Watershed Protection
A Project Focus
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division
Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (4503F)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
August 1995
Cover: The Neuse River Basin, North Carolina, featuring the upper Contentnea
Creek watershed. Maps prepared from separate GIS data layers in the
Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine Study Database.
Recycled/Recyclable • Printed with Vegetable Based Inks on Recycled Paper (20% Postconsumer)
-------
-------
FOREWORD
FOREWORD
The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) is a departure from the
way the EPA has traditionally operated its water quality programs and
how federal, tribal, and state governments have typically approached
natural resource management. Resource management programs--
programs for wetlands protection, wastewater discharge permitting,
flood control, farmer assistance, drinking water supply, fish and game
management, and recreation-have tended to operate as individual
entities and occasionally at cross purposes.
We now generally recognize that the critical environmental issues
facing society are so intertwined that a comprehensive, ecosystem-
based approach is required. We also recognize that solving
environmental problems depends increasingly on local governments
and local citizens. Thus, the need to integrate across traditional
program areas (e.g., flood control, wastewater, land use) and across
levels of government (federal, state, tribal, local) is leading natural
resource management toward a watershed approach.
This document focuses on one aspect of the Watershed Protection
Approach-developing watershed-specific programs or projects. It
provides a blueprint for designing and implementing watershed
projects including references and case studies for specific elements of
the process. The document illustrates how the broader principles of
watershed management-including all relevant federal, state, tribal,
local and private activities-can be brought to bear on water quality
and ecological concerns.
This document is one of two guides to watershed protection designed
for state water quality managers. A second guide, Watershed
Protection: A Statewide Approach, describes an emerging framework
for a statewide Watershed Protection Approach that focuses on
organizing and managing state resource management programs
around a state's major watersheds, or basins.
I trust this Watershed Protection Approach document will provide a
useful guide for state water quality managers and others involved in
watershed-based activities as they adopt, implement and evaluate
watershed protection programs.
Robert H. Wayland, III, Director
Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
in
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This document was prepared by Amy Sosin and Donald Brady of the
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, EPA Office of
Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds; Michael McCarthy and William
Cooter of Research Triangle Institute; and Susan Alexander, formerly
of EPA Region 6. The authors gratefully acknowledge the comments
of reviewers from within EPA and other agencies including the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental
Control, the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management,
and the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
IV
-------
CONTENTS
CONTENTS
Chapter
iii
Foreword iv
Acknowledgements vii
List of Figures ' ' ' ' vjjj
List of Tables ' ' ' jx
List of Highlights xi
Exeucitve Summary
1 The Watershed Protection Approach: Defining a Project Focus 1-1
1 1
What is the Watershed Protection Approach? ••••••• • • v
What is the Relationship Between Individual Watershed Projects
and Statewide Watershed Protection? '".:'"'j 14.
How Does the WPA Differ from Other Watershed Initiatives? 1-4
Purpose of this Document 1 g
Audience j Y " • 1-8
The Need for Partnerships and Concerted Actions
2-1
2 Watershed Projects - The Broad Issues
O *1
Why is Watershed Planning the Right Thing to Do? ^
Who are the "Stakeholders"? 2 3
Why is Public Support So Necessary?
What is the Appropriate Scale for a Watershed Project
under the Watershed Protection Approach? ^
How are Watersheds Delineated?
How are Watersheds Ranked and Targeted?
Is Watershed Planning Suitable where Ground Water ^
Contamination is a Major Concern? \'''.''/, 9 q
How do We Measure the Success of a Watershed Project? 2-9
3-1
3 Elements of a Successful Watershed Project
4-1
4 Building a Project Team and Public Support
4-1
Identify and Involve Stakeholders 4 2
Build an Effective Institutional Framework
Educate Stakeholders and the General Public
5-1
5 Defining the Problem
R-1
Develop an Inventory of the Watershed g_g
Monitor Baseline Water Quality ' ' g_g
Decide to Take Action
-------
CONTENTS
CONTENTS (continued)
Chapter
6 Setting Goals and Identifying Solutions 6-1
Identify Environmental Indicators and Programmatic Measures .... 6-2
Set Project Goals 6-2
Agree on Critical Actions 6-8
Protect Critical Areas 6-9
Select Point Source Controls and Nonpoint Source Management
Practices 6-10
Target and Schedule Point and Nonpoint Source Controls 6-15
Prepare a Watershed Action Plan 6-16
7 Implementing Controls 7_1
Obtain Funding 7_2
Provide Incentives 7.3
Secure Commitments 7-6
Design and Install Site-specific Controls 7-7
Inspect BMPs and Other Controls 7-8
8 Measuring Success and Making Adjustments 8-1
Document Success in Administrative Goals 8-1
Conduct Ambient Monitoring for Environmental Results 8-2
Make Mid-course Corrections 8-8
Ensure Long-term Maintenance 8-11
9 References g_1
Appendix A: Selected Pages from the State of the Anacostia-1989 Status Report
Appendix B: Organizational Protocol from a Puget Sound Watershed Project
Appendix C: Programs that Can be Useful for Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution
VI
-------
CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES
Number
1-1 Features of the Watershed Protection Approach 1'2
2-1 The Tar-Pamlico River Basin, NC and its component watersheds 2-5
2-2 A waterbody ranking/watershed targeting process 2-7
3-1 Some elements of a successful watershed project 3'2
3-2 Elements of a successful watershed project showing individual
activities
4-1 Example administrative structures of a watershed project 4-3
R o
5-1 Topics for a watershed assessment report
8-1 Elements of ecological integrity in aquatic systems 8-5
8-2 Biological and habitat monitoring measures in the Anacostia River
Restoration Project
VII
-------
CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES
Number Page
1-1 Examples of Types of Watershed Projects 1-5
5-1 Sources and Causes of Water Quality Impairment 5-6
6-1 Examples of Environmental Indicators 6-3
6-2 Example Nonpoint Source Management Measures and Practices 6-12
7-1 Types of Incentives for Installation of Controls in Watershed
Projects 7-4
VIII
-------
CONTENTS
LIST OF HIGHLIGHTS
Highlight Page
Number
1 Features of the CWA Relevant to Watershed Planning 1-10
2 Puget Sound Watershed Planning 4"4
3 The Anacostia River Restoration Project 4~5
4 Public Workshops in the Stillaguamish Watershed, Washington ... 4-8
5 Sequim Bay's Solution to Problem Identification 5-5
6 Monitoring in the Galena River Priority Watershed Project 5-8
7 Goals of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee 6-6
8 Goals and Objectives of the Klamath River Basin Restoration
_ 6-7
Program
9 Nantucket's Water Resource Protection Areas 6-10
10 Watershed-wide Controls in the Anacostia 6'14
11 Interagency Technical Assistance Teams in Puget Sound 6-17
fi-1 R
1 2 Developing an Action Plan
13 Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed Plan 6'19
14 Securing Funding for Anacostia Restoration Projects 7-5
7 R
15 Tax Incentives in the Puget Sound Basin
16 Reporting Progress in Anacostia River Restoration 8-3
Q —I
17 Monitoring in the Anacostia Watershed
18 Mid-course Corrections at Rock Creek, ldaho--A Management
Effort in Three Acts
IX
-------
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Watershed Protection Approach is a strategy for effectively
protecting and restoring aquatic ecosystems and protecting human
health This strategy has as its premise that many water quality and
ecosystem problems are best solved at the watershed level rather
than at the individual waterbody or discharger level. The Watershed
Protection Approach has four major features: targeting priority
problems, a high level of stakeholder involvement, integrated
solutions that make use of the expertise and authority of multiple
agencies, and measuring success through monitoring and other data
gathering.
The Watershed Protection Approach accommodates the management
and protection of ecosystems and human health at three levels: the
state the basin, and the watersheds within each basin. Some issues
are best addressed at the watershed level, such as controlling nutrient
loading to small lakes or restoring headwaters riparian habitat quality.
Other issues may be best addressed at the basin level, such as
phosphate detergent bans, wetlands mitigation banking, or nutrient
trading. Still other activities and solutions are best implemented at
the state level, including policies on toxics control or the operation of
permit programs.
This document focuses on individual watershed projects. Watershed
projects can be important components of the statewide approach that
many state water quality programs use. These states have organized
their traditional activities, such as permitting, planning, and
monitoring, so that all water quality problems are dealt with in the
context of very large drainage areas (river basins). Typically, each
basin is studied, and a watershed plan developed, on a 5-year cycle.
A companion document, Watershed Protection: A Statewide
Approach (EPA 1995) discusses this way of doing business.
The FPA Office of Water prepared Watershed Protection: A Project
Focus to promote watershed-level planning as envisioned under the
Watershed Protection Approach. The document describes a logical
process for planning and implementing watershed projects and
presents some lessons learned in previous projects. The document
emphasizes ecological integrity in watersheds by addressing chemical,
physical, biological and habitat stressors in addition to the more
traditional goal of protecting human health through chemical water
quality criteria. It also encourages the targeting of watersheds for
XI
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
action and pooling resources and expertise with other government
agencies and citizen groups.
Why Implement Watershed Projects?
Watershed projects promote understanding of the full range of
stressors in a watershed-physical, chemical, and biological-that may
be affecting aquatic life and human health. When all significant
sources and stressors are understood, agencies are better able to
focus on those controls that are more likely to produce measurable
improvements in ecosystem health.
Administratively, watershed projects can be highly efficient. They
encourage organizations to focus staff and financial resources on
prioritized geographic locations and facilitate coordination of resources
among interested parties. Also, they provide local agencies with an
opportunity to take leadership roles in ecosystem protection.
Individual watershed projects can supply critical information to a
state's major river basin plans, for example, as new models are
developed and new watershed-level management approaches are
tested.
Finally, watershed projects encourage local agencies and citizen
groups to get involved—either by participating in state or federal
projects or by starting their own watershed projects.
Who are the Stakeholders in a Watershed Project?
Stakeholders are individuals and organizations that have an interest in
identifying and solving water quality problems and in monitoring the
effectiveness of these solutions over time. Stakeholders of a single
watershed project could include:
• Municipal and county governments
• Local councils of government
• Local soil and water conservation commissions or districts
• County boards of commissioners
• Individual citizens
• Local and national citizen action groups
• Local industries
• Water suppliers
• State surface and ground water agencies
• State agricultural, fisheries, and natural resources agencies
• Indian Tribes and communities
• Federal agencies
Local stakeholders are particularly important in targeting their local
problems. They bring knowledge and concern for specific
waterbodies to the forefront. They serve as organizers in the area
XII
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
and keep interest alive and active. They are also effective in
educating friends, neighbors, and government officials and putting
action on the local, near-term agenda.
Are Watershed Projects Suitable where Ground Water Contamination is a Major
Concern?
Ground water concerns are important in nonpoint source watershed
projects around the country. The Clean Water Act discourages
nonpoint source controls that protect surface waters at the expense
of ground water. Watershed projects can be a good mechanism for
taking into account all possible impacts on surface and ground water
resources.
In some areas, ground water/surface water interactions are highly
complex and may alter or preclude the delineation of watershed
boundaries. For example, in karstland (limestone and dolomite terrain
with sinkholes, subsurface streams, and caverns), ground water may
discharge well beyond apparent watershed boundaries that are based
on topography. Similarly, glaciated areas in the Northern United
States and highly arid areas in the Southwest can have complex
surface/ground water hydrology.
In such areas, agencies should carefully consider whether planning
units should be watersheds (perhaps large watersheds) or
administrative units such as counties or regions. In some cases, a
dual approach with separate surface and subsurface water resource
delineations may be appropriate. Ground water/surface water
interactions should be understood and factored into all aspects of a
watershed project.
What are the Elements of a Successful Watershed Project?
Most of this document discusses concepts and a logical framework
for planning and implementing a watershed project. The many
activities of a successful project can be divided into major topics or
elements:
• Building a Project Team and Public Support-developing effective
institutional arrangements and ownership of the project by
stakeholders (Chapter 4)
• Defining the Problem-developing an inventory of the watershed
and its problems and conducting baseline monitoring (Chapter 5)
• Setting Goals and Identifying Solutions-developing project goals, a
list of management measures, and a detailed plan for their
implementation (Chapter 6)
XIII
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
• Implementing Controls-obtaining funding, securing commitments,
and installing controls (Chapter 7)
• Measuring Success and Making Adjustments-documenting
success in meeting goals, monitoring, changing management
measures as needed, and ensuring project continuity (Chapter 8).
XIV
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH: DEFINING A PROJECT FOCUS
CHAPTER 1
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH: DEFINING A PROJECT
FOCUS
What is the Watershed Protection Approach?
The Watershed Protection Approach (WPA) describes efforts within
the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other federal,
state and local agencies to use a watershed-oriented approach to
meeting water quality goals. The WPA is a comprehensive approach
that takes into account all threats to human health and ecological
integrity within specific watersheds. To some extent, this approach
requires a departure from EPA's traditional focus on regulating
specific pollutants and pollutant sources and instead encourages
integration of traditional regulatory and nonregulatory programs to
support natural resource management. Based on the success of
comprehensive, aquatic ecosystem-based programs such as the
Chesapeake Bay, Great Lakes, Clean Lakes, and National Estuary
Programs, the EPA Office of Water is promoting similar approaches
across the Nation in watersheds large and small, freshwater and
marine, urban and rural.
The WPA can be described in many ways. For purposes of this
document, the WPA is based on four key elements, listed below and
described more fully in Figure 1-1:
• All priority problems in a watershed should be identified and
addressed-problems posing the greatest risk to human health,
ecological resources, desirable uses of the water, or a combination
of these
• All parties with a stake or interest in a specific watershed should
participate in the analysis of problems and the creation and
implementation of solutions
• Actions taken in a watershed should draw on the full range of
methods and tools available, integrating them into a coordinated,
multiorganizational attack on the problems
1-1
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH: DEFINING A PROJECT FOCUS
Targeting Priority
Problems
All significant problems in a
watershed are identified and
addressed, not just the
problems that are familiar or
easily solved. Monitoring
provides critical data for this
effort.
Problems that may poee health
Industrial wastewater discharges
Municipal wastewater, stormwater,
and combined sewer overflows
Waste dumping and injection
Nonpoint source runoff or seepage
Atmospheric deposition
Habitat alteration, wetlands toss
Hydrotogic modification
Stakeholders Include
State environmental, public health,
agricultural, and resource agencies
Local/regional boards, commissions.
and agencies
EPA water and other programs
Other Federal agencies
Indian tribes
Public representatives
Private wildlife and conservation
organizations
Industry sector representatives
Water suppliers
Academic community
Stakeholder
Involvement
Working as a task force,
stakeholders reach
agreement on goals and
approaches for addressing a
watershed's problems, the
specific actions to be taken,
and how they will be
coordinated and evaluated.
Integrated
Solutions
The selected tools are
applied to the watershed's
problems, according to the
plans and rotes established
through stakeholder
agreement.
Coordinated action may be taken
In such area* as
Voluntary source reduction
(e.g., waste minimization, BMPs)
Permit issuance and enforcement
Standard setting
Direct financing and incentives
Education and technical assistance
Critical area protection
Ecological restoration
Remediation of contaminated soil
Emergency response to teaks or spills
Effectiveness monitoring
Measuring
Success
Early in the project, stake-
holders agree on ecological
and administrative indicators
that will demonstrate
progress. These measures
are tracked throughout the
project by water quality
monitoring and other types
of data gathering.
Figure 1-1. Features of the Watershed Protection Approach
1-2
-------
THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH: DEFINING A PROJECT FOCUS
• Stakeholders should agree on measures of success early and
monitor progress throughout the life of the project.
The WPA helps to create water quality programs that have the
following characteristics:
• Feature watersheds or basins as the basic management units
• Target priority watersheds for management action
• Address all significant point and nonpoint sources
• Address all significant pollutants or stressors
• Set clear and achievable goals
• Involve stakeholders during all stages of the program
• Use the resources and expertise of multiple agencies
• Aire not limited by any single agency's responsibilities
• Consider public health issues
• Consider all aspects of ecosystem health including habitat
WPA projects also feature a strong monitoring and evaluation
component. Using monitoring data, stakeholders identify stressors
that may pose health and ecological risk in the watershed and any
related aquifers, and prioritize these stressors. Monitoring is also
essential to determining the effectiveness of management options
chosen by stakeholders to address high-priority stressors. Because
many watershed protection activities require long-term commitments
from stakeholders, stakeholders need to know whether their efforts
are achieving real improvements in water quality.
In addition, WPA projects must be consistent with state regulatory
programs such as development of total maximum daily loads (TMDLs)
and basinwide water quality assessments. In fact, a watershed may
be selected for a special project because of the need for a complex
TMDL involving point and nonpoint sources.
The appropriate scale for watershed projects is discussed in
Chapter 2. In general, watershed projects under the WPA should be
larger than demonstration size and should result in water quality
improvement in significant, high priority waterbodies. Most states
delineate from 100 to 500 watersheds for planning purposes. The
cover of this report depicts a river basin and one of its watersheds
thai might be selected for a watershed project.
1-3
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH: DEFINING A PROJECT FOCUS
What \s the Relationship Between Individual Watershed
Projects and Statewide Watershed Protection?
This document focuses on individual watershed projects, which can
be components of the statewide watershed protection approach that
many state water quality programs use. These states have organized
their traditional activities, such as permitting, planning, and
monitoring, so that all water quality problems are dealt with in the
context of very large drainage areas (river basins). Typically, each
basin is studied, and a basin plan developed, on a 5-year cycle.
A companion document, Watershed Protection: A Statewide
Approach (EPA 1995) discusses how the principles of the WPA can
be applied on larger geographic scales (i.e., statewide and basinwide)
in ongoing state water quality programs.
There is merit in both concepts-focusing on individual watershed
projects and the organization of state programs for statewide
watershed management. States select their approaches to pollution
control based on past history and other factors such as the
willingness and resources of local governments to contribute to a
statewide approach versus an individual watershed project approach.
For example, solving a state's water quality problems through many
individual watershed projects may require greater local interest and
resources than currently exist. The statewide approach may be more
suitable and may help build a case for local action at the watershed
level. In some cases, individual watershed projects may be used as
examples to test the general concepts of watershed management or
to give special attention to particularly difficult water quality
problems.
The two approaches are compatible. For example, individual
watershed projects can supply critical information to a state's basin
plans as new models are developed and new watershed-level
management approaches are tested.
How Does the WPA Differ from Other Watershed Initiatives?
Watershed-based projects are not new-hundreds of projects are
ongoing at the federal, state and local levels. These projects usually
have a specific slant or focus, as shown in Table 1-1. WPA seeks to
build on previous watershed efforts; what is different is EPA's
adoption of WPA as an operational approach. The EPA Office of
1-4
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH: DEFINING A PROJECT FOCUS
M
+••
O
0)
'o*
M
0
*«•
ID
(0
0)
a
w
«
"5.
a
x
LLJ
.a
a
I-
(0
o
o
u_
c
o
N
'C
o
V
3
k.
£
O
U.
o
c.
,0
II "5
It ®
""'
+•>
en
'o
fit
O
>
O
I
3
O
Grants for small watershed demonstrations provided
through Section 319(h) grants, with states encouraged
take advantage of U.S. Department of Agriculture
Hydrologic Unit Area (HUA) projects or other large
watershed-scale initiatives.
O)
CO
c
q
o
CO
CO
^
g
^
CJ
0)
«
03
l2J M
o
8 •£
= 1
O OL
CO -o
^ a m
c -C
o J2
Q. CD
c *•*
ll
Lake protection and restoration. Source of many
techniques relevant to holistic watershed management
emphasizing grassroots stakeholder involvement. Mos
projects focus on small lakes and reservoirs.
^
c*5
c
o
o
CO
^
£
0
c:
o
«
ci
CO
Q)
a:
o
QJ
O
O
ol
to
CD
^£
CIJ
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH: DEFINING A PROJECT FOCUS
CO
O
•2
c
.0
«
Legislation or Other Author
+j
u
CD
'tF
OL
*o
>»
o
O)
CD
+•*
CO
o
CO
CD
ed management
1 stakeholder
or 21 major estuari^
Promotes development of integral
planning based on flexible regiona
involvement and public outreach f
and their associated watersheds.
o
CM
CO
C.
o
o
CD
U
E
CO
0)
o
t\
L_
CO
D
(A
UJ
"co
c
o
CD
•z.
•o
C 0)
/n f
iw t
rous projects in
ct riparian habitats.
ative for the 1 990s
/e are especially
nctions and protect
Starting in 1987, has led to nume
western states to restore or prote
The recent Riparian-Wetlands initi
the Bring Back the Natives Initiate
targeted at restoring ecological fu
native fish stocks.
<*-
o
i- w
« « j£
An initiative under the BLM'
riparian policies that places
and wildlife values on an eq
iGGiing Wiui GiiiSf multiple i
BLM leases
0
9 ^
w C (-
.0 » JO
« CD °-
P O) O
— co O
•*— ^ O
O <°. rg
l_r 2>
£ -o ±:
P "^
co H_ 5»
Q D — ro
/X * ^ jc
{/J ^ ^i •*••
Z> CO £ il
CO C CD •jj
CD ' .c .5
:ner with the 8 Stat
mitigating adverse
i works. Expanded
Examples include t
es (Florida) and the
3 District of Columb
In 1986, the Corps became a part
on the Upper Mississippi River in i
ecological impacts from navigatioi
1990 to cover all Corps projects.
Kissimmee River and the Everglad
Anacostia River (Maryland and th<
4-
to
Water Resources Developm*
Acts of 1986 and 1990
c
CD
O CD
CJ i-
~~ CO
j_ £*
CD C
CD UJ
C _
C C
UJ CD
.t c JA
co O "^
QL i= .CO
O c '=
U uj £
O s- ,
c o A
watersheds. Comr
major dams. Also
s dammed for hydr<
•omous fisheries
Studies of instream flow needs in
in western states for operation of
importance elsewhere where river
power or where issues with anadi
involved.
•o
c
CO 4--
... v O -*
CO . — m i_
® P S »_ «0
Required by at least 1 5 Stat
relevant to Federal dam pen
renewals, environmental im|
work for COE and Bureau o
Reclamation, and National P
Service assistance
V)
c
g
'4^
CO
D
CO
>
UJ
CO
o
u_
~co
c
CD
E
CD
^
O
C
CO
.£? CD
and Scenic River
vice provides techn
river conservation
ojects on specific
al governments hav
In addition to the system for Wild
designation, the National Park Ser
assistance to states for statewide
programs or corridor protection pr
streams. Also many states or loc
river greenbelt programs.
•o
c
CO
Wild and Scenic Rivers Act,
National Trails System Act,
Outdoor Recreation Act
c
o
(0
i_
(U
\v
(A
C
0
u
o
T3
'\Z.
o *"
U 1
^, ^
0) O)
> 2
QC Q.
T3
0)
C
*3
O
O
1-6
-------
Water is encouraging water quality agencies to orient their programs
toward watersheds as management units and to begin comprehensive
control projects in targeted watersheds.
A number of EPA water quality programs already incorporate WPA
principles to some degree (e.g., the Nonpoint Source Program, the
Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs, the National
Estuary Program, the Clean Lakes Program, and Advanced
Identification or Special Area Management Plans in the Wetlands
Program). The WPA is not intended to replace any of these
programs, but to further encourage a watershed orientation in them.
The WPA is not limited to EPA-sponsored programs. Indeed, one of
the principal characteristics of the WPA is that it complements other
environmental and natural resource management activities. The
WPA, with its focus on specific waterbodies, provides a way for
traditional EPA and state programs to work much more closely with
other agencies such as the U.S. Department of Agriculture (e.g.,
NRCS and the U.S. Forest Service), the U.S. Department of Interior
(e.g., USGS, Bureau of Reclamation, Bureau of Land Management,
and ihe U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), and local and tribal
governments. These working relationships are vital to the success of
any WPA and, more importantly, to the restoration, maintenance, and
protection of the Nation's ecosystems.
Purpose of this Document
This report is intended to promote watershed planning as envisioned
under the WPA. The document describes a logical process for
planning and implementing watershed projects and presents some
lessons learned in previous projects.
In addition to promoting watershed-based planning, some key goals of
the WPA and of this document are:
• To emphasize ecological integrity in watersheds by addressing
chemical, physical, biological and habitat stressors in addition to
the more traditional goal of protecting human health through
chemical water quality criteria
• To encourage the targeting of watersheds for action, pooling
resources and expertise with other government agencies and
citizen groups
1-7
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH: DEFINING A PROJECT FOCUS
To encourage local agencies and citizen groups to get involved in
state or federal projects or to start their own watershed projects
To help build a national base of successful watershed projects.
Many of these projects will carried out under the supervision of
state agencies that are also implementing other WPA-compatible
programs statewide.
Audience
This document was developed to aid state, tribal, and local water
quality managers in implementing watershed projects. A successful
project typically involves staff from multiple agencies-federal as well
as state and local-and these individuals may benefit as well.
Members of environmental action groups and other informed citizens
may also find this document helpful.
The Need for Partnerships and Concerted Actions
Section 101 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) establishes the physical,
chemical and biological integrity of the Nation's waters as the primary
goal of the national water quality program. Federal, state, tribal, and
local governments, as well as industries and concerned citizens, have
been working for over 20 years to achieve this goal. Their focus has
been primarily on controlling the effects of municipal and industrial
point source pollution through a federal permitting program (the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, NPDES) and a
massive effort to make funds available to municipalities to construct
and improve wastewater treatment plants. The success
demonstrated by these efforts is a result of dedicated work and the
concentration of resources, but also reflects the relative ease with
which point sources can be identified and treated with existing
technologies.
Nonpoint sources account for most of our remaining water quality
problems. According to the 1990 and 1992 editions of the National
Water Quality Inventory: Report to Congress (EPA, 1992a and
1994), the leading causes of impairment of our Nation's rivers and
streams are siltation, excessive nutrients, and other pollutants from
nonpoint sources. Nonpoint source pollution is generated from varied
and diffuse sources-for example, runoff from farm fields carrying
nutrients and pesticides, runoff from city streets carrying sediment
1-8 1-8
-------
and metals, and sediment-laden runoff from logging and construction
activities. The impacts of these stressors may range from acute or
chronic effects on humans and aquatic organisms to the physical
degradation of aquatic habitat.
The CWA establishes a foundation of required actions that help
prevent water quality impairments from point sources. These actions
include technology-based controls, financial assistance, and point
source permits. However, to control nonpoint sources, water quality
programs must work in concert with other federal, state, tribal, and
local initiatives. Examples include activities under the following
programs and laws:
• The President's Water Quality Initiative (USDA)
• Conservation Title of the Farm Bill (the Farm Security Act of 1985
as amended)
• Safe Drinking Water Act's Wellhead Protection Program
• Rivers and Trails Conservation Program of the National Park
Service
• National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Sea
Grant and the National Marine Sanctuaries Programs that support
State Coastal Zone Management Programs
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service efforts in wetlands acquisition and
conservation under the Emergency Wetlands Resources Act of
1986
• Bureau of Land Management and Forest Service initiatives to
protect or rehabilitate watersheds on public lands and in national
forests.
The benefits of watershed projects will usually be enhanced through a
mix of many agencies' approaches, statutory authorities, and
resources. Such a mix promotes the use of ecological principles and
takes into account socioeconomic factors (e.g., through training and
cost-sharing) to develop controls. EPA's Watershed Protection
Approach emphasizes coordination among programs to achieve water
quality goals.
Highlight 1 describes some major features of the Clean Water Act
(CWA) that are relevant to a watershed-based approach to water
quality management.
1-9
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH: DEFINING A PROJECT FOCUS
Highlight 1
Features of the CWA Relevant to Watershed Planning
Water Quality Standards. Water quality standards are the driving
force behind State water quality programs. Water quality
standards consist of three elements: the beneficial designated
use(s) of a waterbody (e.g., fishing and swimming), the water
quality criteria necessary to protect the use(s) of the waterbody
(these can be numeric or narrative}, and an antidegradation policy
to maintain and protect existing uses and water quality. One goal
of any watershed management plan is the ultimate attainment of
water quality standards.
Wastewater Treatment Plant Construction Grants Program
and State Revolving Funds. Since 1972, the federal government
has provided billions of dollars in grants to states and local
communities for the construction of sewage treatment systems.
This program, in concert with the NPDES permitting program, has
greatly reduced point source loadings to our Nation's surface
waters. The 1987 Amendments of the CWA moved the
responsibility for financing municipal treatment systems from the
federal government to the states and local communities. Seed
money was provided to establish state revolving [loan] funds
(SRF) that are designed to become self-sustaining. If a state can
first satisfy its sewage treatment construction needs, then
revolving funds may be used for other activities including nonpoint
source activities that are in accordance with Section 319 of the
CWA. Thus, watershed projects may be eligible for SRF funding
in certain cases.
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES). The
NPDES system requires that each point source of wastewater
(industrial and municipal} obtain a permit that regulates the
facility's discharge of pollutants into U.S. waters. The CWA
requires that point source dischargers comply with specified
effluent limitations for conventional and nonconventional
pollutants and priority toxic pollutants. The 1987 Amendments
added Section 304(1) to place a special emphasis on the
identification and control of waters that remain impaired by toxic
pollutants even after the application of technology-based
requirements. Of particular relevance to the WPA, EPA has
(continued}
1-10
-------
recently developed an NPDES Watershed Strategy to integrate the
NPDES program into each state's WPA,
Total Maximum Pally Loads (TMDlsl. The CWA [Section 303(d*}
requires that TMDLs be established for waterbodies where water
quality standards have not been met through technology-based
effluent limitations alone. A TMDL can be defined as the sum Of
the "wasteload allocation" for point sources and the "load
allocation" for nonpoint sources that a waterbody can assimilate
and still meet water quality standards. The TMDL must also
include a margin of safetyr which takes into account any lack of
knowledge concerning the relationship between effluent limitations
and water quality.
The TMDL process, as described in Guidance for Water Quality-
based Decisions: The TMDL Process {EPA, 1991 a), consists of
five steps: {1) identification of water quality-limited waters; (2)
priority ranking and targeting; (3) TMDL development; (4)
implementation of control actions; and (B\ assessment of water
quality-based control actions.
Most TMDLs do not involve the extensive planning, interagency
coordination, and public participation described in thi$ WPA
document, However, some watersheds may be selected for WPA-
type projects because of the need for TMDLs. For example, a
watershed project may be appropriate in a complex situation
where point and nonpoint sources are degrading a high priority
lake, estuary or aquifer and local interest is high.
Clean Lakes Program. Section 314 of the CWA established a
program for identifying publicly owned lakes in each $tate that
are impaired by point and nonpoint sources and by such stressors
as nutrients, metals, and acidity. Clean Lakes Orant$ are issued
for diagnostic/feasibility studies, restoration/implementation
projects, and post-restoration monitoring programs. From its
inception in 1972, the Clean Lakes Program has had a watershed
focus and has encouraged coordination among federal, state, antf
local agencies and grass-roots organizations, Building the
institutional framework that involves all stakeholders j$ a major
objective of Section 314, Over time, many states have developed
the local support, legislation, and funding sources for self-
sustaining lake programs.
{continued}
L_
1-11
-------
1. THE WATERSHED PROTECTION APPROACH: DEFINING A PROJECT FOCUS
Nonooint Source Programs» Section 319 of the 1987 GWA
eroeMfttertts coated a new program designed to control nonpoint
source pollution and to protect groundwater as part of the overall
effort. In general, thi$ section requires each state to submit (1) an
assessment of state waters not expected to meet water quality
standards because of nonpolnt source pollution and (2) a
management program for controlling nonpoint source pollution.
Many watershed projects are sponsored under Section 319 grants.
These projects range in size from small demonstration projects to
fulNcele watershed projects as envisioned under WPA.
Groundwater Protection. The CWA encourages steps to ensure
that surface water programs do not achieve loading reductions at
the expense of groundwater resources. For example, Section 319
nonpoint source management programs must demonstrate that
their water quality best management practices {BMPs) are at least
pollution neutral in terms of their impacts to groundwater. EPA
has also worked with states to develop Groundwater Protection
Strategies that coordinate the efforts of diverse federal programs.
State Wellhead Protection Programs encouraged under the Safe
Drinking Water Act also make use of pertinent CWA programs.
Where states have adopted one or more of these approaches to
groundwater protection such tools as the TMDL process or the
WPA may be useful in pursuing their groundwater objectives.
National Estuarv Program (ISIEP). CWA Section 320 established
the NEP to protect and restore the water quality and living
resources of the Nation's estuaries. The NEP adopts a watershed
approach by planning and implementing water quality
management activities for an estuary and its entire drainage area.
The Program has supported over 20 estuary projects. When an
estuary is selected, EPA convenes a management conference with
stakeholders from all Interested groups {e«g., industry, agriculture,
conservation organizations and state agencies) to more fully
characterize the estuary's problems and seek solutions. The NEP
is a national demonstration program tn that only a fraction of U.S.
estuaries can be targeted for action under NEP.
1-12
-------
2. WATERSHED PROJECTS - THE BROAD ISSUES
CHAPTER 2
WATERSHED PROJECTS - THE BROAD ISSUES
Why is Watershed Planning the Right Thing to Do?
Watershed-based planning is not a new or exotic approach to water
quality management. Some states and federal agencies (notably the
Department of Interior and USDA) have sponsored watershed-based
projects for many years, although water quality protection has not
always been a primary goal of these projects. Watershed-based
water quality management is the right thing to do because it protects,
restores and maintains healthy ecosystems. It is an effective way to
protect chemical water quality while at the same time protecting
critical terrestrial and aquatic habitat, reducing soil erosion, and
restoring aquatic communities. These benefits make the approach
particularly useful for solving nonpoint source problems (or a
combination of point and nonpoint problems); thus, it is applicable to
the majority of the Nation's remaining water quality issues.
From a technical standpoint, watershed planning is grounded in an
understanding of the full range of stressors in a watershed-physical,
chemical, and biological--that may be affecting aquatic life and human
health. When all significant sources and stressors are understood,
agencies are better able to focus on those controls that are more
likely to produce measurable improvements in ecosystem health.
Administratively, watershed planning is efficient. It encourages
organizations to focus staff and financial resources on prioritized
geographic locations and facilitates coordination and pooling of
resources among interested parties. It also offers an opportunity for
local agencies to take leadership roles in ecosystem protection.
2-1
-------
2. WATERSHED PROJECTS - THE BROAD ISSUES
Who are the "Stakeholders11?
Stakeholders are individuals and organizations that have an interest in
identifying and solving water quality problems and in monitoring the
effectiveness of these solutions over time. Stakeholders of a single
watershed project could include:
• Municipal and county governments
• Local councils of government
• Local soil and water conservation commissions or districts
• County boards of commissioners
• Individual citizens
• Local and national citizen action groups
• Local industries
• Water suppliers
• State surface and ground water agencies
• State agricultural, fisheries, and natural resources agencies
• Indian Tribes and communities
• USDA agencies at the local level (NRCS, Agricultural Stabilization
and Conservation Service, Forest Service)
• Other Federal agencies (e.g., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S.
Geological Survey [USGS], Army Corps of Engineers)
• EPA.
Local stakeholders are particularly important in targeting their local
problems. They bring knowledge and concern for specific
waterbodies to the forefront. They serve as organizers in the area
and keep interest alive and active. They are also effective in
educating friends, neighbors, and local officials and putting action on
the local, near-term agenda. Local interest and concern may, in fact,
dictate which problems are dealt with first.
2-2
-------
2. WATERSHED PROJECTS - THE BROAD ISSUES
Why te Public Support So Necessary?
Experience has shown that the degree of public education and
participation can determine the success of a watershed project.
Without public support, projects may never get past the planning
stage. Project implementation requires that local government and
citizens have ownership of the project. For example, it can be
impossible to implement best management practices (BMPs) for
nonpoint source control without the support and cooperation of
private land owners. In addition, a mid-course correction stage must
be factored into the project. That is, the public needs to be prepared
for the possibility that it may be necessary to alter or add additional
point and nonpoint source management measures, if water quality
goals are not being achieved part way through the project.
There are many ways to involve the public in watershed projects. For
example, the formation of citizen review groups and technical
committees has been shown to gain support from the diverse
interests in a watershed and to provide an accessible core group of
community leaders to keep the project going once agreements have
finally been reached.
What is the Appropriate Scale for a Watershed Project
under the Watershed Protection Approach?
One of the goals of the WPA is to produce a national set of
watershed projects that illustrate the efficacy of the approach. The
WPA does not mandate watershed size or scale. However, individual
watershed projects should be larger than research or demonstration
scale. Watersheds should be of sufficient size to achieve economies
of scale, take advantage of local government and technical expertise,
and be viable for long-term management (e.g., be at a scale that is
feasible as more and more watershed projects develop around the
state).
The following factors should be considered to determine an
appropriate watershed size and set boundaries for watershed projects:
• Nature and extent of the water quality problem
• Existing administrative boundaries (e.g., counties)
2-3
-------
2. WATERSHED PROJECTS - THE BROAD ISSUES
National watershed delineations-e.g., USGS Cataloging Units,
NRCS watersheds
Ecoregion boundaries-units reflecting homogeneous ecological
systems, derived from analyses of such environmental factors as
topography, land use, potential natural vegetation, and soils; the
coterminous U.S. has 76 ecoregions (Omernik, 1986)
Water quality model limitations.
How are Watersheds Delineated?
Watersheds are delineated in a number of ways. Many states set
watershed boundaries for planning purposes, and local governments
or land management agencies may also delineate watersheds. Finally,
concerned citizens or environmental groups may delineate a
watershed of particular interest to them.
States-Several states have formally delineated their watersheds for
planning purposes. Oklahoma has delineated approximately 300
watersheds, covering the entire State, for nonpoint source planning
purposes. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has
delineated 330 watersheds for nonpoint source planning. The Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency has divided the state into 93
"sub-basins" or component watersheds of roughly county size to
match county-level water quality efforts by the NRCS and others.
Within these sub-basins are approximately 1,000 watersheds at the
level of fairly small streams.
North Carolina's Division of Environmental Management has
delineated 17 river basins containing 135 sub-basin watersheds which
average 250,000 acres in size. Figure 2-1 shows the sub-basins in
the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Currently, the basin is the unit for
development of management plans on a 5-year, rotating cycle. The
state is moving toward the targeting of controls on a sub-basin or
watershed level; for example, in the Tar-Pamlico Basin, special data
collection and modeling are under way by sub-basin to support point
source/nonpoint source trading of nutrient loads.
Other agencies-Land management agencies such as NRCS, U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and National Park
Service also delineate watersheds. For example, in Virginia, the
NRCS has delineated approximately 500 "hydrologic units" averaging
53,000 acres in size for nonpoint source planning purposes.
Boundaries are related loosely to prior Soil Conservation Service (now
NRCS) watersheds and are subsets of USGS Cataloging Units. South
2-4
-------
2. WATERSHED PROJECTS - THE BROAD ISSUES
CO
CO
CO
I
a
o
a
CO
.<£
•o
CD
O
c
*3>
CD
GO
1
oc
I
<5
0)
£
CM
O)
il
2-5
-------
2. WATERSHED PROJECTS - THE BROAD ISSUES
Carolina has used NRCS Conservation Needs Inventory watersheds in
delineating its 305(b) waterbodies. The state contains approximately
320 NRCS watersheds.
Local government and citizens-Local governments, with the help of
citizens, also delineate watersheds in order to mobilize resources and
focus attention on particular problems. In the Anacostia River Basin,
Maryland, the District of Columbia, and local agencies have selected
nine "priority sub-watersheds" for special management attention. For
each, a sub-watershed action plan is prepared as a blueprint for
restoration activities that are unique to the ecological needs of the
area (see Restoration Accomplishments in Appendix A). In Virginia,
the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act authorizes the establishment of
local boards that can identify watersheds as preservation areas. State
agencies and programs can then be tapped to help local governments
implement preservation plans.
How are Watersheds Ranked arid Targeted?
Watersheds may be ranked and targeted for attention and action
according to a number of criteria. These criteria may differ from state
to state, local government to local government, and citizen group to
citizen group. Most states use some type of formal process for
prioritizing their waterbodies or watersheds. The following criteria
(adapted from Adler and Smolen, 1989) are especially appropriate to
the example waterbody ranking/watershed targeting process depicted
in Figure 2-2:
• Severity or risk of impairment-Typically, the degree of impairment
of designated uses as reported in state 305(b) reports or as
determined through public input. This ranking criterion can ensure
that waters most ecologically damaged, sensitive, or at risk get
special consideration in the decision process.
• Ecological value--This ranking criterion can ensure that waters of
special ecological value get special consideration in the decision
process. These waters might include cold water fisheries, primary
nursery areas, and outstanding resource waters.
• Resource value to the public-Many ranking systems assign high
value to waters designated as public water supplies and
recreational waters. This criterion ensures that waters most
valued by the public or having the potential for public use receive
consideration. Public support helps ensure funding and may
indicate citizens' willingness to push for control efforts.
2-6
-------
2. WATERSHED PROJECTS • THE BROAD ISSUES
o
1
cc
2
oc
0.
TECHNICAL;
PROFESSIONAL INPUT
Best Professional
Judgment (BPJ)
Ambient chemical
data
BPJ
NPDES data
Biological/habitat
data
Human health
risk data
Groundwater data —
Drinking water
compliance
Priority lists from
other programs
Develop Ranking
Method
Data Gathering
and Analysis
(Inciuding Assessment
of Use Support)
Waterbody
Ranking/Priority Lists
«-«,« .MD. ,T
OTHER INPUT
Experience in
other States
Public input
(public meetings,
committees,
questionnaires)
o
o
oc
Hydrology
Landforms
Ecoregions
Function and value
of resource
Implernentability
of controls
Degree of
pollution reduction
Site-specific data —
Delineate
Watersheds
Target Selected
Watersheds
Watershed modeling —
Target Sites within
a Watershed for Controls
Hydrologic
boundaries
Administrative
boundaries
Institutional
strengths,
authority, interest
of local agencies
Private funding of
controls
Public funding/
incentives
Local regulations/
support
Source: EPA, 1993a
Figure 2-2. A waterbody ranking/watershed targeting process.
2-7
-------
2. WATERSHED PROJECTS - THE BROAD ISSUES
• Data availability and quality-Rather than make water quality
judgments based on insufficient information, some states establish
minimum data requirements.
Even watersheds that rank high according to the above criteria may
not be the most suitable for intensive management efforts. A number
of other factors are pertinent to targeting watersheds based on the
ability to implement effective controls. These criteria include:
• Resolvability of the problem-ability of existing management tools
(e.g., BMPs) to solve the water quality problem expeditiously
• Institutional feasibility-whether institutional arrangements are
sufficient to put these tools in place (e.g., local governments have
authority to pass needed ordinances)
• Legal mandates-court-ordered TMDLs, for example, may propel
watersheds to the top of statewide priority lists
• State financial and human resources-availability of state resources
for multiple watershed projects while still meeting regulatory
obligations
• Local financial and human resources-availability of funding or
skilled personnel from various agencies. These resources may
take the form of technical and management expertise or payments
for controls to carry out a watershed management plan.
For further information on ranking and targeting approaches, see
Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples (EPA, 1993a).
1$ Watershed Planning Suitable where Ground Water
Contamination is a Major Concern?
Ground water concerns are important in nonpoint source watershed
projects around the country. The Clean Water Act discourages
nonpoint source controls that protect surface waters at the expense
of ground water. Watershed projects can be a good mechanism for
taking into account all possible impacts on surface and ground water
resources.
In some areas, ground water/surface water interactions are highly
complex and may alter or preclude the delineation of watershed
boundaries. For example, in karstland (limestone and dolomite terrain
with sinkholes, subsurface streams, and caverns), ground water may
discharge well beyond apparent watershed boundaries that are based
2-8
-------
2. WATERSHED PROJECTS - THE BROAD ISSUES
on topography. Point source or nonpoint source controls that change
surface water quality in one area may actually have greater impact on
the ground water and surface water of areas quite a distance away.
Similarly, glaciated areas in the Northern United States and highly arid
areas in the Southwest can have complex surface/ground water
hydrology.
In such areas, agencies should carefully consider whether planning
units should be watersheds (perhaps large watersheds) or
administrative units such as counties or regions. In some cases, a
dual approach with separate surface and subsurface water resource
delineations may be appropriate. Surface/ground water interactions
should be understood and factored into all aspects of a watershed
project.
How do We Measure the Success of a Watershed
Project?
It is not always easy to document or measure the success of a
watershed project. Watersheds are dynamic systems that require
years to restore equilibrium after controls are implemented, and
monitoring for environmental success is technically difficult and
resource intensive. Nonetheless, we want to know if water quality
has improved or if fish populations have grown in abundance or
diversity in a relatively short time period. Recognition of the time
involved in measuring success is as important as determining what
conditions will represent success. Fortunately, some institutional and
programmatic measures of success require less time to show results
than direct environmental measures. For example, tracking the
number of stream miles monitored, the number of facilities installing
BMPs, or the number of municipalities enacting zoning ordinances can
indicate short-term progress toward long-term goals. Chapter 6 of
this document discusses goals and environmental indicators for
watershed projects.
2-9
-------
-------
3. «=• PMPMTS OF A SUCCESSFUL WATERSHED PROJECT
CHAPTER 3
ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL WATERSHED PROJECT
The remainder of this document discusses concepts and a logical
framework for planning and implementing a watershed Project.
Figure 3-1 groups the many activities of a successful project into
major topics or elements:
• Building a Project Team and Public Support-developing effective
institutional arrangements and local ownership of the project
(Chapter 4)
• Defining the Problem-developing an inventory of the watershed
and its problems and conducting baseline monitoring (Chapter 5)
• Setting Goals and Identifying Solutions-developing project goals, a
list of management measures, and a detailed plan for their
implementation (Chapter 6)
• Implementing Controls-obtaining funding, securing commitments,
and installing controls (Chapter 7)
• Measuring Success and Making Adjustments-documenting
success in meeting goals, monitoring, changing management
measures as needed, and ensuring project continuity (Chapter 8).
Figure 3-1 is intended to show that the elements of a successful
project are interconnected and that each element is important, not
that they must occur in a particular order.
Figure 3-2 is an expanded version of the previous figure, and lists the
individual activities that are discussed in the remaining chapters of
this report. The goal for the remaining chapters is to provide insight
into similarities among watershed projects. Of course^ach
watershed has its own specific problems, and management act v.ties
must be tailored to meet these needs. Some of the lessons learned m
earlier projects will be useful to future watershed managers and the
public.
-------
3. ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL WATERSHED PROJECT
Defining
the Problem
Setting Goals
and
Identifying
Solutions
Educating
and involving
the Public
Measuring
Success
and Making
Adjustments
Implementing
Controls
Figure 3-1. Some elements of a successful watershed project.
3-2
-------
3. ELEMENTS OF A SUCCESSFUL WATERSHED PROJECT
• Develop an inventory of
the watershed
• Monitor baseline water quality
• Decide to take action
Defining
the Problem
Building a
Project Team
and Public
Support
Identify environmental indicators
and programmatic measures
' Set project goals
' Agree on critical actions
»Protect critical areas
»Select point source controls
and nonpoint source
management practices
»Target and schedule controls
»Prepare a watershed action plan
Setting Goals
and
identifying
Solutions
Identify and involve stakeholders
• Build an effective institutional
framework |
• Educate stakeholders and the
general public
Measuring
Success
and Making
Adjustments
• Document success in
administrative goals
• Conduct ambient monitoring
for environmental results
• Make mid-course corrections
• Ensure long-term
maintenance
Implementing
Controls
• Obtain funding
• Provide incentives
• Secure commitments
• Design and install site-specific
controls
• Inspect BMP and other
controls
Figure 3-2. Elements of a successful watershed project showing individual activities.
3-3
-------
-------
CHAPTER 4
BUILDING A PROJECT TEAM AND PUBLIC SUPPORT
Defining
the Problem
Setting Goals
and Identifying
Solutions
Building a
Project Team
and Public
Support
Identify and involve stakeholders
• Build an effective institutional
framework |
»Educate stakeholders and the
general public
Measuring
Success
and Making
Adjustments
Implementing
Controls
Identify and Involve Stakehofdei*
Successful watershed projects bring together the public, citizen
groups, researchers, and government agencies with an interest in the
watershed and the project's outcome. Some representatives may
have a special interest in protecting water resources, others in
enhancing the socioeconomic aspects of quality of life (e.g., jobs,
businesses, tourism).
-------
4. BUILDING A PROJECT TEAM AND PUBLIC SUPPORT
Such a broad base of stakeholders creates a team that combines the
expertise, authority, and interests of each organization. This can be
especially important later in the project when help and cooperation are
needed from several agencies or when gray areas of jurisdiction arise
in which no agency has clear authority. Also, some critical
management steps may rely on voluntary programs or may require
mobilization of broad public support to secure funding.
The use of committees can be effective in involving stakeholders and
providing the project team with valuable information. Citizen advisory
committees may include representatives from local business groups,
environmental groups, recreational organizations, and landowners
associations. Representatives from government agencies, colleges,
and universities, as well as other local experts may serve on technical
committees (Brichford and Smolen, 1990). Citizen monitoring groups
may form to involve local students, teachers, and outdoors-oriented
people in gathering useful data and identifying problems.
Highlight 2 describes efforts to locate stakeholders in Puget Sound
watersheds. Highlight 3 lists the stakeholders in the innovative
Anacostia River Restoration Project.
Build an Effective Institutional Framework
A common theme among successful watershed projects is involving
personnel from multiple organizations in a decisionmaking role
throughout the life of the project. However, just as watersheds
exhibit different water quality problems, the structure that evolves to
manage watershed projects can vary significantly. For example,
project administration may be centralized, as in a state water quality
agency, or run at the local level with the support of state or federal
agencies. Institutional arrangements may be highly formalized or may
depend more on informal networks of citizens and local officials to
ensure coordination.
Figure 4-1 shows a type of administrative structure that has been
used in some watershed projects and National Estuary Program
projects. This is presented as an example, and is by no means the
structure of choice for every watershed or every state. The main
decisionmaking body, referred to in Figure 4-1 as the oversight
committee, has overall responsibility for the success of the project,
for administrative matters, and for coordination with the lead agency.
The lead agency, typically the state water quality agency or a local
organization, may maintain ultimate authority to approve the plans
and recommendations of the oversight committee.
4-2
-------
4. BUILDING A PROJECT TEAM AND PUBLIC SUPPORT
Oversight Committee
Potential Members:
• State officials
• Planning organizations
• City/county officials
• Soil and Water Conser-
vation District (SWCD)
• Citizens
• Industry representatives
Duties:
• Administer funds
• Make decisions
• Approve work
and contracts
• Approve action plan
Project Manager
Skills:
• Coordination
• Organization
• Interpersonal
• Writing and speaking
Duties:
• Coordinate project
• Monitor progress
• Manage contracts
• Write reports
Technical Committee
Potential Members:
• Federal and State
staff (water quality,
agriculture, health, etc.)
• SWCD
• Researchers, teachers
• Industry experts
Duties:
• Identify problems
• Identify goals
• Develop control
strategy
Citizens Cororoftt00
Potential Members:
• Interest groups
• Property owners
• Recreational clubs
• NPDES permittees
Duties:
• Identify problems
• Identify goals
• Educate public
• Review/approve
action plan
Project Components
Source: Adapted from Brichford and Smolen, 1990.
Figure 4-1. Example administrative structure of a watershed project.
4-3
-------
4. BUILDING A PROJECT TEAM AND PUBLIC SUPPORT
Highlight 2
Puget Sound Watershed Planning
Local Watershed Management Committees form the backbone of
efforts to protect Puget Sound in the State of Washington from
nonpoint source pollution. One of the first lessons learned from
these committees follows.
Finding "Affected Parties" (Stakeholders)
Affected parties can be determined by considering the point and
nonpoint sources and beneficial uses in each watershed. Each
source, from agriculture to septic systems, and each resource,
from salmon to shellfish, is important to certain citizens and
professionals. These individuals often have enough interest to
participate in the watershed planning process. It is often helpful to
work through existing organizations-^ dairy group, a board of
realtors, or an environmental organization-to identify potential
members.
"To balance out our committee so that it wasn't all agency
people/ explains Becky Peterson, project manager of the Silver
Creek early action watershed in Whatcom County, "we invited all
the property owners within the watershed to participate by
attending an initial meeting. At the meeting we decided to break
this group into three smaller groups-businesses that were located
in the watershed, farms in the watershed, and citizens' groups.
Then the members of these three groups chose who they wanted
on the committee. I think it was a good way for the residents to
feel they were being adequately represented,"
Source: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1991.
In addition to local, state, and federal agency representatives, the
oversight committee's membership should include a broader
population of stakeholders-environmental groups, business groups, or
other nongovernmental organizations (NGOs)-that are interested in
the ecosystem. Committee size should represent a balance between
the need for expertise and community representation and the need to
have a manageable group.
The project manager coordinates and monitors all project activities
and is critical to a smoothly running and focused project. The
manager is responsible to the oversight committee and/or lead agency
4-4
-------
4. BUILDING A PROJECT TEAM AND PUBLIC SUPPORT
Highlight 3
The Anacostia River Restoration Project
The Anacostia River Restoration Project is featured in highlights
throughout this document because it illustrates many of the
principles being encouraged under EPA's Watershed Protection
Approach,
Background
The Anacostia River is a tributary to the Potomac River and has a
watershed of about 150 square mites, The watershed has a
variety of pollution and habitat modification problems. Starting in
the 1930s, construction projects along the Capitol Mall and
Washington's central business district transferred much of the
surface drainage of the Tiber River to the Anacostia. This created
a substantial combined sewer overflow (CSO) problem on the
tower, tidal portions of the river, tn addition, approximately 75
percent of the Anacostia watershed's forest cover has been
removed for urban development and agriculture, resulting in high
stormwater flows and pollutant loadings.
From an early date, the Anacostia was targeted by Maryland as a
Critical Area under the Chesapeake Bay program. With impetus
from this program, the Anacostia Restoration Agreement was
signed in 1987. The four principal signatories were the State of
Maryland, Maryland's Montgomery and Prince George's Counties,
and the District of Columbia.
Stakeholders
The Anacostia River Restoration Committee, the main oversight
committee, consists of representatives from the signatory
agencies:
District of Columbia Department of Public Works
District of Columbia Department of Consumer and
Regulatory Affairs
Prince George's County Department of Environmental
Regulation
Montgomery County Department of Environmental Programs
Maryland Department of Natural Resources
Maryland Department of the Environment.
L
(continued)
4-5
-------
4. BUILDING A PROJECT TEAM AND PUBLIC SUPPORT
(continued)
Other stakeholders and participants include:
Izaac Walton League
Anacostia Watershed Society
Alliance for Chesapeake Bay
U,S. Army Corps of Engineers
Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission
National Park Service
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
Metropolitan Council of Governments
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Source: Anacostia Restoration Team, t991.
for tracking project expenditures and funding requests and for
producing project documents such as watershed action plans and the
final project report. The roles of the lead agency, committees, project
manager, and staff can be formalized so that all participants know
what to expect. See Appendix B for an example protocol of
participants' functions and responsibilities from a Puget Sound
watershed project.
Another reason for the type of institutional framework shown in
Figure 4-1 is that watershed projects often do not follow a neat
"command and control" organizational structure. Reaching agreement
often requires consensus-that is, each participant agrees with the
group decision or at least agrees to support the group decision--or
negotiating a constructive compromise position. The following was
written about lake management in New York State, but applies to
watershed management in general:
No one governmental entity has absolute power over lake
management. This situation has its benefits and drawbacks.
On the plus side of the ledger, every organization and
constituency has some say over decisions which affect the
lake and its watershed. The structure is disseminated and
hence "democratic. " On the other hand, it seems that
decisions could be made more efficiently if each lake and its
watershed had one omnipotent management agency...
One fact is clear, government agencies seem to be quite
capable of making decisions on issues where there is little
disagreement between the major constituencies. If the land
developers, the fishermen, the hotel owners, the lakeshore
property owners, the academics and the elected officials all are
4-6
-------
either neutral or on the same side of an issue, then the only
problem will be how to finance it. When constituencies
disagree, the government decision process often breaks down
(New York Federation of Lake Associations, 1990).
The Watershed Protection Approach emphasizes finding solutions by
bringing the constituencies together in a long-standing commitment to
succeed.
Educate Stakeholders and the General Public
The purpose of education in a watershed project is to increase
awareness of the natural system and of problems in the watershed
and, where necessary, to elicit behavior changes in particular groups.
Behavior changes by developers, farmers, loggers, municipal and
industrial permittees, local officials, and other groups are often crucial
to successful watershed projects.
Education helps everyone living or working in a watershed understand
the relative contributions of different types of pollution sources. For
example, in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuary drainage in North Carolina,
the public initially perceived that toxicants from point sources were
the major water quality problem. However, monitoring data and
professional judgement indicated that nutrients were the primary
cause of problems in the region. Highlight 4 describes a series of
workshops in the Stillaguamish Watershed, Washington to educate
the public about types of nonpoint sources. Further examples of
public education programs are available (EPA, 1989).
Effective education and public involvement lead to workable and long-
lasting answers to watershed problems-answers that are arrived at
through a process that goes well beyond the one-way communication
of the traditional public hearing approach. For these reasons,
watershed projects should have explicit plans for involving and
educating the public (Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1991).
A public education program is a set of activities, often with a specific
purpose and a target audience. Effective education programs address
each target audience in terms that are meaningful to that audience.
Key target audiences include:
• Oversight and citizen advisory committee members
• Local elected officials
• State and local agencies
• Agencies providing incentives
• Corporate and land use interests
4-7
-------
4. BUILDING A PROJECT TEAM AND PUBLIC SUPPORT
Highlight 4
Public Workshops in the Stillaguamish Watershed,
Washington
To help Snohomish County develop plans for reducing pollution in
the Stillaguamish Watershed and Warm Beach area, the county
held a series of workshops in May 1088. The purpose of the
workshops was to educate the public about the four types of
nonpoint sources that had been identified by citizen groups as most
important and to form workgroups to draft text for the Watershed
Plan. The workshops were:
Workshop 1-Septic Systems and Household Waste:
Impacts on Water Quality in the Watershed
Workshop 2~Ao,riculturaJ Practices: Challenges and
Solutions
Workshop 3-Forestry Practices in the Watershed:
Historical and Future Perspectives
Workshop 4-Oevelopment and Storrnwater Runoff:
Impacts on Water Quality in the Watershed,
Source: Cole et al., 1990
• Trade associations
• Environmental groups
• News media.
Timing is an important factor in designing a public education program.
Early in the watershed project, emphasis should be put on informing
everyone about existing pollution problems and the nature of the
upcoming planning process. Later in the project, emphasis should
shift to the implications of different control strategies, actions, or
BMPs expected of each target audience, and how success will be
measured. Throughout the process, project accomplishments should
be reported so that support and enthusiasm for the project are
maintained.
In addition to the audiences mentioned above, a project team may
wish to cultivate an environmental ethic in target audiences that can
affect policy well into the future. These long-term audiences include
schoolchildren, teachers, and civic organizations. The project team
4-8
-------
4. BUILDING A PROJECT TEAM AND PUBLIC SUPPORT
must decide how to divide resources for education among the
different types of audiences.
Some tried-and-true methods of public education include:
• Newsletters, brochures
• Mass media
• Demonstration sites such as model farms
• Signs
• Meetings, workshops, and field trips
• Self-completed checklists or inventories
• Onsite technical assistance, inspections, or inventories
• Citizens monitoring programs
• Contests
• Training and certification programs.
To help prepare for education of the public, it may be helpful to
develop a list of target audiences, behaviors to be changed, groups or
entities most respected by each target audience, and a strategy for
how to approach these groups and work cooperatively with them.
4-9
-------
-------
5. DEFINING THE PROBLEM
CHAPTER 5
DEFINING THE PROBLEM
1 Develop an inventory of
the watershed
' Monitor baseline water quality
> Decide to take action
Defining
the Problem
Setting Goals
and Identifying
Solutions
Building a
Project Team
and Public
Support
Measuring
Success
and Making
Adjustments
Implementing
Controls
This chapter discusses the process of gathering available information
about the watershed and it's water quality problems. Preparing an
inventory of the watershed and starting a baseline monitoring program
are usually critical to the ultimate success of a project.
Develop an inventory of the Watershed
An inventory of the watershed helps ensure that project team
members have a consistent knowledge base and helps focus their
attention on the most significant problems or ecosystem threats.
5-1
-------
5. DEFINING THE PROBLEM
The inventory and assessment of baseline conditions and water
quality problems is sometimes documented in a watershed
assessment report; an example format is shown in Figure 5-1. This
report provides direct input to the goal-setting process and to
preparation of a watershed action plan, discussed in Chapter 6.
Prior to beginning a watershed assessment report, writers should
ensure that the product will be compatible with statewide databases
and basin plans in both format and approach. For example, data
analysis methods for assessing designated use support should follow
methods used by the state for their biennial reports under CWA
Section 305(b). Where possible, databases and hard copy reports
should be suitable for inclusion in statewide or basinwide assessment
databases and reports. State 305(b) Coordinators are often the key
contacts for ensuring this type of compatibility.
Background Information on the Watershed
Most watershed projects are selected based on some type of
geographic targeting, so considerable information about the resource
and its problems usually exists. For example, water quality data on at
least a portion of each watershed are needed to develop waterbody
rankings. At the point when watersheds are targeted, information
such as the following is often available from state Section 305(b)
reports, State Waterbody System databases, and other public
sources:
• Sizes, locations and designated uses of all waterbodies
• Waterbodies having impaired use support
• Causes of impairment (e.g., pollutants, habitat limitations)
• Physical/chemical and biological water quality
• Locations and loadings from point sources
• Categories of nonpoint sources and estimates of loadings
• Groundwater quality
• Sources impacting groundwater
• Fish and wildlife surveys
• Topographic and hydrologic maps
• Crude land use maps.
Such readily available data can be supplemented by other data types
needed for the critical steps to follow-goal-setting and selection of
point and nonpoint source management measures:
• Detailed soil survey
• Locations of highly credible soils
• Locations of critical riparian areas
• Locations of critical instream habitat areas
• Locations of sensitive ground water areas (e.g., recharge zones)
• Demographics and growth projections
• Economic conditions-e.g., income, employment
5-2
-------
5. DEFINING THE PROBLEM
Watershed Description
A. Name, size, administrative boundaries
B. Geographic locators-Federal or State identification
numbers
C. Maps
I. Physical Characteristics
A. Geology, topography,
B. Soils
C. Land use/land cover
D. Ecoregion(s)
E. Hydrology
III. Critical Areas
A. Surface water
- waters with endangered or threatened species
- critical fishery areas, outstanding resource waters
- critical riparian and instream habitat
- water supplies
B. Ground water
- water supplies
- recharge areas
- springs, other vulnerable areas
IV. Water Quality
A. Designated uses and use support
B. Watershed's water quality problems
- physical/chemical
- biological
- habitat (including flow needs)
- other problems or sources of stress
IV. Point and Nonpoint Sources
A. Point source locations, loadings (if applicable)
B Nonpoint source locations, loadings (if applicable)
C. Control measures in place-types, locations, effectiveness
V. Information Needs
A. Baseline monitoring program
B. Other data gaps
C. Information management systems
Figure 5-1. Topics for a watershed assessment report.
5-3
-------
5. DEFINING THE PROBLEM
• Detailed existing and projected land use
• Locations and sizes of animal operations
• Locations of nonpoint source controls.
Sources for these data include state surface and ground water
databases and reports, local agency reports, state or local geographic
information system (CIS) databases, and aerial photography. NRCS
Field Office Technical Guides (county level) are excellent sources of
information on soils, water, plants, animals, nonpoint source BMPs
and other topics. Contact the NRCS Midwest National Technical
Center at (402) 437-5315 for more information.
Finally, and of great importance, decisionmakers and project staff
should conduct a first-hand survey of the watershed-walking along
streams to observe overall ecosystem health and driving around the
watershed or flying over it to observe land uses and sources of
pollution. During these forays, technical experts can describe to
decisionmakers the impacts of traditional pollutants (e.g., sediments
and nutrients) and of nontraditional stressors (habitat loss, bank
erosion).
Problem Statement
Whether or not a watershed assessment report is written, a detailed
statement of the watershed's water quality problems may be essential
to the ultimate success of the project. Types of problems frequently
identified in watershed projects include:
• Excessive sediment or nutrients reaching sensitive waterbodies
• Reduced fish harvest
• Reduced anadromous fish spawning range
• High stream temperatures
• Riparian habitat damage by timber harvests
• Nitrate contamination of ground water.
The problem statement may include more problems than were
identified in the statewide priority-setting process. For example, a
watershed may be selected on the basis of a high priority for TMDL
development because of nutrient enrichment of an estuary; upon more
detailed study, ground water contamination and loss of riparian
habitat may also become key issues.
A problem statement, agreed to by the various stakeholders, begins
to merge their interests and helps to focus upcoming monitoring
activities. The statement includes information about the type and
location of threatened or existing water use impairments, pollutants,
and sources, as well as economic impacts associated with the water
quality problem. Problem statements may be developed for individual
sub-watersheds if plans will be written at that scale.
5-4
-------
5. DEFINING THE PROBLEM
Sequim Bay's Solution to Problem Identification
"Rather than spend our time evaluating traditional sources of
nonpoint pollution, our watershed management committee focused
on goals and objectives," reports Katherine Baril, project manager
of the Sequim Bay Water Quality Project. This allowed us to
avoid the traditional-and perhaps more adversarial-methods of
analysis originally used to evaluate industrial sources of pollution,
"In this way, we could begin to look at common contributors and
common solutions. For example, instead of looking at agriculture
or forestry as a problem to be fixed, we recognized that all sectors
of the community were potential contributors of bacteriar sediment
and other forms of nonpoint pollution. At the same time, we
realized that there were certain things we all wanted-viable
industries, open space, and good stewardship in our watershed."
At this stage, it may not be necessary to quantify pollutant loadings
from specific sources. To keep momentum, the stakeholders might
do better to agree that multiple sources contribute to the problems
rather than focusing blame on one or two sources (see Highlight 5,
Sequim Bay, Washington).
Table 5-1 summarizes pollutants or stressors that may cause
watershed impairments and their most likely sources (adapted from
EPA, 1987). Nontraditional stressors such as habitat loss are not as
well documented as chemical pollutants, but are the subject of recent
investigations. See, for example, Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems:
Science, Technology, and Public Policy (National Research Council,
1992) and Entering the Watershed (Doppelt et al., 1993).
Monitor Baseline Water Quality
Lack of baseline water quality data has been a problem in past
watershed projects. If adequate data are not collected prior to
implementation of a watershed action plan, the project team may be
unable to document the improvements that result from controls or
restoration. Therefore, baseline monitoring should begin during the
early planning and goal-setting process.
5-5
-------
5. DEFINING THE PROBLEM
Table 5-1. Sources and Causes of Water Quality Impairment
Pollutant or stressor
Possible sources
Sediment
Cropland
Forestry activities
Pasture
Streambanks
Construction activities
Roads
Mining operations
Gullies
Livestock operations
Other land-disturbing activities
Nutrients
Erosion and runoff from fertilized areas
Urban runoff
Wastewater treatment plants
Industrial discharges
Septic systems
Animal production operations
Cropland or pastures where manure is spread
Bacteria
Animal operations
Cropland or pastures where manure is spread
Wastewater treatment plants
Septic systems
Urban runoff
Wildlife
Pesticides
All land where pesticides are used (forest, pastures,
urban/suburban areas, golf courses, waste disposal sites)
Sites of historical usage (chlorinated pesticides)
Urban runoff
Irrigation return flows
Altered flow regime
or habitat
modification
Impoundments
Urban runoff
Artificial drainage
Bank destruction
Riparian corridor destruction
5-6
-------
5. DEFINING THE PROBLEM
If possible, a water quality monitoring program should extend through
the life of the project in a continuum that includes:
• Baseline monitoring to show water quality conditions prior to
implementation of controls
• Interim and post-implementation monitoring to show effectiveness
of individual controls and the overall watershed project.
Baseline monitoring programs are watershed-specific, and involve
principles of monitoring design that are discussed in various texts and
EPA publications such as:
• Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319 National
Monitoring Projects (EPA, 1991b)
• Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers
(Plafkin et al., 1989)
• Draft Surface Water Monitoring Program Guidance (EPA, 1990a)
• Monitoring Guidance for the National Estuary Program
(EPA, 1992b)
• Draft Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Evaluation Guide
(EPA, 1988)
• Methods for Evaluating Stream Riparian and Biotic Conditions
(Plattset al., 1983)
• Appropriate Designs for Documenting Water Quality Improvements
from Agricultural NPS Control Programs (Spooner et al., 1985).
In general, baseline monitoring (a) measures concentrations and
loadings of the pollutants in main stems and tributaries prior to the
implementation of controls; (b) includes biological monitoring
(typically, for fish and macroinvertebrates) and habitat assessment;
and (c) measures edge-of-field loadings in some areas where controls
will be installed.
Some baseline monitoring sites should be selected to detect
watershed-wide changes in water quality over time. Planners may
make judgments about sites that will be useful in before-and-after
analyses to show the effectiveness of controls--e.g., sites
downstream of areas where stringent point source permit limits will
be imposed or where BMPs will be installed. Before-and-after
monitoring is often effective where point sources are involved, but
can be difficult to implement for nonpoint sources. As discussed in
Highlight 6, unless planners know exact locations where nonpoint
source controls will be installed, a paired sampling approach may be
5-7
-------
5. DEFINING THE PROBLEM
Highlight (
Monitoring in the Galena River Priority Watershed Project
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources {W0NR) has
delineated 330 watersheds for its statewide nonpoint source
program. Approximately one-fifth of the watersheds are targeted
for priority watershed projects. Each of these projects includes
evaluation monitoring to assess water quality improvement.
The Galena River Priority Watershed is a 154r800-acre watershed
with largely agricultural land uses-row crops and beef and dairy
farming. Early in the project, WDNR assumed that the level of
landowner participation in BMP cost-sharing would be high and that
measuring improvements in surface waters would not be a
problem. Mainly biological data were collected at random sites
throughout the watershed prior to installation of BMPs. The plan
was to return to these same sites following BMP installation to
collect data for comparison to pre-project data,
Unfortunately, the level of landowner participation was much lower
than expected, and the original monitoring strategy was not
successful, A paired-site monitoring approach was then adopted to
ensure that the effects of BMP implementation were being
measured and to account for meteorologic and hydrologic
variability (Spooner et at., 1985). Paired monitoring sites were
selected, one on a stream with installed BMPs and the other on a
nearby stream without BMPs. The paired streams had similar
landscape, flow, gradient, temperature and habitat features.
Monitoring included water chemistry, macroinvertebrates, habitat,
and fish community sampling. In the paired sites, each type of
data indicated at least slightly better conditions at the managed
sites (downstream of BMPs} than at the unmanaged sites.
Source: Kroner et al., 1992
more effective. Paired sampling sites are selected on separate small
watersheds or catchments. Ideally, the two sites are in close
proximity and have similar land uses, drainage area, hydrology, and
other characteristics. Upstream of one paired site, however, controls
will be installed, while the other site will not receive additional
controls. Automatic samplers and flow measurement devices are
often used on both sites.
5-8
-------
5. DEFINING THE PROBLEM
Watershed project managers should coordinate all monitoring with
State-level monitoring programs, both to ensure compatibility of
methods and to take advantage of state monitoring resources. While
state agencies may not have sufficient resources to do intensive
monitoring for every watershed project, monitoring stations and
protocols may already be established under programs such as the
following:
• Fixed-station and rotating-station monitoring networks (e.g., under
a statewide watershed approach of the state water quality
agency)
• Intensive surveys developed under point source wasteload
allocation or nonpoint source programs
• Fish community sampling by the state fish and game agency.
Decide to Take Action
The project team may never be able to gather enough data to satisfy
all technical participants or to convince all stakeholders that a problem
exists. At some point the team decides to proceed with the project
based on best judgment, allowing flexibility for mid-course
corrections later on. Following are some clues that the time has come
to move on to goal-setting and developing a watershed action plan:
1. Technical experts believe that all significant problems in the
watershed are known-problems in physical/chemical water
quality, biological communities, instream and riparian habitat, and
other factors required to meet designated uses.
2. If these problems were solved, ecological integrity of aquatic
systems in the watershed could be achieved.
3. The nature of these problems is understood well enough that
environmental indicators can be chosen to track progress in
cleaning them up.
4. Sources of the problems are known or can be readily determined.
5-9
-------
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
CHAPTER 6
SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
• Identify environmental indicators
and programmatic measures
• Set project goals
• Agree on critical actions
• Protect critical areas
• Select point source controls
and nonpoint source
management practices
• Target and schedule controls
• Prepare a watershed action plan
Defining
the Problem
Setting Goals
and
identifying
Solutions
Building a
Project Team
and Public
Support
Measuring
Success
and Making
Adjustments
Implementing
Controls
This chapter describes activities that result in specific goals and
objectives for the watershed project and the selection of management
measures to achieve these goals. The end product of these activities
is usually some form of action plan for the watershed.
6-1
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Identify Environmental Indicators and Programmatic
Measures
Environmental indicators are measures that can be used to
characterize a particular watershed's condition and improvement (i.e.,
how well a watershed project is meeting its goals and objectives). By
identifying the universe of potential indicators before setting goals,
planners will ensure that no key aspect of the watershed's ecological
and human health and welfare is overlooked.
Environmental indicators can range from measures of administrative or
programmatic accomplishments (e.g., the number of TMDLs
developed or BMPs implemented) to measures of true environmental
improvements (e.g., the maintenance over a specific time period of
healthy, reproducing populations of fish, macroinvertebrates, aquatic
vegetation, and terrestrial wildlife). Agencies and the public are most
interested in direct measures of a watershed's condition; however, in
the early years of a watershed project measures usually will include a
mix of direct environmental indicators and programmatic measures.
Table 6-1 shows one way of categorizing environmental indicators,
along with examples (adapted from Urban Institute, 1992). Indicators
in Table 6-1 represent a continuum from administrative or
programmatic measures in the top row to direct measures of
ecological health in the bottom row. EPA's Office of Water is
currently working to develop a set of national environmental indicators
for human health and ecological protection.
Set Project Goals
Identify Potential Solutions for Each Type of Water Quality Problem in
the Watershed
Before setting overall project goals (discussed below), it is useful to
identify potential solutions for each type of problem identified in the
watershed. This identification of problems and solutions will facilitate
an exchange of ideas and make sure that no options are overlooked.
For example, many people are oriented toward structural controls
such as wastewater treatment systems or certain BMPs. But in
reality, comprehensive watershed protection often requires structural
BMPs combined with public education, economic incentives and, in
some cases, regulations, land use controls, or habitat restoration.
6-2
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Table 6-1. Examples of Environmental Indicators
Description of Indicator
Type or Category
Examples of Indicators
Document the extent to
which programmatic
and regulatory actions
have been taken
Number of permits reissued with new limits
Number of point sources in substantial
noncompliance
Elapsed time from identification of serious discharge
violations until correction
Number of targeted facilities/properties that have
implemented BMPs
Amount of fertilizer sold or used
Number of estuary acres monitored
Number of communities enacting zoning or
stormwater management ordinances
Number of public water systems with source water
protection
Number of public outreach activities and citizens reached
Quantify the extent to
which actions have led
to reduction in threats
to surface or ground
water quality
Reduction in nutrient loadings from each type of
point and nonpoint source
Reduction in pollutant loadings to ground water from
underground injection wells
Stability and condition of riparian vegetation
Percent imperviousness upstream
General erosion rate upstream
Amount of toxicants discharged in excess of
permitted levels
Amount discharged by spills; number of businesses and
households that have altered behaviors or processes
to reduce pollutants
Measure the extent to
which ambient water
quality has changed
Pollutant concentrations in water column,
sediments, and ground water
Frequency, extent and duration of restrictions on
water uses-bathing, drinking, fishing, shellfishing
Percent of stream miles or lake or estuary acres that
support each designated use
Percent with impaired or threatened uses
Percent of citizens who rate major waterbodies as
usable for various recreational activities
Measure direct effects
on the health of
humans, fish, other
wildlife, habitat, riparian
vegetation, and the
economy of the region
Aquatic community metrics
Reductions in waterborne disease in humans
Size of wetlands or riparian habitat lost or protected
Size of commercial and recreational fish harvest
Increased jobs and income due to recreation
6-3
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Develop Overall Project Goals
Next, the project team should develop a set of general goals reflecting
a vision of the watershed in 10 to 20 years. Each goal should be
backed by specific and quantifiable objectives that use environmental
indicators to express the degree to which pollution must be prevented
or controlled by given dates. Examples of watershed goals and
objectives include:
• Eliminate all fish consumption advisories in the watershed within
10 years
• Reduce or eliminate incidence of blue-green algal blooms in a lake:
reduce total phosphorus concentrations by 30 percent; maintain
lake transparency as measured by Secchi disk depth at a seasonal
mean of 2 feet
• Reduce edge of field sediment delivery by 50 percent and nutrient
and agrichemical use by 20 percent in the watershed (USDA
Sycamore Creek Watershed Hydrologic Unit Area [HUA],
Michigan)
• Reduce the number and levels of contaminants present in public
drinking water supplies.
• Stabilize 70 percent of the mileage of eroding stream banks in the
watershed to prevent sedimentation downstream
• Eliminate the "supporting uses but threatened" classification by
reducing sediment inputs to the main stream by 50 percent and
reducing nitrogen concentration from 13 to 4 mg/L (Herrings
Marsh Run Demonstration Project, North Carolina)
• Protect from degradation all remaining stream reaches with
undamaged habitat and balanced aquatic communities
• Restore habitat in specified lakes and streams so they will support
a reproducing game fish population
• Provide 100-foot riparian buffers along 20 miles of stream to
lower water temperatures, provide wildlife corridors, and increase
recreation
• Reduce the potential for nitrate and pesticide contamination of
ground water (USDA Upper Tippecanoe River Watershed HUA,
Indiana)
• Achieve biological standards for macroinvertebrates and fish in all
streams in the watershed
6-4
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
• Develop TMDLs for nitrogen, phosphorus and sediment in the
watershed.
The goals of the Anacostia River Restoration Program are shown in
Highlight 7. Highlight 8 presents selected goals and objectives from
the Klamath River Basin Restoration Program.
Set Interim Goals
Once overall project goals are determined, it is also useful to develop
a series of interim goals that will document progress at each step of
the project. The reason for establishing interim goals is that overall
water quality goals-such as major improvements in achievement of
designated use-may be impossible to document in less than 5 to 10
years (or more for larger waterbodies). In the meantime,
administrative and interim water quality goals can be used to measure
progress toward success:
Program Goals are goals for changes in the policies of agencies or
other organizations. As an example, a goal for the agency responsible
for road construction might be to require that runoff from all new
roads discharge into buffer zones or detention ponds rather than
directly to streams.
Activity Goals are those actions that will be taken by various
participants. These goals are often expressed in terms of the number
of activities to be accomplished-e.g., "the Department of Health will
conduct 3 seminars for county sanitarians on proper septic tank
installation" and "sanitarians will monitor performance of all new
septic tanks in the watershed."
BMP Goals define which pollution control measures or other
environmental improvement practices will be put in place, and where.
BMP goals can be set for structural or nonstructural measures. These
goals must relate to the pollutant or problem of concern, e.g.,
"stabilize and revegetate with native plants 3 miles of streambanks on
Washout Creek adjacent to fields planted in soybeans" is a goal for
strearnbank protection and control of sedimentation.
Interim Water Quality Goals can sometimes be set where activities
will produce improvements in the early years of the project. For
example, installation of a new wastewater treatment facility or a
change in land use may enable the rapid achievement of water quality
standards in a portion of the watershed. Similarly, removal of
instream barriers to fish passage may bring about rapid return of fish
populations.
6-5
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Highlight 7
Goals of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee
The Restoration Committee set the following goats In a 1987
agreement:
• Dramatically reduce pollutant loads in the tidal estuary to
measurably improve water quality conditions by the turn of the
century through: sewage overflow controls, urban storm water
retrofits {ponds, marshes, and filter systems), urban BMPs for
new development, and control of trash and debris.
• Protect and enhance the ecological integrity of urban Anacostia
streams to enhance aquatic diversity and provide for a quality
urban fishery through: urban stream restoration (channel and
streambank restoration) and stream protection {land use controls
and EJMPs within sensitive watersheds).
• Restore the spawning range of anadromous fish to historical
limits through removal of fish barriers and habitat improvement.
• Increase the natural filtering capacity of the watershed by
sharply increasing the acreage and quality of tidal and non-tidal
wetlands through: wetlands protection (no net loss of wetlands
in the watershed), urban wetlands restoration, and urban
wetlands creation (several hundred acres),
• Expand the range of forest cover throughout the watershed and
create a contiguous corridor of forest along the margins of its
rivers and streams through: forest protection, watershed
reforestation and riparian reforestation (10 linear miles along the
Anacostia in 3 years as a first step),
• Make the public aware of its key role in the cleanup of the river
and increase volunteer participation in watershed restoration
activities.
Source: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 1992.
6-6
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Highlight 8
Goals and Objectives of the Klamath River Basin
Restoration Program
The Klamath River Basin was once one of the most productive
anadromous fish spawning areas on the West Coast. Physical
barriers, habitat destruction, and pollutant loads have severely
damaged this important commercial and tribal fishery. The long-
range plan of the Klamath Restoration Program uses a "step-down"
approach with specific goals, objectives, and policies or project
priorities. Following is an example of a goal and a single objective
under this goal.
Goal I: Restore, by 2006, the biological productivity of the basin
in order to provide for viabte commercial and recreational
ocean fisheries and in-river tribal (subsistence,
ceremonial, and commercial) and recreational fisheries.
Objective 1: Protect stream and riparian habitat from
potential damage caused by timber harvesting and related
activities.
- Improve timber harvesting practices through local
workshops; develop habitat protection and
management standards for agency endorsement;
create a fish habitat database; view existing
regulations as minimum expectations
Contribute to evaluating the effectiveness of current
timber harvest practices through: developing an
index of habitat integrity; incorporating fish habitat
and population data into state water quality
assessments; monitoring recovery of habitat in
logged watersheds
- Promote necessary changes in regulations-State
Forestry Practice Rules; Forest Service Policies in
Land Management Plans, BMPs
- Anticipate potential problems by requesting additional
state monitoring programs and by modifying State
Forest Practice Rules and Forest Service plans to
protect highly erodible soils and give priority to
protection of unimpaired salmonid habitat.
Source: Klamath River Basin Restoration Program, 1991
6-7
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Agree oh Critical Actions
With a number of water quality problems, goals, and solutions to
choose from, and limited funds, how does one decide which actions
to take and in what order? Dealing with one source of pollution at a
time (e.g., dairy runoff or urban stormwater) may seem to be the
simplest approach, especially if the agencies and groups represented
on the project team tend to specialize in one type of land management
activity. This approach also allows easier documentation of progress
in installing controls or changing behavior. The problem is that the
"one problem at a time approach" rarely results in clean water!
Typically, when one problem is fixed, other problems masked by the
first problem become evident; the public gets disillusioned, and
support for the project evaporates.
Successful watershed projects address all key sources of pollution at
the same time. Not only does this approach make sense ecologically,
it also makes good political sense-treating all significant sources
diffuses the "blame" for pollution problems among many responsible
segments of society. Less time is wasted arguing over who is more
to blame when all agree they are part of the problem.
The project team should strive to emphasize certain problems that
present greater risk to human health and the ecological health of the
watershed. From lists of pollutants and sources and simple
calculations of pollutant loads, some sources or types of pollution may
be seen to contribute relatively high loadings of the targeted
pollutants. Review of cost data will show that some management
measures are more cost effective, and discussions with agency
professionals will show that some measures are more effective in
controlling pollutants than others.
At this point, brainstorming sessions are recommended to list "what
if" scenarios involving different control measures and to get an idea of
how one measure effects others. For example, some members of the
project team may want to require nutrient management plans of all
agricultural land owners, while missing the impact of lawn fertilization
by urban dwellers. Such brainstorming sessions can help clarify what
can be achieved without adversely affecting the community. Some
projects prove too complex or controversial at this point. However, it
is important to identify all political, social, and technical challenges
before committing any money for solutions that might never be
acceptable in a watershed.
6-8
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Predictive tools such as watershed models are also available for
estimating the relative effectiveness of watershed management
strategies (e.g., EPA, 1992c; RTI, 1994). Using all available data and
tools and professional judgments, decide upon the critical actions that
would be the most effective ways to meet each of the specific goals
of the project. Most important, ensure that the agencies, local
governments, citizen groups, and others who will be responsible for
the selected management actions are capable of and willing to
complete the actions.
Protect Critical Areas
Point and nonpoint source controls alone often may not result in
achieving a watershed's goals for ecological integrity. A high
percentage of our Nation's watersheds have experienced major
changes in land use and, consequently, aquatic habitats have been
damaged and biological communities have been compromised or lost.
Undamaged habitat and fully functioning aquatic communities may
remain in only a small number of places in a watershed —areas that
are large enough to maintain viable populations of biologically diverse
communities and small, isolated patches of habitat that are able to
support some portion of their original biological communities. These
critical areas may include headwater streams and portions of larger
streams that have been protected by land ownership but may be
subject to development pressures in the future.
Because such sources of biodiversity may provide the best hope for
repopulation of watersheds with balanced aquatic communities, the
protection of remaining critical areas or refuges should have a high
priority when implementing watershed projects. This type of
protection, which may be carried out through local land use
regulations for protecting riparian buffers and floodplains or the
purchase of conservation easements, can be more cost-effective than
solving future problems after they occur.
Some resources in a watershed may be of such importance as to
warrant special attention when implementing watershed projects.
Such resources would include public water supplies and valuable
ecosystems. Critical areas of sufficient size to adequately ensure the
integrity of important resources can be delineated and managed. For
example, source water protection areas, because they are delineated
to protect ground water and surface water sources of drinking water,
are obvious candidates for critical area designation (see Highlight 9,
Nantucket, Massachusetts).
6-9
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Highlight 9
Nantucket's Water Resource Protection Areas
In response to a variety of threats to Nantucket's water supply, the
Nantucket Land Council, a private, non-profit organization,
commissioned the development of a water resource management
plan. Activities under the plan included the delineation of 12
water resource protection areas as areas designated for priority
protection. Among these areas were wellhead protection areas for
the island's two principal public water supply wells, a larger aquifer
protection area designated as a source of future water supplies,
and the drainage areas for coastal and freshwater ponds. The
designated areas will be protected by a combination of regulatory
and non-regulatory measures, including overlay zoning districts that
regulate land uses, subdivision and wetlands regulations, on-going
water quality monitoring, and public education campaigns on the
residential use of lawn fertilizer and household chemicals.
The bibliography in Chapter 9 includes references on protecting critical
areas and on ecological restoration.
Select Point Source Controls and Nonpoint Source
Management Practices
Pollution control measures for both point sources and nonpoint
sources benefit society as a whole but often do not provide an
economic benefit to the individual or organization that installs them.
Point source dischargers are used to this situation. Selecting
management measures for nonpoint sources is apt to lead to
contention, with some arguing for the least costly methods and others
for the most effective regardless of cost. Many watershed projects
rely upon voluntary implementation of BMPs, and incentives must be
provided to encourage installation. The situation is further
complicated by the difficulty in determining which measures really are
most effective in protecting water quality.
EPA's Office of Water has prepared a major compendium of nonpoint
source controls, Guidelines Specifying Management Measures for
Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters (EPA, 1992d). This
document describes appropriate management measures and
6-10
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
management practices for each major category of nonpoint source
(agriculture, forestry, urban, etc). A management measure is an
economically achievable system of nonpoint source control practices
that reflects the greatest degree of pollutant reduction achievable.
States with coastal management programs are required to implement
these management measures; states are not required to implement
specific management practices (often called BMPs), but watershed
project teams may choose to do so. Example management measures
and practices are given in Table 6-2.
For purposes of this Project Focus document, the term BMP applies to
any type of nonpoint source management practice (structural,
nonstructural, vegetative). There is a tendency for projects to select
the most "palatable" measure (e.g., those BMPs most likely to be
implemented on a voluntary basis). Unfortunately, at the end of some
watershed projects the primary water quality problem has not been
solved even after BMP-type goals have been achieved or exceeded.
This can occur for many reasons; e.g., the water quality goal was
inappropriate; the wrong BMPs were selected; BMPs or restoration
techniques were installed in the wrong places.
Selection of BMPs is a site-specific activity and is beyond the scope
of this document. The project team should rely on its own expertise,
but should also seek advice from those who have faced these
challenges in similar watersheds. Outside expertise may be especially
important when nontraditional stressors such as aquatic habitat loss
are involved. Following are some items to consider when choosing
management practices (see also Highlight 10):
• Evaluate the land use in the watershed. Is it likely to stay the same
or change drastically because of changing economic or social
conditions?
• Realize that there are several types of management practices
including structural, vegetative, and nonstructural (e.g.,
conservation tillage). The key to effective pollution control often is
to use them in concert with education and, if appropriate,
regulation. A single type of management practice is seldom
sufficient to solve a watershed's problems.
• Consider protecting buffer zones around receiving waters as a last
line of defense between sources and waterbodies. The U.S. Forest
Service provides specifications in Riparian Forest Buffers: Function
and Design for Enhancement in Water Resources (Welsch, 1992).
A forest buffer less than 100 feet wide can protect water quality
and enhance aquatic habitat.
6-11
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
TABLE 6-2. Example Nonpoint Source Management Measures and Practices
Type of Nonpoint
Source
Example Management Measure
Corresponding Management
Practices
Confined Animal
Facilities
(small units)
Design and implement systems that collect
solids, reduce contaminant concentrations,
and reduce runoff to minimize discharge of
contaminants in both facility wastewater and
in runoff from up to a 25-year, 24-hour
storm. Reduce groundwater loadings.
Manage stored runoff and accumulated solids
through an appropriate waste utilization
system.
Waste storage ponds
Waste storage structure
Waste treatment lagoons
Sediment basins
Filter strips
Grassed waterways
Constructed wetlands
Dikes
Diversions
Heavy use area protection
Lined waterway/outlets
Roof management systems
Terraces
Composting facility
Forestry
Streamside Management Areas (SMAs)
Establish and maintain a streamside
management area along surface waters,
which is sufficiently wide and which includes
a sufficient number of canopy species to
buffer against detrimental changes in the
temperature regime of the waterbody, to
provide bank stability, and to withstand wind
damage. Manage the SMA in such a way as
to protect against soil disturbance in the SMA
and delivery to the stream of sediments and
nutrients generated by forestry activities,
including harvesting. Manage the SMA
canopy species to provide a sustainable
source of large woody debris needed for
instream channel structure and aquatic
species habitat.
Generally, SMAs should have
a minimum width of 35 to
50 feet, increasing according
to site-specific factors (e.g.,
slope, class of watercourse,
depth to water table, type of
soil and vegetation, and
intensity of management)
Minimize disturbances that
would expose the mineral
soil of the forest floor. Do
not operate skidders or other
heavy machinery in SMA
Locate all landings, sawmills,
and roads outside the SMA
Restrict mechanical site
preparation in the SMA; en-
courage natural revegetation,
seeding, and handplanting
Limit pesticide and fertilizer
usage in the SMA. Buffers
for pesticide application
should be established for all
flowing streams
Directionally fell trees away
from streams to prevent
slash and organic debris
from entering the waterbody
Apply harvesting restrictions
in the SMA to maintain its
integrity
6-12
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Type Of Nonpoint
Source
Example Management Measure
Agricultural Land
(cropland, range and
pasture, orchards,
specialty crops, etc.)
Erosion and Sediment Control Management
Measure
Apply the erosion component of a
Conservation Management System (CMS) as
defined in the Field Office Technical Guide of
the U.S. Department of Agriculture - Soil
Conservation Service (see Appendix 2A of
this chapter) to minimize the delivery of
sediment from agricultural lands to surface
waters, or
Design and install a combination of
management and physical practices to settle
the settleable solids and associated pollutants
in runoff delivered from the contributing area
for storms of up to and including a 10-year,
24-hour frequency.
(See EPA, 1992d for detailed
descriptions of these)
• Conservation cover on land
retired from production
• Conservation cropping
sequence
• Conservation tillage
• Contour farming
• Contour orchard and other
fruit area
• Cover and green manure
crop
• Critical area planting on
highly erodible or critically
eroding areas
• Crop residue use to protect
cultivated fields during
critical erosion periods
• Delayed seed bed
preparation
• Diversion
• Field border
• Filter strip
• Grade stabilization structure
• Grassed waterway
• Grasses and legumes in
rotation
• Sediment basins
• Contour stripcropping
• Field strip-cropping
• Terrace
• Water sediment control basin
• Wetland and riparian zone
protection
Source: EPA, 1992d
6-13
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Highlight 10
Watershed-wide Controls In the Anacostia
Water quality problems in the Anacostia are attributed to urban
sources such as combined sewer overflows, stormwater runoff,
and erosion from construction sites, tn addition, widespread
habitat destruction has occurred due to increased peak flow rates,
channelization, sedimentation, and barriers to fish movement.
Efforts in the first few years of the Anacostia Restoration Program
have focused on beginning improvements in nine priority sub-
watersheds. Within each priority sub-watershed, a Sub-watershed
Action Plan (SWAP) is prepared as a blueprint for restoration
activities, SWAPs are prepared with input and participation of all
local, State, and Federal agencies with an interest in the sub-
watershed, and each plan is unique.
SWAPs typically detail the locations and timing of a combination of
measures-retrofitting of urban stormwater controls to modern
designs that reduce pollutant loads, improvements to instream
habitat, and restoration of wetlands or riparian buffers. Early
projects in sub-watersheds are described below:
Sligo Creek Sub-watershed (Wheaton Branch)-construct an
extended detention pond/marsh system to remove pollutants and
reduce magnitude of destructive flood events. Downstream,
stabilize banks and create structural habitat instream using
boulders, notched log drop structures to create pools, stone wing
deflectors to create riffles; also, reforest the ffoodplain.
Indian Creek Sub-watershed-retrofit an existing dry stormwater
facility to create a dry, extended detention facility to control runoff
from 1.65 square miles.
Paint Branch Sub-watershed-Restore the mainstem portion of Paint
Branch including riparian reforestation and a series of in-stream fish
habitat improvements, initially involving 2000 linear feet of stream.
Sources:
1990
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments,
6-14
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Review published information about BMP design, installation, and
effectiveness and obtain help from technical experts on the project
team. See the bibliography in Chapter 9 for sources of information.
Also refer to SCS Field Office Technical Guides (county-level) for
watershed-specific information.
Prioritize the measures available for each source and
pollutant/stressor and decide which should be implemented first.
This decision should be based on the estimated water quality
effectiveness of the measure as well as its cost.
Select priority BMPs and other measures for each source and
pollutant/stressor of concern in the watershed so that they may be
installed simultaneously.
Consider innovative approaches that link point and nonpoint source
management, e.g., pollutant trading.
Target and Schedule Point and Nonpoint Source
Controls
This is the "heart and soul" of the developing watershed action plan.
It involves reaching agreement to implement point source controls and
nonpoint source management measures within a certain time frame.
These practices include critical BMPs and other control and restoration
practices in particular areas (e.g., near critical aquatic habitat or in
areas contributing the most pollutant loads). Management measures
also may involve seeking local ordinances or redirecting agency
resources and programs.
In this stage of the project, planners often fear that the agreements
secured from stakeholders will evaporate. However, committing to a
specific schedule is essential; allow additional negotiating time on this
step to make sure everyone involved in the project is clear and in
agreement to the extent possible.
Agencies and local government are the keys to this activity because
they must agree to focus activities and funds on discrete areas. If
agreement is difficult:
• Seek to reach consensus on at least one critical redirected action
for each agency and special interest group on the project team.
6-15
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
• Encourage early (1 year) implementation of some measures by each
responsible or designated agency or group. It is vital that the
public know "that someone is finally doing something," and it is
important that the agencies establish a precedent for action.
The project team may want to consider seeking "bad-actor"
regulations at the local level at this point. In most watershed
projects, individuals are given incentives (technical assistance, cost-
share funds, tax advantages) to install certain BMPs. If the BMPs are
not installed and it is determined by the local committee or agency
that the property is still causing a water quality problem, then bad-
actor regulations can require that fines or other penalties be assessed.
It is important to stress that watershed projects do not operate in a
vacuum; management measures should be compatible with other
water quality programs to the extent possible (e.g., statewide
watershed management efforts).
Prepare a Watershed Action Plan
A watershed action plan documents everything that has been learned
and agreed upon prior to actually implementing management
measures. The primary topics are usually the watershed inventory,
water quality problems and their sources, indicators, goals, agreed-
upon actions, a funding plan, and commitments from participating
agencies.
Some type of formal action plan is important because it clarifies for
those outside the decisionmaking process (and even for the
decisionmakers themselves) exactly what needs to be done in the
watershed and how it will be accomplished. A useful side benefit of a
plan is that affected parties (e.g., industrial dischargers, farm groups,
urban developers) see that they are not the only individuals who are
being asked to help improve water quality. Further, an action plan
demonstrates to the public and political interests that there is a broad-
based commitment to progress.
Local committees and agencies often do not have all the required
expertise to prepare watershed plans. Some states provide technical
assistance for watershed planning. Highlight 11 discusses efforts by
state and federal agencies to provide support to local watershed
committees in the State of Washington. Highlights 12 and 13 show
contents of watershed action plans from Puget Sound and Wisconsin.
6-16
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Highlight 11
Interagency Technical Assistance Teams in Puget Sound
In the Puget Sound basin, local committees seeking funding for
watershed projects are required to prepare action plans for control
of nonpoint sources, The Washington Department of Ecology
(DOE) formed the Interagency Technical Assistance Team to
support these committees. The team consists of representatives
from over 20 State agencies with expertise in:
Agricultural and forestry BMPs
Technical transfer to the agricultural community
Surface water quality monitoring and assessment
Groundwater protection
Stormwater management
Shellfish protection
Public involvement strategies
Wildlife management
Habitat protection.
In addition, a Puget Sound Cooperative River Basin Study Team
was formed with representatives from the Soil Conservation
Service, the Forest Service, the Washington Department of
Fisheries, and DOE. This team helps evaluate land use water
quality problems within watersheds through field and literature
investigations, provides management alternatives, and produces
reports and maps based on watershed information.
Source: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1991.
6-17
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Highlight 12
Developing an Action Plan
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority's Nonpoint ftute requires
watershed management committees to include, at a minimum, the
following elements in their action plans:
• A watershed characterization, including information such
as watershed maps, geographic and biological
information, and sources of data on the watershed.
• A water quality assessment identifying nonpoint sources
of pollution and evaluating water quality, beneficial uses,
and the biological health of the watershed.
* A problem definition indicating the extent of existing and
potential water quality problems and effects on beneficial
uses from nonpoint sources in the watershed.
• Goals and objectives for prevention and correction of
these nonpoint pollution concerns.
• Specific source control programs to address the problems
identified and justification for the management actions
proposed in each of these programs. Source control
programs can apply to stormwater and erosion,
agriculture, on-site sewage disposal systems, forest
practices, boats and marinas, and other nonpoint
sources.
• An implementation strategy identifying specific actions
required, the responsibilities of each implementing agency
or entity, and project milestones, costs, and funding
sources.
6-18
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
Highlight 13
Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed Plan
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) works
with other State agencies and local governments to target
watersheds for intensive nonpoint source management. Once they
have been targeted, Priority Watershed Plans are developed by
local agencies in cooperation with WDNR.
The Black Earth Creek Watershed Plan was prepared in cooperation
with the Dane County Land Conservation Department and approved
by the County Board of Supervisors in t989. Trout Unlimited, the
Black Earth Watershed Association, USGS, and SCS also provided
input to the plan.
Contents of the Priority Watershed Plan included:
Letters of approval by agencies
Introduction, purpose, and legal status
Physical description of the watershed
Water resources conditions, objectives, and control needs
(by sub-watershed)
Point sources.
Nonpoint source control activities
Fish management and related activities (e.g., habitat
protection)
Coordination activities among agencies
Detailed program for implementation
Evaluation and monitoring program.
The bulk of the plan is a section on water resources conditions,
objectives, and control needs. This section presents detailed
information for each sub-watershed in the Black Earth Creek
watershed. For example, in one sub-watershed, nonpoint source
control needs include:
• Cropland management-control erosion on 1,820 acres of
land having high erosion rates
• Stream bank management-control bank slumping on
three small sites
(continued)
6-19
-------
6. SETTING GOALS AND IDENTIFYING SOLUTIONS
• Animal lot management—achieve a 79 percent reduction
in phosphorus loading by additional controls at six of the
eight livestock operations
• Manure managements-prepare manure spreading
management plans for the eight livestock operations
• Cropland management-purchase and retire from crop
production an area having high organic soils and
excessive phosphorus losses
• Urban lands management-have builders comply with
existing construction regulations; ensure that new
industrial development includes additional controls such
as wet basins
• Ground water protection—protect lands adjoining a major
spring area via acquisition, rental, or easement
• Fishery management-improve stream habitat (excessive
sediment and aquatic vegetation) in a stretch of about 1
mile supporting a trout fishery.
Source: WDNR and Dane County Land Conservation Department,
1989.
6-20
-------
7. IMPLEMENTING CONTROLS
CHAPTER 7
IMPLEMENTING CONTROLS
Defining
the Problem
Setting Goals
and Identifying
Solutions
Building a
Project Team
and Public
Support
Measuring
Success
and Making
Adjustments
• Obtain funding
• Provide incentives
• Secure commitments
• Design and install site-specific
controls
• Inspect BMP and other
controls
This chapter discusses implementing the controls and restoration
activities called for in a watershed action plan. Implementing
pollution controls is actually a two-stage process. The first stage is
political-reaching agreement among participating organizations that
there is a problem and that solutions exist, and achieving
commitments from agencies and others to adjust their priorities to
implement these solutions. The second stage is both technical and
administrative-making sure that agreed upon actions are carried out;
controls are designed, installed, and operated correctly; funds are
accounted for properly; implementation is proceeding on schedule; the
7-1
-------
7. IMPLEMENTING CONTROLS
public is aware of the project's progress; and effectiveness monitoring
is being done properly.
If the watershed project has a project manager, he or she is ultimately
responsible for the success of these technical and administrative
tasks, as well as for leading efforts to secure funding. The manager
must be knowledgeable about environmental conditions in the
watershed; knowledgeable about point and nonpoint source controls
and restoration measures; aware of the policies and missions of the
various cooperating agencies, citizen groups, and local governments;
and supportive of all programs that are part of the project (not just the
easy-to-implement or high-profile ones). To acquire this unique
combination of knowledge and skills, the project manager should have
access to a network of other watershed project managers through
professional conferences and ongoing training.
Obtain Funding
Few watershed projects come complete with sufficient federal and
state funding for all phases of the project. Most of the activities
discussed in this document require funding and often are funded by
multiple sources. One way to organize the search for funds is to
divide activities listed fn the watershed action plan into categories,
then to seek the type of funds that match each category. Not all
activities require "cash" funding; some may be completed by the
work of cooperating agency staff.
Fund raising is a time-consuming activity. Each type and source of
funds has its own application criteria, procedures, and deadlines.
Project managers must allow sufficient time and resources for
acquiring funds and in-kind assistance.
Early in the project, or as part of the watershed action plan, it may be
helpful to establish a schedule for obtaining funds and in-kind support
for the entire project. The schedule should document, for example:
possible funding sources, application dates, dates funding is needed,
and work to be done to obtain funding. The schedule can be
organized by funding categories: educate, plan, install, monitor, and
enforce.
A complete discussion of funding mechanisms and their requirements
would have to be state-specific and therefore is beyond the scope of
this report. Some broadly available funding sources are listed below.
In working to obtain funding, it is important to recognize that it is
difficult to obtain sufficient funds initially to carry out an entire
watershed project. The best approach is to begin with the available
7-2
-------
7. IMPLEMENTING CONTROLS
resources, do an exemplary job on initial tasks, and clearly document
success. Additional funds tend to become available to projects that
have shown results and are organized so that results can be carried
forward. Further, many watershed projects are successful because,
in addition to new funding, existing resources are maximized.
Highlight 14 describes how resources are maximized for Anacostia
River Restoration Projects.
State and local funding sources include:
• State General Assembly appropriation
• State income tax credit
• Bonds-general revenue and special purpose
• State taxes-income, sales, luxury
• Grants
• Easements
• Lotteries
• Loans
• Fees-hunting/fishing licenses; NPDES permit fees.
Some federal funding sources are described in Appendix C. More
complete coverage of funding sources can be found in State and
Local Funding of Nonpoint Source Control Programs (EPA, 1992e) and
Watershed Protection: Catalog of Federal Programs (EPA, 1993b).
Provide Incentives
In watershed projects, most nonpoint source controls are installed on
private property, yet the effects of these practices often do not
directly benefit the discharger or landowner. To ensure that controls
are implemented, some type of incentive is usually provided by
society. Various types of incentives available across the country are
listed in Table 7-1.
For many years, cost-sharing has been viewed as the most effective
method of securing landowner cooperation in a voluntary program.
Cost-share rates have traditionally been set at 50 to 75 percent of the
average cost of a BMP. State agriculture agencies and USDA
agencies have extensive experience in implementing cost-share
programs.
Evaluations of completed watershed projects have shown that:
• Without vigorous, targeted, and effective education programs,
technical assistance and cost-sharing alone often will not secure
adequate BMP implementation
7-3
-------
7. IMPLEMENTING CONTROLS
Table 7-1. Types of Incentives for Installation of Controls in Watershed Projects
Type of incentive or
Motivational Factor
Description of Key Factors
Education
Programs that target key audiences and tailor the message to the audience
are most effective in eliciting a behavior change. Can include technical
education about operation and benefits of controls.
Technical assistance
One-on-one interaction between the professional water quality staff and the
affected citizen, with recommendations about BMPs appropriate for the
specific site in question. Includes on-site engineering or agronomic work
during the installation of BMPs.
Tax advantages
Can be provided through state and local taxing authorities or by a change in
the federal taxing system that rewards those producers who install BMPs.
Cost-share to
individuals
Direct payment to individuals for installation of specific BMPs (e.g., terraces)
has been effective where the cost-share rate is high enough to elicit
widespread participation
Cross-compliance
among existing
programs
Generally a type of quasi-regulatory incentive/disincentive that conditions
benefits received on meeting certain requirements or performing in a certain
way. Currently in effect through the 1985 and 1990 Farm Bills.
Direct purchase of
riparian corridors or
of lands causing the
greatest problems
Direct purchase of special areas for preservation has been used extensively
by groups such as the Nature Conservancy; community-owned greenbelts in
urban areas are another variation. Costs of direct purchase are generally
high but effectiveness can also be exceptional. Sometimes used to obtain
control of critical areas whose owners are unwilling to install BMPs.
Nonregulatory site
inspections
A site visit by staff of local or state agencies can be a powerful incentive for
voluntary installation of BMPs.
Peer pressure
Social acceptance by one's peers can be a motivational factor for installation
of BMPs by some individuals. For example, if a community values the use of
certain agricultural BMPs, producers in those communities are more likely to
install them.
Direct regulation of
land use and
production activities
Regulatory programs that are simple, direct, and easy to enforce are quite
effective. Such programs can regulate land use (through zoning ordinances)
or the kind and extent of activity allowed (e.g., pesticide application rates),
or can set performance standards for a land activity (such as retention of the
first inch of runoff from urban property).
Incentives from
private enterprises
Watersheds with successful nonpoint source projects often are backed by
private enterprises that support the implementation and operation of the
recommended BMPs. These companies supply services and equipment that
individuals cannot afford to own or acquire. Without these services or
equipment there is a tendency to neglect BMP maintenance once the financial
incentive expires. Some examples include: firms specializing in animal waste
lagoon pumpout and land application, companies that specialize in prescribed
burning for brush control and range management, and professional
associations skilled in integrated pest management techniques.
7-4
-------
7. IMPLEMENTING CONTROLS
Highlight 14
Securing Funding for Anacostia Restoration Projects
The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee annually seeks
funding for many restoration projects. In FY91, more than 50
projects were funded by over a dozen local, state, and federal
agencies. Funding sources are matched with appropriate
watershed projects. In about half a dozen cases, special funding
came from federal agencies (the Corps of Engineers, USDA, and
EPA). The overwhelming majority of projects, however, involved a
skillful coordination of existing sources of support from state and
local governmental programs combined with additional help from
nongovernmental organizations such as Trout Unlimited and from
other citizen volunteers, The signatory agencies {the District of
Columbia, Prince George's and Montgomery Counties, and the
state of Maryland) fund most of the stormwater retrofit,
monitoring, and demonstration projects and public participation
activities.
A key element in maximizing resources from existing programs is
the organization of special technical assistance teams for priority
sub-watersheds. Sub-watershed Action Plan (SWAP} coordinators
carry out public education and outreach efforts, but also assist in
comparing management needs for their sub-watersheds with
activities of local government. Because many of the problems in
the Anacostia relate to urban stormwater runoff, many
infrastructure projects can have a bearing on restoration needs.
Where such infrastructure projects are identified, SWAP
coordinators pursue ways to involve them in the Anacostia
program and to obtain funding from them for retrofit and
management objectives.
The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee is also in a
position to coordinate with large-scale projects (and funding) by
such stakeholders as the state of Maryland and the Corps of
Engineers. Careful coordination with existing programs and
resources is one key to the success of the Anacostia program.
Source: MWCOG, 1990.
7-5
-------
Highlight 15
Tax Incentives in the Puget Sound Basin
Several counties in Washington state have adopted open space tax
plans to give citizens incentives to designate land for conservation
in Kitsap County, for example, landowners may be eligible for up to
90 percent tax reductions for voluntarily setting aside wetlands
stream corrtdors, and other sensitive areas on their property. '
Source: Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1991
Regulatory programs can be effective. They often provide more
equitable solutions and achieve clear results much faster than
voluntary programs; however, regulatory programs that are poorly
enforced or that do not contain effective education are only
marginally more effective than voluntary cost-share programs.
The most successful projects appear to have used a mix of
voluntary and regulatory incentives to achieve water quality
results. The most effective of these offer variable cost-share
rates, market-based incentives, and regulatory back-up coupled
with support services (private and governmental) to keep the
controls maintained and operating properly. Highlight 15 describes
tax incentives in the Puget Sound area.
Secure Commitments
Two types of commitments are needed for effective watershed
protection:
• Commitments with the agencies, groups, and businesses that will
be funding and carrying out programs that involve controls and
restoration activities
• Commitments with individuals, businesses, municipalities etc
that will actually install the controls and other measures.
The fundamental question is "How do you make people honor their
commitments?" The reality is that people and organizations often
have different views on what constitutes "acceptable " and
unforeseen circumstances sometimes alter the ability of participants
7-6
-------
7. IMPLEMENTING CONTROLS
to fulfill commitments. Two tools that have proven effective in
securing (and keeping) commitments are formal written agreements
and public accountability.
Formal agreements-To avoid disappointment and misunderstanding,
agreements on all topics (no matter how trivial) are best documented
in writing. Agencies often use a formalized process known as the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) or Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) to document commitments and positions on certain topics.
Such agreements should be specific as to the actions to be taken by
each party, should include a conflict resolution process in the event of
misunderstandings, and should include definitions of terms that may
mean different things to different people.
Keeping the project moving often involves compromise-each
participant agreeing to one or two small commitments without an
accompanying increase in funding. Sometimes larger commitments
follow after success has been demonstrated in meeting the smaller
commitments.
Public accountability-One of the best ways to keep work focused on
the watershed project's critical actions is through public
accountability of all participants in the project. For example, once
written commitments are secure, arrange to have periodic public
meetings at which participants present detailed updates on the
progress being made on each specific task.
Design and Install Site-specific Controls
The design and installation of point source controls is well-established
after decades of wastewater treatment plant construction. Nonpoint
source controls, critical area protection, and habitat restoration
measures must be tailored to factors such as hydrology, geology,
topography, soils, capability of the landowner, and resource to be
protected. Discussion of specific controls is beyond the scope of this
report, but a compendium of management practices for most
categories of nonpoint sources is available (EPA, 1992d).
In addition, technical reports by federal, state, and local agencies are
good sources of information on the design, installation, and operation
of BMPs and restoration measures. Reports on appropriate control
techniques are available from USDA agencies and state nonpoint
source control agencies. Figure 6-1 lists a few references on the
selection and installation of nonpoint source BMPs. In designing site-
specific controls, technical support from agency experts is essential.
For example, NRCS, state soil and water agencies, state agricultural
7-7
-------
7. IMPLEMENTING CONTROLS
agencies and land-grant universities have decades of experience
applying agricultural BMPs.
Timing is also crucial-project teams should be sure to schedule
enough time for this labor-intensive step. The availability of agency
staff or contractors is often a limiting factor and planners must
consider this factor when scheduling BMP or restoration measure
implementation, especially in areas with a high seasonal demand for
these services. Again, the project manager and committees should
have access to reports and feedback from staff at other watershed
projects that have dealt with similar technical and institutional issues.
Each project team should be allowed to make its own mistakes,
without repeating the mistakes already made by others.
Inspect BMPs and Other Controls
Assuming the correct BMPs and other controls have been selected
and are well designed, they will still be ineffective if not properly
installed. In fact, poor installation can make matters worse by
concentrating flow or causing some other hydrologic disruption.
Inspection by qualified professionals during and after construction is
therefore essential. In this regard, many nonpoint source control
programs are inadequate and water quality problems persist
unnecessarily. However, even professionals sometimes disagree as
to the adequacy of BMP installation, so reaching agreement on what
constitutes a properly installed and operated BMP or restoration
measure and who will do the inspections is important.
In addition to post-construction approvals, a permanent inspection
program is needed to ensure proper maintenance of controls. Most
BMPs for urban and rural runoff are subject to severe loss of
effectiveness if not properly maintained. For example, urban
stormwater control structures require periodic unclogging and
cleaning out of sediments and debris; lagoons for animal operations
require removal of waste.
One approach that has worked well during forestry BMP inspections
has been the formation of multidisciplinary, multiagency teams of
government foresters, logging representatives, and biologists to
randomly spot check BMP installation on all types of forest land
(public, corporate and individually owned). At other times, each
agency or industry checks BMPs within its normal jurisdiction. This
type of quality assurance/quality control activity has two benefits: (1)
it builds confidence in unbiased and equitable installation of BMPs;
and (2) it serves as a way diverse individuals can arrive at a common
definition of adequate BMPs.
7-8
-------
8. MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
CHAPTER 8
MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
Defining
the Problem
Setting Goals
and Identifying
Solutions
Building a
Project Team
and Public
Support
Measuring
Success
and Making
Adjustments
Implementing
Controls
• Document success in
administrative goals
• Conduct ambient monitoring
for environmental results
• Make mid-course corrections
• Ensure long-term
maintenance
This chapter discusses the importance of documenting the success of
a watershed project and making mid-course corrections based on
these measurements. Funding agencies, landowners, and the general
public want to know that the goals of the watershed project will be
achieved if they invest in pollution control and restoration. Proving
effectiveness is one of the most difficult tasks in a watershed project.
Document Success in Administrative Goals
Progress in achieving goals must be reported clearly and regularly to
sponsoring agencies and organizations and the public to stay on
8-1
-------
8. MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
target, make the most efficient use of resources, and maintain public
support. Of course, improving or protecting water quality is the major
goal in most watershed projects, but detecting trends in ambient
water quality can take 10 years or more. In the meantime,
administrative goals can be important interim measures of success.
Four types of administrative goals were outlined in Chapter 6:
program goals, activity goals, BMP goals, and interim water quality
goals. Following are several approaches that can be used to monitor
results.
Type of Goal
Program goals
Activity goals
BMP goals
Approach
Periodic written reports, public meetings, and
financial records (documentation of shifts in time
and resources).
Simple tracking forms or data files for each
responsible agency to report progress by activity
(e.g., educational presentations, irrigation system
evaluations, septic tank installation inspections).
Reports, maps and photographs of specific
controls and restoration devices installed (e.g.,
animal waste lagoons, restored streambank,
stormwater detention ponds).
Qualitative and quantitative results of instream
monitoring and BMP effectiveness monitoring.
Trends in chemical or biological metrics can
sometimes be dramatic (even if not at a high
confidence level statistically). Visual
documentation of waterbody improvements can
also be convincing.
Highlight 16 discusses ways in which the Anacostia River Restoration
Program communicates progress toward environmental goals.
Interim water
quality goals
Conduct Ambient Monitoring for Environmental Results
Water quality monitoring is done for several purposes during the life
of a typical watershed project:
• to assess baseline conditions
• to detect trends in ambient (e.g., instream) water quality
• to measure the pollutant-removal efficiencies of controls
8-2
-------
8. MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
Highlight 16
Reporting Progress in Anacostia River Restoration
The Anacostia Restoration Program communicates progress
through an excellent series of publications and through direct
contact with the public. Examples include;
* A detailed annual progress report, The State of the Anacostia,
presenting results of the year's monitoring efforts, installation of
CSO and stormwater controls, stream restoration projects,
riparian corridor protection, public participation, and many other
features. The reports are written for a lay audience with some
science background. Selected pages from the 1989 Status
Report are included in Appendix A of this document.
* Slide presentations to civic associations, environmental groups,
and community leaders by part-time coordinators tn 9 sub-
watersheds; the coordinators also lead stream walks and
distribute literature
» A series of sub-watershed educational documents, the first of
which was "Restoring Watts Branch,"
• A quarterly newsletter devoted to restoration and citizen
accomplishments in the watershed.
Source: MWCCX3, 1990
• to demonstrate the effectiveness of restoration measures
• to monitor the long-term maintenance of controls.
Monitoring design is critical; however, a detailed discussion is beyond
the scope of this document. Several references are listed in the
bibliography (Chapter 9); below are several key considerations for
monitoring in watershed projects.
1. It is not necessary to prove the effectiveness of every control
device or restoration effort in the watershed. Rigorous
monitoring of selected areas is better than widely scattered
efforts. For example, the efficiency of certain BMPs may have
been proven already in other, similar watershed studies; if so,
monitoring resources can be best spent in other areas such as
biological monitoring.
8-3
-------
8. MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
2. Because of cost, monitoring design should limit the number of
parameters for study. These parameters are driven by the
environmental indicators, goals, and quantifiable objectives of the
watershed project.
3. Watershed monitoring should include physical and chemical
parameters as well as more direct measures of aquatic health--
measures of fish population and community structure, bottom-
dwelling organisms (e.g., benthic macroinvertebrates), and
habitat quality.
Regarding Item 3, most projects have a major goal of attaining aquatic
life uses in their waterbodies. Historically in watershed projects,
physical and chemical parameters alone were considered sufficient to
show this attainment--e.g., parameters such as water temperature and
concentrations of sediment, dissolved oxygen, nitrogen and
phosphorus. These are the typical parameters or pollutants controlled
by wastewater treatment and nonpoint source BMPs. The Watershed
Protection Approach, on the other hand, promotes a broader view--
that ecological integrity is attainable when physical and chemical
integrity and biological/habitat integrity occur simultaneously (Figure
8-1). Therefore, watershed monitoring should include biological and
habitat measures of aquatic life in Item 3 above. Figure 8-2 lists
some of the parameters used to measure aquatic health in the
Anacostia Restoration Project, which has a progressive biological
monitoring program. Highlight 17 relates monitoring in the Anacostia
watershed to the program's goals.
Routine physical and chemical sampling (grab sampling) is generally
done at least monthly. Nonpoint source special studies often
emphasize storm event sampling to measure effectiveness of controls.
Storm event sampling is expensive, however, and in most cases
requires installation of automatic sampling devices. Biological/habitat
monitoring can be done much less frequently; seasonal or annual
sampling is normally adequate. This type of monitoring does require
the help of expert biologists, who are often available through state
water quality and fisheries agencies and through universities.
Citizen Monitoring
Citizens can provide valuable support to the project by collecting
water quality samples, identifying water quality problems, and
gathering photographic documentation. Citizen monitoring programs
have reached a new level of sophistication in recent years, including
certification programs for volunteers and preparation of quality
assurance management plans. Citizen monitoring programs have also
moved into the realm of biological monitoring with training from
experts. Guidance and technical transfer information is available from
8-4
-------
8. MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
Physical/Habitat
Integrity
Figure 8-1. Elements of ecological integrity in aquatic systems
(adapted from EPA, 1991c).
8-5
-------
8. MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
Stream Habitat Measures
Bottom substrate/instream cover
Embedded ness
Flow
Canopy cover
Channel alteration
Bottom scouring and deposition
Pool-to-riffle ratio
Lower bank channel capacity
Upper bank stability
Degree of bank vegetative protection
Streamside cover
Riparian vegetative zone width
Macroirivertebrate Measures
Taxa richness-total number of number of species or genera
Hilsenhof Biotic lndex--a measure of pollution tolerance of
the organisms present
Number of mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly taxa
(pollutant-intolerant insects)
% contribution of the dominant taxon to total organisms
Ratio of mayfly, stonefly, and caddisfly individuals to
Chironomids (pollution-tolerant worms)
Ratio of the number of detritus-shredding organisms to total
organisms
Ratio of scrapers to filter collectors-indicates relative
dominance of particular feeding types
Fish Measures
Total number of species
Number of darter, sculpin and madtom species (sensitive to
siltation and oxygen depletion)
Number of sunfish species
Average size of principal gamefish
Number of intolerant fish species
Proportion of carp, white suckers, northern creek chub and
blacknose dace (pollution-tolerant)
Proportion of omnivorous/generalist individuals (increases as
conditions deteriorate)
Proportion of fish having disease/anomalies-depicts the
health of individual fish
Figure 8-2. Biological and habitat monitoring measures in the
Anacostia River Restoration Project.
8-6
-------
8. MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
Highlight 17
Monitoring in the Anacostia Watershed
The Anacostia River Restoration Program conducts water quality
monitoring in support of four of the program's six goals. Results
are summarized both in technical publications and in detailed
annual status reports for lay readers (e.g., MCOG, 1990).
Following are some elements of the Anacostia monitoring effort as
related to these program goals.
Goai 1 - Reduce pollutant loads
* Baseline water chemistry monitoring throughout sub-watersheds
prior to BMPs or stream restoration activities
• Performance monitoring of nonpoint source controls (pollutant
removal}
• Automatic sampling stations at the base of selected sub-
watersheds to measure storm loads of phosphorus, nitrogen,
sediment, organic carbon, trace metals and hydrocarbons
Goal 2 - Protect and restore ecological integrity of urban streams
• An annual water quality index based on J 5 stations in the
Coordinated Anacostia Monitoring Program {multiple agencies
participate)
• Intensive biological and habitat surveys (baseline and post-
implementation) of over 40 sites in selected sub-watersheds;
generally follow EPA's Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for
macro in vertebrates and fish
« Special studies of urban impacts (e.g., temperature effects of
urbanization; watershed imperviousness vs. fish diversity)
(continued)
8-7
-------
8. MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
Goal 3 - Restore spawning range of anadromous fish
• Monitoring of fish spawning runs
* Routine fish sampling
Goal 6 - Increase public awareness and participation
* Stream walks, photographic documentation of water quality
conditions and habitat improvements
EPA Headquarters (EPA, 1990b) and may be available at the state
level. For example, the states of Kentucky, Illinois, Minnesota, and
Texas have well-developed citizen monitoring programs.
Make Mid-course Corrections
Midway through a watershed project, it is likely that at least one of
the following problems will occur:
• Monitoring indicates that the wrong problem is being solved
• Solving one problem unmasks another problem that is more difficult
to control
• The project reaches some program or activity goals but may not be
effective enough to reach the water quality goals
• Quantifiable objectives (e.g., pollutant load reduction) were set too
low to solve the problem.
These unpleasant realizations occur due to data gaps; most projects
do not have access to extensive land use and water quality databases
and mapping and modeling tools. It is important for the project team
to recognize this possibility from the outset and to build into the
project yearly evaluations and an agreed-upon halfway point where all
aspects of the project can be revised if necessary. Highlight 18
presents mid-course corrections in the Rock Creek, Idaho watershed.
8-8
-------
8. MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
Highlight 18
Mid-course Corrections at Rock Creek, Idaho - A
Management Effort in Three Acts
Rock Creek is a tributary to the Snake River in an arid area of
southern Idaho, The headwaters for Rock Creek lie in the
Sawtooth National Forest, and the middle and tower reaches of the
system feature intensive irrigation farming. Water is diverted from
the Snake River, and the irrigation systems create the potential for
impacts from irrigation return flows in addition to soil erosion and
habitat alterations from cropping practices and livestock grazing.
Starting in the early 1980s, Rock Creek was the focus of a Rural
Clean Water Program (RCWP) project with an active monitoring
component. The RCWP period, which ended in 1991, can be
viewed as the second of three "acts" tn a long process of
environmental improvements. Each stage overcame major pollution
problems and paved the way for additional goals to restore fully the
integrity of Rock Creek.
ACT I: Overcoming a Heritage of Neglect
By the 1960s, state and federal natural resource agencies began to
document severe impacts from point source discharges and crop
and livestock agriculture. Domestic rubbish and even car bodies
were being dumped in Rock Creek. The fishery resource was in
poor condition and fecal coliform levels showed frequent violations
of public health standards. In the 1970s, most significant point
source discharges were diverted to avoid the system, leaving
agriculture as the main source of water quality problems.
ACT II: Applying BMPs to Agricultural Land Uses
By the late 1980s, 182 landowner management plans had been
developed and implemented. Site-specific variations of nine
agricultural BMPs were stressed including: permanent vegetative
cover, animal waste control systems, conservation tillage, stream
protection at critical erosion points, permanent vegetative cover on
highly erosive areas, sediment detention and erosion structures,
improved irrigation water conservation, fertilizer management, and
pesticide management.
(continued)
8-9
-------
8. MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
A well-designed monitoring program documented substantial
reductions in the loadings of such parameters as phosphorus and
suspended solids. Despite these gains, monitoring and
bioassessment work showed that additional improvements were
still needed to make sure the stream was safe for primary body
contact recreation and to further lower sediment inputs to restore a
self-sustaining salmonid fishery.
ACT Hi: Lessons Learned and Work for the Future
The final barriers to meeting the goals set forth under the RCWP
project have to do with habitat conditions. The RCWP BMPs had
focused on mitigating the impacts of agricultural land uses, and
particularly the inputs of pollutants from the irrigation return flows.
However, during monitoring, processes such as streambank erosion
were found to contribute two to three times the sediment loadings
as cropped land surfaces or irrigation ditches. To reduce these
loadings, it will be necessary to carry out protection and restoration
measures in the riparian zones. As the streambanks are stabilized
and riparian vegetation cover is re-established, the fecal coliforrn
concerns should aiso be ameliorated. Stakeholders in the RCWP
project have pledged to continue the implementation of needed
management measures. At the end of Act III, the goal of restoring
Rock Creek to a condition supporting fishing and swimming now
looks attainable.
Source: Rock Creek Project Board, 1991,
Citizens and funding agencies tend to feel misled if they are surprised
to learn at the end of a project that it is not going to work out as
planned, especially if someone has promised them a total solution.
Regular evaluations can help detect problems early. Different groups
should evaluate each portion of the project independently using the
same evaluation criteria that were agreed upon before the project
began. At a minimum, an annual meeting of all evaluators should be
held to compare notes and reach consensus on:
• Overall project performance
• List of actions and controls that must be changed and the process
and timetable to do so.
Evaluation questions that have helped other watershed projects make
mid-course corrections include:
8-10
-------
8. MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
• Are the correct controls/restoration measures being installed in the
target areas first?
• Are they being installed correctly and on schedule?
• Do the controls appear effective?
• What visual evidence is there to support this?
• What do the water quality data show?
• How are biological systems responding?
• Are all cooperators meeting commitments for time, funds, labor,
and other resources?
Ensure Long-term Maintenance
One of the least discussed and most difficult parts of a project is
maintenance. Many projects have failed when outside funding ended
or when the perceived problems were solved. A watershed action
plan must provide for regular and ongoing maintenance in order to
ensure success.
The concept of long-term maintenance is difficult for project
managers, because there can often be no assurance of funding for
maintenance after the life of the project. However, if at all possible,
institutional and financial arrangements should be made that have a
high probability of extending past the end of the funding period.
Cooperators should agree to perform the management measures and
to continue operation and maintenance on structural and vegetative
BMPs even if the economics of the situation change. New growth
(new housing developments, animal operations, highways, etc.)
should be held to the BMPs and pollution control measures used in the
project (or a higher level of treatment if needed) without expecting
compensation via cost-share or other grant monies. These
newcomers should include pollution control as a part of the cost of
doing business. Some key points to consider are:
• Education and training of newcomers and continuing education and
reinforcement for current cooperators is essential.
8-11
-------
8. MEASURING SUCCESS AND MAKING ADJUSTMENTS
• Maintenance programs should be self supporting whenever
possible. Individuals and businesses, as well as municipalities and
natural resource agencies, should be aware of the long-term need
to provide for maintenance of controls.
• A project that has developed and encouraged private-enterprise
support services for BMP maintenance is much more likely to
succeed.
• Local regulations can be helpful to maintain water quality gains;
demonstration of success may be needed first.
Project managers should contact their counterparts in well-established
programs such as the Anacostia, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound, and
Rock Creek Projects to gain insight on maintaining support for a'
watershed project. Contacts for these programs can be obtained
through the EPA Regions and the EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans,
and Watersheds in Washington, DC. See Chapter 9 for references '
from the literature.
8-12
-------
9. REFERENCES
CHAPTER 9
REFERENCES
References in Alphabetical Order by Author or Agency
(see page 9*4 for references listed by topic)
Adler, K. and M. Smolen. 1989. Selecting Nonpoint Source Projects.
EPA 506/2-89-003. Prepared for EPA Office of Water.
Alexander, Susan. 1993. Clean Water in Your Watershed: A
Citizen's Guide to Watershed Protection. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. Washington, DC: The
Terrene Institute.
Anacostia Restoration Team. 1991. A Commitment to Restore Our
Home River: A Six-Point Plan to Restore the Anacostia River.
Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Brichford, S. L. and M. D. Smolen. 1990. A Manager's Guide to NPS
Implementation Projects. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina
State University Water Quality Group. October.
Cole,, C., T. Hall, and N.R. Hansen. 1990. Ranking of Puget Sound
Watersheds for the Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution: An
Evaluation Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Water Quality Authority,
Seattle, Washington.
Doppelt, Bob, Mary Scurlock, Chris Frissell, and James Karr. 1993.
Entering the Watershed: A New Approach to Saving America's River
Ecosystems. The Pacific Rivers Council. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Setting
Priorities: The Key to Nonpoint Source Control. Washington, DC:
Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
EPA. 1988. Draft Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Evaluation Guide.
Washington, DC: Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division.
9-1
-------
9. REFERENCES
EPA. 1989. Effective Nonpoint Source Public Education and
Outreach: A Review of Selected Programs in Region 10. Seattle,
WA: Region 10, Water Division.
EPA. 1990a. Draft Surface Water Monitoring Program Guidance.
Washington, DC: Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division.
EPA. 1 990b. Volunteer Water Monitoring: a Guide for State
Managers. EPA 440/4-90-010. Washington, DC: Office of Water,
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.
EPA. 1991 a. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The
TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-91-001. Washington, DC: Office of
Water.
EPA. 1991b. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects. Washington,DC: Office of
Water, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.
EPA. 1991c. The Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview.
EPA 503/9-92-001. Washington, DC: Office of Water.
EPA. 1992a. National Water Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to
Congress. EPA 503/9-92/006. Washington, DC: Office of Water.
EPA. 1992b. Monitoring Guidance for the National Estuary Program.
EPA 842-B-92-004. Washington, DC: Office of Water, Oceans and
Coastal Protection Division.
EPA. 1992c. Compendium of Watershed-Scale Models for TMDL
Development. EPA 841-R-92-002. Washington, DC: Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds and Office of Science and
Technology.
EPA. 1992d. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for
Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-92-002.
Washington, DC: Office of Water.
EPA. 1992e. State and Local Funding of Nonpoint Source Control
Programs. EPA 841-R-92-003. Washington, DC: Office of Water,
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.
EPA. 1993a. Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples.
EPA841-B-93-001. Washington, DC: Office of Water, Assessment
and Watershed Protection Division.
9-2
-------
9. REFERENCES
EPA. 1993b. Watershed Protection: Catalog of Federal Programs.
EPA 841-B-93-002. Washington, DC: Office of Water, Assessment
and Watershed Protection Division.
EPA. 1995. Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach.
Washington, DC: Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division.
EPA. 1994. National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to
Congress. EPA 841-R-94-001. Washington, DC: Office of Water.
Klamath River Basin Restoration Program. 1991. Long Range Plan
for the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration
Program. Yreka, CA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath River
Fishery Resource Office.
Kroner, Ron, Joe Ball, and Mike Miller. 1992. The Galena River
Priority Watershed Project: Bioassessment Final Report. Publication
WR-306-92. Madison, Wl: Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Bureau of Water Resources Management.
MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 1990.
The State of the Anacostia: 1989 Status Report. Washington, DC:
Prepared for the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Team.
MWCOG. 1992. Watershed Restoration Sourcebook. Washington,
DC: Prepared for the Anacostia Restoration Team.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic
Ecosystems: Science, Technology and Public Policy. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
New York Federation of Lake Associations. 1990. Diet for a Small
Lake: A New Yorker's Guide to Lake Management. Rochester, NY:
New York Department of Environmental Conservation and the
Federation of Lake Associations, Inc.
Omernick, J. M. 1986. Ecoregions of the United States. Corvallis,
Oregon: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Plafkin, James L., Michael T. Barbour, Kimberly D. Porter, Sharon K.
Gross, and Robert M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
for Us>e in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish.
EPA/444/4-89/001. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water
Regulations and Standards.
9-3
-------
9. REFERENCES
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for
the Evaluation of Stream, Riparian, and Biotic Conditions. Technical
Report INT-138. Ogden, Utah: Intermountain Research Station, U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991. Seattle, Washington:
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 1994. Nutrient Modeling and
Management in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Prepared for
N.C. Division of Environmental Management. Research Triangle Park
NC.
Rock Creek Project Board. 1991. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Program: Ten Year Report. Rock Creek, ID: U.S. Department of
Agriculture Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Soil
Conservation Service, and Administrative Records Survey; Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality; and the Twin Falls and Snake River
Soil Conservation Districts.
Spooner, J., R.P. Maas, S.A. Dressing, M.D. Smolen, and F.J.
Humenik. 1985. Appropriate Designs for Documenting Water Quality
Improvements from Agricultural NPS Control Programs. In
Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution, pp.30-34. EPA 440/5-85-
001. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water Regulations and
Standards.
WDNR and Dane County. 1989. A Plan for the Control of Nonpoint
Sources and Related Resource Management in the Black Earth Creek
Priority Watershed. Publication WR-218-89. Madison, Wl: Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources and the Dane County Land
Conservation Department.
Welsch, David J. 1992. Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design
for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources. NA-PR-07-91.
Radnor, PA: USDS Forest Service, Northeastern Area.
Extended Reference List — By Topic
Watershed/Basin Planning and Management
Alder K. and M. Smolen. 1989. Selecting Priority Nonpoint Source
Projects: You Better Shop Around. EPA 506/2-89-003. EPA Office
of Water.
9-4
-------
9. REFERENCES
Alexander, Susan. 1993. Clean Water in Your Watershed: A
Citizen's Guide to Watershed Protection. Prepared for the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region 6. Washington, DC: The
Terrene Institute.
Brichford, S. L. and M. D. Smolen. 1990. A Manager's Guide to NPS
Implementation Projects. Raleigh, North Carolina: North Carolina
State University Water Quality Group.
Cooter, W. S. 1990. Report on Statewide Nonpoint Source Cluster
Ranking System. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma Conservation
Commission for the Oklahoma Pollution Control Coordinating Board.
EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1987. Setting
Priorities: The Key to Nonpoint Source Control. Washington, DC:
Office of Water Regulations and Standards.
EPA. 1989. Effective Nonpoint Source Public Education and
Outreach: A Review of Selected Programs in Region 10. Seattle,
WA: Region 10, Water Division.
EPA. 1991. Guidance for Water Quality-Based Decisions: The TMDL
Process: EPA 44/4-91-001. Office of Water.
EPA. 1991 a. Guidance for Water Quality-based Decisions: The
TMDL Process. EPA 440/4-91-001. Washington, DC: Office of
Water.
EPA. 1991c. The Watershed Protection Approach: An Overview.
EPA 503/9-92-001. Washington, DC: Office of Water.
EPA. 1991d. A Review of Methods for Assessing Nonpoint Source
Contaminated Ground-Water Discharge to Surface Water.
EPA 570/9-91-010. Office of Ground-Water.
EPA. 1992a. National Water Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to
Congress. EPA 503/9-92/006. Washington, DC: Office of Water.
EPA. 1992c. Compendium of Watershed-Scale Models for TMDL
Development. EPA 841-R-92-002. Washington, DC: Office of
Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds and Office of Science and
Technology.
EPA. 1992e. State and Local Funding of Nonpoint Source Control
Programs. EPA 841-R-92-003. Washington, DC: Office of Water,
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.
9-5
-------
9. REFERENCES
EPA. 1993a. Geographic Targeting: Selected State Examples.
EPA 841-B-93-001. Washington, DC: Office of Water, Assessment
and Watershed Protection Division.
EPA. 1993b. Watershed Protection: Catalog of Federal Programs.
EPA 841-B-93-002. Washington, DC: Office of Water, Assessment
and Watershed Protection Division.
EPA. 1995. Watershed Protection: A Statewide Approach.
EPA 841-R-95-004. Washington, DC: Office of Water, Assessment
and Watershed Protection Division.
EPA. 1994. National Water Quality Inventory: 1992 Report to
Congress. EPA 841-R-94-001. Washington, DC: Office of Water.
Hammill, S. M., Jr., J. C. Keene, D. N. Kinsey, and R. K. Lewis.
1989. The Growth Management Handbook: A Primer for Citizen and
Government Planners. Prince, NJ: The Middlesex Somerset Mercer
(MSM) Regional Council.
New York Federation of Lake Associations. 1990. Diet for a Small
Lake: A New Yorker's Guide to Lake Management. Rochester, NY:
New York Department of Environmental Conservation and the
Federation of Lake Associations, Inc.
Welsch, David J. 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design
for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources. NA-PR-07-91.
Radnor, PA: USDS Forest Service, Northeastern Area.
Specific Watershed Projects
Anacostia Restoration Team. 1991. A Commitment to Restore Our
Home River: A Six-Point Plan to Restore the Anacostia River.
Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
Cole, C., T. Hall, and N.R. Hansen. 1990. Ranking of Puget Sound
Watersheds for the Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution: An
Evaluation Report. Prepared for Puget Sound Water Quality Authority,
Seattle, Washington.
Dodd, R. C., G. McMahon, and S. Stichter. 1992. Areawide
Watershed Planning in the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine system:
Report 1 — Annual Average Nutrient Budgets. Prepared by Research
Triangle Institute for the Albemarle/Pamlico Estuary Study. A/P
Project 92-03. Raleigh, North Carolina.
9-6
-------
9. REFERENCES
Hession, W. C., J. M. Flagg, S. D. Wilson, R. W. Biddix, and
V. O. Shanholtz. 1992. Targeting Virginia's Nonpoint Source
Programs. Presented at the 1992 International Summer Meeting,
Paper No. 92-2092. American Society of Agricultural Engineers,
St. Joseph, Ml.
Klamath River Basin Fisheries Task Force. 1991. Long Range Plan
for the Klamath River Basin Conservation Area Fishery Restoration
Program. Yreka, CA: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Klamath River
Fishery Resource Office.
Konrad, J. G., J. S. Baumann, and S. E. Bergquist. 1985. Nonpoint
Pollution Control: The Wisconsin Experience. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation, Vol. 41, No. 1: pp. 56-61.
Kroner, Ron, Joe Ball, and Mike Miller. 1992. The Galena River
Priority Watershed Project: Bioassessment Final Report. Publication
WR-306-92. Madison, Wl: Wisconsin Department of Natural
Resources, Bureau of Water Resources Management.
MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 1990.
The State of the Anacostia: 1989 Status Report. Washington, DC:
Prepared for the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Team.
MWCOG (Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments). 1992.
Watershed Restoration Sourcebook. Washington, DC: Prepared for
the Anacostia Restoration Team.
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority. 1991. Seattle, Washington:
Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan.
RTI (Research Triangle Institute). 1994. Nutrient Modeling and
Management in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Prepared for
N.C. Division of Environmental Management. Research Triangle Park,
NC.
Rock Creek Project Board. 1991. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Program: Ten Year Report. Rock Creek, ID: U.S. Department of
Agriculture Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, Soil
Conservation Service, and Administrative Records Survey; Idaho
Division of Environmental Quality; and the Twin Falls and Snake River
Soil Conservation Districts.
Tippett, J. P. 1992. TMDL Case Study: Nomini Creek Watershed.
Report No. 4 in a series. Prepared by Research Triangle Institute for
EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds. Research Triangle
Park, North Carolina. November, 1992.
9-7
-------
9. REFERENCES
WDNR and Dane County. 1989. A Plan for the Control of Nonpoint
Sources and Related Resource Management in the Black Earth Creek
Priority Watershed. Publication WR-218-89. Madison, Wl: Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources and the Dane County Land
Conservation Department.
Monitoring
EPA. 1988. Draft Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Evaluation Guide.
Washington, DC: Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division.
EPA. 1990a. Draft Surface Water Monitoring Program Guidance.
Washington, DC: Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division.
EPA. 1990b. Volunteer Water Monitoring: a Guide for State
Managers. EPA 440/4-90-010. Washington, DC: Office of Water,
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.
EPA. 1991b. Watershed Monitoring and Reporting for Section 319
National Monitoring Program Projects. Washington,DC: Office of
Water, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.
EPA. 1992b. Monitoring Guidance for the National Estuary Program.
EPA 842-B-92-004. Washington, DC: Office of Water, Oceans and
Coastal Protection Division.
Plafkin, James L, Michael T. Barbour, Kimberly D. Porter, Sharon K.
Gross, and Robert M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols
for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish.
EPA/444/4-89/001. Washington, DC: EPA Off ice of Water
Regulations and Standards.
Platts, W.S., W.F. Megahan, and G.W. Minshall. 1983. Methods for
the Evaluation of Stream, Riparian, and Biotic Conditions. Technical
Report INT-138. Ogden, Utah: Intermountain Research Station, U.S.
Department of Agriculture Forest Service.
Spooner, J., R.P. Maas, S.A. Dressing, M.D. Smolen, and F.J.
Humenik. 1985. Appropriate Designs for Documenting Water Quality
Improvements from Agricultural NPS Control Programs. In
Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution, pp.30-34. EPA 440/5-85-
001. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water Regulations and
Standards.
9-8
-------
9. REFERENCES
Nonpoint Source Control
Adler, K. and M. Smolen. 1989. Selecting Nonpoint Source Projects.
EPA 506/2-89-003. Prepared for EPA Office of Water.
EPA. 1988 Chesapeake Bay Nonpoint Source Programs. EPA
Region 3, Annapolis, MD: Chesapeake Bay Liaison Office, .
EPA. 1988. Draft Nonpoint Source Monitoring and Evaluation Guide.
Washington, DC: Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division.
EPA. 1988 Protecting Groundwater: Pesticides and Agricultural
Practices. Office of Ground Water Protection, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1989. Effective Nonpoint Source Public Education and
Outreach: A Review of Selected Programs in Region 10. Seattle,
WA: Region 10, Water Division.
EPA. 1992d. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for
Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters. EPA 840-B-92-002.
Washington, DC: Office of Water.
EPA. 1992e. State and Local Funding of Nonpoint Source Control
Programs. EPA 841-R-92-003. Washington, DC: Office of Water,
Assessment and Watershed Protection Division.
Heatwole, C., T. Dillaha, and S. Mostaghimi. 1991. Agricultural
BMPs Applicable to Virginia. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Water
Resources Research Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University.
Johnson, P.R. and L. F. Dean 1987. Stormwater Management
Guidebook for Michigan Communities. Utica, Ml: Clinton River
Watershed Council.
Jones and Stokes Associates, Inc. 1988. Effectiveness of
Agricultural and Silviculture! Nonpoint Source Controls: Final Report.
Prepared for the U.S. EPA Region 10, Seattle.
Kings County Department of Public Works. 1987. Surface Water
Design Manual. Seattle.
Municipality of Metropolitan Seattle. 1987. Priorities for Water
Quality. Seattle, WA: Water Quality Division.
9-9
-------
9. REFERENCES
North Carolina Agricultural Extension Service, USDA, and EPA. 1988.
Best Management Practices for Agricultural Nonpoint Source Control.
I Animal waste. II. Commercial Fertilizer. III. Sediment. IV.
Pesticides. Raleigh, NC: North Carolina Agricultural Extension
Service.
North Carolina State University Water Quality Group. NPS Literature
Database. [An extensive computerized database of nonpoint source
literature.] 615 Oberlin Road, Raleigh, NC 27605.
Robillard, P.D. , M. F. Walter, and L. M. Bruckner. Undated. Planning
Guide for Evaluating Agricultural Nonpoint Source Water Quality
Controls. Athens, GA: U.S. EPA Environmental Research Laboratory.
Schueler, T.R. 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual
for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs. Department of
Environmental Programs, Washington, DC: Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments.
Spooner, J., R.P. Maas, S.A. Dressing, M.D. Smolen, and F.J.
Humenik. 1985. Appropriate Designs for Documenting Water Quality
Improvements from Agricultural NPS Control Programs. In
Perspectives on Nonpoint Source Pollution, pp.30-34. EPA 440/5-85-
001. Washington, DC: EPA Office of Water Regulations and
Standards.
Ecological Protection and Restoration
Association of State Wetland Managers. 1991. A Casebook in
Managing Rivers for Multiple Uses.
Berger, John J. 1991. The Federal Mandate to Restore: Laws and
Policies on Environmental Restoration. The Environmental
Professional, Volume 13, pp. 195-206.
Bureau of Land Management. 1991. Riparian-Wetlands Initiative for
the 1990's. BLM/WO/GI-001+4340. Washington, DC: USDOI,
Bureau of Land Management.
Cairns, John, Jr. 1991. The Status of the Theoretical and Applied
Science of Restoration Ecology. The Environmental Professional,
Volume 13.
Caldwell, Lynton, Keith. 1991. Restoration Ecology as Public Policy.
The Environmental Professional, Volume 13, pp. 275-284.
9-10
-------
9. REFERENCES
Doppelt, Bob, Mary Scurlock, Chris Frissell, and James Karr. 1993.
Entering the Watershed: A New Approach to Saving America's River
Ecosystems. The Pacific Rivers Council. Washington, DC: Island
Press,
Environmental Law Institute. 1993. Wetland Mitigation Banking.
Washington, DC.
EPA. 1992c. Kissimmee River Environmental Restoration. EPA
News-Notes, Number 18, January-February, pp. 1-18. Office of
Water, AWPD, Nonpoint Source Information Exchange.
EPA. 1993. TMDL Case Study (Number 8): Boulder Creek,
Colorado. EPA Report No. 841-F-93-006.
EPA. 1994. Restoration as a Water Resource Management Tool. In
preparation. Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds,
Washington, DC.
Gore, James A. (editor). 1985. The Restoration of Rivers and
Streams: Theories and Experience. Stoneham, MA: Buterworth.
280 pp.
Hunter, Christopher, J. 1991. Better Trout Habitat: A Guide to
Stream Restoration and Management. Montana Land Reliance.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Kusler, J. A. 1983. Regulating Sensitive Lands: An Overview of
Programs. In James H. Carr and Edward E. Duensing, eds. Land Use
Issues of the 1980s, pp. 128-153. New Brunswick: Rutgers
University, Center for Urban Policy Research.
Kusler, J. A., and M. E. Kentula (editors). 1990. Wetland Creation
and Restoration: The Status of the Science. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
National Research Council. 1992. Restoration of Aquatic
Ecosystems: Science, Technology and Public Policy. Washington,
DC: National Academy Press.
NCSU and EPA, 1982. Interfacing Nonpoint Source Programs with
the Conservation Reserve: Guidance for Water Quality Managers.
North Carolina State University Water Quality Group, Raleigh.
Omernick, J. M. 1986. Ecoregions of the United States. Corvallis,
Oregon: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
9-11
-------
9. REFERENCES
Welsch, David J. 1991. Riparian Forest Buffers: Function and Design
for Protection and Enhancement of Water Resources. NA-PR-07-91.
Radnor, PA: USDS Forest Service, Northeastern Area.
Westman, Walter, E. 1991. Ecological Restoration Projects:
Measuring Their Performance. The Environmental Professional,
Volume 13, pp. 207-215.
9-12
-------
Appendix A
Selected Pages from the State of the Anacostia
1989 Status Report
-------
-------
Current Environmental Conditions
Tributary Water Quality Index for 1988
A water quality index has been
prepared to compare overall condi-
tions within the tributary water-
sheds of the Anacostia. The index
was based upon observed monthly
monitoring data collected at over
15 stations by the CAMP program.
The index includes data on water
quality temperature, nutrients, pH,
and water clarity. During 1988,
water quality in the Anacostia tribu-
taries did not change sharply from
previous years.
As can be seen, the stream
with the poorest water was the
heavily channelized Northeast
Branch, followed by Lower Beav-
erdam Creek, and Little Paint
Branch. In comparison to recent
years, water quality conditions
appeared to improve in the Indian
Creek and declined slightly in the
Upper Northwest Branch.
Water quality conditions
within the tributary systems reflect
the broad spectrum of land uses
encountered in the watershed. Major
water quality problems found
throughout the tributary system
include high concentrations of
sediment and bacteria, and elevated
water temperatures. Localized water
quality problems associated with
high nutrient or toxic contaminants
also exist within the tributary sys-
tem.
N« thwwt Branch
litue Pa>nt
Branch
8« aver dam
Creek
Lower Seaverdam Creek
POOR
COOP
FAIR
NO DATA
FAIR-GOOD
State of the Anacostia
1989 Status Report
-------
Current Environmental Conditions
Urbanization and the Fragile Paint Branch Trout Fishery
OveraJJ, Paint Branch's resident trout population remained relatively stable in 1989. However, the inherent
resiliency of this trout-supporting system is being severely tested, both by channel scouring storm events, and
increased sediment loads to key spawning and nursery tributaries. Of major concern is the gradual deterioration
of physical habitat conditions within Paint Branch's principal trout-producing stream; the Good Hope tributary.
Good Hope Tributary
Since 1986, the stream channel ero-
sion, turbidity, and sediment deposi-
tion have increased steadily in the
Good Hope tributary. While the ori-
gins of these problems are many and
complex, watershed development
activities continue to exert the great-
est negative influence. As illustrated
in the adjoining chart, the fluctuating
Good Hope trout population has his-
torically been very responsive to natu-
ral and anthropogenic events, such as
flooding and sediment pollution.
Recent surveys suggest that aquatic
habitat conditions necessary for the
continued maintenance of a healthy
Good Hope trout population may be
at or near the critical threshold level.
Brown Trout Population
Good Hope Tributary Station
50 T
40
30
20
10
Number of Trout
o x
Young of Year
Adults
U*ln Ch*nn»l Scouring Ut/of Chtnnfl Scouring
Good Hop* Raid Proltel '""" Ltrgt Storm CVcnf from Ltrgt Storm Cttnt
*nd Logging Optritlon* | W»V *-«. '989)
1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
Source: MD DNR, 1989
Brown trout populations observed in Paint Branch fluctuate greatly
as a result of land disturbances that create increased sediment loadings.
Upper Gum Springs Tributary
Fortunately, not all Paint Branch news was bad in 1989. Among
the bright spots are the excellent number of young-of-year trout
surveyed in the Upper Gum Springs tributary. Because of its
relatively small size and limited number of quality pool areas, the
Upper Gum Springs does not support large numbers of adult trout
In an attempt to improve adult habitat conditions and numbers in
the stream, several pool-forming check dams were installed. This
joint project among Trout Unlimited, Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, and Maryland National Capital Park and
Planning Commission will be continued in 1990.
This riparian forest canopy provides
excellent habitat conditions for aquatic life.
State of the Anacostia
1989 Status Report
-------
Restoration Accomplishments
• • ' • ; ____^__^^^^^^_»._^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^M^MBaMMiM^^MaMMMaaMMMMMaaaaa^aa^a»MMBMBi
Coordination of the Watershed Restoration Effort
Due to its multi-jurisdictiona! character, the Anacostia watershed can only be fully restored if federal, state,
and local governments cooperate together to develop and implementation of watershed restoration projects. More
than sixty different agencies are directly involved in some aspect of the restoration program. Their participation
is coordinated through a series of policy and technical committees, as well as special work groups, supported by
COG.
Anacostia Restoration Fund
The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC) approved the concept of an Anacostia Restoration
Fund (ARF) at their October 5, 1989 meeting. The fund supports the regular Anacostia coordination and
management activities in addition to providing support for special basin-wide projects. The Fund formalizes and
replaces prior funding arrangements that exist through various local, state, and federal grants.
Anacostia Retrofit Strategy
The AWRC endorsed the concept of developing a long-term basin-wide urban retrofit strategy. The AWRC
reached a consensus agreement calling for the adoption of detailed Sub-Watershed Action Plans (SWAPs) as part
of the urban retrofit strategy. This action will help in streamlining the approval of individual restoration projects
and define interagency roles and responsibilities with regard to implementation.
Federal Participation in the Clean-Up Effort
COG staff acting upon a directive from the AWRC has coordinated with federal agencies to enlist greater federal
support and participation in the Anacostia restoration effort. (See box on page 24.)
Third Annual Work Plan
The AWRC adopted the final version of the 3rd Annual Work Plan at their June 12th committee meeting. This
plan covers the period between October 1,1990 to September 30,1991, and contains more than 50 local, state,
and federal initiatives. Although some initiatives continue previous programs, a significant number represent an
increased emphasis on project implementation. The Third Annual Work Plan is outlined on page 57.
Sub-Watershed Action Planning Process
A sub-watershed action plan (SWAP) is intended to be a detailed blueprint for restoration activities within
a priority area in the Anacostia. SWAP plans spell out where and when urban retrofit and stream restoration
projects will be carried out SWAP plans are to be prepared with the input and participation of all local, state and
federal agencies with an interest in the watershed. Each SWAP plan will be different so as to address the unique
problems of each stream in a comprehensive manner. The AWRC has endorsed the preparation of SWAP plans
within nine priority sub-watersheds (see map on page 23) as a critical element of the overall restoration effort. The
key components of a SWAP plan are listed on the following page.
State of the Anacostia 1989 Status ReP°rt
-------
Restoration Accomplishments
Eight Steps of a Sub-Watershed Action Plan
1. An in-depth analysis of the water quality and aquatic community within the sub-watershed.
2. The definition of specific target(s) or goals to guide the restoration effort in the sub-watershed.
3. A detailed inventory of the opportunities for storm water retrofit and stream restoration projects.
4. Priority ranking of the restoration projects, based on feasibility, cost, and ability to meet sub-watershed
targets.
5. Long-term agreements to design, review, permit, construct, maintain, and monitor the priority restoration
JJl vlJCt' to •
6. Development of plans to increase wetland and forest cover in the sub-watershed.
7. Identify other actions that can be taken to protect the sub-watershed beyond restoration projects.
8. Specify a long-term monitoring program to assess progress made in achieving water quality and biological
habitat improvements. 6
PRIORITY SUB-WATERSHEDS
Nine watersheds have been selected for SWAPs and three will be
prepared during the coming year.
SLIGO CREEK: Flowing through densely populated sections of
Montgomery and Prince George's counties, Sligo Creek is one of the
most heavily urbanized Anacostia tributaries. Although bordered by a
thin buffer of parkland managed by M-NCPPC, periodic parkland and
roadway flooding, in addition to severe streambank erosion are the
major problems affecting the stream. As a result, Sligo Creek supports
few fish and other forms of aquatic life.
HICKEY RUN: Located entirely within the District of Columbia, this
1070 acre watershed is heavily polluted from upstream commercial and
industrial land uses. Hickey Run has a fifty year history of chronic oil
spills and storm water runoff of oil and grease. In addition, water quality
problems include violations of bacteria, BOD, trace metals, pH, DO and
phosphates.
INDIAN CREEK: Originating in the sparsely developed upper reaches
of the basin, the character of Indian Creek changes as it meanders
through numerous active and abandoned sand and gravel mining areas.
It is there that numerous abandoned sand and gravel mines contribute
large amounts of sediment to the river. In its lower reaches, Indian
Creek passes through a highly urbanized, commercial and residential
corridor. At its confluence with Paint Branch, the stream is a concrete
lined flood control channel with little or no vegetative buffer.
1 Sligo Creek
2 Hickey Run
3 Indian Creek
•* Northwest Branch
5 Upper Paint Branch
6 Beaver Dam Creek
7 Northeast Branch
8 Watts Branch
9 Tidal Estuary
This map indicates the locations of
the nine priority sub-watersheds located
within the Anacostia basin.
State of the Anacostia
1989 Status Report
-------
Restoration Accomplishments
Non-Point Source Storm Monitoring Network Established
In addition to the CAMP network, a system of storm monitoring stations became operational during 1989.
The storm monitor network was established to measure pollutant loadings delivered to the tidal estuary, as well
as to assess the impact of urban storm runoff on stream water quality.
During 1989, four storm monitoring stations were operated in the watershed. These monitoring stations
neatly fall within two distinct categories: watershed monitors and performance monitors.
Watershed Monitors
1. The Northwest Branch Storm Monitor: This monitor was installed by MDE and COG within the existing
USGS stream gauging station house at Queens Chapel Road in Hyattsville, Maryland. This station gathers storm-
flow water quality data from 49 square miles of Piedmont drainage in the western portion of the Anacostia
watershed.
2. The Northeast Branch Storm Monitor: This monitor was installed by the Natural Resource Division of PG-
MNCPPC at the stream gauging house at Riverdale Road in Riverdale, Maryland. This station gathers storm-flow
water quality data from the 72.8 square miles that drain to it through the eastern portion of the free-flowing Ana-
costia watershed.
1. Northwest Branch Storm Monitor
2. Northeast Branch Storm Monitor
3. River Terrace Storm Monitor
4. Indian Creek Storm Monitor
Both monitors work in tandem, gathering information
from the two main tributaries that form the Anacostia River
when they merge just upstream of the Bladensburg Marina.
At their confluence, lies the head of tide which signals the
transition of the watershed from free-flowing upland drain-
age to the tidally-influenced estuary.
Performance Monitors
3. The River Terrace Storm Monitor: This monitor is
located at the terminus of C Street, N.E. in a heavily
urbanized portion of downtown Washington, D.C. The
monitor measures pollutant levels within the storm drain
system of an industrial and residential area before they are
discharged into the tidal Anacostia.
4. The Indian Creek Storm Monitor: This monitor meas-
ures pollutant levels within upper Indian Creek. Land use
within the seven-square mile watershed includes new devel-
opment, forest cover, and abandoned sand and gravel mines.
The monitor is operated by PG-MNCPPC and will be used
to assess the effectiveness of three large urban retrofit
projects.
This map indicates the locations of four storm
monitors located within the Anacostia watershed.
State of the Anacostia
1989 Status Report
-------
Restoration Accomplishments
IMPLEMENTATION OF BASIN -
WIDE CONTROLS
Water quality problems in the Anacostia can be largely attributed to urban
nonpomt sources of pollution. Major nonpoint sources in the basin include
combined sewer overflows, urban runoff from developed areas and erosion from
construction sites and surface mining operations. Within certain areas of the
basin, point sources of pollution also have major negative impacts on water
quality. To improve water quality within the basin, pollution from each of these
areas must be addressed and minimized.
During the third year of the restoration effort, a number of basin- wide controls were implemented to improve
both water quality and stream habitat. The following list summarizes the accomplishments achieved in this a?el
m m /fo^^
is served by combined sewer systems that date back to the late 19th century. Most of the CSO discharge points
are concentrated along the Anacostia near RFK Stadium. Phase I of a 400 million-gallon-per-day Swirl
Concentrator facility near the RFK Stadium outfall is complete and should be operational by summer of 1990
^s^
Basin-wide Implementation of the Retrofit Program - The Anacostia Watershed Urban Retrofit
Directory lists >26projects in the District of Columbia, Prince George's County, and Montgomery County that have
been approved for funding, are in the design phase, or are under construction. Approximately $5 million has been
committed to these projects. Construction has been completed on the Wheaton Branch Stormwater Retrofit in
Montgomery County. This project represents one of the first generation Maryland State Cost-Share projects
treating 824 acres of a 55% impervious watershed area.
Point Source Controls - The Suite of Maryland has required the Mineral Pigments Plant at Indian Creek to
abide with new discharge restrictions for toxic metals contained within surface runoff from the site This action
has dramatically reduced nitrogen levels within the stream. Processing waste is now treated at the Blue Plains
** "^ RUn METOO Ske ^ * the
Enhanced Controls On New Development - Local governments are continuing efforts to mitigate the
impact of new development on the Anacostia, through stringent stormwater/sediment control land-use and site
design review. Both Prince George's and Montgomery counties have passed Tree Preservation ordinances for the
protection of trees, woodland, and wildlife habitat from the impacts of land development. In 1989 more than 20
acres of land were reforested in the Anacostia watershed. More of these projects are planned for 1990.
Surface Mine Reclamation: Cleanup at the Magruder I Rawlins Site - Reclamation work at the
Magruder / Rawlmgs abandoned sand and gravel facility is nearly 80% complete. Much of the work to-date has
included regrading, sludging, and seeding the north and south portions of the site. In an effort to complete all of
the scheduled reclamation work, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Surface Mining Division has
granted a permit extension through October of 1990 for surface grading, sludging, and seeding for the remainder
OI Ulc SllC.
State of the Anacostia
1989 Status Report
-------
Restoration Accomplishments
Sediment / Stormwater Controls for New Development
Development activity was strong throughout the Anacostia basin during 1989, reflecting a six-year-long
boom in the building industry. Local governments worked to institute tight controls on the new urban and
suburban development so as to minimize the impact on streams. These controls include tough requirements to
reduce sediment generated during the construction stage of development, as well as requirements to construct
urban BMPs to control Stormwater runoff. Urban BMPs include wet ponds, extended detention ponds, created
wetlands, infiltration trenches, and oil/grit separators.
County-wide statistics compiled during 1987 to 1989 underscore the significant efforts made in Montgomery
and Prince George's Counties to protect urban streams (no data was available to assess the District of Columbia's
Stormwater and sediment control programs). As can be seen in the chart below, more than 1,000 urban BMPs were
constructed in both counties during the three-year period. A majority of these BMP's were capable of removing
urban pollutants and controlling frequent flooding. An increase in the use of certain kinds of BMPs such as
infiltration systems, wet ponds, created wetlands, and oil/grit separators was seen.
Similar improvement was noted during 1989 for construction site sediment control. Recent statistics
generated by MDE indicate that more than 30 square miles of land in the two counties saw new construction in
1989. Local governments responded by increasing the number of sedimentcontrol inspectors, and enforcing more
stringent sediment control plans at construction sites. Nearly 1,800 sediment control permits were issued with an
average load of about 100 permits for each inspector. While the inspectors remained overloaded, this represented
an encouraging drop in the inspection burden from the previous year. A number of initiatives are to be undertaken
to further improve local Stormwater and sediment control programs, which are described in the Third Annual
Workplan.
Urban BMP's Constructed at New
Development Sites
Total No. Stormwater BMP's 1987-1989
Montgomery County Prince George's County
Detention Pond» 14
3%
Retention
Pondt 88
20%
Extended
Detention 14
3*
Infiltration 67
16%
Infiltration 268
43%
Oil/Grit
Separatora 240
64%
Detention Pond* 41
7%
Wetland* 19
4%
Retention Ponda 73
12% Vegetated
Swalea 10
2%
Extended
Detention 29
6%
Oil/Grit Separatora 1
32%
Total-442
Total-577
Sources: 1) MCDEP 2) PG DER 3) MD. Dept. of Environment
State of the Anacostia
1989 Status Report
-------
Restoration Accomplishments
Recreating Lost Wetlands
Tidal and nontidal wetlands have been destroyed in many portions of
the Anacostia watershed. Experimental work was performed during 1989 to
re-create wetlands lost to human actions. COG staff planted the margins and
shore line zones of five stormwater ponds on Montgomery County with
emergent wetland plants, such as wild rice, bulrush, arrow arum, wild celery,
and sweet flag. Most of the wetland plants survived to the next year.
Another wetland planting experiment was conducted on the shore line
margins of the tidal Anacostia River in 1989. The University of Maryland
planted eight species at two sites at two sites along the tidal zone to
determine which wetland plants will fare the best in the demanding environ-
ment of the Anacostia.
Lessons learned from both planting efforts will be used to develop better
planting strategies to recreate the lost wetlands of the Anacostia.
Wetland plants , once mature, will enhance water
quality, fish and wildlife habitat, and the overall
aesthetic appearance of stormwater management facilities.
Planting of aquatic vegetation by the Montgomery
County Conservation Corps at a Paint Branch
retrofit site.
State of the Anacostia
1989 Status Report
-------
Urban Stream Restoration Techniques - Part of the process of restoring an urban watershed
such as the Anacostia involves rebuilding or the re-creation of its streams that have become damaged or severely
altered by years of urbanization and agriculture. The following eight stream restoration techniques are being used
in the Anacostia.
ux» WITH —** i '-EXCAVATED
iwvtftr L J '. PUJH&C. ftoc.
State of the Anacostia
1989 Status Report
-------
Restoration Accomplishments
LIVING RESOURCES
The following section reports on progress made toward improvement of
Living Resources as part of the overall program of watershed restoration in the
Anacostia.
Fish Passage Modification
During 1989, the ICPRB organized a Migratory Fish Barrier Working Group to serve as a subset of the
Maryland and Chesapeake Bay Migratory Fish Working Group. The Work Group established three goals in
response to recent biological monitoring conducted in the Northeast and Northwest Branches and the Lower
Anacostia River: 1) Remove/modify barriers to fish passage, 2) Improve water quality, and 3) Restore fish
habitat.
The Work Group identified three sites where barriers to herring migration exist: 1) Northeast branch weir
structure behind PG-MNCPPC offices, 2) Northwest Branch 38th Street dam in Hyattsville, and 3) Northwest
Branch sewer encasements located 2(30 yards upstream from the 38th Street dam. The Work Group is optimistic
that work will begin to modify the weir structure in the Northeast Branch during the summer of 1990
Riparian Reforestation Effort
As with most urban areas, the Anacostia watershed has experienced tre-
mendous loss of tree cover due to watershed development. Increased urbani-
zation and the resultant need for Hood control protection have both increased
the loss of forested areas. Of particular concern is the loss of tree cover
adjacent to rivers and streams. Tree cover along streams not only provides
essential habitat, shading and forage for both aquatic and terrestrial species,
but also can protect surface and ground water quality. Forested stream buffers
also provide wildlife corridors essential for survival in the urban environment.
In the recent inventory of restoration opportunities in the Anacostia, more
than ten linear miles of reforestation projects were identified in the watershed.
The locations of these proposed projects are shown on the map to the right
Concepts developed for these projects typically include the use of mixed-age,
native plant and tree species in an attempt to mimic the historical streamside
ecosystem. In areas of intensive recreational use or high visibility, different
planting stratagies may be needed.
The reforestation of the Anacostia stream corridor is an ambitious task,
and due to constraints such as land ownership or in-compatible existing land
uses, it may not be possible to create a totally connected forested corridor.
With the help of both local staffs and volunteers, however, tremendous im-
provements can be made.
State of the Anacostia
1989 Status Report
-------
Restoration Accomplishments
Wlf
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
During 1989, the ICPRB program continued to
strengthen and expand its efforts in the following
areas:
O Eight sub-basin coordinators covering nine
sub-basins promoted public involvement for the
Anacostia restoration effort to more than 1,000
people. This was accomplished by oral-slide pres-
entations to civic associations, environmental groups,
and community leaders, in addition to conducting
educational stream walks and distributing related
printed literature. The part-time coordinators have
continued to walk and photograph their designated
streams while advising appropriate agencies of
problems. A photographic library of the tidal river
and upstream tributaries now includes more than
1,000 slide transparencies.
O The ICPRB published and distributed four
issues of "In the Anacostia Watershed," an 8-page
quarterly newsletter devoted to restoration and
citizen accomplishments in the Anacostia water-
shed. In 1989,8,500 free copies of the publication
were distributed, doubling the previous year's cir-
culation.
O Volunteers for the Anacostia were sought and
encouraged to join the organization(s) of their
choice, and to adopt segments; of tributary streams.
G In an effort to train the public about stream
habitat and clean-up efforts, a series of educational
workshops for volunteers were held in the spring of
1989.
O 1989 saw the publication of "Restoring Watts
Branch," the first of a series of 8-page, sub-basin
educational documents.
O ICPRB continued to prov ide support for agen-
cies engaged in restoration effortsjevious year's
circulation.
Getting Involved
Volunteers:
For general volunteer information on the Anacostia
restoration effort, organizations.
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin
(ICPRB), Beverly Bandler, Suite 300,6110 Executive
Boulevard, Rockville, MD 20852 (301) 984-1908
Annual Tidal Anacostia Clean-Up: Howard Gasaway,
2806 32nd Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20020.
(202) 544-7333
Adopt A Stream: The Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin; Maryland Save Our Streams,
5531 Bosworth Avenue, Baltimore, MD 21207 (301)
448-1979; Izaak Walton League Save Our Streams,
1401 Wilson Boulevard, Level B, Arlington, VA
22209. (703)528-1818.
Join an Organization such as the Alliance for the
Chesapeake Bay, Anacostia Watershed Society,
Audubon Naturalist Society, Chesapeake Bay Foun-
dation, Izaak Walton League, League of Woman
Voters, and Maryland Save Our Streams.
One Million Mary landers for the Bay is a state-wide
effort aimed at getting groups actively involved in
projects to improve the bay, including: tree planting,
habitat enhancement, stream and shoreline clean-up,
and shoreline erosion control. Write: One Million
Mary landers for the Bay, Office of the Governor,
State House, Annapolis, MD 21401.
The Soil Conservation Service's Earth Team Pro-
gram offers a variety of volunteer opportunities.
Contact the appropriate District Conservationist in the
District of Columbia (576-6951), Prince George's
County (952-3903), Montgomery County (590-2855).
State of the Anacostia
1989 Status Report
-------
-------
Appendix B
Organizational Protocol from a Puget Sound
Watershed Project
-------
-------
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER
EARLY ACTION WATERSHED PLAN
DRAFT PROTOCOL
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
Lsad Agency Functions and Responsibilities
The Snohomish County Department of Public Works will function
as the lead agency for the Stillaguamish River Early Action
Watershed Plan. In accordance with WAC 400-12-400 (2), the
Department of Public Works, as the lead agency, is respon-
sible for the following:
a. Coordinate activities necessary to develop and implement
the watershed action plan.
b. Coordinate all activities of the Watershed Management Com-
mittee.
c. Submittal of the action plan to the Department of Ecology
for approval.
d. Administration of the grant to develop the action plan.
e. Coordinate the SEPA review process.
f. Carry out implementation provisions of the approved water-
shed action plan.
Watershed Management Committee Functions and Responsibilities
The Watershed Management Committee is responsible for devel-
oping the Watershed Action Plan for the Stillaguamish River.
The use of consensus in making decisions is strongly encour-
aged. The Snohomish County Department of Public Works will
coordinate and function as staff for the Watershed Management
Committee. Specific functions and responsibilities include:
a. Prepare and review a detailed work plan, scued^le, and
budget for the development of the Stillaguamish River Ac-
tion Plan.
b. Develop a strategy for public participation and involve-
ment in the planning process.
c. Prepare a statement of water quality goals and objectives,
involving the public and affected parties through consul-
tations,- public meetings, or document review.
d. Develop a draft Action Plan for the Stillaguamish River.
e. Regularly provide written information on action plan de-
velopment to local government legislative authorities,
federal and state governmental entities with jurisdiction
-------
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER
EARLY ACTION WATERSHED PLAN
DRAFT PROTOCOL
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
within the watershed, planning and health aoenciea
jurisdiction within the watershed, tribes in the
shed, and the public and affected parties?
d. Ensure that the action plan is technically and function-
ox«Ly sounci •
e. Provide and encourage public review and involvement in the
planning process. in tne
t. Ensure that federal agencies, local entities, and state
a?encle^that either have jurisdiction over any property
of facility, or are engaged in any activity resulting in
nonpoint pollution in the watershed, are aware of their
lution8control t0 C°mPly Wlth 10Cal re(^lrenients ^r pol-
Qualifications of Watershed Management Committee Members
The general qualifications of Watershed Management Committee
members are: ^uumttee
a. Watershed Management Committee members should be able to
S???? £?r, and rePrese"t the full range of interests
within their local governmental entity, tribe, or inter!
est group. ' J-nter
b. Watershed Management Committee members should have a araen
of statewide, county, and basin issues with respect to
nonpoint source pollution. H
c. Watershed Management Committee members should be of a hi ah
enough level within their organization to be able to make
decisions at the WMC meetings with a high degree of con-
fidence that the decision will b« upheld and accepted by
their respective entity, tribe, or interest group. Y
d. Watershed Management Committee members should possess the
technical knowledge to review and comment on detailed
work plans, project schedules, and ensure that action
plan is accurate and technically and functionally sound.
e. Watershed Management Committee members must be willina to
respect, listen to, and understand other interests.
f . Watershed Management Committee members will be expected to
?ooo at i~SVnCe a *ontn' Possibly more often; during
1988. Attendance at all WMC meetings is imperative i?
a member is unable to attend a WMC meeting, then it is
-------
STILLAGUAMISH RIVER
EARLY ACTION WATERSHED PLAN
DRAFT PROTOCOL
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT COMMITTEE
the responsibility of that member, as a representative of
a governmental entity, tribe, or interest group, to des-
ignate an alternative to attend the meeting.
Watershed Management Committee Meetings
a. Watershed Management Committee meetings are designed to be
more like work sessions than formal meetings, therefore,
it is not generally necessary to abide by parliamentary
procedures.
b. All Watershed Management Committee meetings will have an
agenda. The agenda will be reviewed and revised as neces-
sary at the start of each meeting. The project manager
from the Department of Public Works, or his/her designee,
will facilitate all meetings.
c. The facilitator is responsible for ensuring that the com-
mittee moves through the agenda, and that each committee
member has the opportunity to speak on agenda items and
that the discussions stay germane to the agenda items.
d. All decisions made by the Watershed Management Committee
will be made by consensus. When decisions are required,
the facilitator will make sure that the decision is under-
stood by all committee members and that consensus has been
achieved.
e. Each Watershed Management Committee meeting will end with
a short evaluation of the meeting and the status of the
project as a whole and a summary of consensus decisions
reached at the meeting.
f. Each Watershed Management Committee meeting will be taped
and notes taken by Public Works staff. A summary of each
meeting will be prepared and distributed to all Watershed
Management Committee members and others who have expressed
an interest in receiving a summary of meetings.
g. Watershed Management Committee members are responsible for
reviewing the meeting summaries and briefing their respec-
tive elected officials, tribal councils, or affected party
constituents prior to the next scheduled Watershed
Management Committee meeting.
h. All Watershed Management Committee meetings will be open
to the public.
-------
Worksheet on Forming Watershed Management Committees*
POTENTIAL COMMITTEE MEMBERS
Planning
Health
Public Works
Council/Commission
County Executive
Planning Commission
Conservation District
Cooperative Extension
till c -«*^. representatives
Planning
Public Works
City Manager
City Council
Mayor
TRIBES (Do any tribes have jurisdiction in the watershed?)
have a direct interest in nonpoint
Agriculture
(commercial—dairy,
cattle, crop;
non-commercial)
Developers/Realtors
Environmental
Recreation
Commercial/Industry
Residents "At Large11
Other
-------
SPECIAL PURPOSE DISTRICTS (Which special purpose districts should
be involved in developing a watershed action plan?)
Drainage
Diking
Flood Control
Ports
River Improvement
Sewer
Other
COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS
STATE AGENCIES (Do any state agencies own land in the watershed?
Should others be included in an advisory capacity?)
Dept. of Natural Resources
Dept. of Fisheries
Dept. of Social and Health Serv.
Dept. of Ecology
Dept. of Transportation
Parks and Recreation
Dept. of Agriculture
FEDERAL AGENCIES (Do any federal agencies own land in the
watershed? Should others be included in an advisory capacity?)
Soil Conservation Service
U.S. Forest Service
U.S. Dept. of Transportation
U.S. Park Service
Military Installations
U.S. E.P.A.
Other
*Worksheet prepared by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
for use by lead agencies for Early Action Watersheds.
-------
Worksheet on Forming Watershed Management Committees*
QUESTIONS ABOUT COMMITTEE FORMATION
1. What process will we use to recruit members?
2. What committee structure should we use?
3. What is a manageable committee size?
4. Who should be asked/urged to participate from local
government?
5. How do we ensure the representation of "affected
parties"?
6. Under what conditions should we use an advisory
committee (citizen, technical, or policy)?
7. At what points in the process will we involve the
general public and how will this be done?
*Worksheet prepared by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
for use by lead agencies for Early Action Watersheds.
-------
Appendix C
Programs that Can be Useful for Control of
Nonpoint Source Pollution
-------
-------
PROGRAMS THAT CAN BE USEFUL FOR CONTROL OF
NONPOINT SOURCE POLLUTION *
Agency and program
Program Descriptions and
Agency Responsibilities
Resources Available and
Possible Roles
US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA)
Located in 10 Regional
Offices. Headquarters in
Washington D.C.
Provides environmental
assessments, water quality
monitoring, regulations and
regulatory oversight,
education, planning, technical
assistance, grants and loans
for pollution control.
Staff, information and data,
laboratories and research
facilities, grants and loans for
pollution control, educational
materials, monitoring
equipment.
EPA - Permits
NPDES permits for confined
animal feeding operations,
enforcement for non-
compliance
Staff for technical assistance
with modeling and permit
drafting, site inspections and
compliance monitoring. Funds
for special studies or
projects.
EPA - Pesticides
Regulation of pesticide
labeling and registration,
which includes application
rates, allowable crops and
pests, environmental and
human health cautions,
disposal procedures.
Licensing of restricted use
pesticide applicators
Staff for review of research
results, assistance with
strategic planning, education
and training, oversight of
enforcement procedures of
States. Funds for special
projects and studies.
EPA - Surface water quality
management (multiple
programs)
Overall water quality planning
and management through the
following programs:
1. Nonpoint Source Control
Program which oversees
and approves State
development of water
quality assessments and
management programs.
Directs funds to high
priority watershed
projects.
2. Clean Lakes
Program provides funds to
restore or enhance
publicly owned lakes.
Staff for technical assistance
to State and local agencies,
review and approval of State
programs, research and
special studies. Grants to
States for most water quality
protection activities,
educational materials and
programs. Funds for special
studies or projects.
* See also Watershed Protection: Catalog of Federal Programs (EPA, 1993b)
-------
Agency and program
EPA - Monitoring and
surveillance
EPA - Drinking Water
f>r00rani Descriptions and
Agency Responsibilities
3. Coastal Programs--A
number of programs
designed to assess and
protect coastal waters,
including the National
Estuary program.
Possible Roles
and
4.
Wetlands-Oversight of the
Corps of Engineers on
wetlands dredge and fill
permits, takes enforcement
actions for illegal wetlands
filling, technical support for
wetlands delineations.
5. Water Quality Standards--
Programs provides technical
assistance in developing
numeric, narrative and
biological criteria and
standards to protect water
quality and its use.
Environmental assessment, data
analysis, oversight of State
monitoring programs, special
studies and agency research,
EPA laboratory and Office of
Research and Development
coordination.
Regulates public drinking water
supplies and suppliers, special
studies on human health and
risk, develops drinking water
criteria and MCLs (maximum
contaminant levels).
Administers a special program
that encourages watershed
projects to decrease pollution
loads to drinking water supplies
if installation of BMPs is less
expensive than the water
treatment. Provides technical
and programmatic assistance to
State wellhead protection
programs. Supports an
initiative to expand community-
based source water protection
efforts.
Staff for technical assistance
to States and citizens on
monitoring programs and
projects; special studies and
data analysis upon request;
water quality monitoring at
select locations.
Staff for technical assistance
in setting drinking water
standards, special studies,
oversight and compliance
monitoring of public water
supplies and suppliers.
C-2
-------
Agency and program
Program Descriptions and
Agency Responsibilities
Resources Available and
Possible Roles
EPA - Ground water
Administers the Sole Source
Aquifer Protection Program and
provide technical and
programmatic assistance to
Comprehensive State
Groundwater Protection
Programs.
Staff for technical assistance;
funds for special studies.
EPA - Office of Research
and Development (ORD)
Conducts basic and applied
research to support EPA
mission including biological and
physical studies on fate and
transport of environmental
contaminants and ecosystems
at large.
Reports, data, maps,
monitoring equipment, study
and demonstration sites, staff
for technical assistance in
interpreting research results.
US Department of
Agriculture (USDA)
Unless otherwise indicated
each agency has field
offices located in almost
every county or parish,
State offices in each State
and a Washington, D.C.
office.
Stabilize and support the
efficient production, marketing
and distribution of food and
fiber. In addition to commodity
and public welfare programs,
administers a number of
conservation programs
designed to assist private and
federal land owners or
managers in natural resource
conservation and multiple use
management. Works mainly
with private individuals on
improving resource
management.
Staff, technical assistance,
information and data,
educational materials, cost-
share funds, engineering
equipment.
USDA - Multiple agency
administration of 1985 and
1990 "Farm Bill" programs:
1. Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP)
1. Program to
conserve/protect highly
erodible or other
environmentally sensitive
land from production by
putting it in permanent
vegetative cover through 10
year easements and annual
rental payments.
In most cases responsibilities
within these programs are
divided between departments
of USDA as follows:
NRCS - technical assistance in
planning, design, and
implementation of BMPs
ASCS - Administrative
oversight of program and cost-
share funding disbursement.
CES - Education and
information about the variety
of conservation and economic
choices available.
C-3
-------
Agency and program
2. Wetlands Reserve
Program
Program Descriptions and
Agency Responsibilities
3. Sustainable Agricultural
Research and
Education Program
4. Conservation cross
compliance (sodbuster
and swampbuster)
5. Water Quality
Incentives Program
USDA - Natural Resources
Conservation Service
(NRCS) formerly Soil
Conservation Service (SCS)
3.
Program available only in
pilot States to return
drained wetlands to wetland
status and protect existing
wetlands. Uses same
easement/payment method
as CRP.
A practical research,
education grant program to
promote lower input
methods of farming.
A quasi-regulatory program
that denies subsidy
payments to farmers who
plow highly erodible land or
drain wetlands.
A watershed treatment
program designed to
improve or protect soil and
water resources in
watersheds impacted or
threatened by NPS
pollution.
Resources Available and
Possible Roles
•
CSRS - Research, data, and
the results of demonstration
field trials of new technologies
Technical assistance on the
planning, site specific design
and installation and
management of soil and range
conservation, animal waste,
and water quality management
systems and special land and
water resource assessments
and inventories. Cost-share
funds for installation of BMPs
on private lands are available
from some of the programs
listed below.
Staff and equipment in field
offices for technical assistance
including engineering designs,
survey work, and planning for
water resource protection.
C-4
-------
Agency and program
Program Descriptions and
Agency Responsibilities
Resources Available and
Possible Roles
USDA-NRCS-Small
Watershed Program (PL-
566)
Evaluation and treatment of
small agricultural watersheds
with multiple resources to
protect. Includes land and
natural resource inventories and
assessments, basin-wide
planning and targeting of
resources, technical assistance
and educational programs.
Staff for technical assistance
to landwoners and
decisionmakers in the basin,
funds for demonstration
projects, reconnaissance and
intensive inventories of
resources.
USDA-NRCA-Great Plains
Conservation Program
(GPCP)
Intensive conservation
treatment for individual farms
located within the Great Plains
ecoregion through long-term
agreements (3-10 year
contract) with farmers.
Technical assistance, cost-
share funds up to 75% of the
average cost of selected high
priority conservation practices.
USDA-NRCS-Resource
Conservation and
Development Program
(RC&D)
Voluntary program to promote
economic development and to
intensify resource protection in
priority areas through the use of
public participation in RC&D
councils.
Planning assistance for small
communities for community-
wide resource protection.
USDA-NRCS-Natural
Resource Assessment
programs: Soil Survey,
Natural Resources
Inventory, River Basin
Studies
Various programs to map and
assess the condition of natural
resources (generally soil, water,
vegetation and wildlife) and
conservation treatments.
Maps, reports, data
information, statistical
analysis.
USDA-Agricultural
Stabilization and
Conservation Service
(ASCS)
Provides administrative
oversight and cost sharing for
approved conservation
practices from ASCS and other
USDA administered programs.
Tracks crop production and
other statistics. Distributes
crop subsidy and deficiency
payments.
Maps, conservation practice
status information, cost-share
funds
USDA-ASCS-Agricultural
Conservation Program
(ACP)
Cost-sharing on an annual basis
for a number of soil conserving,
production efficiency improving
and water quality practices.
Funds for cost share, generally
limited to $3,500 per farm per
year.
C-5
-------
Agency and program
USDA - ASCS - Emergency
Conservation Program (ECP)
USDA - ASCS - Water Bank
Program
USDA - ASCS - Colorado
River Salinity Control Program
(CRSCP)
USDA - ASCS - Forestry
Incentives Program (FIP)
USDA - Cooperative
Extension Service (CES)
USDA - Cooperative State
Research Service (CSRS)
Program Descriptions and
Agency Responsibilities
' —*__
Cost-sharing on an annual
basis to replace conservation
treatments (mainly structural)
that were destroyed in areas
designated as disaster areas
due to an act of nature.
Resources Available and
Possible Roles
i nun <_***^^^ ^ M_
Funds for cost share of high
priority conservation
practices.
Designed to improve and
restore wetland areas through
financial compensation for 10
year easements on private
property.
Funds for easement
compensation on eligible
lands in participating States.
Financial assistance for farm
projects which seek to control
salinity levels delivered to the
basin, primarily irrigation
water management.
Cost-share to re-vegetate and
improve timber stands on
private lands.
Funds, reports, data on level
of conservation treatment,
demonstration sites, funds
for cost-share, monitoring
and education.
Educational programs and
information to aid individuals
in the selection, operation,
and maintenance of the most
beneficial conservation
treatments. Economic
analysis and data for each
farm or ranch. Provides
technical assistance in
integrated pest management.
Programs generally carried out
in cooperation with State land
grant universities.
Cost-share funds
Applied research, usually at
State experiment stations on
agricultural production and
soil and water conservation,
generally using demonstration
plots. Conducts the
Sustainable Agriculture
Research and Education
program (SARE). Many
projects in cooperation with
State land grant universities.
Staff for educational
programs and technical
assistance, personalized
economic analysis, and
coordinating small scale
demonstrations on local
farms. Educational materials.
Reports, data, equipment.
Occasionally funds for
joint/special projects outside
the normal research agenda.
Grants for Agriculture in
Concert with the
Environment (ACE) program.
C-6
-------
Agency and program
Program Descriptions and
Agency Responsibilities
Resources Available and
Possible Rotes
USDA - Forest Service (USFS)
Field offices located in each
national forest, Regional
offices located in 9 areas.
Headquarters in Washington
D.C.
Management of national
forests and grasslands for
sustained production and
multiple use. Works with
individuals, industries and
other agencies.
Staff, maps, reports,
equipment for construction
and monitoring, educational
materials, occasionally funds
for special projects.
USDA - USFS - Permit
program
Oversight of timber sales and
harvest contracts, grazing
leases, minerals development
on USFS property. Provides
technical assistance to
permittee in proper resource
use.
Staff for technical assistance
and compliance monitoring.
USDA - USFS - Air and
Watershed Programs
Overall environmental
planning and technical support
for forest management
decisions. Special studies and
watershed demonstration
projects in certain areas.
Funds for special studies and
watershed demonstration
projects. Natural resource
inventories and reports,
water quality/habitat
monitoring, environmental
analysis of resource trends
and conditions.
USDA - USFS - Forest
Stewardship Initiative
Technical assistance and cost
share to private inholdings or
lands adjacent to National
forest lands for installing
BMPS.
Funds and technical
assistance to individuals
USDA - Farmers Home
Administration (FmHA)
Loans and loan guarantees to
eligible producers for
operating expenses, land
purchase and conservation
measures.
Funds and loans for property
improvement and
conservation treatment
installation and water
conservation practices.
USDA - Agricultural Research
Service (ARS)
Research stations located
throughout each State; most
specialize in particular types
of investigations.
Basic and applied research on
agricultural production and
conservation measures,
including fertilizers, pesticides
and BMP effectiveness.
Reports, BMP effectiveness
and environmental fate and
transport data, demonstration
sites; occasionally funds for
joint sponsored projects.
US Department of the Interior
(USDOI)
Offices located in regional
centers, field offices in
numerous management areas;
headquarters in Washington
DC.
Oversight, management, or
monitoring of National natural
resources, including land,
water, and wildlife.
Staff, maps, reports,
demonstration sites,
educational materials,
monitoring equipment.
C-7
-------
Agency and program
Program Descriptions and
Agency Responsibilities
Resources Available and
Possible Roles
USDOI - Geological Survey
(USGS)
USDOI - Fish and Wildlife
Service
USDOI - Bureau of Land
Management (BLM)
USDOI - Bureau of Indian
Affairs (BIA)
Long term baseline monitoring
of water resources (quantity
and quality), hydrologic and
geologic investigations and
data, special intensive short
term studies,
Maps, data and information
on hydrology and water
quality status and trends.
Staff for technical assistance
in designing a monitoring plan
Oversight and regulation of
the Nation's wildlife
resources. Management of
National wildlife reserves,
enforcement of federal game
and fish laws, cooperative
administration of national
wetlands program with COE
and EPA. Cooperative
projects to enhance wildlife
habitat, special studies
especially fisheries
investigations.
Staff for enforcement of
Endangered Species Act and
other laws on public and
private agricultural land,
research reports and data on
habitat, populations and
management of wildlife.
Funds for cooperative
projects. Educational
materials, teacher training,
curricula, and maps.
Administration and
management of federal lands.
Oversight of grazing leases,
mineral exploration and
extraction bids and leases on
BLM lands. Technical
assistance to permitees on
BLM land in proper resource
use. Oversight of recreational
users of BLM land.
Staff for environmental
analysis and trend evaluation
on BLM land, technical
assistance and oversight.
Funds for special studies and
cost-share for permitees for
certain conservation practices
(generally grazing/range
management). Funds for
range improvement, riparian
area managementand
recreational area
development projects. Maps.
Technical assistance to tribes
on tribal lands mainly for
social services. Some
assistance for conservation
work and educational
programs. Natural resource
inventories and monitoring of
ground and surface water.
Maps, natural resource
inventories of Indian and
tribal lands. Funds for
special projects. Staff for
technical assistance to tribes.
C-8
-------
Agency and program
Program Descriptions and
Agency Responsibilities
Resources Available and
Possible Roles
USDOI - Bureau of
Reclamation
Administers, constructs, and
oversees water supply
facilities in western States.
Regulates discharge from
these facilities. Joint
administration of the Colorado
River Salinity Control Program
with many agencies to set
consistent salinity standards
and manage public and private
lands within the basin. New
initiative to reclaim lands
damaged by federal irrigation
projects.
Staff for oversight of projects
and management of federal
property and facilities,
assessment of water quality
around reservoirs as part of
the national irrigation water
quality program. Maps,
reports, and data.
USDOI - National Park Service
Administers and manages
national parks for preservation
of natural resources.
Staff for oversight and
administration. Funds for
special studies and
occasionally cooperative
projects on land adjoining
park boundaries.
USDOI - Office of Surface
Mines (OSM)
Regulates the removal and
reclamation of surface mined
minerals, mostly coal on
private lands.
Staff for oversight and
technical assistance in mining
operations and reclamation
efforts, for engineering
studies, and for vegetative
site inspections and
monitoring of resources.
Educational materials, data
and reports.
US Department of Defense -
Army Corps of Engineers
(COE)
Field offices located in
various districts through out
States.
Oversees construction and
operation of large flood
control and public water
supply reservoirs, conducts
water quality monitoring on
lakes within their jurisdiction.
Regulates in-lake activities
and shoreline development.
Cooperatively administers the
wetlands dredge and fill
permit program with EPA and
USFWS. Can enforce permit
requirements for BMPs or
other mitigation.
Maps, special studies,
monitoring data. Staff and
funds for improvement of
existing projects. Staff for
review and oversight of 404
(wetlands) permits.
C-9
-------
Agency and program
Program Descriptions and
Agency Responsibilities
Resources Available and
Possible Roles
US Department of
Commerce - National Oceanic
and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA)
USDOC - NOAA -Coastal
Zone Management Act
(CZMA) programs
State Water Quality Agencies
State Natural Resource
Agencies
State Departments of
Agriculture
State Cooperative Extension
Services
Administers programs in
cooperation with States to
inventory and manage coastal
resources. Funds and
performs basic research and
assessments relating to
coastal eutrophication.
Maintains data base for
pesticides and nutrient
loadings.
Funds to State coastal
programs. Staff for technical
assistance. Data, reports,
educational materials.
Occasionally funds for special
demonstration projects.
In cooperation with EPA,
administers a quasi-regulatory
coastal protection program
that specifies management
measures for control and
prevention of NPS pollution in
coastal areas for all land use
activities.
Staff for technical assistance.
Funds for plan development.
Administer many programs
(similar to USEPA's) for
protection of water quality in
ground and surface water,
including the NPDES permit
program, water quality
standards regulations, the
NPS program, ambient
statewide monitoring
programs.
Staff for technical assistance
to local governments and
individuals in BMP
application. Water quality
monitoring, data and reports.
Funds for pollution control
projects, educational
materials, and programs.
Administer programs for
wetlands and coastal
protection programs.
Staff for technical assistance
to local governments.
Monitoring of natural
resource trends. Reports,
data, educational materials.
Regulates pesticide
registration and use,
administers marketing and
rural development programs.
Sometimes issues permits for
fertilizer or feedlots.
Staff for oversight of
applicators and other
regulatory functions.
Provide training and technical
assistance to landowners in
nonpoint source control.
Staff for education, technical
assistance, and research.
C-10
-------
Agency and program
Program Descriptions and
Agency Responsibilities
Resources Available and
Possible
State Departments of Health
Administer septic tank and
public drinking water
regulatory programs. Monitor
water supplies. Provide
technical assistance to local
governments.
Staff for technical assistance
to local governments,
monitoring, and educational
programs. Data, reports, and
educational materials.
State Soil and Water
Conservation Commissions
Administer cooperative
programs with the USDA SCS
to conserve soil and water
resources on private lands.
Provide technical assistance
to individuals.
Staff for technical assistance
to individuals, engineering or
construction equipment,
services and supplies that
support BMP implementation.
Some States have cost-share
funds for BMPs.
State Fish and Game
Agencies
Regulate the harvest of fish
and wildlife resources by
individuals and commercial
operations. Responsible for
cost recovery to State of lost
fish and wildlife due to
environmental contamination
Staff for enforcement of
State fish and game laws and
for technical assistance in
wildlife and fisheries
management for private
individuals. Educational
materials, natural resource
inventory data, and fish
monitoring support.
State Water Rights Agency
Responsible for allocation of
water rights (mostly in
western States). Regulates
consumptive use of water
resources.
Staff for permit writing and
oversight. Data and reports
on water flow.
Local Planning and Zoning
boards, City Planning
Commissions, County
Planning Boards
Specify land use zoning and
boundary determinations,
general community planning,
oversight of program
operation
Maps, long range plans,
inventory of local resources,
special reports, budget
information, staff for
technical assistance.
Local School Boards and
School Administrations
Oversee public education
within jurisdictional
boundaries. Can set local
curricula requirements and
priorities. Taxing authority,
bond issuing authority.
Information on status of
current educational programs,
assistance in developing new
initiatives.
Local Municipal Utilities
Districts
Oversees construction and
maintenance of public works
projects for water and sewer
(occasionally energy). Taxing
and bond issuing authority.
Information and special
reports on water issues.
Funds for special projects to
enhance system operation
and reduce costs.
C-11
-------
Agency and program
Program Descriptions and
Agency Responsibilities
Resources Available and
Possible Roles
Regional River Authorities
Manage and coordinate
activities within their basin for
flood control, water quality
protection, energy
development. Taxing
authority.
Data, reports, maps, water
quality monitoring. Staff for
technical assistance to local
government and other
agencies or groups. Funds
for special projects.
Regional Planning
Commissions and Councils of
Government
Assist in the coordination of
activities of all governments
within the councils area.
Provide technical assistance,
information and promotes
special projects.
Staff for technical assistance
to local governments,
occasionally water quality
monitoring, reports and data
about local conditions. Funds
for special projects.
Others - Commodity Groups
Various groups usually formed
to improve marketing and
lobbying capabilities for
specific crops or livestock
interests. Almost every major
crop has at least one such
group.
Staff for data gathering and
analysis, public education
campaigns, technical support
to growers, legislative and
market analysis. Funds from
members for special projects.
Environmental Organizations
Various groups formed to
protect, conserve or preserve
the environment in general or
to address a specific issue.
Lobby for environmental laws
and programs as well as
funding. Many perform
volunteer services such as
water quality monitoring or
natural resource rehabilitation
work.
Staff and volunteers for
assistance with local
projects, occasionally funding
for cooperative work.
Educational materials and
programs. Reports and data
on environmental conditions
and trends.
Social and Service clubs
Formed for reasons other than
resource protection, most do
local projects that enhance or
beautify the community.
Staffed with volunteers,
these organizations can
provide labor, supplies and
equipment on mutually
beneficial projects as well as
insight into the community.
C-12
------- |