remains in a natural state, three
reaches—the National Recreational River
-------
Conference Proceedings
659
reach (Gavins Point to Ponca, Nebraska),
the Scenic River reach (headwaters of Lewis
and Clark Lake to Fort Randall Dam), and
the Wild and Scenic River Section (Morony
Dam near Great Falls to Robinson Bridge
near the headwaters of Fort Peck in Mon-
tana)—are recognized as retaining especially
unique natural values. Other sections
retaining largely natural morphologic
characteristics are the 140-mile reach
between Fort Peck Dam and the headwaters
of Lake Sakakawea in North Dakota, and an
80-mile section between Garrison Dam and
the headwaters of Lake Oahe also in North
Dakota (Figure 1).
Existing as a complex natural system
for thousands of years, federal development
programs have caused profound physical
and chemical changes to the River over the
past 20 to 50 years. Construction of the
mainstem dams transformed the Big
Muddy's upper reaches from a heavily silt-
laden, braided stream into a series of deep,
cold-water reservoirs.
Natural riparian vegetation that
existed historically along the River's banks
provided a constant source of organic
material to the natural system. However,
these nutrient and energy inputs were lost
with inundation; now the main source of
these basic fuels is local runoff. Net
phytoplankton production in the upper
mainstem reservoirs, the main source of
present-day primary production feeding the
system, is comparable to that of nutrient-
poor, oligotrophic lakes. Little submergent
or emergent aquatic vegetation can exist
because of the adverse effects of severe
wind action and extensive water level
fluctuations, attendant with the semi-arid
climate of much of the Basin and regulation
for flood control and navigation purposes.
The downstream channelized River is
characterized as a single rock-lined channel,
with swift currents and very limited habitat
diversity, that is largely unsuitable for
recreation or many components of biologi-
cal communities. Flow is regulated largely
MINNESOTA
N
Ft. RandaHjr
NEBRASKA Dam Gavins Ft/
Dara
Missouri River Basin
Figure 1. Map of the Missouri River Basin.
-------
660
Watershed '93
by releases from the mainstem reservoirs,
attuned mainly to navigation and flood
control needs, rather than to management of
a viable biological system. Since each
reservoir traps the silt arising from tributary
streams, the water released is clean, but
relatively unproductive.
This rapidly-moving, sediment-
starved water gnaws at its confining channel
downstream of the dams, resulting in
shoreline erosion, riverbed degradation, and
decreased water surface elevations at any
given discharge. The lowered riverbed, in
turn, results in depressed ground water
levels, degradation of tributary streams, and
drainage of adjacent backwater chutes,
oxbows, sloughs and other floodplain
wetlands, further diminishing habitat and
reducing the abundance and diversity of
indigenous fish and wildlife species.
Channelization has exacerbated the bed
degradation process in many River reaches.
Present priorities for managing water in the
system include the needs of fish and wildlife
resources, but only so long as flood control
and other purposes are not compromised.
These human-induced alterations have
eliminated hundreds of thousands of acres of
highly productive riverine and floodplain
wetlands that were hydrologically dependent
upon the River. Over a million acres of
riparian woodlands and wet prairies have
been converted to more intensive land-uses.
The natural River ecosystem, throughout its
length, was dependent upon these habitats as
an important source of primary and second-
ary production, as well as nutrient cycling.
Approximately 95 percent of the original
floodplain (1.8 million acres), in the reach
downstream of Sioux City, IA, has been
converted to intensive agricultural, indus-
trial, and municipal uses.
Another unforeseen impact of human-
induced changes is the continuing, insidious
bed aggradation occurring along the extreme
lower reaches. This phenomenon is caused
by periodic sediment deposition between the
levees during flood stages, and is especially
visible near the mouth where the River
enters the impounded Mississippi. Each
succeeding flood event increases the
Riverbed elevation between controlling
levees. The future bed of the lower Mis-
souri may well rise to levels above the
protected lands within its old floodplain.
Fish and wildlife resources, especially,
have experienced detrimental impacts as a
result of physical alterations to the system,
as well as from competition for the use of its
water. The many competing uses of and
demands on this River, the Nation's longest
and one of its most-altered, creates a
situation ripe for human conflict.
Biological Changes
As the Missouri,River changed, so did
the aquatic and terrestrial wildlife commu-
nity that depends so completely upon it.
Impoundment, channelization, and subse-
quent control of water discharges have
eliminated some species and significantly
reduced population levels and reproductive
success of others. Currently, 8 fish species,
15 birds, 6 mammals, 4 reptiles, 6 insects, 4
mollusks, and 7 plants indigenous to the
system are either listed by the federal
government as threatened or endangered or
are under status review for possible listing.
Others are likely to follow, if the trend of
habitat alteration and depletion continues.
One of the Missouri River species
groups most severely impacted by changes
in available habitats is the endemic fish
populations. These species evolved with a
nearly unlimited availability of
embayments, brushy habitats, and flooded
vegetation for use as spawning, rearing and
feeding areas. The artificial reservoirs,
which offer deep, cold, open water habitats,
provide unique conditions but are seldom
used by many indigenous aquatic organisms.
Endemic large river species, like the
sturgeons and paddlefish, moved long
distances, required free-flowing streams for
spawning, and were attuned to natural
fluctuations in discharges and stages that
triggered their reproductive cycles. The
artificial, highly fluctuating flow regimes,
together with seven confining mainstem
dams and reservoirs, also altered water
temperature regimes. Inundation of portions
of 122 tributary streams has had serious
consequences for many of the large river
species as well.
The diverse ecological community
that was once the Missouri River also has
been seriously altered by those processes set
in motion by levee construction, subsequent
land-use changes, channelization, and
resulting channel aggradation and degrada-
tion. Although the River ecosystem likely
will never be returned to its predevelopment
state, some of the ongoing destructive
processes can be checked and the overall
condition of the ecosystem improved.
Actions can be taken toward recovery of
Missouri River biological integrity and its
-------
Conference Proceedings
661
recreational potential, while retaining
developmental purposes, such as flood
control and water supply.
The Challenge
A holistic plan of action will be
required to accomplish the needed rejuvena-
tion of the Missouri River. This plan must
involve all federal, tribal, state, local and
private entities interested in the River's
well-being. A coordinated, system-based
approach is proposed, which includes
recognition of the needs of the Basin's fish
and wildlife resources, and the public
benefits they impart, in addition to tradi-
tional developmental needs and values.
No effort to manage the Missouri
River as an ecosystem has yet been at-
tempted, so this is a precedent-setting
endeavor. In this initiatory venture, careful
planning for the future path of Missouri
River management is paramount. To be
successful, however, full recognition must
be given to the significant contribution
played by the system's biological resources,
and the importance of ecological processes,
not only to our own welfare, but to that of
future generations.
To this end, we propose to be guided
by the following goals and objectives. From
these we will develop specific tasks and
projects to be initiated cooperatively by each
partner in this joint action program.
Goal and Objectives
Program Coal
To facilitate, in cooperation with
interested governmental, tribal, and private
parties, the recovery of the natural resource
values and environmental health of the
Missouri River ecosystem, for the benefit of
Basin residents, consistent with existing
resource uses. We believe that improve-
ments hi the biological productivity and
recreational value of the system can be made
which are complementary to existing and
future navigation, flood control, and water
supply needs.
Objectives
I. To facilitate establishment and
coordination of an operational Mis-
souri River environmental resource
management, restoration and enhance-
ment program involving federal, state,
tribal, and local governments, and
public interest groups.
1. Establish research, monitoring, mod-
eling and predictive capabilities for
Missouri River ecosystem resource
management, including development
of a common data base which can be
accessed by all resource users, man-
agers and planners.
2. Secure a funding base, consistent
with the importance of the Missouri
River ecosystem relative to other
budget priorities.
3. Develop and coordinate a process
for obtaining consensus among the
management agencies, tribes, and
the public in prioritizing and
implementing management,
enhancement and restoration
efforts, consistent with existing
resource uses.
II. To coordinate the preparation, facilita-
tion and implementation of a compre-
hensive action plan for the manage-
ment, restoration and enhancement of
fish, wildlife and related environmental
and recreational resources within the
Missouri River ecosystem in concert
with existing uses.
1. Facilitate organization and coordina-
tion of a planning team made up of
representatives from management
agencies, tribes, resource users, and
the public.
2. Identify and organize special
expertise work groups with
responsibility for completion of
specific research, management,
restoration and enhancement projects
critical to the recovery of the
Missouri River ecosystem; these
projects will be designed and
implemented in cooperation with
existing resource uses.
3. Focus facilitation efforts on develop-
ment and implementation of joint
projects to recover populations of
species listed as threatened or
endangered with extinction, and
species suffering declines which may
lead to such listing; this will include
restoration of sloughs, backwaters
and other riverine and floodplain
wetlands, riparian woodlands, wet
prairies, sandbars, and other key
habitats supporting natural diversity
of the System.
4. Identify long-term, system-wide fish
and wildlife resource management
-------
662
Watershed '93
opportunities to meet conservation,
restoration and enhancement
objectives.
5. Identify contaminant-related
concerns and conduct research
needed to resolve contaminant-
related issues and ensure quality
habitat restoration.
III. To develop and implement plans for
providing fish and wildlife resource-
based recreational opportunities for
the people of the Missouri River
ecosystem.
1. Establish and maintain a program to
coordinate and collect pertinent rec-
reational use information, including
demand levels, and user values and
interests, as well as opportunities for
recreational development in the Mis-
souri River ecosystem.
2. Evaluate sociological trends and
patterns pertinent to fish and wildlife
resource-based recreation in the
Missouri River ecosystem and
develop a coordinated program to
meet public demand.
3. Jointly develop and facilitate
implementation of programs to
enhance fish and wildlife resource-
based recreational potential of the
Missouri River system, consistent
with habitat management, restoration
and enhancement objectives, and
complementary to existing resource
uses and needs.
IV. To establish a functional outreach
program to involve and exchange
information with the public concerning
problems, opportunities and resource
management and restoration needs in
the Missouri River ecosystem.
1. Establish a mechanism to involve
the public, communities, and
private industry in addressing
natural resource management
issues in the Missouri River
ecosystem.
2. Create and provide opportunities for
local and private groups to share in
the restoration of the Missouri River
ecosystem, and facilitate implemen-
tation of projects that complement
developmental needs.
3. Establish a forum for the many
system users to participate in the
identification of resource problems
and formulation and implementation
of solutions that will avoid or resolve
resource use conflicts.
Approach
Based on congressional mandates, the
Service is to provide leadership in the
conservation of the Nation's fish and
wildlife resources for the benefit of the
people. Although the Service possesses the
professional experience and expertise
needed for the proposed Missouri River
effort, other agencies share in these man-
dates, both from the standpoint of legal
authority and land management expertise
and responsibility. Also, a number of
programs presently are underway, or are in
various stages of planning, which may
contribute to improvement of the Missouri
River ecosystem.
The Service's program goal and
objectives do not compete with these
ongoing efforts. Rather, the proposed
Partnership activities would serve to
facilitate definition and implementation of
long-range resource management, restora-
tion and enhancement programs, from a
system-wide standpoint, and document
progress toward the accomplishment of
conservation purposes. The Service
proposes to utilize the expertise of other
agencies and groups to assure that solutions
formulated meet conservation goals and are
compatible with developmental needs. The
Missouri River Partnership will be a basin-
wide effort, including coordination among
the States of Montana, Wyoming, Colorado,
North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska,
Kansas, Minnesota, Iowa, and Missouri;
other federal agencies; Indian tribes; local
governments; private organizations; and the
general public. Coincident with preserva-
tion and enhancement of fish and wildlife
resources, public recreational potential also
will be assessed and improved where
consistent with resource management
objectives.
Information for this effort will be
obtained through:
1. Synthesis of existing data and
identification of information needs.
2. Field data collection to fill data gaps.
3. Analysis of synthesized and newly
acquired data to address resource
management issues.
Literature reviews and results of consulta-
tions with resource experts from both
government and the private sector will serve
to determine the need for field investigations
and other data collection efforts. Informa-
tion assembled will be used to formulate
alternative management plans in concert
-------
Conference Proceedings
663
with the objectives of this proposal. An
important work product will be a habitat-
based method for evaluating progress
achieved toward recovery of the Missouri
River ecosystem per unit of fiscal and staff
input.
The proposed program will address all
2,300 miles of the historic floodplain of the
Missouri River and will fulfill a coordina-
tion and facilitative role for current environ-
mental programs that are serving, or could
serve, resource management, restoration and
enhancement objectives.
Implementation
Considerable effort is needed to per-
form the proposed evaluations, to identify
the restoration opportunities available, to
coordinate and facilitate proposed and on-
going restoration activities with other inter-
ested parties, and to ensure compatibility
with existing resource uses. Additional fis-
cal resources will be necessary to ensure
successful completion of this effort in a
timely manner, and to enable appropriate
participation and involvement of other agen-
cies and organizations having resource man-
agement responsibilities. The complexity of
this task suggests the need for congressional
support and direction. Informal discussions,
both within and outside the Service, have
led to a preliminary view of what a potential
legislative concept might involve.
Development of a Restoration
Action Plan
The program would focus on develop-
ment of a restoration plan for the Missouri
River ecosystem. The Director of the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service would be autho-
rized to:
• Conduct a comprehensive evaluation
of the status of fish and wildlife
resources along the River in light of
past, present and future River uses as
they affect the physical, hydrologi-
cal, and ecological characteristics of
the River. The evaluation would
involve the states, tribes, and
appropriate federal and private
agencies and groups concerned with,
and interested in, management and
protection of fish and wildlife
resources and their habitats.
• Identify and evaluate all options
currently available from agency and
private programs that could serve to
protect, manage, or restore fish and
wildlife resources and their habitats.
• Develop recommendations and
plans, in cooperation with the other
resource interests, to encourage and
utilize the best of these options for
restoration activities.
• Develop an outreach program to
involve the public in plan develop-
ment. This likely would require
incorporation of local plans into the
overall restoration goal to ensure
that the effort would not replace or
usurp any ongoing programs which
are or could be restorative in
nature; the program would encour-
age joint development of concepts
designed to mesh effective restora-
tion actions.
Involvement of Other Entities
Having Resource Management
Responsibilities or Interests
It is expected that the resource status
evaluation and development of restoration
action plans would take 2 to 3 years, if
adequately funded. The Service would
propose to conduct the effort with existing
personnel, drawing upon special expertise
from within the agency. Memoranda of
understanding, cooperative agreements,
Interagency Personnel Act assignments, and
other suitable processes would be utilized to
bring other special expertise into the effort
and help ensure meaningful involvement of
other participants. When utilized, these
agreements would formally outline
participant roles and responsibilities.
Some interests may opt to detail staff
to the effort at their own expense, while
others may choose to participate only in a
review capacity. It is anticipated that formal
joint venture plans and agreements likely
would result for many localized restoration
efforts, and cooperative agreements would
also be developed for accomplishing longer
range goals.
Outline of Evaluation Approach
Evaluation of historical developments
as they may have affected present conditions
would be important in relation to predicting
future trends and potential impediments to
restoration opportunities. Identification of
potential restoration activities that are
currently available or ongoing, as well as
-------
664
Watershed '93
potential future activities, would be an
important first step to a coordinated ap-
proach to ecosystem restoration.
Present and future implications of
contaminant and nonindigenous species
threats to long-term restoration and manage-
ment goals and options also would be
addressed. Recommendations as to moni-
toring needs to ensure that restoration is
being accomplished, and that it is being
executed in an efficient and prudent manner,
would likely be included.
In addition, recommendations
regarding future planning or technical
assistance needs of participants, the possible
development of a continuing forum for
interjurisdictional entities to continue
dialogue regarding management of re-
sources, and potential cost or cost-sharing
arrangements for future restoration activities
on the River, would be anticipated. The
legislative directive likely would include
reporting requirements and a final report
containing recommendations for future
efforts and management activities.
Summary
The Missouri River is a tremendous
natural resource that has served to sustain
a diverse biological community, including
humans, for thousands of years. During
comparatively recent times, modern
humans have harnessed the River's
resources for various developmental
purposes, including flood control, naviga-
tion, irrigation, and municipal and indus-
trial water supply. The vast majority of
the River's floodplain has been converted
to crop production, inundated by reser-
voirs, or dedicated to other developmental
purposes; in addition, many tributary
streams have also been altered.
This extensive habitat alteration has
caused fish and wildlife and other natural
resource components of the Missouri River
ecosystem to suffer. Many are at the point
of being extirpated, or listed as threatened or
endangered with extinction. Conflict among
resource users has culminated in litigation
among states and agencies.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
proposes that this Missouri River Partner-
ship involve all interested entities in the
Basin. Together, we believe that mecha-
nisms can be found to restore many of the
natural functions which created and
sustained this river that are compatible
with existing and future developmental
uses. The task ahead is formidable, but the
potential benefits to all basin residents and
resource users makes the effort well
worthwhile.
-------
WATERSHED '93
Mitchell Creek Watershed:
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Implementation Program
Maureen Kennedy Templeton, Grand Traverse County Drain Commissioner
Traverse City, MI
Background
Michigan is blessed with an abun-
dance of fresh water that most
people in the world can only
dream about. North west Michigan's
position on the eastern shore of Lake
Michigan exposes it to a constant supply of
lake effect rain and snow riding the prevail-
ing westerly winds and dropping on the
forests and fields of the countryside. From
the moment those raindrops strike the earth
they continue to seek out the path of least
resistance and move downhill under the
invisible force of gravity. But each raindrop
could end up taking any number of routes to
a variety of destinations. The watershed
comprises the complete system of surface
water and ground water, taking in the entire
drainage basin for a main watercourse.
Watersheds obey only gravity and the
movement of water. They ignore the
boundaries of man. The Mitchell Creek
watershed includes all the land areas that
drain into Mitchell Creek, and in turn is a
subwatershed to the Grand Traverse Bay.
The Grand Traverse Bay adjoins Lake
Michigan, which covers a portion of the
Great Lakes watershed. The Great Lakes
watershed joins forces with other rivers
from eastern North America and finishes its ,
trip to the Atlantic Ocean through the St.
Lawrence River watershed.
Watersheds define communities. As
Mitchell Creek connects us to places as far
flung as the ocean, so it connects us in a
special way with our neighbors. Caring for
the watershed is a community responsibil-
ity—the result of one's actions impact
everyone downstream. And it befalls every
individual to use the precious watershed
responsibly and protect the lifeblood of the
community.
What we call the Mitchell Creek .
watershed is a 14.7-square-mile (9420-acre)
portion of Grand Traverse County that spans
parts of Garfield and East Bay Townships
and the City of Traverse City. On the south
and west, the watershed is bordered by the
Boardman River watershed and on the east
by the Acme Creek watershed. The creek
system includes seven main tributaries with
over 20 miles of perennially flowing stream
channel and many more miles of intermit-
tent streams that become active in the spring
thaw and rainstorms. Mitchell Creek is the
third largest watershed that empties into the
Grand Traverse Bay.
The creek is defined as a "gaining
stream," which means that ground water
makes a significant contribution to the
streamflow. Considering the fact that the
creek drains a region of very porous soils
anderodibleland, Mitchell Creek's reliance
on ground-water flow makes it extremely
vulnerable to damage from human activity.
Although the creek contributes only 2.75
percent of the total tributary flow into the
Grand Traverse Bay, that flow amounts to
about 5 dump truck loads of water per
minute.
Forests now cover 31 percent of the
watershed surface. Orchards and crop-
lands account for 26 percent and fallow
fields make up about 20 percent. Urban-
ized lands now comprise about 13 percent.
In 1969, the Michigan Department of
Natural Resources (MDNR) classified the
665
-------
666
Watershed '93
main stream of the creek as "top quality
trout stream." To gain that classification,
the creek met standards of cold water
temperature and high levels of dissolved
oxygen, and the stream still contains trout
species such as brown and brook trout
today. Although the water quality of the.
creek has remained within acceptable range,
tests show a quality level below that of the
average Michigan trout stream and a steady
increase in pollutants.
In 1991, the Grand Traverse County
Drain Commissioner and the MDNR
commissioned Battelle Great Lakes Envi-
ronmental Center and Gosling Czubak &
Associates to perform an indepth study on
nonpoint source pollution in the Mitchell
Creek watershed. The results substantiated
what many had already suspected, that
increased human activity in the watershed
were accelerating levels of nonpoint source
pollutants. Nitrogen and phosphorous
compounds were found in greater concentra-
tion than found during sampling in the
1970s.
Toxic chemicals also pose a threat to
the Mitchell Creek watershed. Currently,
eight sites of Act 307 contamination (the
Michigan Environmental Response Act of
1982) have been identified in the watershed,
five of which are located in porous soils and
four of which are adjacent to the creek.
None of these sites have been completely
cleaned up. Two of the sites have contami-
nated about 140 drinking wells, and the
contamination "plume" in the ground water
has now reached the East Arm of the Bay,
raising benzene levels to four times the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency "sug-
gested chronic toxicity level." The ground-
water contamination caused the local
government to install a city water system for
the effected households.
Our knowledge of watershed dynam-
ics has grown considerably. The tools and
techniques for contamination cleanup and
prevention are now accessible to everyone
in the community. The supporting momen-
tum for environmental safeguards has gone
from being a handful of isolated voices to
the status quo.
The Mitchell Creek watershed
implementation project comes in the nick of
time.
According to the last census, Grand
Traverse County grew at one of the fastest
rates in the State of Michigan. More people
live in the County than in 1980, and most of
those have settled in areas like the Mitchell
Creek watershed. Over the same period,
total residentially zoned acreage in the
watershed has also increased by 47 percent,
a trend that will continue with the attraction
of the recently opened East Bay Middle
School. Extensions of sewer and water lines
allow for denser and accelerated develop-
ment, which will be encouraged by the
widening of Hammond Road and the
possible construction of the Traverse City
bypass. Five industrial parks and a large
portion of the regional airport fall within the
boundaries of the watershed. The people
who work in the offices and factories of
these parks (and their families) will all need
places to live.
Ironically, the very features that attract
new residents, clean air and water, safe
streets, uncrowded recreational lands, and
available well-paid jobs, are the very
features that are most threatened by a surge
in population growth. Public officials see
the imminent growth and have developed
comprehensive plans for East Bay and
Garfield Townships. All of the local
jurisdictions in the watershed are zoned
communities, but zoning regulations alone
will not guarantee the quality of life around
Mitchell Creek. The future of our environ-
ment boils down to the activities of each and
every member of the watershed—in our
homes, work places, playgrounds, and all
points in between.
Clearly, if we are to preserve Mitchell
Creek in a condition approaching what it is
today, watershed residents will have to
break with the conventional pattern and
search out new ways to live in harmony with
natural dynamics. The Mitchell Creek
watershed implementation project attempts
to make this a reality.
Anticipated Accomplishments
Throughout the implementation
project there are a number of items that we
would like to accomplish. Following is a
description of each.
Land Protection Program
Grand Traverse County has contracted
with the recently organized Grand Traverse
Regional Land Conservancy to coordinate
and implement a land protection and public
education program within the watershed.
The Grand Traverse Regional Land
Conservancy's mission is to protect signifi-
-------
Conference Proceedings
667
cant natural, agricultural, and scenic areas
and promote land stewardship now and for
future generations.
Through this unique partnership the
Regional Conservancy will be working
with landowners in the Mitchell Creek
Watershed to permanently protect critical
lands within the watershed through the
Conservancy's voluntary land protection
programs. A committee of watershed
landowners guides the Conservancy's
efforts to assist landowners willing to
permanently protect the wetlands, stream-
side greenbelts, and ground-water upland
recharge areas on their property. Every
landowner within the critical areas of the
watershed will be contacted by the Conser-
vancy to discuss the various land-protec-
tion programs offered by the Conservancy.
The goal of this portion of the project
would be to have all of the watershed
critical areas protected in some manner.
Presently the Conservancy has been
successful in retaining a 60-acre parcel of
the critical wetlands area that will be made
into a nature reserve.
The education opportunities are very
exciting. The Conservancy has put together
an outstanding Mitchell Creek Watershed
Landowner's Handbook. This publication
will be mailed to every property owner
within the Mitchell Creek Watershed. Items
covered within the manual include The
Creek, Watershed Care, Land Protection,
Regulations, Implementation, and a Mitchell
Creek Watershed Map. There will also be a
series of workshops to give property owners
the chance to learn best management
techniques "hands-on."
Watershed Planning
Presently each jurisdiction has its own
individual master plan for development.
None of the plans takes into account the
uniqueness of the watershed that crosses
political boundaries. Through this task we
would like to explore the idea of looking at
this area as a watershed and produce an
efficient integration of land uses in regards
to the resources and community character
we would like to preserve.
Geographic information system (GIS)
information that will be generated as part of
this project will be expanded upon and
manipulated to assist in this planning effort.
The goal of this task is to develop a recom-
mended development plan for the communi-
ties. As a second step we will divide the
watershed into sectors and actually produce
some conceptual development plans for
these areas. The idea of an urban services
boundary will also be explored.
Resource Monitoring
A resource monitoring program will
be set up in the Mitchell Creek Watershed.
Through the original nonpoint source
planning study, baseline information on the
water quality of the stream was gathered.
This effort will be expanded upon during the
implementation phase to continue long-term
monitoring. In addition to the water quality
chemical parameters being looked at, a
biological assessment program will also be
put in place. This, along with the chemical
analysis should give us firm ground to study
any significant impacts to the watershed
from ongoing development.
Flow monitoring will also be a very
important part of this program. We plan to
develop monitoring stations on two separate
tributaries of the stream. One stream will be
a tributary that is experiencing rapid
urbanization. The other tributary will will
be in an area that has much less develop-
ment occurring. This will give us the
opportunity to study the impact of best
management practices that are being used
within the watershed. As an example, the
county has a Stormwater Management
Ordinance that requires each development to
retain any additional storm water generated
from the site on their site. There is no
available community stormsewer system to
which areas can discharge. We need to
determine if the requirements we have for
development are adequate and if they are
found to not be adequate make changes in
our storm water management policy. This
two-tributary approach should help us
determine this. A hydrological analysis of
the watershed that was done by MDNR
during the planning study will act as
baseline for this step.
Presently the Northwest Michigan
Council of Governments is working with
the students within the watershed to do
stream monitoring. The stream is in the
vicinity of two elementary schools and the
recently opened East Junior High School.
The opportunity for involvement and
education of the students is tremendous.
This stream monitoring is part of the
Global Rivers Environmental Education
Network (GREEN) system. The students
are connected by computer with other
-------
668
Watershed '93
students throughout the state, country, and
world.
Best Management Practices
Four different agencies are assisting
with this task. Michigan State University
(MSU) Extension, Grand Traverse Regional
Land Conservancy, Soil and Water Conser-
vation District, and the Grand Traverse
County Road Commission are all taking
action within the watershed.
MSU Extension is working with all of
the recreational facility owners within the
watershed. These people include the
Traverse City School System, Mitchell
Creek Golf Course, and Elmbrook Golf
Course. Present turf management practices
will be studied and recommendations given
to each facility on potential improvements
that could be made for the benefit of the
resource as well as economics. Any areas of
the stream that go through these facilities
will be reviewed for the need of additional
vegetative buffer areas. If this is found to be
a problem, some funds are available to assist
the property owners in establishing these
buffer areas. Extension will also attempt to
develop an appropriate fertilizer mix for use
within the watershed for recreational
facilities as well as residential and commer-
cial sites.
Years ago, when the East Bay El-
ementary School was developed in the
watershed, a section of the school was
designed to traverse the stream. The area of
the stream that the school crosses presently
has no buffer area. The lawn from the
schoolyard goes right down to the stream.
The Grand Traverse Regional Conservancy
has been successful in receiving funds from
Michcon, a local gas company, to establish a
buffer in this area. They will be developing
a plan and then working with the students to
actually put this in place. The Soil and
Water Conservation District is assisting the
Conservancy in developing the buffer plan.
The Conservation District will also be
assisting agricultural property owners within
the watershed. The purpose of their work is
to suggest a cost-effective means of imple-
menting agricultural best management
practices in the Mitchell Creek Watershed
which will result in the reduction of agricul-
tural nonpoint source pollution. Techni-
cians will work with owners within the
watershed to develop pesticide, herbicide,
and animal waste spreading plans where
appropriate. Any areas of the stream that
cross agricultural property will be looked at
in regards to the adequacy of the buffer area
on each site. If more buffer is necessary for
the protection of the stream, we will offer
assistance to the property owners in estab-
lishing these areas.
The Grand Traverse County Road
Commission is planning a number of major
road improvements within the Mitchell
Creek Watershed. For the first time their
philosophy will be to mitigate the impacts of
the roads with storm water management
controls. The community supports the
efforts of the Road Commission on this
item. Monitoring will be done in locations
where the roads cross the stream both prior
to construction and after to determine if
these controls are making a difference.
Mapping
A GIS will be established for the
watershed area. All existing map layers will
be put into the County system, all parcels
will be digitized, and a database on the
parcel will be started, which will aide us in
the watershed planning that we need to
accomplish.
Through Northwest Michigan Council
of Governments (NWMCOG) and Great
Lakes Environmental Center (GLEC) a
wetlands map will be generated for the
watershed to aide area planners with
decision making. The Michigan Resource
Information System (MIRIS), the Soil
Conservation Service Soils Map, and U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service wetland maps will
be compared and overlayed on a GIS to
determine more accurately where the
existing wetlands are located within the
watershed. GLEC will overlay onto this
existing mapping a satellite image of the
watershed for comparison of where wetlands
show up. Then we will have field verifica-
tion done to determine which overlays or
combination of overlays are the most
accurate. We are hoping that this exercise
will aid us in determining if the use of
satellite imagery would be cost-effective for
determining the location of wetlands
throughout the Grand Traverse Bay Water-
shed.
Watershed Management Authority
Drainage law in the State of Michigan
allows for the election of a Drain Commis-
sioner within each county whose responsi-
bilities are storm water management for
-------
Conference Proceedings
669
both rural and urban development. Through
this law, areas can be managed on a water-
shed basis if the communities petition the
Drain Commissioner to do so. If this is the
case, a Drainage District is set up to pay for
any improvements that are needed within
the given watershed. This concept will be
explored as part of this project to determine
if there is a need to establish the district at
this given point in time. Items such as long-
term stream water quality monitoring and
flow monitoring could be taken care of
within this type of Drainage District.
The Mitchell Creek Watershed
Implementation Program is being looked at
as a model to use for other watersheds that
drain into Grand Traverse Bay. Pollution
prevention is the key to maintaining the
area's integrity. Hopefully one day we will
have this same type of integrated effort in
each and every watershed within the Bay
Region.
References
Curtis, C. 1992. Grassroots river protec-
tion. American Rivers, Washington,
DC.
Cwikiel, W. 1992. Michigan wetlands:
Yours to protect. Tip of the Mitt
Watershed Council, Conway, MI.
Diehl, J., T.S. Barrett, et al. 1988. The
conservation easement handbook:
Managing land conservation and
historic preservation easement
programs. Trust for Public Land, San
Francisco, CA, and Land Trust
Exchange, Alexandria, VA.
Fulcher, J. 1991. Mitchell Creek hydro-
logic investigation: Incorporating
both water quantity and quality
considerations in urbanizing water-
sheds. Michigan Department of
Natural Resources, Land and Water
Management Division, Lansing, MI.
Grand Traverse County Drain Commis-
sioner. 1992. Grand Traverse County
soil erosion and stormwater runoff
control ordinance and Soil erosion
and stormwater runoff control
ordinance: Background information
for decision makers. Traverse City,
MI.
Niehaus, S., C. Haris, et al. 1991. Final
report: Mitchell Creek watershed non-
point source pollution study. Gosling
Czubak Associates, Traverse City, MI,
and Battelle Great Lakes Environmen-
tal Center, Traverse City, MI.
SCS. What is a watershed? PA-420. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil
Conservation Service, Washington,
DC.
Stone, M., P. Bennington, et al. 1993.
Mitchell Creek watershed landowner's
handbook. Fen's Rim Publications,
Inc., Elk Rapids, MI, and Grand
Traverse Regional Land Conservancy,
Traverse City, MI.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Protecting Estuarine Resources: An
Integrated Framework for Land Use
Decision Making
Tim Vendlinski, Life Scientist
Sam Ziegler, Environmental Planner*
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IX, San Francisco, CA
The San Francisco Bay/Sacramento-San
Joaquin Delta estuary (Bay/Delta
estuary) comprises the San Francisco,'
San Pablo, and Suisun bays and the Delta of
the Sacramento-San Joaquin rivers, two
large rivers that drain the Central Valley of
California; it is the largest estuary on the
west coast of the Americas. The region
continues to be one of the most popular and
rapidly developing areas in the United
States. The population for the 12-county
Bay/Delta region is projected to increase by
over one million people during the next two
decades. Pressure for expansion is being
applied particularly to areas outlying
existing urban centers. Population growth
and corresponding changes in land uses
could have detrimental effects on the
estuarine ecology, unless resource protection
efforts are better integrated with land use
management. The most notable impacts
could be increased discharge of pollutants,
the continued alteration of critical habitats
such as wetlands and stream environments,
and increased diversions of freshwater
flows.
The region historically supported an
estimated 545,375 acres of tidal marshes.
San Francisco Bay accounted for approxi-
mately 200,375 acres and the Delta ac-
counted for approximately 345,000 acres
(Meiorin, 1991). These extensive wetlands
provided extraordinary fish and wildlife
*The views and recommendations expressed in this
paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily
reflect the policies of EPA or the San Francisco
Estuary Project (SFEP).
habitats, major spawning grounds for finfish
and shellfish, and key stopover sites for
migratory birds. Not surprisingly, these
resources also attracted human settlement.
Around the Bay, some marshes were
converted to agricultural uses, while a
significant portion were converted to salt
production basins. In the Delta, wetlands
rich with layers of peat soils were diked and
drained to make productive farmland.
Today tidal marsh acreage of the Bay/
Delta estuary is estimated at 44,371 acres
(Meiorin, 1991). This represents the
conversion or loss of 92 percent of the
estuary's historic tidal marsh habitat. These
converted wetlands retain vital biological
characteristics and provide opportunities for
enhancement, but their wetland functions
and values have been substantially de-
graded. Beginning in the 1960s, growing
environmental awareness has led to de-
creased rates of wetland degradation and
conversion, but the trend continues nonethe-
less.
Current Land Use Regulation
In California, local government has
the primary authority to regulate land use,
and therefore possesses the capacity to
minimize impacts associated with land use
change. Local government is charged with
making decisions about zoning, building
permits, infrastructure, housing, and related
services. California law provides the
authority for local land use decisions and
establishes the framework for those deci-
671
-------
672
Watershed '93
sions. Each city and county must prepare a
comprehensive General Plan containing
state-specified elements oriented toward
meeting local goals and needs. All local
ordinances, development plans, and activi-
ties are required to be consistent with that
plan; but local governments are not required
to coordinate their plans with adjacent
communities or resource agencies. More-
over, no effective regional entities have been
established to coordinate development, and
local plans need not meet regional or state
goals for wetland protection. Finally, there
is not an appropriate forum for the review of
local plans, nor are there standards for
judging the adequacy of these plans.
According to a recent survey, a
majority of local governments in the 12-
county area have adopted General Plan
policies for protecting wetland or stream
environments. However, less than 15
percent of these entities have adopted
specific ordinances or other regulations to
implement these policies. Each of the 111
local governments in the Bay/Delta estuary
area can, and often do, have differing goals,
policies, and regulations concerning use and
treatment of estuarine resources. Though
current land use planning laws provide a
framework that can be used to protect
natural resources, there are not land use
requirements in place to ensure the protec-
tion of the region's most valuable natural
resource: the estuarine ecosystem.
Except for the San Francisco Bay
Conservation and Development
Commission's (BCDC) jurisdiction over a
narrow shoreline band along San Francisco
Bay, no entity possesses authority to ensure
comprehensive land-use planning and
regulation within the Bay Area. Further-
more, BCDC does not have jurisdiction over
the diked historic wetlands that were
historically part of the Bay, nor over the
streams that are hydrologically connected to
the estuary. A similar situation exists within
the Delta region, though there is hope that
the newly formed Delta Protection Commis-
sion may address some of these critical
issues. Although the San Francisco Bay and
Central Valley Regional Water Quality
Control Boards have regulatory control over
discharges to receiving waters, they do not
possess authority for effectively influencing
local land use decisions for comprehensive
resource protection.
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA), administered by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA), is the key
regulatory tool for managing wetlands of the
Bay/Delta estuary. However, this authority
does not contain provisions necessary for
halting the disintegration of the wetland
resources or a mechanism for restoring the
functions and values of wetlands required by
the estuarine ecosystem. Major shortcom-
ings of the 404 program include:
• The federal wetlands delineation
method results in the jurisdictional
exclusion of critical wetlands types
(e.g., seasonal wetlands totaling
approximately 470,000 acres).
• Unregulated activities such as the
discing of soil and the removal of
vegetation, plus illegal alterations,
are adversely affecting wetlands.
• The federal wetlands program is not
coordinated with local entities that
govern land uses; this contributes to
confusion and delays for the devel-
opment community without ensuring
comprehensive protection of wetland
habitats.
Integrating Resource
Protection and Land Use
Management
The San Francisco Estuary Project
(SFEP) was established under the National
Estuary Program (NEP) through section 320
of the 1987 CWA. It was charged with
developing a plan to restore and maintain
the chemical, physical, and biological
integrity of the Bay/Delta estuary. The
Estuary Project is now nearing completion
of a Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP), "a blueprint for
restoring and maintaining the health" of the
Bay/Delta estuary. The CCMP represents
the culmination of a unique partnership
between the environmental community, the
public, business and industry, and all levels
of government. It is the first-ever compre-
hensive plan designed to improve resource
protection throughout the region. The
CCMP represents a commitment to coordi-
nate efforts "to achieve and maintain an
ecologically diverse and productive natural
estuarine system." The heart of the CCMP
consists of approximately 150 actions. The
actions are organized into the following nine
CCMP programs areas:
• Aquatic Resources
• Wildlife
• Wetlands
-------
Conference Proceedings
673
• Water Use
• Pollution Prevention and Reduction
• Dredging and Waterway Modifica-
tion
• Land Use
• Public Involvement and Education
• Research and Monitoring
The CCMP land use actions are
designed to improve management of the
lands surrounding the Bay/Delta estuary.
The actions recognize the importance of
integrating management of the estuary with
the existing functions of state, regional, and
local governments. They call for the
initiation of watershed planning across the
region and the implementation of innovative
land use practices that are geographically
targeted, locally tailored, and cost-effective,
and they reflect the need to protect and
enhance estuarine resources while helping to
promote economic prosperity (SFEP, 1992).
• The land use actions primarily rely on
utilizing existing institutional mechanisms
to improve the efficiency and effectiveness
of land use decision-making through
improved regional cooperation (Figure 1).
This includes amending state laws and
policies to integrate estuarine planning with
major statewide initiatives such as growth
management and the protection of
biodiversity. Through utilizing existing
regional entities or new regional entities
such as the Delta Protection Commission,
growth could be guided to appropriate areas,
research could be conducted concerning
future population scenarios, and natural
areas critical to the functioning of the
estuarine ecosystem could be identified and
safeguarded. In addition, the CCMP
recommends actions to provide local
government with adequate financial and
technical support and to establish economic
incentives for private-sector resource
protection.
Demonstration Projects for
Watershed Protection
To emphasize implementation, the
NEP encourages early implementation of
key actions through demonstration projects.
This is particularly important since the
authority to implement the CCMP is weak
and ambiguous. While section 320 of the
CWA states that the CCMP "shall be
implemented" it provides no authority to
enforce implementation. In September
1992, SFEP established a network of
demonstration projects to:
• Institutionalize management arrange-
ments that provide momentum for
maximum implementation of the
CCMP.
• Achieve direct environmental
improvements.
• Help establish a comprehensive
watershed protection approach for
the Bay/Delta estuary region.
• Enhance technical transfer and
NPS Control
Programs
SFEP CCMP I
Watershed
Plans
Wetlands
Protection
Program
RWQCB's
Basin Plans
SFEP CCMP Land Use Actions
Figure 1. Model for integrat-
ing estuarine protection
efforts with existing local land
use management CCMP land
use actions are identified to
(1) develop General Plan
Guidelines for estuary re-
source protection and corre-
sponding ordinances for
implementation, (2) include
resource protection goals in
state growth management and
regional biodiversity initia-
tives, (3) improve land use
practices through education,
and (4) provide local govern-
ment with adequate financial
support and economic incen-
tives for implementation.
-------
674
Watershed '93
coordination of existing watershed
management efforts (e.g., creation of
a geographic information system
(GIS), environmental monitoring,
etc.).
• Demonstrate methods for risk-based
geographic targeting by identifying
the small stream tributaries of the
Bay/Delta estuary that perform
important ecosystem functions,
including the maintenance of
biodiversity.
Researchers have identified the
boundaries for approximately 30 hydrologic
units within the 12-county Bay/Delta region
(Blanchfield, 1992). These hydrologic units
and-the small stream tributaries contained
within them provide the focus for watershed
management efforts throughout the Bay/
Delta estuary. Often overlooked, these
small stream systems shelter some of the
estuary's last remaining populations of wild
fishes. Following a consensus-based
process where project proposals were
entertained and screened by multidiscipli-
nary panels, the following network of
demonstration projects for watershed
protection were selected:
1. Identifying and selecting priority
aquatic sites for designation as
aquatic diversity management areas
(ADMAs).
2. Initiating a regional monitoring
strategy.
3. Creating a GIS data base for the
Bay-Delta region.
4. Improving the management of
livestock grazing on public land.
5. Citizen monitoring of urban streams.
6. Integrating riparian restoration with
the conservation of farmland.
7. Designing institutional arrangements
for CCMP implementation.
8. Developing best management
practices (BMPs) for agricultural
drainage.
9. Controlling erosion on vineyards
damaged by phylloxera.
require careful diplomacy with landowners
and local government, and could serve as a
key protection tool for watershed manage-
ment as outlined in the CCMP land use
actions.
Researchers from EPA and Univer-
sity of California (UC)-Berkeley began
this project by reviewing historical data on
the distribution of native fishes. After a
number of streams were screened, approxi-
mately 36 drainages were selected for
further study. Additional surveys will
better characterize the distribution of
fishes while providing data on aquatic
habitat parameters and the condition of
riparian vegetation. Criteria will be
developed for determining whether a
drainage would be a suitable site for the
establishment of an ADMA. If a drainage
meets the criteria, researchers will prepare
a rationale to support ADMA designation.
Initiating a Regional Monitoring
Strategy
This project supports efforts already
underway to implement CCMP actions
related to improving monitoring and
research efforts. Pilot projects are being
developed to test the design of long-term
monitoring programs for wetlands, wildlife,
and land use.
Creating a CIS Data Base for the
Bay-Delta Region
Researchers from UC Berkeley are
augmenting the existing regional GIS to
provide data that will improve the scientific
basis for making decisions for CCMP
implementation. The GIS focuses on adding
data layers, increasing system capabilities
for data sharing and output, emphasizing
collaboration with all levels of government
and private organizations, and advancing
data analysis and modeling. This project
will perform "umbrella" GIS services for the
other demonstration projects.
Identifying and Selecting Priority
Aquatic Sites for Designation as
ADMAs
The CCMP recommends identifying
the least disturbed, and most jeopardized,
stream habitats for the purpose of designat-
ing ADMAs to improve the stewardship of
land and water resources (SFEP, 1993).
Establishing a system of ADMAs would
Improving the Management of
Livestock Crazing on Public Land
The Contra Costa Resource Conserva-
tion District is assisting a rancher with
developing a grazing management strategy
for a 500-acre parcel of public land within
Wildcat Creek Regional Park. Barriers are
being built to prevent livestock from
trampling sensitive headwaters habitat.
-------
Conference Proceedings
675
Also, pens are being installed so that
livestock can be intensively managed
through rotational grazing. Grazing periods ,
will be selected to disrupt the growth of
alien plants and to favor the reemergence of
native bunchgrasses and forbs. These
measures are designed to result in the
growth of more desirable forage, an increase
in the abundance and diversity of native
flora, a decrease in soil erosion and pollutant
loadings into Wildcat Creek, and a model
for public/private partnerships in watershed
protection.
Citizen Monitoring of Urban
Streams
The Coyote Creek Riparian Station is
training volunteers to survey water quality
conditions and the flora and fauna of
selected urban streams in Santa Clara
County. Here, citizens are using EPA-
approved protocols for developing a data
base describing creek conditions; a Status
Report of Santa Clara County Creeks that
will be considered by the city of San Jose
and Santa Clara County in preparing their
respective General Plans; a Creek Care
Guide for industrial, commercial, and
residential entities; and a model process for
using citizens characterizing and protecting
sensitive aquatic sites throughout the Bay-
Delta region.
Integrating Riparian Restoration
with the Conservation of Farmland
The Nature Conservancy, in conjunc-
tion with Sacramento County and Ducks
Unlimited, is developing an integrated
conservation and restoration plan for the
560-acre Desmond Ranch parcel contiguous
with the Cosumnes River Preserve. The
plan will result in the expansion of rare
valley oak riparian forest and seasonal
wetlands on one portion of the property; the
remainder will be set aside as an agricultural
preserve. This project is designed to
demonstrate the compatibility of conserva-
tion biology and agriculture.
Designing Institutional
Arrangements for CCMP
Implementation
This project assists with the design of
institutional arrangements that could help
ensure the long-term implementation of the
CCMP and overall watershed protection.
Developing BMPs for Agricultural
Drainage
The California Department of Pesti-
cide Regulation is coordinating with the
West Stanislaus Resource Conservation
District to develop BMPs to control the
discharge of pollutants in agricultural
drainage. This project could yield tech-
niques that could be applied in other
watersheds of the Central Valley. It will
employ GIS to integrate critical data and to
assist in the development and evaluation of
site-specific BMPs.
Controlling Erosion on Vineyards
Damaged by Phylloxera
The Sonoma County Resource
Conservation District is working with local
fanners to develop a guidance manual that
can be used to control soil erosion during
the replanting of vineyards. Grape
rootstocks throughout this major wine-
making region are being damaged by the
pest known as phylloxera "B." This project,
if properly integrated with EPA's North Bay
Initiative, could establish momentum for
enlightened management of the Sonoma
Creek watershed.
Conclusion: Watershed
Management Should Be a
Focal Point for Integrating
Land Use Decisions and
Resource Protection
Current interest in watershed manage-
ment reflects a growing consensus that
existing water quality problems can be
effectively addressed by a more integrated,
basin-wide approach. The CCMP proposes a
flexible framework for integrating current
environmental efforts, and for exploring
innovative methods to sustain natural
resources and their beneficial uses. Also,
the CCMP takes an important step toward a
strategy for watershed management through-
out the Bay-Delta region.
While laudable, the demonstration
projects described above are only a modest
start. Real watershed protection awaits the
establishment of an institutional framework
that integrates federal and state resource
protection with local land use planning. We
are not advocating that the federal govern-
ment be given new authority to regulate land
use. Rather, we are urging better coordina-
-------
676
Watershed '93
tion and integration of various governmental
functions to maintain sustainable ecosys-
tems within an increasingly urbanized
environment. The following recommenda-
tions should be considered:
• Revisions should be made to the
CWA to improve wetlands protec-
tion, encourage comprehensive
watershed management, and
facilitate the integration of resource
protection with local land use
policies. Emphasis should be
placed on achieving sustainable
ecosystems and economies. In
addition, amendments should be
made to section 320 to provide the
authority and funding needed to
ensure implementation of CCMPs.
• In California, federal, state, and local
agencies should integrate local land
use decisions with growth manage-
ment goals and watershed protection
initiatives.
• Federal and state resource agencies
should provide technical and policy
assistance to local governments to
better mitigate for environmental
damage related to past land use
activities and to help direct future
growth to promote resource protec-
tion, government efficiency, and
economic prosperity.
• For critical resource areas such as the
Bay/Delta estuary, watershed
management plans should be
prepared and implemented for all the
hydrologic units.
Extraordinary measures are now
required to restore a sustainable estuarine
ecosystem. From Sacramento to San
Francisco, our resolve to provide ongoing
stewardship for the Bay/Delta estuary can
demonstrate that environmental protection
and economic prosperity can be successfully
linked. This endeavor will likely be one of
the greatest challenges as we enter the new
millennium and will challenge our beliefs
concerning private property rights, indi-
vidual responsibility, legal powers, regula-
tory limits, and scientific uncertainty.
References
Blanchfield, J.S., R. Twiss, S. McCreary,
andJ. Sayer. 1992. The effects of
land use change and intensification on
the San Francisco Estuary. Prepared
by the Bay Conservation and Devel-
opment Commission for the San
Francisco Estuary Project, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
San Francisco, CA.
Meiorin, B.C., M.N. Josselyn, R. Crawford,
J. Galloway, K. Miller, T. Richardson,
and R.A. Leidy. 1991. Status and
trends report on wetlands and related
habitats in the San Francisco Estuary.
Prepared by the Association of Bay
Area Governments for the San
Francisco Estuary Project, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
San Francisco, CA. December.
Monroe, M.W., and J.Kelly. 1992. State of
the estuary: A report on the conditions
and problems in the San Francisco
Bay/Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta
Estuary. Prepared by the Association
of Bay Area Governments for the San
Francisco Estuary Project, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
San Francisco, CA. June.
SFEP. 1993. Comprehensive conservation
and management plan for the Bay and
Delta. Interim draft. San Francisco
Estuary Project, San Francisco, CA.
-------
WATERSHED '93
David C. Yaeck, Executive Director
Chester County Water Resource Authority, Chester County, PA
The Brandy wine: Managing a
Watershed in an Urban/Rural
Environment
Background
Water supply and hydropower
demands of the 19th Century industrial
revolution brought significant land use
changes along the banks of the Brandywine
Creek, supplanting historic agricultural
practices in those areas. With the advent of
steel and paper producers in the watershed,
rapid population growth was also experi-
enced, placing additional stress on the water
resources of the basin.
The headwaters of the Brandywine
rise in Chester County, PA, which contains
83 percent of the watershed, draining
southward through New Castle County, DE,
and eventually through the Christina River
to the Delaware Estuary,
Existing land use identifies the area as
urban/rural with commercial, limited
industrial, residential, and high technology
activities co-existing with long-standing
agricultural uses. The county has an active
agricultural preservation program which
seeks to maintain this balance for the future.
In the 1930s, local sportsmen's groups
brought focus to the degradation of
Brandywine waters and commenced an
educational campaign to reverse the trend.
Recognition of the need to preserve in-
stream uses and improve water quality also
attracted the attention of other individuals,
groups, and governmental representatives.
In 1945, the Brandywine Valley Association
was formed, the first small watershed group
of its kind in the Nation.
That organization, an increasingly-
effective group today, was responsible for
initial limnological investigations of the
Brandywine and later was instrumental in
the study of water supply and flood control
issues required to manage the system.
Through the efforts of the interstate associa-
tion, the Chester County Water Resources
Authority (WRA) was created by the Board
of Commissioners in 1961 to implement the
recommendations developed in the study
and undertake new programs which have
evolved over the past three decades.
Water Supply/Flood Control
In 1962, the Brandywine Watershed
Work Plan received congressional approval
and work was begun on a series of structural
measures to avoid repetition of the droughts
and floods previously experienced in the
basin. The WRA was assigned responsibil-
ity as local sponsor to work with the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) in implement-
ing the plan elements. With major participa-
tion by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania,
the Marsh Creek Reservoir was completed
in 1975. It provides water supply for
Chester County communities, flood control
for downstream interests, conservation
releases to protect in-stream uses, and
recreational benefits in the new state park
surrounding the facility.
At the same time, work proceeded on
three other structures on the East Branch
Brandywine, including a facility in coopera-
tion with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission and two other flood control
projects with the last completed in 1983.
Operating in series, these four facilities
provide significant flood peak reduction at
677
-------
678
Watershed '93
the Downingtown damage center and 13.5
million gallons per day in water supply.
Construction is now underway on
another multipurpose project on the West
Branch Brandywine. This project will
provide water supply for the Coatesville
area, flood control to reduce peak flows
downstream, a conservation release which
will stabilize flows in the receiving stream,
and the first water-based recreational facility
within the county park system. As with all
the structures under the Brandywine
Watershed Work Plan authorized under
P.L. 566, an accelerated program of land
treatment above the facility is mandated.
However, the process is not new to Chester
County. Since the creation of the county's
Conservation District in the 1950s, an active
land conservation program has been pursued
with local agriculturists.
The operation of the water supply
aspects of the reservoir system takes into
account in-stream uses and the needs of
downstream interests. Under an operational
plan developed for the Delaware River
Basin Commission, compensating releases
for consumptive use makeup are mandated
during periods of low flow to provide
adequate water for the city of Wilmington,
DE. The downstream community also
benefits from the peak flow reduction
incorporated in the flood control aspects of
the work plan.
The Brandywine Plan
An active program to protect the
quality of Brandywine waters saw its
beginning with the development of The
Brandywine Plan by the University of
Pennsylvania through a Ford Foundation
grant administered by WRA. The study
focused on the Upper East Branch of the
Brandywine and with its publication in 1968
advocated the acquisition of conservation
easements along the waterway. It also
recommended active soil erosion and
sediment control measures for new develop-
ment through local ordinances. Even
though the purchase of conservation
easements was not embraced by local
municipalities, the Brandywine Conser-
vancy has actively pursued a voluntary
program with marked success. Soil erosion
and sediment control measures have been
emplaced as a result of activities by the
Chester County Conservation District in
administering state requirements.
The Brandywine Plan also recognized
the need to restrict building in the flood-
plain; and with the passage of time, local
municipalities have adopted ordinances that
ban such development. The success of this
approach is particularly notable during
flooding events when additional storage is
available as a result of floodplain preserva-
tion.
The Plan also stimulated other
activities which have led to improved
management of the Brandywine Watershed.
During the study phase, emphasis was
placed on the need for a data collection
system which included precipitation,
ground-water availability, stream flows, and
chemical and biological quality. The
involvement of the U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) in the 1968 Brandywine Plan
forecast the cooperative program with the
WRA of today.
USGS Cooperative Program
In 1969, the WRA established a
long-standing working relationship with
USGS under the cooperative program
through the initiation of limnological
studies on the major streams in the county.
Twelve of the 44 sampling sites are
located within the Brandywine Watershed.
A major goal of the project is a further
understanding of stream changes in
response to urbanization and incorporates
benthic invertebrate investigations along
with chemical sampling and stream
discharge at the time of sampling. The
original effort was conducted on a quar-
terly basis, but has evolved over time to
annual low flow investigations. A statisti-
cal approach has now been developed
which provides a trend analysis updated on
an annual basis and depicts improvement
in the county's streams since 1969. This
upward trend reflects the effectiveness of
investment in upgrading of municipal and
industrial waste treatment capabilities,
implementations of soil erosion and
sediment controls, and improved land
treatment practices by the agricultural
community.
In 1972, the immediate focus of the
cooperative program shifted to ground
water. Chester County is in the Piedmont
Province of the Appalachian Highlands
underlain by crystalline rock. A narrow
band of limestone and dolomite bisects the
Brandywine in the center of the county.
-------
Conference Proceedings
<579
Water supply is extracted from fractures in
the rock and an understanding of the system
was necessary to establish base flow
contribution of ground water and establish a
water budget for the county. Upon comple-
tion of the study in 1975, it became evident
that the precipitation data collection system
and ground water level monitoring network
established for the project would merit
continuation. Evolving from that process is
today's volunteer rain gage network of 34
stations as well as establishment of record-
ing rain gages on data collection platforms
located on the Brandywine. The ground-
water-level monitoring network has been
expanded to include the major aquifer
systems in the county.
Water Resources Inventory
Throughout the first decade of the
USGS/WRA cooperative program, substan-
tial data were developed to provide in-
creased understanding of the meteorologic,
hydrologic, and geologic systems affecting
the county's water resources. An evaluation
of these data, including information regard-
ing floodplains, soil erosion and sediment
control, and the county water budget,
demonstrated a need to present these
elements in a form which would be useful to
municipal officials having responsibility for
land use decisions. WRA, in cooperation
with the Chester County Planning Commis-
sion, embarked on a 2-year project in 1978
which would convert the information into a
layman's guide to water resources manage-
ment.
The resulting publications, including
the Brandywine published in 1979, served as
an educational tool for municipal decision-
makers and established a series of scenarios
based on current and projected zoning
densities. These scenarios established a
preliminary water budget analysis for that
portion of the studied watershed occupied
by the host municipality. The scenarios also
alerted the municipal official to water
quality issues when the receiving stream for
sewage effluent discharge neared its
assimilative capacity.
The Water Resources Inventory has
been refined over time and led to the
creation of a two-dimensional flow model of
the crystalline rock by USGS which can
simulate the effects of development propos-
als on ground water and base flow in a
specified area. That model has been placed
on the computer system of West Chester
University for use by consultants and the
academic community.
Innovative Management
Techniques
The ongoing WRA/USGS cooperative
program has resulted in a number of
innovations designed to enhance manage-
ment of the Brandywine and other water-
sheds in the county.
Substantial data have been generated
since 1972 from the monitoring well
network, where levels have been recorded
on a monthly basis. In order to better
understand the response of the system to
precipitation events and the impact of
withdrawals, a statistical approach was
developed to determine the point at which
levels would approach a drought watch,
warning, or emergency stage. The system is
now in place and functions as a key element
in all drought response activities and assists
in the evaluation of any reports of abnormal
decline in a localized area.
In the course of evaluating the
location of proposed SCS structures on the
West Branch Brandywine dating from the
1962 Work Plan, USGS was called upon to
develop a storm water management model
which refined earlier hydrologic investiga-
tions and contributed to the establishment of
the final cost-benefit ratio analysis.
Through precipitation event simulation,
projected flood peak reductions were
determined which aided in the final design
of the project currently under construction.
Water quality, stream flow, and
precipitation data collection are aided by the
installation of three data collection plat-
forms on the Brandywine. Strategically
located on the East and West Branches and
the main stem, the platforms provide real-
time access during flooding events to project
time and height of flood crests and react
similarly when determining low flows
during drought. Recording rain gages
associated with the data collection platforms
enable establishment of long-term records
for storm water management design while at
the same time assisting flood forecasters by
recording rainfall intensity. The water
quality probes covering pH, dissolved
oxygen, temperature, and dissolved solids
aid in evaluating spill events and provide a
permanent record on a hourly basis for
review of long term trends.
-------
680
Watershed '93
The information from the data
collection platforms is retrieved by satellite
and discharged to a USGS receiving station
at Harrisburg, where the information
becomes directly available to the WRA by
computer downlink.
The quality of ground water in the
Brandywine Watershed continues to be a
significant concern for public water purvey-
ors and individuals withdrawing their supply
from the system. In cooperation with the
Chester County Health Department, a joint
ground water quality assessment program is
now entering its ninth year. USGS person-
nel obtain 45 samples each summer from
those areas where the mishandling of toxics
by man may be expected to create a prob-
lem. The samples are evaluated for all
priority pollutants, including herbicides,
pesticides, and radionuclides. The program
has been instrumental in defining the two
Super Fund sites identified in the
Brandywine Watershed.
Evolving from this process has been a
ground water contour mapping program
which has been produced on a workable
scale to enable predication of movement of
the resource through the system. The
mapping effort is also a valuable working
tool in development of wellhead protection
programs.
One of the innovative management
efforts which has evoked considerable inter-
est by state and local agencies during the
past year is the water budget analysis pro-
gram developed under the WRA/USGS co-
operative program. Using a previously-cre-
ated water use data management system
containing information on withdrawals, dis-
charges, importations, and exportations form
the county, the program was refined and a
model developed for watershed budgets.
This provides realtime assessment of ground
water reserves and base flow of the stream
in a wet year, dry year, or normal year. The
water budget can be used to evaluate im-
pacts on the resource resulting from land use
changes, water withdrawals, and allocations.
It is also useful in defining those watersheds
which may already be stressed due to
overallocation of surface and ground water.
Interstate Management
Initiatives
Initial interstate regulatory oversight
of the Brandywine Watershed was first put
in place with the passage of the Delaware
River Basin Compact in 1961. However,
more localized initiatives commenced with a
series of meetings between regulatory and
policy personnel from the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania and the State of Delaware
in 1972. This effort led to the formation of
the Brandywine Task Force, an informal
group meeting quarterly under the auspices
of the Brandywine Valley Association to
discuss issues relating to water quality and
quantity in the watershed. Representation
comes from the public and private sector,
including the two states.
The drought events of 1980-81 and
again in 1985 also led to the creation of the
Christina River Basin Drought Management
Committee which includes the Brandywine
as well as the Red and White Clay Water-
sheds.
Participants include the two states, the
two counties, and water purveyors from
both jurisdictions who jointly developed a
drought response program for the Christina
Watershed. This interstate cooperative
effort provided timely and effective drought
response during the past year.
A new management approach is
currently in its infancy in the Brandywine
Valley. Under the auspices of the Delaware
River Basin Commission and with the
cooperation of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, the two states and the
WRA are involved in initial steps which will
lead to the development of the Total
Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) program for
the Brandywine. Innovative water quality
modeling and institutional arrangements for
the TMDL program are expected to be vital
constituents of the process.
Management of the water resources of
the Brandywine Watershed, set in an urban/
rural environment, continues to be an
evolving process. The WRA, the only
agency of its kind in Pennsylvania, will
continue to play an important role.
-------
WATER S H £ O '95
A Blueprint for the Future: Tractable
Emissions Permits for the Regulation
of Agricultural Drainage in
California's Central Valley
Chelsea H. Congdon, Resource Analyst
Terry F. Young, Ph.D., Consulting Scientist
Environmental Defense Fund, Oakland, CA
For over a decade, the problem of
effectively controlling drainage
discharges from irrigated agriculture
(one form of agricultural nonpoint source
pollution) on the west side of California's
San Joaquin Valley has challenged and
frustrated regulators, farmers, and environ-
mentalists alike. There is no doubt that
drainage discharges have caused and
continue to cause significant environmental
damage. Yet, despite a broad consensus that
substantial progress can be made toward
solving the problem using available and
affordable irrigation technologies, success in
actually implementing these technologies
and solving the problem has been elusive.
In several important respects, the
challenges to successful control of agricul-
tural drainage in the San Joaquin Valley are
representative of the problems of agricul-
tural nonpoint source pollution control
nationwide. According to the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency's (EPA) most
recent National Water Quality Inventory
(USEPA, 1988), agricultural runoff is the
most significant source of water quality
problems in water quality-impaired rivers,
streams, lakes, and estuaries across the
United States. And, like most nonpoint
source pollution problems, agricultural ,
drainage flows are composed of dozens of
independent, variable sources and thus can
be difficult to monitor and control.
For these reasons, the traditional
permit-oriented approach to pollution
control seems cumbersome for agricultural
nonpoint source pollution and has thus far
been rejected by state and local regulatory
agencies. On the other hand, the imposition
of "best management practices" (BMPs), the
version of command-and-control environ-
mental regulation generally applied to
nonpoint sources, for drainage management
presents its own set of shortcomings.
This combination of factors—a
significant, uncontrolled source of environ-
mental pollution and imperfect regulatory
tools for controlling it—has given rise to a
growing recognition among policy makers
and regulators of the need to identify cost-
effective control strategies for agricultural
pollution. At the same time, public and
private concerns over the costs and adminis-
trative burden of environmental regulations
have intensified interest in alternative,
market-oriented approaches for protecting
environmental quality.
The potential advantages of incentive-
based regulatory programs—cost-effective
pollution control, maximum flexibility to
the regulated community, and reduced
informational and bureaucratic requirements
for regulators—have been widely discussed
in the literature and policy-making arenas.
Incentives also have been used in conjunc-
tion with traditional technology-based
controls in a limited number of air and water
pollution control programs. However,
incentives have rarely, if ever, been consid-
ered as the primary means of pollution
control, or in a context where pollution
problems are solely due to nonpoint sources.
681
-------
682
Watershed '93
With this in mind, the Environmental
Defense Fund (EDF) has investigated the
advantages, disadvantages, and feasibility of
using economic incentives in general, and
tradable discharge permits in particular, to
regulate pollution from irrigated agriculture
in California's San Joaquin Valley.
The Drainage Problem
In the 92,000-acre area of the San
Joaquin Valley of California known as the
Grasslands, drainage from irrigated agricul-
ture poses significant environmental
problems. Here, naturally occurring toxic
trace elements (including selenium, boron,
arsenic, and molybdenum) and salts are
mobilized and transported in the subsurface
drainage water as a result of irrigation.
Drainage management practices in this
region have resulted in extensive degrada-
tion both to local riparian and river habitats,
and also to the valuable regional wetlands.
The principal solution to this problem
lies in improved irrigation management at
the individual farm level, combined with
limited operational changes at the water
district level. However, while this solution
may be clear, the road to implement it is not.
To date, the state has relied upon voluntary
cooperation by farmers and water districts
for meeting water quality objectives. This
"regulatory program" lacks a meaningful
mechanism for assessing compliance,
sidesteps the issue of enforcement, and
appears unlikely to be successful in meeting
water quality standards. Therefore, a shift to
nonvoluntary regulatory options appears
necessary.
Designing a more formal regulatory
system for the Grasslands is made easier
because several key elements of a regulatory
program already are in place. First, the
existing authority and jurisdiction of water
and drainage districts provide the basic
institutional structure for an accountable
system of pollution control. Second,
California has adopted water quality
standards for surface waters in the Grass-
lands region, and has the authority to issue
permits for agricultural dischargers. Third,
the physical boundaries and processes of
pollution generation and discharges are
fairly weE understood: pollution is produced
as a by-product of irrigation on all farm
lands, and is subsequently collected in
subsurface sumps and surface drainage
ditches which ultimately discharge into the
San Joaquin River. Finally, district drainage
outputs are currently being monitored (and
farm-level outputs are monitored in some
districts), and farm-level water inputs can
easily be monitored as a surrogate for
drainage outputs.
In order to succeed, a regulatory
program will have to address a number of
complicating factors, including determina-
tion of the appropriate method for defining
the total allowable pollution load; equity
problems among entities to be regulated
(districts and/or farms) due to downslope
subsurface migration of drainage; lack of
drainage output monitoring at the farm
level; the historic lack of farm-level ac-
countability for drainage generation; and
limited economic resources of agricultural
community for costly abatement options.
Defining the Goal
The first step in any water pollution
control program is to identify the environ-
mental goal to be met, generally a concen-
tration-based water quality standard. In
water-quality impaired waterbodies, states
are required to calculate a total maximum
daily load (TMDL) to establish the assimila-
tive capacity of the waterbody for a specific
pollutant, taking into account discharges
from point sources, nonpoint sources,
natural background sources and a margin of
safety to account for scientific uncertainty or
potential future discharges. In cases where
information about the waterbody, pollutants,
the effectiveness of control actions, or other
factors, is limited, a TMDL may be imple-
mented in phases.
Water quality in the middle reach of
the San Joaquin River currently exceeds
selenium standards, with agricultural
drainage accounting for 90-95 percent of
the selenium load (Kratzer et al., 1989).
Calculating a TMDL for selenium dis-
charges from the Grasslands subbasin is
complicated by the fact that the San
Joaquin River, like many western rivers, is
characterized by dramatically fluctuating
and minimally predictable flows which
often are effluent-dominated. Effluent
flows also are highly variable due to
hydrologic and management conditions.
As a result, the standard TMDL statistical
approach is inappropriate. In response to
these conditions, a simple calculator
TMDL model in spreadsheet format was
developed to account for seasonal and
-------
Conference Proceedings
683
water year type flow variations. (Karkoski
et al., 1993.)
The model developed for this study
differs from the standard TMDL methodol-
ogy by (1) translating a 4-day low flow into
monthly time steps consistent with imple-
mentation constraints; (2) grouping the flow
record according to irrigation seasons and
water year types to account for flow
variations; and (3) using historic flows to
determine the applicable design flow and
TMDL. The spreadsheet model also
accommodates modifications to account for
changing environmental conditions or
policy objectives. The results of the TMDL
analysis indicate the need for a 77 to 89
percent reduction in drainage-related
selenium loads from the Grasslands region
from 1988 levels, depending on the year-
type, based on current EPA standards.
Regulatory Options Including
Tradable Permits
No single regulatory approach will be
appropriate for all pollution problems.
However, the magnitude and persistence of
remaining water quality problems, particu-
larly those due to nonpoint sources, require
a broader look at regulatory measures that
are capable of not only controlling pollution
discharges but also reducing pollution at the
source.
In this study, EDF compared incen-
tive-based and command-and-control
programs for reducing and controlling
agricultural return flows in the Grasslands.
The incentive-based approaches examined
include effluent fees or pollution taxes,
marketable permits, and input pricing. The
command-and-control options reviewed
include mandatory BMPs and permits.
These options were compared based on the
following criteria: compatibility with the
regulated community, cost-effectiveness,
ability to achieve the environmental
objective, equity, monitoring and enforce-
ment, and ease of administration.
Briefly summarized, a system of
BMPs is likely to be inferior to an incentive-
based approach for regulating agricultural
return flows because of the lack of informa-
tion on the large number of factors (e.g.,
costs, environmental constraints, and
management techniques) which affect actual
irrigation efficiencies at the farm level and is
necessary for determining the appropriate
BMP. A BMP system will tend to be
expensive because all farmers will face the
same requirements regardless of differences
in pollution control costs, and because
technological requirements must be strin-
gent enough to account for differences in
management techniques. Once in place,
BMPs do not guarantee that the pollution
target will be met because actual perfor-
mance depends as much on the control
technology as on how it is used, and because
mandatory BMPs provide little inflexibility
for responding to variations in pollution
objectives, market conditions, and other
changes. Moreover, farmers are likely to
oppose a mandatory BMP program because
they would object to regulators "telling them
what to do."
By contrast, incentive-based systems
offer greater potential for achieving the
pollution target in a cost-effective manner.
Incentives are more compatible with the
characteristics of the agricultural commu-
nity. They encourage compliance and
innovation by allowing decentralized
decision making on pollution control
options. Effluent fees, input pricing, and
trading systems rely on market signals (e.g.,
prices) to internalize pollution costs, thereby
encouraging farmers to pursue least-cost
options for controlling pollution. Unlike
BMPs, incentive-based systems take
advantage of cost differences, and other
nonmarket differences, among farmers and
rely on the market to bring about a cost-
effective distribution of pollution control
responsibility (i.e., where the marginal costs
of pollution control are equal for all farm-
ers). Differences in management and
performance are addressed by focusing on
outputs (emissions fees, tradable discharge
permits) or production inputs (water
pricing). Incentives also allow farmers to
alter pollution control practices in the face
of changes in the drainage allocation from
year to year, technological innovations, crop
contracts, or other factors.
Effluent fees, input pricing, and
marketable discharge permits can all achieve
the desired pollution objective. Effluent
fees and input pricing will effectively
achieve specific targets only if rates are high
enough. However, iterative attempts to
"fine tune"-the fee structure to achieve
desired, loading levels, or to respond to
changes jn river.!flows, could result in
opposition from the regulated community
and add to delays in meeting the pollution
goal. In the Grasslands, meeting the
pollution target is critical given the toxicity
-------
684
Watershed'93
and bioaccumulative potential of selenium.
This argues for a system of tradable dis-
charge permits which entails designating a
specific pollution "cap" to guarantee that the
target will be met.
While BMPs may appear equitable
because they requke all farmers to do the
same thing, effluent fees, input pricing, and
tradable discharge permits are designed to
equalize marginal pollution control costs
among all farmers through a pollution cost
(in the case of effluent fees or input prices)
or permit price (in the case of tradable
permits). Tradable discharge permit systems
also can be tailored to address specific
problems of equity among regulated farmers
or districts (e.g., to compensate farmers who
previously invested in pollution control
measures), and serve as a means of cost-
sharing on a regional basis.
In terms of verification, the need for
effective enforcement, backed up by
accurate monitoring, is a challenge for any
program focused on nonpoint source
pollution control. Unlike BMPs, incentive
programs do not require monitoring of
specific practices for achieving a desired
objective. Instead, compliance is measured
relative to the ultimate pollution goal, rather
than the means for achieving the goal. In
the Grasslands, district drainage outputs are
currently being monitored (and farm-level
outputs are monitored in some districts), and
farm-level water inputs can easily be
monitored as a surrogate for drainage
outputs.
The study finds that a system of
tradable discharge permits, based on
economic incentives rather than on tradi-
tional regulatory permitting concepts, may
be ideally suited for addressing the prevail-
ing problems of agricultural drainage
management in the Grasslands subbasin.
Here's how it would work. First, because
current concentrations of drainage constitu-
ents (e.g., in this case, selenium or boron)
exceed water quality standards, an overall
reduction in the current pollution load in the
subbasin would be required. Once the total
allowable load has been determined, the
portion attributable to agricultural return
flows would be allocated among the
individual water districts in the Grasslands.
(In the Grasslands, the allocation at the
district level is necessitated by the fact that
discharges are directly monitorable at the
district level, while farm-level monitoring
would require substantial improvements in
the existing drainage management system.)
The Regional Water Quality Control •
Board (or alternatively, a Regional Drainage
District) would assign permits to the ..
irrigation districts; each permit would
specify an initial load allocation for a given
pollutant at a given discharge point. The
initial allocation formula could address
various equity concerns of the farmers, and
might be based on a variety of factors,
including acreage, cropping pattern, and
past drainage performance. (District
allocations also could serve as the basis for
emissions targets under a system of district-
level effluent fees, or as effluent limits for a
permit program.)
On the basis of this initial allocation,
permit holders could trade (buy and sell)
portions of their allocations to other dis-
tricts, just as shares of stocks are bought and
sold on the open market. (The "market"
may be operated by the regulatory agency or
by a designated third party, such as a re-
gional district.) Each district would be held
responsible for meeting the adjusted pollu-
tion allocation, which is the initial allocation
plus or minus any trades, and district-level
drainage outputs could be monitored di-
rectly. Similar, albeit informal, water trad-
ing already occurs among water districts.
A system of tradable discharge
permits, and any regulatory program
designed to decrease agricultural return
flows, ultimately must address farm-level
practices, regardless of whether the regula-
tory responsibility is vested at the regional
or farm level. In the Grasslands, the farm-
level allocation, whether established on the
basis of drained acreage, irrigable acreage
(drained and undrained), or other criteria,
would provide the informational basis for
districts involved in a trading system to
"pass on" to their farmers the responsibility
for pollution abatement consistent with
market transactions. The method for
creating this accountability at the farm-level
may vary among districts, but should consist
of incentive programs such as tiered water
pricing, effluent fees, compensated land
retirement, and cost-sharing for irrigation
improvements. Districts have an incentive
to adopt an effective program once each is
held accountable for meeting a specific
pollution allocation.
Other issues of implementation,
market structure and operation, administra-
tion and information-sharing, and enforce-
ment also would be addressed in the final
design of a tradable discharge permit
system.
-------
Conference Proceedings
685
Institutional Accountability
An essential aspect of any program to
regulate agricultural return flows is assign-
ing responsibility for pollution control to
polluters. In the case of the Grasslands, a
system of tradable discharge permits would
appropriately shift the burden of drainage
control to water districts and farmers, and at
the same time, would spare state and local
agencies the task of issuing and administer-
ing individual permits or BMPs. However,
the success of this approach, or any regula-
tory program, requires unambiguous lines of
authority regarding the legal status of the
regulatory instruments, regional-level
reporting and enforcement responsibility,
and farm-level accountability.
In the Grasslands, this need for
accountability is best satisfied at the
regional level. EOF investigated the legal
and institutional basis for creation of a
regional entity (e.g., Regional Drainage
District, independent third party, a joint
powers authority, or a local authority) to
oversee, facilitate, and help enforce a system
of tradable discharge permits among water
districts, taking into account the role and
jurisdiction of existing agencies in the
Grasslands region. The role and powers of
the regional entity (e.g., regulate and
enforce drainage practices, levy fees or
assessments) would enable it to act in
cooperation with, or in lieu of, the districts
in establishing farm-level accountability.
The proposed regional drainage district
provides a template for the formation,
authorization, and incorporation of a
regional entity to serve as a blueprint for
other agricultural regions.
Conclusion
Tradable discharge permits are not a
panacea for every nonpoint source problem,
but the system is particularly attractive for
the Grasslands subbasin. Because the
physical, economic, and institutional
characteristics of the subbasin have been
extensively studied, most of the informa-
tional and regulatory components of a
tradable permit system are already in place.
The existing monitoring network can be
readily adapted to serve a tradable permit
system. A common drawback of tradable
permits in river systems—the unequal
environmental effects of pollution inputs
upstream versus pollution inputs down-
stream—is not a factor here because the
drainage is currently discharged into one
localized area. In short, this system holds
the promise of eliminating the irreconcilable
choice between an unmanageable regulatory
program and environmental protection.
References
Congdon, C., and T. Young. 1994. Eco-
nomic incentives for control of
agricultural nonpoint source pollu-
tion. Environmental Defense Fund.
(Forthcoming).
Karkoski, J., T. Young, C. Congdon, and
D. Haith. 1993. Development of a
selenium TMDL for the San Joaquin
River. In Proceedings of 1993 ASCE
Conference on Irrigation and
Drainage Engineering. (Forthcom-
ing)-
Kratzer, C., P. Pickett, and L. Grober.
1989. Achieving selenium and boron
objectives in the San Joaquin River
through drainage reduction. Proceed-
ings of Second Pan-American Re-
gional Conferences on Irrigation and
Drainage.
USEPA. 1988. National-water quality
inventory, 1988 report to Congress.
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Point-Nonpoint Source Nitrogen
Trading in the Stamford, Connecticut,
Watershed
Laurens van der Tak, P.E., Water Resources Engineer
CH2M HILL, Herndon, VA
Thomas Sadick, P.E., Senior Environmental Engineer
CH2M HILL, Newport News, VA
Jeannette Semon, P.E.
Water Pollution Control Facility, Stamford, CT
grant-funded study investigating
nitrogen techniques has been
aitiated in Stamford, Connecticut,
as part of the Long Island Sound Action
Plan Demonstration Project. The study will
consist of two major components. The first
component, referred to here as the Biologi-
cal Fluid Bed (BFB) denitrification demon-
stration project, will involve the operation of
a full-scale reactor to test the effectiveness
and cost of this nutrient removal technology
at the Stamford Water Pollution Control
Facility (SWPCF). The second project
involves an assessment of point-nonpoint
nitrogen trading for the Stamford area. This
paper discusses the proposed approach for
this second project, which was initiated in
March 1993 and is expected to conclude in
December 1993. This paper discusses the
project goals, the study area, the proposed
approach, and key project issues.
Funding for this point-nonpoint
nitrogen trading project was derived from
a Clean Water Act section 319 grant, after
the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) encouraged the City of Stamford to
expand the scope of its grant application to
demonstrate the BFB technology. The
request by EPA to add the watershed study
to the BFB study illustrates the increasing
emphasis being placed by EPA and state
regulatory authorities on watershed
approaches and market-based approaches
for meeting water quality objectives
(USEPA, 1992).
The proposed approach for the Stam-
ford point-nonpoint nitrogen trading study
can be summarized as follows. Nitrogen
loads will be estimated for both point and
nonpoint sources in the Rippowam and
Noroton River watersheds that discharge
into Long Island Sound. These two water-
sheds encompass most of the City of Stam-
ford, as well as the neighboring Town of
Darien, and are partly sewered with treat-
ment at the SWPCF. Given estimates of
the sources and relative contributions of
nonpoint source nitrogen loads in the two
watersheds, control options will be as-
sessed and removal effectiveness and or-
der-of-magnitude cost estimated. This in-
formation will then be used to assess the
feasibility of developing a point-nonpoint
source nitrogen trading program in the
Rippowam and Noroton River watersheds
in Connecticut.
Prefect Objectives
The goal of this project will be to
identify a cost-effective option which could
be used by similar communities with
watersheds discharging to Long Island
Sound to help make decisions concerning
nutrient loading and removal. Practical
issues affecting the feasibility of implement-
ing a system of market-incentives for
nitrogen trading between point and nonpoint
sources will be identified. Finally, the
feasibility of reaching water quality goals
687
-------
688
Watershed '93
with trading of controls on point and
nonpoint sources will be assessed.
the remainder listed as either impervious
surfaces or grassed areas.
Background
Long Island Sound No-Net-Increase
Policy
Recent studies have determined that
nitrogen is the limiting nutrient contribut-
ing to eutrophication problems (algae
growth and anoxia) in Long Island Sound.
In November 1990, the Policy Committee
of the Long Island Sound Management
Conference adopted a program to ensure
"no net increase" in the loads of nitrogen
discharge to the Sound by 45 wastewater
treatment plants in Connecticut and New
York. Connecticut has established
baseline loads and permit limits based on
1990 discharge loads for 13 coastal
communities. A "Nitrogen Bank" will be
established which will allow statewide
point source load reduction targets to be
met with pollution credits being traded
between point source discharges. How-
ever, targets for reductions of nonpoint
sources have not been determined, pending
completion of the Long Island Sound
Study's Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan.
Description of Watersheds
The Rippowam and Noroton River
watersheds encompass 37.5 and 11.9 square
miles, respectively, in the City of Stamford
and the Towns of Darien and New Canaan,
CT. The Rippowam extends north into
Westchester County, NY, and includes the
North Stamford Reservoir and the Laurel
Reservoir, which are drinking water supplies
for Stamford.
Land Use
Land uses in the study area water-
sheds are primarily urban (medium- and
high-density residential, commercial, and
industrial) south of the Merritt Parkway,
and suburban (low-density residential) in
areas to the north. Based on interpretation
of remote sensing data from Landsat (State
of Connecticut Land Use and Land Cover
Inventory), the land cover in the
Rippowam watershed is 48 percent
deciduous forest, 24 percent medium
density residential, and 12 percent high
density residential and commercial, with
Sanitary Sewer Service Area and
Septic Systems
The sanitary sewer service area of the
SWPCF includes most of Stamford south of
the Merritt Parkway and part of the Town of
Darien. The average daily flow from the
SWPCF is 24.8 cubic feet per second. The
average nitrogen load in the SWPCF
discharge is 244 tons per year.
The ridge areas north of the parkway
are heavily wooded low-density residential
areas on septic systems. Out of 44,000
households in Stamford, approximately
12,000 are north of the Merritt Parkway and
on septic systems. Data from the Mianus
river just west of the Rippowam suggests
that nitrogen loads in baseflows are not
elevated (nitrate nitrogen of approximately
1 milligram per liter (Westchester County
Land Trust, 1992). Nonetheless, the
possibility of septic contamination of
ground water and its contribution to surface
water nitrogen loads will be assessed with
available data from the Rippowam and
Noroton Rivers.
Hydrology
Average annual precipitation in
Stamford is 49 inches, of which 29 inches
typically occurs as snowfall. There are no
long-term stream gauges on the Rippowam
and Noroton Rivers to estimate average
and seasonal flows. Steep terrain north of
the Merritt Parkway and a high degree of
imperviousness in the urbanized area to the
south lead to significant flooding prob-
lems.
City of Stamford Organization
The Public Works Department of the
City of Stamford is responsible for the
sanitary sewer collection system, treatment
plant, storm drainage system, road mainte-
nance, and engineering. It shares joint
responsibility with the Environmental
Protection Board and Health Department for
environmental compliance. The Health
Department has sole jurisdiction over septic
system regulations. Land use planning is a
shared responsibility between the Planning
Department, Public Works Department,
Health Department, and Environmental
Protection Board.
-------
Conference Proceedings
. The Public Works Department is
divided into three bureaus: sanitation,
highways, and engineering. Sanitation,
through the Water Pollution Control Divi-
sion, has jurisdiction over the operation
and maintenance of over 200 miles of
sanitary sewer, 18 sanitary pumping sta-
tions, 3 storm water pumping stations, and
a 20-million gallons per day secondary
treatment facility and shares with the
Highway Bureau responsibility for
365 miles for storm sewer.
Proposed Approach
Data Collection
Information needs for the point-
nonpoint nitrogen trading study can be
grouped into three categories: land features,
best management practices, and institutional
framework.
The land features include all the land
use and land cover information required to
develop a nonpoint source pollution model.
The information includes data on land use,
soils, topography hydrology, and water
quality. Land cover data are available from
the Connecticut Department of Environmen-
tal Protection's land use and land cover
geographic information system (GIS), which
was developed on a watershed basis using
remote sensing techniques. The data base
identifies 23 categories of land cover.
Because of discrepancies between areas
identified as deciduous forest that actually
are low-density housing with septic systems,
this information will have to be supple-
mented with land use data from the City of
Stamford's Department of Planning. Land
use data from the planning department are
not available in GIS format. Therefore, the
cost-effectiveness of developing a digital
land use data base for the Rippowam and
Noroton Rivers within overall project goals
will have to be evaluated.
The variety of technologies and
management practices referred to as best
management practices (BMPs) is extensive.
The pollutant removal effectiveness and cost
of BMPs are now recognized as site-specific
and uncertain (USEPA, 1992). The goal of
the Stamford point-nonpoint nitrogen
trading study will not be to determine the
most appropriate BMPs for the Rippowam
and Noroton watersheds. Rather, available
literature on BMP effectiveness and cost
will be used to determine planning level
performance and cost data for the
Rippowam and Noroton River watersheds
(Griffin, 1992). As has been done in other
point-nonpoint nitrogen trading studies
(Tar-Pamlico, 1992), the uncertainties in the
nonpoint source loads and control effective-
ness estimates will be recognized upfront
and addressed by including trading ratios of
more than 1 -to-1 exchange of nonpoint to
point nitrogen load reductions.
Finally, data collection efforts will
focus on identifying existing agencies
involved in managing point and nonpoint
sources in the Rippowam and Noroton
watersheds. Information will be collected
about these agencies to permit an assessment
of institutional needs for administering a
possible nitrogen trading program.
Development of a Nonpoint Source
Plannlng-Level Model
Two methods of estimating nutrient
loads to Long Island Sound will be evalu-
ated. The one most appropriate for the
scope and purposes of the study will be
used. The two methods to be considered are
the Generalized Water Loading Functions
model developed at Cornell University and a
spreadsheet model.
The spreadsheet model may be an
adaptation of the tool developed with EPA
funding by the State University of New
York and described in the report Effective-
ness of BMPs in Reducing Urban Nonpoint
Sources of Nitrogen to Long Island Sound,
or a new model, depending upon the data
base, model capabilities, and other factors.
The model selected for use will not be
calibrated per se but results will be com-
pared to available data from the Rippowam ,
and Noroton Rivers with model adjustments
made as appropriate.
Determination and Comparison of
Nitrogen Loads
Output from the model and from the
evaluation of data at the S WPCF will allow
estimation of monthly and annual point and
nonpoint source nitrogen loads. Using these
load estimates, an initial evaluation of the
relative importance of point vs. nonpoint
nitrogen loads will be made.
Assessment of Nonpoint Source
Nitrogen Control Options
Potential control technologies will be
reviewed with consideration to their relative
-------
690
Watershed '93
costs and effectiveness. An assessment of
the control options, costs, pollutant control
benefits, programmatic, and other nontech-
nical factors will be used to evaluate the
feasibility and potential for nitrogen
pollution control trading in an urban setting.
This task will include a workshop in
Connecticut to discuss potential nutrient
control options and preliminary load
estimates.
Assessment of Institutional
Framework for Trading Pollution
Credits
Following development of the
planning level model and estimation of
pollutant loads and control costs, a work-
shop will be conducted with representatives
from the city, state, EPA, the University of
Connecticut Cooperative Extension Service,
neighboring jurisdictions, and local interest
groups. The workshop will present the
comparison between point and nonpoint
source loads, and the cost-effectiveness of
nitrogen controls for both sources. Within
the context of these findings, recognizing
the uncertainly in the load estimates, the
workshop participants will be asked to
develop and evaluate options for administer-
ing a point-nonpoint nitrogen trading
program.
Critical Project Issues
There are a number of critical issues
that the project will have to address:
1. What are the target levels of nitrogen
load reductions for the Rippowam
and Noroton River watersheds? The
total maximum daily load for
nitrogen discharges have not yet
been developed for these watersheds.
Without a target load it will be
difficult to define the point at which
trading becomes viable.
2. Are nitrogen trading ratios an
appropriate mechanism for incorpo-
rating uncertainty in nonpoint
source loads and BMP effective-
ness? If so, what should the ratio
be?
3. Who will receive nonpoint source
nitrogen removal credits? In the
study area watersheds there are no
agricultural land uses, which in other
point-nonpoint source studies were
the recipients of trading credits.
4. What incentives are likely to work in
a situation where the City of Stam-
ford may be trading pollution credits
with itself or with nearby munici-
palities (Darien, New Canaan)?
5. Can credits be used outside the
Rippowam and Noroton watersheds,
such as in other Long Island Sound
watersheds?
6. How can the effectiveness of the
overall program and of nonstructural
BMPs, e.g., public education about
fertilizer use, in particular, be
measured?
7. What are the real administrative
costs and institutional structures
required to make trading work in an
urbanized watershed?
References
Frink, C.R. 1991. Estimating nutrient
exports to estuaries. Journal of
Environmental Quality, Vol. 20.
Griffin, C.B. 1992. Effectiveness of best
management practices in reducing
urban nonpoint sources of nitrogen to
the Long Island Sound. Report to the
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Region I, Boston, MA.
November.
Tar-Pamlico nutrient sensitive waters
implementation strategy. Adopted
December 14, 1989; revised February
13, 1992.
USEPA. 1992. Administrator's Point/
Nonpoint Source Trading Initiative
Meeting. A summary. EPA 841-S-92-
001. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC. August.
-------
WATERSHED 'S3
Point/Nonpoint Source Trading: A
Discussion of Legal Requirements
and Implementation Issues
Esther Bartfeld
Ross &. Associates Environmental Consulting, Seattle, WA
Environmental regulation is at an
important crossroads. As environ-
mental policies take shape in the cost-
conscious 1990s, market-based incentive
programs are emerging as an important
component of the regulatory arsenal.
Economists have long argued that this
approach is more cost-effective than the
"command-and-control" framework that has
governed environmental regulation.
Most experimentation with incentive-
based policy mechanisms has occurred in air
quality control programs, yet water quality
control may also benefit from effluent
trading programs. One incentive-based
approach for water quality control that has
received attention recently is known as
point/nonpoint source trading. In point/
nonpoint source trading programs, point
source dischargers provide funds for
nonpoint source controls in lieu of advanced
treatment requirements that would otherwise
be necessary to achieve water quality
objectives. Under current regulation, only
point sources—typically municipal and
industrial dischargers—face mandatory
control requirements reflected in federally
enforceable discharge limitations. Nonpoint
sources of pollution, which contribute the
largest share of pollutants to the Nation's
waterways, are virtually unregulated.
Communities are beginning to experiment
with point/nonpoint source trading to reduce
the costs of water quality control and to
bring nonpoint source pollution into the
regulatory reach of the Clean Water Act.
Given the rising costs of environmen-
tal protection, future environmental im-
provement efforts will need to incorporate
cost-effective control options. This paper
discusses legal requirements and implemen-
tation issues surrounding point/nonpoint
source trading programs. More specifically,
it examines the place of trading within the
regulatory framework of the Clean Water
Act, potential enforcement difficulties, and
uncertainties that arise when shifting from
point source to nonpoint source control.
Statutory Authority for Trading
Programs
The Clean Water Act does not
explicitly authorize trading or other market-
based incentives for pollution control.
Communities experimenting with point/
nonpoint source trading must derive
authority to do so from the general flexibil-
ity granted to states to establish water
quality-based effluent limitations and to
implement the goals of the Clean Water Act.
From the broad language of key provisions
of the Clean Water Act, however, one can
infer the authority necessary to develop
trading programs.
In general, trading programs appear to
be permissible through section 302 (water
quality related effluent limitations) and
section 303 (water quality standards and
implementation plans). Section 302 gives
EPA authority to establish "effluent limita-
tions (including alternative effluent control
strategies)" for point sources that are more
stringent than minimum technology-based
controls, where such controls "can reason-
ably be expected to contribute to attainment
or maintenance of water quality." A trading
program appears to be an acceptable
alternative control strategy within the
691
-------
692
Watershed '93
meaning of this provision. Section 303
allows EPA to approve effluent limitations
at least as stringent as those required by
technology-based controls in order to meet
water quality standards. These stricter,
water-quality based standards must be in
place before trading programs are possible.
While provisions for water quality-
based standards and water quality-related
effluent limitations provide general
authority to impose selectively stricter
discharge limitations, two sections of the
Clean Water Act relate most specifically to
trading programs. First, section 303(d)(4),
which calls for the creation of total
maximum daily loads (TMDLs), includes
provisions that resemble point/nonpoint
source trading. A TMDL is the maximum
amount of a pollutant that can enter a
waterbody without violating* its ambient
water quality standard. Wasteload alloca-
tions established for point sources, and
load allocations established for nonpoint
sources and natural background together
comprise the TMDL. Regulations devel-
oped to implement TMDLs permit consid-
eration of economic factors, including the
use of tradeoffs, within initial wasteload
and load allocations. (40 CFR 130.2(i)).
Although TMDLs provide the
foundation from which to develop a trading
program, the tradeoffs allowed in an initial
TMDL allocation differ fundamentally from
incentive-based mechanisms in a point/
nonpoint source trading program. In the
TMDL process, regulators determine
individual discharge levels. In a trading
program, these initial load allocations form
the starting point for developing an efficient
control strategy. From this starting point,
individual plant operators determine the
most cost-effective control level within a
maximum aggregate level of pollution.
Trading occurs only when an initial alloca-
tion selected by regulators does not reflect
the most cost-effective control level for an
individual discharger.
Second, section 319, which promotes
nonpoint source management on a water-
shed basis and provides federal grants for
nonpoint source control projects, also
contains statutory language that could
accommodate trading programs. Section
319(b)(2)(B) requires that state manage-
ment plans identify programs "including,
as appropriate, nonregulatory or regulatory
programs" to control nonpoint source
pollution. In addition, EPA can give
priority for grant awards to programs that
implement "innovative methods or
practices for controlling nonpoint sources
of pollution, including regulatory pro-
grams where the Administrator deems
appropriate." Trading programs, which
bring nonpoint source pollution under
regulatory control, are certainly an innova-
tive method of basinwide water quality
management. In fiscal year 1992, EPA set
aside a portion of section 319(h) grant
money specifically to assist states develop
point/nonpoint source trading programs.
Legal Obligations of Trading
Programs
Trading programs represent a
significant departure from traditional
regulatory control methods. Without
explicit language authorizing
nonregulatory control levels or trading
program operating procedures, the func-
tional criteria of the Clean Water Act
provide the only yardstick by which to
measure trading programs as appropriate
means to achieve the Act's goals.
Antibacksliding and antidegradation are
interrelated provisions that form the heart
of the Clean Water Act and provide
important guidance to prevent trading
programs from running astray of water
quality objectives.
Antibacksliding
Antibacksliding provisions limit the
extent to which point sources can increase
discharges above previously permitted
levels for a given pollutant. Antibacksliding
provisions apply predominantly to technol-
ogy-based limitations, but also restrain
water quality-based effluent limitations from
exceeding TMDL levels. Section
303(d)(4)(A) specifically provides that
effluent limitations based on TMDLs or
other waste load allocation may be revised
only if "the cumulative effect of all such
revised effluent limitations based on such
total maximum daily load or waste load
allocation will assure attainment of such
water quality standard " However,
because antibacksliding is only relevant for
pollutants included in previous permits, it
may not affect trading programs involving
nutrients because many dischargers do not
have existing nutrient limits in their permits.
Even if antibacksliding does not di-
rectly affect nutrient trading programs, the
-------
Conference Proceedings
693
language in section 303(d)(4)(A) governing
revised effluent limitations is essential to the
implied authority for trading programs. It is
the only provision of the Clean .Water Act
that provides guidance for modification of
effluent limitations established under a
TMDL. While it does not explicitly autho-
rize trading, it establishes bounds within
which trading programs must operate.
Antidegradation
The Clean Water Act antidegradation
provision (40 CFR 131.12), which is de-
signed to prevent deterioration of water
quality in certain waterbodies, differs sig-
nificantly from antibacksliding. Whereas
antibacksliding applies to individual dis-
charge levels, antidegradation applies to
ambient water quality. As such, anti-
degradation encompasses nonpoint sources
as well as point sources. When applied to
trading programs, the antidegradation provi-
sion can be used to prevent a reduction in
water quality. Where water quality equals or
exceeds levels necessary to protect desig-
nated uses, a state may revise an effluent
limitation based on a TMDL or other
wasteload allocation only if such revision is
"subject to and consistent with the
antidegradation policy established under this
section" (§304(d)(4)(B)). Thus, when com-
bined with the antibacksliding provisions de-
scribed above, antidegradation provides im-
portant checks on a trading program.
Implementation Issues
Finding legal authority for point/
nonpoint source trading programs is only
one part of successful program implementa-
tion. For point/nonpoint source trading to
offer an effective alternative to traditional
regulatory approaches, it must overcome
numerous uncertainties surrounding
nonpoint source control as well as potential
monitoring and enforcement programs. A
trading program that resolves only the cost-
efficiency issue will generate new problems
in the process. The following section
highlights major implementation issues.
Nonpoint Source Loading and
Control Uncertainty
Nonpoint source loading and control
choices are burdened with uncertainty.
Uncertainty affects both the timing and
concentration of nonpoint source pollutant
loads and the types of control methods
(known as best management practices
(BMPs)) used to reduce nonpoint source
pollution. These critical characteristics of
nonpoint source pollution must be evaluated
against the relative certainties of point
source loading and control options because a
trading program relies on the ability of
nonpoint source control devices to assume
control responsibility that would otherwise
fall on point sources. Thus, trading pro-
grams present a tradeoff between control
cost-savings and reliable water quality
improvements. Most studies that evaluate
the cost-effectiveness of nonpoint source
controls overlook their inherent uncertain-
ties.
Several problematic shortcomings of
BMPs affect a shift of control responsibility
from point source to nonpoint source
controls. First, nonpoint source controls
may not achieve expected annual load
reductions. Second, BMPs are not always
fully or properly implemented, due to lack
of institutional commitment or inadequate
resources. Nonpoint source controls are
successful alternatives to point source
control only if they are applied diligently on
the ground. For these reasons, one cannot
accurately predict the extent to which
trading programs will alleviate water
pollution problems.
Trading Ratio
Much of the success of a trading
program, as measured by improved water
quality, rests with the difficult decision of
choosing an appropriate trading ratio. A
trading ratio acts as the exchange rate that
equates the environmental impact of point
and nonpoint source loadings. It is the
amount of nonpoint source control that a
point source discharger must undertake to
generate a unit of credit at the point source.
Under a 2:1 trading ratio, for example, a
point source would be required to control
two units of nonpoint source pollution for
each unit of credit received. The trading
ratio is generally set higher than one to
compensate for perceived uncertainty in
nonpoint source control. However, if set too
high, the economic incentives to trade will
be reduced from the point of view of the
point source, and trading may not occur. If
set too low, possible improvements in water
quality may be sacrificed, especially if the
point source relies on trading to meet
-------
694
Watershed '93
substantial levels of its discharge reduction
obligation.
The decision rule used to select a
trading ratio is simple in theory only. A
trading ratio must incorporate both the
uncertainly of nonpoint source control and
the different environmental impacts caused
by point and nonpoint sources of pollution
so that decisions made on the basis of
marginal cost analysis will result in compa-
rable levels of water quality improvement.
The ultimate danger of choosing an incor-
rect trading ratio is that environmental
protection objectives will be sacrificed.
Monitoring
Substantial monitoring and modeling
information is necessary to shift successfully
from a command-and-control approach to a
trading program and to determine whether
nonpoint source control will adequately
protect water quality. The monitoring
requirements necessary to track trades and
report the effectiveness of BMPs may
present significant barriers to trading. For
the most part, the Clean Water Act shifts the
cost of monitoring compliance to point
source dischargers. Section 308 imposes
substantial monitoring and reporting
requirements on all NPDES dischargers.
Every point source must maintain records;
install, use, and maintain monitoring
equipment; and sample effluents on a
regular basis. Presumably, similar monitor-
ing requirements would need to be in place
for nonpoint source controls used to offset a
point source's reduction obligations.
Monitoring probably will be more
costly and time-consuming for nonpoint
source control than for point source control,
where a system has been in place for two
decades. If nonpoint source controls were
used to offset point source control responsi-
bility, monitoring and enforcement responsi-
bilities would extend to multiple sites.
Instead of compiling discharge monitoring
reports from information collected on-site, a
point source discharger would need to travel
to all nonpoint source control sites to obtain
necessary information. These costs would
likely rise as the number of trades increased.
The volume of information required to
implement such a program without undue
risk of sacrificing water quality may prove
an insurmountable burden. In fact, the
amount of information required to gauge a
pollutant's effects on water quality and to
monitor actual pollutant levels, together
with the difficulty of developing sufficient
enforcement mechanisms, may hinder the
success of trading programs.
Enforcement
The primary concern with trading pro-
grams is one of responsibility: if a nonpoint
source control project fails, who is ulti-
mately responsible for correcting the situa-
tion, and who can be sued if the situation
remains uncorrected? Current Clean Water
Act enforcement provisions, although not
infallible, are binding only on point sources
that must adhere to obligations enumerated
in NPDES permits. Trading programs, how-
ever, are premised on market-based dis-
charge limits, where a point source can off-
set additional pollution loads by providing a
predetermined degree of nonpoint source
control. By relying on market forces to set
optimal control levels, a trading program
potentially can escape from enforceable dis-
charge levels. This is clearly unacceptable.
For a trading program to be effective,
any alternative control responsibility must
be specifically incorporated into a point
source discharger's NPDES permit so that
the point source remains accountable for its
specified level of control. Permit violations
must also be enforced. Permit systems
provide administrative means to track
pollutant loading and form the basis for
enforcement mechanisms. Yet bringing a
trading program under the permit umbrella
may pose increased administrative burdens.
EPA also retains enforcement power when a
point source's obligation for nonpoint
source control is written into its NPDES
permit. A trading program must be estab-
lished such that cost-saving, not enforce-
ment evasion, is the motivation driving a
point source discharger to seek alternative
control strategies.
Provided that alternative nonpoint
source control obligations obtained though
trading are clearly established in NPDES
permits, existing Clean Water Act enforce-
ment provisions should extend to point
source obligations incurred in a trading
program. As point sources shifted more and
more of their control obligation to nonpoint
sources, they might jeopardize compliance
with permit requirements. The point source
discharger would be subject to enforcement
measures for noncompliance, but its control
obligation would be dependent upon the
ability of nonpoint source controls to bring
about required pollutant reduction. Because
-------
Conference Proceedings
695
it is difficult to prove a direct link between a
specific nonpoint source and water quality
levels, the causal link for establishing
noncompliance would have to be tied to
permit obligations outlining nonpoint source
control responsibility. Incorporating
nonpoint source control responsibility into
permits (i.e., requiring that a farmer partici-
pating in nonpoint source control projects
associated with a trading program assume
responsibility for maintaining BMPs) may
reduce farmers' incentives to participate if
they would not otherwise face regulatory
control. If violations could be enforced only
against point sources, the potential fines for
permit violations together with long-term
monitoring obligations may outweigh
potential control cost savings.
EPA also has a right of entry onto any
premises where an effluent source is located
(40 CFR 122.41(i)). In a trading program,
this authority would need to extend to loca-
tions of nonpoint source controls used in
place of point source control obligations in
order to ensure compliance. As with moni-
toring obligations, enforcement costs would
likely increase if enforcement officials were
required to make visits to multiple nonpoint
source control sites. However, EPA's broad
authority to conduct warrantless searches of
point source dischargers may conflict with
privacy issues and protections against unrea-
sonable searches if transferred to nonpoint
source sites.
Potential Statutory and
Regulatory Revisions
Statutory and regulatory revisions
could help overcome perceived hurdles
associated with implementing a program
only implicitly authorized by statute and
regulations. Potential statutory changes
include bringing point/nonpoint source
trading programs within the goals of the
Clean Water Act, explicit endorsement of
trading in established Clean Water Act
programs, and amending section 319 to
promote trading as a valid tool for nonpoint
source management plans. Regulatory
revisions include issuing specific guidance
to authorize trading as a preferred or
desirable method for controlling water
quality, and requiring that communities
assess trading opportunities in water quality
management strategies. Each alternative
will affect the degree to which trading
programs proliferate and the additional
burdens and unresolved issues that accom-
pany program implementation. To date,
EPA has not yet developed a formal trading
policy, but it is actively exploring point/
nonpoint source trading as a viable water
quality management tool.
Conclusion
Point/nonpoint source trading may
hold promise as an innovative technique in
water quality control. However, it is not a
panacea for solving remaining water quality
problems. If trading programs are to evolve
beyond the conceptual stage, communities
must focus carefully on the specifics of
program and policy design. Cost-effective-
ness is only one issue. A shift away from
traditional command-and-control regulation
presents several practical implementation
issues that must be analyzed as closely as
potential cost-savings. A trading program
that does not adequately resolve monitoring,
enforcement, and uncertainty issues may be
plagued with loopholes that offset antici-
pated benefits, and leave instead a legacy of
reduced water quality.
NOTE: This paper is based on the author's
article, Point/Nonpoint Source Trading:
Looking Beyond Potential Cost Savings, 23
Environmental Law 43-106, which presents
a more detailed analysis of implementation
issues surrounding trading programs.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Farmstead Assessments—A
Voluntary Approach foi
and Implementing Farmstead
Practices to Prevent Pollution
Gaiy W. Jackson, National Faim*A*Syst Coordinator, Professor
Department of Soil Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison
Farmsteads include farm buildings and
the land around them. These sites are
increasingly being recognized as
potential sources of surface and ground-
water contamination in rural areas. The
concentration of potential contaminants and
intensity of activities around farmsteads can
generate significant amounts of nitrate,
toxins, and microorganisms. Wells on the
farmstead and local ground water are often
vulnerable to contamination from these
contaminants.
The Farmstead Assessment
(Farm*A*Syst) Program has been designed
to aid farmers and rural residents in identify-
ing well water and ground-water pollution
risks and in developing voluntary action
plans to reduce identified high risks (Jones
and Jackson, 1990). It was developed in
response to farmers' and rural residents'
concerns about protecting well water
quality. A recent Gallup survey (Sandoz,
1993) shows that "farmers are more con-
cerned about farm environmental issues
today than they were five years ago." The
Farm*A*Syst Program is assisting con-
cerned farmers in addressing water quality-
related concerns.
This paper characterizes the nature of
pollution risks around farmsteads; provides a
brief history of factors which influenced the
development and design of the farmstead
assessment system and its national expan-
sion; and presents information on
Farm*A*Syst Program development proce-
dures, implementation strategies, and pilot
program implementation results.
Farmstead Pollution Risks
To characterize the nature of pollution
risks associated with farmstead activities a
hypothetical farmstead has been analyzed.
This farmstead is located on a farm that has
100 animal units and 200 acres of cropland
in a corn/alfalfa rotation. Table 1 estimates
the amount of potential pollutants that may
be handled at this site in a typical year.
Pollution risks for toxins, nitrate, and
microorganisms from these sources can be
evaluated through use of the Farmstead
Assessment System. Microorganisms are
the most frequent contaminant in private
wells and the
contaminant
that is most 1
likely to cause
acute illness.
Microorgan-
ism contami-
nation can
come from
septic systems
or other on-
site waste
disposal sys-
tems, live-
stock holding
areas, live-
stock waste
storage areas
and facilities,
and milkhouse
waste disposal
systems .
Fable 1. Estimate of pot
typical 100-animal-unit
Potential
Pollution Source
Livestock wastes
Milking center wastes
Septic system
Fertilizer
Silage
Pesticides
Petroleum products
Household hazardous
wastes
Farm and shop
hazardous wastes
ential pollutants at a
dairy farmstead
Estimated Amount
Per Year
17,000 pounds of nitrogen
150 pounds of nitrogen
50 pounds of nitrogen
15,000 pounds of nitrogen
30,000 pounds of nitrogen
700 pounds active
ingredients (varies
extensively)
3,300 gallons
10 pounds
20 pounds (varies
extensively)
697
-------
698
Watershed '93
Table 2. Pollution potential ranking of
farm management
Activity Score (xlOO)
Petroleum storage
Septic systems
Pesticide handling
Nitrogen fertilizer and
manure application
Milkhouse waste
disposal
Hazardous waste
disposal
Livestock yards
Livestock manure
storage
Well condition
Silage management
83
63
55
50
50
40
39
38
38
25
Data from several projects support the
need for this type of program. Data from an
American Farm Bureau Report (October
1992), based on data from approximately
35, 000 wells, documented that:
• Shallower and older wells are more
likely to be contaminated than
deeper and newer wells; and
springs, driven wells, and dug wells
are more likely to be contaminated
than drilled wells.
• Where contamination is present,
nitrate concentrations often exhibit
considerable month to month
variability, especially when the wells
are tapping shallow aquifers and/or
suffer from faulty construction.
• Soil type, proximity to cropland or
feedlots, and mixing chemicals near
the well are all important factors in
whether or not contamination is
present.
All of these factors are evaluated when the
Farmstead Assessment System is used to
evaluate pollution risks at a specific site.
A Wisconsin Water Resources
Management Program project report
(August 1989), Integrating the Ground-water
Component Into The Priority 'Watershed
Program, used a modified version of
farmstead assessment materials to evaluate
ground-water pollution risks. Table 2 shows
results of their farmstead pollution potential
evaluations. The scores in the table reflect
the frequency of potential pollution factors
for the whole watershed. They do not
reflect conditions on a
particular farm. This
study notes that while
researchers have paid
considerable attention to
the surface water impacts
of these wastes, they
have paid little attention
to ground-water impacts.
The most funda-
mental recommendation
of this report is that in
priority watershed
projects, surface water,
ground water, soil
resources, and human
resources must be
considered as an inte-
grated system.
A study in Kansas
showed a direct correla-
tion between the level of
nitrate contamination of
wells and the proximity of the well to the
farmstead. The Big Springs Groundwater
Project in Iowa has done extensive well
water testing and work in identifying
nutrient management needs for cropland.
Their education and demonstration activities
resulted in reducing total nutrient applica-
tions. However, recently reported data
(Seigley and Hallberg, 1993) indicate that
nitrate levels in farm wells located in the
project have increased rather than decreased.
The report indicates this increase is related
to the rainfall cycle of recent years. The
role of farmstead, and rural non-farm nitrate
sources have not been evaluated as potential
influencing factors.
History of Farm*A*Syst
Development
The Farmstead Assessment System
was developed in response to farmers' and
rural non-farm citizens' concerns about
protecting their drinking water wells.
Participants in drinking water education
programs consistently inquired about how to
identify potential sources of contamination
for their well and what they could do to
reduce or prevent pollution. These inquir-
ies, in combination with recognition that
wellhead protection strategies usually start
by evaluating a well's design and identify-
ing potential pollution sources closest to the
well, provided the motivation for evaluating
pollution risks associated with farmstead
activities and structures. When designing
the program, two significant questions were
addressed—how to organize information on
the complex array of farmstead management
practices and structures into a functional
format and how to determine farmer and
rural residents' willingness to participate in
voluntary on-site pollution risks assess-
ments.
The home and farm energy audit was
identified as a model that could be used for
designing the program. Both programs
assess technical and management factors
related to causes of the problem; identify
specific products, materials, or management
practices to reduce the problem; and develop
practice implementation support mecha-
nisms that assist and encourage participants
to take voluntary actions to reduce the
problem. To determine the willingness of
farmers to participate, approximately 250
farmers who participated in a Clark County,
Wisconsin, drinking water education
-------
Conference Proceedings
69P
program were surveyed (Jackson, 1987) to
determine their willingness to participate in
an anonymous, voluntary, on-site pollution
risk assessment. Forty-four percent of the
respondents indicated they would partici-
pate. This level of interest supported efforts
to obtain funding to develop what became
the Farm*A*Syst Program. Funding to
develop the program for Wisconsin and
Minnesota was obtained from the Extension
Service, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) Region V, and the North
Central Rural Development Center. The
program was developed as a cooperative
effort between EPA Region V, Wisconsin
Extension Service, Minnesota Extension
Service, and the Soil Conservation Service
(SCS). After completion of the prototype
materials a proposal to assist other North
Central Region States in modifying the
materials for their use was developed. The
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)
and EPA expanded that proposal into a
coordinated national expansion effort. This
national expansion is being jointly funded
and staffed by the Extension Service, SCS,
and EPA. To date, nearly 45 states have
indicated their intent to develop and
implement Farm* A* Syst type programs; 15
states have completed or nearly completed
modification of the materials (at least 6
states are in pilot implementation efforts);
approximately 15 states are in the process of
modifying materials; and 15 states intend to
initiate the modification process during
calendar year 1993.
Developing and Implementing
State Farm*A*Syst Programs
Development and implementation of
an effective Farm*A*Syst program requires
building partnerships between numerous
agencies, farm organizations, conservation
organizations, and the businesses and
industries that provide products and services
necessary to prevent pollution. Policies and
programs related to farmstead practices and
structures that influence pollution risks are
part of the responsibilities of USDA
agencies and EPA programs at the national
level. However, to be effective, programs
must be tailored to accurately reflect the
policies and programs of state and local
agencies and organizations that work
directly with farmers and rural residents.
This requires development of cooperative
efforts to organize water quality protection
policies and programs into one system that
aids farmers in:
• Understanding and identifying
pollution risks associated with their
farm.
• Identifying actions that will reduce
pollution risks.
• Understanding how existing pro-
grams and policies can help prevent
pollution.
• Obtaining technical, financial, and
educational assistance to prevent
pollution.
• Taking voluntary actions to reduce
pollution risks.
Pilot Program Implementation
Results
Pilot Farm*A*Syst implementation
results indicate that the program is effective
in assisting rural residents and farmers in
identifying pollution risks associated with
their activities and structures. More
importantly, pilot results indicate that
participants are using knowledge gained
through this program to voluntarily modify
practices and structures in ways that reduce
pollution risk. Table 3 (unpublished survey,
January 1993) show results from a Waupaca
County, Wisconsin pilot implementation
program, conducted in cooperation with
local agri-business.
Significant changes in high-pollution-
risk practices occurred without a formal
practice and implementation support
Table 3. Waupaca County pilot agri-business Farm*A*Syst
delivery results 1991-92
High Risk
Practices
Worksheet Identified?3
#1 Wells
#2 Pesticides
#3 Fertilizers
#4 Petroleum
#5 Hazardous Waste
#6 Household Wastewater
#7 Livestock Waste
#8 Livestock Yards
#9 Silage
#10 Milking Center
Wastewater
25%
35%
10%
75%
15%
25%
20%
20%
10%
10%
Changes
Planned?"
60%
100%
100%
100%
0%
80%
75%
75%
50%
100%
Changes
Made?"
20%
85%
0%
33%
100%
40%
50%
50%
100%
50%
a N = 20.
b Percentage of those farms with high-risk practice identified.
Survey information was collected 3-6 months after assessments were
conducted.
-------
700
Watershed '93
mechanism. However, local information on
suppliers of the products and services that
reduce pollution risk was developed into a
local resource directory to assist landowners
with implementing action recommendations.
When asked to rate the usefulness of the
program, 65 percent of the participants rated
it as very useful and 35 percent rated it as
useful.
Results from a follow-up telephone
survey with 15 consultants and agri-business
staff who worked with 87 farmers in 3
county pilot delivery projects documented
reactions to use of the Farmstead Assess-
ment System materials; suggestions for
improvements; and perceptions of farmers
reactions to the program. All 15 staff felt
the materials were well written and easy to
work through. Suggestion for changes were
minor. Fourteen of the staff felt the pro-
gram was positively received by farmers and
one staff person felt farmers "were a little
disappointed, (and) expected more informa-
tion."
Waupaca County (Blonde, Wilson,
September 1992) also integrated
Farm*A*Syst into a drinking water educa-
tion project. A pre- and post-program
survey indicates that participation in the
drinking water education program signifi-
cantly increased participants knowledge of
ground water and that participation in both
the drinking water education program and
the Farm*A*Syst program resulted in
increased voluntary adoption of practices to
reduce ground water contamination risks.
Three groups were surveyed—
nonparticipants, those who received well
test results by mail, and those who partici-
pated in the drinking water education and
Farm*A*Syst workshop. Table 4 shows the
difference in practice changes and changes
planned between these groups. Group 1 did
not participate in well test or workshop.
Group 2's well test results and information
were received by mail. Group 3's well test
results were provided through an educa-
tional workshop.
In the Minnesota Anoka Sand Plains
USDA Demonstration Project the goal is to
complete 100 assessments. To date, 56
assessments have been completed. Some
very preliminary results are presented in
Table 5. Forty-four percent of the partici-
pants had at least one worksheet with a total
ranking score in either the moderate-to-high
risk or high risk categories (Jackson and
Anderson, 1993).
Table 5. Percent moderate to high risk
ranking for completed assessments
Topic
Wells
Pesticides
Fertilizers
Petroleum
Hazardous Waste
Household Wastewater
Livestock Waste
Livestock Yard
Silage
Milking Center
% Participants
Completed
Worksheets
0
18
14 ,
48
16
20
16
30
21
11
These pilot implementation results
indicate the Farm*A*Syst program is being
well received; is effective in increasing
knowledge of factors that influence pollu-
tion risks; and, most importantly, is
resulting in voluntary actions by participants
to reduce risks.
Table 4. Practice changes resulting from drinking water
education programs
Change in Use of
Pollution Prevention
Practices
Practices implemented
Practices planned
Group 1
N=37
16%
14%
Group 2 Group 3
N=14 N=37
21% 46%
36% 51%
Group 1 = Did not participate in well test or workshop.
Group 2 = Well test results and information received by mail.
Group 3 = Well test results provided through an educational
workshop.
N s Number responding
Implementation Approaches
Interagency cooperation in the
development of well-designed fact sheets
and worksheets provides a sound founda-
tion for identifying, discussing, and
developing cooperative approaches for
making this program available to farmers.
Five primary delivery methods that have
been used are:
1. One-on-one assistance on the farm.
2. Group assessments with educational
and technical assistance.
-------
Conference Proceedings
701
3. Combination of group orientation
with follow-up one-on-one assis-
tance.
4. Incorporation into other education
programs, i.e., drinking water
education, ground-water education,
pesticide application training, farm
management education, etc.
5. Self assessment (mailed/media).
The objective is to get the program
used on as many farms as possible and to
encourage voluntary actions to reduce or
prevent pollution. Thus, there may be
benefits to using multiple delivery mecha-
nisms involving several agencies and private
sector organizations.
Implementation Support
Systems
Farm*A*Syst program implementa-
tion efforts and the extent of voluntary
pollution prevention practice implementa-
tion by participants can be strengthened
through development of state and local
support systems. Many of the needed
components of these systems are already in
place hi existing agencies, organizations,
and the private sector. Successful involve-
ment of those who are responsible for these
support systems in material and program
development will help to build the founda-
tion for a coordinated implementation effort
that is based upon the existing capacity of
involved parties.
Two types of implementation support
must be considered for delivering
Farm*A*Syst programs:
• Systems that support conducting
assessments and the development of
action recommendations to reduce
pollution risks.
• Systems that support, encourage, and
assist farmers in voluntarily carrying
out recommendations that reduce
pollution risks.
Once the delivery mechanisms are identi-
fied, support for staff training and technical
referral mechanisms must be developed. At
least three components of staff training must
be addressed:
1. Orientation to water quality and its
relationship to land use practices,
identification of farmstead pollution
sources, and how to use the assess-
ment support materials.
2. Supervised hands-on experience in
conducting assessments.
3. Development of action recommenda-
tions to reduce identified risks,
including information on existing
policies and programs which
influence recommendations and/or
can assist with practice implementa-
tion.
The development of technical referral
networks is important because delivery staff
will not be experts on all of the potential
pollution sources they evaluate and the
Farm*A*Syst materials do not completely
cover all of the factors that influence
pollution risks. Technical referral networks
will increase the accuracy of the action plan
recommendations and allow for appropriate
involvement of agencies that have authority
or responsibility for specific practices.
The Congressional Office of Technol-
ogy Assessment Report (November 1990),
Beneath the Bottom Line, recognizes that:
Adoption of management practices
and systems to reduce ground-water
contamination by agri-chemicals
ultimately depends on decisions made
by individual farmers. Information
delivery and technical assistance
programs to reduce groundwater
contamination will be more effective
if they are based on an understanding
of factors influencing producers'
decisions and address producers'
constraints to technology adoption.
It further states:
The Farmstead Assessment Program
under development in several States
is designed to identify potential
farmstead sources of groundwater
contamination, and to educated
farmers about management practices
to prevent groundwater contamina-
tion. Further effort could promote
development and adoption of such
practices, and also could increase
awareness of the variety of potential
farmstead sources of groundwater
contamination.
Their findings support the belief that
developing pollution prevention, practice,
implementation, support systems will
increase participants voluntary implementa-
tion of recommended practices. Active
involvement of local industries in promoting
pollution prevention efforts should reinforce
recommendations of Farm*A*Syst volun-
-------
702
Watershed '93
tary action plans. Active marketing of the
products and services needed to implement
the recommendation should increase the
program's effectiveness.
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Experiences in developing and
implementing Fann*A*Syst type programs
have resulted in the following conclusions:
1. Farmers and rural residents are
concerned about well water and
ground-water quality and are willing
to take voluntary actions to prevent
contamination.
2. It is unrealistic to expect individual
fanners and homeowners to indepen-
dently understand all the factors that
influence pollution risk.
3. Farm*A*Syst type programs can
effectively assist individuals in
identifying pollution risk and in
understanding changes that can
reduce risks.
4. Coordinated involvement of
agencies with authority and
responsibility for water quality
protection and the private sector
that provides products and services
that help prevent pollution risk is
very important.
5. Pollution prevention is much more
cost-effective than cleanup, but, to
be effective, more support is needed
to develop effective implementation
of programs.
6. When developing Farm*A*Syst
programs, staff with coalition
building skills as well as staff with
technical skills must be involved.
7. This program should be coordinated
with integrated crop management
and nutrient and pest management
programs to develop a whole farm
ground-water protection plan.
These conclusions support the
following recommendations:
1. Farm*A*Syst type programs for
water quality pollution prevention
should be consciously integrated into
future water quality protection
efforts.
2. Mechanisms to provide stable
funding for staff who can provide
leadership in program development
and implementation should be
developed.
3. Training programs for staff who will
be involved in implementation of
voluntary pollution prevention risk
assessments should be developed.
4. Support materials to assist imple-
mentation staff in identifying action
recommendations needed to reduce
pollution risks should be developed.
5. Mechanisms to expand this program
into a whole farm water quality
protection program should be
developed.
Summary
Farmstead management practices and
structures can pose significant contamina-
tion risks to ground water and well water.
Farmers and rural non-farm citizens who are
concerned about protecting the quality of
their well water often do not understand the
relationship of their activities to these risks.
Pilot Farm* A*Syst implementation results
indicate that this program is effective in
assisting rural residents and farmers hi
identifying pollution risks associated with
their activities and structures. More
importantly, pilot results indicate partici-
pants are using knowledge gained through
this program to voluntarily modify practices
and structures to reduce pollution risks.
Findings of the 1993 Sandoz National
Agricultural Poll indicate:
Overwhelmingly, farmers believe the
key to reducing public concerns about
farm-related environmental issues is
education. Most feel they share
responsibility for that education with
government, teachers, manufacturers,
and others.
Designing and implementing volun-
tary Farm*A*Syst pollution prevention
programs for farms and rural residents can
be an effective way to direct these concerns
and beliefs into action.
The Farm*A*Syst program can reduce
pollution problems through developing cost-
effective cooperative relationship between
responsible agencies and the private sector.
Forging these partnerships requires an on-
going commitment from agencies that have
authority and responsibility related to
potential pollution sources. It also requires
active involvement of education institutions
and the industries and organizations which
provide products and services which are
-------
Conference Proceedings
703
necessary for reducing and/or preventing
pollution. Development of this coordinated
effort can reduce duplication of services by
different agencies and improve the cost-
effectiveness of water quality protection and
management efforts.
References
American Farm Bureau Federation. Coop-
erative -well water testing program for
county farm bureaus. American Farm
Bureau Federation, Park Ridge, IL,
p. 16.
Bergsrud, F.G., J.L. Anderson, and T.A.
Koehler. 1992. Evaluation of the
Farmstead Assessment System.
Presented at 1992 International
Summer Meeting, American Society
of Agricultural Engineers, Paper no.
92-2033, Charlotte, NC, p. 1.
Blonde, G., and T.J. Wilson. 1992. Special
ground water project phase II, Sept.
1992. Waupaca County, University of
Wisconsin.
Jackson, G.W., and J.L. Anderson. 1993.
Farmstead assessment for whole
farm water quality protection.
Presented at Soil and Water Conser-
vation Society Conference, Minne-
apolis, MN, p. 8.
Jones, S.A., and G.W.Jackson. 1990.
Farmstead assessment: A strategy to
prevent groundwater pollution.
Journal of the Soil and Water Conser-
vation Society 45(2):236-238.
Office of Technology Assessment, Congress
of the United States. 1990. Beneath
the bottom line, agricultural ap-
proaches to reduce agrichemical
contamination of groundwater. OTA-
•F-418. U.S. Government Printing
Office, Washington, DC. November.
SandozNews. 1993. Gallup says environ-
mental issues prompting changes in
attitude, actions on the farm. January
28, p. 4.
Seigley, L., and G. Hallberg, 1993. Private
well water in the Big Springs Basin:
1981-1992. Iowa State University
Water Watch newsletter, issue 42, p. 4.
University of Wisconsin-Extension. 1991.
Farm*A*Syst: Farmstead Assessment
System. G3536, University of
Wisconsin, Madison, WI.
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Water
Resources Management Program.
1989. Integrating the groundwater
component into the priority watershed
program: A case study of the Rattle-
snake Creek Watershed. University of
Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI,
p. 183.
-------
-------
WATERSHEO'93
Application of Watershed Index of
Pollution Potential to Aerial Inventory
of Land Uses and Nonpoint Pollution
Sources
Frank ). Sagona, Environmental Engineer
Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN
C. Gregory Phillips, Environmental Engineer
Fish and Wildlife Associates, Inc., Chattanooga, TN
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA)
utilizes low-altitude color infrared
(OR) photography to identify and
characterize land uses and nonpoint sources
(NFS) of pollution as part of the agency's
water resources management activities
(Perchalski and Higgins, 1988). Low-
altitude CTR photography (nominal scale of
1:24000) allows for detailed classification of
land use and land cover, types of NFS sites,
ephemeral and intermittent drainage
patterns, and streambank vegetative cover.
The NFS inventories provide a map and
tabular summary of NFS activities within
watershed project areas. More than 22,000
square kilometers (8700 square miles) of the
Tennessee River drainage have been
surveyed by this technique. An index of
pollution potential by NFS has been
developed to enhance the assessment value
of aerial survey results (Sagona and Phillips,
1993). This index helps TVA to plan and
focus monitoring, modeling, and treatment
efforts.
Index Overview
The watershed index of pollution
potential (WIPP) is an index that rates NFS
activities within a watershed. The index
uses photo-interpreted features as surrogate
indicators of potential inputs for general
classes of pollutants such as nutrients,
pathogens, sediment, and toxics. The NFS
activities within a watershed are evaluated
for two distinctive scenarios: those activities
that may be significant during runoff events
and those activities that may be significant
during non-runoff conditions. Each scenario
has a set of metrics used to group the
surveyed features. Scoring criteria are
established for each feature based on the
occurrence of the feature in the watershed
relative to the occurrence of the feature for
the entire project area.
Rationale for WIPP
Since it is not feasible to treat all
sources of NFS, a process is needed to
target the more significant sources impair-
ing the quality of water resources. A first
step involves identifying the waterbody to
be protected and predominant pollutant
sources affecting it (Maas et al., 1987).
The point of reference is a term used in
WIPP to convey the location and
pollutant(s) of interest. The location in a
watershed where the effects of pollutant
sources or treatment will be measured
determines the appropriate land use
features to be evaluated. For example,
different land use features are evaluated if
the point of reference is a reservoir's water
quality rather than the inherent quality of
streams feeding the reservoir. While the
705
-------
706
Watershed '93
former point of reference is influenced by
both runoff and non-runoff events, the
watershed evaluation would likely empha-
size NFS features that contribute pollutants
to the mass loading to the reservoir, i.e.,
runoff scenario NFS features. The focus
for stream quality evaluations would
emphasize daily (ambient) NFS features
and not just runoff conditions. WIPP
provides a mechanism to differentiate and
rate NFS features for the two scenarios.
WIPP can be generalized to evaluate NFS
for broad stream quality objectives or be
made specific to evaluate NFS for more
focused objectives.
WIPP takes a rule-base model
approach to evaluate pollution potential of
NFS. In a rule-base model, a set of rules
are established to predict or describe
changes in the ecology of a system
(Starfield et al., 1990). WIPP is in an
initial phase of a rule-based approach.
Descriptive linkages have been established
between source, type of pollution, and
general effects on stream quality. How-
ever, "rules" that predict changes in the
stream system as a result of specific NFS
control actions still need to be developed
and incorporated. An advantage of a rule-
base model approach is that inputs and
evaluations can be changed to match
available data and current understandings
of relationships.
Biological community response is
the link used to describe the effects on
stream quality. Generally, stream biota
provide clues into environmental inputs
and community responses (Adams, 1990).
The index of biotic integrity (IBI) is the
stream parameter used to characterize the
aquatic community (Karr et al., 1986).
The IBI consists of 12 ecological charac-
teristics that describe species richness,
trophic composition, and fish abundance
and condition (Karr, 1987). Information
inferred from the IBI metrics is used to
describe community shifts. These shifts
are associated with environmental influ-
ences such as general pollutant classes
and/or watershed characteristics. Sources
of these influences are obtained from the
aerial survey data. Associations are
established without necessarily requiring
or acquiring extensive water quality data
before acting on solutions: stream biota
describe stream impacts; stream impacts
indicate limiting NFS features; NFS
features guide selection of appropriate
NFS controls.
Metrics Description
The "inputs" for WIPP are simply
the photo-interpreted features and other
physical watershed characteristics used as
indicators for the general classes of
pollutants and stream features that can
influence stream quality. Interpreted
features are grouped by scenario and by
metric. Table 1 illustrates the arrangement
of scenarios, metrics, and features used to
evaluate NFS potential for a typical
watershed project. The scenarios are
intended to differentiate the evaluation of
the watershed into those features that are
related to ambient stream conditions (non-
runoff) and those that may be significant to
mass loadings to the system (runoff). The
metrics are the predominant parameters of
interest to be evaluated for each scenario.
Metrics can be added or deleted to reflect
project purposes. A metric may appear in
each scenario; however, different aspects
are being considered. For example, the
sediment metric for the non-runoff
condition evaluates NFS features that
contribute sediment and turbidity on a
daily basis to ambient stream conditions.
These relatively low "mass" inputs can be
significant to stream biology during
stressful times of the year (e.g., low
streamflows, high water temperatures).
The sediment metric in the runoff scenario
evaluates the potential for relative mass
loadings of sediment to the system. The
streambank condition metric is used as a
relative indication of riparian condition.
Riparian integrity is recognized as a
significant feature contributing to overall
stream quality (Lowrance et al., 1985;
Phillips, 1989; Schlosser and Karr, 1981).
This metric indicates the potential degree
of streambank disturbances that may effect
stream biota.
Several features appear in multiple
metrics and under both scenarios. The rea-
son is that a single landscape feature may
affect multiple stream parameters. For ex-
ample, livestock access to streams repre-
sent a source of nutrients and pathogens,
sediment and turbidity, and may indicate
riparian habitat damage or loss. This NFS
feature has potential to introduce pollut-
ants under both scenario conditions. How-
ever, it may be more significant to overall
stream health during non-runoff conditions
and is just one of many pollutant sources
during runoff conditions. Also, there are
varying numbers of features used in each
-------
Conference Proceedings
7O7
Table 1. General description of WIPP metrics
Metric
Feature3
Scenario: Non-runoff
I. Nutrients, pathogens
II. Sediment, turbidity
HI. Streambank condition1"
Scenario: Runoff
IV. Nutrients, pathogens
V. Sediment
VI. Transport
1. number of livestock operations adjacent to stream
2. number of stream locations with livestock access
3. areal extent of feedlots and holding areas
4. length of stream with potential access by livestock
5. number of stream locations with livestock access
6. areal extent of feedlots and holding areas
1. length of stream with potential access by livestock
8. length of stream disturbed by channelization or eroding banks
9. length of stream with little or no woody canopy cover
10. length of channelized streams
11. length of stream with potential access by livestock
12. length of stream with livestock access
13. length of stream with no buffer
14. number of livestock operations
15. number of stream locations of livestock access
16. areal extent of pasture in poor or fair condition
17. areal extent of feedlots and holding areas
18. length of stream adjacent to pasture
19. length of unpaved roads
20. length of eroding roadbanks
21. length of eroding streambanks
22. soil loss potential (annual total)
23. areal extent of pastureland
24. areal extent of cropland
25. areal extent of barren or denuded land
26. length of stream with access and potential access by livestock
27. ratio of a given storm runoff flow to base flow
28. ratio of annual high flow to annual low flow
29. time of concentration based on physical characteristics
30. time base for 10-yr storm event runoff
31. SCS runoff curve number for watershed
32. transport potential of stream at watershed outlet
33. length of channelized streams
"Based on results of low-altitude color infrared aerial survey of land uses and nonpoint pollution
sources. Transport function metric based on physical watershed characteristics from topographic maps
and published stream flow data. Features list can be adapted to other available land use data bases.
This metric is used to indicate relative condition of riparian habitat.
metric. This recognizes that a pollutant
class may have multiple sources. For ex-
ample, there are more features for sedi-
ment and turbidity under the runoff sce-
nario than there are for the non-runoff
scenario. This simply reflects the fact that
there are more sources of sediment during
runoff events than there are under non-run-
off conditions. For example, eroding
roadbanks do not contribute sediment to
the system on a daily basis, but can con-
tribute significant amounts of sediment
during runoff events. This land use fea-
ture, if inventoried, is included as a sedi-
ment source for the runoff scenario. The
number and type of features included in
WIPP reflect the level of land use classifi-
cations available. Thus the metrics can be
adapted for satellite, high-altitude, or low-
altitude data sources. This paper presents
the concept of WIPP based on low-altitude
CIR survey results.
-------
708
Watershed '93
Metrics Scoring Criteria
WIPP scoring is accomplished at three
levels: feature scoring, metric scoring, and
scenario scoring. Feature scores are the
rudimentary elements in the WIPP scoring
scheme. Metric and scenario scores are a
function of the feature scores. Feature
scores are based on actual watershed
features and scored as 1, 3, or 5 to indicate
high, medium, or low NFS pollution
potential, respectively. Each feature is
evaluated and scored by summing or
counting inventory values. A mean and
standard deviation are calculated for the
specific feature data set. A medium range
for the feature is established using the
feature mean plus or minus an adjusted
standard deviation. The standard deviation
is adjusted by multiplying by the following
coefficient:
(l-((absolute value of (mode-mean))/
standard deviation)) (1)
Metric scores consist of a summation
of feature scores multiplied by 4 and divided
by the number of features used in the metric
class. This function sets a maximum
possible score of 20 and a minimum score of
4 for each metric. It also ensures that when
calculating the scenario score, each metric is
represented equally regardless of the number
of features present in the metric.
Scenario scores are a summation of
the metrics for the scenario. The maximum
score is 60 and the minimum score is 12.
The actual WIPP score is an average of the
two scenario scores. The higher the WIPP
score, the lower the potential for NFS
pollution. The lower the WIPP score, the
higher the potential for NFS impacts on
stream quality. The scoring scheme for
WIPP is strongly influenced by that devel-
oped by Karr for IBI (Karr et al., 1986).
This is done because IBI figures promi-
nently in the connection between land use
features and stream quality (Sagona, 1992).
It is believed that comparable levels of
resolution exist between the two indices to
describe community response as indicated
by IBI metrics and associated environmental
influences indicated by WIPP features.
WIPP Application
The WIPP was applied to aerial inven-
tory results for the Middle Fork Holston
River drainage in southwest Virginia. The
project area is about 620 square kilometers
(240 square miles). The Middle Fork
Holston River drainage has been identified
as a watershed with significant stream im-
pacts attributed to agricultural NPS (Cox,
1986). Table 2 summarizes the metrics and
scores used to calculate WIPP for the
project. Several of the watersheds have
been surveyed using IBI as an indicator of
stream quality (Saylor et al. 1988; Saylor,
1992). Figure 1 presents summary scores
for both WIPP and IBI. All WIPP scores
are relative to the project area. Thus Nicks
Creek's (NC) WIPP score of 60 means that
this watershed has the least potential for
NPS pollution when compared to other
watersheds in the project area. The relation-
ship of WEPP to stream quality is estab-
lished by stream monitoring, for this project,
by the IBI. In general, WIPP tended to be a
more conservative estimate for stream im-
pacts than were actually measured by IBI.
An apparently large disparity between WIPP
and IBI results (i.e., more than 10 points)
was observed for Laurel Springs Creek
(LSC), Hall Creek (HLC), and upper Middle
Fork Holston River (UMF). Follow-up
investigation into the Laurel Springs drain-
age revealed historical fish kills attributed to
a defunct dairy processing plant. The
stream has a mill dam near its mouth which
precludes recruitment from the main river.
Additionally, historic and current recruit-
ment from tributaries to Laurel Springs
Creek has been limited due to extensive
livestock access to feeder streams. The
disparity observed for Hall Creek and upper
Middle Fork Holston River may be a statis-
tical artifact. WIPP evaluates pollution
potential based on actual occurrences of
NPS features in watersheds. Larger water-
sheds, if extensively developed will have
higher frequencies for NPS features, and
thus higher potentials for stream impacts.
Actual stream quality data for Hall and
upper Middle Fork Holston suggest some
NPS impacts but not to the extent predicted
by WIPP. Hall Creek has numerous springs
that may be increasing the capacity of the
stream to assimilate the watershed's NPS
inputs. This in combination with a more
"uniform" spatial distribution of NPS within
the watershed may be sufficient to prevent
the stream from being severely impacted.
The IBI score for upper Middle Fork
Holston indicate that this stream is being
stressed. This suggests that NPS may be
contributing to the decline in stream quality.
For reference, there are no major point
source discharges in either watershed.
-------
Conference Proceedings
709
Table 2. Summary of Watershed Index of Pollution Potential scores for Middle Fork Holston River (Virginia)
Project
Feature Scores
Metric: I
Watershed Feature: 1234
Bear ' • . 3533
Hall 3113
Carlock 3353
Cedar 3355
Hutton 3333
Laurel 5553
Walker 3553
Upper MFH 1111
Hungry M. 3353
Nicks 5555
Staley 5533
No Name 5533
Greenway 3313
15 Mile 1111
II
5678
5335
1131
3533
3553
3331
5535
5533
1111
3533
5555
5335
5333
3133
1111
III
9 10 11 12 13
NE NE 3 5 NE
NE NE 3 1 NE
.NENE 3 3 NE
NENE 5 3 NE
NENE 3 3 NE
NENE 3 5 NE
NENE 3 5 NE
NENE 1 1 NE
NENE 3 3 NE
NE NE 5 5 NE
NENE 3 5 NE
NE NE 3 5 NE
NENE 3 3 NE
NENE 1 1 NE
IV
1415161718
55535
11111
3 3 3 .5 3
3 3 3 5. 3
33133
55353
35353
11311
33353
55555
35535
55335
33313
31311
V
19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26
NENE 5 3 5,5 5 3
NE NE 1 1 1 1 13
NE NE 3 5 5 55 3
NENE 3 3 3 15 3
NENE 1 3- 1 1 5 3
NENE 555 55 3
NENE 333553
NENE 1 1 1 3 1 1
NENE 333 55 3
NENE 55 5 5 5 5
NENE 5 3 5 5 5 3
NENE 35 5 5 5 <3
NE NE 3 1 3 1 1 3
NENE 131 15 1
VI
27 28 29 30 31 32 33
NE NE 3 1 5 NE NE
NE NE 3 5 3 NE NE
NE NE 3 1 5 NE NE
NE NE 5 5 1 NE NE
NE NE 3 5 1 NE NE
NE NE 3 1 3 NE NE
NE NE 1 1 5 NE NE
NE NE 1 5 5 NE NE
NE NE 3 3 5 NE NE
NE NE 5 5 5 NE NE
NE NE 3 5 5 NE NE
NE NE 5 3 1 NE NE
NE NE 5 5 3 NE NE
.NE NE 3 5 3 NE NE
Metric Scores
Watershed
Bear
Hall
Carlock
Cedar
Hutton
Laurel
Walker
Upper MFH
Hungry M.
Nicks
Staley
No Name
Greenway
15 Mile
Drainage Area
km2
37.4
40.6
18.7
18.1
29.7
14.8
38.1
78.7
46.4
14.8
36.7
10.3
19.1
44.5
Scenario: Non-Runoff
Metric: I II III
14 16 16
868
14 14 12
16 16 16
12 10 12
18 18 16
16 16 16
444
14 14 12
20 20 20
16 16 16
16 14 16
10 10 12
444
Runoff
IV V VI
18 17 12
4 5 15
14 17 12
14 12 15
10 9 12
17 19 9
15 15 9
6 5 15
14 15 15
20 20 20
17 17 17
17 17 12
10 8 17
7 8 15
Scenario Scores: Index Scores:
Non-Runoff Runoff WIPP IBI
46 48 47 50
22 24 23 48
40 ! 43 41 44
48 40 44 38
34 32 33 32
52 45 48 16
48 39 44 48
12 26 19 42
40 43 41 NS
60 60 60 NS
48 51 50 NS
46 46 46 NS
32 36 34 40
12 30 . 21 NS
NE = Not evaluated; feature not inventoried.
NS = Not surveyed.
The apparent disparity between IBI
and WIPP is important. It clues the manager
to do follow-up evaluations to better
understand the system in order to take
appropriate action. In the case of Laurel
Springs Creek, fully reclaiming the stream
would require biological stocking in
association with land treatments. For the
upper Middle Fork Holston, additional
investigation (possibly monitoring) is
needed to further define cause and effect
relationships for that drainage. In the Hall
Creek drainage, stream quality seems to be
acceptable, so any NFS control activities
will increase the level of protection for that
stream. For the other watersheds, targeted
treatment of NPS is recommended for those
streams with low WIPP scores suggestive of
high pollution potentials, or where low IBI
scores indicate poor to fair stream quality.
Summary and Conclusions
WIPP, as presented in this paper,
provides a framework to evaluate land uses
and NPS pollution. It was developed in
response to a need for a practical tool to
-------
710
Watershed '93
WIPP m\B\
Low NFS
pollution
potential
High NFS
pollution
potential
o o o
o o o o
LL
Watershed
Figure 1. Comparison of WIPP and IBI scores for Middle Fork Holston River watershed (Virginia).
help guide monitoring, modeling, or NFS
treatment needs in watersheds. WIPP is
designed to extract as much information
about land uses and NPS from remote
sensed data to predict stream quality
impacts. There are degrees of impacts
between pollutant sources and stream
impacts. No single index, data set, or model
currently captures all the features and
combinations of land-water relationships
that occur in watersheds. But appropriately
used tools can provide insight and guidance
for appropriate follow-up action. Recogniz-
ing this .reality, WIPP is just another tool.
However, WIPP provides an effective
bridge between land use and stream impacts
via bioindicators. This greatly reduces the
time and costs associated with extensive
water quality monitoring before any
decisions can be made about where to go
and what to treat. Like other tools, WIPP
can not, and should not, replace actual field
familiarity with watershed conditions.
Human reasoning is still the best tool to use
to correct problems.
References
Adams, M.S. 1990. Status and use of
biological indicators for evaluating the
effects of stress on fish. American
Fisheries Society Symposium 8:1-8.
Bethesda, MD.
Cox, J.P. 1986. South Holston River basin
rehabilitation: Water resources issues
identification. TVA/ONRED/AWR
87/4. Tennessee Valley Authority,
Chattanooga, TN. March.
Karr, J.R. 1987. Biological monitoring and
environmental assessment: A concep-
tual framework. Environmental
Management 11:249-256.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier,
P.R.Yant,andI.J. Schlosser. 1986.
Assessing biological integrity in
-------
Conference Proceedings
7tt
running waters: A method and its
rationale. Special Publication no. 5.
Illinois Natural History Survey,
Champaign, IL.
Lowrance, R.R., R. Leonard, and J.
Sheridan. 1985. Managing riparian
ecosystems to control nonpoint
pollution. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 40:87-91.
Maas, R.P., M.D. Smolen, C.A. Jamieson,
and A.C. Weinberg. 1987. Setting
priorities: The key to nonpoint source
control. U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Office of Water Regula-
tions and Standards, Washington, DC.
July.
Perchalski, F.R., and J.M. Higgins. 1988.
Pinpointing nonpoint pollution. Civil
Engineering 58:62-64.
Phillips, J.D. 1989. Nonpoint source pollu-
tion control effectiveness of riparian
forests along a coastal plain river.
Journal of Hydrology110:221-237.
Sagona, F.J. 1992. Watershed manage-
ment: The connection between land
use and water quality. In Proceedings
of First Annual Southeastern Lakes
Management Conference. North
American Lake Management Society,
Alachua, FL. .
Sagona, F.J., and C.G. Phillips. 1993.
Development of a nonpoint pollution ,
index for aerial inventory of land uses
and nonpoint pollution sources.
Tennessee Valley Authority, Water
Management, Chattanooga, TN.
Saylor.CF. 1992. Middle Fork Holston
River watershed IBI results 1986-
1992. Unpublished data. Tennessee
Valley Authority, Water Management,
Norris, TN.
Saylor, C.F., D.M. Hill, S.A. Ahlstedt, and
A.M. Brown. 1988. Middle Fork
Holston River watershed biological
assessment. TVA/ONRED/AWR-88/
20. Tennessee Valley Authority,
Chattanooga, TN. May.
Schlosser, I.J., and J.R. Karr. 1981.
Riparian vegetation and channel
morphology impact on spatial patterns
of water quality in agricultural
watersheds. Environmental Manage-
ment 5(May):233-243.
Starfield, A.M.; R.H. Taylor, and L.S. Shen.
1990. Modeling: Not by the num-
bers. Civil Engineering 60:56-59.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
A Managerial Model of Nutrient Flow
from Forests in the Chesapeake Bay
Watershed
Samuel H. Austin
Virginia Department of Forestry, Charlottesville, VA
Our Situation
Now more than ever, policy makers,
resource managers, and private
citizens are faced with unprec-
edented opportunities and challenges.
Human beings are influencing the natural
systems of the earth as never before.
Human needs and deskes produce an
appetite for natural resources and a need to
dispose of wastes that is increasing expo-
nentially. As natural resource use increases
and wastes accumulate, states of ecosystem
organization change and long-term stocks of
many natural resources decline. Nowhere
are these changes more significant than
within the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
These changes provide opportunities, to
develop new ideas and policies. They also
present a challenge to rethink our relation-
ships with the natural systems that surround
us and to begin developing management
strategies that help sustain the integrity of
our ecosystems. New thinking can lead to
highly leveraged and effective new policies.
Many of the natural resource manage-
ment problems in the Chesapeake Bay
watershed result from fundamental changes
that are occurring in our social and environ-
mental systems. For example, increasing
human population is producing more
demand for natural resources. Increasing
deske for material goods creates a reinforc-
ing cycle of need. More and bigger facto-
ries are built which consume natural
resources more quickly and produce more
material goods at faster rates. Increased
production of material goods encourages the
development of more physical capital. More
roads generate more buildings alongside
them, filled with more people, who need
more roads. More roads create less open
space, fewer trees, and lower envkonmental
resiliency. They encourage emigration,
stimulating more road building elsewhere in
the watershed. Decisions made in a particu-
lar location at a particular time create
consequences that are separate in time and
space.
Often our policies within the Bay
watershed focus on symptoms or pieces of a
problem with only a fuzzy or incomplete
understanding of the envkonmental and
social interactions that are causing it. Our
reactions to a problem may be ineffective
due to distorted, delayed, or sequestered
information, fear, or an unwillingness to
face the truth. Even when we have good
information and are willing to face the truth,
we often produce policies that do not
address the problem we have focused on
because we lack understanding of the
dynamics of the system causing the prob-
lem. We do not fully understand the
detrimental effects our "solution" may
produce. We may understand pieces of the
system, but we often cannot sense the
changes and delays caused by the intricate
web of interacting factors embedded within
it. Often, policies developed without an
operational understanding of system
structure and system dynamics produce
consequences that are surprising, ineffec-
tive, or harmful.
As the pace of envkonmental and
social change in the Bay watershed in-
creases, the inadequacies of our incomplete,
linear thinking become more difficult to
713
-------
714
Watershed '93
hide. Problems generated by past solutions
appear more quickly. Our challenge is to
see our watershed with new eyes (Marcel
Proust, noted thinker and teacher); to realize
that we need to understand the whole of our
environmental and social system and the
links between the "pieces" of the system—
pieces we create in our minds. Just as the
fragments of a shattered mirror produce a
distorted image of the reality they reflect,
focusing only on pieces of our environmen-
tal and social systems, while ignoring the
whole, produces an incomplete picture of
reality.
Systems-oriented thinking is needed
to address resource management challenges
in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. We must
explore the consequences of proposed
policies in a new way, using the paradigm of
a system. The "pieces" of the policy system
that change over time must be identified,
along with links that show how each piece
influences other pieces in the system.
Policies may then be tested in this closed
system of interacting component pieces.
Relative changes over time produced by the
interacting pieces of the policy system will
show us the likely short- and long-term
results of proposed policy decisions.
Determining the relative changes that result
from various policy scenarios will allow us
to see how proposed policies change the
condition and behavior of the watershed
system overall. Alternative policies may
then be more intelligently compared. The
future will not be "predicted," but manage-
ment choices for achieving a sustainable
future will be identified.
What Are Managerial Models
and Why Are They Useful?
A model is a simplified representation
of reality (Meadows etal., 1992). Words,
graphs, charts, and maps are models
(Meadows et al., 1992). Our brains are
pattern-seeking devices. They contain
models of the world that we use to help us
survive and make decisions. Our existence
depends on an effective modeling of reality.
The model described here is unique in that it
attempts to capture an understanding of the
system or operational structure producing a
behavior of interest. An accurately defined
operational structure allows testing the
consequences of new policy decisions.
The model is a managerial model. It
is designed to identify relative future modes
of behavior that yield insights useful for
management decision making, policy
design, and creating a preferred future. It is
not designed to replicate research data or
generate precise predictions or conclusions
about the future. This distinction is impor-
tant. Conclusions are past events docu-
mented with data and data analysis. Re-
search uses past events documented with
data and analysis to generate conclusions.
Managerial models are about future events
that cannot be proved until after the event.
Because they focus on future events,
managerial models must identify the causal
structure of the system producing the
behavior of interest. This is essential
because management decisions may create
new future conditions that produce a system
response different from past responses that
may be documented by research (Boyce,
1985).
Questions
The managerial model described here
is used to help understand forest nutrient
dynamics. The model may be used in
combination with other managerial models
to assess the impacts of policy decisions on
the Chesapeake Bay ecosystem. Specific
managerial questions that the model is
designed to investigate include:
• How does the relative release of
forest nutrients in stream water
change over time?
• How do the relative amounts of
nutrients in forest streams change
after forest clear cutting? When do
these changes occur? How long do
they persist?
• How quickly do changes in nutrient
release from forest streams occur
over the long term?
• What general effect does length of
harvest rotation have on nutrient
release?
A Model of Forest Nutrient
Dynamics
Causa/ Structure
An understanding of causal structure
at a level of detail appropriate for manage-
rial insight and decisions can be achieved if
system elements and time delays significant
to system dynamics, and the linkages be-
tween them, are understood. A causal loop
-------
Conference Proceedings
7(5
diagram of the elements and linkages sig-
nificant to this inquiry is shown in Figure 1.
The operational dynamics associated
with long-term nutrient discharge from
forest land may be described using the
diagram in Figure 1. Oscillations in
discharge result from the "shift in loop
dominance" that occurs over time between
the two linked casual loops shown in Figure
1. If forests are allowed to persist, a
reinforcing cycle of nutrient uptake occurs.
This reinforcing cycle is represented by the
lower loop in Figure 1.
The forest produces more nutrient,
which is used to produce more forest bio-
mass. More biomass accumulates, produc-
ing more available nutrient. If all forest
cover is removed and no vegetation is
allowed to persist, a reinforcing cycle of
nutrient loss occurs. This reinforcing
cycle is represented by the upper loop of
Figure 1. Nutrients are lost from the forest
system. This reduces the amount of
nutrient available for uptake by forest
biomass and slows forest growth. Less
biomass accumulates, producing less
available nutrient. Short-term increases in
nutrient release after clear cutting are due
to the temporary suspension of the "nutri-
ent uptake—forest vegetation" cycle. As
new vegetation develops during the next
growing season, the "nutrient up-take—
forest vegetation" cycle begins again.
During suspension of the "nutrient
uptake—forest vegetation" cycle, decom-
position of organic matter continues.
Nutrients accumulated in
remaining forest biomass are not
immediately flushed from the
system. This delay helps create
a peak discharge of nutrients a
few years after timber cutting.
Nutrient Dynamics with
No Harvest
The managerial model sug-
gests that nutrients continue to
accumulate in forest vegetation
even as growth rate slows. Grad-
ually, nutrient losses increase
slightly. Nutrient uptake and nu-
trient loss reach a dynamic equili-
brium. Figure 2 illustrates this
effect. Nutrient uptake continues
to increase, at a decreasing rate,
even as forest vegetation has
reached the upper end of an
S-shaped growth rate pattern.
Nutrient Loss
Delay
(positive)
Delay
Forest Vegetation
(positive)
Nutrients
Figure 1. Forest nutrient dynamics: major causal loops.
max
min
nutrients in biomass
1963.00
2063.00
Figure 2. Nutrient dynamics: no harvest
-------
716
Watershed '93
max •
forest vegetation
nutrients in biomass
mln
1963.00
1973.00
Figure 3a. Nutrient dynamics: harvest and regrowth: short term.
max
mln
forest vegetation
nutrients in biomas
nutrient loss
1963.00
Figure 3b. Nutrient dynamics: harvest and regrowth: long term.
The amount of nutrient released and lost in
stream water also increases. Large amounts
of nutrient are accumulated in forest
biomass. Over time, nutrient uptake and
nutrient loss reach a dynamic equilibrium.
Nutrient Dynamics with Harvest
and Regro wth
The managerial model of nutrient
flow produces a different response if clear
felling of trees occurs. Clear cutting trees
produces a large stepwise reduction in
forest vegetation. The loss of living
biomass briefly interrupts the
cycle of nutrient uptake, and
accumulation in forest vegeta-
tion. Nutrients previously ,
available for cycling in living
biomass are made available to be
flushed from the forest system.
While nutrients are available for
release immediately, periodic
rain fall causes a delay of a year
or two in peak discharges of
nutrients to stream water. New
vegetation quickly reestablishes
the cycle of nutrient uptake and
accumulation in forest biomass,
and the amount of nutrient
released from the system
declines rapidly. This mode of
forest system response has been
demonstrated by Likens et al.
and is shown by model output in
Figure 3a.
As forest regrowth contin-
ues after timber harvesting,
nutrient loss diminishes quickly
and the amount of nutrient
accumulated in biomass increases.
A large stock of nutrient is
accumulated in forest biomass.
As growth of forest vegetation
begins to reach dynamic equilib-
rium, small increases in nutrient
loss occur. This mode of system
behavior is illustrated by the
model output in Figure 3b.
Nutrient Dynamics with an
80-Year Harvest Cycle
Model output suggests that
the amount of nutrient released
during forest clear cutting may
be proportional to the volume of
forest vegetation present and the
frequency of the harvest cycle.
Variations in site characteristics, vegeta-
tion types, and harvesting methods
undoubtedly affect the amount of nutrient
released. However, all else remaining
equal, a larger "pulse" of nutrient will be
released when areas containing a larger
volume of forest vegetation are harvested.
Since a nutrient pulse is released at the
time of clear cutting, more frequent clear
cutting results in more frequent releases of
nutrient pulses.
This mode of system behavior is
illustrated in Figure 4. An older mixed
mesophytic forest is assumed to be
2073.00
-------
Conference Proceedings
717
harvested and placed on an 80-
year cutting cycle. Using
"identical" harvesting methods
the first clear cut harvest
produces a pulsed release of
nutrient into stream water, larger
than the second pulse generated
by clear cutting 80 years later.
However, the model does not
determine if "the amount of
nutrient released per unit of
biomass removed" is more or
less during the first or second
harvest. The model only
generates the general mode of
behavior.
Conclusions
nutrients in biomass,
forest vegetation
nutrient loss.
1963.00
2073.00
The managerial model of
nutrient dynamics produces use-
ful insights into the long-term operational
dynamics of nutrient cycling in mixed me-
sophytic forest systems of the eastern
United States, and changes in nutrient re-
lease affected by clear felling of trees.
This is because the dynamics and structure
of the system are studied. A simulation of
system dynamics based on an operational
understanding of system, structure often
produces more useful information for man-
agement decision making than analysis of
static parameters with unknown structural
relationships. Some of the insights gener-
ated by the model are listed below.
• Clear felling of timber may result in
a delayed, pulsed release of nutrient
into forest stream water. Discharge
diminishes quickly as new forest
vegetation reestablishes the cycle of
nutrient uptake and storage in forest
biomass.
• The amount of nutrient released into
forest stream water during forest
clear cutting may be proportional
to the volume of forest vegetation
present and the frequency of the
harvest cycle. This suggests that
longer harvest rotations may help
reduce the total amount of nutrient
released into forest streams over
Figure 4. Nutrient dynamics: 80-year harvest cycle.
time. Variations hi site characteris-
tics, vegetation types, and harvest-
ing methods undoubtedly affect the
amount of nutrient released. The
model does not address these rela-
tionships. Also, the model does not
determine if "the amount of nutrient
released per unit of biomass re-
moved" is more or less during suc-
cessive timber harvests.
Large stocks of nutrients accumu-
late in forest biomass over time and
nutrients continue to accumulate in
mature forests, gradually approach-
ing a dynamic equilibrium. This
suggests that longer harvest cycles
may enhance the long-term effec-
tive-ness of forests as "sinks" for
accumulation and storage of
nutrients.
References
Boyce, S.G. 1985. Forestry decisions.
U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Asheville, NC.
Meadows, D.H., et al. 1992. Beyond the
limits. Chelsa Green Publishing, Post
Mills, VT.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Implementing a Watershed-Analysis-
Based Approach to Timber
Management Planning in the Hoh
River Basin, Western Olympic
Peninsula, Washington
Susan Calder Shaw, Geomorphologlst
Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Forks, WA
Riral watersheds throughout the
Pacific Northwest have faced
dramatic landscape changes during
the past two decades. Population growth, at
rates much greater than the national average,
continues to push the margins of urban
centers outward into rural areas that tradi-
tionally have supplied the Nation with a
substantial percentage of its wood fiber.
Increasingly, the more remote, mountainous
watersheds must grapple with a variety of
competing social and economic pressures
imposed by the burgeoning population's
resource demands. These include needs for
increased production of wood and water;
more land for recreational and residential
use; improved commercial-forest aesthetics;
and greater environmental protection of the
region's fish, wildlife, and cultural re-
sources.
In Washington State, where 52 percent
(22 million of 43 million acres) of the land
base is forested and 77 percent of that is
commercially harvestable (WA DNR,
1992), intensified logging activity has
heightened concerns over the potential
physical and biological impacts of timber
harvesting on watershed health. At question
are the cumulative effects of multiple
harvest activities on watershed erosion and
sedimentation, fish and wildlife habitat,
stream riparian functions, and water quality.
Upland forest practices have been scruti-
nized and monitored closely by a number of
different resource-use groups, in particular
by Native American Indian tribes that rely,
both economically and culturally, on healthy
salmon runs in coastal river systems. A
primary forestry issue today, therefore,
concerns the relationships between logging
practices, the accompanying ground
disturbance that leads to erosion of hillslope
soils and sedimentation of adjacent stream
channels, and salmon habitat.
Purpose
This paper provides a case study of a
remote, mountainous watershed on the
Olympic Peninsula in northwestern Wash-
ington. It highlights the attempts of a multi-
affiliated group to resolve conflicts between
timber-harvest and salmon-habitat manage-
ment needs in a basin that has been largely
converted from old-growth to young-aged
forests during the last 25 years. My purpose
is twofold: (1) to describe the watershed-
condition issues that led to the formation of
this interagency science-and-management
team and (2) to present the adaptive man-
agement plan that we have created and
implemented to address these concerns.
This program represents a new concept in
management of Washington state-adminis-
tered timberlands because it employs
scientifically based, landscape-scale
planning in its daily timber-production
719
-------
720
Watershed '93
business, an important change from the
traditional approach of planning by indi-
vidual forest stand or harvest unit. Also, it
seeks to diminish past conflicts through a
cooperative agreement with other watershed
resource managers, which is designed to
address the long-term requirements for
protection and rehabilitation of the basin's
natural resources.
Background
The Hoh River watershed, located on
the west side of the Olympic Peninsula
(Figure 1), supports one of three temperate
rainforests on the North American continent.
The mild; wet climate promotes dense
coniferous growth dominated by western
hemlock, Douglas fir, western red cedar, and
Sitka spruce. The productivity rate per unit
area of these forests exceeds that found
anywhere else on earth (Kirk, 1992).
Il Illll
III 17
Figure 1. Map showing location of the Hoh Basin study area and its geographic
relation to the proposed Olympic Experimental State Forest, Olympic Penin-
sula, Washington.
Consequently, the rainforest draws interna-
tional attention not only for its unique
ecological values but also for its abundant,
high-quality timber. From its glacially fed
source in the interior of the Olympic
Mountains, the Hoh River flows 100
kilometers (km) westward through a
patchwork of land ownerships, each with a
different administrative mandate. The upper
watershed, roughly 58 percent of the 776-
km2 drainage area, is administered by
Olympic National Park for wilderness
resource protection and recreation. The
lower 41 percent of the watershed is
managed by the Washington State Depart-
ment of Natural Resources (DNR) and by
private landowners as commercial timber-
lands. DNR forest lands, comprising 47,000
acres here and 2 million acres elsewhere
across the state, are managed to provide
long-term income for Washington's schools,
counties, and other public trust beneficia-
ries. On these and private timberlands,
however, three additional state
agencies regulate other natural
resources, including fish,
wildlife, and water (i.e., the
Washington Departments of
Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Ecology, respectively). The
Hoh Indian Nation, occupying
0.3 percent of the watershed at
the river mouth, depends
primarily on healthy, wild
salmon and steelhead runs in
the Hoh and adjacent systems
for its subsistence, livelihood,
and culture. These fish stocks
also contribute to a lucrative
coastwide fishing industry.
Coho and chinook salmon, as
well as steelhead trout,
primarily rear and spawn in
Hoh side-channel and valley-
wall tributary gravels on
commercial timberlands and
for a short distance upstream of
the Olympic National Park
boundary (Sedell et al., 1984;
Schlichteetal., 1991).
Numerous studies
throughout the Pacific North-
west have documented a cause-
effect relationship between
timber-harvest activities and
landsliding, due to some
combination of (1) reduced
root reinforcement from wood
decay and soil disturbance;
-------
Conference Proceedings
72 /
(2) changes in the volume and timing of
water input to the soils from decreased
evapotranspiration, transient snowmelt, and
surface runoff rerouted and concentrated by
road drainages; (3) failure of road sidecast
and landing deposits resulting from material
loading and/or decay of incorporated woody
debris; and (4) reactivation of old mass-
wasting sites through disturbance (Sidle et
al., 1985). Observations of mass-wasting
events in unmanaged forests within the Hoh
River drainage suggest that natural land-
slides occur frequently due to a combination
of steep glaciated terrain, highly erosive
substrates derived from deeply weathered
sedimentary bedrock and glacial deposits,
heavy annual precipitation (350-500 cm/yr),
and active continental-margin tectonics.
Preliminary data from managed lands in the
lower basin (Schlichte et al., 1991; Shaw et
al., in preparation) and from the nearby
North Fork Calawah watershed (O'Connor
and Cundy, 1993) indicate an order-of-
magnitude increase in rates of mass wasting
following logging and road-building
activities, mainly through the mechanisms
summarized above. A large fraction of
these post-harvest failures, however, occur
in hillslope locations that are naturally prone
to instability, many of which show signs of
ancient mass movements.
The effect of landslide-related stream
sedimentation on salmonid spawning and
rearing success is not yet fully docu-
mented. However, several studies in the
Hoh and adjoining watersheds (e.g.,
Cederholm and Salo, 1979; Schlichte et
al., 1991) demonstrated that sidecast-
constructed and poorly maintained roads
caused mass wasting and significant
sedimentation of spawning gravels,
particularly in side-, terrace-, and valley-
wall tributaries to the third- and fourth-
order mainstem channels. Additional
research (e.g., Cederholm and Reid, 1987)
found that landslide-contributed silt in
stream gravels was detrimental to survival
of salmon eggs and fry, as well as to
macroinvertebrate populations on which
salmonids prey (Schlichte et al., 1991).
Moreover, ongoing comparative studies
between stream channels in managed and
unmanaged watersheds (Hatten, in prepa-
ration) show that channel segments with
sparse or no riparian forest can develop
damaging to lethally high water tempera-
tures during the summer months.
During the winter of 1989-1990, a
series of high-intensity, long-duration
storms triggered significant landsliding and
associated debris flows throughout the
western Olympic Peninsula. In April 1990,
the Hoh Tribe requested deference of a state
timber sale in the Hoh drainage because of
nearby debris-flow activity and increased
sediment loading of downstream fish
habitat. Recognizing the importance of a
cooperative investigation of these concerns,
as well as of other forest-management issues
described above, the Department of Natural
Resources, Hoh Tribe, and Northwest Indian
Fisheries Commission entered a year-long
study to evaluate the impacts of state timber-
management activities on mass wasting,
peak storm flows, surface and road erosion,
channel morphology, and fisheries habitat
(Schlichte et al., 1991). In 1991, two
additional teams were formed. The first was
charged with creating and implementing a
timber-management plan for state lands
within the watershed, based on conclusions
garnered from these and ongoing investiga-
tions of physical, biological, and silvicul-
tural processes. The second team's task was
to carry out stream restoration projects,
while the DNR engineering division began
an extensive road stabilization project to
remove unstable, debris-flow-generating
sidecast deposits from logging roads in the
basin. These teams went to work, while the
state imposed a moratorium on its timber
harvest, pending development of the
management plan. Finally, in February
1993, the state and Hoh tribal governments
both placed their votes of confidence in this
process by signing a Memorandum of
Understanding to follow the watershed
analysis techniques and administrative
policies as set forth in the Hoh Timber-
Management Plan.
Management Plan Objectives
and Methods
The stated objective of our watershed
program is to promote management alterna-
tives that will both protect and restore viable
fish habitat and water quality on public trust
lands in the Hoh drainage (WA DNR, in
preparation). Developed under the auspices
of the Olympic Experimental State Forest,
which was proposed in 1988 by the state
governor's Commission on Old Growth
Alternatives for Washington's Forest Trust
Lands and currently is pending state and
federal approval, our plan carries with it the
experimental forest's more global objective.
-------
722
Watershed '93
Its mandate is to develop, at the landscape
scale, management alternatives that will
maintain old-growth forest characteristics in
commercially harvested timber stands
without jeopardizing key ecological values
associated with old-growth communities
(WA DNR, 1991). Simultaneously, legal
obligations (i.e., income generation) to the
land-trust beneficiaries must be met.
Accomplishment of these goals entails a
combination of research; silvicultural
manipulation of stand structures to enhance
species, genetic, habitat, and ecosystem
diversity; long-term monitoring; and
adaptive planning on time scales longer than
the average rotation between harvests (e.g.,
60-120 years).
The concept of forest-landscape
planning is central to these objectives of
protecting, restoring, and maintaining the
ecological integrity of commercial timber-
lands. In the past, harvest planning on the
Olympic Peninsula relied primarily on
evaluating local conditions within the 40-
140-acre harvest units. Ecosystem
perspectives were rare, partly because
scientific understanding and methodolo-
gies to assess watershed or landscape
cumulative effects were largely academic,
or operationally incomplete. Now, with
the last decade's surge in Northwest-
watershed research and unproved harvest
technologies, agency landowners on the
peninsula have begun to plan for future
forest conditions at the fourth- and fifth-
order watershed scale. In many of these
watersheds, however, the imprint of
previous harvest rates and methods limits
our capability to alter landscape patterns
on short or intermediate time scales (i.e.,
less than one harvest rotation). In the Hoh
watershed, 65 percent of the DNR-
managed old-growth forest has been
roaded and logged since the early 1960s.
The remaining, currently harvestable forest
lies scattered between predominantly 2-20-
year-old tree plantations, connected by a
high-density road network. These factors,
particularly road locations, constrain
ecologically based, short-term manipula-
tions of the landscape and make planning
efforts more difficult. Our challenge now
is to determine how best to manage these
remnant old-growth stands in a manner
that will not further degrade current
watershed physical and biological condi-
tions, how to develop and implement long-
term methods for enhancing ecosystem
diversity on the second-growth acres, and
how to accomplish these goals while
meeting the trust mandate.
Our plan is designed as an operational
tool for the DNR foresters and land manag-
ers to use in guiding timber management on
state lands. Many of the watershed evalua-
tion procedures have been tailored so that
field foresters developing timber sale
proposals can conduct them while already in
the field. Field data are then analyzed in
consultation with staff scientists. While we
have no jurisdictional authority over other
timber landowners in the basin, watershed
analyses are performed regardless of
ownership boundaries. The guide consists
of a manual, with accompanying maps, that
leads the user through a series of procedural
steps. Decisions made at each step dictate
which successive ones to take.
Our interagency team acts as a
scientific and technical advisory group to
the foresters and land managers as they
work through this process. We use a
combination of remote-sensing techniques,
field visits, and qualitative and/or quantita-
tive models to identify and evaluate biologi-
cal and physical processes within our
watershed. We then use defined threshold
values for these parameters as criteria for
making management decisions; threshold
values are based on the literature, statute, or
best available information from the Hoh
drainage. While many physical and
biological processes are ubiquitous, our
model is predicated on the particular
combination of Hoh landscape processes
and the cumulative effects of timber harvest
in them. Therefore, while the model is
transferable to other landscapes, the water-
shed threshold parameters, on which
management decisions are based, may
change from one river basin to the next.
Map overlays provide an effective method
for visualizing the spatial relationships
among physical and biological features,
where sensitive resource areas (e.g., those
with a high mass-wasting potential) are
readily apparent and can be treated specially
with harvest restrictions, preventive or
restorative measures, and further monitor-
ing. Subtraction of unharvestable acres
from the timber-base acreage allows
managers to adjust harvest estimates for
future economic planning.
DNR foresters, whose primary duties
consist of designing and laying out timber
sales, must now qualify their harvest
proposals through the procedures described
below. These proposals need to demonstrate
-------
Conference Proceedings
723
that no significant changes to hillslope
stability and hydrologic regimes, which
could potentially damage stream channels
supporting fish habitat, will result as a
consequence of harvest activities.
Management Plan
Implementation
This adaptive, watershed-analysis-
based timber management program is the
first of its kind to be implemented by a
Washington State agency to manage the
cumulative effects of logging on public
lands. It has been used in the Hoh River
drainage since April 1992.
The conceptual outline for the
evaluation process is shown in Figure 2. Its
foundation is a site hazard-and-risk assess-
ment procedure that weighs the potential for
resource impacts by a proposed timber sale
against known hazards posed by natural and
harvest-impacted hillslope processes within
the hydrologic basin containing the sale.
Based on the assessment outcome, manage-
ment prescriptions may vary from standard
methods for clearcutting and road-building,
to total or partially restricted harvest, the
latter of which might include selective tree
harvest by impact-minimizing techniques
(e.g., by helicopter). Regardless
of the prescribed activity,
conditions within the harvest
unit and hydrologic basin are
monitored to determine the
management strategy's effec-
tiveness. Physical and biologi-
cal watershed components will
be re-evaluated every 2 to 5
years, depending on the rate of
observed changes in their
conditions. This will allow us to
analyze and modify our working
assumptions regarding water-
shed processes, our scientific
techniques and decision-making
criteria, and our management
practices. It will also aid us in
developing basic and applied
research projects to resolve
problematic technical and
management issues.
The principal land unit on
which this watershed analysis
occurs for any given timber sale
is the second- or third-order
tributary basin most immediately
connected to it. These hydro-
logic basins generally range from 500 to
5,000 acres in size. Tributary-basin analy-
ses are then linked across the larger Hoh
landscape to ascertain the cumulative effects
of management on the mainstem watershed
as a whole. This program emphasizes the
prevention of upslope impacts; that is, the
analysis does not rely on the presence of
fish-habitat damage as the burden of proof
that upland practices are unacceptable.
Timber sales proposed within a given
tributary basin are analyzed following the
procedure outlined in Figure 3. The basic
elements, denoted with circles, consist of:
(1) a hillslope "hazard" analysis, summariz-
ing mass-wasting and surface or road
erosion potential, as well as the geomorphic
characteristics promoting substrate instabil-
ity; (2) a slope hydrology analysis, which
estimates changes in basin water production
following timber harvest; (3) a physical and
biological channel-condition assessment that
evaluates the potential for physical channel-
changing events and fish-habitat degradation
resulting from upslope management
activities; (4) short- and long-term monitor-
ing of prescription effectiveness and
methodological validity; (5) a process for
recommending habitat protection and
restoration projects to the interagency task
force responsible for designing and imple-
HOH BASIN
LANDSCAPE PLAN
BASIC AND
APPLIED RESEARCH
EVALUATE AND
MODIFY
MANAGEMENT
EVALUATE AND
MODIFY TOOLS
SITE HAZARD / RISK
ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURE
MANAGEMENT
ACTIVITY
EVALUATE AND
MODIFY
CONG
YES\4-
| MONITOR RESULTS |
+ ,
'WERE GOALS MET?I
~ "i C
EPTS
Figure 2. A conceptual outline for the adaptive, landscape-level, timber-
management plan currently being implemented on DNR-managed lands within
the Hoh watershed.
-------
724
Watershed '93
SITE HAZARD / RISK ASSESSMENT
PROCEDURE DIAGRAM
Choose
Sub-basin for
Sato
Level 1
Slops Stability
Analysis
Level 1
Hydrology
Analysis
Level 1
Channel
Assessment
Level 2
Slops Stability
Analysis
Level 2
Channel
Assessment
Pre-harvest
Proposal
Review
Restoration
Projects
Chooso another
sub-basin for
sals
monitoring \
Figure 3. Management decision-making procedure diagram; circles denote
technical watershed-analysis steps, arrows show decision pathways (see text),
and boxes indicate actions taken. A timber-sale proposal is approved following
the pre-harvest proposal review.
menting them; and (6) a pre-harvest review
period, allowing our cooperators and other
interested parties the opportunity to com-
ment on approved proposals. These basic
steps are considered "Level 1", or broad-
perspective, procedures. "Level 2" steps
involve more intensive, quantitative
analyses of slope and channel parameters,
necessary to evaluate watershed conditions
that have met or exceeded our defined
critical thresholds for potential adverse
effects. The pathway between steps is
shown in Figure 3 by arrows; passage from
one process to the next depends on whether
a given watershed parameter is in satisfac-
tory or critical condition. Our threshold
criteria are denoted by colors used on
accompanying maps to describe areas where
these conditions exist. An idea borrowed
from the one stoplight on the western
Olympic Peninsula, "green" denotes that
potential watershed-process hazards or
resource risks are low and the proposal
"passes" this phase of the analysis, "yellow"
indicates an intermediate concern for which
further detailed analysis and timber-proposal
modification are needed, and "red" means
that critical conditions exist that will
significantly constrain or dismiss the
proposal.
Each analysis phase (e.g.,
diagram circle) utilizes water-
shed information that has been
summarized and displayed as
map overlays. A minicomputer-
based geographic information
system (GIS) has been invalu-
able for the storage, display,
summary, analysis, and integra-
tion of geographic data. These
data are compiled through re-
mote sensing and field invento-
ries carried out by a consortium
of DNR foresters and technical
staff, and Hoh tribal staff. The
basic sources of information for
the Level 1 slope hazard-zone
analysis are a series of maps
showing (1) topographic, drain-
age network, and road data;
(2) forest age-class distribution;
(3) mass-wasting, surface ero-
sion, and road problem sites,
which correspond to inventory
information describing their re-
lationship to geological, geo-
morphological, hydrological,
and land-use characteristics;
zones of higher or lower failure
potential are scribed around these points;
(4) geomorphology, including soil-type dis-
tribution, hillslope form, soil depth-to-bed-
rock, and vegetative rooting depths, all of
which govern mass-movement probability
and behavior; and (5) slope morphology, or
the combination of slope gradient and form
(i.e., convex vs. concave) that may promote
or resist soil mass movement. Each of these
layers uses the "stoplight" color scheme to
alert map users to areas where critical
thresholds are exceeded. For example, most
observed landslides that have triggered de-
bris flows occur on slopes with a concave
form, whose gradient exceeds 25° (48 per-
cent); these areas are colored red on the
slope-morphology overlay and encompass
mass-wasting potential sites shown on the
slope-failure overlay. The Level 1 hydrol-
ogy analysis is performed using a quantita-
tive average annual water yield model, as
well as field observations of potential hydro-
logic problems associated with road drainage
and channel obstructions. Level 1 physical
and biological channel-condition assess-
ments double as basin-monitoring and pro1
posal decision-making tools. They include
(1) a field assessment of physical channel
morphologies and rates of change associated
with hydrologic peak-flow events and de-
-------
Conference Proceedings
725
bris-flow impacts (modified from several
procedures, including Jones and Stokes,
1992); (2) a field assessment of riparian con-
ditions, which includes an analysis of
stream-shade conditions for water-tempera-
ture regulation and an assessment of the po-
tential for stream segments to recruit large
logs from the riparian forest for channel-
stabilizing and habitat-providing purposes
(from WA Forest Practice Board, 1992);
(3) a field evaluation of fish habitat and us-
age patterns, as well as future habitat and
fish-production potential; and (4) an aerial-
photograph and field assessment of material
routing from existent and potential mass
movement sites to resource-sensitive chan-
nel reaches. Historical aerial photographs
are particularly effective analysis tools in
this basin, as they were taken prior to the
onset of intensive timber harvest.
The Level 2 channel-condition
assessment involves more quantitative
approaches to analyzing stream parameters,
including (1) monitoring stream water
temperatures, gravel composition, and
channel geometries, to precisely locate and
describe conditions damaging to fish
habitat; (2) peak-flow hydrograph modeling
to predict storm-specific changes to channel-
forming flows; (3) sediment-budget analy-
ses; and (4) coupled peak-flow and predic-
tive sediment-transport algorithms to
calculate the potential for channelized
sediments to be remobilized by seasonal or
storm-generated high flows. The Level 2
slope-stability analysis comprises a
geotechnical model that utilizes field data
and factor-of-safety analyses for heteroge-
neous soils, variable ground-water condi-
tions, and nonuniform failure surfaces.
Many of these techniques supply us
with data for baseline and effectiveness
monitoring. In particular, the channel-
assessment methods have been developed so
that data acquired can be used to evaluate
future temporal and spatial variability in
channel conditions. Upslope areas are
monitored via regular aerial surveys, and a
harvest-site evaluation form is used to
document potential changes in hillslope
conditions. In addition, comparative studies
and monitoring of watershed processes
within Olympic National Park have begun
(e.g., Hatten, in preparation), which will
help us test and adapt parameter threshold
criteria used in the watershed-analysis
process.
Eight timber-sale proposals currently
are being passed through this program. So
far, the effects on our timber-sale activities
have been (1) removal of inherently unstable
ground from harvest proposals; (2) restric-
tion of harvest from wet, unstable parts of
the hillslope; (3) limitations on harvest
systems that promote soil disturbance (e.g.,
ground-based yarding systems); and
(4) enlarged channel buffer zones to protect
riparian areas. Meanwhile, the interagency
habitat-restoration team has undertaken
three major projects in the basin, building
side-channel fish escapement ponds to
replace habitat damaged through debris-flow
activity in valley tributaries.
Conclusions
One of the most critical challenges
confronting timber managers today on the
Olympic Peninsula, and elsewhere in the
Pacific Northwest, is how to evaluate,
measure, and monitor the effects of forest
harvest on other important watershed
resources. Especially in drainages like the
Hoh River, where demands for commercial
forest products, wilderness, salmon fisher-
ies, and water quality interests converge,
overlap, or conflict, accountable and
repeatable methods for assessing effects of
resource use on landscape ecosystem health
are essential. The management model
described herein seeks to fill this need for
state lands in the Hoh River drainage of the
Olympic Peninsula and serves as a prototype
method for watershed-analysis-based,
forest-landscape planning efforts going on
elsewhere on DNR-managed trust lands.
Developed by an interagency,
interdisciplinary team, this adaptive-
management program currently is being
implemented on state trust lands within the
Hoh watershed. Goals of this process
include (1) developing short- and long-
term timber harvest plans based on
objective evaluations of the potential for
management activities to accelerate
hillslope erosion, increase flooding,
degrade water quality, alter stream-channel
morphology, and change fish-habitat
conditions; (2) designing and implement-
ing baseline and effectiveness monitoring
critical for evaluating timber-harvest
prescriptions and adapting management
practices to new technical information; and
(3) creating new techniques for analyzing
watershed processes, where inadequate or
nonexistent methods existed before.
Presented as a stepwise decision-making
-------
726
Watershed '93
manual with accompanying maps, these
tools are being used in the field by state
foresters to design timber sales around
hillslope and channel concerns. Through
adaptive implementation of this plan, we
are continually learning new ways to
improve technical methods, utilize GIS
capability, integrate forester- staff into
watershed-analysis procedures, automate
the decision-making process, and better
manage timberlands for the benefit of
watershed resources.
Acknowledgments
The following people compose the
Hoh watershed-program team and deserve
full acknowledgment for their critical roles
in this process:
Chris Byrnes, Fisheries Habitat Manager,
WA Dept. of Fisheries
Jerry Gorsline, Wetlands Specialist, WA
Environmental Council
Jim Hatten, Fish Biologist, Hoh Indian
Tribe
Scott Horton, Wildlife Biologist, WA
Dept. of Natural Resources
Randy Mesenbrink, Hoh District Man-
ager, WA Dept. of Natural Resources
Joanne Schuett-Hames, TFW Coordina-
tor, Water Quality Program, WA
Dept. of Ecology
Susan Shaw, Geomorphologist, WA
Dept. of Natural Resources
Eric Shott, Fish Biologist, Northwest
Indian Fisheries Commission
Alan Vaughan, Team Chair, Intensive
Management Forester, WA Dept. of
Natural Resources
References
Cederholm, C.J., and E.G. Salo. 1979. The
effects of logging and road landslide
siltation on the salmon and trout
spawning gravels ofStequaleho Creek
and the Clearwater River Basin,
Jefferson County, Washington.
University of Washington Fisheries
Research Institute Report no. FRI-
UW-7915.
Cederholm, C.J., andL.M. Reid. 1987.
Impact of forest management on coho
(Oncorhynchus kisutch) populations
of the Clearwater River, Washington:
A project summary. In Streamside
management forestry and fisher
interactions, ed. E.O. Salo and T.
Cundy, Contrib. no. 57, College of
Forest Resources, University of
Washington, Seattle, WA.
Hatten, J. In preparation. Comparative
stream temperature regimes and
variables encompassing both managed
and unmanaged basins of
Washington's western Olympic
Peninsula.
Kirk, R., with J.F. Franklin. 1992. The
Olympic rainforest, an ecological
web. University of Washington Press,
Seattle, WA.
O'Connor, M., and T.W. Cundy. 1993.
North Fork Calawah River watershed
condition survey: Landslide inventory
and geomorphic analysis ofmainstem
alluvial system; Pan I. Landslide
inventory and geomorphic analysis of
mass erosion. USDA Forest Service,
Olympic National. Forest report.,
Olympia, WA.
Schlichte, K., J. Cederholm, G. Flanigan,
J. Hatten, R.L. Logan, M. McHenry,
J. Ryan, and B. Traub. 1991. Forest
management alternatives for lands
managed by the Department of
Natural Resources inside the
Huelsdonk Ridge/Hoh River area.
Internal report available from the
Washington State Department of
Natural Resources, Olympic Region,
Forks, WA 98331.
Sedell, J.R., J.E. Yuska, and R.W. Speaker.
1984. Habitats and salmonid distribu-
tion in pristine, sediment-rich river
valley systems: S. Fork Hoh and
Queets River, Olympic National Park.
In Fish and wildlife relationships in
old-growth forests: Proceedings of a
symposium, Juneau, AK, April 12-15,
1982, ed. W.R. Meehan, T.R. Merrell,
Jr., and T.A. Hanley. Amer. Inst. of
Fish. Res. Biol.
Shaw, S., A. Vaughan, C. Byrnes, J.
Gorsline, J. Hatten, S. Horton, R.
Mesenbrink, J. Schuett-Hames, and
E. Shott. In preparation. Measuring
and monitoring cumulative effects of
proposed timber sales using a
watershed-analysis-based approach,
western Olympic Peninsula, Wash-
ington.
Sidle, R.C., AJ. Pearce, and C.L.
O'Loughlin. 1985. Effects of land
management on soil mass movement.
In Hillslope stability and land use,
-------
Conference Proceedings
727
American Geophysical Union, Water
Research Monograph. Series 11.
Washington Forest Practice Board. 1992.
Standard methodology for conducting
watershed analysis. Washington State
Forest Practice Act Board Manual,
vers. 1.10. Olympia, WA.
Washington State Department of Natural
Resources. 1991. Olympic Experimen-
tal State Forest, draft management
plan. Olympia, WA.
—. 1992. Forest resource plan. Policy
Plan, Division of Forest Land Man-
agement, Olympia, WA.
—. In preparation. Hoh Basin special
issue action plan: Measuring
cumulative effects of proposed
timber sales using a hazard and risk
assessment system. Part I: Proce-
dural guidelines. Part II: Technical
summary. Olympic Region Office,
Forks, WA.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
The Watershed Approach for
Protecting Vermont's Water Quality
Richard J. Croft
Francis M. Keeler
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Winooski, VT
Vermont's single greatest water
quality concern is to protect and
restore its beautiful lakes and ponds.
There are over 280 lakes and ponds with
surface areas of 20 acres or more in the
state. These areas are heavily used for
fishing and recreation. They are nestled in
the pastoral and mountain landscape and
provide a main attraction for tourism.
Unfortunately, 39 of the state's lakes and
ponds, including the two largest—Lake
Champlain and Lake Memphremagog—
have serious eutrophication problems (VT
305(b) Report, 1992). Problems related to
depressed water quality vary from beach
closures to declining use for recreation,
fishing, and general shoreline enjoyment.
Vermonters recognized these water
quality problems early. Prior to 1970, most
protection measures were directed toward
point source controls. Then in the early
1970s, framework planning for related land
resource management became important.
One example was the initiation of the Lake
Champlain Level B Study that culminated in
publication of a 1978 basinwide manage-
ment plan.
Watershed as the
Management Unit
For more than 50 years, the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) has recognized
the importance of the watershed unit for
evaluating problems and for planning and
implementing water and related land re-
source protection measures. As land-related
water quality problems gained attention in
Vermont, SCS advocated planning within
watershed units as the logical approach.
Vermont's water resources lie within
four principal basins: Connecticut River,
Lake Champlain, Lake Memphremagog, and
the Hudson River. SCS has further subdi-
vided these basins into 11-digit hydrologic
units or watersheds (generally 400 square
miles or less in size) to facilitate hydrologic
analyses and provide for watershed sizes
that are appropriate for U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) program assistance.
There are 99 of these watersheds in Vermont
(Figure 1).
The Lake Champlain Level B Study
completed in 1978 was the first comprehen-
sive study in Vermont that analyzed
watersheds for water quality problems and
solutions. SCS participated through a study
of the LaPlatte River Watershed that was
used as a sample to characterize agricultural
nonpoint source runoff and management
needs in the basin.
Later in 1979, SCS authorized the
LaPlatte River Watershed as the Nation's
first Public Law 83-566 Project to exclu-
sively implement land treatment measures
on a watershed basis for the protection of
water quality. The project provided for
treatment of agricultural runoff on 26 dairy
farms to protect the water quality of
Shelburne Bay, a major embayment of Lake
Champlain.
Monitoring and Evaluation
The LaPlatte River Watershed Project
included a 10-year-long major component
for comprehensive water quality monitoring
and evaluation. In 1980, USD A authorized
the St. Albans Bay Watershed Experimental
Rural Clean Water Project. This project used
729
-------
730
Watershed '93
Figure I. Watershed map of Vermont.
a watershed approach to treat 66 out of 100
of the watershed's farms; a major compo-
nent was comprehensive monitoring and
evaluation over a 10-year period.
Both of the water quality monitoring
and evaluation efforts were conducted by
the University of Vermont in cooperation
with SCS and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Agricultural Stabilization and
Conservation Service (ASCS). The results
of these projects have been extremely
helpful hi the calibration of special com-
puter models and in the revision and
development of technical standards for best
management practices
(BMPs). For example, SCS
completely revised its Code
393 Filter Strip standard
because the monitoring
activities identified hydrau-
lic loading-phosphorus
runoff relationships critical
for the BMP. At the
watershed level, SCS used
the monitoring data to test
and calibrate its Vermont
Phosphorus Models; these
models are used for water
quality planning in Ver-
mont.
State Water Quality
Planning
During the late 1970s,
state water quality manage-
ment agencies were
engaged in section 208
areawide nonpoint source
management planning as a
result of the 1977 Clean
Water Amendments. SCS
and Conservation Districts
participated in a task force
convened by the Vermont
Department of Natural
Resources (now Vermont
Department of Environmen-
tal Conservation) that
examined agricultural
watersheds throughout the
state. The task force
subjectively ranked eight of
these as highest priority for
agricultural nonpoint source
treatment programs. This
ranking was included in the
state's first State Water
Quality Plan for Controlling Agricultural
Pollution.
As nonpoint source planning and
treatment activities increased in the early
1980s, SCS (in cooperation with other
USDA agencies and at the request of the
Vermont Department of Environmental
Conservation) conducted the Agricultural
Runoff in Selected Vermont Watersheds
Cooperative River Basin Study (USDA,
1983). The study inventoried sample
farms, estimated runoff, and formulated
management options for 19 of Vermont's
agricultural watersheds. The Vermont
-------
Conference Proceedings
731
Barnyards
20.0%
Department of Environmental
Conservation used the results to
revise Vermont's Water Quality
Plan by supplementing the
official priority list of agricul-
tural watersheds for project
assistance. This priority list is
now included in the state's
Clean Water Strategy (VT
A.N.R., 1988).
Vermont Phosphorus
Models as Watershed
Management Tools
Another major product of
the planning and monitoring
activities has been the develop-
ment and use of personal
computer models to process
farm data for estimating annual
phosphorus loads by source
category on each farm. These
values can be aggregated as estimates of
phosphorus loads at the watershed outlet.
Planners can use contemporary eutrophica-
tion models to process these watershed load
estimates for evaluating the impact of
various agricultural nonpoint source
management scenarios. Managers can also
use model outputs to target treatment for
various sources of nonpoint phosphorus in
the watershed. For example, the model
outputs, as depicted in Figure 2, show that
in the St. Albans Bay Watershed manure
spreading was a principal, treatable phos-
phorus source while cropland erosion was
least significant.
The model output is also extremely
helpful to rank farms in a watershed for
treatment assistance. Farms can be arrayed
by descending order of phosphorus load as a
priority list for participation. This output
can also be used as a tracking mechanism to
account for achieving watershed goals for
phosphorus reduction.
Watershed Progress
Vermont has made significant
progress in managing nonpoint source
runoff in priority watersheds (Figure 3).
SCS has completed the LaPlatte River
Watershed under the Watershed Program,
P.L. 83-566, and has seven other P.L. 83-
566 watershed projects in progress. This
program also provides technical assistance
Spread Manure
49.4%
Other Erosion
0.1%
Cropland Erosion
7.7%
Stacked Manure
10.5%
Milkhouses
12.3%
Figure 2. St. Albans Bay watershed: agricultural sources of treatable phos-
phorus, pre-project.
for planning of other natural resource
projects implemented under other authori-
ties. For example, the Lower Missisquoi
River Hydrologic Unit Project has been
funded under USDA's joint agency water
quality initiatives. ASCS has funded three
special water quality watershed projects
with technical assistance from SCS. To
date, these 11 watershed projects have
treated agricultural runoff from 460 dairy
farms. The treatment is reducing phosphorus
loads to streams by an estimated 70,000
pounds annually.
Another major development for water
quality protection of Lake Champlain on a
watershed basis has been the passage of the
Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of
1990 (Act). The Act provides for wide-
spread involvement in the development of a
comprehensive pollution prevention, control
and restoration plan for the lake. This
involvement includes the States of New
York and Vermont, EPA, USDA, the U.S.
Department of the Interior, other federal
agencies, citizens, and local government
officials .
The Act also designates the entire
Lake Champlain Basin as a USDA Special
Project area under the Agricultural Conser-
vation Program. The Act directs the Secre-
tary of Agriculture to develop a comprehen-
sive agricultural monitoring and evaluation
network for all major watersheds in the Lake
Champlain Basin. An appointed strategic
core group has prepared a technical report
-------
732
Watershed '93
(LCMC, 1993) with partial funding through
EPA. This report lays out a strategy for
providing answers to the vexing questions
and issues surrounding agricultural nonpoint
source pollution. Part of this strategy is
already being implemented as studies are
underway to fill knowledge gaps about phos-
phorus runoff behavior in the farm field—
from the field to the stream and the instream
processes that govern phosphorus transport
to the watershed outlet. The result will be
more effective and efficient phosphorus
management techniques in the watersheds.
US, 0£3AmM£NT OF AGRICULTURE
731»
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
LAKE CHAMPLAIN BASIN BOUNDARY
PROJECTS
RCWP
FUNDED SPECIAL PROJECT
DESIGNATED SPECIAL PROJECT - A C P
HYDROLOGIC UNIT
St. Albons Bay
Grand Isle
La Platte River (PL83-566J
Lower Otter-Dead Creek (PL83-566)
Lower Winooski (PL83-566)
Lemon Fair (PL83-566)
Slack River (PL83-566)
Barton and Clyde Rivers (PL83-566)
Lower Missisquot River
Lower Lake Champlain (PL83-566)
Lower Lomoille River (PL83-566)
WATER QUALITY
+ PROJECTS
VERMONT
10 20 30 MILES
10 0 10 20 30 KILOMETERS
Ss-ifes: 0,5.0,5. 1:500.000 Base Map
MSB Of «PQf*d by National C
-------
Conference Proceedings
733
Vermont Strategic Core Group, Grand
Isle, VT.
Meals, D.W. 1990. LaPlatte River water-
shed water quality monitoring and
analysis program comprehensive final
report. Progress Report no. 12.
Vermont Water Resources Research
Center, University of Vermont,
Burlington, VT.
USD A. 1979. Watershed plan for LaPlatte
River watershed, Vermont. U.S. De-
partment of Agriculture, Soil Conser-
vation Service, Burlington, VT.
. 1983. Agricultural runoff in
selected Vermont watersheds. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Economic
Research Service and Soil Conserva-
tion Service, Burlington, VT.
U.S. House of Representatives. 1990. Title
II - Lake Champlain, Lake Champlain
Special Designation Act of 1990.
Congressional Record, pp. H12323-
H12324, Washington, DC.
Vermont A.N.R. 1988. Vermont nonpoint
source assessment report. Vermont
Agency of Natural Resources,
Department of Environmental
Conservation, Waterbury, VT.
—. 1992. 1992 wafer quality assess-
ment 305(b) report. Vermont Agency
of Natural Resources, Department of
Environmental Conservation, Water-
bury, VT.
Vermont Rural Clean Water Program Coor-
dinating Committee. 1991. St.
Albans Bay Rural Clean Water Pro-
gram 1991 final report. Vermont
Water Resource Research Center,
University of Vermont, Burlington,
VT.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Watershed Assessment in the
Albemarle-Pamlico Region
Randall C. Dodd, Environmental Scientist
Patricia A. Cunningham, Environmental Scientist
John P. Tippett, Environmental Scientist
Ross J. Curry, CIS Specialist
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC
Steven {. Stichter, Environmental Specialist
North Carolina Division of Coastal Management
Gerard McMahon, Research Associate
University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill
Background
The Albemarle-Pamlico (A/P) estuary
and its catchment encompass over
23,000 square miles of land and water
area in North Carolina and Vkginia, making
the system the second-largest estuarine
complex in the United States. There are
about 2 million permanent residents in this
area, with several of its prominent popula-
tion centers experiencing rapid growth. A
vast majority of the land, however, is rural
with forested land (4.7 million acres),
agricultural land (4.4 million acres), and
wetlands (2.2 million acres) dominating the
landscape (Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
Study, 1992).
In 1991, Research Triangle Institute
(RTI) was contracted by the A/P Estuarine
Study (one of 17 National Estuary Pro-
gram sites designated by the U. S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) hi
1986) to estimate nutrient budgets and ana-
lyze historical toxicant data. With a focus
on using the A/P data base to support
areawide watershed assessment, the effort
was broadened to include a general study
of environmental conditions in 1992. RTI
has also developed a watershed model to
support a pollutant trading initiative in the
Tar-Pamlico River basin, one of the tribu-
taries of the Pamlico Sound.
In the course of this work, several
general principles have surfaced that could
have broad utility for regional-scale water-
shed assessment projects. We have
learned that it is important to:
• Devote energy early on to delineat-
ing watershed boundaries. Seek
consensus on boundary location.
Build information systems and
models based on these units.
• Invest in a geographic information
system (GIS). But make sure that
your GIS is integrated with other
platforms and tools so that your
information remains accessible to the
non-GIS community.
• Develop data bases and use assess-
ment tools which recognize spatial
and temporal limitations. For
example, it is always possible to
spatially aggregate from smaller to
larger spatial units, but can be
problematic to disaggregate from
larger to smaller units.
• Complete retrospective analyses.
The results of retrospective analyses
are valuable in their own right but
can be especially useful for strategic
planning purposes. The toxics
analysis we conducted for the A/P
Study Area has stimulated consider-
able interest in reassessing toxicant
monitoring, assessment, and man-
agement programs.
• Recognize watersheds as land-
scapes. Study critical areas within
the landscape such as riparian
corridors.
735
-------
736
Watershed '93
Watershed Delineation and
PC Watershed Data Base
In 1991, RTI, the North Carolina
Center for Geographic Information and
Analysis, and the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management (DEM)
completed a watershed delineation project
in the North Carolina portion of the A/P
Study area (Dodd et al., 1992). We
delineated watershed boundaries based on
three factors. First, all boundaries were
made to be consistent with U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) cataloging units (CUs).
Second, DEM sub-basin boundaries were
adjusted to nest within CUs. Third,
watersheds were identified so that outlets
coincided with the locations of gaging
stations with continuous flow recorders
and good water quality records. This
scheme resulted in identification of 68
polygons in .the North Carolina portion of
the A/P study area (Figure 1). The Soil
Conservation Service is currently delineat-
ing additional small watersheds which will
VA
NC
be nested within these sub-basins, result-
ing in an integrated, interagency classifica-
tion scheme.
We used the sub-basin boundaries as
the basis for developing a watershed-
oriented data base of information related to
point and nonpoint sources (Tippett and
Dodd, 1993). To develop the data base,
we had to convert much of the data related
to nonpoint sources from a county orienta-
tion to a watershed orientation. Data
elements are summarized in Table 1. The
data base was developed with FoxPro
Version 2.0 and runs on IBM-compatible
personal computers.
We also prepared sub-basin "pro-
files." The profiles included a series of
maps and a ranking of a number of
indicators of resources, stressors, and
impairment for each sub-basin (Table 2)
(Dodd et al., 1993a). Nutrient budget and
toxics analysis projects that provided the
foundation for profile development are
discussed below.
Areawide
Nutrient Budgets
Fluvial Drainage
Y//A Chowan River Basin
I 1 Roanoke River Basin
Tar-Pamlico River Basin
Neuse River Basin
I••--.•.-.--.I Estuarine Drainage
Tidewater Region
Figure 1. Basins and sub-basins in the study area.
In one A/P Study
Area project, we esti-
mated annual average
total nitrogen and total
phosphorus inputs to
surface waters for each
sub-basin (Dodd et al.,
1992). Runoff from
various land cover
categories, direct input of
atmospheric nutrients to
surface waters, and point
sources were considered.
The data sources we used
were representative of the
mid to late 1980s.
We chose pollutant
loading factors ("export
coefficients") based on a
literature review (Table
3) and multiplied them by
the area in several land
use/land cover categories
(as determined from
LANDSAT unages) to
estimate runoff inputs
and atmospheric inputs.
Output from EPA's
Regional Atmospheric
Deposition Model
-------
Conference Proceedings
737
(RADM) was also used to estimate atmo-
spheric nitrogen inputs. We did not explic-
itly account for other sources of nutrients,
such as septic tanks, local atmospheric
sources, unmonitored point sources, and
concentrated animal operations. We did not
consider transport of nutrients from the
source to the estuary; thus estimates should
be considered as potential loadings to the
estuary and sound systems. Estimates were
calculated for total nutrient loading, with the
exception of atmospheric nitrogen estimates
from the RADM model which were avail-
able for specific nitrogen species only.
We estimated that a total of more than
43 million kilograms/year (kg/yr) of
nitrogen and more than 4 million kg/yr of
phosphorus enter surface waters by dis-
charge from point sources, runoff, direct
atmospheric deposition, and discharge from
upstream reservoirs (Figure 2). Agriculture
is the largest nonpoint source category for
both phosphorus and nitrogen inputs. We
also calculated area loading rates (Figure 3)
to compare sub-basin loadings per unit area.
The export coefficient model allows
for a very general assessment of nutrient
loading, and therefore has limited applica-
bility for studying issues such as the
effectiveness of management measures or
the transport of nutrients through a water-
shed. To enhance modeling capabilities, we
currently developed mass balance and
loading function and mass balance models
(RTI, 1994).
The Generalized Watershed Loading
Function model application
provides an "engineering
compromise between
export coefficients and
chemical simulation
models" (Haith et al.,
1992). The mass balance
model describes nutrient
cycling with nutrient input
estimates for fertilizer,
manure, biological fixa-
tion, nutrient output
estimates for crop harvest,
and 'calculation of a
residual term.
Table 1. PC sub-basin database elements
Data Type
Data Source
Point Source Loadings
Land Use/Land Cover
Agricultural Land Use
Livestock Inventories
Conservation Technology
Implementation
Human Populations and
Projections
Nutrient Budgets
NCDEM Discharger Monitoring
Records
LANDSAT
Federal Agricultural Census
State Agricultural Statistics
USDA Conservation Technology
Information Center
NC Office of State Planning
Dodd et al., 1992
ment issues, we completed a GIS hydro-
logic buffering analysis (Dodd et al.,
1993b). The analysis involved identify-
ing surface water features, creating
buffers, overlaying the buffers on
LANDSAT-derived land use/land cover
(LU/LC) data, and summarizing and
analyzing the results.
The analysis indicates that approxi-
mately 75 percent of land within 100
feet of streams is forest or wetland. The
percentage of streamside land in forest/
wetland varies from 89 percent in the
Fishing Creek watershed to only 40
percent in the Tranters Creek watershed.
Riparian corridors have a higher percent-
age of undeveloped land in the upper
basin than in the lower basin, probably
because of factors related to suitability
for agriculture and urban development
(Figure 4). Within a given watershed,
Table 2. Indicators included in sub-basin profiles
Land Use Analysis
Using GIS
Buffering
In an effort to focus
efforts on riparian manage-
Indicator Category Indicator Type
Data Layer
Critical Resources
Areas
Estuarine Fisheries Shellfish, Crustacean, Finfish Harvest
Use Impairment
Stressors
Aquatic Habitat
Palustrine/Terrestrial
Habitat
Toxicant
Contamination
Eutrophic Waters
Waste Sites
Nonpoint Sources
Point Sources
Nursery Areas, SAV, Outstanding
Resource
Waters; Freshwater Mussel Habitat
Wetlands; Natural Areas
Point Source, Ambient
Water, Sediment, Fish and Shellfish
Exceedances, Fish Consumption
Advisories
Algal Blooms
Landfills, Superfund Sites, Hazardous
Waste Sites
Marinas, Agricultural and Urban Land,
Nonpoint Source Nutrient Loading
Nutrient Loading, Toxicant Loading
SAV = Submerged aquatic vegetation.
-------
738
Watershed '93
Areawide Loading Summary (kg/yr)
30.000.000
25.000.000
20,000.000-
15.000.000
10.000.000
5.000.000
0
• Phosphorus
D Nitrogen
Runoff Point Sources (HC) Direct Deposition Reservoir Release
Figure 2. Nutrient budget summary.
Annual Nonpoint N and P loadings by Sub-Basin
(kg/ha)
•<— 1— CM CM CM CO CO
•«r ir> in to to
Sub-Basin #
Figure 3. Sub-basin nutrient loading.
Percentage or Land Within 100 Feet of Streams
Categorized as Agricultural or Developed
T»Mvwtet»rTart»n>
Tar Rwsf above Tafboro
Swift Creek
Fishing Creek
Figure 4. GIS buffering analysis results.
long corridors can have little or no
riparian buffer.
It is also important to point out
that the amount of the watershed
within the 100-foot buffer is only
about 5 percent of the total watershed
area. One implication is that
nonpoint source control programs
should be able to more readily
geographically focus their efforts in
these areas than in large landscapes
like river basins or counties.
Comparison of results for
different sub-basins can provide
useful input into the prioritization of
watersheds for ecological restora-
tion efforts and associated nonpoint
source control benefits. This
analysis also allows for identifica-
tion of individual stream reaches
within a watershed where insuffi-
cient riparian buffering may warrant
special attention. A final potential
use might be in periodic studies of
changes in environmental quality
within riparian corridors. The net
effect of wetlands conservation
efforts, urban development, and
changes in agricultural practices are
possible topics of interest. This
effort would require periodic
updates of key data (e.g., land use/
land cover).
Toxics Analysis
Monitoring of toxicants in
effluents and in the envkonment
began in the 1980s. However, no
systematic evaluation of the data
collected had been attempted prior
to 1991. In that year, RTI under-
took a project to (1) analyze toxics
information from diverse agencies
and data bases in a consistent
manner; (2) estimate annual toxics
loadings from point sources and
predict the potential for exceedances
of water quality standards due to
these sources; and (3) compare
ambient water column, sediment,
and fish tissue data to the most
appropriate standards or criteria
available (Cunningham et al., 1992).
For those toxicants for which the
state had not defined standards, we
used EPA criteria, action levels, or
other levels of concern as screening
-------
Conference Proceedings
739
values (Table 4). This study was limited to
the North Carolina portion of the A/P Study
Area. Based on DEM's recommendations,
we focused on metal contamination issues,
although organic contaminants were
evaluated in fish and shellfish tissue as
well.
Three metals (mercury, arsenic, and
lead) and dioxin were the four pollutants
most frequently detected in whole fish at
concentrations exceeding the selected levels
of concern for wildlife. Dioxin and mercury
were the two toxic pollutants most fre-
quently detected in fish tissues at concen-
trations exceeding the selected human
health safety values. The primary sources
of dioxin in the A/P Study Area are
presumed to be several large pulp and paper
mills. Metal loadings from point sources
and nonpoint sources such as urban runoff,
leachate from landfills, resource extraction
activities, or atmospheric deposition may all
contribute to metal contamination of the
system.
Table 4. Summary of toxics screening analysis
Parameter
Point sources
Ambient
water quality
Sediment
quality -
Freshwater
Sediment
quality -
Estuarine
Fish tissue
contamination -
Wildlife (whole
fish)
Fish tissue
contamination -
Human health
(fish fillet
and shellfish)
Screening
Data Source Method
Discharger Dilution model
monitoring reports (7Q10 and
average flow)
STORET NC water quality
standards
EPA aquatic life
criteria (criterion
continuous
concentration)
NC or EPA human
health criteria
STORET EPA threshold
concentrations
USEPA, 1985)
Riggs et al., 1989, NOAA low effects
1992, and 1993 range (ER-L)
(draft) and median effects
range (ER-M)
(Long and Morgan,
1990)
NCDEM Metals: USFWS
(Schmitt and
Brumbaugh, 1990)
Organics: Scientific
literature
NCDEM EPA risk-based
screening values
(USEPA, 1992)
# of Facilities/
Sites Exceeding
Screening Criteria
7Q10flow: 21
Average flow: 12
Freshwater: 24
Estuarine: 6
0 (only 3 stations
sampled)
256 (ER-L)
51 (ER-M)
73 (metals)
13 (dioxin)
42 (fish)
18 (shellfish)
39 (fish)
Pollutants
Exceeding
Screening Criteria
Al,As,Cd,Cr,Cu,Pb,
Hg,Ni,Se,Ag,Zn,CN
Al, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ni, Zn
None
ER-L: Pb,Hg,Zn,Cu,
Ni, Cr,Cd,As,Ag
ER-M: Pb.Zn, Cd,Hg,
Cr, Ni, Cu
Cu, Pb, Hg, Cd, As, Zn,
Dioxin
Hg, As, Pb, Cu, DDT,
and Dieldrin
As, Zn, Pb
Dioxin
-------
740
Watershed '93
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank the staff
members of the Albemarle-Pamlico
Estuarine Study, North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management, and North
Carolina Center for Geographic Informa-
tion and Analysis who have provided the
financial support and data necessary for
preparing this paper. We would also like
to thank all those at Research Triangle
Institute who have provided ongoing
technical, administrative, and clerical
assistance.
References
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study. 1992.
The second public draft of the
Comprehensive Conservation Man-
agement Plan. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
December 18.
Cunningham, P.A., R.E. Williams, R.L.
Chessin, J.M. McCarthy, R.J. Curry,
K.W. Gold, R.W. Pratt, and S.J.
Stichter. 1992. Watershed planning
in the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine
system: Toxics analysis. Report
no. 92-04. Albemarle-Pamlico
Estuarine Study. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Dodd, R.C., G. McMahon, and S.J.
Stichter. 1992. Watershed planning
in the Albemarle-Pamlico estuarine
system. Report 1: Annual average
nutrient budgets. Report no. 92-10.
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study.
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Dodd, R.C., P.A. Cunningham, RJ. Curry,
and SJ. Stichter. 1993a. Watershed
planning in the Albemarle-Pamlico
estuarine system: Report 6: Use of
information systems for developing
subbasin profiles. Report no. 93-01.
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study.
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Dodd, R.C., J.M. McCarthy, S.J. Stichter,
W.S. Cooler, and W.D. Wheaton.
1993b. Riparian buffers for water
quality enhancement in the Albemarle-
Pamlico area. Report no. 93-17.
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study.
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Haith, D.A., R. Mandel, and R.W. Wu.
1992. Generalized watershed loading
functions. Version 2.0 User's Manual.
Department of Agricultural and
Biological Engineering, Cornell
University, Ithaca, NY.
Long, E.R., and L.G.Morgan. 1990. The
potential for biological effects of
sediment-sorbed contaminants tested
in the National Status and Trends
Program. NOAA Technical Memo-
randum NOS OMA 52. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, Seattle, WA.
Research Triangle Institute. 1994. Nutrient
management and modeling in the Tar-
Pamlico Basin. Draft report prepared
for the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management, Raleigh,
NC.
Riggs, S.R., J.T. Bray, J.C. Hamilton, D.V.
Ames, C.R. Klingman, R.A. Wyrick,
and J.R. Watson- ID preparation.
Heavy metals in organic-rich muds of
the Albemarle Sound and estuarine
system. Report no. 92-10. Albemarle-
Pamlico Estuary Study. North
Carolina Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, NC.
Riggs, S.R., J.T. Bray, E.R. Powers, J.C.
Hamilton, D.V. Ames, K.L. Owens,
D.D. Yeates, S.L. Lucas, J.R.
Watson, and H.M. Williamson.
1991. Heavy metals in organic-rich
muds of the Neuse River estuarine
system. Report no. 90-07.
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
Study. North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and
Natural Resources, Raleigh,
NC.
Riggs, S.R., E.R. Powers, J.T. Bray, P.M.
Stout, C. Hamilton, D. Ames, R.
Moore, J. Watson, S. Lucas, and M.
Williamson. 1989. Heavy metal
pollutants in organic-rich muds of
the Pamlico River estuarine system:
Their concentration, distribution,
and effects upon benthic environ-
ments and water quality. Report no.
89-06. Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
Study. North Carolina Department
of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
-------
Conference Proceedings
741
Schmitt, C.J., and W.G. Brumbaugh. 1990.
National Contaminant Biomonitoring
Program: Concentrations of arsenic,
cadmium, copper, lead, mercury,
selenium, and zinc in U.S. freshwater
fish, 1976-1984. Archives of Environ-
mental Contamination Toxicology
19:731-747.
Tippett, J.P., and R.C. Dodd. 1993.
Watershed planning in the Albemarle-
Pamlico estuarine system. Report 4:
A sub-basin PC data base.
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study.
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC. March.
USEPA. 1985. National perspective on sedi-
ment quality. U.S. Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, Office of Water Regu-
lations and Standards, Criteria and
Standards Division, Washington, DC.
. 1992. Fish sampling and analysis:
A guidance document for issuing fish
consumption advisories. Draft. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Office of Science and Technology,
Fish Contamination Section, Washing-
ton, DC. August.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Monitoring Long-Term Watershed/
Ecosystem Change for Preserved
Lands
Ray Herrmann, Leader
National Park Service, Water Resources Cooperative Park Studies Unit*
Colorado State University, Ft. Collins, CO
Background
Watershed-conditions are affected
by uncertain and complex interac-
tive environmental trends, many
of global occurrence. Questions regarding
watershed science, although often site spe-
cific thus require answers on a global basis.
Frequently, input to the highest levels of gov-
ernment decision-making is needed if mod-
ern society is to mitigate, stop and/or reverse
the large-scale watershed/ ecosystem alter-
ations now occurring world-wide. However,
our ability to sensibly and effectively manage
natural resources hi today's global environ-
ment is often constrained by our lack of
knowledge about the hydrologic cycle and its
relationship to the geosphere and die bio-
sphere. We know the current condition of
park natural resources and those of other pre-
served lands are subject to many widespread
anthropo-genically induced changes resulting
from acidification, eutrophication, toxic sub-
stances, boundary encroachments, over use,
species shifts or extirpation, desertification,
loss of biodiversity, land use change, and sea
level rise. The watershed approach to long-
term research and monitoring of natural and
remote areas within National parks and simi-
lar reserves provides important data on eco-
system processes and interactions for detect-
ing both spatial and temporal change in
environmental conditions. These data collec-
tions allow the partitioning of cause and ef-
fect relationships of ecological change within
watersheds. They also serve to meet both
* Currently with National Biological Survey,
Watershed Research.
reference and early warning objectives cor-
relative to natural ecosystems change. Ac-
cordingly, the scientific and public policy
communities can employ watershed/ecosys-
tem information as one means of obtaining
early indication of the potential effects of
anthropogenically induced stress and a much
better assessment of its magnitude
(Herrmann, 1982, 1990; Herrmann et al.,
1993). Use of the concept to address a num-
ber of acid precipitation or biogeochemical
cycling research goals has demonstrated the
utility of these integrated watershed data for
inter-ecosystem comparison between pre-
served and other watersheds (Herrmann and
Stottlemyer, 1991).
The need for watershed research stud-
ies in parks or equivalent reserves, where
mandates minimize direct anthropogenic
change, is fundamentally critical to our un-
derstanding of major natural resource issues.
Because National Park Service (NPS) re-
sources management information demands
are often similar to data requirements of
other national and international programs,
many linkages have influenced our concep-
tual approach. A few examples of compa-
rable activities are the United Nations Educa-
tional, Scientific and Cultural Organization
(UNESCO) and U.S. Man and the Biosphere
Program (Franklin and Krugman, 1979;
Wiersma et al., 1979), the Long Term Eco-
logical Research Program of the National
Science Foundation (NSF, 1979), the inter-
agency National Acid Precipitation Assess-
ment Program (NAPAP, 1981), the inter-
governmental US/USSR (now US/Russia)
Environmental Bilateral, Biosphere Reserves
Project (Franklin et al., 1984; Wiersma et
743
-------
744
Watershed '93
al., 1984; Hemnann et al., 1993), the U.S.
Committee on Earth and Environmental Sci-
ences (U.S. Committee on Earth Sciences,
1992), and the International Geosphere-Bio-
sphere Programme (ICSU, 1986). Concur-
rently, our program is linked cooperatively
where possible with initiatives in other agen-
cies and other institutions at both the national
and international levels (Table 1). The wa-
tershed research program of the NFS is cur-
rently unique, however, in addressing the
needs of and issues important to the present
and future management of public lands that
are set aside to be preserved largely in a
natural state.
The NFS program of long-term
watershed/ecosystem research officially
began with proposals in 1980 to monitor
atmospheric inputs and to establish inte-
grated baseline data on climate, chemistry,
geology, soils, vegetation, hydrology, and
aquatic resources. Our intent at the time was
to relate atmospheric inputs to acidification,
ecosystem response and stream chemistry
outputs. Quantification of the hydrologic
cycle and chemical flux were major objec-
tives of the watershed monitoring and
research programs. Building an information
base sufficient to test a number of hypotheses
regarding acidification and change at the
watershed/ecosystem level was emphasized
through the first 10-year term of the program.
Study sites were selected to be
biogeographically representative of naturally
functioning ecosystems in relatively remote
areas. Five sites are active today as a result
of the program. Four were established as
part of the NAPAP: Rocky Mountain
National Park, Sequoia and Kings Canyon
National Parks, Olympic National Park and
Isle Royal National Park. The fifth site,
Shenandoah National Park, includes numer-
ous related research and monitoring efforts.
In addition, early work that included effects
of acid precipitation, was performed at a
sixth site, Great Smoky Mountains National
Park. Given this experience the NFS
Watershed Research Program has retained a
mass balance concept and the Biosphere
Reserve core area concept for natural lands
surrounded by developed lands against which
resource's change can be assessed.
Table 1. Current integrated programs related to the NBS/NPS watershed research program that encompass
assessment of a broad range of environmental impacts
Program
Lead Organization
Watershed Program
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP)
Temporally Integrated Monitoring of Ecosystems (TIME)
International Geosphere Biosphere Program (IGBP)
U.S. Global Climate Change Program
Water Energy and Biogeochemical Budgets (WEBB)
Hydrologic Benchmark Network
National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN)
Interagency Fresh Water Imperative (FWI)
Precipitation Measurement Program
National Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)
Global Environmental Monitoring System (GEMS)
U.S. Long-Term Ecological Research Program
Forest Health Program
Watershed Research
Man and the Biosphere Program (MAB)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
International Council of Scientific Unions
(ICSU) Scientific Committee on Problems of
the Environment (SCOPE)
U.S. Interagency Committee on Earth and
Environmental Sciences (CEES)
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
U.S. Geological Survey
U.S. Geological Survey
National Science Foundation
World Meteorological Organization (WMO)
Agricultural Research Service/USGS
United Nations/United Nations Environment
Programme (UNEP)
National Science Foundation
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Forest Service
United Nations Educational, Scientific and
Cultural Organization (UNESCO)
-------
Conference Proceedings
745
Program Objectives
Watershed studies in the 1990s
provide the context for focusing informa-
tion about watershed conditions toward
assessment of ecosystem changes and of
possible impacts of global climate change.
Meteorologic, microclimatic, and hydro-
logic data available now and being col-
lected on selected watersheds are being
utilized in conjunction with data from
ecosystem process studies, from the same
watersheds to determine whether the
predicted climate driven responses are
occurring or are likely to occur. As an
example, at Isle Royale National Park these
data now make it possible to test hypoth-
eses regarding the role of nitrogen in
conifer forests (Stotflemyer, 1993). New
data from Noatak are being used to evalu-
ate the nitrogen cycle at the spruce-tundra
ecotone (Binkley et al., 1992) and for
questioning existing scientific paradigms.
Thus, park researchers and resources
managers alike are provided needed
information for dealing with today's
complex local, regional, and global natural
resources issues, and against which present
and future resources management actions
may be assessed.
For the period 1982-1989, the
National Park Service Watershed Research
Program, as previously discussed, was
designed primarily to provide information
to detect actual and potential impacts from
changing atmospheric chemistry. Most
importantly, early objectives emphasized
building an information base and core data
sets sufficient to test a number of hypoth-
eses regarding acidification or bio-
geochemical change in representative
watersheds (Table 2). The original and still
pertinent program objectives were:
• Detection of chemical and biologi-
cal change within each represented
ecosystem.
• Partitioning cause-and-effect
relationships in long-term ecosys-
tem change.
• Evaluation of how different
unmanipulated natural sites will
respond to acidification.
• Establishment of an early warning
system for measuring ecosystem
response.
For the period 1990-2000, the program
will provide for the broad characterization of
watersheds within representative units of the
NPS in order to develop enhanced under-
standing of relationships between watershed
processes and ecosystem status. Sites
continue to have a number of essential
common attributes (Table 3). These site
requirements apply not only to NPS study
watersheds, but equally as well to most U.S.
Biosphere Reserve sites, and are also
suggested as appropriate for potential global
base-line sites. Contained within this broad
design is a major focus on interpreting
watershed information as an early indicator
of potential impairment to natural resources.
The current study objectives are:
1. Develop and implement example
procedures and protocols to identify,
collect, organize, analyze, and
synthesize selected watershed data
within representative watersheds
and to interpret for park manage-
ment the current status and trends in
the condition of the park natural
resources contained therein.
2. Establish baseline conditions for
watershed processes against which
Table 2. Summary of core data collection for NPS watershed
studies
Domain
Data Field
Precipitation Deposition
(chemistry) Wet
Snow
Dry
Bulk collections
Climate Windspeed and direction, humidity (or
equivalent), temperature, incident solar
radiation, precipitation amount
Vegetation Permanent plots
Soils Plots in a manner consistent with vegeta-
tion analysis and specific samples relating
to water chemistry flux samples
Hydrology and Temperature, chemistry (major
aquatic studies cations and anions), stream discharge
Lake stage (inflow-outflow as needed for
mass balance)
Ground water mass balance (inputs/
outputs)
Ground water (chemistry characterization)
, Characterize aquatic system and establish
baseline of indicator species
Paleolimnology Sediment cores (diatom and heavy metals
analysis)
Pollen analysis, if possible
3ollutants Trace elements (metals) in soil, in litter, in
vegetation, in water
-------
746
Watershed '93
Thole 3. Commonalities that apply when trying to develop
or to characterize watershed sites within a monitoring and
research network
Has long-term protected status (site integrity)
Has a core area (an undisturbed watershed)
Has basic inventory information
Has a research and/or monitoring capability
Has established monitoring or is willing to establish
techniques that will not change unless they can be cali-
brated to a new technique
Has or is willing to establish a sampling protocol that fits
within the time frame of known physical and biologic
events
Has or is willing to establish standardized data collection,
sample storage,' sample archival, and data management
schemes
Has or is willing to establish data collection techniques
that can be accurately repeated.
Identifies questions or hypotheses that are relevant
Identifies anticipated changes and where they are expected
to occur
Identifies an experimental design to allow for detection of
change and understanding the mechanisms of change
Locates sites along probable dispersal gradients or existing
pollution gradients
Locates sites to cover major identifiable environmental
variations and ecoregions
change in the hydrologic cycle can
be evaluated.
3. Establish watershed response to
stress and report on its significance
to the managers of park/reserve
resources.
4. Develop watershed sites as part of a
national and possibly international
system of background sites estab-
lishing a climatic, hydrological,
ecological, and biogeochemical
baseline against which national and
global trends can be measured.
5. Develop and test a watershed
research theme to be implemented
within the context of NFS Global
Climate Change and Inventory and
Monitoring.
6. Develop strong linkages between
the NFS Global Climate, Inventory
and Monitoring and Watershed
Research Programs.
7. Coordinate with similar interagency,
inter-institutional, and international
efforts.
At each research site, while meeting
these broad objectives, activities contribute
to the accumulation of applicable baseline
information on deposition chemistry,
climate, hydrology and ecosystem pro-
cesses. Systematic sampling provides
chemical information about trace elements,
sulfate and nitrate in air, water, soil,
vegetation, and forest litter. These mea-
surements must still be combined with
other data sets, including biology, geology,
hydrology, land-use, topography, historic
and pre-historic records, to better under-
stand ecosystem-level processes, or to test
hypotheses regarding prominent global
issues (Herrmann, 1982).
Present Status
At the close of 1992,10 NFS areas,
representing as many biomes, have begun
some watershed research activities: Crater
Lake National Park, Denali National Park
and Preserve, Glacier National Park, Great
Smoky Mountains National Park, Isle Royale
National Park, Noatak National Preserve,
Olympic National Park, Rocky Mountain
National Park, Sequoia National Park and
Shenandoah National Park. Six sites have
been designated as part of the NPS Global
Climate Change (GCC) Program: Rocky
Mountain, Isle Royale, Olympic, Sequoia,
Glacier, and the substantial lake studies
program at Crater Lake. Three sites are now
included in the NPS Inventory and Monitor-
ing (I&M) Program: Shenandoah, Great
Smoky Mountains and Denali. New poten-
tial watershed sites included in the NPS GCC
Program are Everglades National Park,
Organ Pipe Cactus National Monument,
Buffalo Wild and Scenic River, and Ozark
National River.
Information presently collected at these
sites is leading to a methodical description
and quantification of the watersheds. Our
continued progress" in finding solutions to
many complex ecological and environmental
problems relies on our maintaining interdisci-
plinary efforts to understand linkages among
climate, the hydrologic cycle, chemical
processes and the biota. Herrmann and
Stottlemyer (1991) discuss successful
applications of these data to assess funda-
mental biogeochemical cycles (e.g., carbon,
nitrogen, sulfur). We should note that
understanding these cycles relates directly to
our ability to answer questions not only
about water availability and quality, but
-------
Conference Proceedings
747
also on changes in plant and animal
distribution, abundance and biodiversity,
and fire regimes, to mention but a few
issues that can alter watershed processes.
Some site-specific results important
to watershed science and to management of
park resources follow. Sequoia National
Park study sites include alpine and sub-
alpine watersheds with low buffering
capacities within two distinct physiographic
regions. Atmospheric inputs at three
elevations representing three major ecosys-
tems (chaparral, coniferous forests, and
sub-alpine) have been monitored, and
baseline data on soils, vegetation, and
aquatic communities collected. Studies
include analysis of precipitation chemistry,
dry deposition, stream hydrology, aquatic
chemistry and biology, soil chemistry,
meteorology, nutrient flux, and vegetation
structure and function. Emphasis has been
placed on detection of long-term change of
atmospheric inputs and their effects on
natural ecosystems, across the elevational
gradient. Temporary acidification of high-
elevation lakes and streams of the Sierra
Nevada has been documented during spring
snowmelt and after acidic summer storms.
The effects of atmospheric contaminants on
forest productivity continue to be evalu-
ated. Results for the past decade do not
show a critical or changing situation with
regard to atmospheric pollutant contribu-
tions to precipitation or surface water.
Plans exist to use watersheds as sampling
units for a broad array of long-term
atmospheric, terrestrial, and aquatic
monitoring. An extensive program of water
quality and aquatic ecosystem monitoring
has been proposed to augment the program.
The past 5 years have dramatically revealed
the importance of park waters not only to
the park ecosystems, but also to the State of
California. Future plans will integrate the
watershed program with ongoing global
change research in the Sierran biogeo-
graphic region emphasizing park ecosys-
tems (Parsons and Graber, 1985;
Tonnesson, 1991; Everson and Graber,
1992).
Rocky Mountain National Park
activities have focused on atmospheric
inputs to alpine and sub-alpine lakes of low
buffering capacity. Baseline data on soils,
vegetation, and aquatic communities have
been collected. Studies have included soil
and water chemistry, and have investigated
historical changes in acidity in Rocky
Mountain high elevation lakes. No
permanent influence attributable to acid
deposition has been observed. In the Loch
Vale sub-alpine long-term watershed study
site, 7 years of biogeochemical study has
greatly expanded our knowledge of the
response of natural systems to stress,
sources and types of both wet and dry
deposition, bedrock weathering rates and
weathering mechanisms, soil characteristics
and buffering mechanisms, terrestrial
nutrient cycles, alpine and sub-alpine
surface water chemistry, and biology and
hydrology. We observe large differences in
precipitation amount and ionic'concentra-
tions between the Loch Vale site and a
nearby site, Beaver Meadows, about 15 km
northeast and 672 m lower in elevation.
Loch Vale is less likely to be influenced by
anthropogenic inputs from the Front Range
urban area. Loch Vale soils have a limited
ability to buffer increased amounts of
acidity from deposition, and the influence
of soil processes on surface water composi-
tion is restricted to a short period at the
beginning of snowmelt. An important
finding is the major source of acid-neutral-
izing capacity appears to come from
microcalcite veins in the igneous bedrock,
which are weathering through physical
(freeze-thaw) breakdown of primary
minerals. Thus, surface water chemistry
directly reflects the hydrology. Concentra-
tions of major anions and cations increase
as flow decreases through the winter, and
decrease as snowmelt continues after an
early flush of materials from the soil
solution. Extrapolations and inter-site
comparisons are now being considered to
other alpine and sub-alpine study sites
within the Rocky Mountain region. Loch
Vale is now a global change biogeographic
region study site (Baron and Bricker, 1987;
Denning et al., 1988; Baron, 1992; Baron et
al., 1992).
Isle Royale National Park was
originally chosen to represent an upper
Midwest forest ecosystem experiencing
increased levels of acid deposition. Sea-
sonal variations in precipitation chemistry
have been evaluated as to their effect on
small watershed ecosystems. Other
investigations include quantification of the
increase in atmospheric loading with
elevation above Lake Superior, how
vegetation affects the quality and quantity
of precipitation, the influence of alkaline
glacial till on streamwater quality, the
quantification of biogeochemical cycling of
specific nutrients, and snowpack quality.
-------
748
Watershed '93
Important understanding of watershed
nutrient cycles has been obtained. Sulfate
was found to be minimally adsorbed by
soils, suggesting that nutrient leaching is
possible in many similar forest systems due
to sulfate mobility. This process could
accelerate ecosystem acidification. Pre-
liminary data also show an increase in
forest ecosystem nutrient leaching attribut-
able to sulfate in acid deposition. Soils
throughout the region were not generally
derived on site, but were developed from
limestone materials derived to the north and
east by glacial activity. This has resulted in
soils that are more alkaline than indicated
by either the bedrock or vegetation. Inputs
of atmospheric sulfur are on the decline at
watershed research sites, an observation
consistent with some regional studies of
stream chemistry. However, this decrease
is not statistically significant. Input/output
budgets and nutrient cycling studies in all
major forest types show these ecosystems
are currently saturated with sulfate. The
excess sulfate results in anion leaching of
base cations from the forest rooting zone.
However, the amount leached is still very
small relative to the total soil reservoir of
exchangeable base cations. In contrast to
sulfur, the concentration of nitrogen species
in precipitation is increasing. Computa-
tions of nitrogen inputs show that the
combined inputs of wet and dry deposition
exceed ecosystem requirements. Over 50
percent of this input is in the form of
ammonium, which may favor conifer
species. In the future, excess nitrate could
contribute to anion leaching of base cations
from these ecosystems. Intensive multiyear
studies of the fate of N species have not
provided evidence that much of it is getting
below the rooting zone. Thus, the forest
community appears to be utilizing this
excess nitrogen. Future effects of contin-
ued increased nitrogen inputs could be
nitrate leaching of cations particularly in
conifer forests, nitrogen toxicity to some
forest species, and changes hi species
composition due to a nitrogen fertilizer
effect. Isle Royale has been designated a
biogeographic regional global climate
change research site, thus becoming an
important site for understanding the value
of nitrogen response during variable
climate conditions (Stottlemyer and
Hanson, 1989; Stottlemyer et al., 1992).
Olympic National Park represents a
relatively pollution free area with substan-
tial maritime influence on terrestrial and
aquatic ecosystems. Pronounced differ-
ences in the dominant ions in precipitation
(sodium and chloride) and streamflow
(calcium and sulfate) occur. The research
objectives are to develop an understanding
of the sources and flux of coastal sulfur,
and the biologic implications. The func-
tioning of old-growth forest watersheds in
the western Olympics is now better under-
stood. Streams in these watersheds are well
buffered and will not be significantly
impacted by acidic atmospheric inputs;
however, the vegetation strongly modifies
precipitation chemistry, and acidifies
precipitation inputs. The West Twin Creek
watershed has been identified as potentially
an excellent site to monitor impacts of
changing global climate on watershed
processes at the marine/terrestrial interface.
Olympic is now a designated biogeographic
regional global climate change research site
currently emphasizing the alpine sub-alpine
ecotone. West Twin Creek is linked as a
potential control site to the Olympic
Peninsula Research Center (Thomas et al.,
1989; Edmonds et al., 1992).
Shenandoah National Park, along the
crest of the Blue Ridge Mountains, is
representative of an eastern site with very
high sulfate deposition. Studies now
monitor and characterize stream and soil
sensitivity to airborne pollution. Baseline
data has been collected to determine acid
induced change. Research has concentrated
on analysis of watershed chemical budgets.
Poorly buffered streams have been chroni-
cally acidified in the park and surrounding
region and are currently being monitored.
Information from watershed monitoring and
research has been used in formation of the
regional air quality debate (Ryan et al.,
1989; Webb et al., 1989).
Crater Lake National Park is a unique
resource with an extensive data set on lake
and watershed processes collected over the
past 10 years. These data have greatly
increased an understanding of one of the
world's deep lakes and information that is
useful to Park management is provided. As
part of the Pacific coastal biogeographic
regional Global Climate Change Studies
Program, Crater Lake now offers a unique
opportunity to study a closed watershed
system, to understand Lake response to
climatic variability and to obtain an
improved understanding of the effects of El
Nino/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) events
upon natural resources in the Pacific
Northwest (Larson et al., 1992).
-------
Conference Proceedings
749
Conclusions
The research strategy of the NFS
watershed research program is to address
several complex natural resource issues
challenging the successful management of
park and preserved lands. Our activities
emphasize multi-institutional, interdiscipli-
nary, and integrated watershed research
studies within protected areas having
representative ecosystem or biome values.
Essential continuity is provided between
the watershed research sites by coordinated
efforts to collect equivalent and comparable
data sets. The broad watershed design
focuses sites toward meeting important
long-term objectives that emphasize the
importance of testing site-specific and
inter-site hypotheses. The program has
demonstrated utility for developing, testing,
and implementing state-of-the-art scientific
methods and procedures for guiding
collection of relevant data in support of
trends analyses. The lessons learned are
now providing important information to
new Global Climate Change Program
efforts and to the NFS national inventory
and monitoring initiative and are relevant
to future natural land and water resources
management, locally, nationally, and
internationally. Watershed research is
cooperating with both in-house and
numerous external programs, greatly
enhancing the long-term value and impact
of our results.
Acknowledgments
Support for the work described in this
paper was provided by the National Park
Service. Important contributions were also
made by the National Atmospheric Deposi-
tion Program, the U.S. Geologic Survey,
the State of California, and the National
Acid Precipitation Assessment Program.
Our accumulated knowledge about and
understanding of Park watersheds has been
made possible by the continuing dedicated
research of the many site scientists.
References
Baron, J., ed. 1992. Biogeochemlstry of a
subalpine ecosystem: Loch Vale
watershed. Springer-Verlag Ecologi-
cal Studies Series 90. Springer
Verlag, New York, NY.
Baron, J., and O.P. Bricker. 1987. Hydro-
logic and chemical flux in Lock Vale
watershed, Rocky Mountain National
Park. In Chemical quality of water and
the hydrologic cycle, pp. 141-156.
Lewis Publishers, Ann Arbor, MI,
Baron, J., A.S. Denning, and K.C.
Schoepflin. 1988. Long-term
research into the effects of acidic
deposition in Lock Vale watershed,
Rocky Mountain National Park.
Annual report 1988. National Acid
Deposition Assessment Program,
Washington, DC.
Baron, J., R.L. Edwards, B. Newkirk, J.
Back. 1992. Long-term ecological
research in Loch Vale watershed,
Rocky Mountain National Park:
1992 Annual report. NFS, Water Re-
sources Cooperative Park Studies
Unit, Colorado State University, Ft.
Collins, CO.
Binkley, D., F. Suarez, J. Kortina, and R.
Stottlemyer. 1992. Response of soil
nitrogen transformations to tempera-
ture and moisture in an arctic land-
scape. Bulletin of the Ecological
Society 73(2): 112.
Denning, A.S., J. Baron, and M.A. Mast.
1988. Effect of soil-water interactions
on stream chemistry during snowmelt
in an alpine-subalpine watershed in
Colorado. EOS 69, 1202.
Edmonds, R.L., J. Marra, R.D. Blew, T.
Cundy. 1992. Ecosystem and
watershed studies in Olympic Na- .
tional Park: 1992 annual report.
NFS, Water Resources Cooperative
Park Studies Unit, Colorado State
University, Ft. Collins, CO.
Everson, D., and D. Graber. 1992. Long-
term studies of biogeochemical
processes in selected watersheds of
Sequoia National Park: 1992 annual
report, NFS, Water Resources
Cooperative Park Studies Unit,
Colorado State University, Ft. Collins,
CO.
Franklin, J.F., and S.L. Krugman. eds.
1979. Selection management and uti-
lization of biosphere reserves: Pro-
ceedings of the United States-Union
of Soviet Socialist Republics sympo-
sium on biosphere reserves, May
1976, Moscow, USSR. General Tech-
nical Report PNW-82. U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Forest and Range
Experiment Station, Portland, OR.
-------
750
Watershed '93
Franklin, J.F., V.E. Sokolov, P.O. Gunin,
R. Herrmann, Y.A. Puzachenko, and
G.B. Wiersma. 1984. Similar
biosphere reserves and principles for
their selection. In Proceedings First
International Biosphere Reserve
Congress, Minsk, Byelorussia, USSR,
pp. 377-383. UNESCO, Paris.
Herrmann, R. 1982. Obtaining baseline
knowledge for U.S. biosphere reserve.
In Towards the biosphere reserve:
Exploring the relationship between
parks and adjacent lands: Proceedings
of an international symposium,
Kalispell, MT, pp. 103-114. U.S.
Department of the Interior, National
Park Service, Washington, DC.
. 1990. Biosphere reserve monitor-
ing and research for understanding
global pollution issues. Parks
l(2):23-28.
Herrmann, R., and R. Stottlemyer. 1991.
Long-term monitoring for environ-
mental change in U.S. National
Parks: A watershed approach.
Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment 17:51-65.
Herrmann, R., Puzachenko, L. Boring, and
A. Sankovsky. 1993. Long-term
ecosystem and watershed change: US/
Russia bilateral research. In Proceed-
ings of the Second USA/USSR Joint
Conference on Environmental
Hydrology and Hydrogeology,
Washington DC, May 16-20, 1993,
pp. 237-249. Water Environment
Federation, Alexandria, VA.
ICSU 21st General Assembly. 1986.
Global change IGBP. Report no. 1;
ISSN 0284-8015. Berne, Switzerland.
Larson, G.L., C.O. Mclntire, and R. Jacobs.
1992. Crater Lake limnological
studies: Draft final report. NPS,
Cooperative Park Studies Unit,
University of Oregon, Corvallis, OR.
NAPAP. 1981. National acid precipitation
assessment plan. National Acid
Precipitation Assessment Program,
Washington, DC.
NSF. 1979. Long-term ecological re-
search—Concept statement and
measurement needs: Summary of a
workshop. June 25-27, 1979, India-
napolis, IN. National Science
Foundation, Washington, DC.
Parsons, D.J., and D.M. Graber. 1985.
Integrated watershed research
undertaken at Sequoia National Park.
Park Science 5(2):22-24.
Ryan, R.F., G.M. Hornberger, BJ. Crosby,
J.N. Galloway, J.R. Webb, and E.B.
Rastetter. 1989. Changes in the
chemical composition of streamwater
in two catchments in the SNP, VA in
response to atmospheric deposition of
sulfur. Water Resources Research
25(10):2091-2099.
Stottlemyer, R., D. Hanson, Jr. 1989.
Atmospheric deposition and ionic
concentration in forest soils of Isle
Royale N.P. Michigan. Soil Science
Society of America Journal
53(l):270-274.
Stottlemyer, R., D. Rutkowski, D.
Toczydlowski, P. Toczydlowski.
1993. Long-term study of Boreal
Watershed/Lake ecosystems, Isle
Royale and Michigan's Upper
Peninsula: 1992 annual report. NPS,
Water Resources Cooperative Park
Studies Unit, Colorado State Univer-
sity, Ft. Collins, CO.
Thomas, T.R., J.J. Rhodes, R.L. Edmonds,
and T.W. Cundy. 1989. Watershed
studies at West Twin Creek Research
Watershed, Olympic N.P. Unpub-
lished manuscript on file. University
of Washington, College of Forest
Resources, Seattle, WA.
Tonnessen, K.A. 1991. The Emerald Lake
watershed study: Introduction and site
description. Water Resources
Research 27(7): 1537-1539.
U.S.. Committee on Earth Sciences. 1989.
Our changing planet: A U.S. strategy
for global change research. Wash-
ington, DC.
Webb, J.R., BJ. Cosby, J.N. Galloway, and
G.M. Hornberger. 1989. Acidifica-
tion of native brook trout streams in
Virginia. Water Resources Research
25(6): 1367-1377.
Wiersma, G.B., K.W. Brown, R. Herrmann,
C. Taylor, and J. Pope. 1979. Great
Smoky Mountains preliminary study
for biosphere reserve pollutant
monitoring. EPA 600/4-79-072. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Las Vegas, NV.
Wiersma, G.B., C.I. Davidson, S.A. Mizel,
R.P. Breckenridge, R.E. Binda, L.C.
Hull, and R. Herrmann. 1984.
Integrated monitoring in mixed forest
biosphere reserves. In Conservation
science and society—Contributions to
the First International Biosphere
Reserve Congress, Minsk, USSR, pp.
395-403. UNESCO, Paris.
-------
WATERSHED '93
tistical Modeling of Water Quality
in Regional Watersheds
Richard A. Smith, Richard B. Alexander, and Gary D. Tasker
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Curtis V. Price and Keith W. Robinson
U.S. Geological Survey, Trenton, NJ
Dale A. White
Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
JA long-standing problem in hydrology
f^L is to describe the water quality of a
M ^Llarge area such as a state or
regional drainage basin using measure-
ments collected at a network of sampling
stations in the area. Water quality
descriptions for a large area are often
desired either in map form or in the form
of frequency distributions giving the
number of miles of streams in the area
which meet specified standards or can be
categorized in other meaningful ways.
Such analyses are usually complicated by:
sparseness of sampling locations that leads
to problems in interpolating between those
locations; and spatial biases in the sam-
pling network that result in an unrepresen-
tative sample of stream conditions. For
example, if a disproportionate number of
sampling stations are located on streams
that drain densely populated, heavily
industrialized, or intensively cultivated
watersheds, the data will likely present a
poorer picture of water quality than
actually exists.
Given an appropriate statistical
methodology, information on basin
attributes that can affect water quality,
such as land use, population, and pollutant
discharges, can be used to help solve both
problems. This paper describes a recently
developed methodology for statistically
modeling water quality over large areas.
The objective is to develop a set of
techniques to:
1. Relate water quality measurements
to information on basin characteris-
tics and pollution sources in an area
the size of a state or regional
drainage system.
2. Use these relations to derive statisti-
cally valid summaries of water
quality conditions in the area.
3. Use the relations to investigate the
relative importance of factors
influencing water quality in the area
and the effectiveness of proposed
management strategies.
The methodology integrates statistical
and deterministic modeling techniques in a
geographic information system, hi order to
deal efficiently with large areas, the method-
ology is designed to accommodate a variety
of remotely sensed data on basin character-
istics.
To illustrate the methodology, this
paper describes a model of total phosphorus
(TP) concentrations in nontidal streams in
New Jersey. Nontidal streams in the state
encompass a total 9,157 kilometers which,
for modeling purposes, have been seg-
mented into 7,213 stream reaches. The
model covers a total area of 15,401 square
kilometers. As an example application, the
model is used to analyze the potential effects
of a phosphate detergent ban on the state-
wide distribution of TP concentrations.
The model described in this paper was
developed as part of a larger effort to
statistically model several additional aspects
of water quality in New Jersey streams,
including nitrate-nitrogen and fecal-coliform
bacterial concentrations, and an index of the
health of warm-water fish communities.
751
-------
752
Watershed '93
Model Description
The mathematical core of the model
is a regression equation relating TP con-
centration at a given stream location to
measures of point and nonpoint sources of
phosphorus in the watershed upstream of
that location. The regression equation is of
the form
In (C) = B0 + B,ln(S,) + +
Bnln(Sn) + E (1)
where:
C is mean TP concentration at a
specified stream location (model
node);
B, are linear regression coefficients;
S, are predictor variables representing
categories of point and nonpoint
sources of phosphorus (municipal
treatment plants, urban runoff, for
example) located upstream of the
specified node; and
E represents normally distributed
model error.
Predictor variables are formulated as:
allj
Si = SLijexp(-kiDj)/Q
(2)
where:
Ly is a measure of the load of phospho-
rus from source i in sub-basin j;
Dj is the distance of sub-basin j from the
specified node;
Q is mean streamflow at the specified
node; and
kj is the first-order distance decay
coefficient for phosphorus from
source i.
TP concentrations hi streams are as-
sumed to decrease exponentially with dis-
tance from phosphorus sources as a result of
both sedimentation from the water column
and biological uptake. Logarithmic trans-
formation of terms in Equation 1 was found
to result in more normally distributed re-
gression residuals than an untransformed
model.
Digital elevation data (90-meter grid)
and the method of Jensen and Domingue
(1988) were used to define drainage divides
for a set of 2921 contiguous "sub-basins"
covering all nontidal drainage in New
Jersey. The sub-basins have a median area
of 2.05 square kilometers and are linked in a
network of 11,063 stream segments based
on 1:100,000 scale digital files (USGS,
1989). A statewide contour map of mean
streamflow per unit drainage area for the
period 1982-87 was used to estimate
streamflow for a set of 7,213 nodes repre-
senting the junctions of stream segments.
These nodes serve as water quality predic-
tion points in the model.
Water Quality Predictors
Three variables were selected to serve
as model predictors representing different
sources of phosphorus within sub-basins:
area of agricultural land; total human popu-
lation; and total municipal effluent flow.
Sub-basin agricultural land area was deter-
mined through classification of Landsat The-
matic Mapper data for August, 1985 using
the method of Jensen and others (1982).
Sub-basin population estimates were ob-
tained from the 1980 Census of Population
and Housing (U.S. Census Bureau, 1983).
Total municipal effluent flow within sub-
basins was determined from a file of effluent
characteristics for the year 1986 for indi-
vidual municipal and industrial point sources
in New Jersey (Robinson et al., 1992).
The algorithm for downstream
aggregation of distance-weighted predictor
data in accordance with Equation 2 is given
by White and others (1992).
Regression Analysis
Observations of mean TP concentra-
tion for 104 sampling locations in New
Jersey for the years 1982-87 were obtained
from long-term monitoring records. Al-
though there are a few cases of nested ba-
sins among the 104 monitoring stations, an
assumption of statistical independence of
the monitoring records was made in con-
ducting the regression. Results of the re-
gression of mean TP concentration on the
three predictors are given in Table 1. Val-
ues of kj were estimated as those resulting
in the highest R2 in a trial-and-error series
of univariate regressions of mean total
phosphorus on each individual predictor.
Significance estimates of regression coeffi-
cients (Table 1) are not adjusted for the
process of k. estimation.
Model Application
The above model was used to estimate
frequency distributions for TP concentra-
-------
Conference Proceedings
753
Table 1. Results of the regression of mean total phosphorus (TP)
concentration on three characteristics of the basins upstream of the
locations where TP concentrations were measured.
Predictor
Municipal flow
Cropland area
Population
Regression constant
Coefficient
Value, B.
0.6277
0.1511
0.0796
0.7421
Significance
Level, p
0.0001
0.0058
0.0946
Distance
Decay rate, k,
per kilometer
. 0.01
1.0
0.1
R2=0.55.
Standard error of estimate = 72 percent.
tions at two sets of model nodes represent-
ing two scenarios described below (Table 2;
Figures 1 and 2). Frequency distributions
give the percentage of nodes in the state (or
subregion of interest) that fall in each of five
concentration intervals. The percentage of
nodes in each interval was estimated as
where:
P(C) is the percentage of nodes in the
ith concentration interval;
p.(Cj) is the probability that the actual
total phosphorus concentration at
node j lies in interval i; and
n is the total number of nodes in the
state (or subregion).
The probability that total phosphorus
concentration at an individual node lies in
the ith interval was estimated as
p.(Ci)= p.dj-pfr) (4)
where: p.O^) and p.O^) are nonexceedance
probabilities associated with a t-distribu-
tion with n-k degrees of freedom, where k
is the number of parameters estimated in
the regression model, and ty and t^ are (In
GU - In C.)/S. and (In CL - In C.)/S., respec-
tively, in which CLand Cv are the upper
and lower limits of
the concentration
interval, C. is the
regression estimate of
the concentration at
node j, and S. is the
standard error of
prediction for In C..
Frequency
distributions are
shown (Table 2;
Figures 1 and 2) for
two scenarios relating
to assumptions
regarding the magni-
tude of point
source phospho-
rus loading from
municipal
treatment plants.
The first, or base,
scenario assumes
phosphorus loads
from all sources
are equal to 100
percent of their
actual 1986
values (see
previous section
on water quality
predictors). The second scenario assumes
a 25 percent reduction in phosphorus
loading from municipal treatment plants
that currently have no permit requirement
for total phosphorus. A 25 percent
reduction is the approximate change in
municipal loads that has been observed to
date in states with detergent phosphate
bans in effect (Lee and Jones, 1986). The
second scenario assumes that the 10
treatment plants in New Jersey that
currently have permit requirements for TP
would continue to discharge phosphorus at
their base levels.
Results in Figure 1 are for all 7,213
nodes in the model, and results in Figure 2
are for the 1,643 nodes located downstream
of municipal point sources.
Results
Figure 1 indicates that a 25 percent
reduction in municipal point source loads of
total phosphorus would have only minimal
effects on the statewide frequency distribu-
tion for total phosphorus concentration in
New Jersey streams. For example, a total
36.3 percent of model nodes are predicted to
Table 2. Estimated percentage of model nodes having total phosphorus concentrations
within indicated intervals given municipal phosphorus loadings of 100 percent and 75
percent of 1986 levels. Results are shown separately for all model nodes (7,213) and for
those located downstream of municipal point sources (1,643).
Concentration
Interval
(milligrams per liter)
0 to 0.05
0.05 to 0.1
0.1 to 0.3
0.3 to 1.0
above 1.0
100 Percent Loads
7,213 nodes
0.140
0.223
0.416
0.188
0.033
1,643 nodes
0.140
0.150
0.375
0.293
0.104
75 Percent Loads
7,213 nodes
0.142
0.227
,0.419
0.184
0.029
1,643 nodes
0.087
0.164
0.387
0.275
0.085
-------
754
Watershed '93
50
UJ 40
O
30 -
jMunicipol load]
' 175 percent
••• 100 percent
Ul
O
20 -
10 -
0-.05 .05-.1 .1-.3 .3-1 1 -MAX
TP CONCENTRATION INTERVALS, IN MG/L
Figure 1. Estimated percentage of model nodes having total
phosphorus concentrations within indicated intervals given
municipal phosphorus loadings of 100 percent and 75 percent of
1986 levels. Results are for all 7,213 model nodes in New Jersey.
O -.05 .05-.1 .1-.3 .3-1 1 -MAX
TP CONCENTRATION INTERVALS, IN MG/L
Figure 2. Estimated percentage of model nodes having total
phosphorus concentrations within indicated intervals given
municipal phosphorus loadings of 100 percent and 75 percent of
1986 levels. Results are for the 1,643 model nodes located down-
stream of municipal discharges in New Jersey.
have TP concentrations below the 0.1
milligram per liter (mg/1) New Jersey
standard under current loadings, whereas
36.9 percent of model nodes are predicted to
meet the standard following a 25 percent
reduction in municipal total phosphorus
loads (see Table 2 for precise figures). The
predicted effect of load reductions is
similarly small at the high end of the range
of TP concentrations. A total 3.3 percent of
model nodes are predicted to have TP
concentrations greater than 1.0 mg/1 under
current loadings, whereas 2.9 percent of
model nodes are predicted to exceed that
concentration given a 25 percent reduction
in municipal loads.
Part of the reason that predicted
effects of municipal load reductions on
statewide TP concentrations are small is that
only a small fraction (approximately 23
percent) of model nodes lie downstream
from municipal outfalls and receive any
effect at all. When only the 1,643 model
nodes located downstream from municipal
treatment plants are considered, 22.8 percent
are predicted to have TP concentrations
meeting the 0.1 mg/1 standard under the
current loading scenario, compared to a
predicted 25.1 percent of model nodes
meeting the standard following a 25 percent
reduction in municipal loads (see Figure 2
and Table 2). Thus, when the analysis is
limited to New Jersey streams affected by
municipal effluents, a 25 percent load
reduction is predicted to result in approxi-
mately a 10 percent increase in the number
of nodes meeting the standard.
References
Jensen, S.K., and J.O. Domingue. 1988.
Extracting topographic structure from
digital elevation data for geographic
system analysis. Photogrammetric
Engineering and Remote Sensing
54:1593-1600.
Jensen, S.K., T.R. Lovelend, and J. Bryant.
1982. Evaluation of AMOEBA: A
spectral-spatial classification method.
Journal of Applied Photographic
Engineering 8:159-162.
Lee, G.F., and R.A. Jones. 1986. Evalua-
tion of detergent phosphate bans on
water quality. Lake Line, January
1986.
Robinson, K.W., C.V. Price, C. Pak, and
R.A. Smith. 1992. Development of a
computerized data base of permitted
wastewater discharges in New Jersey.
Submitted to Journal of the Water
Pollution Control Federation.
-------
WATERSHED '93
The Role of Inland Water
Development in the Systemic
Alteration of the Coastal Zone
Environment
Michael A. Rozengurt, Ph.D., Principal Environmental Specialist
Irwln Haydock, Ph.D., Compliance Manager
County Sanitation Districts of Orange County, Fountain Valley, CA
In any given season or year, interaction
and mixing processes between river flow
and seawater determine spatio-temporal
distribution of hydrophysical and biological
properties of estuarine and coastal water.
Strictly defined renewable runoff discharge
serves as a physical barrier preventing the
intrusion of seawater into the delta or
performing critical mixing and flushing of
estuarine-coastal waters. These habitats
serve as nursery and breeding grounds for
many commercially important species of
fish and shellfish directly or indirectly
estuarine-dependent. (Chambers, 1992;
Rozengurt, 1983; Rozengurt and Hedgpeth,
1989).
Despite having evolved diverse physi-
ological mechanisms to ensure their sur-
vival, even hardy estuarine animals and
plants have toler-
ance limits that
may be exceeded
by prolonged ex-
posure to extreme
conditions re-
lated, for ex-
ample, to dams,
diversions, defor-
estation, and de-
watering—the
4Ds (Figure 1).
The western Pa-
cific and central
and south Atlan-
tic coastal fisher-
ies have experi-
enced the effect of the 4Ds with frightening
similarity to the despoliation of the fisheries
of the eastern Mediterranean sea linked to
the Aswan High Dam operation on the Nile
River. The same patterns of devastation
have been recorded in the last two decades
due to watershed modification of the Black,
Caspian, Azov, and Aral Seas. Taken to-
gether, these are signals from nature that
must be heeded at our greatest future peril
(Rozengurt, 1991).
River-Delta-Estuary-Coastal
Zones as Natural Systems
Historically, the dynamic behavior of
estuarine characteristics are based on four
major fundamental principles: stochastic
DAMS
DIVERSIONS
DEWATERINGS
DESERTIFICATIONS
Figure 1. Watershed management: the four insidious D's.
755
-------
756
Watershed '93
and stochastic-periodic nature of estuarine
environment; dynamic equilibrium; ecologi-
cal continuity of the river-estuary-sea eco-
system; and biological tolerance. The fol-
lowing is a brief, simplified description of
the universality of these principles, which
are a part of the Laws of Thermodynamics:
1. Stochastic nature of river runoffs
(the precipitation over watersheds)
and stochastic-periodic variability of
the coastal processes (tide and wind)
determine the natural randomness of
estuarine characteristics in time and
space.
2. The probabilistic nature of unim-
paired runoff superimposed on tide,
oscillations, and winds is responsible
for setting in motion an amount of
estuarine and coastal waters 10 to
100 times greater than that of the
river runoff itself. This frictional
drag provides enrichment of estua-
rine and coastal waters and maintains
a suitable regime for vulnerable, but
resilient estuarine biota.
3. The estuarine ecosystem may be
conceptually perceived as an
ecological continuum of a river.
These waterbodies have evolved for
20-
0
-20 -
-20-
* 20-
19 0
20-
0
-20-
JAMES RIVER
POTOMAC RIVER
DELAWARE RIVER X
^«f^v*^W- V
1970
USQUEHANNA RIVER
1890 1910 193O 1950
YEARS
R = 8.46 MAP
R = 5.03 MAP
R = 8.96 MAP
R = 25.32 MAP
1970 1990
Figure 2. Percentage deviation of the 5-year running mean
annual runoff of normals for major rivers of central
Atlantic (R - normal runoff over the period.)
thousands of years and acquired
regime characteristics of watersheds
and coastal zones. In any given
time, the kinematic energy of river
runoff governs the recycling of a
certain ratio of major chemical
constituents and repulses salt
intrusion; determines relationships
with community production and
respiration; and commands entirely
the vitality and survival of estuaries
(the first law of thermodynamics).
4. In this context, the tolerance or bio-
logical self-adjustment means the
ability of estuarine hydrobionts to
recover from exceptionally low lev-
els of population density as a result
of extreme natural perturbations.
These hydrobionts can reach the near
historical reproduction when unim-
paired dynamic equilibrium was re-
stored. However, the impoundment
of rivers has undermined these
unique estuarine features and signifi-
cantly hampered the ability to main-
tain ecological continuity suitable for
indigenous living resources (the sec-
ond law of thermodynamics). In this
case, the physiological adaptation of
eggs, larvae, and even fry to abnor-
mal increases in salinity will not oc-
cur because the salinity and other
regime variables affect differently
their osmoregulation, metabolism,
growth rate, and survival. As a re-
sult, the brackish nursery areas vital
for migration, feeding, and spawning
start to gradually diminish (entropy -
accumulation of negative sub-
stances).
Some Examples of Watershed
Overdevelopment
Over the last few decades a cascade of
dams has curtailed nearly all critical ecosys-
tem links; truncated the values, duration,
and vitality of spring flooding; and modified
its stochastic patterns into deterministic, im-
paired seasonal remnants far beyond
nature's limit (Rozengurt, 1971, 1974). For
example, the historical deviations of spring
as well as annual runoff discharges equaled
plus or minus 25 to 30 percent of their
normals (Figures 2 and 3) as opposed to the
abnormal deviations up to minus 40 to mi-
nus 85 percent after the impoundment oc-
curred (Rozengurt et al., 1985). As a result,
-------
Conference Proceedings
757
the cumulative losses in runoff discharges as
well as sediment load, organic and inorganic
matter, oxygen, and other resources in many
regions exceed 100 million tons. Subse-
quently, these man-made deficits have be-
come chronic abnormal events. By defini-
tion, cumulative losses are an integrated
result(s) of accumulation in space and time
of negative substances whose physical and
chemical interaction may lead to a gradual
increase of entropy. The latter, in turn, ag-
gravates (deteriorates) ecosystems in a way
unseen or undocumented under natural or
unimpaired conditions. Consequently, the
natural ecological, unimpaired equilibrium
cannot be maintained. For example, since
the late 1960s the San Francisco Bay has
been systematically deprived of annual and
especially spring runoff far beyond reason-
able standards (Figure 4). Subsequently, the
commercial and sport fishery of striped bass,
shad, and salmon has almost ceased to exist.
The same situation has led to irrevocable
distortion of the Black, Azov, Caspian, and
Aral Seas, the Columbia and Colorado Riv-
ers, the Gulf of Mexico, etc. Coastal eco-
systems are being transformed into "blue
deserts."
Since the 1950s, the majority of
regulated river-coastal ecosystems have
been striving under subnormal dry or
drought conditions regardless of wetness
of the year. The frequency of these events
has increased 3 to 5 times (Rozengurt and
Haydock, 1991, 1993). This new phenom-
enon has inflicted a mortal blow to
watershed and coastal ecosystems. The
same fundamental changes are typical for
the coastal zone of the Nile River where
runoff, silt, and nutrients have been
reduced to 10 to 20 percent of normal.
This, in turn, has led to a ten-fold decline
in the catch of eastern Mediterranean
sardines and prawns (Halim, 1991).
Another abnormal phenomenon exists
in the intra-annual runoff distribution; the
late summer-fall runoff is almost equal to or
higher than the regulated spring runoff
because of agricultural drainage water
releases. The resulting symptoms of
stress—decreases in fish production and
catches, increased residence time for
pollutants, increases in salinity, and wide-
spread oxygen depletion (hypoxia)—have
plagued numerous deltas, estuaries, gulfs, or
even whole seas.
Losses from water development facili-
ties are particularly impressive when com-
pared to those suffered from all other causes
40-
Q -20--
n Annual (R Normal = 83.7 cu km)
0 January (R Normal = 35.8 cu km)
-40 I I I I 1.1 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 I I M I 1 I I I I I I I I I I I I
Year
Source: Ministry of Irrigation, Egypt.
Figure 3. Percent deviation of the Nile 5-year running mean
annual and winter runoff at Aswan.
A.) ANNUAL
Commercial
r.ir.ijim.M=M-iiin.«».iii:.
Sports
Preproject Postproject Planned
1925-40 1955-78 2000
B.) SPRING SEASON
|
§
Commercial
Spring flow needed
for successful catche
Sports
Preproject Postproject Planned
1925-40 .1955-78 2000
Figure 4. Water needs for successful
commercial and sports fishing in the
San Francisco Bay coastal zone
ecosystem compared to State Water
Project flow. A.) annual and B.) spring
season.
-------
758
Watershed '93
in the U.S. coastal areas. In California ab-
normal timing of flows in the Sacramento-
San Joaquin rivers, coupled with fish kills
on screens of water conveyance facilities,
exacerbated the deleterious effect of unre-
strained water diversions. For example, the
160
140-
120-
100-
I Total Losses of Salmon &
Striped Bass In Deltaic
Sacramento-San Joaquin
Ecosystem Due to Water Pumping
Operations (CA F&G, 1992)
Total Rsh Kill In
U.S. Coastal States (NOAA, 1991)
S
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Year
Figure 5. Comparison of chronological integrated fish losses between
coastal states and Sacramento-San Joaquin River systems.
Fishery Catches
1950.1970 and 1990
Figure 6. Decline of commercial fish catch due to the impoundment of the major
river systems in the former U.S.S.R.
losses from all reported fish kills for 22
coastal states between 1980 and 1989 (Fig-
ure 5, Lowe et al., 1991) were slightly less
than the carnage of 100 million fry at the
Delta pumping facilities (California Depart-
ment of Fish and Game, 1992). Note that
the cumulative losses of 1.2
billion striped bass fry and
salmon smolt since 1957 have
been three times higher than
the fish kill for the same states
for the later period. While
screening was the major killing
factor in the delta, low oxygen
triggered by eutrophication
was the major cause of fish
kills in the Gulf and Atlantic
coasts. Incidentally, wastewa-
ter discharges accounted for
only 6 percent of the over 400
million fish that died between
1980 and 1989.
Today the formerly rich
fisheries of the Black, Azov,
Caspian, and Aral Seas of the
former U.S.S.R. must be
considered only in the deficit
column (Figure 6). The
monetary losses amount to
$100 billion for the last
decade, if population
and economic hardship
are taken into account;
the Aral Sea is now
completely lost for
mankind. A similar fate
is predicted for other
watershed and coastal
zone ecosystems where
water development has
been overly optimistic
(Rozengurt and Herz,
1981).
Conclusions
The chain of
events leading to the
systemic aggravation
of regime characteris-
tics and decimation of
living resources of the
delta-estuary-coastal
zone ecosystems, be-
cause of excessive im-
poundment and water
withdrawals, is summa-
rized in Table 1.
-------
Conference Proceedings
759
Table 1. Irrevocable distortion of river-delta-estuary-coastal ecosystem
WATERSHED MODIFICATION
Truncated flooding and duration; abnormal
runoff distribution.
Dewatering of the delta, abnormal water level
fluctuations, temperature and oxygen shock;
decreased runoff velocity and self-purification;
increased detention time.
Transformation of stochastically balanced
ecosystem into unbalanced waterbodies.
RESULTS
Deleterious for water quality and living
resources.
^'f.^s^^Kw^M^^^^-^^a^^-^- ^ ;<
>'*~^"/"-*'V>^-'*.j^r^"'--•"•' ,oV"* '*V * ^t£><>°^'* ^^xs'??"','^- ,>•> Jw • V<^
-^;-;!"?' £ »*<*;i X.^;;'~7^'^J^vj- - --»;««v?'- -i'-'-,,>-«'/? ••
Loss of million tons of silt, organic and
inorganic matter, oxygen depletion, salinization
of wells and aquifiers.
^—>o J ??' ^^ ',;," w ^V'^^^.N« '*' ^^ ',**s*t'-.J j /,-'»- s
Fresh water intakes are in jeopardy.
c Compressed salt wedge maximize: delta salt
^. contamination, oxygen deficiency; eutrophica-
tion/loss of productivity.
Catastrophic decline of fish reproduction,
survival and catch, spawning grounds
demolished. Coastal zone becomes a "blue
desert."
INSURMOUNTABLE ECONOMIC AND SOCIETAL LOSSES
-------
760
Watershed '93
References
California Department of Fish and Game.
1992. A re-examination of factors
affecting striped bass abundance in
the Sacramento-San Joaquin Estuary.
Prepared by California Department of
Fish and Game for State Water
Resources Control Board, Sacramento,
CA.
Chambers, J.R. 1992. Coastal degradation
and fish population losses. In Pro-
ceedings of Stemming the Tide of
Coastal Fish Habitat Loss. National
Coalition for Marine Conservation,
Inc., Savannah, GA.
Halim, Y. 1991. The impact of human
alterations of the hydrological cycle
on ocean margins. In Ocean margin
processes in global change, pp. 301-
327. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New
York, NY.
Lowe, J.A., R.G. Daniel, A.S. Pait, SJ.
Arenstam, and E.F. Lavan. 1991.
Fish kills in coastal waters 1980-
1989. U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration.
Rozengurt, M.A. 1971. Analysis of the
impact of the Dniester River regulated
runoff on salt regime of the Dniester
Estuary. In Scientific thought, Library
of Congress GC12LR6, p. 140. Kiev.
. 1974. Hydrology and prospects of
reconstruction of natural resources of
the northwestern Black Sea estuaries.
Scientific Thought, Library of Con-
gress GB2308.B55R69, p. 240. Kiev.
1983. On environmental approach
—. 1991. Strategy and ecological
and societal results of extensive
resources development in the south
of the USSR. In Proceedings: The
Soviet Union in the Year 2010,
USAIA and Georgetown University,
June 26-27, 1990, Washington, DC,
pp. 119-137.
-. 1992. Alteration of freshwater
to protecting estuaries from salt
intrusion, In Coastal Zone 83, ed.
O.T. Magoon and H. Converse.
ASCE, New York, NY.
inflows. In Stemming the tide of
coastal fish habitat loss. Marine
Recreational Fisheries 14:73-78.
Rozengurt, M.A., and I. Haydock. 1991.
Effects of fresh water development
and water pollution policies on the
world's river-delta-estuary-coastal
zone ecosystems. In Proceedings of
Ocean 91, pp. 85-99.
. 1993. Freshwater flow diversion
and its implications for coastal zone
ecosystems. In Transactions of the
58th North American Wildlife and
Natural Resources Conferences, pp.
287-295. Wildlife Management
Institute, Washington, DC.
Rozengurt, M.A., and J.W. Hedgpeth. 1989.
The impact of altered river flow on the
ecosystem of the Caspian Sea.
Critical review in Aquatic Sciences
l(2):337-362.
Rozengurt, M.A., and M.J. Herz. 1981.
Water, water everywhere but not so
much to drink. Oceans 1:65-67.
Rozengurt, M.A., MJ. Herz, and M.
Josselyn. 1985. The impact of water
diversions on the river-delta-estuary-
sea ecosystems of San Francisco Bay
and the Sea of Azov. In Proceedings
of San Francisco Bay. NOAA
Estuary-of-the-Month Seminar Series
6:35-62. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, Wash-
ington, DC.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Quantification and Control of
Nitrogen Inputs to Buttermilk Bay,
Massachusetts
Jon D. Wttten, AICP
Susan J. Trull
Horsley &. Witten, Inc., Bamstable, MA
Buttermilk Bay is a 530-acre (214.6-
hectare) shallow coastal embayment
located at the northern end of Buz-
zards Bay in Massachusetts (Figure 1).
This bay is flushed by diurnal tides
and experiences complete tidal exchange
approximately every 5 days (Valiela and
Costa, 1988). Portions of three towns,
Bourne, Plymouth, and Wareham, are
situated within the drainage basin to this
coastal embayment. Existing land use is
predominantly residential and includes both
high-density seasonal communities along
the western and northern shorelines of the
bay, and low-density development through-
out most of the remainder of the
drainage basin. Most develop-
ment within this area relies on
individual subsurface sewage
disposal systems, although a few
areas are currently in the process
of being sewered.
Increasing nitrogen levels
have been attributed to Buttermilk
Bay, as evidenced by nuisance
algae blooms, elevated chloro-
phyll concentrations (i.e., phy-
toplankton), and declining
eelgrass beds in localized areas
(J. Costa, personal communica-
tion, 1989). The bay also has a
history of shellfish closures dating
from 1984 caused by bacterial
contamination. Previous investi-
gations have documented that the
bacterial contaminants are derived
primarily from storm water runoff
(Heufelder, 1988).
The purposes of the investigation were
to quantify existing and potential nitrogen
inputs to Buttermilk Bay derived from land
development, and to recommend land
management strategies to control these
inputs below critical levels.
Approach
To assess nitrogen impacts to Butter-
milk Bay, the ground water drainage area
and surface watershed to the bay were
delineated. Due to the high permeabilities
and infiltration rates associated with the
BOSTON
Figure 1. Locus map.
761
-------
762
Watershed '93
surficial geologic deposits in this area
(Wareham Outwash Plain) and the relatively
flat topography, surface runoff and stream
formation are minimal. Therefore, the
A PWW 253 Observation Well and
Water Elevation (ft)
Figure 2. Drainage area.
majority of the freshwater inputs to the bay
are derived from ground water.
The ground water recharge area to
Buttermilk Bay was delineated by first
developing a regional water
table contour map for the
area, based on existing
hydrogeologic data on file
with the U.S. Geological
Survey's Division of Water
Resources. Twenty-two
water level elevation data
points were used to con-
struct this map, correspond-
ing to observation well
measurements and pond
elevation data collected in
December 1984.
Ground water flow
divides and recharge area
boundaries were determined
using a two-dimensional
ground water flow net
analysis. The surface
watershed was determined
topographically. The data
point locations, water table
contours, and drainage area
are presented in Figure 2.
The impacts of exist-
ing and potential develop-
ment within the Buttermilk
Bay study area were evalu-
ated with a buildout, or de-
velopable lot, analysis. The
ground and surface water
contributing area bound-
aries were transferred to
assessor's maps for each
town. Existing land uses
within these areas were
documented and the poten-
tial for further development
was determined. Existing
and potential development
for each parcel was deter-
mined based on lot area,
road frontage, and local
zoning requirements. De-
velopment options included
vacant lots and vacant par-
cels that could be divided
through an "Approval Not
Required" (ANR) process
(Massachusetts General
Laws, Chapter 41, 81-P), or
a Definitive Subdivision
Plan (MGL, Chapter 41, 81-
L), or through a combina-
-------
Conference Proceedings
763
tion of the two processes as allowed by the
Subdivision Control Law. Existing and po-
tential development information was gath-
ered for each town from a variety of sources,
including assessors' maps, tax printouts,
land use codes, zoning maps, and zoning
bylaws.
To evaluate potential nitrogen impacts
on Buttermilk Bay, a nitrogen loading
analysis was conducted. Although all forms
of nitrogen are critical components of
natural systems, nitrogen can cause water
quality degradation if present in excessive
quantities. In many marine systems,
nitrogen is generally considered to be the
limiting nutrient for growth. Elevated levels
may cause excessive plant growth and other
symptoms of eutrophication. Excessive
nitrogen may cause epiphytic algae growth
on eelgrass, disrupting its photosynthetic
processes and ultimately resulting in
eelgrass bed declines. The precise relation-
ship between nitrogen loading and marine
productivity has not been well documented
and varies widely, depending on the
physical and biological characteristics of a
given system (water depth, flushing rate,
sediment type, extent of bordering wetlands,
dominance of phytoplankton versus
macroalgae, etc.).
Nitrogen originates from a variety of
natural and anthropogenic sources, includ-
ing sewage, fertilizers (residential and
agricultural), road runoff, precipitation,
landfills, wildlife, and sediments. Loading
rates were selected for each of the major
nitrogen sources in the Buttermilk Bay
drainage area on the basis of a literature
review, and also to correspond with a
recently calibrated nitrogen loading model
developed for the Town of Yarmouth,
Massachusetts (Nelson et al., 1988). The
loading rates used in our analysis are
summarized in Table 1.
Nitrate-nitrogen concentrations in
ground water were calculated using a mass
balance equation, in which nitrogen levels
are a function of the annual rate of nitrogen
loading and the annual rate of dilution
through recharge:
NO3-N,mg/l = (N loading, Ib/yr)
(454,000 mg/lb)/recharge,
liter/yr.
Sources of recharge to ground water include
precipitation, surface runoff from impervi-
ous areas, and artificial recharge from on-
site sewage disposal. Recharge rates used in
the nitrogen loading analysis are shown in
Table 1.
In managing nitrogen inputs to coastal
waters, there have been several attempts to
define a "critical" nitrogen concentration for
estuarine waters at which symptoms of
cultural eutrophication may begin to
develop. For example, the Town of
Falmouth (1988) adopted a three-tier
nitrogen concentration approach intended to
limit future nitrogen inputs: 0.32,0.50, and
0.75 mg/1 as critical concentrations for
waterbodies of varying water quality and
usage. Similar approaches have been
adopted by other municipalities on Cape
Cod.
The EPA-sponsored Buzzards Bay
Project recommended that a critical nitrogen
loading rate be established for anthropo-
genic sources of nitrogen to Buttermilk Bay
mat would be independent of measured
nitrogen concentrations in the water column.
They tentatively adopted 240 mg per cubic
meter per residence time (mg/mVR) as the
critical loading rate for nitrogen-sensitive
embayments such as Buttermilk Bay (HWH,
1991). More recently, the Buzzard's Bay
Table 1. Nitrogen loading analysis parameters
Source
Concentration
Loading Rate
Flow/Recharge
Sewage
Fertilizer (Lawns)
Fertilizer (Cranberry Bogs)
Pavement Runoff
Roof Runoff
Acid Precipitation to Bay
40 mg N/liter
2.0 mg N/liter
0.75 mg N/liter
0.3 mg DINa/liter
Average Loading Rate Per Dwelling
(6.72 lb N/person-yr)
(0.9 lb N/1000 sq ft-yr)
(15.8 Ib/acre)
(0.42 lb N/1000 sq ft-yr)
(0.15 lb N/1000 sq ft-yr)
(3.03 lb N/acre)
(25.3 Ib/yr)
55 gallons/person-day
(165 gallons/dwelling)
18 inches/year
18 inches/year
40 inches/year
40 inches/year
" DIN = dissolved inorganic nitrogen.
Source: Adapted from Nelson et al., 1988.
-------
764
Watershed '93
Project has revised this standard to a tiered
approach reflecting state water quality
standards, flushing of the coastal system,
and special designations (J. Costa, personal
communication, 1991). The current
recommended nitrogen loading limits for
shallow, rapidly flushing embayments such
as Buttermilk Bay are 350 mg/mWr for
waters classed as SB, 200 mg/mWr for SA
waters, and 100 mg/mWr for areas classed
as sensitive outstanding resource areas. Vr
is a flushing term defined as:
Vr = residence time/sqrt(l + residence
tune).
The annual nitrogen loading to ground water
required to reach the 240 mg/m3/R critical
rate can be calculated if the surface area,
volume, and flushing rate of the bay are
Table 2. Buildout analysis results
Wareham
Existing Land Use
Residential units
Commercial units
Cranberry bogs (acre)
Open space (acre)
Potential Land Use
Vacant (grandfathered) lots
Approval Not Required lots
Subdivision lots
Total Lots
% Developed
Area (acres)
Existing density (units/acre)
Buildout density (units/acre)
755.0
28.0
52.2
206.1
222.0
9.0
90.0
1,106
71%
1,395.0
0.6
0.8
Plymouth Bourne Total
1,075.0
0
335.4
663.3
350.0
359.0
639.0
2,423
44%
4,160.0
0.3
0.6
1,219.0
11.0
11.0
125.7
128.0
147.0
321.0
1,826
67%
1,398.0
0.9
1.3
3,049.0
39.0
398.6
995.1
700.0
515.0
1,050.0
5,355
57%
6,953.0
0.4
0.8
Table 3. Existing nitrogen loading
Source
Sewage
Lawn fertilizers
Cranberry bog fertilizers
Roads
Roofs
Acid precipitation to Bay
Total Loading
(Pounds Per Year)
Predicted average
NO3-N (mg/1) in ground
water
Wareham
20,013
3,398
835
413
170
24,829
3.86
Plymouth
21,590
4,838
5,366
646
242
32,682
1.83
Bourne
25,337
5,486
176
665
274
31,937
4.75
Total
66,940
13,721
6,378
1,723
686
1,606
91,053
2.94
known. These values were taken from a
recent publication on Buttermilk Bay
(Valiela and Costa, 1988) and were used to
calculate the critical annual loading rate as
follows:
A = Area of Buttermilk Bay = 214.6 ha
(530 ac)
d = Water depth (MLW) = 0.9 m (2.95
ft)
r = Average tidal range = 1 m (3.28 ft)
V = Bay volume at mean tide = (A)(d+r/
2) = 2,996,000 m3 (84837 ft3)
f = Flushing rate = 5 day residence time
or 73 times per year
TN = Total nitrogen concentration (mg/
m3/R)
L = Critical loading rate (Ib/yr) produc-
ing TN = 240 mg/mVR
L = (TN)(V)(f)/454,000 mgflb.
Results
The drainage area was found to
comprise a total of 6,953 acres (2,815 ha).
Twenty percent of this area (1,398 acres) is
located in the Town of Bourne, 60 percent
(4,160 acres) in Plymouth and 20 percent
(1,395 acres) in Wareham. It should be
noted that the boundaries are based on
available data; with more information, it is
possible that the contributing area bound-
aries would change.
The results of the buildout analysis
(Table 2) indicate that 3,049 residential
units and 39 commercial units currently
exist within the Buttermilk Bay drainage
area. An additional 2,267 units could
eventually be constructed under full
buildout conditions; i.e., the drainage area is
currently 57 percent developed.
Annual nitrogen loading for all
existing sources of nitrogen within the
Buttermilk Bay drainage basin was calcu-
lated to be 91,053 Ib/year. Seventy-four
percent of this nitrogen is derived from on-
site sewage disposal, followed by lawn
fertilizers (15 percent), cranberry bog
fertilizers (7 percent) and other sources (4
percent). Results are shown in Table 3.
Calculated nitrogen loading under
buildout conditions with three people per
housing unit is shown in Table 4. The
majority of the nitrogen under buildout
conditions is derived from on-site sewage
disposal (72 percent), followed by lawn
fertilizers (19 percent), cranberry bog
fertilizers (5 percent); and other sources (4
percent). The total pounds nitrogen per year
-------
Conference Proceedings
765
represents a potential increase of 39 percent
over existing conditions.
Under the 240 mg/l/R standard, total
"permissible loading" to Buttermilk Bay
was calculated to be 115,617 Ib/yr. The
total nitrogen loading to the bay calculated
for existing conditions is 189 mg/m3/R
above background levels. Under buildout
conditions, it is 263 mg/m3/R above back-
ground.
This represents an excess of 11,047 lb/
year above the critical rate—the equivalent
of approximately 437 single-family dwell-
ings, since loading per dwelling is approxi-
mately 25.3 Ib/year (11.5 kg/yr).
Discussion
The buildout and nitrogen analyses
suggest that action should be taken to pro-
tect water quality in Buttermilk Bay. A va-
riety of tools are available to assist in re-
source protection, including regulatory,
nonregulatory, and legislative options. Be-
cause traditional management tools (zoning,
subdivision control, and health regulations)
are localized in their applicability and rarely
serve to protect regional resource systems,
even small systems such as Buttermilk Bay,
the coordinated adoption and enforcement
of strategies by all three communities in the
drainage area is required.
As part of this study, several manage-
ment strategies were proposed, including the
creation of health and subdivision regula-
tions, wetlands protection guidelines, and
storm water management recommendations.
An overlay water resource protection district
was created and adopted by the three
communities within the watershed. The
overlay district "downzoned" (raised
minimum lot size) within the watershed,
effectively removing the potential for an
additional 440 new single family dwell-
ings—the number determined to be in
excess of the critical loading threshold.
Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper was
prepared for the New England Interstate
Water Pollution Control Commission, as
part of a subcontract with the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency directed by the
Table 4. Potential nitrogen loading
Source
Sewage
Lawn fertilizers
Cranberry bog fertilizers
Roads
Roofs
Acid precipitation to Bay
Total Loading (Ib/yr)
Predicted average
NO3-N (mg/1) in ground
water
Wareham
8,837
4,851
835
481
243
15,246
2.45
Plymouth
48,663
10,904
5,366
929
545
66,407
3.53
Bourne
33,863
8,168
176
790
408
43,405
6.14
Total
91,363
23,922
6,378
2,199
1,196
1,606
126,664
3.94
Buzzards Bay Project. Joseph Costa, David
Janik, and Bruce Rosinoff at the Project
provided technical advice and assistance.
Several H&W personnel assisted with the
work, including: Tina Coughanowr, Scott
Horsley, Mark Nelson, Cathy Manwaring,
and Saskia Costing, buildout analysis and
nitrogen loading analyses; Eric Vierra,
graphics; and Gail Hanley, clerical support
and production.
References
Heufelder, G.R. 1988. Bacteriological
monitoring in Buttermilk Bay. BBP-
88-03. Barnstable County Health and
Environmental Department,
Barnstable, MA.
Horsley Witten Hegemann, Inc. 1991.
Quantification and control of nitrogen
inputs to Buttermilk Bay. Vols. I and
II. Prepared for Buttermilk Bay
Project.
Nelson, M.E., S.W. Horsley, T. Cambareri,
M. Giggey, and J. Pinette. 1988.
Predicting nitrogen concentrations in
ground water—An analytical model.
In Proceedings National Water Well
Association.
TownofFalmouth. 1988. Nutrient loading
bylaw.
Valiela,!., and J.Costa. 1988. Eutrophica-
tion of Buttermilk Bay, a Cape Cod
coastal embayment: Concentrations
of nutrients and watershed nutrient
budgets. Environmental Management
12(4):539-553.
-------
-------
WATERSHED "33
Application of the Hydrologic
Simulation Program—Fortran (HSPF)
Model to the Potomac River Basin
Ed Stigall and Lewis C. Linker
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD
Anthony S. Donigian
Aqua Terra Consultants, Mountain View, CA
The Potomac basin drains the waters
(and nutrient loads) of four states,
Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania,
West Virginia, and the District of Columbia.
These states (with the exception of West
Virginia), along with the federal govern-
ment, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), and the Chesapeake Bay
Commission, are partners in the Chesapeake
Bay nutrient reduction agreement. The
agreement calls for a 40 percent reduction in
the discharge of controllable phosphorus
and nitrogen to the tidal bay by the year
2000. To determine the quantity of the
controllable nutrient load, and to determine
the efficacy of nutrient control strategies to
bring this about, the entire 164,000 square
kilometers of the Chesapeake Bay basin
were simulated using HSPF (Hydrologic
Simulation Program—Fortran). This paper
describes a representative portion of this
work, specifically, the water quality
simulation of the Potomac basin, with
emphasis on the simulation of nutrient loads
delivered to the tidal bay.
The Potomac River basin covers an
area of 3,638,500 hectares in the mid-
Atlantic region of the United States
(Figure 1). The headwaters drain the ridge
and valley geology of the Appalachian
Mountains. Land use in the upper basin is
predominately forest (66 percent) and
agriculture (29 percent). Midbasin, in the
Piedmont Plateau region, agricultural land
uses predominate (45 percent) on the
moderate slopes. In the Piedmont, urban
land use also increases in importance (15
percent). On the lower elevations and
slopes of the coastal plain, urban land use
further increases (25 percent), particularly
in the Washington, DC, metropolitan area
at the head of tide. Overall the basin is
composed of 55 percent forest land, 33
percent agricultural land, and 12 percent
urban land.
Figure 1. Model segmentation of the Potomac Basin. The
Alleghany ridge and valley region includes segments 160,170,
175,190, and 200. The Piedmont region includes segments 180,
210, and 220. The coastal plain includes segments 530,540,
and 550.
767
-------
768
Watershed '93
Application of HSPF to the
Potomac Basin
The HSPF Model is a modular set of
computer codes that simulate hydrology,
nutrient, and sediment export from pervious
and impervious land uses, and the transport
of these loads in rivers and reservoirs.
HSPF has been publicly available
since 1980 and is supported and updated by
the EPA Office of Research and Develop-
ment, Athens, Georgia. Applications of
HSPF have included flood assessment,
drainage design, nonpoint source nutrient
evaluation, pesticide risk assessment, water
resource planning, and water quality
management.
HSPF Release 10.0 was used for this
application. Release 10.0 includes simula-
tion of particulate nutrient transformation
and transport within rivers and reservoirs,
and refinements in HSPF data management
(Johanson et al., 1993).
Structure
The modular structure of HSPF allows
a variety of simulation options. In the
following model structure description of the
Potomac nonpoint source load simulation,
the HSPF module names are in parenthesis.
Hydrology Modules
The Potomac hydrology simulation
applied the modules of adiabatic air tem-
perature corrections (ATEMP), snow
simulation (SNOW), simulation of the water
budget for pervious land (PWATER), and
simulation of water budget for impervious
land(IWATER).
subsurface export. Nutrient load modeling
of cropland includes modules which
simulate the moisture and the fractions of
solutes being transported in the soil layers
(MSTLAY), phosphorus behavior (PHOS),
and nitrogen behavior (NITR).
Transport and Transformation
Modules
River and reservoir modeling includes
modules of hydraulic behavior (HYDR),
heat exchange and water temperature
(HTRCH), behavior of inorganic sediment
(SEDTRN), primary DO, BOD balances
(OXRX), sediment/nutrient interactions,
nitrification, denitrification (NUTRX), and
phytoplankton behavior and associated
reactions (PLANK).
Model Segmentation
The Potomac basin was divided into
11 model segments, each with an average
area of 379,200 hectares. Segmentation par-
titioned the basin into regions of similar
characteristics, consistent with the accurate
delivery of nutrient loads at the basin termi-
nus. Segmentation was based on three tiers
of criteria. The first criterion was segmenta-
tion of similar geographic and topographic
areas that were further delineated in terms
of soil type, soil moisture holding capacity,
infiltration rates, and uniformity of slope.
The second criterion involved finer segmen-
tation based on spatial patterns of rainfall.
The third criterion ensured that physi-
ographic segmentation was consistent with
drainage sub-basins and that bankfull chan-
nel travel tune of each segment was about
24-72 hours (Hartigan, 1983).
Nutrient Load Modules
Potomac nutrient load modeling
included modules which simulate sediment
loads (SEDMNT), estimate soil temperature
(PSTEMP), estimate soil water temperature
and dissolved gas concentration
(PWTGAS), and simulate pervious and
impervious land water quality constituents
using relationships with sediment and water
yield (PQUAL, IQUAL).
Cropland was simulated with a
detailed nonpoint source load simulation
module (AGCHEM). AGCHEM simulates
application of fertilizer, manures, atmo-
spheric deposition, crop uptake, soil
binding, denitrification, and surface/
Hydrology Simulation
Data from a total of 50 precipitation
stations were obtained from standard
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (NOAA) tape files from the states
of West Virginia, Virginia, Pennsylvania,
and Maryland. Of the 50 stations, 26 were
hourly data and 24 were daily data.
Four calendar years were simulated,
1984 through 1987. Daily station data were
converted to the necessary hourly data based
on the time series data collected from a
nearby hourly station that had a daily total
closest to the daily data. The average
precipitation for each model segment was
based on the spatial distribution of the
-------
Conference Proceedings
769
precipitation by the Thiessen polygon
method. At least six precipitation stations
were used for each model segment.
Meteorologic data for the Potomac
basin were partitioned between the records
of two primary NOAA stations. Meteoro-
logic data for the western portion of the
basin (segments 160, 170, 175, 190,200)
were provided by standard NOAA tape files
from the station at Elkins, WV. Meteoro-
logic data for the eastern portion of the
basin (segments 180, 210, 220, 530, 540,
550) were from the station at Dulles
International Airport.
Each land use in each segment has a
unique hydrology, through segment and
land use specific hydrology parameteriza-
tion. Overall, hydrology calibration was
very good—within 1.0 cm difference
between average simulated and observed
flow over the 4-year period (observed =
37.3 cm, simulated = 36.3 cm). The
correlation coefficient for the regression of
log simulated flow on log observed flow is
0.84 for the 1,460 days of the 4-year
period.
Nonpolnt Source Load Simulation
Nutrient loads from the following
sources were simulated: forest, pasture,
conventional tilled cropland, conservation
tilled cropland, cropland in hay, animal
waste areas, atmospheric deposition to water
surfaces, urban land,
and point sources.
The simulation of
each of these loads
will be reviewed in
turn.
A consistent
land use data base
was compiled for the
entire basin. The
methodology used
obtained particularly
detailed information
on agricultural lands.
Principal sources
were the U.S. Cen-
sus Bureau series,
Census of Agricul-
ture for 1982, (Vol-
ume 1 Geographic
Area Series) pub-
lished for each state.
The Census of Agri-
culture provided
consistent, reliable
data on agricultural land areas on a county
basis. Combining the major cropland and
other agricultural categories from the Cen-
sus, of Agriculture produced acreage fig-
ures by county that were then aggregated
into the 11 Potomac model segments.
A multitude of other sources were
used to generate the 1985 land use data
base: Soil Interpretations Records (SCS-
SOI-5 data file), 1984; National Resources
Inventory (NRI), 1984; Forest statistics for
New York, 1980; Forest statistics for
Pennsylvania, 1980; Forest resources of
West Virginia, 1978; Virginia's timber,
1978; U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) LU/
LC GIS Data Base. The initial land use
data went through two separate reviews by
state planning and environmental agencies
and county Soil Conservation Extension
Offices. Corrections were made after each
review; then the area of forest land use was
finalized.
Forest Land Use
Forest Service surveys were used as
an initial data set that was modified by the
relative coverage of deciduous and
coniferous trees (and subsequently the
amount of interception storage). Informa-
tion was provided by state offices of the
U.S. Forest Service on a segment scale.
Figure 2 portrays forest and other land use
areas by geographic region.
2500
2000
1000
500
2006.1
^^^^^^^^^M
Forest
Past.
AW
Ridge and Valley
Convent Conserv.
Land Use
• Piedmont
Urban
D Coastal Plain
Water
Figure 2. Land use by geographic area.
-------
770
Watershed '93
Forest calibration was through user-
adjusted factors for surface and subsurface
loads. A potency factor (POTFW), keyed
to sediment load, is used for surface
nutrient loads. Concentration factors
(QUALIF, QUALGW) are used for
subsurface loads. The subsurface concen-
tration variable is applied to shallow
interflow, upper ground-water flow, and
lower ground-water flow. The forest land
use was calibrated to expected surface and
subsurface annual loads.
Pasture Land Use
Pasture land area was obtained from
the 1987 Census of Agriculture by the
aggregated land use of "pasture land, all
types." Calibration of pasture nonpoint
source loads was made to expected literature
values of sediment and nutrients as de-
scribed for forests.
Animal Waste
A major nutrient load in the Potomac
comes from runoff from areas of concen-
trated livestock production. Manure acres is
a derived land use that represents the
production of nutrients from manure. The
tons of manure produced were estimated
from the numbers of livestock in the 1982
Census. Livestock numbers were adjusted
to a standard animal unit and further
adjusted by the application of a manure
management factor.
An animal unit is defined as 1,000
pounds of animal weight, corresponding in
this analysis to 0.71 dairy cows, 1 beef cow,
5 swine, 250 poultry layers, 500 poultry
broilers, or 100 turkeys. The total adjusted
animal units were divided by a "compromise
animal density" of 145 animal units per
acre, yielding the number of manure acres.
Animal units of poultry, swine, beef, and
dairy were further adjusted by a manage-
ment factor to account for the predominant
manure handling practices. Manure
management factors range from zero for
poultry to 1.0 for dairy cattle (Donigian et
al., 1991).
The animal waste area is simulated as
an average representation of manure'piles,
feedlots, and loafing areas. The area is
simulated as impervious, with only surface
roughness for (minimal) detention of input
precipitation. Runoff occurs after the
detention of surface depressions (0.35 in) is
satisfied, and the manure nutrients associ-
ated with this runoff are 700 mg/1 BOD, 70
mg/1 total phosphorus (TP), and 350 mg/1
total nitrogen (TN).
Conservation, Conventional, and
Hay Cropland
The watershed model has three
categories of cropland: conventional tillage,
conservation tillage, and hay land. Conven-
tional tillage represents fall plowed and/or
spring plowed conventionally tilled crop-
land. Conservation tillage represents those
tillage practices that result in a residue cover
of at least 30 percent at the time of planting.
Tillage information on a county level
was obtained for the conventional and
conservation cropland distribution (CTIC,
1985). The Conservation Technology
Information Center tillage data were
processed to eliminate crop area overesti-
mation due to double cropping.
Cropping patterns of conventional
and conservation tillage acres were
compiled from the 1982 Census from the
aggregated harvested crop categories of
"corn for grain," "sorghum for grain,"
"wheat for grain," "barley for grain,"
"buckwheat," "oats for grain," "rye for
grain," "sunflower seed," "tobacco,"
"soybeans," "potatoes," "sweet potatoes,"
"corn for silage," "sorghum for silage,"
and "vegetables." Hay acres were com-
piled from the category of harvested "hay,
alfalfa, and other tame, small grain, wild,
grass silage, or green chop."
Information on fertilizer and manure
application rates and tuning, crop rotations,
and timing of field operations was provided
by state agricultural engineers and environ-
mental scientists. Soil characteristics for
nutrient interaction were obtained from the
Soils-5 data base (USDA, 1984). HSPF
works on an annual basis with all land use
characteristics, but with a 4-year continuous
record of precipitation and meteorological
data. This format required a composite crop
to be used. In the Potomac, the principal
crop rotation is corn, soybeans, and hay.
For conventional and conservation cropland,
the corn, soybean composite crop was
formed.
The composite crop was formed by
the aggregate of crops grown on the
cropland type. An average of field prepara-
tion practices, planting time, fertilizer
application, and harvest was used. Param-
eterization of AGCHEM is fully developed
in Donigian (1978).
-------
Conference Proceedings
771
Urban Impervious and Pervious
Land Use
The USGS Land Use/Land Cover
System (USGS LU/LC) was used to
differentiate the urban land into five
subcategories as described by Anderson et
al. (1976). These land uses are: residen-
tial, 0.30 imperviousness; commercial, 0.75
imperviousness; industrial, 0.80 impervi-
ousness ; transportation/communications,
0.50 imperviousness; and institutional and
parks, - 0.10 imperviousness.
Urban land imperviousness was
determined for each model segment based
on the five subcategories of urban land.
Using the proportion of the total urban area
in the different subcategories, a single area-
weighted imperviousness was determined
for the single aggregate urban land use
modeled. The area-weighted impervious-
ness was used to determine the expected
urban load in each model segment using the
method described by Schueler (1987). The
sum of the pervious and impervious urban
land use load in each model segment was
calibrated to this expected load.
Erosion and Sediment
Several key parameters were applied
to all of the pervious land uses including
forest, pasture, cropland, and pervious
urban land. These parameters included
cover, land slope, and the coefficient of soil
fines (K factor).
Cover for conventional cropland and
conservation cropland are based on the
weighted area of the cover of individual
crop types grown in the segment. Informa-
tion on land slope and soil fines was
provided by the NRI data base. Informa-
tion on hydrologic characteristics of soils,
such as percolation and reserve capacity,
was obtained primarily from the USDA
Soil Conservation Service Soils-5 data.
The delivery of sediment from each
land use was calibrated to that of the
expected annual sediment loads determined
from the NRI data base. The model was
adjusted so that the average of the annual
sediment loads from 1984-87 approached
that of the NRI edge of field data, with a
sediment delivery factor of 0.15.
Atmospheric Deposition
Atmospheric deposition loads of
nutrients were developed from the National
Atmospheric Deposition Program (NADP)
data base (NADP, 1982-1987). Areas of
open water, such as rivers, canals, lakes,
and reservoirs, were included as areas of
atmospheric deposition. Water areas were
determined by the USGS Land Use/Land
Cover System (LU/LC) (USGS, 1974).
Annual atmospheric loads of wet fall
ammonia and nitrate were obtained from
NADP. Atmospheric loads of dryfall
inorganic nitrogen were assumed to be the
long term average (1983-1989) of the
wetfall nitrogen (NADP, 1982-1987).
Atmospheric loads of inorganic phosphate,
organic phosphate and organic nitrogen
were obtained from two state-operated
atmospheric stations in Maryland. Atmo-
spheric loads were obtained on an annual
basis and applied in the simulation as a
load to the areas of water in the model.
Atmospheric deposition on land
surfaces was included as an input load for
cropland or was implicitly included in the
forest, urban, and pasture land uses by
calibration to the annual loads observed by
field measurement.
Point Source Inputs
Data for the 4-year record were
obtained preferentially from the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES). If no state NPDES data were
available, state- and year-specific default
data were calculated for each missing
parameter based on sewage treatment plant
flow. Industrial dischargers have highly
variable flow and nutrient concentrations;
therefore, industrial discharges had no
defaults and were included in the data base
if a load was obtained from the NPDES.
The point source data were stored in model
files with a monthly time step.
Surface Water Diversions
Surface water diversions were
determined for each model segment. State
USGS offices provided water diversion
information from their computer data base.
Only consumptive water use was counted
as a diversion. Consumptive water use
types include the USGS categories of
domestic water (water used for household
purposes), industrial water use, irrigation
water use, and public water supply.
Results
The HSPF modules described in this
paper generate nonpoint source nutrient
-------
772
Watershed '93
Table 1. Potomac unit area average total phosphorus
loads by land use
Land Use
forest
pasture
animal waste
conventional till
conservation till
hay
urban
atmospheric loads"
Unit Area Proportion of Load
Load (kg/ha) Subsurface (%)
0.06
0.36
424.00
3.04
2.41
1.87
0.84
0.65
21
12
0
22
23
18
11
0
"Loads directly to nontidal water surfaces.
loads for each land use on a unit area
(hectare) basis. This load is quantified for
phosphate, organic phosphorus, ammonia,
nitrate, and organic nitrogen. Total phos-
phorus (TP) loads and the portion of the
load that is subsurface are listed in Table 1.
Figure 3 shows total basin phosphorus
loads into edge of stream and delivered. The
quantity of the total basin load is the product
of the unit area load and the land use area
generating the load. For example, forest has
the lowest unit area load (0.06 kg/ha), but
much of the basin land use is forest (55
percent). Therefore, forest has a relatively
large total phosphorus basin load of 134,760
kg. Conversely, animal waste has the
greatest unit area load (424 kg/ha), but the
a*
0.7
0,8
as
! 0.4
1 03
03
0.1
smallest land use area (about one millionth
of one percent). Basinwide total phosphorus
animal waste loads are 537,570 kg.
As loads are transported sequentially
through model segments, loss occurs due to
biological, chemical, and physical processes.
Transport loss mechanisms include algal
uptake and settling, particulate nutrient
settling, and denitrification. The further up-
basin loads are input, the greater the
transport losses. Individual model segment
and total transport losses of phosphorus are
listed in Table 2. Model segment loss is the
attenuation of load in a single model
segment. Total transport loss is the total
transport attenuation as loads are transported
sequentially through all downstream model
segments to the point of discharge to the
tidal bay. Segments 530, 540, and 550
discharge directly to the tidal Potomac with
no transport loss. The hydrologic connec-
tions among the other model segments are
shown in the following diagram.
segment 210
segment 160
segment 170
segment 175 segment 160
segment 190 , segmentZOQ
segment 280
054
0.18
0.12
AW
Convert. Conaerv. Hay Urban
ToU Phosphorus Loads by Land Use
Water
Point
ED Delivered Surface Load
H Point Source Load
H Delivered Subsurface Load
I I Load Lost In Transport
Total bar values are edge of stream loads.
Shaded areas of bar are delivered loads.
Figure 3. Edge of stream and delivered TP loads.
Average phosphorus loss in the
Potomac model segments is 3
percent, ranging from -26 percent
to 13 percent. The unusual
negative transport loss (i.e. gain in
total phosphorus) was due to a 100-
year storm in the upper Potomac
basin in November 1985 that
scoured the bed and generated total
phosphorus within model segments
170, 175, and 190.
Sources of delivered phos-
phorus loads to the Potomac are
dominated by agriculture (Figure
4). Agricultural phosphorus loads
are 65 percent of the total. The
largest agricultural source of
phosphorus is cropland (conven-
tional tillage, conservation tillage,
hay). In order of magnitude of
total phosphorus loads delivered
are loads from cropland, point
sources, animal wastes, urban
areas, pasture land, and forest land.
Total nitrogen per unit loads
and the proportion that is subsur-
face are listed in Table 3. Nitrogen
-------
Conference Proceedings
773
losses due to attenuation are listed
in Table 4.
Agriculture is the predomi-
nate source of nitrogen delivered to
the Potomac. Agricultural nitrogen
accounts for 40 percent of the total
nitrogen load. The largest agricul-
tural source of nitrogen is cropland
(conventional tillage, conservation
tillage, and hay). In order of mag-
nitude, the total nitrogen delivered
to the water comes from the fol-
lowing sources: point sources,
cropland, forest land, urban areas,
pasture land, animal wastes, and
atmospheric deposition.
Figures 5 and 6 show the
total phosphorus and nitrogen
loads, relative to the Bay Agree-
ment and the loads expected under
a limit of technology scenario. The
Bay Agreement loads are defined
as a 40 percent reduction in
controllable loads. Controllable
loads are defined as everything
over and above the total phospho-
rus or total nitrogen loads that
would have come from an entirely
forested watershed.
Point source loads are
considered, in this definition, to be
entirely controllable. The actual
Bay Agreement loads are based on
a reduction of basin controllable
loads by 40 percent—the presenta-
tion of controllable loads by land
use is merely for comparison. As
Figures 5 and 6 illustrate, some
load types, such as animal waste,
point source, and cropland are
more easily controlled than others.
The limit of technology loads are
defined as: all cropland in conser-
vation tillage; the Conservation
Reserve Program fully imple-
mented; nutrient management,
animal waste controls, and pasture
stabilization systems implemented
where needed; a 20 percent
reduction in urban loads; and point
source effluent controlled to a level
of 0.075 mg/l total phosphorus and
3.0 mg/l total nitrogen.
Conclusion
The Potomac HSPF model is
a successful water quality simu-
Table 2. Phosphorus transport loss by model segment. Negative loss indi-
cates in-stream processes such as scour are generating loads in addition to
the loads delivered to the river reach from point and nonpoint sources.
Geographic Region
Appalachian
Piedmont
Coastal Plain
Segment
160
170
175
190
200
180
210
220
530
540
550
Mean (range)
Model Seg. Loss
6% (2% -13%)
-26% (-90% - 13%)
3% (-1% - 8%)
13% (-3% -32%)
13% (11% -21%)
11% (7% -19%)
10% (5% -13%)
6% (5% - 8%)
0%
0%
0%
Mean (ranqe)
Total Trans. Loss
24% (13% - 40%)
-2% (-75% - 35%)
19% (8% -25%)
29% (12% - 50%)
18%(15% - 27%)
16% (12% - 25%)
15% (10% - 17%)
6% (5% - 8%)
0%
0%
0%
Forest Past.
AW Convent Conserv. Hay
Total Nitrogen Loads by Land Use
Urban Water
Delivered Surface Load
Point Source Load
[HI Delivered Subsurface Load
| | Load Lost In Itansport
Total bar values are edge of stream loads.
Shaded areas of bar are delivered loads.
Figure 4. Edge of stream and delivered TN loads.
Table 3. Potomac unit area average total nitrogen
loads by land use
Land Use
forest '-•
pasture
animal waste
conventional till
conservation till
hay
urban
atmospheric loads3
Unit Area Proportion of Load
Load (kg/ha) Subsurface (%)
3.67
8.28
2120.00
26.84
20.74
9.10
10.56
16.61
82
63
0
56
62
55
63
0
"Loads directly to water surfaces.
-------
774
Watershed '93
Table 4. Nitrogen transport loss by model segment
Geographic Region
Appalachian
Piedmont
Coastal Plain
Mean (range)
Segment Model Seg. Loss
160 8% (7% -9%)
170 7% (5% -9%)
175 3% (3% -4%)
190 20% (17% -29%)
200 12% (9% - 16%)
180 10% (7% - 12%)
210 10% (7% - 13%)
220 5% (4% -6%)
530 0%
540 0%
550 0%
Mean (ranqe)
Total Trans. Loss
24% (19% - 29%)
23% (19% - 29%)
17% (15% -21%)
33% (29% - 44%)
16% (12% - 19%)
15% (11% - 17%)
15% (11% - 18%)
5% (4% - 6%)
0%
0%
0%
Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge
the state, regional, and federal members
of the Chesapeake Bay Program
Modeling Subcommittee for their
essential guidance and direction
throughout the development of the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model, of
which the Potomac HSPF Model is
only a small part.
References
lation that quantifies the nonpoint source
and point source nutrient loads from all
basin sources. The model was essential in
establishing a consistent method of
accounting for the nutrient loads, among
all sources, the basin jurisdictions of four
states, and the District of Columbia. The
model is used to examine the level of
control achievable from different manage-
ment practices. The model has examined
management practices, that when combined
into strategies of nutrient control, will meet
the Chesapeake Bay Program water quality
objective of a 40 percent reduction in
controllable nutrients in the Potomac basin,
and will do so in a cost-effective and
equitable manner.
Fbract
Future AW Crop*
laa Ntragai U«fa ly Scenario
I Bue IJM! Boy Agreement
D
Urban
Limit of Tech.
* Conventional tillage, conservation tillage, and hay land uses combined.
Figure 5. Potomac TP loads by scenario.
Bickhell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle,
Jr., and A.S. Donigian, Jr. R.C.
Johanson 1993. Hydrologic Simula-
tion Program—Fortran (HSPF):
User's manual for release 10.0. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory,
Athens, GA.
CTCI. 1985. 1985 crop tillage data base.
Conservation Technology Information
Center, West Lafayette, IN.
Donigian, A.S., Jr., and H.H. Davis. 1978.
Users manual for Agricultural Runoff
Management (ARM) model. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency,
Environmental Research Laboratory,
Athens, GA.
Donigian, A.S., Jr., B.R. Bicknell, L.C.
Linker, J. Hannawald,
C.H. Chang, and R.
Reynolds. 1990. Water-
shed model application to
calculate bay nutrient
loads: Phase I findings
and recommendations.
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay Pro-
gram, Annapolis, MD.
Donigian, A.S., Jr., B.R.
Bicknell, L.C. Linker,
C.H. Chang, and R.
Reynolds. 1991.
Watershed model
application to calculate
bay nutrient loads:
Phase II findings and
recommendations. U.S.
Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Chesa-
peake Bay Program,
Annapolis, MD.
Hartigan, J.P. 1983.
Chesapeake Bay basin
Point
-------
Conference Proceedings
775
model. Final report
prepared by the
Northern Virginia
Planning District
Commission for the
U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency,
Chesapeake Bay
Program, Annapolis,
MD.
NADP. 1982, 1983, 1984,
1985, 1986, 1997.
(IR7)/National trends
network. National
Atmospheric Deposi-
tion Program, NADP/
NTN Coordination
Office, Natural
Resource Ecology
Laboratory, Colorado
State University, Fort
Collins, CO.
U.S. Bureau of the Census.
1984. 1982 census of
agriculture, Vol. 1,
Geographic area series. U.S:
Department of Commerce, Washing-
ton, DC.
USDA. 1984. Soil interpretations records
(SCS-SOI-5 data file) and the Na-
tional Resources Inventory (NRI).
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil
Crop* Urban
Total Nitrogen Loads by Scenario
D Bay Agreement H Limit of Tech.
Point
* Conventional tillage, conservation tillage, and hay land uses combined.
Figure 6. Potomac TN loads by scenario.
Conservation Service, Washington,
DC.
USGS. 1974. Geographic Information
Retrieval and Analysis System (GIRAS).
1:125,000 landuse/landcover (Ander-
son Level n classification). U.S.
~J Geological Survey, Washington, DC.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Characterizing Pollution Sources in
Coastal Watersheds: NOAA's
National Coastal Pollutant Discharge
Inventory Program
Daniel R.G. Farrow, Chief, Pollution Sources
Characterization Branch, Strategic Environmental Assessment Division
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD
Characterizing pollution sources—
identifying the sources, determining
their location, inventorying their
important operational parameters, and
estimating the type, quantity, and timing of
pollutants discharged—is a basic require-
ment for developing an integrated watershed
management capability. Without this
information, it is not possible to assess the
relative contributions from various sources,
and, in turn, determine which management
actions will provide the desired environmen-
tal improvements at the least cost to society.
Source characterization can be
undertaken, and is needed, at different time
and space scales depending on the scale and
scope of the watershed management issues
being addressed. For the last 10 years, the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Admin-
istration (NOAA) has been developing and
refining its capabilities to characterize
pollution sources located in the Nation's
coastal watersheds as part of its National
Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory
(NCPDI) Program. The information
developed through this program is national
in scale and intended for strategic assess-
ments-—characterizations that focus on the
Nation as a whole or on large coastal and
oceanic regions. The analyses made using
information from the NCPDI program are
intended to complement, not replace, the
more detailed "tactical" analyses of coastal
resource use conflicts in specific areas and
often can point the direction for the tactical
analyses (Ehler and Basta, 1984).
The centerpiece of the NCPDI
program is a master data base containing
seasonal and annual discharge estimates
for 15 pollutant parameters. Estimates are
made for all point and nonpoint sources
discharging to surface waters in coastal
areas, and these estimates can be aggre-
gated by county or watershed. Estimates
are also made for the pollutant load carried
into the coastal watersheds from upstream
areas. Most of the discharge estimates in
the data base are made using engineering
models because of the difficulty in obtain-
ing monitored data for many of the
pollutant parameters. The main features of
the NCPDI data base are summarized in
Tables 1 and 2.
In addition to building and maintain-
ing the master data base, over the last
several years the NCPDI Program has
undertaken several other major projects
related to pollution characterization in
coastal watersheds. These include:
• A national assessment of the
distribution of 12 indicators of
nonpoint source pollution potential
in over 300 watersheds that drain to
the Nation's coastal waters. This
assessment was conducted to
support the coastal zone boundary
review requirements of section
6217 of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments
(CZARA) (Coastal Nonpoint
Source Control Program) (Strategic
Environmental Assessments
777
-------
778
Watershed '93
Table 1. Pollutants included in the NCPDI master data base
Pollutants
Flow
BOD
TSS
Total Nitrogen"
Total Phosphorus
%
Oil and Grease
Heavy Metals
Arsenic
Cadmium
Chromium
Copper
Iron
Lead
Mercury
Zinc
FCB
Description
Wastewater discharge from point source. Flow
can be process, cooling, sanitary, storm, other,
or a combination of any of these
Biochemical Oxygen Demand (BODS);
measure of organic material that can be readily
oxidized through microbial degradation
Total Suspended Solids; measure of suspended
solid material
Measure of all forms of nitrogen including
nitrate, ammonia, and organic forms
Measure of all forms of phosphorus, i.e., ortho
and para compounds
A mixture of hydrocarbons found in petroleum
comprised of hundreds of chemical compounds
A group of elements present in the environment
from natural and anthropogenic sources that can
produce toxic effects; determination based on
EPA standard methods that measure environ-
mentally available metals
Fecal Coliform Bacteria. FCBs are used as an
indicator of the presence of pathogens
Annual Units
Million
gallons
Pounds
Pounds
Pounds
Pounds
Pounds
Pounds
Cells
1 When updated, the data base will contain information on the discharges of ammonia, Kjeldahl
nitrogen, nitrate, and nitrite where facilities monitored for these forms of nitrogen.
Table 2. Major pollutant discharge
source categories in the NCPDI
1. Point Sources
Wastewater Treatment Plants
Direct Industrial Dischargers
Power Plants
Water Supply Treatment Plants
2. Urban Nonpoint Sources
Separate Sewered Areas
Combined Sewered Areas
3. Nonurban Nonpoint Sources
Cropland
Range and Pastureland
Fores tland
4. Pollutants in Streamflow entering
the Coastal Zone
Division and Coastal
Programs Division,
1992).
• A survey of the
number, severity, and
causes of reported
fish kills in coastal
rivers and estuaries
from 1980 through
1989 (Lowe et al.,
1991).
• An assessment of the
agricultural use and
the impact on estua-
rine organisms of 35
important pesticides
in the 102 estuarine
drainage areas in
NOAA's National
Estuarine Inventory
(Pait et al., 1992).
Figure 1 shows a
national view of
pesticide usage adjusted
for aquatic hazard
potential.
Updating the
NCPDI—Making It
Better
The discharge inven-
tory is currently being
updated to a base period of
1990-1992 (using data
collected for 1991 whenever
possible). When completed
hi mid-1994, the data base
will contain discharge
estimates for urban and
nonurban nonpoint source
pollution in over 300 coastal
watersheds, 3,500 major and
24,000 minor point sources,
and loadings carried in the
streamflow of over 100
major rivers and streams
entering coastal watersheds.
Prior to beginning the
update, the NCPDI team
considered ways to improve
the information content and
utility of the data base. Part
of this analysis involved
identifying the features of the
ideal source characterization
data base (Table 3). After
reviewing this list and
considering the realities of data quality,
consistency, and availability and the limits
on the resources available to make improve-
ments, the team focused on improving the
data base in the following areas:
• Updating all coastal regions at the
same time. In the past, the East
Coast, Gulf of Mexico Coast, and
West Coast components were
developed separately. Because it
took 12 to 24 months to complete an
inventory for all sources for a
component, the base years for each
component were different, making
comparisons across components
difficult to interpret.
• Defining levels of data refinement. By
giving priority to a nationally
consistent and timely base year,
some detail and refinement in the
information content of the data base
is sacrificed. To address this trade-
off between timeliness and detail, the
-------
Conference Proceedings
779
Legend
Hazard Normalized
PesKcdeUse in
Estuarine Drainage Areas
(10,000 Ibs. applied/year)
HI 200 to 600
E33SS
_„—
IH 50to200
|jfe^-| 10 to 50
(33 1 lo 10
LJ Otol
Top Ten Estuarine Drainage Areas
Hazard Normalized
Pesticide Use
Rank EDA Name (10,000 Ibs./year)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Albemarle/Pamlico Sounds 566
Chesapeake Bay 461
Winyah Bay 388
Delaware Bay 302
Tampa Bay 293
Lower Laguna Madre 266
San Francisco Bay 264.
Charlotte Harbor . 261
Biscayne Bay 207
Hudson River /Raritan Bay 194
', Hudson fever/Kantati Bay
n*to»y < f /^ " ;/ '
•=—4 Delaware Bay
H , - '-Middle ,
M«. . , ,/Atiajitic-
2 Chesapeake Say;/ >' ,''f ,
Sounds
'*(»' jpaciftc;
^ 's ^ ' v
'• , ' 4! '
»,„»'
" ?«4ddeAppHcatioaNoroatzBti 4Ay|,Ifa2at(t,,Sefe
Figure 1. Estimated use of 35 agricultural pesticides in estuarine drainage areas normalized for aquatic
hazard potential, circa 1987.
team has adopted a data base
development model that describes
three levels of inventory information.
LEVEL ONE data will be based on in-
formation obtained from readily available
national and state information sources.
Missing values for critical data fields will be
inferred based on a hierarchy of surrogate
data sources. For example, missing latitude/
longitude information for a minor wastewa-
ter treatment plant will be filled first by us-
ing the centroid of the ZIP code area for the
facility. If that information is not available,
the centroid of the city in which the facility
is located will be used. Data will be quality
controlled by filtering out obviously errone-
ous values and values that are outside an ac-
ceptable range. Discharge estimates will be
based on typical engineering values where
monitored or permit data are not available.
LEVEL ONE data will be the standard for
information in the national master data base.
LEVEL TWO data will use state and
local data sources to refine level one
Table 3. Some features of an ideal characterization data base
All important sources included
Pollutants of interest included
Sources spatially referenced by political and hydrologic units
Discharges estimated over time (daily, monthly, seasonal, etc.)
Estimates reported as a range (variability considered)
Quality of each estimate described (relative accuracy assessed)
Audit trail indicating source and basis of estimate included
Methods clearly documented
Factors that influence discharges inventoried
Anthropogenic versus natural inputs distinguished
Management scenarios can be tested
Links to economic analysis (cost functions, etc.)
Links to transport and fate/effects models
Estimates are compared and avlidated against monitored data and
or estimates from other models
Limitations clearly stated
Periodic updates that allow for trend analysis
Easy to access, analyze, extract, and map information
-------
780
Watershed '93
estimates. Portions of the LEVEL ONE
estimation methods will be improved, and in
some cases, more sophisticated models will
be substituted. LEVEL TWO data will be
generated only as resources allow or
external demands dictate and will probably
only be compiled for specific regions.
LEVEL THREE data will incorporate
information from special studies designed to
provide data to improve the accuracy and
reliability of the source characterization. As
with LEVEL TWO data, LEVEL THREE
data will be generated only as resources
allow or external demands dictate. LEVEL
THREE estimates may only be made as a
demonstration project for a single watershed
because of the time and resource costs
involved.
• Expanding the NCPDI study area.
The new study area will be expanded
to include the 359 U.S. Geological
Survey hydrologic cataloging units
contained in the coastal watershed
portion of NOAA's Coastal Assess-
ment Framework (CAP) (Figure 2).
The CAF, which is being used by
other components of NOAA's Stra-
tegic Assessment Program, will pro-
vide a consistent spatial framework
within which information character-
izing coastal resource use can be
analyzed and compared. Figure 2
shows the new national study area.
Adding Great Lakes point source
estimates. For the first time, the
NCPDI data base will contain
information for point sources in
coastal watersheds draining to the
Great Lakes. At this time, no
estimates for nonpoint sources are
planned for the Great Lakes.
Carrying more information for point
sources. The background files of the
point source component of the
Study Area of the Updated NCPDI Master Data Base
Legend
Counties entirely in or with some portion in the Coastal Watershed
Coastal Watershed Boundary as defined in NOAA's Coastal Assessment Framework
Figure 2. The revised NCPDI study area is based on NOAA's Coastal Assessment Framework.
-------
Conference Proceedings
731
NCPDI data base will contain permit
limits and discharge estimates for the
over 1,600 pollutant parameters
reported in the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) Permit
Compliance System. This informa-
tion can be used to identify the
number and type of facilities
discharging a specific pollutant in
different watersheds and compare
levels of discharge and permitting
across watersheds.
Improving the audit trail. The
NCPDI audit trail is the series of
codes and supporting files that
document the data source(s) and
basis used to make each discharge
estimate. These codes allow the user
to understand the derivation of each
estimate, and evaluate the relative
reliability of the information used in
a particular analysis. The number of
variables for which this information
is carried will be significantly
increased in this update.
Refining estimates for nitrogen. The
NCPDI will contain estimates for 15
pollutant parameters. However, as
part of the update, estimates will be
made for several important forms in
addition to total nitrogen. These
include ammonia, Kjeldahl inor-
ganic, nitrites, and nitrates. This
added focus reflects the belief that
nutrient discharges remain a major
cause of the water quality problems
reported in estuarine and coastal
waters.
Improving estimation methods. The
new estimates will incorporate
improvements that have been made
in the estimation techniques used for
urban and nonurban nonpoint
sources.
1 Improving access and mapping/
geographic information system (GIS)
support. When the entire data base
update is completed in 1994, a
summarized version will be included
in a centralized Strategic Environ-
mental Assessments (SEA) Division
data base. Users will be able to
access and download the data from
this data base using a dial-in net-
work. In addition, some portions of
the data base that are appropriate for
geographic display, such as locations
of point sources, will be available
through NOAA's GeoCoast GIS lab.
Finally, summarized versions of the
data will be included in several of the
desktop decision support systems
such as the Coastal Ocean Manage-
ment, Planning, and Assessment
System that the Strategic Environ- .
mental Assessments Division has
developed.
Using the NCPDI to Better
Manage Coastal Watersheds
When the NCPDI Program was
begun in the early 1980s, a primary focus
for the information developed by the
Program was to support analyses of
national policy issues related to coastal
and ocean resource use conflicts. At that
time, issues such as whether to grant
301(h) waivers (waivers of secondary
treatment for municipal treatment plants
discharging to the ocean) and whether to
allow ocean dumping of sewage sludge
were being debated. It was felt that
information that allowed managers to
compare the discharge characteristics,
costs, and benefits of alternative manage-
ment strategies across coastal regions
would improve the quality of the decision
making.
Information from the NCPDI Program
has been and can continue to be used for
national analyses. Two relatively recent
examples are for the assessment of the
susceptibility of the Nation's estuaries to
nutrient discharges (Quinn et al., 1991), and
the assessment of coastal zone boundaries
related to implementation of section 6217 of
CZARA. However, we are shifting the
Program focus to more regional and state-
level uses in response to our own and others
(e.g., Malone, 1992) growing recognition
mat regional-scale analyses are the optimal
level at which to effectively address large
scale coastal resource use conflicts.
As a result, in the future, the thrust of
our work will be in two areas—producing
source characterizations for regional and
state-level assessments and developing
information to meet specific needs of
programs that address coastal resource
management problems.
Two examples of the first focus are
the regional watershed characterizations of
point source discharges currently underway
for the Gulf of Maine Program and for the
Virginian Province component of EPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
-------
782
Watershed '93
Program. Several watershed-scale source
characterization studies that have been
proposed for the Gulf of Mexico Program
could also be undertaken with information
from the NCPDI Program.
Possible program-specific applica-
tions include source characterizations to
support the development of Coastal
Nonpoint Source Control Programs—
section 6217 of the CZARA; site evalua-
tions for potential Marine Sanctuary
designations; total maximum daily load
studies—section 303(d) of the Clean
Water Act (CWA); EPA's biennial
National Water Quality Inventory—
section 305 (b) of the CWA; and EPA's
National Estuary Program and Near
Coastal Waters projects.
The NCPDI information can also be
used to provide a baseline data set of
sources and discharges for states that do not
have an existing comprehensive inventory;
as an alternative source of estimates for
comparison with regional, state, and basin
level inventories; and for international
assessments comparing discharges from
land-based sources in the United States to
those of other nations (e.g., the United
Nations Environmental Programme's
(UNEP's) Caribbean Environment
Programme).
There are a variety of ongoing and
potential uses for the source characteriza-
tion information developed by the NCPDI
Program. However, it is important to
recognize the limitations. The develop-
ment of national and regional source
characterization data bases requires that
information be compiled and synthesized
from a wide variety of sources. Estimates
must often be based on assumptions and
typical values. As a result, potential users
may question the credibility and utility of
the information. This questioning is
absolutely essential to ensure proper use of
the data. No user should accept the
estimates at face value but rather must
expend time and effort to understand
clearly how the estimates are made and the
biases they contain (Basta et al., 1985).
The NCPDI team is committed to working
with all users to help them gain this
understanding for the NCPDI data sets. It
is only after understanding the limitations
of the data that the information can be
appropriately applied to improve coastal
watershed management decisions.
References
Basta, D.J., B.T. Bower, C.N. Ehler, F.D.
Arnold, B.P. Chambers, and D.R.G.
Farrow. 1985. The national coastal
pollutant discharge inventory. In
Coastal Zone '85, proceedings of the
fourth symposium on coastal and
ocean management, Baltimore, MD,
August 1985, pp. 961-977. SEA Pub.
no. 85-6.
Ehler, C.N., and DJ. Basta. 1984. Strategic
assessments of multiple resource-use
conflicts in the U.S. exclusive
economic zone. Exclusive Economic
Zone Papers reprinted from Proceed-
ings of Oceans '84, Washington, DC,
September 1984, pp. 1-6. SEA Pub.
no. 84-6.
Lowe, J.A., D.R.G. Farrow, A.S. Pair, SJ.
Arenstam, and E.F. Lavan. 1991.
Fish kills in coastal waters: 1980-
1989. SEAPub.no. 91-14. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, Rockville, MD.
Malone, T.F. 1992. The world after Rio.
American Scientist 80:530-532.
Pait, A., A.E. DeSouza, and D.R.G. Farrow,
1992. Agricultural pesticide use in
coastal areas: A national summary.
SEA Pub. no. 92-9. National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration,
Rockville, MD.
Quinn, H.A., J.P. Tolson, CJ. Klein, S.P.
Orlando, D.T. Lucid, and C.E.
Alexander. 1991. Strategic assess-
ment of near coastal waters: Suscepti-
bility and status of West Coast
estuaries to nutrient discharges: San
Diego Bay to Puget Sound - Summary
report. SEA Pub. no. 91-20. National
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion, Rockville, MD.
Strategic Environmental Assessments
Division and the Coastal Program
Division. 1992. Coastal zone bound-
ary review. National summary: State
characterization reports. SEA Pub.
no. 92-1. National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration,
Rockville, MD.
-------
WATERSHED '9 3
River Restoration Utilizing Natural
Stability Concepts
David L. Rosgen, Professional Hydrologist
Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs, CO
The rivers of this country have been
tinder siege in the last 75 years. They
have been straightened, raised,
lowered, lined, narrowed, widened, diverted,
and dammed. Their floodplains have been
taken over for the good of those who settled
the land. Houses and even cities have been
located where the high flows of the river
were naturally dissipated amongst dense
stands of riparian vegetation and associated
wildlife habitat.
Well-intended, but misguided efforts
toward river control are now starting to
show the adverse results of such works.
Those who live along the channelized river
with the high levees have been watching the
elevation of the river bed become higher
than the floodplain. As this process occurs,
the levees have to be raised to keep up with
the rising river. When the stream wants to
again seek its historic curves, erosion and
breach of the levees occur. When flood
waters breach through from an elevated
river bed the great velocities and depths of
flow create more damage than would have
occurred naturally.
Concrete has not added to the aquatic
and terrestrial habitats or to the beauty of the
river. Engineers were directed to establish
expertise at designing trapezoidal, lined, and
straightened channels as the people de-
manded protection from the river. Rather
than zoning for certain uses in the floodplain
and along the river fringe, the direction has
been to control and contain the river.
We are slowly learning from our
recent observations and the unfortunate
fate of those who are the recipients of the
river's wrath. The saying "it's not nice to
fool Mother Nature" seems particularly
appropriate as we see the river trying to re-
establish its natural functioning and
pattern. There has recently been a
rejuvenation of thought and direction by
many throughout the country about the
restoration and protection of our rivers.
One can observe the loss of habitat, river
function, and beauty for only so long
before an ethical, as well as a geomorphic,
threshold is exceeded.
When an agency such as the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) begins
researching ways of "putting a river back"
and integrating environmental engineering
into its planning efforts, then indeed, there is
a tide of change in the country! Engineers
and others are faced with a new challenge—
"How do you put a river back?" The
traditional control and containment designs
don't cover this. In recent years, the author
has been working with federal, state, and
local agencies, as well as consultant firms to
teach and include the application of river
restoration principles into their design
manuals and procedures.
Can we live in harmony with the
river without causing these adverse adjust-
ments? Can we continue to utilize the
resources provided by the river without
jeopardizing the integrity of the river? The
answer is yes! But to do so, we must
understand the "rules of the river." We still
have many positive examples where we
have lived in harmony with the river. In
many of these instances, well-managed land
use activities adapted-to infrequent flooding
have contributed to the livelihood of many
without adverse affects on the river. In
some urban areas, floodplains are main-
tained in vegetated parks with trails inter-
spersed. When floods occur, as they always
will, there is little damage.
783
-------
784
Watershed '93
Point of inflection
or crossover
Convex bank
Location of Concave bank
point bar
L= Meander length (wave length)
A = Amplitude
rc=Mean radius of curvature
Figure 1. Plan-view sketch of idealized
meander (from Leopold et al., 1964).
General Principles
Channel Variables
Underlying the complexities of river
processes is an assortment of interrelated
variables that determine the dimension, pat-
tern, and profile
of the present-day
river. The result-
ing physical ap-
pearance and
character of the
river are products
of channel bound-
ary and slope ad-
justment to the
present stream-
flow and sediment
regime.
River form
and fluvial pro-
cesses evolve si-
multaneously and
operate through
mutual adjust-
ments toward
self-stabilization.
Stream systems
are dynamic and
their pattern, di-
mension, and pro-
file are deter-
mined by an
ipocjooo
100,000
JJ
gKJDCQ
1 1,000
100
10
/*
'/
/
'/
S
L*
,:
'/<
*
10.9^'°
y~>
,/
'/'
*
s
,
/
'
*.
100,000
10,000
/
/
.;•/
/
"
^•lrm
S
1.96
,x
'Jifc
/
^/
100,000
10,000
1,000 g1
5 8
Meander.
1 10 100 1,000 5 10 ICK3 1,000 10,000 100000
Chonnel tuidth, feeb Mean radius of curvature, feet
A B
« Meonders of rivers and in flumes
x Meanders of Gulf Stream
• Meanders on glacier ice
Figure 2. Relation of meander length to width (A) and to radius of
curvature in channels (from Leopold et al., 1964).
interaction of process variables, such that a
change in one variable sets up a mutual ad-
justment in the others (Leopold et al., 1964).
The variables are width, depth, slope, veloc-
ity, flow resistance, sediment size, sediment
load, and stream discharge. Because of the
complex interactions associated with the
individual variables, a stream classification
system was developed to describe combina-
tions of the various "integrations" as pre-
dictable, morphological stream types
(Rosgen, 1985,1993). The stream classifi-
cation system is useful in restoration designs
to quantify the basic morphological relations
for a given river so that the design may bet-
ter match the potential of the natural, stable
channel form.
Successful restoration efforts must
utilize established principles of process and
function that accommodate a river's predict-
able response tendencies. Channel stabiliza-
tion methods that do not follow the known
and observable relations are inviting poten-
tial long-term problems due to the negative
feedback mechanisms from the very streams
that we are trying to "help." The basic ten-
dencies of river function and adjustment rely
on principles reported by Inglis (1947),
Leopold and Wolman (1957, 1960),
Leopold et al. (1964), and Langbein and
Leopold (1966). The relationship of: mean-
der geometry related to stream size; stream
size related to stream discharge; the linear
sequence of riffle-pool bed features
related to channel width; and hy-
draulic geometry relations were
established by this early research
and are used today as the theoreti-
cal basis for the restoration design.
Specific characteristics of
meander geometry are related to
channel dimensions and plan
features such as meander wave
length, radius of curvature, and
meander amplitude as described and
presented in Figures 1 and 2. The
Leopold and Wolman (1960)
equations that represent these
relations are shown as:
Lm= 10.9W1-01 (1)
A = 2.7WU (2)
Lm= 4.7 rc°-98 (3)
where: Lm= meander length (ft)
W = bankfull surface width (ft)
A = amplitude (ft)
r = mean radius of curvature
(ft)
(Equations published in English
units.)
-------
Conference Proceedings
785
100,000
10,000 -
1000 -
100
Another useful equation developed by
Langbein and Leopold (1966) was that of a
sine-generated curve which described
meander paths:
L K'5
R = — - - (4)
where: K = channel sinuosity (channel
length/valley length)
R. = radius of bend curvature.
A recent study by Williams (1986)
tested the above equations on a data set
larger than was used in the original work.
Williams found that the application of the
equations produced results
that agreed quite well with
the earlier findings of
Wolman and Leopold ,
(1957, 1960), (Figure 3).
A common problem
associated with the "tradi-
tional designed channel"
restoration is that attempts
are made to put all of the
flow into one channel.
Most alluvial rivers consist
of three distinct, but re-
lated, channels: the
thalweg, or low flow chan-
nel; the bankfull, or nor-
mal high water channel;
and the established flood-
plain, or channel that car-
ries flows greater than the
bankfull discharge. In
many river restoration de-
signs, this very basic and
important concept is not
taken into consideration
(Figure 4). As a result,
channels designed to
contain all the flows in a
common width, are con-
structed "over-width."
The consequence of build-
ing these over-width chan-
nels often leads to
aggradation due to a re-
duction in stream energy
or competence of the river
necessary to move the
sediment associated with
the normal, frequent run-
off events. Once sediment
deposition occurs and bar
features form, infrequent
flushing flows do not re-
move these features but
start an aggradation pro-
cess and lateral migration adjustment. Over
time, bar features enlarge, extend, and often
become islands. This process is more preva-
lent in the riffle/pool stream types rather
than the step/pool types.
Often when grade control structures,
such as check dams, are installed in rivers,
the local upstream slope is reduced. The
width/depth ratio increases, and the stream
responds by initiating lateral adjustment. A
study of aerial photographs over large areas
will show that channel sinuosity is higher on
the gentle gradient rivers than the steeper
channels. The higher sinuosity occurs as a
- 10,000
- 1000
o.
UJ
Q CO
z£
ii
<
m
EXPLANATION
friedkin (1945) * this study
' Rsk (1947) » this siudv
a Roiovskii 11957) • this study
Leopold. Wolman (I960)
Bfice (19641 * this study
Schumm 11968) » this stuav
•+• Keilerhals.et al. (19721* this stuov
Leopold (19731* this study
Andrew* 119791 * this nudy
Williams 11984) « this study
Williams (this study!
co
cc
LU
- 100
Q
$
u_
0.01
10,000 100,000
MEANDER-BEND RADIUS OF CURVATURE,
IN METERS
Figure 3. Relation of channel dimensions to meander-bend radius of curvature
in meters (from Williams, 1986).
-------
786
Watershed '93
NATURAL CHANNEL
FLOODPLA1N
BANKFUIL V
BASEFLOW*-*-
• BASEFLOW
-BANKFULL-
FLOODPLAIN
CHANNELIZED "DESIGNED" CHANNEL
©
Figure 4. Comparison of "designed" channel dimension and pattern
compared to natural channel.
width ratio relations by stream
type (Figure 7).
In river restoration design,
the meander width ratio is an im-
portant morphological feature that
must be integrated into the resto-
ration plan. Sinuosity, width/
depth ratio, entrenchment ratio,
slope, and particle size distribu-
tion are not only important for
delineation of stream types, but
are critical for design specifica-
tions for a given river morphol-
ogy.
Evolution of stream types,
caused either naturally due to
climate changes or induced due to
changes in watershed manage-
ment, can be observed as a
sequential series of channel
change. An example of one
scenario for a series of channel
adjustments and corresponding
change in stream type is depicted
in Figure 8. Knowing the current
state and direction or tendency of
channel adjustment is critical to
river restoration design. We often
try to make a stream into what it
"doesn't want to be"! The
potential state, or condition, can
be inferred by stream type as well
as empirical relations for design
specifications to emulate the
stable morphology.
Watershed Conditions
result of natural bank erosion processes as
the river, in an effort to accommodate
excess stream energy, naturally adjusts it's
form and planimetric configuration.
Flattening slopes of rivers, which is often a
part of stream restoration projects, usually
results in accelerated bank erosion and
sediment deposition.
Stream Classification
An arrangement of the morphologi-
cal variables that can be organized into a
common description called "stream types"
are shown in Figures 5 and 6. Applications
for restoration involve the integration of
the variables as stream types into more
detailed descriptions involving plan
features of the most probable state. An
example of this is shown in the meander
Before entering into a major
stream restoration project, it is important to
first understand what caused the instability.
Often restoration work is only an exercise in
patching symptoms rather than working
toward a curel Flow regimes that can be
altered in magnitude and duration due to
vegetation manipulation, urban develop-
ment, etc. have to be understood and
calculated. Changes in sediment supply
directly affect the channel stability, and as
such need to be determined. Taking care of
the problem on-site rather than accommo-
dating sediment supply through in-channel
storage is a recommended alternative.
However, as logical as this statement
appears, there are many ill-fated projects
being constructed that are designed to store
excess sediment in the active channel.
Structural alternatives can often be
minimized or even eliminated if a healthy
-------
Conference Proceedings
787
FLOOD -PRONE AREA
BANKFULL STAGE
Figure 5. Broad level stream classification delineation showing longitudinal, cross-sectional, and
plan views of major stream types (from Rosgen, in review, 1993).
Figure 6. Illustrative guide showing cross-sectional configuration, composition, and delineative
criteria of major stream types (from Rosgen, in review, 1993).
-------
788
Watershed '93
Figure 7. Meander width ratio
Rosgen, in review, 1993).
(belt width/bankfull width) by stream type categories (from
MWR = BELT WIDTH / BANKFULL WIDTH
STREAM TYPE
CROSS-
SECTION
VIEW
AVERAGE
VALUES
RANGE
1.5
1-3
1.1
1-2
B&G
Sft
3.7
2-8
2-10
Figure 8. Evolutionary stages of channel adjustment showing corresponding changes in
morphology, dimensions, pattern, and slope as indicated by stream type (from Rosgen, in
review, 1993).
-------
Conference Proceedings
789
watershed condition can be
maintained. Good riparian
grazing practices can be very
effective at reducing bank
erosion and improving fish
habitat. Fair to poor grazing
practices can reverse this
process.
Examples
To demonstrate these
application principles, a
couple of brief examples of
large-scale stream restoration
projects are summarized.
Rio Blanco—Colorado
A reach of this river was
straightened and leveed in the
late 1960s. The traditional
attempt at river control
resulted in the development of
a braided (D4) channel; in
1987, a 3.8-kilometer reach
was converted to a meander-
ing (C4) stream type. This
project is summarized by the
National Research Council
(1992) and is shown at right.
East Fork of the San
Juan River-—Colorado
The East Fork natu-
rally converted to a braided
channel as extensive willow
eradication in the 1930s
resulted in accelerated bank
erosion and channel widen-
ing. The 8 kilometers of
existing braided channel,
with an average width of
350 meters, was responsible
for contributing over 49
percent of the total annual
sediment load of the 140-
square-kilometer watershed
due to accelerated bed and bank erosion.
A restoration demonstration study was
initiated as part of a section 404 permit
through the COE. In 1986, a 1.6-kilome-
ter reach of river was converted from a
braided (D4) stream type to a meandering
(C4) stream type. The meander geometry
relationships and channel dimensions for
a stable C4 stream type were emulated on
Aerial view of the braided reach (D4), Rio Blanco, 1986, looking upstream.
Aerial view of Rio Blanco following restoration, showing meandering stream
type (C4), 1992, looking upstream.
paper, then implemented by constructing
a new channel and floodplain. Monitor-
ing has demonstrated that the pattern,
profile, and dimensions of the new stream
type have been stable. The competence
of the river to transport sediment has been
improved along with a greatly improved
brown trout fishery and visual enhance-
ment. A vegetated floodplain now exists
-------
790
Watershed '93
over previous gravel bars. Streambank
stability was afforded by the implementa-
tion of a bank revetment and fish habitat
design using a combination of willow
transplants and cuttings, root wads, logs,
and boulders. Fish habitat has been
improved by increased depths for the
same discharge, improved overhead and
in-stream cover.
There are many additional restoration
projects designed by the author that utilize
natural stability concepts including, but not
limited to: Wolf Creek, Bull Creek, and the
Eel River in California; Quail Creek in
Maryland; Lamoille and Maggie Creeks in
Nevada; other rivers in Colorado, Idaho,
Montana and North Carolina. Unfortu-
nately, space limitations preclude their pre-
sentation here.
Summary
Results from monitoring these
restoration projects, which have utilized
natural stability principles, show the
potential of alternative strategies to
traditional large-scale river channelization.
Rivers can be improved in their stability,
visual values, water quality, riparian
function, and terrestrial and aquatic
habitats. Fish habitat improvement from
this approach is greatly improved and
becomes a central objective in much of
this work.
Continued monitoring with similar
projects will help all of us learn and im-
prove our ability to "put something of
value back" into our rivers. In this man-
ner, we can demonstrate the ability to re-
gain the stability, integrity, and natural
functioning of our inherited fluvial systems
for those who follow.
References
Inglis, C.C. 1947. Meanders and their
bearing on river training. Institute of
Civil Engineering (London), Mar.
Waterways Engineering Division,
Session 1946, Paper no. 7, pp. 3-54.
Langbein, W.B., and L.B. Leopold. 1966.
River meanders—Theory of minimum
variance. U.S. Geological Survey
Professional Paper no. 422-H.
Leopold, L.B., and M.G. Wolman. 1957.
River channel patterns: Braided,
meandering and straight. U.S.
Geological Survey Professional Paper
no. 282-B, pp. 39-85.
. 1960. River meanders. Bulletin of
the Geological Society of America
71:769-794.
Leopold, L.B., M.G. Wolman, and J.P.
Miller. 1964. Fluvial process in
geomorphology. W.H. Freeman and
Co., San Francisco, CA.
National Research Council. 1992. Restora-
tion of aquatic ecosystems. In Restora-
tion case studies, pp. 470-477. National
Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Rosgen, D.L. 1985. A stream classification
system. In Proceedings North
American Riparian Conference,
Tucson, AZ, pp. 91-93. U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, Fort Collins, CO.
. 1993. A classification of natural
rivers. Catena. In review.
Williams, G.P. 1986. River meanders and
channel size. Journal of Hydrology
88:147-164.
-------
WATERSHED' 93
Streambank Stabilization Techniques:
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Demonstration Project On Lower
Boulder Creek, Colorado
fay Wlndell
Aquatic and Wetland Consultants, Boulder, CO
Chris Rudkln, Water Quality Coordinator
City of Boulder, Boulder, CO
Laurie Rink, President
Aquatic and Wetland Consultants, Boulder, CO
Watershed Description
Boulder Creek drains approximately
1,140 square kilometers (440
square miles) of the eastern side of
the Colorado Rocky Mountain Front
Range. The Boulder Creek basin is bor-
dered on the west by the Continental
Divide where headwater tributaries be-
gin high in the Indian Peaks Wilderness
Area. Middle Boulder Creek and North
Boulder Creek join in Boulder Canyon at
Boulder Falls (19.3 km (12 miles) up-
stream from the Boulder City limits),
where the mainstem forms a medium-
sized, fifth-order, cold-water stream
ecosystem. Upon emerging from the
mouth of Boulder Canyon, the stream
flows through the urbanized center of the
City of Boulder (population 95,000) and
begins a transition from a cold-water
(mean annual temperature of less than
20 °C) to a warm water system (mean
annual temperature of greater than 20 °C).
The transition between cold and warm is
completed at the city's 75th Street
Wastewater Treatment Plant WWTP
approximately 13.4 km (8.3 miles) from
the canyon mouth. The Creek continues
as a warm-water stream as it becomes
confluent with Coal Creek and St. Vrain
Creek 13.7 km (8.5 miles) and 24.9 km
(15.5 miles) downstream of the WWTP,
respectively, before joining with the
South Platte River.
The Boulder Creek watershed for pur-
poses of this project was divided into upper
Boulder Creek Basin (mountains) and lower
Boulder Creek Basin (plains) (Figure 1).
The mouth of Boulder Canyon serves as a
natural boundary between the two basins.
The upper basin was defined as ex-
tending from the headwater tributaries at
the Continental Divide to the canyon
mouth, a distance of 38.6 km (24 miles). .It
includes 30,760 hectares (ha) (76,000
acres) of the Indian Peaks Wilderness Area,
2,630 ha (6,500 acres) of the City water-
shed that functions as the municipal water
supply, and 46,360 ha (114,560 acres) of
Arapahoe/Roosevelt National Forest. Total
creek mainstem length from the divide to
the confluence with Coal Creek and St.
Vrain Creek approximates 65.6 km (40.8
miles) and 76.9 km (47.8 miles), respec-
tively.
The lower basin extends from the
mouth of the canyon to the St. Vrain
Creek confluence. The 13.4-km (8.3-
mile) reach between the canyon mouth
and the WWTP includes properties
under easement to the City of Boulder
and is part of the city Open Space
Greenbelt program. Along the 13.7-km
791
-------
792
Watershed '93
(8.5-mile) reach between the WWTP and
Coal Creek confluence, land uses range
from City-owned greenbelt and proper-
ties under easement to the City to
privately owned agricultural operations.
The remaining 11.3 km (7.0 miles)
extends between Coal and St. Vrain
Creeks and is dominated by irrigated
agriculture, grazing, and gravel mining
in Weld County.
Project History
In January 1985, City of Boulder
public works officials were faced with
renewing their National Pollution Dis-
charge Elimination System permit,
adopting more stringent un-ionized am-
monia and other water quality standards,
and upgrading the 17-year-old, 16-mil-
lion gallons a day WWTP that was oper-
ating at greater than 80 percent capacity
(Windell et al., 1991).
Point Source Pollution
Sources
Until data were analyzed from an
ongoing water quality monitoring program
by the City Water Quality Laboratory, it
was not known that excursions of un-
ionized ammonia were occurring in
Boulder Creek. Excursions occurred on a
daily basis between 10:00 A.M. and 6:00
P.M., causing transient exceedances of the
state standard (0.06 mg/1) during the early
spring months of March and April and the
late summer and fall months of August,
Fbint Source I Nonpoint Source — Use
Pollution Cbntrol^T'Pollut/on Control — Attai
Attainment
Watershed
Continental
Divide
.•'•';' • . • ; Lower ' - - v ' ', - -
s Basin ' */ '• .
Upper
Basin
'$fag?'':t
••:">'r*"., tv • •*
.
Municipal
Wastewater
Plant
II 'V -V \ |i/ •*O»«
Creek Habitat "Restoration
Figure 1. The Boulder Creek Watershed was divided into an upper basin (mountain) and lower basin
(plains) where 12 BMPs have been implemented.
-------
Conference Proceedings
793
September, and October. Although these
excursions were not technically a violation
of the state standard, they were significant
and presented a cause for concern by city
and state officials. Data analysis also
revealed a significant downstream rise in
pH from 7.0 at the WWTP outfall to as
high as 10.0 at a point 13.7 km (8.5 miles)
downstream, suggesting possible nonpoint
sources of pollution.
Solutions
City officials authorized a facilities
and sludge management master planning
study that presented analyses and recom-
mendations for water quality improvement
through the year 2010. Major recommen-
dations included (1) WWTP expansion and
upgrading to meet all water quality stan-
dards, (2) ammonia removal by addition of
a nitrification tower to moderate the
reported un-ionized ammonia excursions,
and (3) development of a long-range plan to
meet the aquatic life use classification.
Funding for the first two recommendations
was secured, and a $23 million plant
expansion and upgrade was completed in
1989.
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Although the WWTP was able to
meet instream water quality standards by
1989, point source pollution control was, as
an isolated measure, deemed inadequate to
fully restore the aquatic life use. It became
clear that both point source and nonpoint
source (NPS) controls would be required to
achieve instream water quality goals. The
cost to produce a high-quality effluent that
meets and exceeds all water quality
standards, but must be released into a
stream that is degraded and polluted by
nonpoint sources, could not be defended or
justified.
Sources
Several early reports documented
NPS pollution inputs resulting from poor
land use practices prior to 1985 (DRCOG,
1983, 1979, 1977; USEPA, 1982). It was
reported that nonpoint sources would
contribute a significant amount of pollut-
ants to the drainage basin by the year 2000.
For example, regional planning studies
predicted that nonpoint sources could
account for up to 60 percent of the biologi-
cal oxygen demand, 83 percent of the total
dissolved solids, and 82 percent of the
nitrate to the total loading in the Boulder
Creek basin. Nonpoint sources were also
predicted to contribute 30 percent of the
phosphates and 17 percent of the ammonia
in the basin.
The un-ionized ammonia excursions,
extreme pH values, high water tempera-
tures, and other factors prompted city and
state officials to conduct a 1-day field trip
between the WWTP outfall and St. Vrain
Creek 24.9 km (15.5 miles) downstream. A
variety of NPS problems were confirmed.
This caused significant doubt about the
ability of the creek to meet its Warm Water
Class I use designation and whether it could
be achieved in 20 years.
Additional environmental investiga-
tions conducted by the City between 1985
and 1988 demonstrated that the creek was
highly dysfunctional and being severely
impacted by nonpoint sources. A use
attainability study was conducted to
document (1) physical habitat characteris-
tics, (2) discharge, (3) irrigation diversion
dams and return flow ditches, (4) riparian
and aquatic vegetation, and (5) macro-
invertebrate and fish community structure
and function (Windell and Rink, 1987). An
18-month, biweekly, 24-hour sampling
study was conducted to document water
quality at the Boulder Creek and Coal
Creek confluence (Windell et al., 1987,
1988). Spring and fall 24-hour synoptic
studies were conducted to document the
extent of the seasonal un-ionized ammonia
excursions (Windell et al., 1988). In
addition, interest in the feasibility of using
aquatic and riparian habitat restoration to
reduce unionized ammonia excursions
provided impetus for initiating the phased
NPS demonstration projects (Windell and
Rink, 1987).
Upper basin NPS problems include
highway and road sanding; assorted mining
operations; forest damage; and sediment
production caused by the Black Tiger
Gulch fire, forest roads, development, and
the accumulation of small habitat modifica-
tions related to poor land use practices.
Lower basin NPS problems include
highway, street, and road sanding opera-
tions; sediment drainage from ditches,
gravel mining areas, return flow irrigation
ditches, and storm sewers; historic
channelization, grazing, and streambank
erosion; and destruction of riparian habitat
-------
794
Watershed '93
by road building, gravel mining, firewood
cutting, and grazing.
The purpose of this paper is to
document the overall progress of the first
three phases of the demonstration project
and report preliminary monitoring data for
techniques used to reduce sediment
contributed by stabilizing eroded
streambanks.
Solutions
The initial NFS demonstration project
was completed in the spring of 1990, com-
prising 2.3 km (1.3 miles) of discontinuous
restoration treatment (Table 1). A second
phase, completed during spring 1991 added
1.8 km (1.1 miles). In the spring of 1992
an additional 0.8 km (0.5 mile) was added
in a third phase. A fourth phase is currently
under design for restoring an additional 2.7
km (1.7 miles), for a total of 7.4 km (4.6
miles) of physical, biological, and chemical
habitat restoration (Figure 2).
A total of 12 different best manage-
ment practices (BMPs) have been imple-
mented during Phases I, II, and HI. These
can be grouped into three major categories:
(1) riparian habitat, (2) water quality, and
(3) aquatic habitat (Table 2). Five of the 12
BMPs were designed to stabilize highly
credible streambanks by implementation of
biotechnical slope protection treatments.
"Bible 1. Summary data for lower Boulder Creek NFS Pollution Demon-
stration Projects. Phases I, H, and III completed. Phase IV(a) is in
final design.
Sediment Control and Reduction
Phases and Reach Number
Characteristics
Project Length (m)
Project Length (ft)
Upstream Elevation (m)
Upstream Elevation (ft)
Downstream Elevation (m)
Downstream Elevation (ft)
Elevation Decrease (m)
Elevation Decrease (ft)
Gradient (%)
Sinuosity
Percent Channelized
I
5(b)
2,092
6,864
1,539
5,050
1,532
5,028
7
24
0.3
1.1
100
II
4
1798
5,900
1,548
5,080
1,543
5,064
5
16
0.3
1.4
54
m
5(a)
838
2,750
1,542
5,059
1,539
5,050
3
9
0.3
1.1
100
IV(a)
6(a)
2,682
8,800
1,530
5,018
1,518
4,979
12
39
0.4
1.0
100
IV(b)
6(b)
2,590
8,500
1,518
4,979
1,510
4,954
8
25
0.3
1.0
100
Length of Boulder Creek receiving partial NFS treatment during Phases I, II in =
4.73 km (4,729 m).
2. Length of Boulder Creek between WWTP and Kenosha Road needing partial NPS
treatment = 10,000 m (10.0 km).
3. Weiser property located upstream of Phase n not treated.
4. Hartnaglc property located between Phases n and El not treated, but shows a 2-m
decrease in elevation.
The field survey identified 72 areas
of eroding streambanks. Lengths of
individual sites ranged from 6 to 245 m
(20 to 800 ft) for a total length of 3,423
m (11,230 ft) or 3.4 km (2.1 miles). The
height of the eroded banks varied
considerably and ranged from 0.3 m (1
ft) to 8.0 m (26 ft). Surface area per
eroded site ranged from 2.3 (25 square
feet) to 745 m (8,000 square feet).
Consequently, the BMPs of choice
included: excluding cattle from riparian
habitat with wildlife-compatible fencing,
and repairing erodible streambanks
using five different BMPs to reduce the
annual sediment input.
Log Revetment. Log revetment was
applied at four locations totaling 217 m
(712 ft) in length. The height of the
eroded streambank dictated the number
of 0.3-m (12-in) to 0.5-m (18-in) diam-
eter logs that were stacked on top of
each other at each location. Each log
was placed parallel to an eroding
streambank and cabled to buried
deadman logs placed 1.5 m deep and 3.0
m back from the water edge. Crevices
behind the logs were backfilled, planted
with live willow stakes, and seeded.
Jetties. Eleven jetties of two types
were constructed at five separate locations.
Both types were constructed
with a layer of rock forming a
hollow base. Brush layering
was placed on top of the base
rock and covered with another
layer of rock. The center of the
jetty was filled with substrate
and planted with live willow
stakes.
One type of jetty was
used to concentrate low flow in
one channel by blocking
braided side channels, thereby
reducing the wetted streambed
surface area. Reducing the
wetted streambed surface area
decreased the amount of
photosynthesizing vegetation
during the spring and fall low
flow un-ionized ammonia
excursion periods.
A second type of jetty
was placed against highly
eroding banks, extended into
the current for 3.0 m and
angled downstream. Water
-------
Conference Proceedings
795
Boulder .
Conservation
Easement
Figure 2. Land ownership and locations of the four phases of the Boulder Creek nonpoint source
pollution demonstration project.
was deflected away from the bank,
thereby decreasing the erosive forces
that the bank is normally subject to
during the spring runoff. Backeddies
were created between the jetties and
resulted in gradual sediment deposition
that is expected to result in bank restora-
tion.
Wattling. Wattling was installed at
nine locations for a total length of 348 m
(1,143 ft). The severely eroding banks
were either cut, or cut and filled after
placing boulders averaging 0.6 m in
diameter at the toe of the slope. Erosion
control fabric (COIR) was placed against
the boulders prior to cutting the slope.
Wattles were formed from sandbar
willow cuttings, placed in a shallow
trench, covered with fabric, and staked
to prevent washout during the high
spring runoff flows. The area upslope of
the boulder toe and wattles was planted
with cottonwood poles and reseeded.
Table 2. Groupings of the 12 implemented best management
practices according to habitat type
Nonpoint Source
BMP
Riparian Habitat
Overland Flow
Streambank Erosion
Aquatic Habitat
Excessive Width & Shallow
Depth/Aquatic Weeds
Flat Water
Diversion Dams
Water Quality Habitat
Irrigation Ditch Return Flows
Fencing
Vegetation Planting/Seeding
Berm Removal
Log Revetment
Jetties
Brush Layering
Wattling
Boulder Toe/Brush Bundle
- Narrow Channel w/ Low Flow
Pool/Point Bar/Tailout
- Rock Aeration Structure
- Fish Passage Structure
- Wetland Habitat Enhancement
-------
796
Watershed '93
Brush Layering. Brush layering was
installed at nine locations for a total length
of 408 m (1,338 ft). Boulders averaging 2
feet in diameter were placed parallel to the
eroded bank at the toe of the slope. Sand-
bar willow cuttings (one per 3 cm) were
placed over top and between the boulders,
and erosion control fabric was placed on
top of the willows. The bank was then cut
to a 2:1 slope, with part of the cut material
anchoring the fabric in place. The fabric
was pulled back away from the boulder toe
and staked. A second brush layer was put
in place 0.3 to 0.5 m (12-18 in) above the
first, fabric applied, and staked. The area
immediately above the brush layer was
planted with cottonwood poles and re-
seeded.
Boulder Toe/Brush Bundle. A
boulder toe/brush bundle technique was
restricted to eroded banks 0.8 m (2.5 ft) in
height or less and installed at four locations
for a total length of 126 m (415 ft). Boul-
ders averaging 0.6 m (2 ft) in diameter
were placed at the toe of the slope and
parallel to the bank. Bundles of sandbar
willow cuttings were placed on top and
between (one cutting every 3 cm) the
boulders before the space behind the
boulders was carefully backfilled and
seeded.
Summary
Initial post-treatment monitoring ob-
servations and preliminary analysis suggest
considerable differences in the effective-
ness of the five BMPs used to control
streambank erosion. Additional monitoring
will be required to determine the long-term
effectiveness, constructability, durability,
and cost benefits of the individual treat-
ments.
References
DRCOG. 1977. DRCOG Clean Water
Program. Technical report. Denver
Regional Council of Governments.
October.
—. 1979. Work plan for the Denver
Regional Urban Runoff Evaluation
Program. Denver Regional Council
of Governments. March.
1983. The St. Vrain Creek: Prob-
lems and potentials. Denver Re-
gional Council of Governments. July.
Rudkin, C. 1992. Combining point source
and nonpoint source controls; A case
study of Boulder Creek, Colorado. In
Conference handbook: Nonpoint
source water pollution: Causes,
consequences, and cures. National
Center for Agricultural Law Research
and Information, University of
Arkansas. October.
USEPA. 1982. Planning guide for evalu-
ating agricultural nonpoint source
water quality controls. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency. March.
Windell, J.T., and L.P. Rink. 1987. A use
attainability analysis of lower
Boulder Creek Segments 9 and 10.
City of Boulder Public Works
Department (Utilities).
. 1988. The feasibility of reducing
un-ionized ammonia excursions by
riparian and aquatic zone habitat
restoration. City of Boulder Public
Works Department (Utilities).
Windell, J.T., L.P. Rink, and C.F. Knud-
Hansen. 1987. A one-year, biweekly,
24-hour sampling study of Boulder
Creek water quality. City of Boulder
Public Works Department (Utilities).
. 1988. Six-month supplement: A
one-year, biweekly, 24-hour sampling
study of Boulder Creek and Coal
Creek water quality. City of Boulder
Public Works Department (Utilities).
-. 1988. A 24-hour synoptic water
quality study of Boulder Creek
between the 75th Street Wastewater
Treatment Plant and Coal Creek.
City of Boulder Public Works
Department (Utilities).
Windell, J.T., L.P. Rink, and C. Rudkin.
1991. Compatibility of stream habi-
tat reclamation with point source and
nonpoint source controls. Water Envi-
ronment and Technology, Water Pol-
lution Control Federation, pp. 9-12.
-------
WATERSHED '93
Establishment of Regional Reference
Conditions for Stream Biological
Assessment and Watershed
Management
Jeroen Gerritsen
TetraTech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD
James Green and Ron Preston
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region III
Environmental Services Division, Wheeling, WV
Biological assessment to determine the
status of aquatic resources is based on
comparison of aquatic biota to
reference conditions (Plafkin etal., 1989).
Reference conditions are expectations on the
status of biological communities in the
absence of anthropogenic disturbances and
pollution; they represent ideal biological
integrity. The expectations must be based
on the state of reference sites which, at best,
are minimally impaired by human pollution
and disturbance, but may be subject to
anthropogenic influences. Establishment of
reference conditions is thus dependent on
the selection of appropriate reference sites
and characterization of a reference database.
This paper describes the process of defini-
tion and selection of reference sites for
streams of the Central Appalachian Ridge
and Valley ecoregion, for use in state and
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) regional monitoring programs and
watershed management.
EPA Region III Environmental
Services Division is developing a regional
assessment program for the biological status
of streams in the Central Appalachian Ridge
and Valley ecoregion, known as the Re-
gional Environmental Monitoring and
Assessment Program (R-EMAP). A central
component of this program is identification
and characterization of stream reference
conditions, which will be used as a basis of
comparison for assessing biological integrity
in state and regional monitoring programs.
Reference characterization will also be the
initial step in developing and implementing
biological criteria.
Reference conditions are best estab-
lished on an ecoregional (biogeographic)
basis (Gallant et al., 1989), because both
biogeographic patterns and environmental
problems tend to be regional. An advantage
of a regional framework is that states that
share the same ecoregion can cooperate
across boundaries to share reference sites
and data, reducing their costs as well as
improving the quality of their information.
This project illustrates the kind of interstate
cooperative effort that can produce reference
sites and subecoregions independent of
political boundaries. Where ecoregional
biological criteria and use designations have
been tested, they have proven to be a cost-
effective and protective tool (Hughes,
1989).
Recognizing mat absolutely pristine
habitats do not exist (even the most remote
streams are subject to atmospheric deposi-
tion), managers must decide on an accept-
able level of disturbance to represent an
achievable or existing reference condition.
A critical element in establishing reference
conditions is thus deciding how much
impact or degradation is to be allowed for
reference sites. Acceptable reference
797
-------
798
Watershed '93
conditions will differ among geographic
regions and states because soil conditions,
stream morphology, vegetation, and
dominant land use differ between regions.
Classification: The
Ecoregional Framework
Human beings identify objects and
classify them into pigeonholes, which
makes the bewildering complexity of
nature more tractable. The purpose of
classification is to group similar things
together, i.e., to prevent comparison of
apples and oranges. Meaningful classifica-
tion is not arbitrary (an apple is not an
orange). Classification invariably involves
professional judgment to arrive at a
workable system that separates clearly
different ecosystems, yet does not consider
each waterbody or watershed a special
case. By classifying, we reduce the
complexity of biological information.
Biologists have long noted that assem-
blages and communities can be classified
according to distinct geographical patterns
(e.g., Wallace, 1869; MacArthur, 1972).
We observe areas of the country within
which there is consistency and similarity in
the types of ecosystems and their attributes
when compared to that of other areas. The
recognition of spatial patterns occurs at vari-
ous scales; broad scale patterns are noticed
at national levels; local spatial patterns are
seen at finer scales.
The ecoregion sets landscape-level
features such as climate, topography, re-
gional geology and soils, biogeography,
and broad land use patterns (Gallant et al.,
1989; Hughes et al., 1990; Omernik and
Gallant, 1990). It is based on geology,
soils, geomorphology, dominant land uses,
and natural vegetation (Omernik, 1987).
Seventy-six ecoregions were originally
identified in the conterminous United
States; recent refinements have yielded a
finer resolution of certain ecoregions, in-
cluding the Ridge and Valley ecoregion
under consideration here (Omernik et al.,
1992).
Ecoregion and subregion are usually
the only classification necessary to charac-
terize natural communities. On occasion,
further classification may be required, and a
hierarchical classification scheme is most
useful to identify distinct classes of streams.
Classification should be parsimonious to
avoid proliferation of classes that do not
contribute to assessment or understanding,
and to avoid classifications reflecting
human disturbances to a stream.
The Central Appalachian Ridge
and Valley Ecoregion
Subregions
The Ridge and Valley region of the
Appalachians consists of sharply folded
sedimentary strata that have been eroded,
resulting in a washboard-like relief of
resistant ridges alternating with valleys of
less-resistant rocks. The region has been
divided into four subregions corresponding
to ridges and valleys of different parent
material (Omernik et al., 1992):
• Limestone valleys. Are dominated
by calcareous bedrock and calcare-
ous soils, with numerous springs.
The subregion has fertile, well-
buffered soils suitable for agricul-
ture, and has been settled and
farmed since Colonial times. Land
use is predominantly agricultural
(row crops and dairy), and small to
medium sized cities are scattered
throughout (e.g., Harrisburg, PA;
Hagerstown, MD; Winchester, VA).
Streams are low to moderate
gradient with high alkalinity due to
the calcareous bedrock and soils,
and with high nutrient concentra-
tions due to intensive agriculture.
• Shale valleys. Are dominated by
non-calcareous bedrock, primarily
shale. Land use is also predomi-
nantly agricultural, but of lower
intensity than in the limestone
valleys (e.g., pasture for nondairy
livestock, hay). Streams are low to
moderate gradient with low alkalin-
ity. Streams in shale valleys may go
dry in late summer or fall of dry
years.
• Sandstone ridges. Are dominated
by highly resistant sandstones. Land
use is predominantly forest, streams
are steep to moderate, and water has
low alkalinity.
• Shale ridges. Are dominated by
shale bedrock. Land use is predomi-
nantly forest, stream gradients are
steep to moderate, and water has low
alkalinity. Streams on shale ridges
frequently dry up in fall.
Each subregion imparts characteristic
topography, hydrology, and water chemistry
-------
Conference Proceedings
799
to streams, and hence influences biota. The
subregions are not continuous and
interdigitate throughout the Ridge and
Valley, yet each occurs in all four states.
Site Selection
Following delineation of subregions
(Omernik et al., 1992), meetings were held
with state water quality monitoring biolo-
gists to develop selection criteria in light of
different expectations in each of the subre-
gions, and to identify candidate reference
streams from topographic maps. Site selec-
tion criteria were identified based on past
experience with potential stream problems
in the region. State biologists had been sup-
plied with maps of subregions, and were
asked to identify candidate sites in each sub-
region. Subregion-specific reference site
criteria were considered, with the aim of
developing criteria that would allow one or
two reference sites per subregion in each
state.
It was recognized at the outset that
unimpacted sites would be readily available
on the ridges, where land use is predomi-
nantly forest, and where protected lands
(e.g., national forests, recreation areas) are
common. In contrast, nearly all streams in
the valleys, and especially in the limestone
valleys, are impacted by agriculture, habitat
modification, and other nonpoint sources.
Therefore, two approaches were taken to
defining reference sites, reflecting the
different land uses in the subregions.
Reference sites for the ridges were strictly
defined to be unimpacted except by
atmospheric sources: no discharges, nearly
complete forest cover in the drainage, and
no recent construction or clearcutting in the
drainage (Table 1). The approach taken for
the valleys was to select the best sites
available, keeping the definition flexible
enough to allow a sufficient number of
reference sites to be selected.
Several criteria are universal to all
four subregions, several others differ
Table 1. Ridge and Valley reference stream criteria
Parameter
Watershed
Drainage
Land use
Stream Habitat
General
Channel
Morphology
Riparian
vegetation
Instream
substrate
Water Quality
General
pH
Limestone Valley
Entirely within subregion
No upstream reservoirs
No major recent
disturbance
Best available
Least agriculture from
among possible sites
Minimal cattle impact
No watercress farms (WV)
No fish hatchery
Characteristic of
subregion
Best possible
Least siltation or
embeddedness
No point sources
No recent spills
n.a.
Shale Valley
Same
No major recent
disturbance
Minimal agriculture
No cattle in stream
Same
> 5m for 0.8km (PA)
Best possible (WV)
Least siltation or
embeddedness
Same
>6
Shale Ridge
Same
>80% forest,
no agriculture
(MD, WV, VA)
Minimal agriculture
(PA)
No major recent
disturbance (including
logging)
No cattle in watershed
(PA)
Same
> 5m for 1.6km (PA)
> 30m (WV, VA)
No significant siltation
or embeddedness
Same
>6
Sandstone Ridge
Same
>80% forest,
no agriculture
No major recent
disturbance
(including logging)
No disturbances
Same
Most of stream
length,
> 30m (WV.VA)
No significant
siltation or
embeddedness
Same
>6
-------
800
Watershed '93
among the subregions (Table 1). There are
no undisturbed catchments in the entire
Limestone Valley watershed subregion, as
reflected in the criteria allowing minimal
agriculture in a reference stream water-
shed. Dairy operations are common, and
cattle are frequently seen in streams.
However, it is possible to find streams
with smaller overall impact of livestock
(Table 1). Agriculture is less intensive in
the Shale Valley subregion, and it was
possible to define criteria with lesser
impact of agriculture for reference streams
in the shale valleys. The two ridge types
(shale and sandstone) have been histori-
cally used for extractive and recreational
industries (quarries, logging, hunting), and
forest is widespread in these subregions.
The reference site criteria for the ridge
subregions require that most of a
catchment be stable forest with no recent
disturbance (Table 2). Following selec-
tion, candidate sites were visited to
determine their suitability, with attention
paid to habitat conditions, including
agriculture, dwellings, roads, riparian
vegetation, watershed vegetation, and
instream habitat.
Thirty-one final reference sites were
selected by this process, with eight each in
the Limestone Valley, Shale Valley, and
Sandstone Ridge subregions, and seven in
the Shale Ridge subregion. Reflecting the
distribution of the Ridge and Valley
ecoregion, there are 13 sites in Virginia, 11
in Pennsylvania, 4 in West Virginia, and 3
in Maryland.
Table 2. Preliminary stream classification and subregions of Ridge
and Valley
Area
Stream
Water Type
Dominant
Fishery
Corresponding
Subregion
low conductivity
Highland high conductivity
(due to calcareous
cement in rock
formations or
minor limestone
strata)
Valley limestone spring
(high conductivity)
limestone influenced
(high conductivity)
low conductivity
cold water Shale Ridge,
Sandstone Ridge
cold water Sandstone Ridge
cold water Limestone Valley
cold or warm Limestone Valley
water
cold or warm Shale Valley
water
The different approaches to the
subregions will be carried through charac-
terization. Ridges can be characterized
using measures of central tendency (mean or
median), because we are confident that the
reference sites represent unimpaired
conditions. Characterization and scoring
for the two valley subregions (limestone
and shale valleys) will be done using upper
percentiles (90 percentile) of the reference
station data distribution, such that the data
range below the 90th percentile is trisected
for assigning scores, as is done for Index of
Biotic Integrity and Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols scoring (Karr et al., 1986; Plafkin
et al., 1989).
Secondary Classification
Prior to identification of subregions
in the Ridge and Valley ecoregion,
regional biologists had developed a
preliminary classification of streams in the
ecoregion. The classification and its
relationship to the subregions is shown in
Table 2. The a priori classification was
developed by stream biologists indepen-
dently of the subregionalization, and
illustrates the close parallels between
observations of stream biology and
subregions developed by geographers from
mapped information.
The final stream classification of the
Ridge and Valley must await collection of
biological data from reference streams.
Biological data will be used to verify the
ecoregions and the secondary classifica-
tion.
Regional Reference
Conditions and Watershed
Management
Management of water resources is
moving towards watershed management be-
cause of the realization that waterbodies re-
flect the state of their watersheds, and effec-
tive management can only take place by
managing watersheds. The watershed is
thus the most appropriate "management
unit."
At the same time, we see that most
natural characteristics of stream habitats—
slope, vegetation, water chemistry, hydrol-
ogy—are common to an ecoregion, and
these characteristics determine to a large
degree the natural biota of the stream. The
ecoregion thus is the template that sets broad
-------
Conference Proceedings
801
habitat and biological characteristics, and
forms the basis for defining reference
conditions. These reference conditions are
the criteria and goals for management and
restoration.
Ecoregion and watershed do not
always coincide. Although any ecoregion
contains many watersheds, a large number
of watersheds cross regional boundaries.
This is especially true for the Ridge and
Valley, where even small watersheds may
be partially in different subregions. Third
order streams and larger almost invariably
receive waters from different subregions.
Watershed managers need to be
cognizant of ecoregions, so that expectations
and goals can be set accordingly. With the
development of regionwide reference site
databases, realistic and scientifically-
defensible reference conditions can be
established to form a basis for water quality
management goals.
References
Gallant, A.L., T.R. Whittier, D.P. Larsen,
J.M. Omernik, and R.M. Hughes.
1989. Regionalization as a tool for
managing environmental resources.
EPA 600/3-89/060. U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency, Corvallis,
OR.
Hughes, R.M. 1989. Ecoregional biological
criteria. In Proceedings of Water
Quality Standards for the 21st
Century, U.S. Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, Dallas, TX.
Hughes, R.M., C.M. Rohm, T.R. Whitter,
and D.P. Larsen. 1990. A regional
framework for establishing recovery
criteria Environmental Management
14:673-84.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier,
P.R. Yant, and I.J. Schlosser. 1986.
Assessing biological integrity in
running waters: A method and its
rationale. Special publ. 5. Illinois
Natural History Survey, Urbana, EL.
MacArthur, R.H. 1972. Geographical
ecology. Princeton University Press,
Princeton, NJ.
Omernik, J.M. 1987. Ecoregions of the
conterminous United States. Annals
of the Association of American
Geographers 77(1):118-25.
Omernik, J.M., and A.L. Gallant. 1990.
Defining regions for evaluating
environmental resources. In Global
natural resource monitoring and
assessments. Proceedings of an
international conference, Venice,
Italy.
Omernik, J.M., D.D. Brown, C.W.
Kiilsgaard, and S.M. Pierson. 1992.
Draft ecoregions and subregions of the
Blue Ridge Mountains, Central •
Appalachian Ridges and Valleys, and
Central Appalachians of EPA Region
3. U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Environmental Research
Laboratory, Corvallis, OR. August 26.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter,
S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989.
Rapid bioassessment protocols for use
in streams and rivers: Benthic
macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/
444/4-89-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, DC.
Wallace, A.R. 1869. The Malay Archi-
pelago. MacMillan, London.
-------
-------
WA.TERSHEO'93
Tailoring Requirements to Reality:
The Santa Ana River Use
Attainability Analysis
fames T. Egan, P.E., President
Gene Y. Michael, Director of Environmental Programs
Max M. Grimes, Director of Technical Services
Regulatory Management, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO
Timothy F. Moore, President
Risk Sciences, Inc., Colorado Springs, CO
Steven P. Canton, Vice President
Chadwick &. Associates, Littleton, CO
A. Paul Rochette, President
The Economic and Market Research Co., Woodland Park, CO
Background
The Santa Ana River (SAR) begins in
the foothills of the San Bernardino
Mountains and, except for its upper-
most reach, runs through urbanized areas to
the Pacific Ocean approximately 50 river
miles downstream. The SAR is naturally
ephemeral until rising ground water creates
permanent flow in the lower two-thirds of its
length. In recent years, increasing dis-
charges from municipal water reclamation
plants (Publicity Owned Treatment Works
(POTWs)) have increased the volume of
permanent flow, and have extended hydrau-
lic continuity to its upper reaches.
The SAR's designated uses include
warm-water aquatic life, recreation class 1,
agricultural irrigation, ground-water
recharge, industrial process water, and
hydroelectric power. Though not a desig-
nated use, the river is also used to provide
flood control; it is lined, channelized, and
routinely stripped of vegetation, and is
broached by two dams. Additionally, the
SAR is affected by rising ground water that
has been contaminated with nutrients and a
high total dissolved solids by historical
agricultural activities.
The SAR is an important water
resource to three counties. It provides a
point of discharge and reuse for reclaimed
water, it provides recharge of ground-water
supplies for drinking water, and it provides
a source of varied recreation for numerous
communities. Water reclamation utilities,
water supply utilities, and regulatory
agencies have intense, and often competing,
interests hi the river. Areawide basin
planning is an ongoing and important task
that all of these parties participate in
actively. The results of such planning
activities have long-range impacts on the
overall management of the river, and
establish water quality "objectives" (criteria)
and discharge permit requirements that carry
substantial costs and long-term implications
for river use priorities.
Ammonia water quality objectives to
protect the aquatic life use, hi conjunction
with the nitrate requirements, were resulting
in nitrification and denitrification treatment
processes at all discharging POTWs.
California's Title 22 regulations with
respect to protecting human health from
recreational exposure to viruses mandated a
specific tertiary level of treatment or a
"demonstrated equivalent." The SAR was
also added to the Clean Water Act Section
304(1) list because of six metals (cadmium,
copper, lead, chromium, mercury, and
silver) discharged by six POTWs. The
803
-------
804
Watershed '93
California Inland Surface Waters Plan
implemented statewide standards (essen-
tially EPA "Gold Book") as well as rigorous
acute and chronic toxicity requirements.
The cumulative impact was $2 billion of
capital improvements for the six POTWs in
communities already under economic stress.
One of the few things that was clear was
this—what the river could and should
support was unclear. The potential for
costly management decisions with no
concomitant benefit was a real possibility.
Purpose of the Use
Attainability Analysis
As a result of this situation, and out of
a need to address state and federal regula-
tory requirements, as well as properly
address local planning needs, the Santa Ana
Watershed Planning Authority (SAWPA)
undertook a comprehensive use attainability
analysis of the entire river. The use attain-
ability analysis (UAA) was designed to
address the ammonia issue, the heavy metals
issue, and to provide an overall characteriza-
tion of the SAR to assist in making
basinwide management decisions. The basic
goals of the UAA were to determine the uses
of the SAR and what standards were needed
to protect them, to identify potential uses of
the SAR that could reasonably be attained,
and to ascertain what factors enhance or
inhibit the ability to achieve designated
uses.
Scope of the Use Attainability
Analysis
To achieve these goals, the Santa Ana
River UAA was extensive. A total of 39
sampling stations, plus the 6 POTW
discharges, were carefully selected for their
representativeness and to provide a complete
profile of the river. Final site location
determinations were made by the research
team in conjunction with state regulatory
officials. Of these 39 sites, 21 were full
study sites and 18 were reconnaissance sites.
Additionally, the Santa Margarita
River, including its tributaries, was used as
a "reference reach," with a total of 11
additional full study and reconnaissance
sites. The Santa Margarita River system
was outside a populated area, and had no
point source discharges to it. The river
was in the same basic geographic area and
experienced the same general climatologi-
cal influences.
Full study sites received the full suite
of samplings and analyses listed below.
Reconnaissance sites received some combi-
nation of the listed parameter investigations.
In order to assess any impacts seasonal
variation might have on the character of the
SAR, samplings were collected quarterly for
one year, beginning in March 1991 and
ending in November 1991. In all, over
10,000 individual determinations were made
and analyzed as part of the UAA.
The parameters for which sampling
and analysis were conducted, and for which
scientific determinations were made were:
Water Chemistry
• 10 heavy metals (As, Cd, Co, Cu, Cr,
Pb, Se, Hg, Ag, Zn)
• Nutrients (NH3, NO2, NO3, TKN,
and Total P)
• Organics (EPA Methods 602, 608,
624, 625)
• General constituents (TSS, TDS,
alkalinity, minerals, TOC, COD,
HCO3, conductivity, and Fe)
Physical Parameters
• Instantaneous flow, river depth, flow
velocity, pH, air and water tempera-
ture)
Microbiological Analysis
• Indicator bacteria (total and fecal
coliform, enterococci)
• Virus (enterovirus, rotovirus,
Hepatitus A)
• Protozoa (Giardia ,sp. and
Cryptosporidium sp.)
Habitat Assessment
Biomonitoring
* Acute (Pimephales promelas and
Ceriodaphnia dubid)
• Chronic (Pimephales promelas and
Ceriodaphnia dubid)
Biological
* Fish collections
• Invertebrate enumeration
• Algae survey
Fish Flesh Analysis
• For bioaccumulation of metals and
organics
Hydrologic Characterization
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis
Use Attainability Analysis
Technical Approach
In order to ensure the comprehensive-
ness of the UAA, to maximize the integra-
-------
Conference Proceedings
805
tion of data collected, and to ensure the
scientific validity and usefulness of the data
collected, a rigorous technical approach was
developed, reviewed by all involved parties,
and refined. Components of this technical
approach are summarized below.
Development of Research
Hypotheses
The Technical Oversight Committee
established by SAWPA to oversee the
technical design and conduct of the UAA
determined to use hypothesis testing as one
means to evaluate the results of the UAA.
Through a consensus approach involving all
interested parties, a series of research
hypotheses was developed that would guide
assessments of aquatic life issues, drinking
water and human health issues, nonpoint
source issues, and the basis for placing the
SAR on the federal 304(1) list.
A suite of metrics was also established
by which to make qualitative and quantita-
tive measurements. These metrics included,
for example, biodiversity indices, dissimilar-
ity and similarity coefficients for inverte-
brates, richness and composition, trophic
composition, and abundance and condition
factors for fish.
Water Quality Monitoring
Methodologies
Water quality collections were
conducted in the same time frame as
biological collections and habitat assess-
ments in order to examine correlation. The
UAA data were used to validate historical
data, thus expanding the volume of data that
could be analyzed and the time frame over
which such data evaluation results could be
applied. The water quality assessments
conducted during the UAA were done
during the fifth year of an extended drought,
a time when water quality stresses were at
their maximum.
The analytical methods used were
EPA-approved methods designed to achieve
the lowest detection limits. The heavy
metals, with the exception of mercury, were
analyzed by Inductively-Coupled Plasma/
Mass Spectroscopy. Mercury was analyzed
using Cold Vapor Atomic Absorption.
A Field Sampling Procedures manual
was specially written for use in collecting
and handling samples. This manual
provided precise instructions on holding
times, containers, and preservation tech-
niques for all parameters measured. It
provided explicit labeling and shipping
instructions, and provided chain of custody
directions. Quality assurance and control
provisions included travel blanks, field
blanks, field duplicates, control standards,
and sample splits. Duplicate analytical
laboratories were used to cross-verify
results. Specific field testing procedures
were developed, in detail, and were included
in the manual as were sample collection
procedures.
All field personnel were trained by the
Principal Investigator, and specific field
monitoring documentation materials and
procedures were developed, implemented,
and adhered to assiduously. Special
equipment was developed, and procedures
for its proper use were implemented. Every
sample was collected, labeled, and shipped
by the Principal Investigator or under his
direct supervision. Every analytical
laboratory involved in the UAA was visited
and audited by the Principal Investigator
prior to and during the conduct of the UAA.
Microbiological Sampling
Methodologies
A separate section of the Field
Sampling Procedures manual was devel-
oped for microbiological sampling, includ-
ing indicator bacteria and virus and patho-
gen screening. Viruses were assayed
directly. Two methods were used: observa-
tion of cytopathogenic effects of tissue
cultures and gene probes. The virus and
protozoan assays were conducted by the
University of Arizona by the methods
developed by Gerba and Naranjo.
Biological Survey
The biological survey was a seasonal
sampling of the biological populations and
assessment of communities. All sampling
was conducted in the same time frame as the
water quality sampling. Habitat assessments
were conducted during each sampling to
allow correlation between biological
sampling results, water quality sampling
results, and habitat factors.
Habitat Assessment Methodologies
Habitat assessment was primarily con-
ducted using the EPA's Rapid Bioassess-
ment Protocols (RBP). This method uses
empirical information collected at several
-------
806
Watershed '93
representative sites to assess biological in-
tegrity and to identify possible changes in
community structure and abundance result-
ing from point and nonpoint pollutant
sources. The RBP were used to score the
habitat on primary, secondary, and tertiary
parameters.
• Primary Parameters: (Substrate and
cover) scored bottom substrate,
available cover, embeddedness, and
flow volume and velocity.
• Secondary Parameters: (Channel
morphology) scored channel
alteration, bottom scouring and
deposition, pool/riffle ratio, and run/
bend ratio.
• Tertiary Parameters: (Riparian and
bank structure) scored bank stability,
bank vegetation, and sidestream
cover.
Riparian Vegetation Survey
A comprehensive vegetation survey
was also conducted. Four measurements
were made: vegetation height, crown
diameter, distance to the water's edge, and
vegetation density. Representative
vegetation stands were used that would
characterize each river bank. Aerial
photography was employed to divide the
river into segments of similar vegetation
characteristics.
Stream Water Temperature
Modeling
Because many of the statewide water
quality criteria were calculated based on
cold water species, and because the natural
temperature of the SAR can exceed 30
degrees Celsius in some reaches, precluding
many species of aquatic life, it was neces-
sary to determine the river's temperature
profile. It was also necessary to determine
what physical factors controlled the water
temperature. To accomplish this, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service's Instream Water
Temperature Model—Stream Network
Temperature was used. Inputs to the model
were made from historic records, topo-
graphic maps, and field surveys. The model
was calibrated and verified against actual
stream measurements.
Coffelt backpack electrofishing gear.
Sampling was conducted on measured
stream sections, typically 150-foot to 450-
foot sections.
All fish sampled were identified to
species, counted, measured for length, and
weighed. These samplings provided species
lists and relative abundance estimates.
Population structure was used to determine
the source of the fish present at each site,
i.e., naturally reproducing or recruited from
off-channel sources.
Selected fish and crayfish collected
during the samplings were kept and ana-
lyzed for residues of heavy metals and
organic compounds using whole fish tissue
samples (150-200 g). The ten heavy metals
of interest in the water quality samplings
were analyzed using EPA approved meth-
ods. EPA Methods 608 (pesticides), 624
(volatile organics), and 625 (base, acid, and
neutral organics) were also conducted on the
fish tissue samples.
Benthic Invertebrate Enumeration
The benthic invertebrate populations
were sampled quantitatively at each full site
by taking three replicates (each a composite
of two samples) from the riffle habitats with
a modified Hess sampler. Additionally,
quantitative samples were collected from all
sites using a kick-net sampler.
Analysis conducted provided species
lists and estimates of density (number/m2)
and biomass (g/m2) for each site. The Shan-
non-Weaver Diversity Index was also calcu-
lated for each site to measure the effects of
any stress upon the organisms. In addition,
the benthic community was analyzed using
the EPA Benthic RBP III methodology.
Algae Survey
Periphytic algae were quantitatively
sampled by scraping a known area of rock
surface. Each sample was a composite of
three rock scrapings. The shifting sand
substrate of the SAR complicated algae
sampling.
Analyses of the algae sampling
produced a species list, density estimates,
biovolume, and calculation of the Shannon-
Weaver Index.
Fish Collections
The fish population was sampled at
all SAR and reference reach sites using
Laboratory ToxlcUy Testing
Acute and 7-day chronic toxicity
tests, using EPA protocols, were con-
-------
Conference Proceedings
8O7
ducted on samples conducted on all six
POTW effluents and several SAR sites
using Ceriodaphnia dubia and
Pimephales promelas during the same
time frame as the other samplings.
Statistical analyses included Probit
analysis for LCjg determinations and
Dunnett's procedure and the Bonferoni t-test
for chronic test results. Since this procedure
could not provide an estimate of toxicity
between the specific dilutions, or allow for
the calculation of confidence intervals,
chronic tests were also analyzed with the
Impairment Concentration Percentage (ICP)
method.
Biological Data Analysis
Cluster analysis was used as a method
to describe and compare the natural commu-
nities in the SAR and reference reach.
Cluster analysis is a form of classification
whereby a group of entities (e.g., habitats,
species) is ordered into groups or sets, based
on the relationships of similarity of certain
attributes (e.g., ordering habitat measures of
similarity, Euclidean Distance "dissimilarity
coefficient" and the Jaccard Coefficient of
Community "similarity coefficient," were
used to order groups).
The first step of the process involved
the sampling process. Collected data
included species lists, measures of species
abundance, and habitat scoring from all
sites. Next, two measures of ecological
similarity were computed between all pairs
of sites to quantify similarity or dissimilar-
ity. Sites were grouped according to their
resemblance for each attribute. Clusters
were formed by sites with common charac-
teristics that set them apart from sites in
other clusters.
Socioeconomic Impact Analysis
Methodology
A model was developed that analyzed
first-order impacts such as the impacts upon
utility rates, employment, earnings, and tax
revenues. The model was based upon
proven approaches, and generally followed
EPA guidance on the determination of
widespread and substantial social and
economic impact as included in the
Agency's "Draft Water Quality Standards
Handbook." The model and its basic
assumptions were reviewed and verified by
economic experts from the federal govern-
ment, a state demographer, and an academi-
cian and consulting economist to the Natural
Resources Defense Council.
Second-order impacts such as the
health impact of employment changes upon
the local community, impacts upon housing
affordability, impacts upon fixed and low
income households, and the impacts upon
bond ratings of the local governmental
jurisdictions were also analyzed. The health
effects impact analysis was conducted as a
separate study performed by a researcher
from the University of Missouri-Kansas
City.
Use Attainability Analysis
Management Approach
In addition to and concurrent with
the technical approach to the SAR UAA, a
comprehensive, integrated, and rigorous
management approach was developed.
This management component had two
primary purposes: to ensure maximum
credibility of the technical and scientific
component, and to maximize the effective-
ness of the UAA as an instrument of policy
direction for regulatory and issues manage-
ment.
Project Direction and Quality
Control
Project direction was established,
refined, and controlled by the UAA Task
Force. The Task Force was composed of the
members of S AWPA, including the dis-
charging POTWs and water supply utilities,
State Regional Water Quality Control Board
representatives, and the project consultants
and Principal Investigators. Also included
on the Task Force were three Expert
Consultants from academia—each nation-
ally recognized for his work in water quality
management and each familiar with the
SAR.
Quality assurance was provided by the
UAA Technical Advisory Committee, the
technical arm of the UAA Task Force, and
the close oversight and detailed review of
the three Expert Consultants. This group
reviewed and approved all methodologies.
They reviewed and approved all raw data
and interim reports after each sampling.
The Technical Advisory Committee also
devised and recommended additional project
quality assurance and control techniques
that were implemented by the project
consultants.
-------
808
Watershed '93
Regulatory and Issue Management
While the SAR UAA was a scientific
research endeavor, it was conducted because
of and in accordance with complex state and
federal regulations. Therefore, its focus,
conduct, and management approach had to
be fully integrated with the regulations and
public policy issues involved. This effort
included:
• A sophisticated documentation
system that entered all meetings,
correspondence, decisions, conflicts
and resolutions, and methodologies
development into the formal record.
Prompt written responses to all
issues were made in writing and
entered into the record.
• An aggressive communication
element that involved continuous
coordination and communication,
verbal and written, with all parties.
• Continuous parallel legal analysis
and guidance to the project team that
was integrated into the project
approach.
• Frequent presentations on numerous
technical and policy issues before the
Regional Water Quality Control
Board, State Board, and EPA. This
process transmitted key information
and built sound working relation-
ships.
• A videotape summary of the UAA
and its recommendations.
Use Attainability Analysis
Findings
A summary of the findings of the
Santa Ana River Use Attainability Analysis
is presented below:
1. The aquatic habitat of the SAR is
limited by natural physical factors
that directly affect density and, to a
lesser extent, the diversity of
aquatic organisms. These limita-
tions include high water tempera-
tures, shifting sand substrate,
inadequate cobble and bank
vegetation, low base flows, inter-
mittent flash flooding, and insuffi-
cient sheltering tributaries to
support significant spawning.
2. Flood control activities and facilities
adversely affect the aquatic habitat.
3. Discharges of reclaimed water from
POTWs enhance many of the
designated uses of the SAR system
by increasing aquatic habitat, ground
water recharge, and by supporting
recreational uses.
4. Based on biological assessments of
the integrity of aquatic communities,
there was no evidence of impairment
to the aquatic life use in Reaches 2
and 3 of the SAR and the Chino
Basin tributaries. Existing water
quality fully supported the aquatic
life uses; additional treatment would
provide no additional benefit.
5. Water quality in Reach 4 of the SAR
did not fully support the potential
beneficial aquatic life use. Biologi-
cal, chemical, and lexicological
evidence indicated impairment due
to residual chlorine and unionized,
ammonia and nitrite. ,
6. Present levels of heavy metals (Cd,
Cr, Cu, Pb, Hg, Ag, Se, and Zn) did
not appear to impact the warm water
aquatic life, recreational, or ground
water recharge beneficial uses.
Costly advanced treatment require-
ments for POTWs would not
produce additional benefit. There
was evidence of sporadic but
significant nonpoint source contribu-
. tions of some heavy metals.
7. Body contact REC-1 beneficial
uses did not appear to be impaired
by reclaimed water discharged by
any POTW on the SAR. There was
no discernible difference in water
quality, as measured by the pres-
ence of indicator bacteria, patho-
genic protozoa, or enteric viruses
between POTWs that met Califor-
nia Title 22 tertiary filtration
requirements and those that did not.
There was evidence that nonpoint
sources were contaminating the
SAR system with high levels of
bacteria, and relatively low levels
of protozoa and viruses.
8. Nitrogen removal, Tide 22 tertiary
treatment requirements, and metals
and TDS removal requirements,
taken together would cause "wide-
spread and substantial social and
economic impacts. After an initial
construction-related increase,
substantial unemployment would
occur over the 20-year analysis
period. Most unemployment
impacts would affect lower income
households. Health and social
-------
Conference Proceedings
8O9
consequences would result due to
increased unemployment, including
increased mortality of 4 to 18 cases
per year over the 20-year analysis
period. Illness such as heart disease,
bronchitis, and mental health
disorders would increase as would
social problems such as crime,
divorce, and abuse.
9. Utility rate increases, impacts on
public debt, impacts on low income
renters, and the impact on disposable
income of people on a fixed income
would be significant. The affected
utilities' bond ratings would be
negatively impacted.
Use Attainability Analysis
Recommendations
The Santa Ana River Use Attainability
Analysis also made a number of recommen-
dations to better manage the SAR system,
and to maximize the beneficial uses of the
river. These recommendations are summa-
rized by category.
Beneficial Use Modifications
• Subclassify aquatic life beneficial
uses into:
WARM-Class 1 (unrestricted):
Represents a typical Southern
California stream capable of support-
ing relatively large and diverse
populations of aquatic organisms.
WARM-Class 2 (habitat-limited):
Represents a stream with severe
habitat limitations that preclude full
attainment of WARM-Class 1
regardless of water quality. A
smaller, less diverse population of
aquatic organism is expected due to
natural factors.
WARM-Class 3 (effluent-dependent):
Represents a stream that can support
larger and more diverse populations
of aquatic organisms due to the
discharge of reclaimed water from
POTWs.
• Create new beneficial uses for flood
control:
FLOOD-Class 1: Represents a
stream with minor channel alter-
ations.
FLOOD-Class 2: Represents a
stream with significant channel
alterations to support flood control
purposes such as concrete lining that,
by definition, cannot support
WARM-Class 1.
Site Specific Objectives (SSO)
• Delete cold water aquatic species
from the criterion and recalculate the
water quality objectives using
appropriate species.
• Adjust water quality objectives for
heavy metals (Cd, Cu, Pb) to
properly account for the effects of
hardness, pH, and Total Organic
Carbon. Adopt a translator mecha-
nism to calculate permit limits based
on the bioavailable fraction of the
pollutant using the total/dissolved
metals ratio. (Specific detailed SSO
calculations and rationales were
provided in Volume III of the Final
SARUAA.)
• For selenium and mercury, use
80 percent of the Food and Drug
Administration Health Effects
threshold, measured directly in fish
flesh analysis, as action levels for
source control instead of a chronic
criterion below analytical detection
levels.
• Adopt an interim un-ionized
ammonia (UIA) objective of
0.4 mg/1. Use the Colorado Ammo-
nia Model to calculate appropriate
interim limits for each discharger,
adjusting for temperature, pH, flow,
and ambient ammonia concentra-
tions. Conduct annual fish surveys
for three years to determine improve-
ments to the aquatic community. If
such improvement is found due to
water quality improvements, halve
the UIA objective and repeat the
process. (A specific decision matrix
was developed and proposed in the
UAA to guide this empirical
process.)
• Employ direct measures of virus and
pathogenic protozoa contamination,
in addition to indicator bacteria, in
lieu of mandated treatment pro-
cesses.
Additional recommendations included
continuous monitoring programs to isolate
nonpoint sources of pollutants, the develop-
ment of a regional environmental database
to guide SAR Basin management decisions,
and adjustments in river reach boundaries to
represent their nature more accurately.
-------
810
Watershed '93
The SAR Use Attainability
Analysis Is a Precursor to
Watershed Management
#
The SAR UAA serves as a precursor
model to a watershed management approach.
The regional stakeholder group already ex-
isted. Regulatory agency representatives
were involved throughout the project. The
UAA was specifically designed to maximize
the value and utility of the data collected. It
provided a "big picture" view of the SAR
that had not been clearly seen before, facili-
tating informed decision making.
The UAA started at the beginning of
the water quality management process
where every watershed plan should—
assessing not only the character of the river,
but also verifying that the goals and objec-
tives were correctly set. This is a key issue.
Most goals (designated uses and water
quality criteria) have been established on the
nation's waterbodies absent good data. This
was done before the water quality-based
regulatory program was in place. Now,
these default goals and criteria have become
sacrosanct. They are not. They must be
scientifically reviewed and verified before
elaborate management plans are developed
and vast resources are committed to imple-
ment them. Not only can these resources be
expended with no resultant environmental
benefit, but also unintended consequences
can result.
The SAR UAA has also made it clear
that unless there is regional authority and
flexibility to adjust goals and regulatory
requirements to be compatible with local
conditions and realities, the watershed
management approach will founder due to
lack of relevancy. This would be a tremen-
dous loss of a vitally important and desper-
ately needed problem solving and holistic
water resource management tool.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Progress Report: Twenty Years of
Watershed Planning in Southern
California's Santa Ana River Basin
Gordon K. Anderson, Chief of Planning*
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Santa Ana Region, Riverside, CA
i many people and not enough water
to go around—that's what led to the
seemingly endless round of lawsuits
and countersuits that characterized the 1960s
in this watershed, which takes in parts of
three separate counties. The last straw was a
very expensive master court case that
stretched over 6 years and pitted the Orange
County users downstream against all those
upstream in Riverside and San Bernardino
counties. When the dust settled and the
situation was finally resolved, the four water
agencies that emerged as key players—
Chino Basin Municipal Water District,
Orange County Water District, San Bernar-
dino Valley Municipal Water District, and
Western Municipal Water District—began
to consider alternative means of working out
their problems, ultimately forming the Santa
Ana Watershed Planning Agency
(SAWPA).
SAWPA, which later changed its
name to the Santa Ana Watershed Project
Authority, provided both a forum for
discussions and a vehicle for conducting
studies and building projects of mutual
interest. The geographic areas covered by
the five agencies of SAWPA (Eastern
Municipal Water District recently joined)
include most of the developed areas in the
watershed and over 95 percent of the
population.
'Former Chief of Planning; currently an Environmental
Specialist.
SAWPA began with a basin-wide
study of water needs, wastewater treat-
ment, and water quality. Then they
initiated projects that benefited large parts
of the watershed, including a brine export
line that serves industry, ground water
desalters, and pollution cleanup projects.
SAWPA also began projects that serve
smaller areas such as wastewater treatment
facilities, water supply lines, and a lake
level stabilization project at Lake Elsinore.
In addition, SAWPA has a centralized
regional data base, a geographic informa-
tion system to interpret and display the
data, and a number of locally-calibrated
computer models.
SAWPA and the Regional Water
Quality Control Board have worked together
on a number of planning studies. Most
recently, they produced:
• A regional waste load allocation for
total dissolved solids and inorganic
nitrogen.
• A use-attainability analysis and site-
specific water quality objectives for
the middle Santa Ana River.
Flows in the middle Santa Ana are made up
primarily of high-quality treated wastewater,
and there are severe environmental limita-
tions on the aquatic habitat as well.
Today, SAWPA serves as a model for
cooperative planning, problem solving, and
project construction in other watersheds.
They seem ready to deal with any kind of
water quality or quantity problem that may
arise.
811
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
'It's All Connected"
Kathleen M. Bero, Southeastern Wisconsin Director
Lake Michigan Federation, Milwaukee, WI
Wt's All Connected" is a campaign
• that is uniquely designed to educate
M. community residents about
simple, safe, and very specific ways they
can make a personal contribution to the
restoration and future protection of our
nation's valuable water supplies. The
campaign reflects an understanding that
community awareness results in resource
protection. It is through education (hat
individuals find the tools they need to
become active participants in the protec-
tion of their natural resources.
In this award-winning household
pollution prevention campaign, the Lake
Michigan Federation (LMF) has developed
a comprehensive, community-wide educa-
tion program. This pilot program includes
home surveys, videos, slide shows, public
service announcements, a poster depicting
pollution sources around the home, and
other printed materials (in English and
Spanish), as well as curriculum, teacher in-
service training, a traveling display, storm
sewer stenciling, and programs for neigh-
borhood groups and local retail outlets. The
campaign is directed at eliminating pollution
to watersheds from households and commer-
cial sources. It has been designed as a
model program for use in communities
across the country.
Each component of the program is
designed for replication to accommodate the
different needs of communities. The videos
and public service announcements can be
easily edited to include local community
contacts and information. The printed
materials were designed so communities can
simply insert their own local contacts and
replicate the materials at a minimal cost.
For a very small fee, masters can be pur-
chased by any community. This way,
communities can implement a proven and
productive pollution prevention campaign
without the high costs of development and
production. The major costs incurred by
communities will be for replication and
dissemination.
Although the program is only being
formally introduced across the country this
month, hundreds of requests have poured in
for materials and information. In addition,
the campaign has enjoyed much attention
from the media. The continued barrage of
requests indicates that the campaign is not
only necessary but effective at reaching the
general public. Most recently, we were
fortunate to have received requests from
Ontario, Florida, Washington, and Oregon.
It is important to note that a commu-
nity need not implement all of the compo-
nents to have a successful pollution preven-
tion campaign. Components can be mixed
and matched to create the most useful
campaign for individual situations. The
success of "It's All Connected" is dependent
on the willingness of communities to adopt
the program. However, the real success will
be realized with cleaner waters across the
Nation.
813
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Alternative Selection Through
Innovative Hood Hazard
Management Criteria
Michael ). Colgan, Malinda Y. Steward, Mow-Soung Cheng
Prince George's County, MD
Prince George's County has been
involved in the preparation of Com-
prehensive Watershed Management
Plans for the past 13 years. State-of-the-art
hydrologic and hydraulic techniques are
applied on a continuous basis in defining the
floodplain boundary and identifying flood-
prone areas. However, the diversity in
development intensity, land use planning,
zoning, and geographical areas within the
county's 12 major watersheds do not
promote an effective and consistent determi-
nation of the best flood hazard mitigative
measures.
In the past, the county's policy has
been skewed toward choosing acquisition as
the preferred alternative for flood protection.
Acquisition, though effective in eliminating
the flood hazard, can be disruptive to the
community and prohibitively expensive.
The expense of acquisition is the over-
whelming reason for the development of
county-wide flood hazard management
criteria referred to as the Preference Matrix.
The Preference Matrix was developed
to assist in the decision-making process to
determine the appropriate or preferred
priority order of mitigative measures. The
matrix will identify effective alternatives
and possibly rule out marginally ineffective
solutions. The recommended alternatives
must be sensitive to site-specific constraints
and individual impacts to homeowners,
incorporate community concerns, include
public participation, and be cost-effective.
The Preference Matrix was success-
fully applied to the Oxon Run watershed.
One-hundred and thirty addresses under
present development conditions were
identified as flood-prone for 100-year storm
events. Future development conditions
would result in eight additional flood-prone
addresses. This paper examines the best
flood hazard mitigative measures for the
Oxon Run watershed as identified through
the use of the Preference Matrix.
The Preference Matrix
flooding Classification
A flood-prone structure is first
classified based on two factors: the proxim-
ity of flood-prone structures and the severity
of flooding of a structure. Proximity
denotes whether a structure is isolated or
grouped moderately or extensively with
other flooded structures in localized areas.
The three levels within this category and the
defining limits are shown below.
Proximity
Isolated
Intermediate
Extensive
Symbol
I
M
E
Number
of Structures
less than 4
Between 4 and 8
More than 8
Isolated (I):
Intermediate (M):
Extensive (E):
Relatively few flood-prone
structures within one or
more localized areas
Moderate number of
flood-prone structures
within one or more
localized areas
Large number of flood-
prone structures within one
or more localized areas
815
-------
816
Watershed '93
The severity of flooding for a struc-
ture is then determined for the 100-year
storm event based on existing and ultimate
land use conditions. The four levels within
this category and the corresponding limits
are shown above.
Severity of
Flooding
Minor
Limited
Significant
Extreme
Depth of Flooding
Symbol
min
lim
sig
XXX
Existing Land Use
no flooding
0 to 1 foot
1 to 3 feet
0 to any depth
Ultimate Land Use
up to 1 foot
up to 3 feet
up to 3 feet
over 3 feet
Flooding Scenarios
While the severity of flooding is
determined for each structure, the proxim-
ity is assigned by flood area. These two
categories, when combined, form 12
unique flooding scenarios used to establish
the priority scheme of management
options.
Isolated: I/min I/lim I/sig I/xxx
Intermediate: M/min M/lim M/sig M/xxx
Extensive: E/min E/lim E/sig E/xxx
flood Management Analysts
Next, a stepwise watershed manage-
ment model was developed to establish a
logical approach to alternative selection
and evaluation. The following represent
the steps found to be crucial to the out-
come:
• Define the problem.
• Select functional constraints.
• Construct system selection criteria.
• Select alternatives to solve or
minimize the problem.
• Evaluate alternatives in terms of
minimizing the problem.
• Determineconsequences of alternatives.
• Present alternatives.
Functional Constraints
In the analysis and selection of preven-
tive and corrective measures for flooding
problems, it is necessary to confine the alter-
natives within basic boundary conditions so
that undesirable solutions can be eliminated.
The boundary conditions are defined by the
following functional constraints:
• A mitigation measure in one area of
the watershed should not create a
problem or exacerbate an existing
problem in another area. •
• The alternative should be feasible
and cost-effective.
• The alternative should achieve the
purpose(s) intended.-
• The alternative should provide for a
50 percent or greater reduction in
average annual flood damages.
Management Options
In conjunction with the unique
scenarios mentioned previously, the
management options must be evaluated and,
prioritized for each scenario. It is important
to know what options are available and to
understand that the priorities for ordering
those options differ with changing scenarios.
In an effort to consolidate the management
options, the following list of options was
considered.
Structural Measures (S)
Hood Warning (FW)
Floodprpofing (F)
Rood Insurance (FI)
Acquisition (A)
Land Use Planning (L)
Structural measures considered for
evaluation were flood control impound-
ments, levees, floodwalls, stream and
fioodplain relocation, stream channelization
and improvement, stream enclosures, and
bridge and culvert improvement. The
feasibility of the nonstructural alternatives
should be considered for all residential
structures as well as floodproofing for
nonresidential structures.
The land use planning option was
eliminated from further consideration
because:
• This option does not provide benefits
to those structures flooded under the
existing land use conditions.
• The flood management plan is also
used to establish storm water
management requirements for new
developments. ,
• The land use option may be politi-
cally sensitive and controversial for
"down-zoned" planning.
Priority Scheme
The remaining five options were orga-
nized into 120 different priority schemes.
Flood warning and flood insurance do not
eliminate the flooding and therefore should
not be, first in the priority scheme. Flooding
problems are solved with acquisition and
structural measures and, therefore, these op-
-------
Conference Proceedings
8T7
tions should not be last in the priority
scheme. Finally, based on projected costs,
various priority schemes were eliminated
resulting in the seven schemes that follow:
• FASFIFW • FSFWAFI
•AFIFSFW • SFFWAFI
• FSAFWFI • SAFWFIF
• SAFWFIF
The Preference Matrix relates the
flooding scenarios to the priority schemes.
Applying the Flood Hazard Management
Criteria resulted in the Preference Matrix as
shown below.
Flooding Scenario
I/min
I/lim
I/sig
I/xxx
M/min
M/lim
M/sig
M/xxx
E/min
E/lim
E/sig
E/xxx
Priority Scheme
FASFIFW
FASFIFW
FASFIFW
AFIFSFW
FSAFWFI
FSAFWFI
FSAFWFI
SAFWFIF
FSFWAFI
SFFWAFI
SFFWAFI
SAFWFIF
Case Studies
The criteria were first
applied to the Oxon Run
watershed, which has a
drainage area of approxi-
mately 14 square miles and
is located in one of the
more highly developed
areas of Prince George's
County. Eleven distinct
flood areas within the
watershed have been
identified as containing
flood-prone structures.
Figure 1 illustrates the
entire watershed and the
locations of the 11 areas.
The depth of flooding was
determined for each
structure with the corre-
sponding severity level.
Flood areas were estab-
lished based on the
proximity of flood-prone
structures. The combina-
tion of proximity and
severity resulted in the
identification of the
priority scheme. The
identification of the
management options, in conjunction with
the flooding scenarios, led to the priority
schemes. The following three examples
demonstrate the actual process.
Forest Heights Subdivision
Forest Heights Subdivision (Figure
2) typified the application of the Prefer-
ence Matrix but also demonstrated that a
geographic area could have more than one
proximity. The lower portion of the
subdivision contained an extensive number
of flood-prone structures, while the upper
portion of the subdivision identified five
structures that were designated as moder-
ate.
Lower Portion Forest Heights
Present Conditions: 42 structures with
flooding depths ranging from 0.1 to 3.3
feet
Future Conditions: 44 structures with
flooding depths ranging from 0.1 to 3.4
feet
2000 4000
•
FEET
KEY
1. DUPONT HEIGHTS
2. BOULEVARD HEIGHTS
3. CEDAR HILL CEMETARY
4. FAIRCHILD
5. SOUTHVIEW
6. DELTA HOUSE
7. HILLCREST HEIGHTS
8. MARTIN PARK
9. BARNABY RUN ESTATES
10. FOREST HEIGHTS (RESIDENTIAL)
11. FOREST HEIGHTS (COMMERCIAL)
A FLOODPRONE AREA
Figure 1. Residential flooding problem areas.
-------
818
Watershed '93
VtLOdTY
CHECK
LOWER
D E/mln (2 structures)
• E/lim (22 structures)
Q E/sig (18 structures)
C3 E/xxx (2 structures)
t
f
100' 200'
UPPER
• M/lIm (2 structures)
0 M/slg (3 structures)
ALTERNATIVES:
1. FLOODWALL CONSTRUCTION
AND FLOODPROOFING
2. CHANNELIZATION WITH BERM
CONSTRUCTION AND
FLOODPROOFING
3. LEVEE CONSTRUCTION AND
FLOODPROOFING
4. FLOODPROOFING AND
ACQUISITION
5. CHANNELIZATION, FLOODWALL
CONSTRUCTION, AND
FLOODPROOFING
Figure 2. Forest Heights.
Flooding Scenarios: E/min (2 structures)
E/lim (22 structures)
E/sig (18 structures)
E/xxx (2 structures)
Priority Schemes: F S FW A FI (2 structures)
S F FW A FI (40 structures)
SAFWFIF (2 structures)
Actual Recommendation: The resulting
priority scheme, for 42 of the 44 flood-
prone structures, indicated a structural
solution as the preferred alternative;
therefore, stream restoration with a levee
(structural) was recommended.
Upper Portion Forest Heights
Present Conditions: 5 structures with
flooding depths ranging from 0.1 to 2.5
feet
Future Conditions: 5 structures with
flooding depths ranging from 0.1 to 2.5
feet
Flooding Scenarios: M/min (2 structures)
M/sig (3 structures)
Priority Schemes: F S A FW FI (2 structures)
FSAFWFI (3 structures)
Actual Recommendation: The priority
scheme resulted in floodproofing as the
recommended alternative.
Falrffeld Subdivision
The application of the Preference
Matrix to the Fakfield Subdivision (Figure
3) showed that the matrix is only a guideline
and that the functional constraints can
eliminate or alter the management options in
the resulting priority scheme:
Fairfield
Present Conditions: 5 structures with
flooding depths ranging from 0.4 to 3.2
feet
Future Conditions: 5 structures with
flooding depths ranging from 0.6 to 3.4
feet
Flooding Scenarios: M/lim (4 structures)
M/xxx (1 structures)
Priority Schemes: F S A FW FI (4 structures)
S A FW FI F (1 structures)
Actual Recommendation: The priority
scheme for four of the five structures
indicated floodproofing over a structural
solution. However, consideration of
functional constraints led to a recommenda-
tion to raise and extend the existing levee.
The disparity was due to the cost-effective-
ness of improving an existing structure over
-------
Conference Proceedings
819
implementing new solutions, which
in this case would be floodproofing.
This example showed how site-
specific conditions can override the
priority scheme.
Martin Parit Subdivision
The Martin Park Subdivision
(Figure 4) represented a direct
application of the matrix to isolated
structures in Oxbn Run.
Martin Park
Present Conditions: 2 structures with
flooding depths ranging from 0.2
to 0.7 feet
Future Conditions: 2 structures with
flooding depths ranging from 0.2
to 0.7 feet
Flooding Scenarios: I/min (2
structures)
Priority Schemes: F A S FIFW (2
structures)
Actual Recommendation:
Floodproofing, the preferred man-
agement option in the priority
scheme, was the recommended
alternative.
0 100' 200'
ALTERNATIVES:
1. LEVEE MODIFICATION
2. CHANNELIZATION
3. FLOODPROOFING AND ACQUISITION
PRIORITY SCHEME
• M/lim (4 structures)
Q M/xxx (1 structure)
Figure 3. Fairfield.
BARNABY RUN
TRIBUTARY IB
ALTERNATIVES:
1. FLOODPROOFING
2. FLOODWALL CONSTRUCTION
3. CHANNELIZATION
PRIORITY SCHEME
l/lim (2 structures)
Figure 4. Martin Park.
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
WTRYLD: A Computer Model for
Simulating Watershed Management
Samuel T. Combs, Consulting Hydraulic Engineer
Longmont, CO
Donna S. Lindquist, Research Scientist
Ellen H. Yeoman, Watershed Research Program Manager
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Ramon, CA
The ability of a computer model to
integrate complex watershed processes
makes it a useful tool for analyzing the
responses of a large watershed to vegetation
manipulations. The model utilized in this
research effort, "WTRYLD," is a predictive
methodology that solves the governing
equations of the physical processes of a
watershed. WTRYLD simulates watershed
responses to the hydrologic cycle and can be
used to investigate potential water augmen-
tation for a large watershed. The model
determines whether practical increases in
water production can be attained and then
reclaimed downstream in a large watershed.
The watershed used in this study was
the East Branch North Fork Feather River,
Plumas County, CA, where Pacific Gas and
Electric has a significant investment in
hydroelectric generation facilities.
WTRYLD was used to investigate the forest
management prescriptions of clear cut, strip
cut, select cut, and minimum management.
Temporal snapshots of 10, 30, and 70 years
of watershed management were analyzed for
impacts on timing and volume of flows.
WTRYLD was used to simulate the re-
sponse of the watershed and allowed the
user to test a variety of situations to deter-
mine changes in water yields due to vegeta-
tion management.
The traditional approach to watershed
management is passive: one waits, hopes for
precipitation, and observes how the water-
shed reacts to the incoming water. When it
rains or snows, the water ultimately drains
into the reservoir that holds it for future
uses. Ideally, rain and snow would occur in
such a way that the water would be sus-
tained at a certain level in the reservoir;
however, precipitation in California tends to
be "flashy," with long dry periods punctu-
ated by storms that put large quantities of
water into the watershed. Because water
represents the potential to generate electric
power, it would be advantageous to find a
means to alter snowpack dynamics so that
melt water would enter the watershed
channel system in a beneficial manner for
power production, and at the same time
minimize environmental impacts.
WTRYLD is an attempt to combine in
one computer model all the major processes
of a watershed. It was designed to simulate
any watershed and can be "localized" by
altering five model inputs: vegetation, soil
types, watershed geometry, geographical
location, and climatic data. The model
provides an analytical tool to pose "what-if'
questions regarding planned or unplanned
events for a watershed. It is in the process
of being reviewed and evaluated, and holds
promise for many applications within the
utility industry as well as for other private
sector and governmental agencies. Some
applications are analyses of cumulative
effects, reservoir sedimentation, flow
forecasting, and land reclamation.
821
-------
-------
WATERSHED1 93
Balancing Development, Water
Quality, and Wetlands Protection
in a Mid-Atlantic Watershed
Steve Getleln, Biologist
Randall S. Karalus, Civil Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Fort Belvoir, VA
Dr. Art Spingam, Wetlands Ecologist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region HI, Philadelphia, PA
Fernando Pasquel, Chief
Prince William County Watershed Management Division, Prince William, VA
The Prince William County Watershed
Management Division, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, the
Corps of Engineers, Virginia universities,
and other federal and state agencies are
exploring methods to restore and protect
water quality and wetlands in urbanizing
Prince William County watersheds. A
major part of the project involves examining
watershed management with a cumulative
and interdisciplinary vision.
Powells Creek, a Northern Virginia,
Piedmont, and Coastal Plain stream just be-
ginning to experience urbanization pressure,
is the main focus of this study. Two other
streams, one less developed and one more,
are proposed for comparative analysis.
Project objectives include an environ-
mental history and compilation of baseline
information on water quality, land use, and
terrestrial and aquatic resources. Innovative
and proven methods of storm water manage-
ment, from nonstructural approaches to on-
site and regional storm water ponds, will be
tested and evaluated. Rapid bioassessment
techniques will be used in addition to
conventional chemical sampling to monitor
stream conditions. Design of storm water
management facilities will attempt to
replicate pre-development hydrologic
characteristics of the watershed based on
hydrologic and hydraulic models. The
project is examining the cumulative impacts
of how urbanization degrades water re-
sources and how sound watershed manage-
ment may mitigate water quality problems.
Imagery analysis will be used to create
a historical land-use record of the Powells
Creek watershed, and to look at, for ex-
ample, erosion, channel degradation, and
past agricultural practices. Imagery can be
used to monitor watershed development in
an attempt to correlate land-use patterns
with environmental impacts.
The integration of geographic infor-
mation systems with imagery will provide a
data base that goes far beyond traditional
mapping functions and can provide rela-
tional information tools that give watershed
managers an interactive ability to derive
information. Project-generated, annotated
imagery is the foundation on which group
understanding of watershed needs will be
built.
823
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
The Atlantic Region Riveikeepers
Project: Building Community Support
for River Conservation
Elliott Gimble, Director, UPRIVER
Quebec-Labrador Foundation/Atlantic Center for the Environment
Ipswich, MA
The Atlantic Region Riverkeepers
Project is a set of complementary
public outreach and river conservation
activities designed to stimulate greater
community involvement and grassroots river
conservation leadership in northern New
England and eastern Canada—the "Atlantic
Region." Under the Riverkeepers Project,
school classes and citizens in pilot water-
sheds are encouraged to become better
stewards of their rivers, or "riverkeepers"
through:
• School-based programs and materi-
als that address local concerns and
provide teacher training in a
multidisciplinary approach.
• Community-wide programs to
heighten interest and participation.
• A computer-based information
network and mapping to link
communities and foster up-to-date
resource assessment.
• Publications to document the model
and provide public information.
• Leadership exchange programs to
provide direct leadership develop-
ment and international exposure.
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) selected the project for one
of its 1992 National Environmental Educa-
tion Grants. So far, project activities on the
upper Connecticut, St. John, and Penobscot
Rivers are part of the multiyear initiative:
• St. John River. Nature discovery pro-
grams and water quality monitoring
training for area teachers and stu-
dents in the upper watershed, focus-
ing on the endangered plants and wa-
ter quality; an international confer-
ence on regional conservation and
economic development; linkages to
the University of Michigan's Global
Rivers Environmental Education
Network (GREEN), and natural and
cultural history publications.
Connecticut River. An interdiscipli-
nary week on rivers organized by
teachers and Atlantic Center staff
including water quality monitoring,
visits to a fish hatchery, and com-
puter-based simulations; public
forums in sub-basin areas to provide
opportunities for other citizens to
discuss the future of their communi-
ties and the upper watershed.
Penobscot River. A source-to-sea
river expedition and community
outreach project completed in spring
Teacher and students from Allagash, Maine, testing
for dissolved oxygen in the St. John River.
825
-------
826
Watershed '93
1993; public programs in conjunc-
tion with the expedition include
festivals, flotillas, and forums with
slide show. Cooperators: University
of Maine Cooperative Extension
Service, the University's Water
Resources Institute, Maine Bound
and the Penobscot Institute (a
network of over 80 teachers).
Quebec-Labrador Foundation/
Atlantic Center for the
Environment
The Quebec-Labrador Foundation/
Atlantic Center for the Environment is a
nonprofit educational and environmental
organization incorporated in both the
United States and Canada. For over 30
years, the organization has worked to
promote local leadership and to conserve
the natural and cultural resources of rural
communities in the Atlantic Region
(northern New England and eastern
Canada) through environmental educa-
tion and research projects. The Atlantic
Center's UPRIVER Program assists
community-based river and land conser-
vation organizations in assuming a
greater stewardship role in the manage-
ment of natural resources, through
education, communication, and technical
assistance.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Occurrence and Transport of
Pesticides in the Mississippi
River Basin
D.A. Goolsby, Hydrologist
W.A. Battaglin, Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, CO
The Mississippi River basin contains the
largest and most intensive agricultural
region in the Nation. Large amounts
of pesticides (herbicides, insecticides, and
fungicides) are used in order to increase
yields from the major crops grown in the
basin (corn, soybeans, sorghum, wheat).
About two-thirds of all pesticides used
annually for agriculture in the United States
are applied to cropland and pasture land in
the Mississippi River basin. Herbicides
account for about three-fourths of the annual
pesticide use and are the most frequently
detected pesticides in streams throughout the
basin.
Recent regional-scale studies by the
U.S. Geological Survey have shown that
significant amounts of herbicides are
flushed into streams by late spring and-
summer rainfall following application of
herbicides to cropland. These amounts are
large enough to produce high concentrations
of several herbicides hi streams for a few
weeks to several months during periods of
storm runoff. Concentrations of herbicides
in some small streams may briefly exceed
50 ug/1, and annual average concentrations
may exceed drinking water standards
established under the Safe Drinking Water
Act. Flow from these small streams, in turn,
transports significant amounts of pesticides
into large rivers such as the Missouri, Ohio,
and Mississippi, and eventually to the Gulf
of Mexico. During 1991 and 1992, 28
pesticides and pesticide degradation
products were detected in the main stem of
the Mississippi River, although most of
these were detected in very low concentra-
tions (less than 0.5 ug/1). Maximum concen-
trations of the most extensively used
herbicides such as alachlor, atrazine,
cyanazine, and metolachlor, in the Missouri,
Ohio, and Mississippi rivers ranged from 3
to 10 jig/1 and exceeded health-based limits
for drinking water for periods as long as one
month at some locations. However, the
annual average herbicide concentrations hi
these large rivers were far below health-
based limits, and concentrations did not
violate the Safe Drinking Water Act. Low
concentrations (0.005 to 0.2 jag/l) of
atrazine, cyanazine, and metolachlor were
detected throughout the year hi the Missis-
sippi River due, in part, to storage and
subsequent discharge of these compounds
from lakes, reservoirs, and aquifers.
The total mass of pesticides dis-
charged annually from the Mississippi River
represents a small fraction of the total
amounts applied to cropland hi the basin.
The atrazine and cyanazine discharged to
the Gulf of Mexico, April 1991 through
March 1992, was equivalent to about 1.6
percent of the amounts applied annually in
the basin. The quantities of several other
herbicides discharged annually from the
basin, expressed as a percent of the amount
applied, were: metolachlor, 0.8 percent;
alachlor, 0.2 percent; and simazine, 2.7
percent. Most of the herbicide transport
occurs during May, June, and July. More
than one-half of the total quantity of
pesticides transported annually by the
Mississippi River originates in small streams
draining from Iowa, Illinois, and parts of
Missouri and Minnesota, an area that
constitutes only about 22 percent of the
Mississippi River drainage basin.
827
-------
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
The Pawcatuck Watershed
Education Program
Vicky). O'Neal, District Conservationist
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Hope Valley, RI
The Pawcatuck River watershed is
currently targeted as one of many
across the Nation receiving federal
funds to study factors affecting water
quality. This watershed is designated as a
sole source aquifer, with ground water being
the only available source of high-quality
drinking water for the citizens in the area.
Ensuring continued appreciation of and
protection for this watershed is of utmost
concern to all.
The Southern Rhode Island Conser-
vation District, in cooperation with the
Soil Conservation Service and University
of Rhode Island, has developed an educa-
tional curriculum about the watershed to
heighten awareness and support for the
protection of water resources in the area.
This interactive curriculum, entitled the
"Pawcatuck Watershed Education Pro-
gram," is written for the fourth through
eighth grade levels. It includes nine
classroom sessions combined with four
field trips and over 100 hands-on activi-
ties. Examples of the sessions include
topics such as What Is a Watershed,
Wetland Ecology, Land Use Effects on a
Watershed, What Is an Environmental
Issue, and Public Hearing and Citizen
Action: A Final Look. Students select a
current issue, such as a local development
proposal, for discussion and debate in the
final session. Students play the roles of
various interest groups concerned with the
development proposal, and then vote
whether or not to allow the development to
occur. Through this investigation and role
play, students learn how to make balanced,
educated decisions about environmental
issues affecting the community and
watershed in which they live.
This curriculum can be adapted to any
watershed nationwide; the principles remain
the same. The curriculum has been piloted
in two sixth-grade classrooms and was
recently selected as the environmental
education "curriculum of choice" for private
and parochial schools in Rhode Island. In
addition, the use of the curriculum has led to
an increased knowledge of and interest in all
water quality activities in the Southern
Rhode Island Conservation District. This
curriculum can be used nationally as an
effective medium for public outreach and to
build support for local watershed manage-
ment activities.
829
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
A Watershed-Oriented PC Data Base
for Managing Land Use and Pollutant
Data in the Albemarie/Pamlico
Drainage
John P. Tippett and Randall C. Dodd, Environmental Scientists
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC
In recent years, the North Carolina's
Albemarle and Pamlico (A/P) basins
have been experiencing a variety of
environmental problems. These problems
include declining populations of submerged
aquatic vegetation, decreasing shellfish
yields, increased turbidity, skin and shell
diseases on aquatic organisms, and algal
blooms. In response to these problems, the
A/P basin system was designated as an
estuary of national significance in 1986 and
was selected for study as part of EPA's
National Estuary Program. The resulting
Albemarie/Pamlico Estuarine Study was
initiated as a cooperative program between
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
and the State of North Carolina's Depart-
ment of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources.
As part of the A/P Study, Research
Triangle Institute has developed a proto-
type PC-based data base for managing land
use and pollutant data at the watershed
level. The data base contains a wide range
of information such as point and nonpoint
nutrient loadings, production data for
major crops, livestock inventories, and
levels of BMP implementation. The
system fills a unique niche by providing
multi-parameter watershed data at the PC
level. Previously, such information was
distributed among various agencies and
existed in multiple forms and levels of
spatial aggregation. A user-friendly front
end to the data base allows users to
generate watershed-level reports and rank
all watersheds in the study area based on
any given parameter (e.g., density of
chickens, area of corn planted, etc.). The
system includes normalized data values
(per square kilometer) in order to facilitate
comparisons between watersheds.
831
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Presenting a Water Quality Control
Plan in an Electronic Format
Linda C. Garcia, P.E., Associate Water Resource Control Engineer
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region
Riverside, CA
The nine California Regional Water
Quality Control Boards have devel-
oped Water Quality Control Plans
(Basin Plans) for their respective regions.
The purpose of these plans is to list benefi-
cial uses and water quality objectives for
waterbodies within each region. Beneficial
uses describe what use the water may have,
such as drinking water supply. Water
quality objectives are limits for various
parameters (e.g., nitrates, pH) that are
expected to protect the beneficial use of the
waterbody. These values are the basis for
permit discharge limits.
In its present paper form, our Basin
Plan is like a reference manual that one can
use to determine discharge limits or what
beneficial uses a waterbody has. It is
indispensable as a watershed planning tool
because, for example, numeric objectives
can be used in a modeling program or
beneficial use information can be used to
assess and rank the threat to water quality of
a lake.
While the utility of the Basin Plan
cannot be questioned, it has some limita-
tions. For instance, to put the information
into a report, it must be retyped. This
introduces the chance for transcription
errors. As another example, you must look
through several sections of the Basin Plan to
determine what the beneficial uses and
objectives are for a particular ground-water
sub-basin.
Electronic text is rapidly becoming
popular as a mode for presenting written
information. Disks take up much less room
than paper documents. CD-ROMs are
virtually indestructible, and the stored
information cannot be changed. If the
person "reading" the document has a utility
available that can extract text from the
screen and put it into another document,
transcription errors could be eliminated.
To demonstrate how electronic text
can be useful, I have taken excerpts from
our current Basin Plan. A hypertext format
was chosen because it highlights the most
important information, allowing access to
supplemental material. Furthermore, it
permits a person to read at his or her level of
understanding (e.g., reading the chemical
names or their formulas). The information
is also arranged hi a more logical manner.
Going back to the previous example of
looking up information related to a particu-
lar ground-water sub-basin, all the reader
has to do is select the map of the main basin,
select the ground-water sub-basin, and open
the link. A screen would appear that
summarizes the beneficial uses and standard
water quality objectives for that particular
basin, with options to read more. Abbrevia-
tions and acronyms could be spelled out.
833
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Evaluation for Planned Wetlands: An
Approach to Assessing Replacement
of Wetland Functions
Candy C. Bartoldus, Senior Associate
Edgar W. Garbisch, President
Mark L. Kraus, Senior Associate
Environmental Concern, Incorporated, St. Michael's, MD
Wetlands continue to be impacted,
and the losses are mitigated
through wetland replacement, i.e.,
wetland construction, restoration, or
enhancement. As wetland replacement has
become more commonplace, it has become
clear that the simple acre-for-acre compen-
sation is inadequate and that future efforts
must focus on replacement of wetland
functions. An assessment and a comparison
of functions in the wetland to be impacted
and the replacement wetland are now
considered fundamental to the wetland
replacement (mitigation) process. To meet
this need, Environmental Concern, Inc.
developed Evaluation for Planned Wetlands
(EPW), formerly the Wetland Replacement
Evaluation Procedure (WREP). EPW
provides a method by which to determine
whether plans for a replacement wetland
have been designed to compensate for
functions lost in the wetland to be impacted.
EPW may be used in any context
involving wetland replacement, including
during the section 404 permit review pro-
cess. It is a simple procedure that docu-
ments and highlights differences between
wetlands based on their capacity to provide
six functions entitled:
Shoreline bank erosion control.
Sediment stabilization.
Water quality.
Wildlife.
Fish (tidal, nontidal stream/river, and
nontidal pond/lake).
• Uniqueness/heritage.
The differences between wetlands are
expressed in terms of individual elements,
Functional Capacity Indices, and Functional
Capacity Units. The EPW manual includes
detailed directions on how to perform the
procedure, supporting documentation with a
literature-based rationale, and a discussion
on the application of EPW to the section
404 mitigation process. Preliminary use of
EPW on mitigation projects has shown that
it is relatively rapid and provides consistent
results.
835
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Cooperative Extension Service
National Water Quality Information
Management Project Bibliography
and Data Base
Catherine E. Burwell, Extension Specialist
Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service, Rome City, IN
^•Whe National Water Quality Informa-
• tion Management Project is the
ML result of a cooperative agreement
between the USDA Extension Service and
Purdue University. It includes a bibliogra-
phy of over 1800 water quality educational
materials, produced by the Extension
Service, and a data base available through
the Internet or via modem. The data base
includes the full bibliography as well as
nearly 200 full-text documents.
The bibliography and data base allow
users to search for Extension-generated
publications, fact sheets, computer software,
and visuals on the subject of water quality.
Categories include conservation, drinking
water quality, pest management, nutrient
management, wells, testing, and waste
management. The bibliography is further
subdivided into subcategories to make
searching easier. It is available from Purdue
University Media Distribution Center at a
cost of $10.
To login to use the National Water
Quality Information Management Database
via the Internet, type:
telnet hermes.ecn.purdue.edu
The login is cerf and the password is
purdue.
To gain access to the National Water
Quality Database via dial-up connections,
the phone number is:
317-494-8350
The login is cerf and the password is
demo.
Once you have completed login,
follow the directions for the
Internet access.
837
-------
-------
W.ATERSHED'93
From Grass Roots to Brass Tacks:
Nontraditional Approaches to Public
Involvement in the Lower Colorado
River Watershed
Richard Terrance Colgan, L. Kirk Cowan, John M. Gosdin, Nora Mullarkey
Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, TX
In 1934, the Texas Legislature created
the Lower Colorado River Authority
(LCRA), a conservation and reclama-
tion agency known as the 'Texas TVA."
LCRA's district encompasses 10 counties
in the lower Colorado River watershed in
central and south central Texas. Along
with flood control, power generation, and
water supply, LCRA's primary responsi-
bilities include land, water, and wildlife
resource protection and management.
Unlike most public agencies, LCRA
cannot tax and does not receive tax money.
Instead, like a private business, it must rely
on revenue—primarily from the sale of
electricity and water—to fund its opera-
tions.
LCRA developed four high-profile
programs to expand the public's awareness
and understanding of the river and to rally
public support for water quality measures.
The Colorado River Trail Explorer's
Map highlights the watershed's culture,
history, recreation, agriculture, and natural
environment. The tourism map draws
people to cities and attractions in the river
corridor. Once there, it focuses their
attention on how the river formed and
maintains the watershed's societal fabric.
LCRA helped private citizens, community
leaders, and elected officials create the map
using input from 32 public workshops.
Since October 1992, LCRA and its partners
have distributed more than 30,000 copies of
the map.
Adopt-the-Colorado River brings
people to the river and challenges them to
think about it and the watershed in'new ways.
To accomplish this, the program uses float-
trips, river surveys, and targeted cleanups. It
revitalized the "chautauqua," an old fash-
ioned campground meeting featuring enter-
tainment and education. In 1992, LCRA
sponsored 12 public clean-up days along 50
miles of river and held two chautauquas that
involved more than 1,000 participants.
LCRA's Creekside Conservation
Program provides technical advice and cost-
sharing to reclaim private land and decrease
erosion. Demonstration projects target
critical locations in the watershed where
sedimentation is greatest. They apply cost-
effective erosion control and land manage-
ment practices. In the last 3 years, local soil
and water conservation boards selected 40
participants for the program and LCRA and
landowners treated 8,314 acres in five
counties.
The Colorado River Watch Network
(CRWN) monitors and analyzes water
quality throughout the river basin. CRWN
grew from a few students in 1988 to more
than 500 volunteers in 1993. The Network
was responsible for the adoption of phos-
phate detergent ordinances in four cities and
for creating water quality testing technol-
ogy. The program received the 1992 U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Region
VI Environmental Excellence Award in
Education.
839
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Reaching an Urban Audience: Using
Mass Media to Enhance Nonpoint
Source Pollution Prevention
Karin E. Van Vlack, Watershed Management Coordinator
Dane County Lakes and Watershed Commission, Madison, WI*
Looking for innovative mass media
ideas for your public information
program? Thinking about developing
a state, regional, or local nonpoint source
(NFS) pollution prevention initiative? In
1990, the Dane County, WI, Lakes and
Watershed Commission initiated a com-
prehensive public information and educa-
tion campaign to increase public aware-
ness and understanding of NFS pollution
issues. The campaign, dubbed Dane
County WaterWatch, grew out of a
strategic plan that identified several formal
and informal communication formats,
including a mass media initiative. Local
authorities determined that a mass media
campaign would be the most effective way
to promote an NFS pollution prevention
message to the residents of urban and
urbanizing communities. Urban nonpoint
sources are significant because the greater
Madison metropolitan area has developed
along the shores of several lakes, all of
which are classified as eutrophic. In
addition, Dane County was the fastest
growing county in the state during the
1980s with most of this growth occurring
within cities and villages.
The WaterWatch campaign has
employed several mass media techniques to
inform area residents about NFS pollution
and to provide prevention messages.
*Currently with the Nonpoint Pollution Program in the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. For
information about the WaterWatch program, contact
John Exo, Dane County Lakes and Watershed
Division.
Products developed for the campaign
include a slogan, logo, mascot and radio tag,
award-winning radio and television public
service announcements, and an outdoor
message. The most recent product, a 24-
minute video entitled In Current Repair,
takes a fast-paced, humorous look at ways in
which individuals can help to reduce
polluted runoff. The county has retained an
advertising and marketing firm to assist in
the implementation of the campaign. This
paper will review the WaterWatch campaign
strategy, the public opinion and behavior
study behind WaterWatch, and the products
developed for the campaign.
Background
Dane County, Wisconsin
Located hi south central Wisconsin,
Dane County is home to over 360,000
residents. The 1990 census revealed that the
county grew by more than 13.5 percent
(43,000 residents) during the 1980s—-faster
man any other Wisconsin county. Current
predictions estimate that the county can
expect similar growth into the next century.
Madison, located in the center of the county,
is the state capital, county seat, and home to
the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
Government is the major employer with
financial, technical, and health service
sectors also contributing to the local
economy. The county ranks among the
Nation's top 10 counties in value of farm
products produced. About 80 percent of the
county's approximate 1,200 square miles is
agricultural land.
841
-------
842
Watershed '93
The Lakes and Watershed
Commission
In an effort to address the fragmenta-
tion of watershed management authority in
the area, the Dane County Lakes and
Watershed Commission was created in
July 1988. In April 1990, the
Commission's composition, duties,
powers, and organization were further
defined and formalized through state
legislation. The statute directed the
Commission to improve water quality and
the scenic, economic, recreational, and
environmental value of the county's water
resources. The Commission has deter-
mined that public information and educa-
tion play a critical role in fulfilling this
mandate. The Watershed Management
Coordinator is responsible for coordinating
a county-wide informational campaign.
County Water Resources
Dane County contains 64 lakes
(20,750 acres), 109 streams (2,212 acres),
and 166 farm ponds (138 acres) (DNR,
1985). Four river basins make up the
county's 1,200 square miles: the Yahara
River drainage basin (38 percent); the
Sugar-Pecatonica River basin (22 percent);
the Koshkonong Creek-Maunesha River
basin (22 percent); and the Wisconsin River
basin (18 percent) (DCRPC, 1992). The
greater Madison metropolitan area sits
adjacent to Lakes Mendota and Monona,
two of the four Yahara River lakes, all of
which are classified as eutrophic.
Nonpoint source pollution from
agricultural, urban, and urbanizing lands is
the primary water quality concern in the
county. The most significant point source of
pollution is effluent discharged from
municipal sewage treatment plants. Dis-
charge of sewage to the Yahara lakes ceased
in 1971 when Madison area wastewater
discharge was diverted to Badfish Creek, a
small stream south of Madison.
According to Water Quality in Dane
County (DCRPC, 1992), 10 of the 16 stream
monitoring stations in the county have high
bacteria levels, low dissolved oxygen
concentrations, or poor biotic/habitat
conditions. Lakes Monona and Waubesa
contain bottom sediments contaminated with
metals and PCBs; large walleyes from these
lakes appear on the Wisconsin Fish Con-
sumption Health Advisory List. Approxi-
mately one-third of the private, shallow
wells tested in the county exceed the
recommended public drinking water
standard for nitrates. Common agricultural
pesticides have been detected in half the
rural wells tested.
The Strategy Behind the
WaterWatch Campaign
In the summer of 1989, the Commis-
sion requested proposals to develop a
strategic plan for the information and
education campaign. In September of that
year, Wood Communications Group was
retained to develop the strategy. The firm
completed its final report, A Strategic Plan
for Public Information and Education
Activities Related to Lakes and Watershed
Issues in Dane County, in November 1989.
The report defined the objectives, target
audience, message, and campaign design
that could be used in the Commission's
information and education campaign.
The Objectives
The plan is designed to achieve five
objectives:
• Develop a public constituency in
support of Dane County's efforts to
improve and protect water quality in
the county.
• Inform and educate the general
public about what affects water
quality in the county.
• Inform and educate the general
public about the relationship
between their actions and water
quality in the county.
• Inform and educate the public about
what they can do individually and
collectively to reduce sedimentation
and nutrient and chemical loadings
to surface water in the county.
• Reduce sediment and nutrient
loadings in the county.
The Target
Unlike most persuasive campaigns
undertaken by marketing firms, the Dane
County Lakes and Watershed Commission
message must be directed at nearly every
person in the area. The plan suggested that
the Commission avoid the geographic
(urban versus rural), occupational (industrial
versus agricultural versus residential), and
general "source of problem" nomenclature
-------
Conference Proceedings
843
commonly used when discussing pollution.
Such terminology, the plan reported, would
only serve to reinforce the "point source
villain" mentality and in so doing would be
more likely to encourage finger-pointing
and confrontation. The target population,
then, was determined to be Dane County
residents. The plan suggested that certain
sub-populations of this overall group should
be addressed through more focused commu-
nication channels. Agricultural newsletters,
for example, could discuss feedlot runoff
concerns or neighborhood associations
could host meetings on alternative lawn
care.
special events, fundraising, organizational,
and evaluation. The plan advanced a set of
goals for each initiative and proposed a
possible administrative framework for
their implementation. For example, it was
recommended that the mass media initia-
tive:
• Lay the broad conceptual foundation
of the campaign.
• Reinforce positive behavior.
• Enhance public awareness of the
issues and transmit timely informa-
tion.
• Provide a vehicle for involving other
constituencies in the campaign.
The Message
Because the campaign sets out to
change beliefs and, in turn, behavior, the
plan made a number of suggestions
regarding the campaign theme and mes-
sage. These suggestions included:
• The theme and message must appeal
to values that are at least as strong as
the prevailing beliefs that must be
changed. Pride, self-worth, respon-
sibility, and self-interest should be
targeted.
• The central theme must be broad
enough to appeal to the generic
targeted population, but flexible
enough to allow for the adaptations
required by communication
channels and programmatic
requirements.
• The theme and messages must both
encourage support for the program
and stimulate actions which will
improve water quality.
The Campaign
The strategic plan is based on the
idea that public attitudes and beliefs must
be changed before we can expect changes
in polluting behavior. The strategy
appeals to the belief that one person should
and can make a contribution to the health
of our water resources. Information, when
transmitted effectively, can affect beliefs
and, in turn, transform behavior. The
strategic plan is structured to allow the
campaign to make use of many forms of
communication, both formal (i.e., televi-
sion) and informal (i.e., neighborhood
meetings).
The plan detailed six campaign
initiatives: mass media, non-mass media,
Putting the Initiatives Into Action
The strategic plan also proposed
avenues for implementing each of the six
initiatives. Actual product development has
varied over time depending on program
resources, complementary activities in other
programs, and community and media
interest.
The Mass Media Initiative
Designed to maximize local media
outlets, this initiative emphasizes public
service announcements, news broadcasts
and newspaper coverage, and local talk
shows.
The Non-Mass Media Initiative
Contributions to trade journals,
newsletters, and special interest magazines,
presentations before civic and professional
organizations, and participation in informal
community gatherings (e.g., fairs, parades)
provide additional means for delivering the
campaign message.
The Organizational Initiative
Purposefully incorporating commu-
nity organization involvement in elements
of the campaign serves to build long-term
community support for nonpoint source
pollution prevention measures.
The Special Events Initiative
The campaign can draw attention to
specific problems and necessary actions by
hosting special events in the community.
These events should also incorporate
techniques to attract media attention.
-------
844
Watershed '93
The Fundraising Initiative
The strategic plan recommended that
WaterWatch pursue funding opportunities
including major contributors, general
campaign sponsorship, special events
sponsorship, community fundraising, and
in-kind contributions.
The Evaluation Initiative
Periodic surveys were recommended
to determine the extent to which the
campaign messages were received by the
community.
Establish Baseline Data on
Attitudes and Beliefs
In 1990, the Commission contracted
with Wood Communications Group to
conduct an initial survey as part of the
strategic plan's evaluation initiative. Wood
surveyed area residents hi order to establish
a benchmark against which future surveys
could be compared. The survey was
designed to measure the respondents'
opinions and behaviors related to water
quality. This work provided the Commis-
sion with a snapshot of respondents' use of
Dane County surface waters, attitudes about
sources of water quality problems, attitudes
about effective action, and views on
individual responsibility for reducing
nonpoint source pollution.
Telephone interviews were conducted
with randomly designated adult respondents
in 400 households using a random digit dial
telephone sample of all telephone exchanges
and banks in operation within the county.
Further information on the survey method
can be found in the report A Look at Dane
County's Lakes and Streams: A Report of a
Survey of Dane County Residents.
The results of the study indicate that
nearly all residents use county lakes and
streams in some fashion. About one-third of
the respondents avoid one or more of these
resources out of concern about water quality
(e.g., "weeds," algae, murky water). A
majority of respondents accept water quality
issues as important relative to other issues
facing the county. Respondents typically
attribute water quality problems to home
lawn care products, industrial and manufac-
turing waste, runoff from streets and
highways, and agricultural erosion. Overall,
the survey revealed that while there is near
consensus about the importance of protect-
ing our waterways, there is little agreement
about what should be done and whose
responsibility it should be to do it.
WaterWatch: The Mass
Media Initiative
In 1990, the Commission retained
Knupp and Watson Advertising and Market-
ing to implement the mass media initiative.
While following the general concepts con-
tained hi the strategic plan, the firm has
adapted the plan to maximize the strengths
of its staff and other resources. The initia-
tive has yielded numerous products.
• Name. The name "Dane County
WaterWatch" links the campaign to
water and reflects the Commission's
goal of encouraging people to watch
their day-to-day behavior.
• Logo. The logo, a timepiece inside a
water drop, illustrates the notion of
water and time. In effect the logo
tells us: the time to act is now. The
logo is also linked to the campaign
name by the "watch" element.
• Slogan/Theme. The slogan, "Make
Your Drop Count," was developed to
appeal to the notion that every
person needs to pitch in and that our
behavioral changes—our drops in
the bucket—will add up to collective
action armed at protecting water
quality. The Commission felt
strongly that Dane County residents
had to learn how their behavior
influences water quality before they
would adopt new actions. The
slogan aimed to encourage indi-
vidual responsibility and respect for
area water resources without
pointing fingers at those who are at
fault. Over time, however, it became
apparent that many people confused
the message with water conservation.
As a result, we began to use a new
slogan, "You're the solution to water
pollution," that had originally been
designed for an outdoor public
service message. This message more
clearly signals that water quality is
the issue.
• Characters. As part of the
WaterWatch campaign, Dane
County has acquired two characters,
Papa Drop and Droplet. Papa Drop
is an 8-foot-tall water drop; his
-------
Conference Proceedings
845
granddaughter, Droplet, is somewhat
smaller. The characters were pur-
posefully designed to depict a male
and a female character from two gen-
erations. The water drops are used
to personalize water quality issues
and educate younger residents. They
represent the Dane County Lakes
and Watershed Commission at vari-
ous events throughout the area, in-
cluding innumerable parades, festi-
vals, and fairs. In addition, the
Drops visit with hundreds of elemen-
tary school children throughout the
year. During these visits they illus-
trate—using self-sticking fabric pol-
lutants—how storm water transports
common pollutants from our yards
and streets to area waterways.
• Video Public Service Announce-
ments. Three public service an-
nouncements (PSAs) have been de-
veloped to date for the mass media
initiative of the WaterWatch cam-
paign. Leaves is a sprightly and in-
formational video which quickly
alerts viewers to the problems leaves
can bring to a waterbody. By stress-
ing that individual actions influence
water quality, the award-winning
Dump Truck encourages viewers not
to "dump the blame" for area water
quality problems. Gutter uses strong
visuals to show how storm sewers
make every urban land parcel water-
front property. Every year the PSAs
are rereleased to area stations.
• Radio Public Service Announce-
ments. Two prerecorded radio PSAs
were developed to parallel the
messages promoted in the Dump
Truck and Gutter video PSAs.
• Outdoor Public Service Message. In
1992, a local firm donated the use of
two dozen billboards in the Madison
metro area. A water quality mes-
sage, "You're the solution to water
pollution," was developed and run
over several months. In-kind
donations of this type are an impor-
tant part of our campaign.
• Long-Form Video. In an effort to
provide county residents with more
detailed instruction on water-friendly
behaviors, we developed a 24-
minute long-form video in 1992.
Although not originally designed to
be a mass media product, In Current
Repair has run on area community
cable access stations. The video
takes a fast-paced, humorous look at
nonpoint source pollution, with
topics that include how sediment and
nutrients influence water quality;
alternative lawn care; pet waste
disposal; construction site erosion
control; agricultural best manage-
ment practices; and citizen involve-
ment activities.
Brochures. Widely distributed at
fairs, meetings, and parades, the
WaterWatch brochures inform
readers of the WaterWatch cam-
paign, our mascots, and how
individuals can change their behav-
ior to benefit area water resources.
The brochures have served to
improve recognition of the Commis-
sion and the mascots as well as to
provide basic water quality tips to
readers. When coupled with a
counter display, the brochures
become an effective and attractive
educational device for retail outlets
and government offices.
Funding WaterWatch
Dane County officials are committed
to the idea of a strong information and
education effort. To date, $109,500 has
been authorized to implement the
WaterWatch mass media initiative.
Through the use of an advertising and
marketing agency with excellent state and
local media contacts, the county has
Years
Products
Cost
1989 Name $35,000
1990 Logo Slogan
Audio Tag
Characters
Costumes
Brochure
Video PSAs 1,2
1991 Video PSA 3 $49,500
1992 Rerelease PSAs
Radio PSAs
Outdoor message
Video
1993 New costumes $24,500
Counter cards
Brochures (5)
Rerelease PSAs
-------
84<5
Watershed '93
benefited from a significant quantity of
donated services, with an estimated worth of
$20,000-30,000. These in-kind donations
have allowed us to stretch annual funds to
produce an ambitious set of products.
Production cost of our public service
announcements, for example, have run as
high as $6,500 with up to $2,000 in addi-
tional donated in-kind services.
Some Tips on Working with an
Agency
For those of us accustomed to crafting
fact sheets and press releases, a mass media
campaign opens up a world of professional
opportunities. Working with an advertising
and marketing agency can be an exciting
experience. You may find it useful, how-
ever, to keep in mind the following points:
• Work with an agency or contractor
that understands the big picture of
mass media and is weU tied into the
local marketing arena. Select an
agency that recognizes the useful-
ness of strategic planning—but also
is well aware of the realities of the
competitive media marketplace.
• Agency staff don't know the
difference between point and
nonpoint source pollution? Don't
give up. Remember: you're hiring
experts in marketing, not phy-
toplankton or sediment transport.
Personal interest in water resources
can be a real benefit, however, in
keeping the creative fires kindled.
• An agency experienced in public
information campaigns could be a
real bonus. Knupp and Watson, for
example, had worked on the Wiscon-
sin Department of Transportation's
Adopt-A-Highway campaign.
• After some initial brainstorming, be
decisive and clear in your goals and
directions. Be careful not to burden
agency staff with unnecessary
details. Focus their efforts on big
productions and media contacts.
Remember that time really is money.
• Keep in mind that you are not the
driving creative force behind the
products. The agency's creative
staff get paid to generate a concept
and look for a product. If you are
uncomfortable with risk or new
ideas, you may find this process
uncomfortable. Relax and give
agency staff a chance to sell their
work. If you remain unconvinced
and uncomfortable, bounce the
product off others who have not been
involved in the project. Disqualify
anyone with whom you have
discussed your doubts or concerns.
If the product misses the mark, be
clear about your concerns and
remain reasonable in your requests to
rework the product.
Other Public Information and
Education Efforts
Take a Stake In the Lakes
Each year, the Dane County Lakes and
Watershed Commission sponsors a special
event designed to involve Dane County
residents in cleaning the shores of the four
Yahara Lakes. Since its inception during
the summer of 1988, it has provided an
attractive outlet for people who want to have
a positive impact on their local environment.
The event augments existing aquatic plant
management efforts by the county as Take a
Stake volunteers rake and remove aquatic
weeds along the shorelines and collect and
dispose of other debris littering these areas.
The event is promoted through extensive
contact with potential volunteer groups as
well as television and radio interviews,
announcements, posters, and brochures.
Better Lawns and Cutters
Better Lawns and Gutters is a
homeowners guide to protecting water
quality. This piece was developed by the
Dane County Extension, the Nutrient Pest
Management Program of the University of
Wisconsin, the Dane County Regional
Planning Commission, and the Yahara-
Monona Priority Watershed Project (spon-
sored by the state Department of Natural
Resources) with the assistance of Lakes and
Watershed staff. The guide has won
numerous state and national awards and is
chock full of basic information, helpful
hints, and colorful graphics.
Lawn Care Demonstration Days
The Yahara-Monona Priority Water-
shed project staffed out of the Lakes and
Watershed Division sponsored a walking
tour of water-friendly home lawn care
-------
Conference Proceedings
847
practices. Another tour for homes and
businesses will be held in July 1993.
uted to this paper through their insights on
the WaterWatch campaign.
Storm Sewer Stenciling
Dane County initiated a storm sewer
stenciling program in 1990. The county
provides kits to interested groups and
citizens free of charge.
Signs of Success
This program, begun in 1992, is
designed to reward "water-friendly"
behavior and to encourage others to adopt
this behavior so that they too may be
recognized in their community. Neighbor-
hood associations, youth groups, and
schools are the target participants. Each
group must complete a specified number
of criteria in two categories—learning and
doing—and agree to comply with the
program guidelines. In return, Lakes and
Watershed staff will provide speakers,
information on topics of interest, storm
sewer stenciling equipment, and a reward.
Dane County WaterWatchers
Often the best way to learn about
water resources is to get your feet wet. The
Dane County WaterWatchers program
encourages citizen involvement in stream
monitoring and habitat improvement
through training sessions, special events,
and a series of guidebooks.
Acknowledgments
Susan Rake (Knupp and Watson
Advertising and Marketing) and Danielle
Dresden (Yahara-Monona Priority Water-
shed Public Information Officer) contrib-
References
DCRPC. 1992. Water quality in Dane
County. Dane County Regional
Planning Commission. January.
Knupp and Watson Advertising and
Marketing. 1989. Proposal no.
10456: Implementation of a mass ••'•
media initiative for the Dane County
Lakes and Watershed Public Informa-
tion and Education Plan. December 6.
League of Women Voters of Dane County,
Inc. 1989. Dane County government:
Its services and organizational
structure. September.
Madison, Dane County, and the Wisconsin
Department of Transportation. 1992.
Dane 2020: Final report and recom-
mendations. November 18.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Re-
sources. 1985. Surface water
resources of Dane County.
Wood Communications Group. 1989.
Proposal no. 10359: A strategic plan
for public information and education
activities related to lakes and water-
shed issues in Dane County, WI.
August 30.
. 1989. A strategic plan for public
education and information activities
related to lakes and watershed issues
in Dane County. November 9.
. 1989. Proposal no. 10458: An
evaluation initiative of the Dane
County Lakes and Watershed Com-
mission Public Information and
Education Plan. December 6.
. 1990. A look at Dane County's
lakes and streams: A report of a
survey of Dane County residents. July.
-------
-------
WATERSHED1 93
Integrated McKenzie Watershed
Management Program
Kathi Wiederhold, Senior Planner
Lane Council of Governments, Eugene, OR
Laurie Power, Environmental Manager
Eugene Water &. Electric Board, Eugene, OR
The McKenzie River in Oregon flows
from the crest of the Cascade moun-
tains westward to join the Willamette
River near the Eugene-Springfield metro-
politan region. With headwaters in three
wilderness areas, the McKenzie contains
some of the cleanest water in America.
This magnificent river provides a multi-
tude of benefits, including drinking water
for over 200,000 Lane County residents,
outstanding fisheries, hydroelectric
generation facilities, recreation, open
space, wildlife habitat, and rich soils that
support the production of timber and
agricultural goods. The Willamette
National Forest is the largest single
landowner in the 1,300-square-mile basin.
The Bureau of Land Management also has
major land holdings as do several major
timber companies. There are many small
private land holdings in the lower valley,
especially adjacent to the river.
The Integrated McKenzie Watershed
Management Program will study the success
of taking a proactive approach to resolving
problems and conflicts in the basin based on
active citizen participation. The Program
will also develop a workable and transfer-
able model for natural resource protection.
During the past year, the Eugene Water &
Electric Board and Lane County met with
numerous affected state agencies to coordi-
nate the study's early phases and to gather
further support
In fiscal year 1993, EPA funds were
appropriated to begin this 3- to 4-year study
and, with the cooperation of several federal
agencies and state and local governments,
work was begun to establish the Watershed
Council—a forum to make basinwide
resource decisions. The Council will have
about 15 members, half citizens and half
elected officials and agency representatives.
Several products of the project will be a
Watershed Council decision-making model,
an integrated computer Geographic Data
System for the basin, an action program, and
a set of ground rules for joint decision
making.
A citizen involvement process will be
ongoing throughout the project. Newslet-
ters, citizen representation on committees,
field trips, high school stewardship, and
other involvement activities will take place
over the next 3 to 4 years as the Watershed
Council develops the program. Public
education will be an integral part of this
process, as well as a significant product.
This component will include a variety of
techniques such as community forums,
teacher's curricula, and participation in local
interpretive centers.
849
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Watershed Protection—Tried and
True: The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's Clean Lakes
Program
Terri Hollingsworth, Independent Consultant
T. Hollingsworth &. Associates, Houston, TX
Susan Ratcliffe, Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Howard Marshall, Clean Lakes Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV, Atlanta, GA
The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) recently established the
Watershed Protection Approach as a
fundamental basis for the Agency's efforts
to protect water resources. The key ele-
ments of this approach are:
1. The formation of partnerships
between the people with an interest
in the watershed.
2. To jointly identify the problems and
search for consensus on the actions
to be taken.
3. To implement those actions in an
integrated fashion.
Although recently formalized by EPA, this
is not a new way of doing business—it's a
tried and true way of doing business, as
demonstrated by the 17-year evolution of
the Clean Lakes Program.
The Clean Lakes Program began in
1975 with a focus on research, development
of lake restoration techniques, and evalua-
tion of lake conditions. By 1980, it was
clear that lake restoration techniques exist
and that thek effectiveness is dependent on
the control of pollution from the water-
shed—primarily nonpoint source pollution.
In 1980, the Clean Lakes Program
Regulations (40 CFR 35 Subpart H)
outlined the types of financial assistance
available to states and established the
structure of the program. Today, those
regulations also provide the framework for
implementing the recently formalized
Watershed Protection Approach for restor-
ing and protecting lake resources.
The four types of cooperative agree-
ments available under the Clean Lakes
Program and thek relationship to the
Watershed Protection Approach are:
• Phase I, Diagnostic/Feasibility
Study. This two-part study analyzes a
lake's condition and determines the
causes of that condition, then
evaluates solutions and recommends
the most feasible procedures to
restore and protect lake water
quality. This study provides the
mechanism to identify all the parties
with an interest in the lake and to
bring them together to jointly
identify problems and reach consen-
sus on the actions to be taken to
correct the problems.
• Phase II, Restoration and Protection
Implementation. Translating Phase I
recommendations into action, Phase
II projects implement in-lake
restoration work as well as critical
watershed management activities to
control nonpoint source pollution.
These projects requke the integration
of many federal, state, and local
activities and interests to ensure a
851
-------
852
Watershed '93
comprehensive attack on the
problems.
• Phase III, Post-Restoration Monitor-
ing Study. Phase III studies evaluate
various in-lake and watershed
management activities to determine
their long-term effectiveness. These
studies serve to answer numerous
questions about individual lake
techniques and watershed practices
as well as about how well an
integrated approach has restored and
protected an aquatic resource.
• Lake Water Quality Assessment.
These cooperative agreements assist
the states and qualified Native
American tribes in conducting
statewide or reservation-wide
assessments of the condition of their
publicly owned lakes and help
support state or tribal lake programs.
Many states use these funds for
volunteer citizen monitoring
programs and to increase public
awareness of nonpoint source
pollution and its effects on lakes. An
involved and informed citizenry is
critical for reaching consensus on the
actions to be taken to protect aquatic
resources and for implementing
those actions.
Critical to the success of the Water-
shed Protection Approach and the Clean
Lakes Program is the formation of federal-
state-local partnerships. The formation of
these partnerships requires substantial
involvement and commitment from all
members—especially the local communities
where many of the pollution control
measures need to be implemented. To
ensure the involvement of the watershed
public, the Clean Lakes Program Regula-
tions require the state or tribal recipient of
Clean Lakes funds to provide for, encour-
age, and assist the widest possible public
participation in all Clean Lakes projects.
Also to promote the formation of partner-
ships, the Clean Lakes Program Regulations
require non-federal, cost-sharing funds for
all projects. These cost-share funds may
come in the form of direct dollars, state staff
time, or by tapping a pool of local experts,
machinery and volunteers. This buy-in of
state and local partners promotes a sense of
ownership in the project, which is necessary
for long-term success. A few examples of
successful projects are:
• The Lake Warramaug project in
Connecticut demonstrates the
importance of a strong local-state-
federal partnership. In 1975, the
citizens of three towns in the Lake
Warramaug watershed banded
together to form the Lake
Warramaug Task Force to restore the
declining lake. The citizen-run task
force serves as a nonprofit .organiza-
tion to educate the public, raise
funds, stimulate research, and
mobilize the restoration efforts for
the lake. Integrating these restora-
tion efforts required the formation of
partnerships between the citizens of
the Lake Warramaug watershed, the
regional planning agency, the tri-
town commission, limnology
experts, Connecticut environmental
and agricultural agencies, state and
local legislators, universities,
foundations, the EPA Clean Lakes
Program, the US Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) Soil Conser-
vation Service, and the Canada
Ministry for the Environment. In
essence, the strong local commit-
ment of the task force was both the
force that brought it all together and
the glue that bound the effort to save
Lake Warramaug.
The Maskenthine Lake Project in
rural Nebraska is using a variety of
tools and programs to identify
problems and build consensus on
the actions to be taken to correct
problems. The EPA Total Maxi-
mum Daily Load SWAT Team and
funds from a mini-grant are being
used to determine the assimilative
capacity of the lake for atrazine,
nutrients, and sediment. These data
will serve as the basis for refining
the watershed management plan.
The state is using Nonpoint Source
Program funds to develop and
implement an information/ educa-
tion program in the watershed,
while Clean Lakes Program funds
are being used to stabilize eroding
shorelines and to construct a wet-
land area above the lake to decrease
pollutant loading. The USDA has
designated the Maskenthine Lakes
watershed a Conservation Priority
Area, which could take some highly
credible land out of row crop pro-
duction, thereby decreasing the
pesticide, sediment, and nutrient
loading to the lake.
-------
Conference Proceedings
853
The Lake Bemidji project in Minne-
sota illustrates the importance of an
integrated holistic approach to
watershed protection. The Clean
Lakes Diagnostic/ Feasibility study
of the lake and its watershed
identified a close interrelationship
between ground water and surface
waters in the Bemidji area. The
study concluded that degradation of
either surface waters or ground water
will likely affect the other. Having
identified the sources and critical
areas, the implementation plan for
the Lake Bemidji watershed calls for
a variety of educational activities as
well as specific best management
practices for urban, agricultural, and
forestry sites that are designed to
reduce nonpoint source pollution in
lakes, streams, and aquifers within
the project area.
The EPA Region IV (Atlanta, GA)
Clean Lakes Program has integrated
four lake projects in the
Appalachicola, Chattahoochee and
Flint River Basins located in
Georgia, Alabama and Florida in a
comprehensive watershed project.
These lakes—Lake Larder, West
Point Lake, Lake Walter F. George,
and Lake Blackshear—include
approximately 175 miles of im-
pounded rivers that have been
converted to reservoir habitat.
Numerous nonpoint sources of
pollution, as well as some point
sources, are being addressed as part
of this effort under the Clean Lakes
and other programs.
Hundreds of communities across the
Nation (in 49 states, Puerto Rico, and 18
Native American tribes) have used the
structure of the Clean Lakes Program to
assist them in implementing a watershed
approach to lake protection. For years they
have tried the holistic, integrated Watershed
Protection Approach to protecting aquatic
resources advocated by EPA—and it's
true—it works.
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
California's Feather River Story:
a Collaborative Process
Donna S. Lindquist, Senior Research Scientist
Pacific Gas and Electric Company, San Ramon, CA
Leah Wills, CRM Program Coordinator
Plumas Corporation, Quincy, CA
A cooperative erosion control
program was initiated in 1985 for
the East Branch North Fork Feather
River watershed in California's northern
Sierra Nevada. Pacific Gas & Electric
Company (PG&E), along with 14 other
public and private sector cosponsors, joined
forces to develop a Coordinated Resource
Management Program (CRM) that has
contributed several million dollars to
support the planning and implementation of
a watershed restoration program. Poor land
management practices in the past, including
overgrazing, timber harvesting, road
building, and mining, have resulted in the
removal of upland and riparian vegetation,
leaving barren streambanks vulnerable to
erosional processes. Subsequent changes in
water discharge and increases in sediment
transport have impacted fish, wildlife,
recreation values, and power production
throughout the watershed, and have further
eroded the economy of the local county.
The main objective of this program is
to identify and demonstrate a process that
integrates the contributions of all involved
parties to provide solutions that are environ-
mentally and economically acceptable.
Secondly, initiation of the program also
provides an opportunity to develop and test
new techniques for reducing erosion, that
are cost-effective and environmentally
benificial.
The overall success of the erosion
control program can be attributed to the
implementation of the CRM process,
where planning and decision-making are
consummated through a consensus
process. The CRM process is often used
to solve complex resource management
issues that involve multiple landowners
and special interest groups extending over
large geographic areas. This approach
integrates the needs of participants into an
action plan, where conflict is minimized
and results are emphasized. Contributions
of participants are leveraged to provide
benefits at an affordable cost. Since the
CRM process is already widely used by
public land management agencies, it has
increased the credibility and visibility of
the project, which has provided more
funding opportunities. A key element in
the success of this process is that it must
be locally driven to work properly, and all
major stakeholders should be included to
promote acceptance and trust.
The Feather River CRM project has
generated an outstanding list of accomplish-
ments since 1985. Of the 763,000 acres of
the watershed, most have been inventoried
for water quality problems; 246,000 acres
have been inventoried to design-level
intensity; 10 miles of the 770 severely
degraded stream miles in the 2,398 stream
mile watershed have been restored; and
3,000 acres of the 152,000 degraded acres of
wetlands, meadows, and rangelands have
been restored.
In addition, waterfowl populations
have increased by 670 percent and fish
populations have increased by 200 percent
on monitored projects; 50 new jobs have
been created; 64 landowners and 30 agen-
cies and organizations have cooperated on
projects and studies totaling almost $3
million in 4 years; the first stream meander
reconstruction project in California was
855
-------
856
Watershed '93
completed in 1990; and a local junior
college initiated the first Watershed Man-
agement Associate Degree program in
California in 1990.
The Feather River story is an example
of how collaboration, communication,
compromise, and commitment can be used
at the grassroots level to successfully
implement natural resource enhancement
programs, and boost the economy of a small
rural county. Obtaining social change in the
context of natural resource management is a
complex process, and in many instances
achieving social change is as difficult, or
more so, than making changes in the
ecosystem. The result, in this case, has
produced practical and effective improve-
ments on the land and desirable social
changes among resource owners, managers,
and users.
The CRM process is very worthy of
careful consideration during the resource
management planning process to facilitate
cooperation and coordination at the local
level, and to produce tangible results on the
ground. Collaborative efforts such as this
have demonstrated that long-term economic
success can not be achieved at the expense
of environmental values, and that public and
private sector partnerships will facilitate
programs to protect and enhance environ-
mental resources. Responsible environmen-
tal management makes good economic
sense.
-------
WATERSHED1 93
Million
of Blight,
Susan Macleod, Citizen Monitoring Project Manager
Laurie Halperin, Pollution Prevention Specialist
Center for Marine Conservation, Atlantic Regional Office, Hampton, VA
Nonpoint source pollution, or "point-
less" pollution, originates from
many different places. Some of this
pollution is created when rain washes
pollutants, such as cigarette butts, street
Utter, pet wastes, oil and grease, and excess
fertilizers and pesticides, down storm drains.
Other types of nonpoint source pollution are
caused by various land-use practices,
including farming, timber harvesting,
mining, and construction. The U.S. Envi-
ronmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
determined that nonpoint source pollution is
a leading cause of our nation's water quality
problems.
In November 1990, the EPA issued a
final rule to implement section 402(p) of the
Clean Water Act, federal legislation aimed
at preserving the quality of America's
waters. This final rule requires cities with
populations greater than
100,000 that have separate
storm sewer systems to
obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit. A
main component of this
storm water law is to educate
the public about storm water
runoff and nonpoint source
pollution and what they can
do to help reduce it. For this
reason, many cities have
become interested in storm
drain stenciling to help them
comply with these regula-
tions.
The Center for Marine
Conservation's national
Million Points of'Blight@
storm drain stenciling
campaign, funded in part by
EPA, alerts people to a
problem that they can correct through
responsible behavior. Many people don't
realize that their local storm drains are
direct links to nearby streams and rivers,
and ultimately, the ocean. The goal of
Million Points of'Blight&is to educate the
public, both hi coastal and inland states,
about this direct connection between storm
drams and local waterways. With help
from volunteers, one million storm drains
across the country will be stenciled with
clean water messages such as "Don't
Dump, Drains to Waterway" to help make
that connection.
Million Points ofBlight^ serves as a
national network for established stenciling
programs run by state and local government,
as well as several nongovernmental groups.
Storm drain stenciling is not a new idea; in
fact, some organizations have been conduct-
857
-------
858
Watershed '93
ing such projects for years, but the Center
believed that it would be helpful for these
groups to become a part of a network so that
they could share ideas and success stories.
There are currently 50 ongoing stenciling
projects that are members of the Million
Points of BlightG network. Million Points of
BlightQalso serves as a guide for individuals
and groups which do not have storm drain
stenciling programs in their areas. The
Center provides educational materials on
nonpoint source pollution and stencils to
those who want to get stenciling started in
their communities.
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
Baltimore County Waterway
Improvement Program
Candace L. Szabad, Natural Resource Specialist
Baltimore County, Department of Environmental
Protection and Resource Management, Towson, MD
The extensive waterway resources of
Baltimore County provide an array of
valuable benefits to county citizens.
With changes in land use and increased use
of waterways, watersheds have become
degraded to a point where many attributes
such as good water quality, abundant
recreational opportunities, variety of
wildlife habitat, and economic benefits are
no longer available to citizens. Recognizing
the vital role waterways play in making
Baltimore County a desirable place to live,
work, and play, a major commitment has
been made to reclaim its over 1,000 miles of
rivers and streams and 175 miles of Chesa-
peake Bay shoreline.
The Department of Environmental
Protection and Resource Management has
developed an innovative program to address
long-term, ongoing watershed degradation
through a comprehensive Waterway
Improvement Program (WIP). Program
implementation involves the technical input
of planners, engineers, and environmental
scientists. The program strategy is to
implement environmental restoration
projects in six program components. These
six Waterway Improvement Program
components are:
• Shoreline protection and enhance-
ment.
Waterway cleanup.
Waterway dredging.
Storm water retrofitting.
Watershed and stream restoration.
Urban forestry.
While the regulatory programs
adopted by Baltimore County eliminate or
reduce the negative impacts of new or re-
development, the WIP restoration
strategies address many of the environ-
mental problems in the older, existing
communities.
Through the WIP restoration strate-
gies, education awareness opportunities are
also addressed. Individual citizens,
volunteers, and community groups are
contacted to increase the general under-
standing of the natural systems, human
impacts, and possible choices for action.
Through cooperation with Maryland Save
Our Streams, education objectives are
accomplished.
This innovative restoration effort,
currently funded by a 6-year capital
improvement budget of over $14 million
(FY 1993-1998), involves coordination
and administration of design, construc-
tion, and monitoring of each project. Due
to the comprehensive nature of the
program, projects are targeted to priority
watersheds.
The implementation of the Waterway
Improvement Program represents the
county's commitment to restoring, enhanc-
ing, and protecting its water resources and
all the associated benefits, especially for
existing communities. This innovative
program helps fulfill Baltimore County's
responsibility to comply with recent federal
and state environmental protection man-
dates.
859
-------
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
Summary of Trinidad Lake North
Land Treatment Watershed Project in
South Central Colorado
W. Kent Vetvers, Assistant State Conservationist
Soil Conservation Service, Lakewood, CO
The Trinidad Lake North Land Treat-
ment Watershed Project near Trinidad,
CO, was inaugurated March 12, 1992.
Six project sponsors signed a watershed
agreement with the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's Soil Conservation Service
(SCS). The agreement and plan call for
reducing sediment reaching Trinidad Lake
from 166 to 62 acre-feet per year or 204,000
tons per year.
The watershed project area contains
111,000 acres of drainage area and is
characterized by steep slopes, eroding
streambanks, and poor range conditions.
The watershed area is 93 percent privately
owned, composed of 114 ranches averag-
ing 542 acres in size. Below-average
income characterizes the watershed area.
Alternative agricultural enterprises are
very limited due to soil types and precipi-
tation.
Cost of this watershed project is
$1,528,400, including $1,168,900 P.L. 566
funds and $359,500 local funds. During the
last few months of fiscal year (FY) 1992,
nine contracts, totaling $166,000, were
signed with producers. An additional
$400,000 is budgeted for FY 1993 for cost-
sharing with 35 producers. The balance of
the funding will be obligated in FY 1994
, and FY 1995. Contracts may take as long as
10 years to complete.
The off-site annual economic benefit
of the project is estimated to be $133,700.
The on-site annual economic benefits will
be $77,700.
The primary practices to control soil
erosion within the watershed and reduce
sediment to Trinidad Lake are:
Enduring Practices
Sediment Basins
Critical Area Treatment
Pasture and Hayland Plantings
Grade Stabilization Structures
Tree and Shrub Planting
Management Practices
Deferred Grazing
Cross Fencing
The cost-sharing rate for enduring
practices is 65 percent of the average cost of
installing the practices. Cost-sharing for
deferred grazing is limited to a one-time
incentive payment of $l-$2 per acre (not to
exceed $8,000).
During the first 3 years of the project,
the educational component of the "Technical
Assistance" will be implemented. Work-
shops are the chosen method of implementa-
tion. These workshops will present resource
management concepts, method, and tech-
nologies.
Contractees will be strongly encour-
aged to participate in a workshop as a
prerequisite for receiving P.L. 566 cost-
share funds for deferred grazing. SCS will
certify landowner or entity participation.
Project benefits other than reduction
of sediment to Trinidad Lake include:
• Fisheries hi Trinidad Lake will
improve.
• Riparian habitat improvement will
reduce erosion and improve wildlife
benefits.
• Livestock-carrying capacity of the
watershed is expected to increase by
20 percent.
• Recreational values of the area will
increase.
861
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
The Watershed Management Game
Susan V. Alexander, Water Quality Specialist
The Terrene Institute, Pineland, TX
The Watershed Management Game was
designed to help people understand
how to protect water quality by
managing the entire watershed holistically.
The game simulates a wide variety of the
activities performed and decisions made by
those involved in watershed management
(from government employees to private
landowners). Originally developed as a
training tool for water quality and land
management agencies, the game has evolved
into a product also suitable for local
governments and anyone else interested in
effective watershed management. The
basic principles of watershed restoration and
rehabilitation, including pollution control
and prevention technologies, economic
evaluation, and the decision-making process
are demonstrated as play progresses.
The game board depicts a river
running from its headwaters to a coastal
estuary. The river passes through 11 major
land resource areas or ecoregions, each with
a different land use. Players float down the
river and along the way choose game cards
that direct the player to either use the land to
produce consumer goods and services, and
consequently make a profit, or to control
pollution and rehabilitate the watershed—
actions that cost money. Players compare
the environmental damage caused by or
improvement gained from each option
selected. This allows players to attempt to
balance personal profits with environmental
protection and to see the consequences of
their actions immediately—evidenced as
changes in water quality, biologic integrity,
or riparian condition.
The game was field tested and revised
four times over the past 2 years. Table 1
outlines these tests. The same critique form
and methodology were used for each trial,
making it possible to determine whether
problems with earlier versions had been
corrected.
The game, which requires about one
and one-half hours to complete, may be
played as a facilitated group training, as a
friendly competition between teams, or in a
classroom setting. Two additional versions
are being produced—a simplified one for
high school environment and ecology
classes and a complex edition that more
closely simulates the total maximum daily
load calculation and implementation
process. The general version of the game,
now in the final production process, should
be available by June 1993.
Table 1. Field tests
Test Date
Sept. 1990
April 1991
June 1992
Sept. 1992
Location
Mustang Island, TX
Waggoner, OK
Santa Fe, MM
Waco, TX
Audience
State and federal Nonpoint Source Program
employees
State and federal water quality monitoring staff
USFS hydrologists and regional foresters
Brazos River Authority and local government
officials and employees
863
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Lessons Learned from the Rural
Clean Water Program with Selected
Case Studies of Local Nonpoint
Source Control Projects
Jon A. Arnold, Steven W. Coffey, Jean Spooner,
Judith A. Gale, Dan E. Line, Deanna L. Osmond
Extension Specialists, Water Quality Group
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
The Rural Clean Water Program
(RCWP) was a 10-year experimental
program to evaluate procedures for
control of agricultural nonpoint source water
pollution through voluntary participation.
Begun in 1980, the RCWP selected 21
project sites across the Nation to achieve
nonpoint source pollution control under
widely varying conditions of terrain,
climate, and water quality problems. Each
local project faced unique problems in
attaining desired water quality improve-
ments. Some were more successful than
others in obtaining producer participation
and interagency cooperation and in docu-
menting water quality improvements.
An evaluation of the RCWP, by the
National Water Quality Evaluation Project
at North Carolina State University, has
identified national program and local project
elements and strategies which increase the
chances for successful projects in nonpoint
source pollution reduction. The national-
level program benefited from a number of
factors, including:
• Participation and dedication of all
federal agencies concerned with
nonpoint source control.
• Up-front commitment of the total
program funding.
• Strong commitment and financial
support for water quality monitoring
to provide evidence of water quality
improvements.
• A thorough evaluation process of the
program and its component projects
to ensure feedback to participators
and to record valuable lessons
learned.
Important factors in local project
success included:
• A high level of producer participa-
tion.
• A high and consistent level of
project funding.
• A clear definition of the water
quality problem.
• Identification of critical source areas
and target pollutants contributing to
the waterbody pollution.
• Targeting best management practice
(BMP) implementation to the
identified critical areas.
• Well-designed water quality moni-
toring programs.
• Strong agency support at the
national, state, and local levels.
Other factors such as state regulations
and landowner perception of the pollution
problem also played important roles.
Several effective local projects dealt
constructively and resourcefully with the
complex elements of their situation. The
Oregon project utilized social ties and
financial disincentives at the local dairy
cooperative to implement BMPs that
reduced bacterial concentrations in
shellfishing waters. Concentrated BMP
implementation in a small area of intense
animal operations and a simple but very
865
-------
866
Watershed '93
effective monitoring program yielded
striking declines in bacterial and phosphorus
concentrations in the Snake Creek, Utah,
project. A large-scale and well-funded
program, combining voluntary and regula-
tory incentives to implement BMPs,
documented significant declines in nutrient
levels in water entering Lake Okeechobee,
Florida. Vermont's project utilized ad-
vanced monitoring protocols and tracking of
BMP implementation with a geographic
information system to document reduced
bacterial levels, which allowed swimming
beaches in St. Albans Bay to be reopened.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Forests and Water Quality
Gordon Stuart, Program Manager
U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, Washington, DC
Terrl Bates, Washington Representative
National Association of State Foresters, Washington, DC
Forested lands, particularly streamside
forests, significantly influence water
and the associated living resources.
Permanently forested watersheds with
natural stream channels have low peak
flows, low sediment loads, and sustain
abundant aquatic life. Forests reduce total
runoff through interception and transpira-
tion. The forest floor absorbs precipitation
and prevents overland flow, thereby prevent-
ing erosion. Reforestation can be part of the
solution to watershed problems. Agricul-
tural research has documented the effective-
ness of riparian forest buffers hi reducing
nonpoint source pollution in agricultural
watersheds. Recent work has documented
the effectiveness of streamside trees in
reducing nitrate levels hi ground water.
Riparian forests significantly contrib-
ute to the biological integrity of streams.
The aquatic life in small feeder streams is
dependent on near-stream vegetation for
food, temperature, and stream stability.
Trees contribute woody debris to streams to
provide important habitat for aquatic life.
Trees are also critical for the stability of
headwater streams.
Proper forest management and
timber harvesting are compatible with
maintaining watershed values. There is
a long history of forestry on municipal
watersheds. Research on forested
watersheds has repeatedly demonstrated
the effectiveness of best management
practices (BMPs) in controlling adverse
effects. State foresters have been
promoting BMPs for 20 years. A
compliance survey conducted over the
last 10 years has documented good use
of the voluntary BMPs.
867
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Storm Water Best Management
Practices for the Ultra-Urban
Environment
Wan-en Bell, P.E.
City Engineer, Alexandria, VA
Summary
Various federal and state environ-
mental programs require the use of
on-site structural best management
practices (BMPs) to control the quality of
storm water discharges from development
sites. Space constraints, extremely high
property values, soil conditions, high water
tables, and the proximity of other building
foundations often preclude the use of
extended dry detention, wet ponds, or
infiltration systems for infill construction or
redevelopment in the intensely built-up
centers of major cities, where pollutant loads
are usually the greatest. Unconventional
solutions with equivalent or better pollution
removal efficiencies must be applied in
these "ultra-urban" environments.
Alexandria, VA, has adopted and
published design criteria for a number of
nonconventional BMPs, many of which
employ intermittent sand filter technology.
Some of these ultra-urban BMPs were
developed by pioneering jurisdictions
throughout the United States; other BMPs
were devised by the city's engineering staff.
Alexandria's Watershed '93 Resource Fair
display included cutaway graphic illustra-
tions and color photographs of "ultra-urban"
BMPs constructed in the city or in the
originating jurisdictions. A coordinated
tape-slide presentation illustrated the
concept of "ultra-urban" BMPs and demon-
strated their features through construction
progress color slides. The following BMPs
are highlighted:
• Storm water surface sand filter
basins, in widespread use in Austin,
TX, are readily adaptable for large
development projects.
• Underground vault storm water sand
filters employed in the District of
Columbia allow full economic use of
surface areas in densely built-up
locations.
• Double-trench shallow storm water
sand filter systems adopted by the
State of Delaware can be placed
either in or adjacent to paved areas.
• Simple trench and modular storm.
water sand filters developed by
Alexandria are suitable for small or
medium-sized sites.
• A peat-sand storm water filter,
adapted from a Washington Council
of Governments design, allows
ultra-urban applications where high
pollutant removal is required.
• Water quality volume detention tank
BMPs, devised by Alexandria for
use in combined sewer areas, capture
the most polluted storm water for
treatment in the wastewater treat-
ment plant.
Copies of both the Northern Virginia
BMP Handbook published by the Northern
Virginia Planning District commission and
the Alexandria Supplement to the Northern
Virginia BMP Handbook were available for
viewing at the display, with order blanks
provided to interested parties.
References
City of Alexandria, Virginia, Department of
Transportation and Environmental
869
-------
870
Watershed '93
Services. 1992. Alexandria supple-
ment to the Northern Virginia BMP
handbook. February.
City of Austin, Texas, Environmental and
Conservation Services Department.
1988. Environmental criteria
manual. June.
City of Austin, Texas, Environmental
Resources Management Division,
Environmental and Conservation
Services Department. 1990. Removal
efficiencies of storm water control
structures. May.
Galli, J. 1990. Peat-sand filters: A pro-
posed storm water management
practice for urbanized areas. Metro-
politan Washington Council of
Governments, Department of Environ-
mental Programs, Washington, DC.
Schueler, T.R., P.A. Kumble, and M.A.
Heraty. 1992. A current assessment
of urban best management practices.
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Department of
Environmental Services, Washing-
ton, DC.
Shaver, E., with computer-aided design by
R.Baldwin. 1991. Sand filter design
for water quality treatment. State of
Delaware Department of Natural
Resources and Environmental Control,
Dover, DE.
-------
WATERSHED'93
California's Rangeland Watershed
Program Poster Summary
Mel George, Cooperative Extension Range and Pasture Specialist
Jim Clawson, Cooperative Extension Range Specialist
Agronomy and Range Science Department, University of California, Davis, CA
Neil McDougald, Area Natural Resources Advisor
U.C. Cooperative Extension, Madara, CA
Leonard Jolley, State Range Conservationist
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Davis, CA
Half of California's 40 million acres of
rangeland is privately owned. Most
surface water in California flows
through privately owned rangeland that is
located between forested areas and major
river systems. Soil erosion (sheet, rill and
streambank) and sedimentation are the main
contributors to water quality impairment on
rangeland.
Achieving society's environmental
quality objectives can be successful only if
landowners participate in the process. To
help landowners understand and partici-
pate in water quality problem identifica-
tion and solutions, the University of
California Cooperative Extension Service
and the U.S. Department of Agriculture's
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) have
initiated a joint program of education and
technical assistance focusing on private
rangeland owners. This program addresses
issues identified by the Range Manage-
ment Advisory Committee to California's
Board of Forestry as well as state and
federal legislation.
Program Objectives
• Develop public understanding of
watershed management.
Inform rangeland owners and
managers of how water quality
legislation affects private rangeland
management.
Facilitate development and imple-
mentation of a Rangeland Water
Quality Management Plan in
California.
Activities
This project is conducting internal
training for Farm Advisors and SCS
Conservationists. Education programs for
ranchers are conducted including Ranch
Planning and Grazing Management Short
Courses. The project organizes and
publishes Fact Sheets for use in staff and
landowner education programs. We also
provide technical support for watershed
monitoring program design,
coordinated
resource
management
planning,
and
technical
review of
management
measures.
Rangeland
Watershed
Program
871
-------
-------
WATERSHED '93
Involvement of Citizen Volunteers in
Watershed Management in the
Chesapeake Bay Basin
Kathleen Ellett, Citizen Monitoring Program Director
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc., Baltimore, MD
Cynthia Dunn, Pennsylvania Office Director
Scott Steffey, Pennsylvania Citizen Monitoring Coordinator
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc., Harrisburg, PA
Marcy Judd, Virginia Citizen Monitoring Coordinator
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Inc., Richmond, VA
VDlunteers have made significant
contributions to the water quality
data base in the Chesapeake Bay Ba-
sin. The Chesapeake Bay Citizen Monitor-
ing Program has been collecting water qual-
ity data since 1985 and now has about 160
people monitoring some 135 sites in 3 states.
Two new projects began in 1991—riparian
buffer zone management and monitoring and
collection of rain samples for an atmospheric
deposition study.
The use of volunteers in environmen-
tal monitoring has been increasing rapidly
over the last 5-7 years nationally. This
involvement of citizens directly in water-
shed management has important benefits:
1. Data and information needs far
outstrip the resources available to
managers for this purpose and
citizens can fill the gap.
2. Citizens become aware of and gain
an understanding of the ecological
processes going on in their water-
shed. The watershed then has a solid
constituency committed to raising
and spending the money necessary to
restore and protect it.
3. An overall watershed management
program that involves citizens
(including students), businesses,
industries and scientific institutions
as well as government personnel can
develop true partnerships and
working relationships among the
groups so that implementing
restoration and protection programs
will progress.
4. When enough citizens become true
stewards of the land, air, and water,
desired goals for preservation of a
watershed—be it a stream, lake,
river, or bay—will be reached.
We have demonstrated that volunteers
can contribute credible scientific data to the
understanding of the Chesapeake Bay
ecosystem. These data can be used to define
the baseline, to detect trends, to screen for
particular pollutants, to identify gross visual
problems, and to augment data being
collected by professionals.
The Alliance has provided staff
support to organize several broad-based,
grass-roots watershed protection organiza-
tions that work to protect and promote the
scenic, recreational, historic, economic, and
ecological values of a river. These groups
actively protect the beauty; preserve water
quality; educate both citizens and public
officials of opportunities to help; become
involved in local planning and development
issues and decisions affecting the watershed;
provide volunteers for citizen monitoring
projects; and sponsor field and canoe trips
on the river.
873
-------
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
Advance Identification
William S. Garvey, Elevated Cases Section Chief
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
dvance Identification (ADID) of
disposal areas is an advance plan-
ling process under which the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),
in cooperation with the Corps of Engi-
neers, may identify wetlands and other
waters which are either generally suitable
or unsuitable for the discharge of dredged
and fill material prior to the receipt of a
section 404 permit application. The ADID
process generally involves collection and
distribution of information on the values
and functions of wetland areas. The
information provides the local community
with information on the values of areas
that may be affected by community
activities as well as a preliminary indica-
tion of factors which are likely to be
considered during review of a section 404
permit application. The ADID process is
intended to add predictability to the
wetlands permitting process and better
account for losses from multiple projects
within a watershed. The process also
serves to inform the local population of the
values and functions of wetlands in their
area and generates environmental informa-
tion valuable for other purposes. Because
they are usually based on watershed
planning, ADID efforts are extremely
compatible with geographic and ecosystem
initiatives such as EPA's Watershed
Protection Approach.
While an ADID study generally
classifies wetland areas as suitable or
unsuitable for the discharge of dredged or
fill material, the classification does not
constitute either a permit approval or denial
and should be used only as a guide in the
planning of future activities. The nature of
the classification is strictly advisory.
As of December 1992, there were 35
completed ADID projects and 36 ongoing
ADID projects ranging in size from less
than 100 acres to greater than 4,000 square
miles. Although ADID projects can be
resource intensive activities, some have
been completed in as short as 6 months.
EPA experience indicates that the more
local the ADID project boundaries, the
more complete and effective the ADID
analysis and results. EPA has seen an
increase in cost-sharing and expects more
states and localities to provide funds to
support ADID or other comprehensive
planning efforts.
Experience shows that local coopera-
tion and support are vital to the success of
the ADID project. Recently, ADIDs have
been initiated by local entities in order to
facilitate local planning efforts. These
efforts have proven to be the most success-
ful way for generating support for wetlands
protection. Cooperative ADID efforts may
provide additional information useful to the
planning process. In the West Eugene
Wetlands Special Area Study (Oregon),
local ADID efforts did lead to a section 404
general permit. Because the ADID was
incorporated into the City of Eugene's
general comprehensive plan, and due to the
fact that Oregon land use policies have the
effect of local land use law, the ADID effort
streamlined the regulatory process.
875
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Watershed Screening and
Targeting Tool
Leslie L. Shoemaker, Mohammed Lahlou, Sigrid Popowitch
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Targeting watersheds to receive in-
creasingly scarce water management
resources is an important step to-
ward improving water quality. Water re-
source managers need tools to help them
assess, compare, prioritize, and target the
water quality problems of watersheds
within their jurisdictions more easily. Re-
sponding to this need, the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) Region
IV and Office of Wetlands, Oceans and
Watersheds have worked cooperatively to
develop the Watershed Screening and Tar-
geting Tool (WSTT). The prototype of the
WSTT has been developed to access data
from Alabama and Georgia.
WSTT, an innovative method for
screening and targeting watersheds, com-
bines compiled EPA mainframe
data, ranking procedures, and a
screening model with a PC-based,
•user-friendly interface. A sche-
matic of the components of WSTT
is shown in Figure 1. Built-in
maps allow users to easily select
watersheds, or sub-watersheds, to
screen and compare. They may
examine particular data bases; sort
on selected parameters; or create
graphs and reports for selected wa-
tersheds on land use, water quality,
water supplies, impoundments, and
point source facilities. A sample
screen is shown in Figure 2.
WSTT can be used to
identify, rank, and target areas of
particular concern. Two targeting
techniques are provided. The first
uses multiple criteria to conduct a
preliminary screening, where each
criterion is compared with a
default or user-defined reference
value. The second permits a more detailed
comparative analysis of selected water-
sheds. Several objectives can be defined
and, within each objective, up to seven
weighted criteria specified. Criteria can be
selected by the user from WSTT data bases
or defined by the user. WSTT data bases
include information on water resources,
water quality, point sources, land use
distributions, and agricultural practices.
WSTT also includes a Watershed
Screening Model (WSM) that permits
simple watershed assessments to predict
daily runoff, streamflow, erosion, sediment
load, and nutrient washoff. Users can
identify seasonal arid year-to-year
variability of runoff and its associated
pollutants. Both point and nonpoint source
WSTT Program Operation Schematic
Watershed Selection
-Select State
-Select Accounting Unit
-Select Catalogue Units
-Generate Report
-Save
'-Exit
WSTT
Preliminary Screening
(-Select Criteria
[—Enter Targeting Values
I—Results
(—Save/Print
'-Quit
Generate Report
-SelectData Bases
h If WQ, Select Parameters
L If PS, Select Report Options
-Results
graphical
"-Tabular
-Save/Print
LQult
atleJfor
Alabama and Georgia
Comparative Analysis
-Select Objectives
-Select Criteria for Objectives
•Enter Weighting System
Select Ranking
-Results
"Save/Print
L-Quit
Watershed Screening Model (WSM)
t— Format Input Data
'-Run WSM
Figure 1. WSTT program operation schematic.
877
-------
878
Watershed '93
Study Qeacriptions [ExanplB
Current St
I— Saloct AU Using —i
I Q labla 9 Hap |
IF" ' M*£''CC":::
R Soloct CU Using
> Tablo » Haa
Current Ac
831380 AF
Current Ct
ACCXDUNTING UNIT
031300
contributions are estimated under high-,
average-, and low-flow conditions. WSTT
data bases are used to create default input
data files for applying WSM. Users can
review, update, or replace the default data
as appropriate. WSM uses a daily timestep
and local precipitation and temperature
data. Either graphics or tables can be used
to present the results of the WSM
application.
Figure 2. Sample WSTT screen.
-------
WATERSHED1 93
Environmental Protection Agency
Mainframe for Water Quality Analysis
and Watershed Assessments
Phillip Taylor
Sigrict Popowttch
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA
William Samuels
Science Applications International Corporation, McLean, VA
Sue Hanson
Horizon Systems Corporation, McLean, VA
Tim Bondelici
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC
National water quality data files and
systems available on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) mainframe provide direct access for
water quality analyses and watershed
assessments. This study is a mosaic of
data and tools that have been applied to a
study area near Morgantown, WV, within
the Upper Monongahela watershed (Figure
1). The data and tools presented here,
along with others available on the EPA
mainframe, can be applied to the 2,150
watersheds on the mainframe to assist in
assessing water quality conditions and
trends across the continental United States.
In this example application, the
Upper Monongahela watershed, more than
160 ambient monitoring stations and 120
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System facilities were found in the water-
shed using STORET, the Permit Compli-
ance System (PCS), and the Industrial
Facilities Discharge data base (IFD).
Stations within the watershed were found to
belong to the monitoring programs of West
Virginia, Pennsylvania, the U.S. Army
Corp of Engineers, and EPA. The data
collected at these stations are easily
accessible. Data on hydrology, streets and
roads, monitoring sites, discharge locations,
and water supplies are all available on the
mainframe and can be displayed graphi-
cally (Figure 2).
The Upper Monongahela watershed is
located in northern West Virginia. This
region is generally characterized by low
rolling hills with little flat land. Average
Figure 1. Upper Monongahela watershed.
879
-------
880
Watershed '93
WWTP
* WATER SUPPLY
dcso
O GAGE
WATER QUALITY
+ STATION
Figure 2. MDDM plot of the study area.
FOREST
(48.4%)
NONCULTIVATED
(30.3%)
OTHER
(5.1%)
URBAN
(7.6%)
STRIP MINING
(8.6%)
Figures. NRI land use summary.
rainfall in the area
is between 40 and
44 inches per year.
As the hydrologic
data on the main-
frame illustrates,
the Monongahela
River is formed by
the confluence of
the West Fork and
Tygart Valley
Rivers. This
confluence occurs
just upstream of the
watershed. The drainage area for the
watershed is approximately 460 square
miles. The EPA Reach File provides
indexes and graphics for 603 steam seg-
ments, 636 stream miles, and 20 shoreline
miles for 73 lake segments in the Upper
Monongahela watershed. Design flows can
be determined using data from the Gage file.
The long-term mean flow, the harmonic
mean flow, and the 7-day, 10-year low flow
in the Monongahela River at the mouth of
the watershed were determined to be 4,553,
1,416, and 296 cubic feet per second,
respectively. The 7-day, 10-year low flow
ranges from 0.00 to 0.14 (ft3/s)/mi2 across
the basin.
A problem of major concern in the
area is the chemical quality of surface
water. Many streams are acidic and highly
mineralized because of drainage from coal-
mining areas (USGS, 1985). The 1987
National Resource Inventory classifies
over eight percent of the watershed as
being involved in strip mining (Figure 3).
Another eight percent is composed of
various urban land uses. The largest
classification of land use within the water-
shed is forest, at almost 50 percent. Water
quality data retrieved from STORET
indicated an increase in phosphorous and
solids loadings between a station upstream
of the urbanized study area and a station
downstream. Examination of the data
from the station below a large wastewater
treatment plant in the area showed a de-
creasing trend in fecal coliforms.
References
USGS. 1985. National water summary
1985—Hydrologic events and
surface-water resources. U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Supply
Paper 2300. Compiled by D.W.
Moody, E.B. Chase, and D.A.
Aronson.
-------
WATERSHED'93
Watershed Management in Tampa
Bay: A Resource-Based Approach
Holly S. Greening, Environmental Scientist
Richard M. Eckenrod, Program Director
Tampa Bay National Estuary Program, St. Petersburg, FL
The Tampa Bay National Estuary
Program (TBNEP) is a partnership of
local, regional, state, and federal
governments charged with drafting a
comprehensive conservation and manage-
ment plan (CCMP) for the restoration and
protection of living resources in Tampa
Bay. While water quality measurements
traditionally have served as the surrogate of
a waterbody's viability, the TBNEP
resource management strategy emphasizes a
critical next step by linking water quality to
the environmental requirements of Tampa
Bay's most important habitats. Seagrasses
are used to demonstrate the steps involved
in this process, which starts with identifica-
tion of the impacted living resource and
proceeds through implementation of
specific management actions.
• Set Bay restoration targets. The
pre-impact area! distribution of
seagrass is subtracted from present
day distribution to identify areas for
potential restoration.
• Determine optimal loading rates.
To attain seagrass light require-
ments, chlorophyll concentration
resulting in 35 percent incident light
at depth (2 m) is used to estimate,
using regression analyses, optimal
nutrient loading rates.
• Allocate reduction for pollutants.
Goals for reductions In nutrient
loadings for each bay segment are
calculated by subtracting the optimal
loading rates from existing rates.
Through negotiations among local,
state and federal agencies and
industries, necessary reductions will
be allocated, perhaps using a bubble
concept approach, to watershed
sources.
• Implement inter-governmental
agreement. Tampa Bay National
Estuary Program participants agree
to:
- Reductions in pollutants based on
Bay Restoration targets.
- Implement agreement through
discharge permits and local
government comprehensive
plans.
Under this strategy, resource-based
water quality requirements, and associated
pollution load reduction goals, will be
incorporated into mandated federal and
state programs for point and nonpoint
source pollution control. Pollution load
reduction goals will also be incorporated
into local government comprehensive
plans.
One of the most challenging aspects of
the TBNEP watershed management strategy
will be the allocation of reductions in con-
taminants among major industries and local
governments that are currently contributing
pollutant loads to the bay. TBNEP is pro-
viding a forum in which consensus may be
reached on an approach for allocating load
reductions among the key players, many of
whom are represented in the TBNEP Man-
agement Conference. Specific commit-
ments, including timelines and identification
of funding sources and monitoring require-
ments, will be developed and included in the
overall plan for bay management.
881
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Storm Water Pollution Prevention
in the Santa Clara Valley, California
L. Donald Duke, Ph.D., Assistant Professor
University of California, Los Angeles, CA
An industrial source control program
is a vital part of a well-designed
watershed storm water pollution
control program because industrial land uses
have been shown to contribute substantially
to the mass loading of several pollutants
present in storm water runoff from urban
areas (Woodward-Clyde Consultants, 1991).
Municipalities which need to manage storm
water pollutants in their watersheds because
of recent U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) regulations (USEPA, 1990)
can more effectively do so by including in
their storm water management plans an
active program of outreach and cooperation
with industrial facilities that extends beyond
passive reliance on broad-brush state and
federal regulations on individual industrial
facilities (USEPA, 1991; California State
Water Resources Control Board, 1991).
A program targeted at industrial
facilities not only assists the municipality's
constituents in complying with complex and
onerous storm water regulations, but also
powerfully assists the municipality in
achieving its charge of reducing pollutants
in municipal storm water discharges by
controlling storm water pollutants at the
sources.
Industrial outreach and cooperation
have been an integral part of the Santa Clara
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control
Program. A key aspect of the Program's
strategy is to demonstrate whether the
source control approach, vigorously
implemented, can succeed in reducing
pollutants in storm drain discharges to the
Lower South San Francisco Bay, avoiding
more costly regionwide measures such as
large-scale detention basins.
During the period when state and
federal regulations were being developed,
the Program hosted a series of workshops to
describe emerging state and federal regula-
tions. Later, the Program prepared detailed,
step-by-step written materials to encourage
compliance and assist industrial firms in
complying efficiently and cost-effectively,
including a "sample" compliance plan for a
fictitious facility and manuals describing
best management practices (BMPs) recom-
mended as effective storm water pollution
control methods for three industrial catego-
ries (Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Program, 1991, 1992a,
1992b).
The BMPs and other materials were
developed with extensive cooperation
among local and regional environmental
agencies and with the regulated commu-
nity. This approach ensures the adopted
BMPs can be practically implemented, are
cost-effective, and are effective at control-
ling pollutants in storm water discharges.
The materials encourage practices the
Program finds most effective at controlling
pollutants of concern in discharges to San
Francisco Bay. The practices also reflect
the preferences of participating Program
municipalities, and the multiple overlap-
ping local agencies whose authority
includes aspects of storm water pollution
control.
An effective municipal program
supporting industrial storm water pollution
control can drive an important contribution
to the goal of reducing pollutants in munici-
pal storm drains.
References
California State Water Resources Control
Board. 1991. General permit for
883
-------
884
Watershed '93
discharges of storm water associated
with industrial activities (Water
Quality Order No. 91-13-DWQ).
Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Program. 1991.
Best management practices for
automotive-related industries:
Practices for sanitary sewer dis-
charges and storm water pollution
control.
. 1992a. Blueprint for a clean bay:
Construction-related industries best
management practices for storm water
pollution prevention.
. 1992b. Best management prac-
tices for industrial storm water
pollution control.
USEPA. 1990. 40 CFR Parts 122,123, and
124 National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Applica-
tion Regulations for Storm Water
Discharges: Final Rule, Federal
Register, v. 55, p. 47990.
. 1991. National Pollutant Dis-
charge Elimination System Industrial
General Permit Regulations for Storm
Water Discharges: Proposed Rule,
Federal Register, v. 56, p. 40948.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. 1991.
Alameda County Urban Runoff Clean
Water Program loads assessment
summary report. Alameda County
Flood Control and Water Conserva-
tion District, Hayward, CA.
-------
WATERSHED'93
The Baltimore County "100 Points of
Stream Monitoring": Building
Partnerships and Public Support for
Watershed Management Through a
Volunteer Water Monitoring Project
Abby Markowitz, Project Director
Maiyland Save Our Streams, Glen Bumie, MD
In 1989, Maryland Save Our Streams
(SOS) and the Baltimore County
Department of Environmental Protection
and Resource Management (DEPRM)
created the Citizens for Stream Restoration
Campaign with the primary goal of building
a citizen constituency for local waterways
through ongoing education, leadership
development, watershed protection, and
restoration strategies.
A fundamental component of the
Campaign is the "100 Points of Stream
Monitoring," involving volunteers in a
seasonal assessment of 100 sites along
freshwater streams using the collection and
identification of benthic macroinvertebrates
as well as a physical habitat assessment.
Cohesive watershed management
requires a variety of strategies including
extensive monitoring. While recognizing
the need, the county was unable to imple-
ment a biological monitoring program due
to shrinking resources. Volunteer collection
of critical data is cost-effective and assists
the county in protecting and managing its
watersheds. To date, over 700 volunteer
monitors have been trained.
Volunteer monitoring techniques are
based on Protocol 11 of the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency recommended
methods outlined in Rapid Bioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers
(May 1989) intended for professional use.
The 100 Points is among the first programs
nationwide to train volunteers to this level
of sophistication.
Personnel from county, state, and
federal agencies serve on the Technical
Advisory Committee (TAG), which oversees
data coordination, management, and use.
The 100 Points Steering Committee (com-
posed of educators, community leaders, and
local business people) works cooperatively
with the TAG and SOS to guide all aspects
of the project.
This experience demonstrates the
feasibility of combining scientific credibility
with community participation in water
monitoring. By providing cost-effective,
quality-assured, critical data, promoting
community and government partnerships,
fostering a stewardship ethic, and develop-
ing crucial citizen leadership, volunteer
monitoring will reach its full potential.
885
-------
-------
WATERSHED '
Mike McElhiney, District Conservationist
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Patterson, CA
Philip P. Osterll, County Director
University of California Cooperative Extension, Modesto, CA
Woiking Together to Reduce
Irrigation-Induced Erosion, West
Stanislaus Hydrologic Unit Area
The West Stanislaus Hydrologic Unit
Area (HUA) was funded in fiscal year
1991 to reduce nonpoint source (NFS)
pollution loadings of organochlorine
residues to the San Joaquin River caused by
irrigation-induced erosion in western
Stanislaus County, CA.
Numerous studies preceded the HUA
funding. Coordination of ongoing efforts
have elevated awareness of the problem
among agency personnel and the local
community. University of California
Cooperative Extension (UCCE), the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), the West
Stanislaus Resource Conservation District
(RCD), and the Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service (ASCS) have each
played an important role in coordinating an
information and education program. This
coordinated effort has led to a fairly
successful delivery of technical assistance
and the installation of on-farm conservation
practices to reduce irrigation-induced
erosion.
In addition to interagency HUA
efforts, the SCS Water Resources staff
recently completed the West Stanislaus
Sediment Reduction Plan prepared in
cooperation with the Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and the
RCD. The report emphasizes "the best
solution is a local solution" and is the result
of input from the local farmers, county and
state agencies, and an SCS interdisciplinary
team including an economist and sociolo-
gist. University of California Riverside
researchers identified a polymer that has
potential for reducing irrigation-induced
erosion. Several field trials by UCCE staff
demonstrated there were clear benefits from
this polymer in sediment reduction, im-
proved water quality, and increased water
infiltration. Further evaluations will
determine the most effective concentration,
the number of applications per season and
the effectiveness on various soil types.
A concerted, ongoing, and comple-
mentary effort among these agencies was
aimed at heightening awareness and
increasing voluntary adoption of on-farm
conservation practices. Workshops have
been conducted and educational materials
(such as newsletters, fact sheets, and color
charts depicting ranges of sediment concen-
trations) have been developed; tours and
demonstrations of on-farm practices have
been cosponsored.
The RCD developed a Farmer to
Farmer video, and UCCE produced English
and Spanish versions of a Best Management
Practices for Sediment Reduction video.
The RCD obtained a Clean Water Act
section 319 Demonstration Project to
evaluate best management practices, and the
SCS contracted with the U.S. Navy to help
meet NPSP objectives.
Monitoring efforts have been provided
by RWQCB, the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, California-EPA, U.S.
Geological Survey, and the Department of
Water Resources San Joaquin River Man-
agement Advisory Council. The Board of
Directors of the Patterson Irrigation District
set the example for other West Stanislaus
districts by aligning itself with the objec-
tives of the HUA.
887
-------
-------
WATERSHED'93
Index of Presenters and Panelists
Adelman, Allen, 131
Alexander, Richard B., 751
Alexander, Susan, 633, 863
Anderson, Gordon K., 811
Andrews, Elaine, 441
Arnold, Chester L, 373
Arnold, Jon A., 865
Asell, Lyle W., 611
Austin, Samuel H., 713
Bartels, Robert M., 237
Bartfeld, Esther, 691
Bartoldus, Candy, C., 835
Bates, Jimmy F., 151
Bates, Tern, 867
Battaglin, W.A., 827
Battle, Susan M., 259
Baumann, Jim, 497
Beck, Roger, 325
Beier, Ann, 127
Bell, Warren, 869
Bennett, Richard O., 163
Bero, Kathleen M., 813
Biddix, R. Wade, 293
Bingham, Gail, 25
Bischoff, John, 571
Bondelid, Tim, 879
Booth, Derek B., 545
Brashear, Robert W., 565
Bridges, Elise G., 407
Brooks, Ralph H., 39
Browner, Carol M., 79
Bullard, Loring, 267
Burbank, Cynthia J., 37
Burde, John, 325
Burk, Sandra W., 421
Burwell, Catherine E., 837
Cagney, P.T., 391
Cahill, Thomas H., 379
Cairns, John, Jr., II
Campbell, Kevin, 615
Cannon, Jonathan Z., 281
Canton, Steven P., 803
Carsel, Robert F., 229
Cavacas, Alan, 217, 459
Chen, Y. David, 229
Cheng, Mow-Soung, 217, 815
Clark, Alan, 481
Clawson, Jim, 871
Cline, Neil, 25
Coffey, Steven W., 865
Cole, Chris, 175
Colgan, Richard Terrance, 839
Colgan, Michael J., 815
Collins, Cheryl, 459
Combs, Samuel T., 821
Congdon, Chelsea H., 681
Coombs, Marjorie, 551
Cowan, L Kirk, 839
Crawford, Heather M., 373
Creel, TilfordC., 589
Croft, Richard J., 729
Cuniff, Shannon E., 135
Cunningham, Patricia A., 735
Curry, Ross J., 735
Danson, Ted, 77
Davis, Tom, 641
Dickey, G. Edward, 23
Digerness, Gerald, 25
Dillcs, David W., 367
Dimick, Frank, 47
Dissmeyer, George E., 319
DiStefano, Dawn M., 407
Dodd, Randall C., 735, 831
Doll, Amy, 107
Donigian, Anthony S., 767
Dreher, Dennis W., 237
Dressing, Steven A., 521
Dugan, Gordon L, 211
Duke, L. Donald, 883
Dunn, Cynthia, 873
Dunning, C. Mark, 625
DuPraw, Marcelle E., 605
Eckenrod, Richard, 881
Eckert, Michael T., 595
Eddy, Susan, 399
Egan, James T., 803
Ellett, Kathleen, 873
Espy, Mike, 75
Fairchild, Warren D., 5
Farrow, Daniel R.G., 777
Faulkner, Chris, 551
Fay, John J., 163
Filip, Dan, 199
Finley, Sid, 399
Firehock, Karen, 447
Fisher, James R., 115
FitzGerald, Shannon, 651
Flaig, Eric G., 529
Frank, Bill, Jr., 57, 69
Freas, Kathy E., 225
Frederick, David C., 631
Fullmer, Jeffrey, 425
Funk, William H., 1
Gaffney, Frank, 621
Gale, Judith A., 865
Garbisch, Edgar W., 835
Garcia, Linda, 833
Garvey, William S., 875
Gates, Robert, 325
George, Mel, 871
George, Jim, 185
Gerritsen, Jeroen, 797
Getlein, Stephen, 823
Gibbons, C. James, 373
Gimble, Elliot, 825
Glassford, Peggy A., 237
Glendening, Parris N., 57
Goldstein, Alan L., 529
Goodloe, Sid, 633
Goodman, Jeanne, 571
Goodman, Iris, 583
Goolsby, D.A., 827
Gordon, Ellen, 127
Gore, Al, xxi
Gosdin, John M., 839
Gray, Susan, 529
Green, James, 797
Greening, Holly, 881
Griggs, Ray H., 537
Grimes, Max M., 803
Haines, Sharon, 25
Hall, Alan, 589
Hall, Dennis, 431
Hall, RichardE., 259
Halperin, Laurie, 857
Hambrock, Michael, 51
Hanson, Sue, 879
Harvey, Geoffrey W., 355
Haydock, Irwin, 755
Heagerty, Daniel, 225
Helms, Douglas, 89
Herbst, Robert L., 101
Herrmann, Ray, 743
Hines, Doug, 249
Hinkle, Kevin C., 181
Hollingsworth, Terri, 851
Homer, Wesley R., 379
Huq, Syed Y., 413
Hyatt, Leon, 155
Jackson, Gary W., 697
Jansen, Marcella, 127
Jeffrey, Roy F., 373
Jehn, Paul, 583
Johnson, Amy S., 451
Johnson, Gregory K., 249
Jolley, Leonard, 871
Jones, Gary P., 181
Judd, Marcy, 873
Karalus, Randall S., 823
889
-------
890
Watershed '93
Kasi, Veronica, 203
Keeler, Francis M., 729
Keenlyne, Kent, 655
Kessler, Charles L, 211
Killgore, W. Wayne, 417
Kraft, Steven, 325
Kraus, Mark L, 835
Lahlou, Mohammed, 217, 459, 877
Lavigne, Peter N., 305
Lehman, Stuart W., 511
Leonard, George, 95
Lindquist, Donna S., 821, 855
Line, Dan E., 865
Linker, Lewis C., 767
Logsdon, Ed, 253
Lord, William B., 287
Low, L. Gregory, 57, 69
Luitweiler, Preston, 255
Lusk, Anne, 141
Luttrell, Dennis, 191
MacGregor, Molly, 435
Macleod, Susan, 857
Major, David C., 277
Margheim, Gary A., 159
Martdey, William K, 571
Markowitz, Abby, 885
Marshall, Howard, 851
McCoy, John L, 511
McCutcheon, Steve C., 229
McDougald, Neil, 871
McElhiney, Mike, 887
McMahon, Gerard, 735
Meals. Donald W., 501
Mebane, C.. 391
Meyland, Sarah J., 175
Michael, Gene Y., 803
Minsch, Katherine, 243
Minthom, Antone, 601
Moore, Timothy F., 803
Mullarkey, Nora, 839
Mullens, Jo Beth, 521
Murto, Patty, 51
Myers, Cis, 119
Niederwerfer, Karl, 615
Norton, Mark R., 331
O'Donnell, Arleen, 473
O'Neal, Vicky J., 829
Ochsner, Jean, 641
Olsen, Carolyn Hardy, 299
Osborn, Timothy, 145
Osmond, Deanna L., 865
Osterli, Philip P., 887
Oswald, George E., 565
Outen, Janice B., 125
Parker, Jill, 163
Pasquel, Fernando, 823
Paul, Stephen, 459
Pauley, John, 489
Pawlukiewicz, Michael, 315
Phillips, C. Gregory, 705
Plummer, Alan H., Jr., 565
Pontius, Dale, 25
Popowitch, Sigrid, 877, 879
Powell, Jimmie, 57, 69
Power, Laurie, 849
Pratt, Edwin H.B., Jr., 191
Preston, Ron, 797
Price, Curtis V., 751
Primrose, Niles, 511
Promise, John, 565
Prothro, Martha, 57, 69
Ratcliffe, Susan, 851
Reinelt, Lorin E., 545
Rink, Laurie, 791
Ritter, Gary J., 529
Roberson, J. Alan, 579
Robinson, Michael, 83
Robinson, Keith W., 751
Rochette, A. Paul, 803
Rodstrom, Chris, 217
Rosgen, David L., 783
Rozengurt, Michael A., 755
Rudkin, Chris, 791
Ruebsamen, Rickey, 145
Sadick, Thomas, 687
Sagona, Frank J., 705
Samuels, William, 399, 879
Savage, Michael T., 331
Sawka, Greg, 529
Schroeder, Kathryn A., 367
Semon, Jeannette, 687
Senior, Janet, 225
Sharpe, David, 325
Shaw, Susan Colder, 719
Shoemaker, Leslie L., 877
Shuyler, Lynn R., 339
Slawecki, Theodore A.D., 367
Smith, Jennifer, 459
Smith, Richard A., 751
Spear, Mike, 163
Spooner, Jean, 521, 865
Springarn, Art, 823
Steffey, Scott, 873
Steward, Malinda Y., 815
Stewart, Beth K., 249
Stickler, Steven, 735
Stifler, Michael, 451
Stigall, Ed, 767
Stoerker, Holly, 25
Stribling, James B., 551
Stroud, Tommy, 589
Stuart, Gordon, 867
Summers, Robert M., 259
Suppnick, John D., 361
Sutton, John D., 501, 537
Swanson, Ann Pesiri, 43
Szabad, Candace L, 859
Tasker, Gary D., 751
Tassone, Joseph F., 407
Taylor, Phillip, 879
Taylor, Steven K., 467
Tedder, Steve W., 57, 69
Templeton, Maureen Kennedy, 665
Tenley, Clarence, 651
Thormodsgard, Paul E., 343
Tippett, John P., 735, 831
Trull, Susan J., 761
van der Tak, Laurens, 687
VanVlack,KarinE.,84I
Vendlinski, Tim, 671
Ververs, W. Kent, 861
Wagner, Mike, 325
Wagner, Len, 589
Wakeman, Thomas H. Ill, 271
Waters, John B., 19
Wayland, Robert H. Ill, 3
Welter, Deborah G., 407
Wetherall, Trudie, 625
White, Dale A., 751
White, David, 343
Wiederhold, Kathi, 849
Williamson, Doyle E., 493
Wills, Leah, 855
Windell, Jay, 791
Wise, Louise P., 69
Witten, Jon D., 761
Woolf, Alan, 325
Wortman, Brian, 399
Wulliman, James T., 557
Yaeck, David C., 677
Yeoman, Ellen H., 821
Yoke, Tom, 255
Young, Terry P., 681
Zander, Bruce, 349
Ziegler, Sam, 671
* U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFF1CE:1994-300-781/12415
-------
-------
W AT E R S H E D '93
SPONSORED BY THE
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
US. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
U.S. Geological Survey
USDA Extension Service
USDA Forest Service
USDA Soil Conservation Service
American Water Works Association
Council on Environmental Quality
Federal Highway Administration
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Park Service
National Water Research Institute
Tennessee Valley Authority
Terrene Institute
LOCAL SPONSORS INCLUDE
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Fairfax County Water Authority, Virginia
Metropolitan Washington Council on Governments
Montgomery County, Maryland
Prince George's County, Maryland
IN COOPERATION WITH
Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay
American Fisheries Society
American Planning Association
American Rivers
American Water Resources Association
Association of Metropolitan Sewerage Agencies
Association of State and Interstate Water Pollution
Control Authorities
Chesapeake Bay Foundation
Interstate Council on Water Policy
National Association of Conservation Districts
National Association of Water Companies
National Drinking Water Clearinghouse
National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
National Watershed Coalition
National Waterways Conference, Inc.
Pacific Rivers Council
Partners for Livable Places
Society for Range Management
Soil and Water Conservation Society
South Florida Water Management District
The Nature Conservancy
Trout Unlimited
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Bureau of Land Management
Water Environment Federation
Watershed Management Council
Water Quality 2000
------- |