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  %
i =

U c co
C (j
•C "O k-
~ c 3
^ CO O
* E $
*"• ^ OC
® "° co
c5 ro «o
£ < £

>° 5 •
co JVN ^~ /¥
co £ £ 2
H «- O r-
w
C
(0
a.
c
q
u
^2
"O
CO
E
CO
OC
(A
OT CO

i «
'55 ^ _co

OL eo P



£
3 eo
— £
•z +-
< D
o o
.M O)
c —
2 o .<-!
4-> "O Qj}
co ^ c7

Oj — OL
Q < ~r
. Q <
CO CO D

>*- •
o en
Encourages partnership between USDA Forest Service
with state forestry programs to improve management <
up to 25 million aqres of private woodlands and forest
Improvement can be targeted for riparian zones or
wetlands.
-^
c S
15 fc-
co o
•Q %^'
— CD
x 5
5 °-
H .2
=- '5
m 3
g ^
^- *2?
CO c
u. o
fli *~
O) ~
" $




Q.
"w C^-
•o co
CO
$ E
Q) CO
W |
«-> k.

< 'c
O co
CO 0
D £
«-•
co "2
Encourages watershed planning to identify land treatm
practices to reduce soil erosion and coastal flooding ar
to address other conservation needs.

0
+^
c
o *-
o
"o £
o £
O CO
H £
t CO
CO CO
CO ^
°-15
_o
CO O
LO __
_j ^
Q. co

^
C CD
g jr
'*!3 (/)
W CD
> 4-1
w ^
o ~*°
tn E
CO CO
0 ^
IS
CA OC
CO z
OC —
~- CD a
a o u
3'Ef
eo co 2
Z CO Q.
CO
eo
Demonstrates practical technology which can be used
part of integrated resource management for water
resource protection.
CO
.2
.ti
c

£•
"co
O
^
CO
4->
CO
^
V)
v>
c
CO
•g
'co
CD
CL



CO
t)
CO
"o"
OL
C
0
'•P
CO
to
c
o

CO


o
CO
D
                                                                        1-5

-------
        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

-------