United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Research and Development
Office of Water
Washington, DC 20460
vvEPA Seminar Publication
Nonpoint Source
Watershed Workshop
September 1991
NONPOINT SOURCE
SOLUTIONS
-------
-------
Technology Transfer
EPA/625/4-91/027
&EPA Seminar Publication
Nonpdint Source
Watershed
Workshop
Septemberl, 1991
Prepared for:
Center for Environmental Research Information
26 West Martin Luther King Drive
Cincinnati, OH 45268
by:
Eastern Research Group, Inc.
6 Whittemore Street
Arlington, MA 02174
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
NOTICE
The information in this document has been subject to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's peer
and administrative review, and it has been approved for publication. The work and opinions described
in these papers are those of the authors and, therefore, do not necessarily reflect the views of the
Agency. No official endorsements should be inferred.
-------
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
This seminar publication is based on the presentations and discussions at the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop, which was held in January 1991, in
New Orleans, Louisiana.
Daniel J. Murray of EPA's Center for Environmental Research Information directed the project, provid-
ing substantive guidance and review. Steve Dressing of EPA's Nonpoint Source Control Branch
served as a special reviewer. In addition, the following people served as peer reviewers for the
publication:
• Edward Richards, Program Analyst, EPA, Office of Water, Nonpoint Source Control
Branch
• James Kreissl, Environmental Engineer, EPA, Office of Research and Development,
Center for Environmental Research Information
• EPA, Region 10, Water Division, Nonpoint Source Section: Elbert Moore, Chief; Rick
Edwards, Hydrologist; Susan Handley, Public Involvement and Education Coordinator;
Christine Kelly, Environmental Scientist; and Gerald Montgomery, Soil Conservation
Service Liaison
Numerous individuals were involved in the successful planning and presentation of the workshop. The
efforts of the program steering committee, speakers, facilitators, moderators, and workshop par-
ticipants are deeply appreciated. Special thanks go to Steve Dressing and Stu Tuller of EPA's Non-
point Source Control Branch and Lynne Kolze of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. Special
recognition goes to Rich Collins and Bitsy Waters of the Institute for Environmental Negotiations at the
University of Virginia and to Denise Gaffey and Kate Schalk of Eastern Research Group, Inc., for their
invaluable assistance in the planning and presentation of the workshop. Denise Short, David Cheda,
Anne Donovan, Carol Wendel, and Heidi Schultz of Eastern Research Group, Inc., provided editorial
and production support for this publication.
-------
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION 1
WORKSHOP PAPERS 3
Section One—Water Quality Problem Identification in Priority Watersheds 5
Water Quality Problem identification in Rock Creek, Idaho: Evolution of
A Monitoring Project 6
Approaches to Identifying Ground-Water Quality Problems 14
Water Quality Problem Identification in Urban Watersheds 17
Section Two—Developing Goals/Objectives for Watershed Projects 21
Developing Goals for Nonpoint Source Water Quality Projects 22
Total Watershed Management: A Problem-Solving Focus Through Total
Maximum Daily Loads 24
Goals and Objectives for Nonpoint Source Control Projects in an
Urban Watershed 25
Section Three—Designing Institutional Arrangements That Work 27
Agency/Landowner Cooperation—Tomki Watershed Project 28
Reviving Rhode Island's Urban Erosion Control Program 31
Reflections on the Art of Collaborative Institutional Arrangements:
You Gotta Wanna! 35
Oakwood Lakes/Poinsett Rural Clean Water Program in South Dakota: Lessons Learned 40
Section Four—Developing the Watershed Plan 45
Developing the Watershed Plan ....46
Developing Urban Nonpoint Source Management Plans in Northeastern Illinois 50
Section Five—Site Planning/Selection of NPS Controls 59
Putting the Plan'On the Ground'—Tomki Watershed Project 60
Best Management Practices for Urban Erosion and Sediment Control in
New York Counties and Towns 63
Developing Effective BMP Systems for Urban Watersheds 69
Section Six—Developing a Monitoring System 85
The Use of Biocriteria in the Assessment of Nonpoint and Habitat Impacts in
Warmwater Streams 86
Developing NPS Monitoring Systems for Rural Surface Waters: Watershed Trends 96
Developing a Monitoring System for Rural Surface Waters: Individual BMPs 99
Monitoring Program Development in an Urban Watershed 103
-------
Table of Contents (Continued)
Page
Section Seven—Building Successful Technology Transfer Programs 109
Building Successful Rural State-Level Technology Transfer Programs 110
Mitigating the Adverse Impacts of Urbanization on Streams: A Comprehensive Strategy
for Local Government 114
Section Eight—Planning and Implementing An Effective Information/Education Program 125
Effective Information and Education Programming: A Rural Perspective 126
The Development and Implementation of an Urban Nonpoint Pollution
Education/Information Program 128
Experiences from Puget Sound..... 131
Section Nine—Evaluating the NPS Watershed Implementation Project 135
Surface Water Trends and Land-Use Treatment... 136
Evaluating Individual BMPs and Models 143
Evaluation of Site-Specific Ground-Water Quality Data... 145
Evaluating Nonpoint Source Control Projects in an Urban Watershed 152
Section Ten—Innovative State and Local Regulatory Programs That Support Local NPS Projects 155
Controlling Stormwater: Some Lessons from the Maryland Experience 156
The Clean Colorado Project and Urban Nonpoint Source Pollution Control:
The LCRA Program 167
Regulation Through Local Level Negotiation — A Successful Approach to
Control of Nonpoint Source Pollution 172
Working with Local Governments to Enhance the Effectiveness of a Baywide
Critical Area Program 175
The Stormwater Utility as a Local Regulatory Tool .- 186
CASE STUDIES 189
Case Study #1—Urban—Barnstable Watershed ....190
Case Study #2—Eastern Agriculture—Grove Lake Watershed 197
Case Study #3—Western Agriculture—Otter Creek Watershed : 200
Case Study #4—Forestry—South Fork Salmon River Watershed 203
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
The Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop was held in New Orleans, Louisiana, on January 29-31,
1991. The workshop was jointly sponsored by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's Center
for Environmental Research Information, Cincinnati, Ohio, and the Assessment and Watershed
Protection Division of the Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Washington, DC. A total of
183 people, representing a broad spectrum of individuals involved-in watershed management and
planning and the control of nonpoint source water pollution, participated in the workshop.
The workshop effectively combined formal presentations and small workgroup sessions to facilitate
the exchange of information relating to the development and implementation of nonpoint source pol-
lution control projects.. In particular, the restoration and protection of water quality on a watershed
basis was emphasized. ,
The papers that were presented at the workshop are included in this document (Section Two). Ten
topic areas were addressed:
• Water Quality Problem Identification in Priority Watersheds
• Developing Goals and Objectives for Watershed Projects
• Designing Institutional Arrangements that Work
• Developing the Watershed Plan
• Site Planning and Selection of Nonpoint Source Controls
• Developing a Monitoring System
• Building Successful Technology Transfer Programs
• Planning and Implementing an Effective Information and Education Program
• Evaluating a Nonpoint Source Watershed Implementation Project
• Innovative State and Local Regulatory Programs that Support Local Nonpoint
Source Projects
Presentations addressed watershed management in both urban and rural settings. To complement
the presentation of papers, the workshop also included an opportunity for participants to apply
watershed management techniques to actual nonpoint source pollution problems. Section Three of
this document includes the case studies used at the workshop, questions that were used to guide
the discussions, and a summary of conclusions that were reached. In small group settings for each
case study, attendees discussed the problems and developed potential solutions to watershed
problems from the following locations:
• Urban Setting - Barnstable, Massachusetts
• Eastern Agricultural Setting - Grove Lake, Minnesota
• Western Agricultural Setting - Otter Creek, Utah
• Forestry Setting - South Fork Salmon River, Idaho
The use of formal presentations and case study discussions proved to be an effective technology
transfer format. By intertwining small group sessions through the program, participants were given
the opportunity to apply watershed management concepts described during the presentations to ac-
tual problem situations. The vast majority of the attendees agreed that this format added greatly to
the effectiveness of the workshop.
-------
-------
WORKSHOP PAPERS
-------
-------
SECTION ONE
WA TER QUALITY PROBLEM IDENTIFICA TION IN PRIORITY WA TERSHEDS
-------
WATER QUALITY PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION IN ROCK CREEK, IDAHO:
EVOLUTION OF A MONITORING PROJECT
William H. Clark
Idaho Department of Health & Welfare
Division of Environmental Quality
Boise, Idaho
INTRODUCTION
Rock Creek, in Twin Falls County, Idaho, has long been
recognized as one of the most severely degraded
streams in the state (1,2,3). With the removal of the point
sources, dramatic improvements in aesthetics, bacterial
contamination, dissolved oxygen, and nutrient loading
were seen in Rock Creek. However, nonpoint sources
within the Rock Creek drainage continue to cause severe
pollution problems (3) (Figure 1). The major, nonpoint
source pollutants are sediment and associated materials
contributed by irrigation return flows. During the irrigation
season (April to October), the confluence of Rock Creek
with the Snake River could be easily traced as a brown
muddy streak (Figure 1). Through the work of the Snake
River and Twin Falls Soil Conservation Districts, Rock
Figure 1. Rook Creek at its confluence with the Snake River in August 1977 prior to the Rural Clean Water Program
Note how the turbid water from Rock Creek impacted the Snake River. (Photo by Robert Braun.)
-------
A STREAM STATIONS
. SUBBASIN STATIONS
STREAMBANK EROSION
STUDY SITES
Figure 2. Map of the Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program study area, Twin Falls County, Idaho. Water quality
sample stations are shown.
-------
Creek was selected in 1980 as one of 13 original Rural
Clean Water Program (RCWP) projects in the nation and
as one of five for comprehensive monitoring and evalua-
tion (4). Cost sharing is provided to farmers under the
RCWP for installing best management practices (BMPs).
Rock Creek is located in the south central part of Idaho
in Cassia and Twin Falls counties. The creek flows
northwesterly, approximately 67 km, through Twin Falls
County to the Snake River north of the City of Twin Falls
(Figure 2). The watershed covers a total of 80,292 ha, of
which 21,003 ha are irrigated cropland. Soils in the
watershed are thin and easily eroded. The climate of the
area is semi-arid with moderately cold winters and hot
summers. The average discharge for Rock Creek at
Poleline Road (near the mouth) is 6 m3/s (213 cfs) (5).
The Rock Creek watershed contains approximately 350
farm units. The basic crops grown are dry beans, dry
peas, sugar beets, corn, small grains, and alfalfa. All
crops are irrigated because of the low annual precipita-
tion. Irrigation water is diverted from the Snake River and
is delivered to the farms through a network of canals and
laterals. Water is now increased in Rock Creek beginning
in March for hydroelectric energy production.
Water-quality monitoring for the Rock Creek Rural Clean
Water Program was initiated by the Idaho Department of
Health and Welfare, Division of Environment (DOE) in
1981 and is in its eighth year. The objectives of the
water-quality monitoring program are to determine the
water quality of the irrigation drains in the subbasins
under study as well as in the receiving stream, Rock
Creek, and to quantify changes in water quality related to
land management activities in the agricultural drains and
in Rock Creek.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
To monitor the water quality, weekly sampling is done
through the irrigation season on 21 subbasin drains
(Figure 2) for suspended sediment, nutrients, and bac-
teria. Rock Creek is sampled for sediment, nutrients,
bacteria, metals, minerals, pesticides, streambank
erosion, cobble embeddedness, stream bottom composi-
tion, macroinvertebrate populations, and fish populations
to quantify the off-site impacts of the changes in irrigation
drain water quality at six main stream sample stations
(Figure 2). Flow (discharge) measurements are taken
with each water quality sample and continuous flow is
recorded at Station S-2 by the U.S. Geological Survey.
To further define the sediment situation in Rock Creek,
streambank erosion is being sampled at eight Rock
Creek sites (Figure 2) (5,6). Cobble embeddedness and
core samples at the Rock Creek sample stations are
sampled (see Chapman and McLeod, (7), for a review of
methods). Intergravel dissolved oxygen, fine sediment,
and salmonid embryo survival are monitored (8,9).
Benthic macroinvertebrates are sampled quarterly at the
six Rock Creek stations using Hess samplers (10). Fish
populations are sampled on an annual basis (when flows
allow) using the four-step removal depletion method of
electrofishing (11,12). Economic values of the fishery
also were calculated (13). Voucher specimens of fish and
macroinvertebrates have been deposited in the College
of Idaho Museum of Natural History, Caldwell, Idaho.
Chemical analyses are performed in accordance with
standard methods (14) and standard quality assurance
procedures (15,16).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results to date suggest that BMPs implemented
under the RCWP in the project area have improved
water quality in Rock Creek. The results show that BMPs
have significantly reduced sediment and other pollutants
to the agricultural drains studied (17,18).
Generally, the subbasins with the greatest percentage of
BMPs implemented also show the greatest reductions in
suspended sediment and other agricultural pollutants
(6,19). This is illustrated for Subbasin Seven in Figure 3.
Suspended sediment has shown a significant decrease
in five of the six subbasins (subbasins 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and
10) studied since the beginning of the project (Figure 3)
(19). Suspended sediment loadings in Rock Creek itself
have been erratic and were seriously impacted by the
100-year flood event of spring 1984. Even so, sediment
reductions in Rock Creek are evident (Figures 4 and 5).
Sediment loadings for the 1990 irrigation season were
the lowest since monitoring began on this project—5,541
tons, down from 29,816 tons when the project began
(Figures, (18)).
Some severe streambank erosion exists on the upper
reaches of Rock Creek (20,21) and are masking some'of
the effects of the sediment reductions in the drains.
Forty-eight percent of the stream reaches in the project
have substantial streambank erosion problems (6).
These unstable banks contributed an estimated 10,668
tons of the fine sediment and 54,716 tons of total sedi-
ment to Rock Creek during 1986. Analysis of substrate in
Rock Creek reveals that all sample stations are impacted
by fine sediments. The upper stations are more impacted
than previously documented. Cobble embeddedness
ranged from 35 to 64 percent in the project area with the
most impacted sites found in the upper areas of unstable
streambanks (6).
Even though game fish (trout) populations have in-
creased significantly at most Rock Creek sample stations
since 1981 (19), some beneficial uses (salmonid spawn-
ing and cold water biota, for example) still seem impaired
(17). Wild trout populations (both rainbow and brown
trout) have increased at five of the six Rock Creek sta-
tions since the beginning of the project. Of those five
-------
PERCENT OF WATERSHED
TONS/SEASON (Thousands)
1981
1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989
YEAR
Acres Treated (Cum)
Erosion Loss
Figure 3. Total erosion loss (in thousands of tons/season) versus acres treated with BMPs (in percentage of water-
shed) for Subbasin Seven in the Rock Creek Watershed, 1981-1989.
12n
T -10
O
N 8H
S
6-
4-
2-
X
1
0
0
o on
* (S-2) -233 T/YEAR Below
n (S-4) -30 T/YEAR Above
5678567878567856785678567856785678
82 83 l84l 85 86 87 88 89 90
YEAR
Figure 4. Seasonal Kendall test for trends in suspended sediment loadings for station S-4 (above major irrigation
return flows) and station S-2 (below most irrigation return flows) for 1982-1990.
-------
T
O
N
S
X
1
0
0
0
10
8
o
_*
SEASONAL KENDALL TEST
SEN SLOPE = -203 TONS/YEAR (P<0.05)
5678567878567856785678567856785678
82 I 83 \S4\ 85 I 86 I 87 I 88 I 89 I 90 I
YEAR
Figure 5. Seasonal Kendall test for trends in suspended sediment loading adjusted for background (loadings from
station S-4 subtracted from station S-2), 1982-1990. (Data for 100-year flood, May-June 1984, not included.)
sample stations, six have shown an increase in trout size
(biomass) since 1981. These data give an increased
value in fishing from $42.56 (U.S. dollars) to $124.05 at
Station S-1 per fishing experience; $42.56 to $75.81 at
Stations S-3 and S-4; and from $42.56 to $401.54 for
Station S-5 (13). The results of our stream substrate
analysis on Rock Creek in the study area suggests that
the entire reach has been severely impacted by fine sedi-
ment. Additional reductions in sediment and other pol-
lutants should result in further improvement to the
fishery.
Intergravel dissolved oxygen (Figure 6) and fine sedi-
ment (<2.0 mm) (Figure 7) were examined at several
Rock Creek monitoring stations to relate to brown trout
spawning success (9). The impact of fine sediment in the
intergravel environment on dissolved oxygen can be
seen in Figure 6.
At the control site (Station 8) intergravel dissolved
oxygen never dropped below the 6 ppm standard. The
sample sites lower in the system (S-4 and S-3) were
below the standard a significant amount of the time.
Fine sediment (2.0 mm) at these same sample stations is
shown in Figure 7. The figure demonstrates the ac-
cumulation of fine sediment in the intergravel environ-
ment at the impacted sample sites (below the control
site). The fine sediment lowers the dissolved oxygen
both because of decreased aeration and an increase of
oxygen-demanding materials. The fine sediment also
decreases fish and fish food (algae and macroinver-
tebrates) habitat and may also cause entrapment of
alevins after hatching. The results of the decreased inter-
gravel dissolved oxygen are shown in Figure 8. As the
oxygen decreases so does brown trout survival (17).
Quality assurance is an important part of both the field
research and the laboratory analyses. Quality-control
samples for suspended sediment and nutrients
demonstrated high precision and accuracy was excellent
for spiked samples (6,19,22).
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The Rock Creek Rural Clean Water Program is sig-
nificantly reducing agricultural water quality pollutants in
the subbasin drains with sufficient BMP implementation.
The fishery in Rock Creek is responding positively to the
reduced sediment loadings with populations and biomass
increasing at most sample stations. All Rock Creek
sample stations are impacted by fine sediments. The his-
tory of erosion from farmland and the problems with un-
stable streambanks appear to be the sources of these
sediments. Stream alterations and fish hatcheries con-
10
-------
1
G
D
O
P
P
m
12
10
8
6
4
2
r\
_ it
20 j
13 15
-
(23)
-
(40)
i
.
(5) (0)
(%) BELOW STD. OF 6.0 ppm
(0)
S-3
S-4
S-5
S-8 (78)
STATION LOCATION (km)
Figure 6. Intergravel dissolved oxygen in Rock Greek. The percentage of observations below the state standard of 6
ppm is shown (1989-1990).
S-3
(<2.0 mm)
AFTER
S-4 S-5
STATION
S-8
CONTROL
Figure 7. Fine sediment (<2.0 mm) at selected sample stations on Rock Creek during 1989-1990. Data for before and
after the fish egg basket was placed in the artificial redd are shown.
11
-------
%
S
u
R
V
1
V
A
L
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
^ f\
1 U
c
x S-3
* S-4
* S-5
11 S-8
,
, ..__.. . i .
5 4
R = 0.59
N = 22
ln(Y)=0.59(X)-2.2
.*...- O *
\ 0 \ >K
I . , I ...i.... , I 1 •. .1
56789
f]
.„ j _ ...i j
10 11 12
IGDO ppm
Figure 8. The relationship of survival of developing brown trout and intergravel dissolved oxygen in Rock Creek,
1989-1990.
tribute an unknown amount of sediment to the system. A
means to address unstable streambanks needs to be in-
corporated in future work on Rock Creek or other such
projects. Future projects need to assess all sources of
nonpoint source pollution and plan to address them in
the proposed subsequent land treatment and monitoring
programs.
Funding for this investigation came from the United
States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Stabiliza-
tion and Conservation Service, Experimental Rural Clean
Water Program (PL 96-108).
REFERENCES
1. Idaho Department of Fish and Game, 1971. Wildlife
habitat obituary - Rock Creek. ID Wildlife Rev., 1 p.
2. Clark, W.H., 1975. Water quality status report, Rock
Creek, Twin Falls County, Idaho, Water dual. Ser.
18. IDHW, Div. Environ., Boise, ID, 69 pp.
3, Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, 1979. Idaho
Agricultural Pollution Abatement Plan. ID Soil Cons.
Comm., Boise, ID, 79 pp.
4, Martin, D.M. and S. Bauer, 1982. Water Quality
Monitoring Assessment of the Rural Clean Water
Program: First Year Base Line Report, Rock Creek,
Water Year 1981. IDHW, Div. Environ.. Boise, ID,
68pp.
5. Clark, W.H., 1988. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Program, Annual Report, IDHW, Div. Environ.,
Boise, ID, 226 pp.
6. Clark, W.H., 1986. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring
Report, 1981-1986, IDHW, Div. Environ., Boise, ID,
147pp.
7. Chapman, D.W. and K.P. McLeod, 1987. Develop-
ment of Criteria for Fine Sediment in the Northern
Rockies Ecoregion, EPA 910/9/87-162, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, Seattle, WA, 279 pp.
8. Burton, T.A., G.W. Harvey, and M.L. McHenry, 1990.
Protocols for assessment of dissolved oxygen, fine
sediment and salmonid embryo in an artificial redd.
Water Quality Monitoring Protocols - Rept No. 1.,
IDHW Division of Environmental Quality, Boise, ID,
25pp.
9. Maret, T.R., T.A. Burton, G.W. Harvey, and W.H.
Clark. In press. Evaluating agricultural impacts on
brown trout spawning success in Rock Creek, Twin
Falls County, ID, North Amer. Jour. Fish. Mangt.
10. Weber, C.I. (ed.), 1973. Biological Field and
Laboratory Methods for Measuring the Quality of
Surface Waters and Effluents, EPA-670/4-73-001,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Cincinnati,
OH, 1973. 195pp.
12
-------
11. Zippen, C., 1958. The removal method of population
estimation, Jour. Wildlife Manage, 22:82-90.
12. Reynolds, J.B., 1983. Electrofishing. In: Nielsen,
LA., and D.L. Johnson (eds.), Fisheries techniques,
Amer. Fish. Soc., Bethesda, MD, pp. 147-163.
13. Sorg, C.F., J.B. Loomis, D.M. Donnelly, G.L. Peter-
son, and L.J. Nelson, 1985. Net economic value of
cold and warm water fishing in Idaho, U.S.D.A.
Forest Service Resour. Bull. RM-11, 26 pp.
14. American Public Health Association, 1985. Standard
Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater, Amer. Public Health Assoc., Amer.
Water Works Assoc., & Water Poll. Cont. Fed.,
Washington, DC, 1,268 pp.
15. Bauer, S.B., 1986. Pilot study of quality assurance
sample procedures, Water Qual. Bur. Rpt., IDHW,
Div. Environ., Boise, ID, 41 pp.
16. Bauer, S.B., W.H. Clark, and J.A. Dodds, 1986.
Quality assurance sample procedures for water
quality surveys, Jour. IDAcad. Sci. 22:47-55.
17. Maret, T., 1990. Hock Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring
Annual Report 1989, IDHW, Division of Environmen-
tal Quality, Boise, ID, 179 pp.
18. Soil Conservation Service, (ed.), 1990. Rock Creek
Rural Clean Water Program 1990 Annual Progress
Report, U.S. Soil Conservation Service, Twin Falls,
ID, 9 pp.
19. Clark, W.H., 1985. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation,
Annual Report, IDHW, Div. Environ., Boise, ID,
153 pp.
20. Wroten, J., and W.H. Clark, 1980. Stream Channel
Stability Evaluation for Rock Creek, Twin Falls Coun-
ty, Idaho, IDHW, Div. Environ., Boise, ID, 11 pp.
21. Martin, D.M., 1984. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation,
Annual Report, IDHW, Div. Environ., Boise, ID,
151 pp.
22. Clark, W.H., 1989. Rock Creek Rural Clean Water
Program Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring
Annual Report 1988, IDHW, Division of Environmen-
tal Quality, Boise, ID, 316pp.
13
-------
APPROACHES TO IDENTIFYING GROUND-WATER QUALITY PROBLEMS
Jeanne Goodman
South Dakota Department of Water
and Natural Resources
Pierre, South Dakota
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this presentation is to provide information
on the process of identifying ground-water quality
problems in priority nonpoint source pollution project
areas. The information presented is based primarily on
experience gained during the Oakwoods/Poinsett Rural
Clean Water Program (RCWP) project in eastern South
Dakota. The Oakwoods/Poinsett RCWP project is a
Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation project em-
phasizing the evaluation of the impacts of agricultural
best management practices on the vadose zone, ground
water, and the Oakwood Lakes system. The primary pol-
lutants under evaluation are nitrate and pesticides in the
vadose zone and ground-water portions of the study and
nitrate and phosphorus in the Oakwood Lakes portion of
the study.
The key to identifying ground-water quality problems is
knowing where the water is coming from and where it is
going. Whether the goal is remediation or prevention, the
hydrogeologic system that is to be monitored, evaluated,
and protected must be carefully defined to determine the
pathway and fate of potential contaminants.
There are two basic steps in problem identification:
reviewing available data and collecting additional field
data. These steps may be intuitively obvious, but they
need to be restated, particularly when monitoring
budgets are limited. Information regarding review and
collection of data will be presented, as well as examples
of how those steps were used in the Oakwoods/Poinsett
RCWP project. Several lessons learned from the 10
years of monitoring from the Oakwoods/Poinsett project
will also be presented. This information can be used in
problem identification for future projects.
REVIEW OF EXISTING DATA
The first indication of potential ground-water problems
resulting from nonpoint source pollution is usually a
report on excess concentrations of a pollutant in a private
or public well. To begin the process of determining the
source of pollution and the mechanisms for transport to
the ground water, information on water quality, geology,
and hydrology in the project area are needed to define
the ground-water system that is to be evaluated. Several
sources of information and the data contained are as
follows:
Data Sources
Information
Geologic Maps
Hydrogeologic Studies
Public Water Supply Data
Domestic Well Data
Aquifer boundaries
Vulnerability
Aquifer characteristics
Vulnerability
Ground-water flow
direction
Potential recharge
areas
Surface water/ground
water interaction
Water quality
Well construction
Geology
Aquifer characteristics
Water quality
Well construction
Geology
Data that were collected prior to the initiation of the
RCWP project suggested a potential problem of nitrate
contamination in the ground water. Water quality
analyses from private wells indicated that approximately
25% of the wells exceeded the Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of
10 milligrams per liter (mg/L) for nitrate as nitrogen (N)
(1). The nitrate concentrations ranged from nondetec-
table to over 120 mg/L (1). A high percentage of the
analyses were between 2.0 and 10 mg/L. This pattern in-
dicates a nonpoint source of nitrogen in the predominant-
ly agricultural area.
The Oakwoods/Poinsett RCWP project area is in the
glaciated region of eastern South Dakota and is charac-
terized by sand and gravel outwash and silty clay tills.
Available geologic maps for the project area show that
the outwash, which is the Big Sioux aquifer, occurs at the
14
-------
surface and is associated with the Big Sioux River, its
tributaries, and several prairie lakes. Based on the
geologic descriptions and the soil surveys, the Big Sioux
aquifer was very susceptible to contamination from land
surface activities due to the thin, permeable overlying
soils and shallow occurrence of the aquifer materials.
Although there were no county hydrogeologic studies
completed for the project area, test hole drilling had been
done in preparation for the county studies. A hydrologic
study of Lake Poinsett had been completed and special
investigations for public water supplies had been done
for nearby towns. Several observation wells had also
been constructed to monitor the water levels in the Big
Sioux aquifer. All available test hole information in the
project area was compiled, and a picture of the regional
ground-water flow system was started. From the avail-
able hydrogeologic information, the regional flow direc-
tion could be determined. It was seen that the water table
was very close to the land surface, and it was obvious
the aquifer was susceptible to contamination.
Drillers' logs from the completion of private and public
water supply wells yielded information on well construc-
tion and geology. Private wells were often completed
near the top of the aquifer and were not constructed in a
way to prevent contaminants from entering the well bore.
The wells were, however, producing water from the Big
Sioux aquifer.
COLLECTING FIELD DATA
Following the review and compilation of existing data,
field data may be needed for verification and for further
definition of the potential water quality problems. Collect-
ing field data can be done in several ways: drilling test
holes, constructing monitoring wells, inventorying
private/public wells, identifying potential sources of con-
tamination, and sampling the ground water.
Determining the geology of the area is extremely impor-
tant because it defines the ground-water flow system and
the most likely zones of contamination (2). Where the ex-
isting geologic and hydrologic data are limited, a prelimi-
nary drilling program is imperative to adequately evaluate
the ground-water problems. From the preliminary drilling
program the most favorable monitoring sites to determine
the effectiveness of the implementation project can be
chosen.
Where geologic and hydrologic data were missing in the
Oakwoods/Poinsett project area, a preliminary drilling
program was initiated to fill the gaps. Test holes were
drilled and critically logged, and monitoring wells were in-
stalled. Nested wells were used to monitor the water
level and water quality at different depths in the water-
bearing materials.
Potential pollution sources such as feedlots (both active
and inactive), septic tanks, agricultural chemical dealers,
silage storage areas, and haystacks were noted and
avoided when monitoring wells were installed. If the ex-
cess nitrate concentrations were a result of agricultural
practices, the monitoring could not be influenced by other
sources.
Initial ground-water sampling was completed to verify the
earlier private well data. The sampling revealed that ap-
proximately 25% of the monitoring wells had nitrate con-
centrations exceeding 10 mg/L as N (3). Although there
was a similar percentage of wells over the MCL, the ex-
tremely high concentrations of nitrate found in the private
wells were not evident in the monitoring wells. This would
indicate different sources of contamination with the ex-
tremely high values resulting from point sources rather
than from nonpoint sources of pollution.
LESSONS LEARNED—KNOW YOUR SYSTEM
The importance of defining the hydrologic system of the
resource to be monitored cannot be overemphasized.
Several lessons learned from the Oakwoods/Poinsett
RCWP project in defining the hydrogeologic system can
be used in future problem identification and project
development. Among these lessons are: 1) the use of
private well data; 2) the importance of detailed geologic
logging; 3) the concept of vulnerability mapping and low
permeability materials; and 4) the significance of the sur-
face water/ground water interaction.
As discussed earlier, private well data indicated a large
percentage of sampled wells had nitrate concentrations
exceeding the MCL with a large range of values and
some extremely high concentrations. However, water-
quality data from water-level observation wells consis-
tently had nondetectable to very low concentrations of
nitrate. In looking at the well construction details, it was
evident the two types of wells were usually constructed
differently. The private wells were often completed and
screened in the top few feet of the water-bearing
materials. The observation wells, however, were always
completed and screened into the bottom third of the
aquifer (4). Sampling for the RCWP project from wells
screened at various intervals resulted in over 2,400
nitrate analyses with only one concentration over 5 mg/L
as N taken from greater than 20 feet below the water-
table (5). Also, the most extreme concentration of nitrate
was 45 mg/L as N. Extreme values of nitrate seen in the
private wells were most likely due to the proximity of the
well to a point source rather than from normal farm use
of fertilizer. Private well data are useful, but the data
should be used with caution. Data from wells constructed
specifically for water quality monitoring are the most
reliable.
Detailed geologic logging was found to be invaluable as
a tool for monitoring likely zones of contamination in the
complex geologic environs of glacial sediments. Although
the sites may have appeared to be homogenous in na-
ture (for example, sand and gravel sites or glacial till
sites), sequences of sandy silts, silty clays, sands and
15
-------
gravels, and clays dictated heterogeneous flow systems
to be monitored. Split-spoon samples taken every five
feet provided very detailed geologic logs and allowed
well screens to be placed at discrete intervals. Wells
were then classified by the various screened materials
and depths to ground water. This classification scheme
allowed an efficient aggregation of data used in the
project evaluation.
Often in ground-water monitoring projects or prevention
programs, vulnerability mapping is used to determine the
most likely areas of contamination and problems. This
can be done using a variety of methods most often
based on the suriicial geology, depth to the aquifer, soil
permeability, chemicals used, and other parameters. Al-
though mapping was not completed prior to the initiation
of the Oakwoods/Poinsett project, a form of vulnerability
assessment was used to determine the most likely areas
of ground-water impact from farming practices, i.e. surfi-
cial sand and gravel outwash deposits. However, a sub-
stantial portion of the ground-water monitoring occurred
in what was considered low permeability materials, i.e.
glacial tills. It was determined through the monitoring of
the ground water and the vadose zone that water and
nutrient movement through the soil profile and certain
glacial tills can occur quite rapidly through macropore
flow. This reiterates the importance of knowing the
hydrogeologic system which is being monitored and
evaluated and of using caution in developing vulnerability
maps for a project area. Vulnerable areas may need to
include seemingly low permeability materials in contact
with and discharging to the more permeable materials.
If there are any interactions between surface water and
the ground water of interest, the systems must be iden-
tified and in most cases, considered in the total evalua-
tion-of a water-quality problem. The Oakwood Lakes
System Study, as part of the RCWP, was conducted to
complete a hydrologic and nutrient budget for the lakes
system, including a determination of the quantity and
quality of ground water entering and exiting the lake sys-
tem. The hydrogeologic information had shown there
was some connection between the lakes and the aquifer,
but the extent of hydrologic and nutrient contributions
was not known. Preliminary evaluation of the data col-
lected indicate the quality of ground water entering the
lake system is much better quality water than the surface
water. Also, a substantial hydrologic load to the lake sys-
tem is coming from ground water (6).
SUMMARY
In summary, information was presented on the steps in
defining ground-water quality problems to develop an ef-
fective watershed implementation project. Reviewing ex-
isting data, collecting field data, and lessons learned
from the South Dakota Oakwoods/Poinsett RCWP
project were highlighted. The most important considera-
tion in identifying ground-water quality problems is to
adequately define the ground-water flow system. The
system must by defined to determine the pathway and
fate of the pollutants of interest so appropriate goals and
objectives can be developed for an implementation
project.
REFERENCES
1. 1983 Annual Progress Report, Oakwood Lakes -
Poinsett RCWP - Project 20, Open File Report,
1983. South Dakota Department of Water, and
Natural Resources, Pierre, South Dakota.
2. Kimball, C.G., 1988. Ground-water monitoring tech-
niques for nonpoint-source pollution studies, In:
Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods, ASTM
STP 963, A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson, Eds.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadel-
phia, pp. 430-441.
3. 1985 Annual Progress Report, Oakwood Lakes -
Poinsett RCWP - Project 20, Open File Report,
1985. South Dakota Department of Water and
Natural Resources, Pierre, South Dakota.
4. The Big Sioux Aquifer Water Quality Study, 1984.
South Dakota Department of Water and Natural
Resources, Pierre, South Dakota.
5. 1989 Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett RCWP Comprehen-
sive Monitoring and Evaluation Technical Report
Project 20, Open File Report, 1989. South Dakota
Department of Water and Natural Resources, Pierre,
South Dakota.
6. German, D., 1991. Principal Investigator for Oak-
wood Lakes System Study, personal communication.
16
-------
WA TER QUALITY PROBLEM IDENTIFICA TION IN URBAN WA TERSHEDS
Eric H. Livingston
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation
Tallahassee, Florida
INTRODUCTION
Identifying the causes of water quality problems in urban
watersheds presents many obstacles because of the
multitude of potential pollution sources and the diversity
of land-use activities. In fact, the intricate relationship
between land-use activities and water quality problems
implies that a comprehensive watershed management
approach is needed to solve urban water resource
problems in a cost-effective manner. This paper focuses
on the initial phases of developing a watershed manage-
ment plan and program. These initial phases involve data
collection and analysis to help answer "who, what, when,
where, and why." Once these questions are answered,
later phases must focus on the importance of the various
pollution sources to target priority subbasins where the
greatest pollutant load reduction can be achieved with
the least cost. A geographic information system (GIS) will
expedite this process and allow the water resources
manager to rapidly evaluate various management alter-
natives before selecting the final management solutions
to be included in the watershed management plan.
PROGRAM IDENTIFICATION PROCESS
Defining the nature of water resource impairment invol-
ves a multi-step approach that progresses from a general
to a specific understanding of the problem. The approach
includes the following elements (1).
Identify Symptoms
One does not have to rely upon quantitative data to
determine whether water resources impairment is occur-
ring. In fact, it is more likely that qualitative observations
from users of the waterbody will form the basis for initiat-
ing a review of the waterbody. Typically this will involve
the compilation of citizen complaints reflecting common
symptoms such as turbid water, poor fishing, overabun-
dant algae, excessive macrophytes, sedimentation,
odors, streambank erosion, etc. If complaints about such
systems are numerous, a short questionnaire can be
prepared to further document user complaints, gain a
better understanding of the symptoms, and help to in-
itiate an understanding of the problems.
Problem Identification
The first step in problem identification is to determine
whether the symptoms reflect a perceived or a real
problem. Sometimes, users perceive a water resources
problem for which a source or cause may not exist. This
is especially true jn lakes because of the inherent dif-
ferences among lakes in different ecoregions. Regional
differences in geology, soils, land use, and vegetation
may result in vastly different water quality (2). Perceived
problems are as important as real problems, however,
and must be addressed so that management efforts can
focus on real problems and their causes.
Identifying the potential causes of a water resources
problem requires an understanding of the interactions of
the various components within the waterbody and bet-
ween the waterbody and its watershed. It is very impor-
tant to remember that activities within the watershed
ultimately determine the water quality of the waterbody.
Consequently, a natural combination of these factors
may be responsible for the problem that may be a per-
ceived one rather than a real one. One can look at other
waterbodies within the same ecoregion to determine
whether the problems are likely to be natural or caused
by human activities.
Problem Diagnosis
Problem diagnosis is a process that, with each step,
provides greater quantitative resolution on the sources or
causes of the water resource problems. At this stage,
problems have been, identified by the waterbody users
and potential causes generally are known. Problem diag-
nosis identifies which of the potential causes are con-
tributing to the problems and determines their relative
importance. Diagnosis is generally a two-step process:
1) collating and evaluating existing data, and 2) collecting
and analyzing additional data. Unfortunately, because
most monitoring programs were designed for point
source evaluation, typical water quality monitoring data
are of little use in assessing nonpoint sources. As a
result, additional data collection likely will be needed.
The first step will help to identify major data gaps and aid
in the design and implementation of a more cost-effective
and efficient data collection program. Typically, this
17
-------
should focus on biological and sediment monitoring with
water quality monitoring as a secondary component.
Preliminary analyses will include obtaining any existing
information available on both the watershed and receiv-
ing water. It is at this point that a GIS proves invaluable,
especially in urban watersheds where the number of
potential pollution sources is so large. The collection of
existing information is intended to help determine the ex-
tent of the various influences on water quality within any
watershed. These can be broken down into five major
categories (3):
• Type of aquatic system under consideration
• Background conditions within and infringing on the
watershed
* Land-use influences
• Direct and indirect discharges from point and non-
point sources
• Direct or indirect hydrologic modifications of the sur-
face waters
The following information needs to be obtained to con-
duct the preliminary analyses:
a) Watershed boundaries or topographic maps from
which to derive watershed and subbasin boundaries.
b) Background conditions within the watershed includ-
ing origins and properties of soils, geology, basin
morphology, terrestrial community patterns and
aquatic system ecological patterns, qualitative and
quantitative aspects of rainfall/runoff patterns and
channel characteristics such as carrying capacity,
size and shape of cross section, slope, and length.
c) Land-use patterns throughout the watershed. These
patterns, including natural land use features such as
lakes, streams, wetlands, and flow ways in addition
to improved land uses, must be mapped. Within
urban watersheds, the land use needs to be deter-
mined at a fairly high resolution, at least Level II.
d) Location and characteristics of all permitted point
and nonpoint sources discharges., Later this effort
likely will need to be expanded to include unper-
mitted discharges, especially unauthorized dischar-
ges into storm sewers. Such discharges have been
found to be very prevalent in urban areas as
demonstrated by investigations in Ft. Worth, Texas,
and Ann Arbor, Michigan (4). These can be easily
detected by observing whether dry weather flows are
occurring and, if they are, obtaining and analyzing
grab samples to characterize the flows. This can be
followed by visual inspections within the storm
sewers to locate unauthorized connections, by dye-
tracing programs, and by more extensive sampling to
evaluate chemical concentrations.
e) Location of areas using septic tanks. If warranted by
the problem identification, a comprehensive sanitary
survey of these areas may be needed to determine,
on a lot by lot basis, the location of septic tanks and
their drain fields, age of system, maintenance his-
tory, system failures and any corresponding illicit dis-
charge pipes, grey water discharges, etc. For older
sanitary sewer systems, exfiltration may be a
suspected ground-water contaminant, therefore loca-
tion of sewers also may be an information need.
f) Extent and location of hydrologic modifications within
the watershed.
g) Location of stormwater conveyances (e.g., storm
sewers, ditches) and management systems and their
points of discharge to the aquatic system. Once
those have been mapped then the drainage area
and land use associated with each discharge must
be determined.
h) Historical and recent aerial photos and quad maps.
i) Water resources data including water quality, biologi-
cal, sediment depth and quality, depth contours,
flow, fisheries, aquatic macrophyte coverage, etc.
Once this information is gathered and input into a data
base (GIS) it can be evaluated for clues on why
problems are occurring. If the waterbody is a lake, then a
simple lake budget that accounts for the input and output
of organic matter, sediment, and nutrients can be
developed. If the waterbody is a river, estimates can be
made for upstream-downstream conditions. The basic
objective is to determine the total pollutant loading to the
aquatic system which can then be compared to the load-
ing that would be acceptable for the desired water quality
conditions. Using the land-use data, estimates can be
made with land-use loading rate analyses of the potential
NPS loads while point-source loads can be estimated
from discharge characteristic data.
Typically, to refine the diagnosis and better define the
cause of the problem, additional data must be collected
and analyzed. The intermittent nature of nonpoint sour-
ces and the difficulty and expense of stormwater sam-
pling suggests that nontraditional monitoring is of great
value in assessing water quality impacts. I would like to
stress the importance of sediment data and biological
data in evaluating the potential effects of nonpoint sour-
ces.
Sediments provide a long-term historical record of pol-
lutant inputs and, because they carry other pollutants
that adhere to sediments, they can also represent a sub-
stantial pollutant recycling source within the aquatic sys-
tem. We have developed an interpretive tool to help
understand the potential effects of metals in sediments
within estuarine systems (5,6). The problem of under-
18
-------
standing metals pollution involves 1) distinguishing those
components attributable to natural causes from those at-
tributable to human activities and 2) determining whether
metals in anthropogenically enriched sediments are
potentially available for recycling to the water column or
food chain. In order to address these aspects, an inter-
pretive approach was developed to account for natural
variability of metals concentrations and to help identify
anthropogenic inputs. The tool for interpreting metal con-
centrations in estuarine sediments is based on naturally
occurring relationships between metals and aluminum.
By using this approach, especially when combined with
biological information, highly degraded areas can be
identified and targeted for priority management activities.
In addition to sediments within aquatic systems, the sedi-
ments that accumulate within storm sewers, especially
those serving industrial areas, can represent a major pol-
lutant source. The importance of this pollution source
and the difficulty in tracing the sources of toxicants in
storm drains is well illustrated by a project in Seattle,
Washington (7). Environmental problems (high levels of
copper, lead, arsenic, zinc, mercury, PCBs, RAHs, pes-
ticides) were identified in the water, sediment, and biota
of the Duwamish River. Mass balances comparing exist-
ing conditions and known sources indicated that 80 to 99
percent of the toxicants could not be attributed to per-
mitted sources. Receiving environment chemistry, storm
sewer maps, Jand-use information, and sampling of sedi-
ments in storm sewers were .used to identify the sig-
nificant sources of heavy metals and organic toxicants.
Of these, storm sewer sediments were found to be most
effective for tracing and identifying potential sources,
especially when compared to storm event sampling.
REFERENCES
1. Olem, H. and G. Flock (Eds.), 1990. Lake and
Reservoir Restoration Guidance Manual, 2nd Edi-
tion. EPA 440/4-90-006. Prepared by North
American Lake Management Society for EPA,
Washington, DC.
2. Omernik, J.M., 1987. Ecoregions of the Conter-
minous United States. Freshwater. Ann. Assn. Amer.
Geogr. 77(1 ):118-125.
3. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
1981. Total Maximum Daily Load: Prototype
Methodology Development. Nonpoint Source
Management Section. 111 pp.
4. Schmidt, S.D. and D.R. Spencer, 1986. The mag-
nitude of improper waste discharges in an urban
stormwater system. JWPCF58(7). 744-748.
5. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
1986. Geochemical and Statistical Approach for As-
sessing Metals Pollution in Estuarine Sediments. Of-
fice of Coastal Management. 38 pp.
6. Florida Department of Environmental Regulation,
1988. Guide to the Interpretation of Metal Concentra-
tions in Estuarine Sediments. Office of Coastal
Management. 53 pp.
7. Hubbard, T.P. and T.E. Sample, 1989. Source trac-
ing of toxicants in storm drains. In: Design of Urban
Runoff Controls. Proceedings of an Engineering
Foundation Conference on Current Practice and
Design Criteria for Urban Quality Control, pp. 436-
448.
19
-------
-------
SECTION TWO
DEVELOPING GOALS/OBJECTIVES FOR WATERSHED PROJECTS
-------
DEVELOPING GOALS FOR NONPOINT SOURCE WATER QUALITY PROJECTS
Robert L. Burrls
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Columbus, Ohio
INTRODUCTION
I want each of you to take a trip back to your teen
years—let's say 15 or 16, and for some of us the trip will
be longer than others. It's summertime and you are
relaxing with friends on the beach or in the backyard, not
really doing anything in particular. The conversation
travels the usual patterns of girls, boys, going back to
school, recent events, and sometimes it will take a turn
and you start discussing the future—your future—what
do I want to be? What do I want to do? It is a little scary,
maybe even mind-boggling at this age, but you begin to
visualize what you will be doing 5 to 10 years down the
road. You are experiencing the planning process! For
some, it is quickly dismissed as too much to worry about;
you can't change it anyway. For others, they mentally
plot out their future, step by step. Suddenly a phone
rings, a summer storm blows in, you all take off for home.
The moment is gone.
All of us have experienced something like this growing
up. What I want to discuss with you today is not all that
different from those teenage events I just described. I will
share with you some ideas and techniques that can be
used to help you in planning your water-quality projects.
First, I would like to outline the six basic steps of
planning:
1. Inventory resources/forecast conditions
2. Identify problems
3. Develop goals or objectives
4. Formulate alternatives
5. Evaluate alternatives
6. Select best alternative and record decision
As you see, this is a fairly simple, straightforward logical
process. We are going to concentrate on step three
during this presentation. Other speakers will address the
other steps.
In step three, we are developing goals or objectives.
Some people like to make a distinction between goals
and objectives. Webster's Dictionary does not reflect this,
and in my opinion the words are synonymous. Use
whichever you feel conveys the right message.
DEVELOPING A VISION
Before we begin with goals, there is one important item
that must come first—developing a 'Vision." A vision is
that lofty idea that pushes you forward, makes others
change, and sets the tone for your project. How do we
accomplish such a thing? It's not only for Tibetan monks
or gurus—we all do it one way or another. First, think big
and think broadly. Remove the blinders. Nothing is off-
limits.
What items do we consider?
• Physical problems
• Institutional problems
• Human behavior
• Socioeconomic changes
• Cultural bias
• Social traditions
• Demographics
How do we get started?
• Alone
• With coworkers
• With other professionals
• With lay people
Where do we get started?
• At lunch
• At a bar
• At a park
• At work
• At a formal setting
• At an informal setting
Answer—All of the above.
22
-------
Try to bring the interested parties together in an informal
setting. "Let your hair down," keep your mind open, and
let it rip. Take the information from steps one and two
and think about where you want to be. What is the idea?
Generate all the ideas you can as a group and then
develop a consensus on one vision. Some examples of
ideas that may be generated in this step are:
• We want to have clear water
• We want to swim year round in the lake
• We want to have a viable sport fishery from here to
Timbuktu
• We want to have no algae blooms from May to Sep-
tember
Developing a good vision is an art, not a science.
DEVELOPING GOALS
After a vision has been developed and agreed to by the
group, list the steps needed to make it happen. Establish
the intermediate goals. Some of these could be:
• Changes in laws or regulations
• Changes in attitudes of inhabitants
• Changes in economics of situation
• Changes in physical landscape
VISION
/
Goal 2
Goal 3
\
Goal 4
Do a reality check on your goals. Are they realistic? Can
they be achieved? Don't worry if you can't change all of
them instantly or can only achieve partial success.
Change takes time.
One example I experienced was a project in
northwestern Ohio that involved a 230,000-acre water-
shed that drained into Lake Erie. Problems with algae
blooms and low oxygen levels had been documented in
Lake Erie and the source was identified as excess phos-
phorus. A bilateral international commission had estab-
lished basinwide goals to achieve a certain phosphorus
reduction. Our vision for this project was to help clean up
Lake Erie by reducing phosphorus transport.
Our goals included various ways to keep cover on the
crop fields, reduce fertilizer applications, apply cover
crops, and provide education and information to the par-
ticipants. Our success will depend on how well the par-
ticipants accept our vision.
Once you have established your goals and have done a
reality check, you are on your way to the next step of for-
mulating alternatives.
Establishing goals is an integral part of the planning
process and is preceded by taking an inventory, identify-
ing a problem, and developing a vision. This step takes
cooperation and involvement of all the parties who will
participate in the vision in order for it to be successful.
Realistic goals agreed to by the participants will ensure
successful implementation and positive change.
23
-------
TOTAL WATERSHED MANAGEMENT: A PROBLEM-SOLVING FOCUS
THROUGH TOTAL MAXIMUM DAIL Y LOADS
Bruce W. Cleland
Environmental Services Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Seattle, Washington
INTRODUCTION
Total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) are currently one of
the most controversial requirements in the Clean Water
Act (CWA). Any mention of applying TMDLs to NPS pol-
lution often results in heated debate. However, TMDLs
are also one of the most powerful and often under-util-
ized tools available for setting goals and objectives in
water quality management. Although it hasn't been
recognized as such, many effective water quality
management programs have informally included TMDLs
for years. EPA's national NPS guidance, for instance,
promotes TMDLs without fully acknowledging it. "Target-
ing," "geographic focus," "environmental results," etc.—
these favorite NPS terms are just another way of em-
phasizing the problem-solving focus of TMDLs.
REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
An understanding of the TMDL process begins with a
brief review of the regulatory framework. The term "total
maximum daily load" originates in Section 303(d) of
CWA. The CWA supports two basic approaches to water
pollution control: technology-based versus water-quality-
based. In the technology-based step, minimum levels of
effluent treatment are established for specific categories
of point source discharges. Where technology-based
limits or controls are not sufficient to achieve water
quality standards, additional action is needed. These
waterbodies are referred to as water quality-limited.
Under the CWA, states are required to develop a priority
ranking for such waters and to implement additional
measures using TMDLs.
IMPLEMENTATION OF TMDLS
In recent years, water quality management agencies in
the Pacific Northwest have had to come to grips with the
practical aspects of TMDLs. Environmental groups in the
Northwest have been aggressively demanding TMDLs
for problem waters. In Oregon, the Northwest Environ-
mental Defense Center sued EPA for its failure to force
the state to develop TMDLs. In Idaho, the Sierra Club
notified EPA of its intention to sue the Agency for its
failure to prepare a TMDL to control sediment from log-
ging of U.S. Forest Service land in the Salmon River
basin. In Alaska, the Trustees for Alaska are currently
suing EPA for its failure to require TMDLs on streams im-
paired by NPS activities such as logging and mining.
A useful example that highlights the push for TMDLs in
the Northwest is the Tualatin River in Oregon. The
Tualatin involves a basin with high population growth
where there is a mix of large municipal wastewater treat-
ment plants, urban runoff, and agricultural and forestry
activities. The approach developed by Oregon consisted
of a combination of point and nonpoint source controls.
Program plans and implementation schedules have been
driven by .establishing a set of watershed targets as
goals.
SUMMARY •'
Clearly, the TMDL process has important consequences
for both, point and nonpoint sources. Although this
process has been traditionally applied to waters with sig-
nificant point source inputs, there is a relationship bet-
ween TMDLs and the NPS program. TMDLs provide a
problem-solving focus. Geographic areas of concern are
identified, pollutant reduction targets are determined, op-
tions to achieve reductions are described, and implemen-
tation plans are developed. Thus, by enabling a focus,
TMDLs can be effective tools for controlling NPS pollution.
24
-------
GOALS AND OBJECTIVES FOR NONPOINT SOURCE CONTROL PROJECTS IN AN
URBAN WATERSHED
Thomas E. Mumley
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Oakland, California
INTRODUCTION
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Francisco Bay Region (Regional Board), is the state
water pollution control agency responsible for protection
of the beneficial uses of San Francisco Bay and its
tributaries. In carrying out its responsibility, the Regional
Board has made major strides in pollution control.
Municipal and industrial point sources have been con-
trolled to an increasing degree under the National Pol-
lutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
program for the last two decades. The load of oxygen-
demanding substances and suspended sediment from
these point sources has been decreased by roughly 90
percent while the population of the Bay Area has
doubled. Despite these accomplishments, water quality
impairment due to toxic pollutants continues in San Fran-
cisco Bay, particularly in the South Bay segment. It has
become clear that successful protection of San Francisco
Bay waters will require effective control of nonpoint sour-
ces (NPS) of pollution.
San Francisco Bay is a highly urbanized estuary, and as
such, receives significant loads of pollutants through dis-
charges of urban runoff. The Regional Board began a
program for control of urban runoff on a watershed basis
in 1987. The initial focus has been on the South Bay seg-
ment, and in particular, the Santa Clara County water-
shed(Figure 1), which has a population of 1.2 million and
encompasses the renowned Silicon Valley. The key to
the continuing success of the Santa Clara program has
been the setting of priorities through clearly defined goals
and objectives for the overall program. These priorities
then are developed to address specific management is-
sues and to set tangible objectives for specific control
measures that are being implemented.
ESTABLISHING GOALS AND OBJECTIVES
The primary goal and driving force for the Santa Clara
program is the protection of beneficial uses of the waters
in the South Bay segment and its tributaries. The
Regional Board has made this goal quantitative and
measurable through the adoption of water-quality stand-
ards. These standards include numerical limits on the
concentrations of specific toxic pollutants, including cop-
per, lead, nickel, and zinc-based on EPA water-quality
criteria. In addition, standards requiring no observable
acute or chronic toxicity apply. The main issue of con-
cern in the South Bay area is that water-quality stand-
ards are being exceeded in the South Bay segment and
its tributaries. It is important to realize that, for certain
pollutants, attainment of the numerical standard may not
be practicable, particularly during storrn events. Never-
theless, attaining the standards still serves as the ul-
timate goal. Flexibility has also been built into the
standard-setting process when it can be demonstrated
that site-specific standards that differ from EPA water-
quality criteria will provide for protection of beneficial
uses or that compliance with standards will result in
widespread economic impact.
Another management issue of concern is that nonpoint
sources, in particular urban runoff, contribute significant
amounts of pollutants to the South Bay segment and its
tributaries. Another goal of the Santa Clara program,
therefore, is to reduce pollutants in urban runoff to the
maximum extent practicable. This technology-based goal
focuses on the identification, assignment, and implemen-
tation of technically and economically feasible control
measures. This means controlling nonpoint source pollu-
tion by doing the best job for the most reasonable cost
with adaptability to municipal agency structure, practices,
and resources. This goal recognizes that it may not be
possible to fully evaluate the effectiveness of a measure
in protecting and/or enhancing the designated beneficial
uses. Rather, it provides an effective first step toward
reducing urban runoff loads while providing the flexibility
to refine when more information on receiving water be-
comes available (regarding the relationship between pol-
lutant loads, receiving water pollutant concentrations,
and beneficial uses). This approach relates to the
primary water-quaiity-based goal by providing a basis for
quantifying widespread economic impact.
This combined water-quality/technology-based approach
is the exact framework of the NPDES stormwater permit
program. The only difference between the NPDES
stormwater permit program and the control of urban
25
-------
runoff as a nonpoint source is in the manner that the
programs are enforced. The nonpoint source program
strives for voluntary implementation of control measures
and requires direct regulation only if necessary. Under
the NPDES program, however, direct regulation of urban
runoff from certain areas (land uses) is required. In either
case the net result should be the same; attainment of
water-quality standards through implementation of cost-
effective and technically achievable control measures. In
effect, a permit is just a tool for facilitating implementa-
tion, when recognized as such. With this in mind, the
Regional Board has issued an NPDES permit requiring
the implementation of the Santa Clara nonpoint source
control program.
Upon recognition and acceptance of the above goals, the
task then becomes one of identifying implementation
program objectives that will lead toward attainment of the
goals. A number of factors have to be considered when
developing project objectives. These include the types of
pollutants to be controlled; the effectiveness, reliability,
and cost of candidate controls; public and agency ac-
ceptability; response to regulatory requirements; risk;
and environmental implications. The Santa Clara
municipalities and the Regional Board worked together
considering these criteria to develop a set of program ob-
jects that correspond to five program elements.
1. Public Information/Participation
Objective: Inform the public about the.causes and
origins of nonpoint source pollution and encourage
public involvement in reducing nonpoint source
pollution.
2. Operation and Maintenance for Municipal
Facilities
Objective: Ensure that routine municipal operations
and maintenance operations and maintenance ac-
tivities are initiated, or improved, so that no pol-
lutants, or fewer pollutants, are allowed to enter the
storm sewer system.
3. illicit Connection and illegal Dumping Elimination
Objective: Ensure that only stormwater runoff enters
storm drain systems, and that pollutants from non-
stormwaler are excluded.
4. New Development Planning and Regulation
Objective: Control nonpoint source pollution from
new development and significant redevelopment,
both during construction and after construction is
completed.
5. Stormwater Treatment
Objective: Study the various treatment alternatives
available, test the feasibility of conducting the ac-
tivities, and determine the effectiveness of certain
types of treatment through pilot-scale projects.
The next step in the process is to consider specific
projects and control measures that meet the program
element objectives. Inherent to this process is the estab-
lishment of specific project objectives and schedules for
implementation that provide for an effective planning
phase, preparation phase, initial-level implementation
phase, full-scale implementation phase, and evalua-
tion/documentation phase. At a minimum, annual project
goals should be identified that allow for measurable
steps and ensure that project, program elements, and
overall watershed goals and objectives are evaluated
regularly. Most importantly, project goals and objectives
should have built-in flexibility to allow for changes in
priorities, needs, or levels of awareness.
SUMMARY
Successful implementation of watershed nonpoint source
projects depends on establishing clear goals and objec-
tives that are quantitative, measurable, and flexible. The
process begins with setting overall watershed goals, fol-
lowed by setting implementation program objectives that
will lead toward attainment of the watershed goals, and
finally specific project goals and objectives that meet
program objectives.
This is the formula used in the development of a suc-
cessful program in the Santa Clara Valley watershed.
Though implementation of the Santa Clara program is re-
quired by an NPDES permit, the net result is that the
Santa Clara municipalities are controlling nonpoint pollu-
tion by doing the best job for the most reasonable cost.
SANTA CLAHA COUNTY IOUNOARY
"^•'•IJJJ'' \
STUDY AREA jŁ
BOUNDARY • ^*-v
Figure 1. Santa Clara County Watershed.
26
-------
SECTION THREE
DESIGNING INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS THAT WORK
-------
AGENCY/LANDOWNER COOPERATION—TOMKI WATERSHED PROJECT
Tom Schott
U.S. Department of Agriculture
Soil Conservation Service
Uklah, California
INTRODUCTION
I must admit that I accepted this session's topic with
some trepidation. As the rural representative of this topic
I always felt that the first title phrase "institutional arran-
gements" and the second phrase "that work" should be
considered mutually exclusive. In fact, I would suggest
that institutions (agencies and groups) were only 50 per-
cent of the equation for success in our situation. The
remaining 50 percent, supportive private landowners,
were absolutely essential to any goals we set to improve
water quality.
The rural institutional arrangements I'd like to discuss
today are: 1) the role of Resource Conservation Districts
in planning and implementing a water quality project, 2)
the importance of individual conservation plans in build-
ing a watershed plan, 3) the need for a Watershed Ad-
visory Group, and 4) leveraging agency/owner funds in
the tight budget era we find ourselves in.
My presentation is based on experience with the Tomki
Watershed Project. The 40,000 acre Tomki Creek basin
is predominately privately owned, upland forest and ran-
geland. It is found near the headwaters of northwestern
California's largest river, the Eel. The Eel River has the
dubious distinction of having the highest recorded
suspended sediment yield per square mile of drainage
area of any river in the United States. Talk about a water
quality problem, this is it. Some of my more cynical peers
accused me of moving there for the job security. Tomki
Creek was identified as one of the most important
Chinook salmon and steelhead spawning tributaries in
the Eel River basin. These salmonid species are critical
to the economy of commercial and sports fisheries and
have experienced a drastic population drop of 65-85 per-
cent from historical levels, in large part due to major
erosion and sedimentation problems. Logging, grazing,
wildfires and road building activities are the principle non-
point sources. These upper watershed impacts coupled
with flood events have created significant streambank
erosion and gullies that are contributing to the decline of
the anadromous fishery habitat.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT NUMBER 1—
THE ROLE OF RESOURCE CONSERVATION
DISTRICTS
The Mendocino County Resource Conservation District
served as the lead agency for project coordination pur-
poses, a function for which Districts are ideally suited in
many rural areas. In 1980, the Mendocino County district
directors saw watershed restoration activities taking
place on public land and wished to see if planned con-
servation practices when voluntarily applied in a privately
owned basjn would receive sufficient public support to
achieve a real improvement.
Resource Conservation Districts, also known as Soil
Conservation Districts, are state chartered, local public
entities charged with conducting soil and water conserva-
tion programs, usually on a countrywide basis. The Dis-
trict is governed by five volunteer directors who, as
landowners, are intimately familiar with local needs for
soil erosion control and water resource improvement.
A principal charge for Resource Conservation Districts is
to coordinate the technical skills and services available
through natural resource agencies (such as the Soil Con-
servation Service) to work on soil and water problems
faced by landowners.
Mendocino County Resource Conservation District met
their responsibilities by applying for and receiving a Sec-
tion 208 Water Quality Planning grant in 1981 from the
Environmental Protection Agency (75 percent). This
grant was administered through the California State
Water Resources Control Board (25 percent), who also
funded the project.
The grant provided 2 years for the District to:
• Select a watershed with resources and ownership
patterns typical of the North Coast
• Assess and inventory soil, water, vegetation, and
fishery resources
• Develop conservation plans with cooperating land-
owners within the watershed
28
-------
• Produce an overall basin plan portraying resource
uses, problems, treatments, and costs
« Develop a priority setting scheme and a strategy to
solve water quality problems identified in the plan.
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT NUMBER 2—
THE IMPORTANCE OF INDIVIDUAL
CONSERVATION PLANS
A critical institutional arrangement that formed the foun-
dation of the project was the development of individual
conservation plans with each participating owner/District
personnel, working through an existing agreement with
the Soil Conservation Service conservationists, provided
the one-to-one assistance between resource profes-
sionals and those who owned and managed the land.
The plans were developed "with" not 'lor" owners and in-
corporate their ownership goals within the soil's
capability to achieve them. A key approach of the plan-
ners was to listen rather then pontificate about what the
erosion and sedimentation problems were. Instead of
pointing out the problems, planners asked open-ended
questions that elicited owners concerns such as "What
resource problems are you facing?" We were pleasantly
surprised at the knowledge and land ethic of most
owners. Often there were compelling economic reasons
that justified conservation treatments rather than impos-
ing a negative operating cost. Where costs clearly ex-
ceeded the landowner's benefit, public trust benefits in
water quality and fishery improvements were used to jus-
tify public funds. The District received grants from the
California Department of Fish and Game Salmon Res-
toration Fund or introduced owners to cost-share
programs with the Agricultural Stabilization and Conser-
vation Service and the California Department of Forestry.
Throughout the project, individual grass roots conserva-
tion plans were gathered together to form an overall
watershed plan. The Resource Conservation District
made a conscious decision to build a constituency as
well as a comprehensive plan from the bottom up with in-
dividuals rather than top down planning performed by
"technical experts."
Prevention of erosion and sediment problems is much
more effective. The framework of the individual plan ap-
plied by an aware and active owner is the best possible
long-term nonpoint source solution. Let me cite one ex-
ample of how involved owners can assist resource agen-
cies in achieving water quality goals.
The Tomki mainstem had long been the site of extensive
mining for gravel with questionable resource impacts.
When a local gravel extraction firm applied to triple ex-
traction amounts, it was successfully challenged. The
challenge was not just by "bureaucrats" but by influential
owners with rightful concerns about the operation's effect
on their streambank erosion control projects and the sal-
mon population they were trying to bring back. At permit
hearings, bureaucrats had the data and owners the clout
to scale the operation back to non-impact levels. After
hours of permit hearing testimony one old-time rancher
spoke in the best Will Roger's tradition, stating, in
regards to the water and salmon situation we're in, "if we
don't change directions, we're liable to end up where
we're headed!"
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT NUMBER 3—
THE WATERSHED ADVISORY GROUP
One of the first institutional steps the District took was
the formation of a Watershed Advisory Group. The pur-
pose of the group was to coordinate the conservation ef-
forts and field knowledge of everyone involved—private
landowners, public agencies, and interested resource
groups.
Specific objectives of the advisory group were assistance
with watershed inventory and problem analysis, generat-
ing resource information from an interdisciplinary view-
point, improving working relationships, development of
priorities and implementing funding strategies, and
providing technical review and input on all aspects of the
project.
An interdisciplinary approach is essential in dealing with
the nonpoint source water pollutants that come from mul-
tiple and often overlapping sources. Water quality
problem identification and development of project goals
(topics presented previously) are important steps to help-
ing to define what agencies, groups, or individuals need
to be involved. Early, credible involvement in project
management and watershed plan development by agen-
cies and owners helps prevent unwanted surprises later
on. The District built a sense of ownership in the Tomki
project and its outcome on the part of agencies and land-
owners. It was clear that the group was heading in the
right direction when the Advisory members began to
change their possessive pronouns from "your" project to
"our" project. This is such a powerful feeling that it is ob-
vious when it has been achieved.
Working with a Watershed Advisory Group is a dynamic,
democratic process. It does take time and it requires the
lead agency to have a great deal of flexibility to adapt to
information and recommendations of the Advisory Group,
if there is a true wish to foster meaningful involvement
and broaden goal ownership.
The representatives of the Group need to be selected for
their personal or agency interest and commitment. They
need to truly represent and have influence with the group
with which they are affiliated. Members should also be
selected for their abilities to work with a group and listen
effectively as they communicate.
29
-------
INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENT NUMBER
LEVERAGING FUNDS
The final institutional arrangement suggestion is to
promote the use of the leveraging concept. This is where
limited funding dollars of a variety of owners, agencies,
and groups are tiered against each other to maximize
their effect.
Individually, no one landowner or agency has all the
funding necessary to carry out a sediment reduction plan
over 40,000 acres, but collectively, the results can be im-
pressive. For example, in the Tomki Project the Califor-
nia Department of Fish and Game funding administrators
could be taken out to a project site and told, their
"$100,000 of investment would be doubled in the effect
of its habitat return by the $100,000 solicited in support
from the Department of Forestry and the landowners and
road maintenance associations." The next day the same
thing was said to the owners or the Department of
Forestry personnel. A "win-win" situation was built in
where all involved could claim added-on benefits from
some other groups' finances.
Group pressure and this attractive leveraging policy
helped pull in needed support. It may not be easy. Some-
times organizations are forced to fit their program to
meet the different institutional policies, but are also able
to move, if ever so slowly or ever so slightly, the inertia of
institutional policies closer to meeting field-level program
needs and even the "people's needs."
I hope my thoughts on Resource Conservation Districts
and building a watershed plan from the ground up with a
strong Advisory Group helps you to leverage the funds
you need to improve our nation's water quality.
REFERENCES
1. Furman, B.D., Schott, T.E., Keiffer R., Cummins R.,
1983. North Coast Erosion and Sediment Control
Pilot Project—Tomki Creek Watershed—Final
Report. Mendocino County Resource Conservation
District, Ukiah, CA, 181 pp.
30
-------
REVIVING RHODE ISLAND'S URBAN EROSION CONTROL PROGRAM
Elizabeth Scott
Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management
Providence, Rhode Island
INTRODUCTION
In the early 1980s, Rhode Island enacted the Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control Act, which authorized
municipalities to voluntarily adopt soil erosion and sedi-
ment control ordinances. By 1989, only 14 of Rhode
Island's 39 municipalities had adopted soil erosion con-
trol ordinances; enforcement of which was generally very
poor. In its 1988 Nonpoint Source Pollution Assessment
Report, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental
Management (RIDEM) identified erosion from construc-
tion sites among the most significant nonpoint sources of
pollution to the state's waters.
A closer examination of Rhode Island's approach to
urban soil erosion control has revealed a number of
legal, institutional, and technical deficiencies. Most sig-
nificant is the requirement that local ordinances be at
least as stringent as the model ordinance contained in
the statute. The model ordinance was seen by many
municipalities as burdensome and inflexible. Particularly
problematic was the provision requiring that the building
official administer the ordinance. Building officials'
primary responsibility is enforcement of the State Build-
ing Code; as a result, most officials have neither the time
nor inclination to implement the soil erosion control or-
dinance. Many municipalities chose not to adopt the or-
dinance for this reason alone. For those localities
adopting the ordinance, the lack of technically trained
staff to administer the ordinance has resulted in poor en-
forcement. Further hindering the proper selection, instal-
lation, and maintenance of soil erosion control measures
was the lack of detailed technical standards.
Over the past three years, a multitude of agencies,
private and public sector professionals, and special inter-
est groups have worked to revive Rhode Island's urban,
soil erosion control program. This has entailed making
substantial legislative revisions, preparing detailed tech-
nical guidance, and establishing a technical assistance
program for municipalities. This paper describes these
efforts.
REVISED SOIL EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL ACT
The process of changing the legal framework for local
soil erosion control began with a workshop in November
1989, which brought together local planners and en-
gineers, builders and developers, environmentalists, and
state and federal officials to discuss revisions to the ex-
isting legislation. An ad hoc committee of interested par-
ticipants was formed to continue the work of preparing
the revised statute. Throughout the process, consider-
able effort was made to bring all affected parties into the
discussion. After many meetings and last minute negotia-
tions, the revised Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act
(1) was approved and signed into law in July 1990.
The enabling legislation was strengthened and made
more flexible in a number of ways. Under the revised
statute, city/town councils may authorize the building offi-
cial to designate all responsibilities of administering the
ordinance to other more appropriate local officials. In
many municipalities, the local planner or engineer is
more familiar and technically trained in the area of soil
erosion and sediment control than the local building offi-
cial.
The statute also establishes minimum qualifications for
local officials reviewing soil erosion and sediment control
plans. Similar to the requirements imposed upon in-
dividuals preparing the plans, the local official must be a
registered engineer, surveyor, landscape architect, or a
Soil and Water Conservation Society certified erosion
and sediment control specialist. Alternatively, local offi-
cials may meet the minimum qualifications by attending a
soil erosion and sediment control training session spon-
sored by the U.S. Department of Agriculture Soil Conser-
vation Service (USDA SCS) and the Conservation
Districts.
Other substantial revisions include the addition of a
"determination of applicability" procedure applicable to all
but very minor land-disturbing activities. Brief project
descriptions are submitted to the local official for evalua-
31
-------
tion of the site's potential for erosion and thus the need
for a soil erosion and sediment control plan. Exempted
from this requirement are:
* Construction, alteration, or additions to existing
single family homes provided such additions are less
than 1,000 ft2 and the alteration does not occur
within 100 ft of any watercourse or coastal feature
and slopes are less than 10 percent
• Use of home gardens and accepted agricultural
management practices
• Certain minor excavation and grading activities
* Activities and operations undertaken by the
municipality, so long as acceptable erosion and sedi-
ment control practices are utilized in accordance with
the model ordinance's performance principles
A significant factor in municipalities' ability to administer
new programs is their ability to hire needed staff. Unlike
the original statute, the revised version explicitly
authorizes municipalities to collect fair and reasonable
fees for purposes of administering the ordinance. These
funds may be utilized to hire city/town staff or may be
used to pay for outside technical assistance, such as that
offered by the Conservation Districts.
The statute's model ordinance refers to the recently
revised Rhode Island Soil Erosion and Sediment Control
Handbook (2) in establishing minimum plan contents,
thus significantly simplifying this statutory provision. Con-
sistent with the Handbook, the model ordinance requires
a narrative describing the land disturbing activity and
proposed soil erosion control measures, construction
drawings, and all supporting documentation. Detailed re-
quirements are included in the Handbook, instead of the
statute, thereby allowing plans to reflect the complexity
and size of the proposed activity.
Revisions to two provisions substantially strengthen
municipalities' enforcement authority under the soil
erosion and sediment control ordinance. The first
authorizes municipalities to hold performance bonds for a
period of 12 months following completion of the project.
On such projects as residential subdivisions, therefore,
where unforeseen erosion problems may arise following
completion of final grading and road construction,
municipalities have recourse to correct such problems.
The second provision authorizes the building official to
halt all work on the project should violations of the ap-
proved plan or ordinance occur. Previously, building offi-
cials were authorized to halt only that work approved
under the soil erosion and sediment control plan.
Lastly, the statute requires that all previously adopted
soil erosion and sediment control ordinances be brought
into conformance with the revised model ordinance by
July 1.1991.
REVISED RHODE ISLAND SOIL EROSION AND
SEDIMENT CONTROL HANDBOOK
In the fall of 1987, the RIDEM organized a Stormwater
Management and Soil Erosion Committee composed of
state and federal agency representatives, planners, en-
gineers, and scientists. Among the committees' man-
dates was revision of the state's Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook. The USD A SCS working
with RIDEM and the committee agreed to take the lead in
preparing the revised handbook.
Adapted from soil erosion control manuals prepared by
Connecticut, Virginia, and New Jersey, the revised
Rhode Island manual represents a very detailed source
of information on state requirements, the soil erosion and
sediment control planning process, the design and instal-
lation of vegetative and other nonstructural practices,
and structural soil erosion and sediment control
measures. The handbook is referenced in the recently
revised Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Act and is util-
ized by the state's environmental agencies as the ac-
cepted standard for soil erosion and sediment control.
The handbook was prepared and printed in part with
federal Section 205(j)5 and 319 grants. The RIDEM has
entered into an agreement with the Rhode Island
Resource Conservation and Development Area to sell
the handbooks at cost. Printing costs are recovered and
deposited into a revolving loan publications account, thus
ensuring the necessary funding to pay for the up-front
expenses of printing additional copies of the handbook.
The handbook cost also includes expenses involved in
preparing and mailing two updates of the handbook to
subscribers. ', '
REGIONAL SITE PLAN REVIEW AND
INSPECTION PROGRAM
To address the need for technical expertise at the local
level, the state's three Conservation Districts with assis-
tance from the RIDEM's Nonpoint Source Pollution
Management Program have established a pilot Regional
Site Plan Review and Inspection Program. The goals of
the program are threefold: 1) to educate municipalities on
the importance of using proper soil erosion and sediment
control practices, 2) to assist in administering local soil
erosion and sediment control requirements, and lastly, 3)
to offer soil erosion and sediment control training semi-
nars to individuals involved with non-agricultural land
development.
The pilot program, funded with a federal Section 319
grant, expands upon the technical services previously of-
fered to municipalities by the Conservation Districts. The
districts have hired two engineers to assist cities and
towns in reviewing soil erosion and sediment control
plans and drainage calculations and in inspecting con-
struction sites for compliance with approved plans. The
32
-------
USDA SCS provides backup technical support to district
staff, where necessary.
Under the Regional Site Plan Review and Inspection
Program, municipalities receive and process applica-
tions, then forward soil erosion and sediment control
plans to the district for review and/or site inspection.
Upon completion of the review and/or inspection, the dis-
tricts submit written recommendations to the city or town.
All regulatory decisions and enforcement actions are
taken by the municipalities.
The federal grant has allowed the districts to offer their
technical services at no cost to the municipalities. The
districts are striving to introduce the site plan review and
inspection services to all municipalities and to develop
working relationships with as many of them as possible.
Over the past 6 months, 14 municipalities have received
assistance through the Site Plan Review and Inspection
Program. At least six others have expressed interest in
adopting the soil erosion and sediment control ordinance
and in receiving assistance from the districts.
To ensure continued program support once the federal
funds have been expended, the Conservation Districts
are required, as a grant condition, to develop a permit
fee schedule to present to participating municipalities.
The districts intend to adopt the fee schedule for pay-
ment of their services. Participating municipalities will be
encouraged to adopt the permit fee schedule as
authorized by the revised Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Act, thus transfering the costs of program ad-
ministration to the applicants.
Once the fee schedule goes into effect later this year,
Memoranda of Understanding between the Conservation
Districts and participating municipalities will either be
revised or newly entered into outlining the respective en-
tities responsibilities.
The final component of the Site Plan Review and Inspec-
tion Program is the offering of soil erosion and sediment
control training seminars to engineers, landscape ar-
chitects, and planners in both the private and public sec-
tors and to developers. Those attending the seminar may
receive a soil erosion and sediment control training semi-
nar certificate by completing a take-home soil erosion
and sediment control planning problem. The purpose of
the take-home problem is to have those attending the
seminar prepare a soil erosion and sediment control plan
utilizing the newly learned concepts. The completed
plans are reviewed by the districts' staff and returned to
the participant with comments and recommendations on
how to improve the plan.
CONCLUSION: LESSONS LEARNED
Early efforts to establish local soil erosion and sediment
control programs in Rhode Island failed for several
reasons. The unresponsiveness of the state in enabling
legislation authorizing municipalities to adapt soil erosion
and sediment control ordinances to local needs and
government structure was a primary factor limiting the
number of municipalities adopting the ordinance. The
legislation required that the building official administer
the program and furthermore, did not give clear
authorization to collect fees to support program ad-
ministration. For those municipalities that did adopt the
ordinance, enforcement was generally poor due to the
lack of technically trained staff and detailed technical
standards to assist in implementing the program.
Revisions to the Rhode Island Soil Erosion and Sediment
Control Act approved in July 1990 have corrected many
of the weaknesses of the earlier legislation. Specifically,
the legislation opens the way for municipalities to select
the most appropriate local official to administer the or-
dinance, explicitly authorizes the collection of fees to
support program administration, establishes jurisdiction
over all but minor land disturbing activities, creates a
"determination of applicability procedure" allowing site-
specific assessment of the need for soil erosion control
measures, and .strengthens enforcement provisions.
Compromised by political and economic considerations,
adoption of local soil erosion and sediment control or-
dinances was not made mandatory. It was particularly
important, therefore, that the revised legislation and
model ordinance be acceptable to municipalities.
The recently established Regional Site Plan Review and
Inspection Program provides municipalities with the
necessary technical support to implement the local soil
erosion and sediment control programs. With seed
money provided by a federal Section 319 grant, the Con-
servation Districts have been able to provide technical
assistance at no cost during the project's "start-up"
period. In doing so, an incentive is created for
municipalities to improve administration and enforcement
of ordinances in place and for other municipalities to
adopt the ordinance. Availability of the revised Rhode Is-
land Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Handbook has
provided guidance to Conservation District staff, city and
town officials, and applicants in the design, installation,
and maintenance of soil erosion and sediment control
measures.
Many lessons have been learned in addressing Rhode
Island's soil erosion and sediment control program weak-
nesses. These lessons may be directly applicable to
other efforts to control urban nonpoint sources of pollu-
tion. Designing an institutional arrangement that works
requires that adequate legislative and regulatory
authority exists or is created, adequate funding and staff
are available to implement the program, and that the
most appropriate governmental unit is selected to ad-
minister the program. Availability of technically capable
staff and the ability to utilize innovative concepts and
techniques are other essential components of urban non-
point source pollution control programs. Program
managers must be willing to work with and educate all
33
-------
sectors of the affected community in designing pollution
control programs.
REFERENCES
1. Rhode Island. Rhode Island Soil Erosion and Sedi-
ment Control Act. General Laws Sections 45-46-1 -
45-46-6.1990.
2. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conser-
vation Service, Rhode Island Department of Environ-
ment, and Rhode Island State Conservation
Committee, 1989. Rhode Island Soil Erosion and
Sediment Control Handbook.
34
-------
REFLECTIONS ON THE ART OF COLLABORATIVE INSTITUTIONAL
ARRANGEMENTS; YOU GOTTA WANNA!
George R. Hallberg
Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Iowa City, Iowa
INTRODUCTION
Nonpoint source pollution (NPS) problems are diffuse by
definition. Solutions have been difficult to comprehend
because of the sheer magnitude of land and private in-
dividual management actions that must be involved, par-
ticularly for agricultural impacts on the environment.
Many NPS problems go beyond the scope of regulatory
programs and almost always are broader than the
authority and capabilities of an individual agency. Hence,
mitigating NPS pollution must involve programs that can
attack the problem on many fronts: regulation; coopera-
tive or voluntary implementation; education and
demonstration; often, interactive research; and, for guid-
ing implementation and measuring success, components
of evaluation and monitoring. This necessitates the
involvement of many agencies and institutions, and for
success they must be involved in a truly cooperative
manner. The route to truly collaborative programs is
paved with the pitfalls of personalities and politics among
agencies and institutions. There is no patented formula
for establishing successful cooperative institutional
arrangements; every state is organized somewhat
differently and the political winds and the politics among
agencies change.
Iowa's Experience
Over the past two decades in Iowa considerable ex-
perience has evolved developing collaborative programs
among agencies and institutions in the agricultural-en-
vironmental arena. While there have been false starts,
many programs have been successful, both in program
content and as models of institutional arrangements that
work. Included are unique state programs such as Iowa
Soil 2000, the Big Spring Basin Demonstration Project,
the Integrated Farm Management Demonstration Project,
and the Model Farms Demonstration Project; legislative
initiatives such as the Iowa Groundwater Protection Act;
and interaction in various federal programs. Iowa has al-
ways had a strong role in soil conservation and soil
erosion problems, and a traditional concern with agricul-
tural NPS. These new state programs have dealt more
with the broader scope of agricultural impacts on the en-
vironment, and have evolved because of the growing
scientific evidence and public concerns with agriculture's
impact on chemical water-quality, particularly ground-
water quality. These programs evolved largely before, or
external to, the development of current NPS planning,
but clearly play major roles in Iowa's integrated attack on
NPS. Necessity contributed to the birthing of these in-
novations; the nucleus of these programs began before
these issues had the visibility they do today, and well
before there were resources available to consider new
programs. Irideed, the visibility of these issues and the
resources the state of Iowa has put into these programs
is related to the success and legitimacy of the collabora-
tive institutional arrangements that developed. Portions
of these efforts and resultant program innovations .have
been adopted as models in new federal programs, as
well. From this experience there are, hopefully, some
general elements in the process that may provide some
insight for continuing success. Among the key points are
real cooperation, collaboration, and communication, but
they all fall in line with a primary requirement—"You
Gotta Wanna!"
In relation to Iowa programs, I have often spoken about
Integrated Pest Management (IPM) being one key to
solving our agricultural problems (1,2). Not just IPM,
though this is a component, but a broader spectrum of
IPM—Integrated "Pharm" Management at one end of the
scale, but more to the point here, Integrated and Innova-
tive Policy Models at the other end. Integration (as in col-
laboration and coordination) is the key.
The problem is legislatures can direct coordination and
integration to take place, administrators can mandate it,
NPS management plans can require it, but much of it ex-
ists on paper only. For NPS it must be a reality if any real
progress is to be made, and to make it reality takes work
—You Gotta Wanna. Agencies can't work at cross-pur-
poses; they must pay more than lip service to coopera-
tion. Different agencies or organizations cannot be
putting out information contrary to each other. One group
can't stress that nitrates or pesticides in ground water are
a significant problem that requires attention, while
another agency says these are nonissues and farmers
35
-------
should continue business as usual and simply worry
about production. One agency can't be saying that soil
conservation is the only concern when others are stress-
ing that chemical contamination of water must be dealt
with as well. As another example—one debated in the
1990 Farm Bill—organizations can't continue to talk soil
conservation but have commodities program payments
direct the system in a different direction.
Cooperation and coordination are worth the effort;
shared resources and expertise can advance all parties'
efforts further than individual budgets or resources allow.
The sum is typically much greater than its parts. In Iowa,
programs have been initiated through collective actions
that would not have been possible individually. Coor-
dinated interagency plans or requests are almost always
received favorably in the political arena, partly because
of their apparent efficiency, but partly because they occur
so rarely. Some innovation is a side benefit of integration
that will evolve out of coordination and cooperation—no
particular institution has a lock on creativity.
"YOU GOTTA WANNA"—THE ART OF
PROGRAM COORDINATION
In subsequent sections I will briefly discuss the "process"
of program coordination that has been used in Iowa. The
mechanics of the process are nothing new, however. In
general form similar approaches are widely used. It is the
spirit of the process that makes it work. So before dis-
cussing the process I will discuss some of the "art" that
we have found necessary to make it work. This is the key
of the theme, "You Gotta Wanna." The various institu-
tions to be involved have to want to make it work. While
the points below may read like trite "phrases of the day,"
they are of paramount importance to making institutional
collaboration work.
The Price for Coordination Must be Paid
Interagency coordination is time consuming and, hence,
can be costly. It takes time to keep in touch, to keep
people informed, to make the rounds and "hold hands,"
for "shuttle diplomacy" to arbitrate differences. These
needs often don't stop at 5:00 PM. They require meet-
ings, and then more meetings; it sometimes requires an
inordinate number of memos, miles, phone calls, and
candor. Some nucleus of people personally, and the in-
stitutions/agencies collectively, must understand this and
be willing to pay the price, to take the time, to make the
effort. Many involved with such programs would like to be
spending more time on research, or writing, or other
responsibilities; but the price must be paid for success.
Formal and interpersonal communication is essential, as
is the evolution of trust and confidence among the key
players. Communication means dialogue—not just talk-
ing, but careful and critical listening. Listening plays a
critical role in the next two points. While one may have to
voice an agency position, one must also listen to
counter-points and listen for the "explanation" or
between-the-lines positions, as well.
Paying the price, at some point, will require deliberate
decisions and support from administrators, because
something will have to give! The time demands will re-
quire adjustments of staff assignments or changing
responsibilities.
It Must be Agreed Where to Disagree
With the broad spectrum of NPS issues, not everyone is
going to agree on everything in the definition or prioritiza-
tion of problems or solutions. Some basic consensus
must be reached, however, as a key to move forward.
While there may still be debate on the fine points of how
"serious" some contamination may or may not be, or
what area is more critical to focus on, the 'learn" clearly
must find agreement on the direction needed and the
questions that must be answered to resolve differences.
Certain contentious issues may need to be left to the
agency/personnel with the greatest expertise and
responsibility in that arena.
On this same general theme, in Iowa, during the evolu-
tion of agricultural ground-water quality issues, roles for
public presentation sometimes had to be filled. This is a
matter of simple political realities. There were some
things that an agency, because of long-standing relations
with the farm or agribusiness community, just couldn't
say publicly in the early stages of the public dialogue
about these issues. So someone else would need to be
the "designated bad guy," to make sure certain points
were made, and were put on the table for public con-
sideration and discussion. This can be another part of
the "price to be paid."
Egos Must be Put Aside
With interagency and interdisciplinary programs there are
going to be times when the press, politicians, the public,
or bureaucrats are going to give credits to the wrong
party, or omit giving credit to some deserving party. At
times, for various reasons (even some good ones), such
as fighting for budget support, it may be necessary for
some cooperators to take more credit than may be their
due. It must be recognized that this will happen. It must
be recognized that whoever is in the lead of a particular
project, or currently noteworthy phase of a project, will
get the lead credits of the day. Individuals must be able
to roll with these events without starting major struggles
inside the team. The reverse is also true; some may get
an inordinate amount of blame or criticism! Cooperators
and administrators need to be sensitive to these issues,
both to go out of their way to provide credit to others
when possible (or required), but also not to get too upset
when they do not see credits. This can be a serious
problem for individuals, as well. Some agencies/institu-
tions may provide greater rewards to individuals for such
efforts, while others give little recognition. It can be dif-
ficult to come up with the latest "bright idea" in a
36
-------
coordination meeting only to see it adopted and imple-
mented by another group or agency. It takes some effort
to keep a focus on the overall objectives.
DESIGNING INSTITUTIONAL ARRANGEMENTS
THAT WORK: A PROCESS
In light of the three key points I have outlined above, I will
also outline some facets of the process that has been
used in Iowa. It is "a" process, not "the" process. Again, I
will try not to elaborate on mechanical issues, but will try
to highlight key considerations within the general
framework. Many of the thoughts outlined, and the
general processes used in Iowa, follow from the success-
ful evolution of an ad hoc, interagency work group—the
Iowa Consortium on Agriculture and Water Quality. This
group came together in the early 1980s to deal with
problems related to ground-water contamination from
agriculture. In this early stage of the research and techni-
cal knowledge of these problems, considerable consen-
sus building had to be done. Actions were also
stimulated by local interests in areas with identified
problems and by their desire to resolve such problems.
As part of the process, the Consortium formed a special
task force with the stated charge to:
1. Define specific problems
2. Identify potential solutions
3. Compile pertinent agency activities
4. Determine agency needs
5. Identify research needs
6. Present recommendations for action, including agen-
cy contributions
In general form, this is nothing new; bureaucrats go
through similar planning exercises all the time—a step-
wise process of problem definition and identification of
possible solutions. Perhaps there are a few important dif-
ferences: for items 4 and 6, the charge was to come up
with a plan for action. By design, however, this was to be
an integrated, multi-agency, multi-institution plan, specifi-
cally including what the agencies were going to con-
tribute and what their needs were to further the plan of
action. A second critical difference was that most of the
players took it seriously, or were convinced to take it
seriously. The action plan this group developed initiated
the Big Spring Basin Demonstration Project, and set the
wheels in motion toward development of a spring
nitrogen soil test, among other things. The group, and
the process, has continued to reform and regroup for the
development of many other initiatives as well.
In the development of NPS management plans, at a min-
imum, some basic elements of this process had to be ac-
complished. Hopefully, some of these notes on critical,
practical issues can be of use while entering the process
at varying levels. Also, the process has to be ongoing;
there must be feedback, and the process must continue
as we work on subsets of the total NPS puzzle. In this
context, I will not elaborate on items such as problem
definition or developing alternative solutions, or goals
and objectives for NPS plans. I will try to key on less
clearly defined issues, again related to the "spirit" of the
process. Again, these can be key considerations that
make the process work—considerations that are not
usually spelled out, and are difficult to define clearly.
Identification of Cooperators
Who are the necessary players? What agencies or in-
stitutions need to be, must be, a part of the program?
Though there are certain standard groups that are a part
of NPS and agricultural programs, are there others that
should be involved for complete coverage? It is often
beneficial to have ag-economists and rural sociologists
involved from the outset. A group whose prime interest is
the economic and production realities of the farmer can
help to identify weak points or selling points in a par-
ticular plan. There may be resources and interests of
value within the state geological surveys, health related
agencies, or university aquatic ecological researchers,
for example. For successful NPS programs, it may be
necessary to bring some groups to the table that have
been at odds over other issues.
Though the basic groups may have been defined for a
state NPS advisory group, as subsets of the NPS
problems are dealt with, this should be reexamined.
Certain problems may require some new groups to be
brought in.
People, Personalities, and Politics
Within the context of the agencies asked to participate,
can a particular key person(s) be invited, or can a par-
ticular person(s) serve? Which people can/will really con-
tribute; which people really have an interest in the
program? Is there past program. experience (such as
NPS planning or cooperative soil survey, for example)
that allows the players who are willing to pay the price to
constructively participate to be identified? Ideally, some-
one who has credibility with other group members,
preferably someone who can make some level of
decision or commitment for the agency, or who will follow
through to get a decision when needed, should be
chosen.
Problems, Authorities, and Needs
For productive dialogue among agencies and institutions,
it is helpful if specific problem definitions are developed.
This helps to focus the dialogue toward the identification
of the "needs" that must be met for potential solutions. As
part of the process, the group can identify pertinent
agency authorities and current activities pertinent to the
problem and that, potentially, can affect progress (posi-
tively or negatively). This inventory process can serve to
open the dialogue, and also leads to some other impor-
37
-------
tant elements. From the inventory the next stage is to
identify the strengths and weaknesses of existing
programs for addressing NFS. What are the gaps in cur-
rent programs, gaps in authorities, or gaps in resources?
From this, identify the needs of various agencies, new
authorities or needed staff or fiscal resources, and infor-
mation and research needs. Try to develop a con-
solidated plan of recommendations that identify needs—
fiscal, staff, or statutory—for all agencies involved. This
can help to keep all the players involved. As noted, coor-
dinated interagency plans are often received much better
in the political arena than single agency requests.
Identify Contributions
In Iowa, a very important step from the inventory process
was for the agencies to identify the resources that they
could and would contribute to the program. If a consen-
sus could be reached on the needed direction, then the
resources and/or the changes in direction toward solu-
tions that would be contributed could be identified. At the
time efforts were begun, there were no resources avail-
able. Some of the contributions identified were efforts
aimed at finding resources, staff assistance with grant
proposals, or seeking special allocations from within an
agency. While today there may be resources (such as
319 grants) to distribute to different agencies, for suc-
cess and real involvement, participants must also put in
some resources. When institutions put in resources they
become larger stakeholders, as well.
One of the most rewarding outgrowths of this process—
developing integrated, collaborative directions and
priorities—was to see agencies seeking special funds,
from their own internal sources, with the specific intent of
providing these funds to another institution to address
priority needs. Egos and empires can be put aside when
people see a joint commitment.
Interactive Cooperation/Feedback
The process must be dynamic; it requires feedback and
adjustments, and continual communication. New
program or implementation models will arise, and needs
will change as some are met and as problems become
better defined. As noted above, the nucleus of the Iowa
Consortium has "reformed" and "regrouped" under
various umbrellas to try and meet changing needs and to
address new opportunities for implementation.
LOCAL LEVEL IMPLEMENTATION
NFS planning and institutional arrangements are part of
the process, but NFS solutions happen at the local level.
To quote a colleague (thank you, Lyle Asell): 'There
comes a time in every project when you have to shoot
the engineers and do something." Implementing actions
that solve NFS problems are by nature local programs,
requiring actions by local groups and individuals: laying
out soil conservation measures on the "north forty";
development of a nutrient management plan for a farm;
construction of manure-handling facilities for a farm-live-
stock operation. For local implementation, the identifica-
tion of credible local resources is particularly critical.
Listen and Learn
Much of the same spirit and process, described above,
will need to be repeated in establishing project-level im-
plementation at the local level. Here it is critical for the
process to operate from the bottom up, as well as the top
down. Bottom-up listening, program feedback, and al-
terations are particularly crucial. You must listen to local
people involved with implementation. We can't imple-
ment everything at once, so listen to your local contacts'
needs and desires.
What do the local people perceive their problems and
needs to be? What are the local parties willing to do, and
what do they want to do? How do these fit into the iden-
tified program needs? Can the local needs and wants be
met as a meaningful step in implementing the program?
Durable solutions must involve grassroots commitment.
Hence, if you can identify and take advantage of local
perceptions and willingness to act, if you can tailor step-
wise implementation, local progress may come more
readily.
Sociology 101
It must be recognized that implementation is as much a
sociological process (and socioeconomic) as a technical
one. Some significant portion of the success attributed to
Iowa's programs comes from this recognition. A standard
protocol of many of our programs is to begin with a rural
sociological survey. These surveys (3,4,5) are used to
identify local perceptions, knowledge, and concerns
about NFS soil and water quality problems, local
knowledge and skills of alternative practices, and willing-
ness to adapt to alternative practices and inventory cur-
rent practices. This information can provide critical
assistance for designing initial programs that provide an
entree of acceptability and target local willingness and
capabilities. Some solutions may be acceptable, but local
operators may not have the management skills or equip-
ment to implement them. Some practices may not even
be perceived as problems by local operators. If these are
the targets of initial programs they have little chance of
success. Listen and learn.
Information Marketing
Part of the sociological process at the local level has to
be education, including public education and target
audience education about the problem (particularly if it is
not recognized as a significant problem), about potential
solutions, and about your program. Most sociological sur-
veys indicate that farmers (as well as any other people)
rely heavily on past experience and practice in their
routine decision making. This seems particularly true for
concerns with nutrient and pesticide use. The inertia of
the past 20 to 30 years of development of current
38
-------
production systems must be overcome if farmers are to
be convinced to alter present farm chemical practices.
Also, the farm operator is besieged by mixed messages
of the legitimate benefits of fertilizers and pesticides and
by innumerable sales pitches. Hence, there also is a bat-
tle of competitive marketing. This is why aggressive infor-
mation marketing should be encouraged, as opposed to
what is often referred to as "education," .information
delivery, or technology transfer programs.
Again, detailed discussion of this topic is beyond this
paper, but some important components of information
marketing that have been found in Iowa (6) are noted
below. Three stages of information delivery may be
needed to: 1) stimulate (catalyze) interest and recogni-
tion of the problem, 2) provide contact with alternative
practices, to identify that there are solutions, or at least
appropriate steps in the right direction while we work
toward solutions, and 3) collaborate with farmers in the
transition to and the development of new practices.
There are also critical qualities about information market-
ing. First, the information must be designed to match the
needs, concerns, and issues relevant to the agency and
farmers. These can be ascertained through sociological
surveys. Second, the provider must have credibility with
the audience to have much impact. Third, the manner in
which the information is provided and its timeliness can
be critical to effective use (6).
Returning to one of my main themes, consistency in the
message among agencies is critical. Hence, we return to
the importance of integration and cooperation. Nothing
will kill the "marketing" plan faster than contrary informa-
tion from supposed collaborators.
SUMMARY
There has been a struggle for several decades to try to
come to grips with the magnitude of NFS problems. At
times, some have given up in frustration because the
scope of the problem appears beyond resolution; it re-
quires too many actions by too many agencies and too
many private individuals. The struggle to reach an under-
standing of the linkages in the physical system con-
tinues: land management and chemical management
must be dealt with conjunctively, surface water and
ground water are part of the hydrologic system and can-
not be wholly separated in our considerations, and so
forth. But progress is beginning to show. Attention must
now be paid to the institutional and policy linkages that
are required to further progress; the sociological linkages
that must be understood and utilized must be recog-
nized. Considerable progress has been made among
federal agencies in the past few years in this regard; con-
siderable policy support continues to develop to deal with
NFS and pollution prevention. I must note that success
has its downside, as well. Rapid growth in new programs
can quickly outgrow the capability of the "coordinators"
to stay in touch with the development of the programs.
While this is the aim and need of NFS implementation
programs, it can frustrate coordination efforts in the tran-
sition and can result in some less than desirable
programs. The nonpoint source challenge is often
onerous, and to face it successfully—You Gotta Wanna!
REFERENCES
1. Hallberg, G.R., 1986. From hoes to herbicides;
agriculture and groundwater quality, Jour. Soil and
Water Conserv. 41:357-364.
2. Hallberg, G.R., 1988. Facing the dilemma: Where do
we go from here? In: Agricultural Chemicals and
Groundwater Policy: Emerging Management and
Policy, The Freshwater Foundation and USEPA,
Navarre, MN, pp. 43-51.
3. Padgitt, S., 1987. Agriculture and Groundwater Is-
sues in Big Spring Basin and Winneshiek County,
Iowa: Survey of Farm and Nonfarm Households on
Perceptions, Attitudes, and Farming Practices, Coop.
Extension Service, Iowa State Univ., Ames, lA,
80pp.
4. Padgitt, S., 1989. Farm Practices and Attitudes
toward Groundwater Policies: A Statewide Survey,
IFM-3. Coop. Extension Service, Iowa State Univ.,
Ames, IA, 30 pp.
5. Contant, C., 1990. Evaluating the Effectiveness of
Field Demonstration Programs. IFM-6, Public Policy
Center, Univ. of Iowa, and Coop. Extension Service,
lA State Univ., Ames, Iowa, 17 pp.
6. Contant, C., 1990. Providing information to farmers
about groundwater quality protection, Jour. Soil and
Water Conserv. 45:314-317.
39
-------
OAKWOOD LAKES/POINSETT RURAL CLEAN WATER PROGRAM IN
SOUTH DAKOTA: LESSONS LEARNED
Karen Cameron-Howell
USDA-SCS
Brookings, South Dakota
INTRODUCTION
Under Section 208 of the 1972 Amendments to the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act, states identified
water quality problems (nonpoint sources) and began to
develop plans to control these sources (1). The most sig-
nificant problem identified in South Dakota was sediment
and associated chemicals from farmland.
Because of Section 208, a new federal program, called
the Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP) (2) was
created. This program offered cost-share and technical
assistance to landowners for adopting specific erosion
conlrol/water quality practices on a voluntary basis.
These erosion controlling/water quality practices were
referred to as best management practices (BMPs). Each
participant signed up for a minimum of three practices.
Participants were also required to adopt conservation
measures that allowed soil loss under "T" for the
dominant map unit in each field. Water quality plans were
written by Soil Conservation Service (SCS) field person-
nel for entire farms.
The Oakwood Lakes/Poinsett RCWP included Brook-
ings, Hamlin, and Kingsbury counties. Sign-up was slow
the first year until farmers became familiar with the re-
quirements and benefits of the project. Overall, RCWP
taught us many lessons. From these lessons, other water
quality projects have now been established in South
Dakota. With that in mind, the following questions were
answered using public input from only RCWP par-
ticipants so that we can better handle other watershed
projects.
The questions tend to be interrelated; however, respon-
ses for each can be individually gauged. First, how much
farmer acceptance was there? Did cost-share influence
their decision to participate? And, did the program in-
fluence them enough to change their farming methods
after the cessation of cost-share?
METHODS
All operators (decision-makers) who had a water quality
plan in RCWP from 1982 to 1990 received a public input
questionnaire. A cover letter explaining the importance of
their response, how it could aid future watershed plan-
ning, and my home phone number for questions was in-
cluded. Ninety-five letters were sent representing all
operators. Forty-nine operators responded and returned
their questionnaire giving a full 50 percent response.
The questions were reviewed by SCS personnel, water
quality specialists at South Dakota State University
(SDSU), and by a rural sociologist also at SDSU prior to
the initial mailing in August 1990. Questions were aimed
at answering the questions of farmer acceptance, why
they participated, and the degree of permanent change
as a result of RCWP participation.
Data analysis includes descriptive statistics, chi-square,
and frequencies. ANOVA was not implemented because
results contained fairly obvious relationships. Also, some
of the relationships can be explained using adoption dif-
fusion models.
RESULTS
Table 1 compares tillage method (1 conservation tillage,
2=plow) prior to RCWP participation to tillage method
after RCWP participation. In general, 59.18 percent
changed tillage methods from plowing to conservation til-
lage as a result of RCWP participation. Question 4
(Table 2) also shows acceptance of new tillage methods
by asking why post-RCWP changes in tillage methods
were made. Of the respondents, 50 percent have not
changed tillage methods since RCWP participation. Of
those that did change, all except one respondent
changed to a more specialized conservation tillage
method including ridge-till and no-till. Of the 49 respon-
dents, 48 percent said they would recommend a program
like RCWP to others.
To further pinpoint farmer acceptance among the 91.7
percent full-time farmers (8.3 percent part-time farmers),
they were asked about farm productivity while an RCWP
participant. Responses were varied depending on how
40
-------
Table 1. Comparison of Conservation Tillage Users Before and After RCWP Participation,
Where 1=Conservation Tillage and 2=Plowing
Q2
Q9
Frequency Percent
Statistics for Table 1 of Q2 by Q9:
Statistic DF Value
Chi-Square 1 4.974
Likelihood Ratio
Chi-Square 1 4.751
Phi Coefficient -0.319
Sample Size = 49
TOTAL
,.1 ,11
22.45
2 29
59.18
Total 40
81.63
6
12.24
3
6.12
9
18.37
17
34.69%
32
65.31%
49
100.00%
Prob
0.026
0.029
Table 2. Question 4
Q4. IF YOUR CURRENT TILLAGE METHODS ARE DIFFERENT THAN WHILE YOU WERE
ENROLLED IN RCWP, EXPLAIN WHY YOU CHANGED.
Response
Frequency
Percent
1 -Stayed the same
2-Enrolled in CRP or other program
3-Changed to control more erosion
4-Changed crop rotation (bases & farm)
5-Conservation tillage didn't work-too wet
16
5
3
5
1
50%
20%
10%
20%
they defined productivity; however, 54.5 percent thought
their productivity increased, with increased moisture for
crop growth the most common reason given.
Interesting results were achieved when comparing
answers to questions 2, 8, and 9. Results from these
three questions are presented in Table 3. Tallied results
of questions 2 and 9 were compared to the ranked
results of question 8. This table look at sums of the
ranked responses only; categorical modeling was not ap-
propriate with only a three-way table. In the first case,
persons who used conservation tillage before RCWP and
after the program expired cited monetary incentives as
the most important reason that they signed up for
RCWP. These same respondents cited concern for the
environment as their second most important reason, and
fertilizer recommendations as the third.
The second group was comprised of persons who used
conservation tillage before RCW but switched to a dif-
ferent system after the program expired. This system
may include those switching to ridge-till or no-till. Cost-
share incentives ranked third after the fertilizer recom-
mendations and concern for the environment.
The third group is the largest and is composed of those
who plowed before RCWP participation and used some
form of conservation tillage after participation. Of the
respondents, 29 were in this category, and cash incen-
tives were the primary reason they got involved in
RCWP. The second factor was the 'free scouting' offered
41
-------
by BMP-16; the fertilizer recommendations offered by
BMP-15 were ranked as the third most important. These
results show that they found the cash incentives to be
the primary reason why they signed up for RCWP, and
that the program influenced them enough to change per-
manently.
Lastly, comparison 4 shows those who plowed both
before and after RCWP. They cited monetary incentives
and concern for the environment. Unfortunately the lack
of proper ranking does not allow accurate comparisons
for this category.
Now we know that 32 persons (65.31 percent) changed
for non-conservation tillage farmers to conservation til-
lage farmers as a result of the RCWP experience. Of
those 32 persons, 29 went from plow to conservation til-
lage (91 percent). The six persons that went from con-
servation tillage to a plow method were because of
changes in crop rotation requiring some plowing to break
sod, although one persons said that his ground was too
wet to use some conservation tillage methods on. The
rest continued their same conservation tillage method
lhat they had been applying prior to RCWP participation.
(See Table 1.) But how did they hear about RCWP?
Fourteen persons heard about RCWP from a neighbor;
13 from the Soil Conservation Service; 10 from the
Agricultural, Stabilization, and Conservation Service; 6
from news or radio media; and 1 from a public meeting.
So far, results have shown that there was farmer accep-
tance, that they were primarily motivated by the cost-
share incentive, and that 40 of the respondents
continued with conservation tillage after the program
benefits ceased (81.63 percent). This RCWP project in
South Dakota has clearly achieved its goals.
DISCUSSION
Has the project accomplished its original goals? Farmer
acceptance as reported, was high. We can conclude that
due to agency contacts, media, and farm visits we in-
fluenced and educated participating farmers to change
permanently. Economics was the primary reason why
they chose to participate. Most used the extra income to
help out their farm in general. Others used the income to
purchase specialized conservation tillage equipment and,
in one case, a satellite dish. However, the adoption of
new conservation practices are not accomplished in a
vacuum.
Concurrent with early (1982-1984) RCWP program ef-
forts by SCS, ASCS, and CES, were increasing educa-
tional efforts by implement dealers and universities on
alternative tillage methods. Ridge-till and one-pass soil
saver rigs (triple gang whiz bangs) were popular. Also,
farmers became increasingly aware of health and en-
vironmental issues. Adding to the possible educational
sources was an extensive Comprehensive Monitoring
Table 3. Tillage Methods Before and After Compared
to Incentive. Three-Way Comparisons of Questions 2,
8, and 9 Using Ranked Results of Q 8
Observations
11
Q2=1 Q9=1
6
Q2=1 Q9=2
29
Q2=2 Q9=1
3
Q2=2 Q9=2
Variable
Q8a
Q8b
Q8c
Q8d
Q8e
Q8f
Q8g
Q8a
Q8b
Q8c
Q8d
Q8e
Q8f
Q8a
Q8b
Q8c
Q8d
Q8e
Q8f
Q8g
Q8a
Q8d
Sum
34
12
15
23
11
5
3
7
6
12
13
1
2
79
64
62
57
19
38
3
6
2
and Evaluation study on the RCWP conducted by South
Dakota State University.
Also concurrent with the RCWP were a variety of USDA
programs that tended to interfere with practice implemen-
tation. These programs include the Dairy Buy-out, Con-
servation Reserve Program, and Payment In Kind (PIK).
Responses to Question 4 show that of those who have
changed tillage methods since RCWP, 20 percent en-
rolled in CRP or a similar program. Ten percent changed
to control erosion better and are now using no-till or
ridge-till; 20 percent changed crop rotations to better take
advantage of USDA's Feed Grain program; and 3 per-
cent felt that the conservation tillage method they had
used did not work well with excess rainfall that they
received in the mid-1980s. Most of the programs that
USDA sponsored in the 1980s stressed soil erosion and
water quality (1985 Food Security Act), which resulted in
a growing awareness of the need to change.
42
-------
Program sign-up patterns in 1982 and 1983, however,
support the adoption diffusion model used by sociologists
(3). RCWP was a unique program in that it provided im-
mediate financial incentives (annual payments); educa-
tional and cultural efforts made farmers aware of the
need for change, and technology was able to provide the
vehicle. These are all complementary and help farmer
acceptance and aid in permanent change. Nowak (4)
points out that all of these factors are necessary for
farmers to adopt new practices. Because they were all in
place in RCWP, it maximized the chance for success.
Nowak (4) also cites that "diffusion factors increase in im-
portance as the complexity of the innovation increases
and decrease in importance as risk is reduced through
institutional support."
In all three counties in the South Dakota RCWP, sign-
ups increased after key persons in various townships
signed up for the program. They adoption diffusion model
calls these persons 'early innovators,' and 'early adop-
ters.' At the other side are those persons who are resis-
tant to change. Once the early innovators and adopters
recognized the problem (erosion), they decided whether
or not to adopt the conservation practice (5). This model
is complementary to economic incentives that led to suc-
cessful program adoption.
REFERENCES
1. U.S. Congress, 1972. "Federal Water Pollution Con-
trol Act Amendments of 1972," 92nd Congress, 2nd
Session, PL92-500, Senate Doc. S2770 (Oct. 18).
2. Federal Register, 1980. "1980 Rural Clean-Water
Program." Washington, D.C. (Dec. 21):76202-10. •
3. Brandner, L. and M. Straus, 1959. Congruence ver-
sus profitability in the diffusion of hybrid sorghum.
Rural Sociology 24(4) :381 -383.
4. Nowak, Peter J., 1987. The adoption of agricultural
conservation technologies: Economic and diffusion
explanations. Rural Soc. 52(2):208-220.
5. Ervin, Christine A. and David E. Ervin, 1982. Factors
affecting the use of soil conservation practices:
Hypotheses, evidence, and policy implications. Land
Econ.58(3):277-292.
6. Gould, Brian W., William E. Saupe, and Richard M.
Klemmer, 1989. Conservation tillage: The role of
farm and operator characteristics and the perception
of soil erosion. Land Econ. 65(2):167-182.
7. Heffernan, William D., 1984. Assumptions of the
adoption/diffusion model and soil conservation. In
B.C. English, J.A. Maetzold, B.R. Holding, and E.O.
Heady (eds.) Future Agricultural Technology and
Resource Conservation. Iowa State University Press.
Ames. pp. 254-269.
8. Lockeretz, William. 1990. What have we learned
about who conserves soil? J. Soil and Water Cons.
45(5) :517-523.
43
-------
-------
SECTION FOUR
DEVELOPING THE WATERSHED PLAN
-------
DEVELOPING THE WATERSHED PLAN
Thomas Wehrl
Watershed Projects Division
USDA/Soil Conservation Service
Washington, DC
PLANNING PROCESS
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) planning process
for assisting individuals, groups of individuals, and units
of government involves ten basic elements (see Figure
1). The ten elements are divided into four phases of
preplanning, planning, installation, and evaluation.
The preplanning phase includes 1) providing information
and 2) accepting a request for assistance. The planning
phase includes 3) identifying problems and opportunities;
4) developing resource data; 5) interpreting, analyzing,
and evaluating data, and developing forecasts; 6) for-
mulating and developing alternatives; 7) evaluating and
comparing alternatives; and 8) selecting an alternative
and recording the decision. The installation phase in-
cludes 9) implementing the plan and operating and main-
taining the installed works. The last phase involves 10)
ongoing evaluations of the works or projects. Guidance
for this process is provided in the SCS National Planning
Manual, which is currently being revised. The manual will
be released in the fall of 1991.
PLANNING ELEMENTS
The ten-element planning procedure addresses preplan-
ning, planning, implementation and evaluation phases of
watershed development. / will address only the planning
phase, elements 3-8. which is the development of the
watershed plan. When I use the term "watershed plan" it
refers to development of a natural resources project plan
having a drainage basin or hydrologic unit that collects
and discharges its stream flow through one outlet or a
homogeneous area such as an irrigation or a drainage
area having a common water source and disposal sys-
tem. For each of the planning elements involved I will
describe the necessary input, activities to perform, and
expected output.
Identify Problems and Opportunities and Determine
Objectives—Element 3
The first planning concern to address after receiving an
application for assistance is to identify the problem to be
solved and the opportunities to solve the problems. If you
cannot clearly identify a problem, it is very difficult to ar-
rive at a solution. The planner must know the desired ob-
jective of the decision-maker.
The input for element 3 includes:
• Concepts of land use
• SCS National Handbooks and Manual
• Objectives of the planner and sponsor
• General understanding of the problems and oppor-
tunities
Activities that normally must be performed in this element
include:
• Determine the objectives of the decision-maker
• Explain the planning process
• Define the problems and identify the opportunities
• Provide for needed public participation
For complex projects it is important to have early public
participation. The items of concern are to identify the in-
terested public and provide public notice and meetings.
State and/or federal statutes determine what is required.
It is important to document this phase.
Expected output from element 3 are:
• Documented objectives of the decision-maker
• Understanding of sponsors' and planners' objectives
• Start case file
Develop Resource Data—Element 4
The purpose of this element is to collect and assemble
resource inventory data. SCS collects data related to the
resource problem and opportunities; cultural resource
and environmental concerns; and the objectives, needs,
46
-------
TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE PHASES ,- '
Pre-planning
Provide
Infor-
mation
I
->
'
Accept
Request
far
Assist-
ance
2
Planning
'
•>
Identify
Problems
and
Oppor-
tunities,
and
Deter-
mine
Objectives
3
i
'
,
>
•
Develop
Resource
Data
\
4
>
Inter-
pret,
Analyze,
and
Evaluate
Data,
and
Develop
Fore-
casts
5
>
Formu-
late and
Develop
Alter-
natives
6
^
Evaluate
and
Compare
Alter-
natives
7
*
'
Select
Alter-
native
and
Record
Decision
8
-
-5»
~
'•
Installation
Evaluation
, , ,.
Imple-
ment,
Operate
and
Main-
tain
9
3H
Evaluate
10
" ',
New Needs or Objectives
•• - ,
_rf"-*-
{
t
_
*
'
'
Figure 1. The Natural Resource Planning and Implementation Process.
and values of the decision-maker. Carrying out this ele-
ment provides an inventory of the problems, conditions,
and/or needs, and their causes.
The inputs to element 4 are:
• Soil maps and interpretations
• Knowledge of area's resources, problems, and op-
portunities
• Delineation of the planning unit
The activities associated with this element are:
• Inventory soil, water, air, plant, and animal resources
• Collect demographic and other human resource data
• Perform scoping
Outputs of element 4 are:
• Documented soil, water, air, plant, and animal
resource inventory on planning unit
• Other resource data to define problem
This set of resource data can be interpreted, analyzed,
and evaluated in preparation for developing solutions to
the problems identified in the planning under considera-
tion.
Interpret, Analyze, and Evaluate Data and Develop
Forecasts—Element 5
The purpose of this element is to interpret, analyze, and
evaluate resource inventory data as a basis for formulat-
ing alternatives for the five resources of soil, water, air,
plants, and animals.
Input items to element 5 are:
• Resource inventory
• Objectives of the decision-maker
• Forecast of pertinent data
• Ability of planner to interpret and analyze data
Activities involved with this element are: .
• Identify and document resource problems and oppor-
tunities
• Confirm objectives of decision-maker based on
resource inventory, 'and identify resource problems
• Appraise the potential for solving the identified
problem
• Analyze the data consistent with the identified
problem. If problem is identified as off-site it may re-
quire use of complex models
47
-------
• Forecast of with- and without-plan conditions should
use the inventory as the baseline, and should be
based on consideration of the scoped nation-
al/regional/local projections of income, employment,
output, and population; expected environmental con-
ditions; and specific, authorized projections for small
areas
Outputs of element 5 are:
• Documented resource problems and opportunities
* Confirmed set of decision-maker's objectives
• Most likely future condition without a plan
• Refined documentation of resource data
• Projection of environmental conditions expected
Formulating and Evaluating Alternatives—Element 6
The purpose of this element is to develop treatment alter-
natives and evaluate effects of alternatives that solve the
problems and enable decision-makers to choose alterna-
tives that best meet their objectives.
Inputs to element 6 are:
• Resource inventory with problems and opportunities
• Decision-maker's objectives
• Conservation effects data
• Methods/models for evaluating offsite effects
• Environmental evaluation data
• Present and expected future conditions
Activities associated with this element are:
• Identify treatment options that will meet objectives
* Identify effects of options
• Formulate alternatives that address problems and
opportunities
• Determine cost effectiveness
• Provide for public participation as needed
Outputs of element 6 are:
• Alternative solutions to resource problems with es-
timated results, effects, timing, and economic
analysis
• Alternative plans addressing resource problems to
varying degrees
• Mitigation plans
• Risk and uncertainty analysis
* Environmental assessment
* Civil rights impacts
• Funding sources
Evaluate and Compare Alternatives—Element 7
The purpose of this element is to evaluate and compare
the developed alternatives. The comparison of the alter-
natives should be on a uniform basis and should assist
the decision-maker with the selection of a plan. It is
necessary that a mechanism be established to enable
the group members and/or unit of government repre-
sentatives to understand clearly the decision being
made.
Inputs to element 7 are:
• Alternative solutions to identified problems
• Evaluation process/models that give effects
Activities associated with this element are:
• Evaluation and comparison of the developed alterna-
tives as to their ability to solve problems and meet
objectives
• Decision-makers consider objectives, effects, finan-
ces, and resource needs
• Public meeting
Outputs of element 7 are:
• Comparison of developed alternatives with effects of
plans
• Documentation of tradeoffs
• Financing plan
• I implementation schedu le
• Operation and maintenance plan
Select Alternative and Record Decision—Element 8
The purpose of this element is for the decision-maker to
select an alternative and to record this decision. The
recorded decisions are also to be used as support docu-
ments to accompany requests for funding such as
grants, special federal projects, and federal, state, and
local financial support initiatives.
Inputs to element 8 are:
• Comparison of alternatives
« Results of public inputs
• Maps and supporting data
• Other agreements
• Other requested information
Activities associated with this element are:
• Selection of one alternative
• Preparation of the project plan document
• File the proper environmental documents
• Sponsors and SCS sign the plan agreement
48
-------
Outputs of element 8 are:
• Decision-maker's plan document
• Case file
• Supporting documents for resource plan
• Plan ready for implementation
The final plan is an important document for the decision-
maker, planner, funding agency, and others. The content
and format of the document will vary according to the
complexity, scope, and intent of the project. As a mini-
mum, it should include a good analysis and clear presen-
tation of alternatives including the proposed action. It
should also be able to meet the requirements of the Na-
tional Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) if either an en-
vironmental impact statement or an environmental
assessment are required. The following outline for the
document is suggested:
• Abstract or cover sheet
• Executive summary
• Resource problems and concerns
• Planning area
• Alternative actions
• Recommendations
• Appendix
• Maps
• Funding schedule
• Public participation record
• List of preparers
• Methodologies, assumptions, and procedures used
SUMMARY
As stated at the beginning, the development of a water-
shed plan should follow the six basic planning elements.
The complexity of the activities in each element will vary
greatly depending upon the resource problem, number of
decision-makers involved, environmental issues, and
funding mechanism. For example a special AGP object
with two or three landowners will usually be fairly
straightforward, while a Public Law 566 watershed
project will be very complex and will affect many people.
For the 319 nonpoint projects it is vital that a plan is
developed that clearly defines the problems and gives
expected effects on the problem. It is vital the plan be
kept as clear as possible so it is understood by all.
Regardless of the complexity of the plan it is necessary
to follow the six elements of planning. Again they are:
• Identify problems and opportunities and determine
objectives
• Develop resource data
• Interpret, analyze, and evaluate data, and develop
forecasts
• Formulate and develop alternatives
• Evaluate and compare alternatives
• Select alternative and record decision
The completion of these steps should ensure a viable,
easily implemented, and successful watershed project.
49
-------
DEVELOPING URBAN NONPOINT SOURCE MANAGEMENT PLANS IN
NORTHEASTERN ILLINOIS
Dennis W.Dreher
Director of Natural Resources
Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission
Chicago, Illinois
INTRODUCTION
Nonpoint source assessment studies conducted in north-
eastern Illinois have shown that there is a consistent
relationship between stream degradation and the level of
urbanization in a watershed (1,2). Almost without excep-
tion, streams in northeastern Illinois with watershed
population densities greater than approximately 700 per-
sons/mi2 show moderate to severe use impairment as
measured by biological indicators, regardless of whether
permitted point sources are present. Conversely,
streams with less urbanized watersheds show less sig-
nificant use impairment (see Table 1). In particular, data
indicate that the diversity of fish and other aquatic or-
ganisms is typically much lower in urban streams than in
comparable rural streams. These observations indicate
that urban nonpoint sources are directly responsible for
significant stream use impairments.
Overall, despite the knowledge of urban nonpoint source
impacts, there has been only limited progress to date in
correcting or preventing this problem in the region. The
new federal stormwater discharge regulations soon will
require that municipalities and industrial activities, includ-
ing construction activities, reduce the pollution in their
stormwater discharges. However, it appears that north-
eastern Illinois municipalities, because none have
separately sewered areas with populations in excess of
100,000, will be exempt from the initial permitting dead-
lines established in the regulations (3). Nonetheless,
communities are becoming more aware of this issue and
it is now clear that desired stream and lake uses will not
be achieved unless urban nonpoint source problems are
adequately addressed.
PROBLEM STATEMENT
National research, particularly from the Nationwide
Urban Runoff Program (NURP) (4), has shown that
urban runoff is contaminated with pollutants whose con-
centrations may exceed established water quality stand-
ards. The NURP studies also show that best manage-
ment practices (BMPs), such as wet detention basins,
are very effective in removing certain pollutants. NURP
and most other nonpoint source assessments have
focused primarily on the direct contribution of pollutants
from typical nonpoint sources, such as streets and park-
ing lots. The Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission's
(NIPC's) local NURP study of the Lake Ellyn watershed
in DuPage County quantified urban runoff quality from
different sources in a typical suburban watershed (5).
While showing standards violations for certain constitu-
ents, including heavy metals, the study results did not in-
dicate that these constituents alone were responsible for
use impairment in Lake Ellyn or downstream. This study
also concluded that the sources of observed pollutants
were so diverse that it would be difficult to further control
them in this already developed watershed. Another local
study that examined fish toxicity in the East Branch Du-
Page River reached similar conclusions (6).
In addition to the traditional urban runoff nonpoint sour-
ces whose direct impact is on water quality (e.g., street
and parking lot runoff), several other sources have been
identified as significant causes of waterbody use impair-
ment in northeastern Illinois. These include construction
site erosion, stream bank modification/shoreline erosion,
channelization, removal of riparian vegetation, dam con-
struction, flow modification, in-place contaminants, and
recreational boating activities. Many urban streams in
northeastern Illinois, for example, are highly channelized
(7). This type of habitat modification has been shown to
result in the loss of sensitive aquatic species and in a
reduction of species diversity, regardless of water quality
conditions.
It is clear that nonpoint sources, sometimes in combina-
tion with point source effluents and discharges from illicit
storm sewer connections, result in impairment of stream
and lake uses. It is uncertain, however, which specific
sources are critical constraints to the achievement of
desirable uses and which are only minor contributors. In
newly urbanizing watersheds, this uncertainty should not
be a major concern in that nonpoint problems can be
minimized by requiring relatively inexpensive BMPs and
environmental zoning controls for new development. In
already developed watersheds with identified use impair-
50
-------
Table 1. Stream Use Attainment and Population Density
Watershed
Addison Creek
Midlothian Cr.
Salt Creek
East Br. Dupage
West Fork N. Br.
Willow Creek
Flag Creek
Tinley Creek
Butterfield Cr.
Thorn Creek
North Creek
Poplar Creek
Skokie River
West Br. Dupage
Deer Creek
Rock Run
Lily Cache Cr.
Middle Fork N. Br.
Indian Creek
Bull Creek
Spring Creek
Flint Creek
Hickory Creek
Long Run Creek
Waubonsee Cr.
Mill Cr. (DesPI.)
Boone Creek
Tyler Creek
Blackberry Cr.
Mill Creek (Fox)
Nippersink Cr.
Watershed
Area (mi2)
23.8
20.0
121.0
82.0
28.6
20.1
19.7
20.0
25.8
26.3
11.9
44.5
22.0
125.0
26.7
14.4
44.1
28.0
38.0
11.9
19.9
37.7
90.6
22.6
11.9
45.5
23.3
40.4
65.0
31.0
92.0
Use Support/
Degree of Impairment
Nonsupport
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Moderate3
Partial/Moderate3
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Minor
Partial/Minor
Partial/Moderate3
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Moderate3
Partial/Moderate3
Partial/Minor
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Minor3
Full
Full
Partial/Moderate
Partial/Minor
Partial/Minor
Full3
Full
Full
Population
Density1
1985
4521
3179
3048
2875
2789
, 2648
2633
2266
2225
2196
2008
1587
1559
1371
1215
1141
1035
, 1022
972
816
762
756
601
551
470
382
377
349
340
222
202
WQI2
54.2
43.7
76.9
65.8
60.5
70.0
69.7
16.5
30.1
65.2
34.8
13.9
50.9
65.2
46.0
31.4
29.7
89,3
30.7
16.0
13.2
42.3
50.4
28.4
13.7
37.8
8.9
9.3
19.1
4.1
14.8
% Stream
Channelized
82.0
54.5
29.0
78.0
85.2
58.8
82.3
0.0
44.5
53.0
40.3
26.3
64:9
40.3
66.3
70.0
45.2
61.2
63.5
10.1
28.0
20.7
11-4 ,
63.4
57.0
32.9
36.3
43.6
NA
25:0
13.6
1 Persons/mi2.
• WQI is an index based on water chemistry; values >50 indicate frequent violations of Illinois water quality standards.
! Averaged over stream length. .
51
-------
merits, it will be more difficult, and expensive, to identify
and implement the kinds of controls necessary to fully
remedy the observed degraded conditions.
Another issue that should be considered in addressing
existing waterbody use impairment problems is the un-
familiarity, and sometimes apathy, of local government
officials and citizens regarding nonpoint sources and
water quality. Because of the long-term historical
degradation of urban waterbodies in northeastern Illinois,
there exists a common perception that there is little
potential for beneficial uses, other than drainage and
wastewater disposal, especially for small streams and
rivers. As a result, local officials may be reluctant to
voluntarily implement control programs and invest re-
sources in solving a problem that is not a high priority. In
this situation, even with the onus of federal stormwater
regulations, it appears that local government officials will
need clear and conclusive information from watershed
assessments before they are likely to embrace potential-
ly expensive nonpoint source control programs.
INFORMATION NEEDS
One of the primary objectives of this paper is to define a
realistic methodology to address the problems raised
above. The recommended methodology is derived from a
NIPC report recently completed for the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency (IEPA) (8). The purpose of this
methodology is to accurately define the causes, effects,
and practical solutions of urban nonpoint source impair-
ment in specific watersheds. This methodology will re-
quire, in many cases, the collection and analysis of
watershed-specific data. It is hoped that as local knowl-
edge evolves, the need for detailed data collection and
analysis can be reduced and watershed planners can
focus on those factors that are unique to given water-
sheds.
Four areas of urban nonpoint source management
programs needing development have been identified.
These are:
1. Demonstration of watershed-specific cause and ef-
fect relationships between nonpoint sources and im-
pairments of stream and lake uses
2. Prototype studies performed in "representative"
watersheds that identify critical nonpoint source ef-
fects and demonstrate successful BMP programs,
serving as examples of cost-effective nonpoint
source management techniques for northeastern Illi-
nois
3. Regional guidelines for watershed analysis criteria,
monitoring methods, watershed models, intergov-
ernmental agreements, and strategies for watershed-
based planning programs developed to assist local
units of government
4. Identification of regionally effective BMP programs
for both newly developing and already developed
watersheds, including BMP design criteria, facilities
construction guidance, cost criteria, and monitoring
and maintenance needs
In general, stream or lake use enhancement should be
the primary goal, as well as a critical measure of the
effectiveness of a nonpoint source management plan. In
addition to use enhancement, other measures of the ef-
fectiveness of nonpoint control should be used, such as
improved water quality or the elimination of illicit storm
sewer connections. Also, benefits other than those re-
lated to water quality, such as flood control or bank
stabilization, achieved as a result of BMP implementa-
tion, should be considered in the final evaluation of non-
point program effectiveness.
RECOMMENDED METHODOLOGY
The recommended methodology for developing urban
nonpoint source management plans is based on two
basic principles. The first is that effective planning must
be watershed-based. The second is that the primary goal
of the planning process should be the restoration and
protection of desirable stream and lake uses.
The recommended methodology is two-phased. The first
phase involves the collection of available information oh
a subject watershed and its relevant waterbodies. Avail-
able information for most significant watersheds in north-
eastern Illinois will typically be adequate to characterize
the nature of watershed land use and development prac-
tices, to identify significant use impairments, to-generally
characterize water quality, and to describe the physical
habitat of the relevant waterbodies. This information
generally will be adequate to draw significant conclusions
about the nature of nonpoint source impacts, to make
preliminary recommendations for some effective BMPs,
and to determine additional monitoring and assessment
needs. Partly because existing water quality data bases
include little storm event sampling, this information may
not always be adequate to accurately determine critical
nonpoint source constraints. Such a determination may
be necessary to justify to local officials significant expen-
ditures for remedial measures, such as retrofitting deten-
tion basins for pollutant removal.
The second phase of the recommended urban nonpoint
planning methodology involves more intensive, water-
shed-based data collection and assessment. Much of the
intensive monitoring and data collection that may be
needed is likely to be required as part of the federal
stormwater permitting program, at least for larger com-
munities. Intensive1 watershed assessment, which may
also include water quality modeling, may be justified in
watersheds with complex or severe nonpoint problems
that could require expensive control measures.
52
-------
It is recommended that the first phase of the proposed
methodology be performed in all significant urban water-
sheds in northeastern Illinois that have identified use im-
pairments. (In this context, a significant watershed is
considered to be one of approximately 10 mi2 or greater
in size.) Where significant illicit storm sewer connections
are suspected, additional monitoring should be con-
ducted so that these sources can be identified and
eliminated.
From a regional perspective, it also is recommended that
several representative watersheds be selected for more
intensive nonpoint analysis. The knowledge gained from
thorough assessments in these demonstration water-
sheds, in combination with existing information and
limited additional monitoring, may be adequate to
characterize and control nonpoint problems in most
remaining watersheds.
The following section presents the key elements of a
recommended nonpoint source management planning
methodology.
Define Water Resource Objectives
Before undertaking detailed watershed planning, it is
strongly recommended that an attempt be made to
define the potential and desired uses of the significant
waterbodies within the planning watershed. Such uses
might include protection of aquatic life, fishing, body con-
tact recreation, water supply, etc. The determination of
use potential must consider a number of factors, includ-
ing: 1) physical characteristics such as stream or lake
habitat, bank stability, hydrology, and stream size; 2)
watershed characteristics, including land use and exist-
ing management practices; and 3) background chemical
and biological characteristics of the water resource.
These characteristics both determine the potential uses
of a waterbody as well as indicate the level of manage-
ment that might be necessary to achieve desired uses.
Collect Watershed Data
Existing information on the watershed and relevant
waterbodies must be collected before any assessment of
the watershed is undertaken. Depending on the nature of
the watershed and its nonpoint problems, additional data
may needed. A decision to conduct watershed monitor-
ing should be based on the findings of a preliminary non-
point source assessment. The types of relevant data are
summarized below.
1. Water Quality, Biological, and Sediment Data.
Water quality assessment information in Illinois is
available from several I EPA reports, including As-
sessment of Nonpoint Source Impacts on Illinois
Water Re'sources (319) (9) and Illinois Water Quality
Report (305(b)) (10). Water quality data for selected
sites is contained in USGS's Water Resource Data
for Illinois (11). Historical data from the mid-1970s
are available from NI PC's 208 study (12), but they
may not reflect current conditions. Fisheries and
other biological data may be available from the
Department of Conservation, depending on stream
size. Additional information may be available from
local studies. Specific categories of available infor-
mation include use and water quality indicators such
as the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI), Macroinverte-
brate Biotic Index (MBI), and Water Quality Index
(WQl); numbers and types of fish and macroinverte-
brates; water quality constituent data; and sediment
data including sediment oxygen demand, constituent
concentrations, and volatile solids.
The collection of existing water quality data should
be guided by the Illinois nonpoint source as-
sessment, which is summarized in the 305b report.
This report indicates the following common water
quality causes of use impairment in urban streams:
metals, ammonia, chlorine, nutrients, organic enrich-
ment/DO, pathogens, and oil and grease. Of these,
ammonia and chlorine problems are not likely to be
related to urban nonpoint sources.
As indicated previously, additional data may be
necessary to complete an accurate nonpoint source
assessment, as well as to meet the federal permit
regulations for large communities.
2. Point Sources Effluent Data. NPDES Discharge
Monitoring Reports for major point sources are avail-
able from IEPA. It is important to know the locations
and characteristics of significant point source dis-
charges to avoid confusing point and nonpoint
source impacts.
3. Additional Sampling Data. In some watersheds,
state or local agencies may be willing to cooperate in
the short-term collection of additional data. These
data may be very useful in filling in gaps in the exist-
ing information data base for a Phase 1 analysis.
This additional data collection is not intended to in-
clude the type of intensive sampling described in the
Phase 2 program. Rather, it is intended to be some-
thing that can be accomplished with existing resour-
ces. For example, data on sediment quality or fish
and macroinvertebrate communities may not be
available for many small watersheds but could be
readily supplemented by a cooperative local or state
agency at relatively little cost.
4. Physical Conditions and Habitat of Waterbodies.
Valuable insights can be gained from simple field in-
spections of waterbodies. To the extent that access
can be obtained, stream corridors and lake
shorelines should be walked to evaluate physical
conditions. The field evaluation should include
assessments of channel and shoreline conditions,
including presence of pools, riffles, channel shape
and size, water depth, and meandering; indications
of bank and shoreline erosion and obstructions;
53
-------
presence of modifications, including channelization;
condition of bottom substrates including the
presence of sedimentation and debris; and indica-
tions of terrestrial and aquatic vegetation. The field
evaluation also should include observations of water
quality, including color, clarity, presence of algae,
and odors. Finally, the field inspection should note
any unusual discharges that might indicate the
presence of illicit storm sewer connections.
5. Drainage/Storm Sewer Maps. These are usually
filed with the public works or engineering department
of a village or county. While the accuracy of these
maps may vary, the maps should indicate storm
sewer locations, sizes, and outfalls; political boun-
daries; drainage boundaries; and detention basins.
Watershed boundaries can be delineated based on
storm sewer locations and, for non-sewered areas,
topographic maps. Some of this information may be
digitized on a Geographic Information System and
will be useful in water quality modeling applications.
6. Land Use/Cover. Most municipalities and counties
will have detailed zoning maps that indicate existing
and projected land use conditions. Aerial photo-
graphs and USGS quadrangle maps also are useful
in defining existing land use.
7. Wetland and Soils Maps. The extent and location of
wetlands can be a valuable source of watershed as-
sessment information. Wetlands in Illinois are indi-
cated on National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps.
Information on soil types may be useful in identifying
erodible areas and defining watershed charac-
teristics. This information may be necessary for more
detailed assessments, such as hydrologic modeling,
which may be performed in a Phase 2 study. Soil
survey maps, published by county, are available
from the USDA Soil Conservation Service.
8. Existing Nonpoint Control Programs. Existing
control programs in the watershed, including
stormwater regulations, land-use controls, and
BMPs, should be identified. This information will
provide some indication of the degree to which
potential nonpoint sources are already being control-
led.
Perform Nonpoint Source Assessment
After identifying the principal water resource objectives
and collecting existing data, an assessment of existing
conditions should be made. A nonpoint source assess-
ment should include a use assessment of the waterbody,
an assessment of use impacts, the determination of
causes of the identified impacts, and the identification of
specific nonpoint sources. Table 2 gives some common
examples of uses, impacts, causes, sources, and BMPs
appropriate to northeastern Illinois.
Nonpoint source assessment may be an iterative
process. If a Phase 1 analysis leaves significant ques-
tions unanswered, additional data collection and assess-
ment may be warranted. Where appropriate, tools such
as nonpoint source loading and water quality models
should be utilized. The recommended elements of a non-
point source assessment are summarized below.
1. Use Assessment. If a waterbody fails to support
potential or desired uses, such as protection of
aquatic life or body contact recreation, then a use im-
pairment may be indicated. A use impairment
generally is determined on the basis of physical,
biological, or chemical information that indicates
degraded conditions. For example, fish and benthic
invertebrate sampling data may show a low in-
cidence of desirable indicator species, suggesting a
degraded aquatic life use. The IEPA characterizes
waterbodies into the following use support catego-
ries: full support, partial support with minor impair-
ments, partial support with moderate impairment,
and nonsupport. As previously indicated, virtually all
of the evaluated urban stream segments in the
region fall into the lowest two use support categories.
The IEPA has established detailed methods and
criteria for stream and lake use assessments which
are included in the Illinois Water Quality Report.
(This report is prepared biennially to comply with
Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act.)
2. Impact Assessment. Impact assessment involves
the identification of factors that contribute to use
impairment. Field investigations will indicate impacts
such as turbidity, sedimentation, nuisance plants and
algae, and offensive odors. Additional sampling data
may indicate low concentrations of dissolved oxygen,
contaminated sediments, or the presence of water
column constituents at potentially toxic concentra-
tions. Impact assessment also will indicate the
general reasons for use impairment but may not
identify specific causes.
3. Cause Assessment. Causes of use impairment are
specific factors that cumulatively result in an ob-
served impact. For example, water quality samples
might indicate the presence of high concentrations of
ammonia which is one of the causes of fish toxicity
which, in turn, has resulted in an impairment of a
stream for the use of aquatic life protection and fish-
ing. While measured data may suggest a cause, fur-
ther analysis including toxicity assessments or
nutrient balances may be necessary to clearly es-
tablish impacts. Conclusive cause assessment often
will require extensive data collection, particularly
water quality monitoring. Assessments may benefit
from the use of computer models.
54
-------
Table 2. Urban Nonpoint Source Pollutant Variables and Components1
Source Category
Point Sources
Municipal
Industrial
Combined Sewer Overflows
Nonpoint Sources
Construction
Urbah Runoff
Resource Extraction
Land Disposal
Industrial Activity
Filling and Draining
Atmospheric Deposition
Golf Course Runoff
Fertilizer Application
Herbicide/ Algicide Apl.
Groundwater Discharge
Leaky Storage
Harvesting Activities
Spills
Carp (Nuisance Fish)
Cause Category
Contaminants
Pesticides
Sediment
Toxic Organics
Metals
Ammonia
Chlorine
Nutrients
Biological Oxygen Demand
Salinity
Bacterial Pathogens
Radiation
Oil and Grease
Suspended Solids
Other
Shoreline Erosion
Modified Hydrograph
Habitat Alteration
Impact Category
Turbidity
Low Dissolved Oxygen
Sedimentation
Odor or Taste
Noxious Plants
Abnormal Water Temperature
Toxicity to Aquatic Life
Skin Irritation
Designated Uses
Aquatic Life
Fishing
Water Supply
Swimming
Boating
Passive Recreation
Navigation
Industrial (Cooling Water)
Educational
Research
Land Preservation
BMPs
Detention Basins
Vegetative Stabilization
Rock Outlet Protection
Sediment Traps
Silt Fences
Grassed Swales
Trenches and Ponds
Porous Pavement
Straw Bale Dikes
Ditch Checks
Infiltration Basins
Diversions
Permit Requirements
Zones
Leachate ejection Systems
Buffer Strips
Channel Restoration
Plantings and Seedings
Mulching
Erosion Control Structure
1Adapted from IEPA, 1988.
55
-------
Causes of use impairment can vary in their degree of
impact. Further, the capability to accurately define
the degree of impact due to a specific cause will vary
depending on the cause. For example, certain
chemical toxicants, if present in high concentrations,
can clearly be shown, by themselves, to be a con-
straint to use attainment. In lower concentrations, the
same chemical toxicant may be just one of many
minor contributors to a stressful condition that results
in use impairment. At still lower concentrations, it
may be concluded that the toxicant is not a sig-
nificant contributor to use impairment. For other
causes, such as habitat or flow alteration, the link
between the cause and the use impairment may be
impossible to define quantitatively or absolutely. In
cases where water quality contamination appears to
be a minor cause, however, it may be reasonable to
assume that an observed aquatic life impairment is
due primarily to habitat impairments.
4. Source Assessment. The determination of causes
of waterbody use impairment will assist greatly in the
identification of specific contributing nonpoint sour-
ces. For example, if it is shown that high concentra-
tions of lead occurring during storm events cause
acute toxicity to smallmouth bass in a stream, it may
be reasonable to conclude that parking lots and road
surfaces, known contributors of lead, are responsible
sources of contamination. However, a more accurate
identification of causative nonpoint sources may re-
quire additional monitoring to identify those sources
that are most critical. The EPA stormwater regu-
lations specify extensive requirements for storm
sewer monitoring, during both wet and dry weather
conditions. There is some debate over whether such
detailed monitoring is always justified, particularly
considering the wealth of land use runoff sampling
data from NURP and other studies that has provided
good indications of the expected concentrations of
various constituents from different land use types. In
general, it is recommended that stormwater source
assessments are based on available existing data,
unless watershed conditions are unusual or par-
ticularly complex.
Prepare Nonpoint Source Management Plan
After waterbody use objectives have been defined and
nonpoint source impacts, causes, and sources have
been adequately assessed, a nonpoint source manage-
ment plan should be prepared. This plan should identify
and delineate feasible, effective measures to restore im-
paired waterbody uses and to protect uses from future
development activities. The management plan also
should address the costs and institutional mechanisms
for implementing control programs. Specific components
of a recommended plan are as follows.
1. Identify Remedial Measures. In addition to the
federally mandated disconnection of illicit dischar-
ges, other recommended measures might include
the implementation of source controls (such as for
used motor oil or household chemicals), the retro-
fitting of detention basins, and the restoration of
degraded stream channels.
2. Identify Preventative Programs. In addition to
defining remedial measures, all management plans
should include preventative measures addressing
new development and redevelopment activities in the
watershed. Preventative programs are likely to em-
phasize regulatory controls, land use and zoning
controls, and source controls. Regulatory programs
that require BMPs for new development are common
in some parts of the country, but less so in northeast-
ern Illinois. NIPC recommends a comprehensive
regulatory program that addresses stormwater
drainage and detention, soil erosion and sediment
control, stream and wetland protection, and flood-
plain management. Model ordinance language and
BMP guidance are available from NIPC, and other
sources. The recommended plan should address the
essential components of an effective ordinance
program, including the institutional mechanism for or-
dinance enforcement.
Land-use controls are effective mechanisms for
protecting sensitive environmental areas, such as
stream corridors, wetlands, lake shores, floodplains,
and steep slopes from inappropriate development.
Land-use control strategies may include both prohibi-
tions of certain types of development as well as
limitations on densities. Such controls must allow for
reasonable use of the land and work well in com-
bination with other measures, such as acquisition,
conservation easements, and subdivision donations.
The recommended nonpoint source plan should
identify appropriate land-use controls that are
feasible and effective in the subject watershed. NIPC
has recommended ordinance language for stream,
lake, wetland, and floodplain areas.
3. Develop Implementation Mechanism. The success
of the recommended nonpoint source management
plan will be a function of its implementability. There-
fore, the plan should address factors such as techni-
cal feasibility, cost, political and citizen support,
maintenance needs, potential liability, and staff
resources. The plan also should include a recom-
mended timetable for implementation. A valuable re-
source that should be considered in plan preparation
and implementation is the experience developed
both locally and nationally in other watershed plan-
ning programs. Referencing such programs may
56
-------
lend additional credence to the recommended plan
and increase local support.
4. Develop Plan Evaluation Program. The final com-
ponent of the recommended nonpoint source
management plan is an evaluation program. In order
to judge the success of thejmanagement plan, and to
make necessary revisions, some form of monitoring
should be conducted for at least several years after
initial plan implementation. It is recommended that
the evaluation program emphasize improvement in
waterbody uses. Such an evaluation would include
monitoring of aquatic communities as well as visual
observations. Limited chemical monitoring should be
included, as appropriate or as required by federal
stormwater regulations for large communities.
SUMMARY
The presence of urban nonpoint source impacts has
been clearly documented for northeastern Illinois water-
bodies. Identified nonpoint sources include urban runoff
as well as a number of physical factors, such as stream
channelization. However, for individual waterbodies it
often is not apparent which of the identified sources is
critical to the elimination of use impairments.
The recommended approach for addressing existing
waterbody use impairments is to develop a watershed-
based nonpoint source management plan. The first
phase of this planning approach is the collection of exist-
ing information and the assessment of watershed condi-
tions. This should be done for all watersheds with
identified nonpoint impairments. Collection of additional
watershed-specific data and in-depth nonpoint source
assessment is recommended for representative
demonstration watersheds. This information can then be
used to develop management plans for other similar
watersheds within a region. A critical element of this ap-
proach is the evaluation of management practices after
they are implemented, ideally in demonstration water-
sheds, to determine their effectiveness in reducing iden-
tified problems and to modify management plans, as
appropriate.
In newly urbanizing watersheds, and for new develop-
ments in other watersheds, a comprehensive program of
preventative practices is recommended. This program
should include best management practices for drainage
and detention design and soil erosion and sediment con-
trol. Also important are land use and development con-
trols for stream corridors, lakes, wetlands, and other
environmentally sensitive areas.
It is hoped that the EPA stormwater regulations that will
eventually apply to northeastern Illinois municipalities will
recognize the appropriateness of a flexible approach to
nonpoint source control. Similarly, it is hoped that the
regulations will place greater emphasis on the attainment
of desirable waterbody uses than strictly on controlling
the quality of stormwater discharges.
REFERENCES
1. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1988. /As-
sessment of Nonpoint Source Impacts on Illinois
Water Resources, Springfield, IL.
2. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1988.
1987-1988 Water Quality Report, Chicago, IL.
3. Federal Register, 1990. National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System Permit Application Regulations
for Stormwater Discharges, Vol. 55, No. 222,
November 16.
4.
5.
6.
7.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1983.
Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program,
Washington, DC.
Hey, D.L. and G.C. Schaefer, 1983. An Evaluation of
the Water Quality Effects of Detention Storage and
Source Control, Northeastern Illinois Planning
Commission, Chicago, IL.
Dreher, D.W., 1981. Study of Fish Toxicity in the
East Branch DuPage River, Northeastern Illinois
Planning Commission, Chicago, IL.
Dreher, D.W., Mariner, R.D., and C. Hunt, 1988.
Stream and Wetland Protection: A Natural Resource
Management Priority in Northeastern Illinois, North-
eastern Illinois Planning Commission, Chicago, IL.
8. Taylor, K. and D.W. Dreher, 1990. Methodology for
Developing Urban Nonpoint Source Management
Plans in Northeastern Illinois, Northeastern Illinois
Planning Commission, Chicago, IL.
9. Illinois Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
Illinois Water Quality Report, 1988-1989,
Springfield, IL.
10. U.S. Geological Survey, 1990. Water Resources
Data - Illinois, Water Year 1989, Urbana, IL.
11. Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission, 1979.
Areawide Water Quality Management Plan,
Chicago, IL.
57
-------
-------
SECTION FIVE
SITE PLANNING/SELECTION OF NFS CONTROLS
-------
PUTTING THE PLAN "ON THE GROUND"—TOMKI WATERSHED PROJECT
Tom Schott
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Ukiah, California
INTRODUCTION
This paper presents data collection steps and priority set-
ting schemes used in the Tomki Watershed Project.
These methods increased the effectiveness of our plan-
ning and selection of nonpoint source controls.
I know you all attended this conference for answers, but
I'd like to first propose some fundamental questions, the
answers to which are essential to any site plan-
ning/selection process for the control of sediment on a
watershed basis:
1. What sources of erosion are occurring in this water-
shed?
2. What is the relative sediment contribution ranking of
each of these erosion sources by amount?
3. What are both the human and natural factors or
causes of the sediment problem?
4. Where are these problems located in this water-
shed?
5. What are potential treatments and what will it cost to
apply them?
6. Which treatments and sites are technically and
economically feasible?
7. What are the funding sources (public and private)
available to implement your plan?
The basic site plan step was to combine data gathered in
the development of individual landowner plans into an
overall basin plan. In order to know how to reduce sedi-
ment and offsite impacts to fishery resources, the
amount of sediment by different categories of erosion
sources must be determined. The primary erosion sour-
ces were: sheet and rill erosion; road-related erosion;
and gully, streambank, and landslide erosion. Each of
these sources had a variable sediment delivery rate
depending primarily on their distance and land slope to
water courses. A mapping symbol (e.g., G-gully, S-
Streambank) and a corresponding number (e.g., G1, G2)
were assigned to each discrete erosion source and its
location was individually plotted. Average annual sedi-
ment production in cubic yards per year was estimated
on each discrete source. Then data tables keyed to the
location maps were prepared for each of Tomki Creek's
20 subbasins. These tables displayed, by erosion
source, the average annual sediment production, a
prescribed treatment, and an estimated treatment cost
for each individual problem.
Once we had collected all these data we realized the
tremendous magnitude of the sediment control job. We
also recognized the reality of limited treatment budgets,
even when a leveraging concept is used to pool agen-
cy/owner funds. The situation reminded me of my kid's
favorite elephant joke, "How do you swallow an
elephant?—One bite at a time!"
The development of priority systems allowed us to take
on the nonpoint problem "one bite at a time." We applied
two levels of priority setting to properly select nonpoint
source controls. The first level was prioritizing prescribed
treatments within the subbasin by following a natural
watershed system approach based on how erosion and
sediment routing occur in a watershed. The second level
was setting priorities to compare and rank each of the
subbasins for treatment using three criteria: 1) the loca-
tion of the tributary subbasin in relation to others within
the Tomki Watershed, 2) the extent of the land base
within the subbasin owned by landowners cooperating in
the project, and 3) the average annual sediment delivery
rate by subbasin.
PRIORITY RANKING WITHIN SUBBASIN
a -• - -
Let's look at the first level of treatment priority setting
where treatments within a subbasin reflect the watershed
sediment and water routing system. Basically following
this approach weights "upland" or "headwater" treat-
ments over "instream" treatments in order to maximize
control benefits over the largest offsite area. It is impor-
tant to keep in mind that the selection of nonpoint source
controls should be based on dealing with the fundamen-
tal whole system causes of the sediment and runoff
problems and not merely the mechanical treatment of the
symptoms of these problems. To reverse the cycle of
60
-------
rapid runoff and accelerated erosion necessitates gaining
control of the energy cycle in the watershed. Based on
the principle of applying a practice that benefits the most
area, we chose the following treatment elements in order
of their priority:
1. Vegetative or hydrologic cover protection and im-
provement
2. Road associated work
3. Tributary channel downcutting control
4. Riparian zone protection and enhancement
5. Streambank erosion control
6. Landslide erosion control and prevention
Vegetative Cover—Element #1
This element was considered the most critical ejement
since it dictates the amount of sheet and rill erosion. If all
cover were removed, it would negatively affect all the
other treatment elements in the watershed that were pre-
viously listed. Based on the extent of vegetative types in
the Tomki, we ranked cover practices on forestland first,
then rangeland, and finally chaparral or brushland. Treat-
ments on forestland emphasized prevention by proper
planning of harvesting techniques that restrict equipment:
type, amount of disturbance, timing to dry periods, and
proximity to watercourses. Prompt, full restocking of the
site is also important.
Rangeland cover improvement is completely contingent
on proper grazing management and proper stocking
rates. Rest-rotation strategies rely on crossfences, water
development, and seed and fertilizer to improve the
timing, frequency, and duration of grazing and avoid
overuse.
In old chaparral stands a rotational system of prescribed
burning was used to help prevent major wildfires. Con-
trolled burns improve the timing and distribution of sedi-
ment inputs in comparison to large intense wildfires.
Buffer strips, which protect sensitive headwall and
stream areas, are built into prescribed fire plans, but they
often don't occur in wildfire conditions.
Road Associated Work—Element #2
Road associated work ranked second in priority since
roads were the greatest source of clearly man-induced
erosion. As with vegetative cover treatments, often the
best practice was the provision of technical information
on a one-to-one basis between the resource professional
and the landowner. The Mendocino County Resource
Conservation District developed a "Road Building Guide"
for landowners that is nationally recognized for its excel-
lent, understandable landowners format. Treatments
selected emphasized proper roadbed surfacing and
drainage, such as the use of outsloping and the installa-
tion of rolling dips or waterbars as appropriate.
Demonstration projects to encourage owner application
included seeding and mulching exposed cutbanks. An
increased number of culverts of the proper size were in-
stalled and their outlets protected by rock or downspouts
in order to dissipate the erosive energy of the flows.
Where added culverts were hard to place, small wooden
or rock checkdams placed in the road's inside ditch
reduced gully erosion volumes.
Channel Downcutting—Element #3
Next in treatment priority were practices that dealt with
element #3, channel downcutting; a problem initiated
partially by increased and concentrated runoff from cover
and road related disturbances. Artificial straightening or
constriction of a natural channel also can initiate
downcutting. Some of these channels, particularly in
upland meadow sites with alluvial soils, have reached a
critical point of deterioration that requires some form of
grade stabilization structure in order to halt further
downcutting. As the tributary channel degrades, side
channel gullies also degrade in adjustment to the eleva-
tion gradient changes.
These continuous gully systems often have headcuts
that migrate upstream creating additional gullies and
sediment. Since the headcut is a critical point, arresting
its migration through gabions (rock-filled wire baskets) or
placed rock riprap can save tons of sediment from being
produced. The upper stretch of Wheelbarrow Creek (a
tributary of Tomki) is downcutting and gullying upstream.
At the same location, the headcutting has been halted
after repair with a gabion grade control structure and ac-
cess for steelhead and salmon has been restored.
In many cases it is necessary to initiate checkdams prior
to riparian replanting or streambank repair with just riprap
because these techniques alone may fail as the channel
continues to downcut. We used a variety of grade
stabilization structures in our pilot project, such as
wooden hewlett ramps, cast concrete checks, gabions,
and "concrete log" type structures.
Anadromous fish migration, both upstream adults and
downstream juveniles, also must be considered in the
design of these structures. I simply can't put into words
the rich emotional attachment to project goals owners
and resource agents experience when they see the
rewards of their work.
Riparian Zone Protection and
Enhancement—Element #4
Riparian vegetation reduces .channel water velocities, fil-
ters sediment, stabilizes streambanks and floodplains,
and provides a vital habitat for fish and wildlife. A well
vegetated riparian zone is- essential to any sediment
reduction plan.
Vegetated buffer strips require some management con-
straints on timber harvesting, grazing, road construction,
and burning activities.'We were able to exchange public
financial help for the structures previously shown as an
61
-------
incentive for the owner to make livestock management
changes. Temporary fencing of these areas from live-
stock and deer can produce excellent cost-effective
results. Natural establishment of willows and alders,
without planting, can be dramatic in a few short years
when the stream is temporarily protected from livestock
and deer. There can be extensive cover within the
protected area in comparison to just outside the fen-
celine. Use of electric fencing and suspension cables
with conventional wire has significantly reduced installa-
tion costs.
Planting of critical sites hastens the recovery process.
The sprouting capabilities of willow and poplar species
make them a good choice. Deep plantings by backhoe of
pole stock 8 to 12 ft deep permits subsurface channel
(low to be tapped. This has allowed the rapid revegeta-
tion of formerly dry gravel bars and streambanks with
trees that, in less than 4 years, reach 25 ft heights and 6
in. diameters.
Streambank Erosion Control—Element #5
If the watershed is being stabilized above, application of
element #5, streambank erosion control of critical sites,
ranks next in priority. Since streambank treatments can
be very expensive, we've placed emphasis on bioen-
gineering approaches that incorporate and integrate rock
and wood structures with living plants and their root sys-
tems. We view revegetation as the most cost-effective,
long-term erosion control, but some stream locations re-
quire structural stability to reduce velocities to levels
tolerable for plant growth.
Fines were being introduced to this spawning stream,
until the bank was reshaped. Then rock riprap was
placed in a toe protecting trench and a willow brush mat
was constructed above. In a few select areas, using
deflectors is appropriate. Made from rock and willow cut-
tings, these structures reduce velocities to trap sediment
and provide a stable medium for plant regrowth.
Landslide Erosion Control or Prevention—Element #6
The final treatment priority element is #6, landslide
erosion control or prevention. If the previous treatments
are applied, especially road related treatments,
landslides should be reduced. Prevention is the key.
Once landslides form, erosion control is expensive and
risky. Secondary treatments that revegetate the slide
plane or divert water from the slide's toe and its surface
are only remotely possible.
PRIORITY RANKING BETWEEN SUBBASINS
Having discussed the first level of priority setting of treat-
ments within a subbasin, I'll briefly discuss the second
level of priority setting that ranks the 20 different sub-
basins. We combined three criteria ratings to arrive at
subbasin priorities: 1) the subbasin location within the
Tomki watershed, 2) extent of land managed by coopera-
tive owners, and 3) the rate of sediment delivery per
acre.
Criteria 1 continues the watershed system approach by
first treating subbasins that are higher in the watershed
in order to maximize the downstream benefits to the
main channel.
In applying the second criteria, each subbasin was
ranked according to the percent of land base managed
by landowners cooperating with the project. These land-
owners are more likely to implement BMPs that influence
the amount of sediment that can be controlled. We
worked with owners that were ready (let's do it now), will-
ing (open attitude), and able (have financial or labor sup-
port, with good project access).
The third criteria, the average annual sediment delivery
in cubic yards per acre, was calculated for each subbasin
and ratings were assigned from the highest to the lowest.
The logic of this criteria is obvious to any sediment con-
trol scheme. The length of time since the last distur-
bance, especially with roads, greatly influences the
sediment production rate.
SUMMARY
A few important closing points about selecting sediment
controls: consider the issues of cost effectiveness and
available funding. Project financial aspects often force a
shift in the best made priority schemes. Treatments that
reduce the greatest amount of sediment for the least dol-
lar spent are going to be looked at as very attractive in-
vestments. Individual cost per treatment unit can be
dramatically reduced when treatments are undertaken as
a complete large-scale project rather than in a piecemeal
fashion.
Funding institutions, however, have a wide array of
policies, constraints, and available budgets that weight
some forms of treatment or their location over others.
How these policies, constraints, and budgets are merged
into a cohesive plan ultimately dictates treatment selec-
tion.
In conclusion, I hope that the review of treatments
selected in the Tomki Project illustrates useful priority
schemes for putting your watershed plan "on the
ground."
REFERENCES
1. Furman, B.D., Schott, T.E., Keiffer, R., Cummins, R.,
1983. North Coast Erosion and Sediment Control
Pilot Project - Tomki Creek Watershed - Final
Report, Mendocino County Resource Conservation
District, Ukiah, CA, 181 pp.
62
-------
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR URBAN EROSION AND SEDIMENT
CONTROL IN NEW YORK COUNTIES AND TOWNS
Donald W. Lake
USDA, Soil Conservation Service
Syracuse, New York
INTRODUCTION
It is alarming to realize that an estimated 600 million tons
of soil is lost as sediment each year in the United States
from erosion on development sites. This resource is not
only lost from our upstream areas but becomes
deposited in our nation's waterbodies. It is difficult to
remedy problems associated with erosion and sediment
transportation once they occur. Increased maintenance
of stormwater 'systems, floodways, natural stream cor-
ridors, aesthetic areas, and the cost to improve water
quality puts an increased demand on already limited
state and local budgets.
Many years ago, recognition of the negative effects of
the soil erosion and sedimentation problem in the United
States brought into being state and local regulations in
many areas around the country. In 1970, Maryland
enacted Statewide House Bill No. 1151 which created
specific requirements for individual and corporate
developers to comply with during site development
operations. This bill required erosion and sediment con-
trol plans to be designed for development sites and es-
tablished the local Soil and Water Conservation Districts
as the approving agency for these plans.
Connecticut, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania have similar
statewide legislation. New York, however, has not yet
enacted an erosion and sediment control law. Programs
to control erosion and sedimentation are the respon-
sibility of individual counties and towns. Without
statewide guidance these local programs vary from non-
existent in some rural counties to very comprehensive in
many of the urbanized and rapidly expanding areas.
A pattern has developed in New York where counties
without a sediment and erosion control program have in-
itiated a program as a result of a significant accident.
This occurs because of local community outcry to local
authorities. At this point, village and town officials are
caught in the middle. They recognize the problems but
don't have the expertise or a structured system to deal
with them.
In March 1988, the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), in
cooperation with the Empire Chapter of the Soil and
Water Conservation Society and state and local agen-
cies, issued the "New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion
and Sediment Control" to assist local government offi-
cials in making recommendations and establishing
erosion and sediment control programs.
ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES
A good erosion and sediment program requires proper
resource planning, comprehensive erosion and sediment
control plans, timely installation, and regular main-
tenance. New York has many agencies involved in the
erosion and sediment control process. Their authority
rests at the local level with the town planning boards or
county public works departments who actually issue the
permits for development sites. These agencies have the
authority to halt a project that demonstrates environmen-
tal abuse.
The New York State Department of Environmental Con-
servation (NYSDEC) has incorporated the SCS
guidelines as part of their Technical Operational
Guidance Series (TOGS) for their regional water staff in-
volved in the review of residential, commercial, and in-
dustrial projects that require state permits. The TOGS
recommend that regional NYSDEC staff request local
soil and water conservation district staff assistance in the
review of erosion and sediment control plans.
At the present time, local soil and water conservation dis-
tricts in 34 of 57 counties have been delegated the
responsibility by their county legislatures to review
erosion and sediment control plans. Memoranda of un-
derstanding between districts, counties, and individual
towns are being developed to clarify roles and establish
a formal review process.
In support of these activities the SCS, through the local
Soil and Water Conservation Districts, assists in the
review and development of plans, provides technical as-
63
-------
sistance on selection and use of practices, conducts
training on the erosion and sediment plan review and
design process, and provides recommendations regard-
ing maintenance programs.
The expertise of these cooperating agencies is brought
together in the review process through county or town or-
dinances. Local soil and water conservation district staff
also provide assistance to local units of government in
formulating local ordinances for erosion and sediment
control. Local building inspectors are generally respon-
sible to assure the appropriate measures are installed
and maintained.
BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The "New York Guidelines for Urban Erosion and Sedi-
ment Control," or the "Blue Book" as it has become
known, was developed to help consultants, developers,
and resource specialists select the best management
practices (BMPs) for a site. It establishes and en-
courages uniformity through standards and specifica-
tions. It also assists local units of government in
preparing and implementing their erosion and sediment
control program by providing examples of legislation, or-
dinances, and site review checklists.
The guide is meant to be a "hands on" tool for erosion
and sediment control design. Thus it was put in a ring
binder and includes standard drawings and construction
specifications that can be copied and incorporated direct-
ly into a developer's plan. Maintenance schedules and
requirements are also included.
The BMP selection process begins with good resource
planning and site considerations. A development should
be planned to fit the site, not the other way around. An'
effective erosion and sediment control plan should follow
a few basic principles. The limits of clearing and grading
should be determined. The site should be divided into
natural drainage areas. When these steps are ac-
complished, management practices can be selected for
specific objectives. Controlling runoff both entering and
leaving the site, stabilizing exposed soil, and controlling
sediment are some major objectives of an erosion and
sediment control plan.
Runoff control is the first step. The purpose is to keep the
site dry for better working conditions and prevent water
attack on exposed soil particles. The next step is to stabi-
lize exposed soil where it is. This is generally done by
vegetative measures and is usually less expensive than
the last step which is to trap the soil and prevent it from
leaving the site.
The specific control objective then leads into a flow chart
approach to assist in selecting the best management
practice. Figure 1 shows an example of how a flow chart
can be used to find a specific practice or group of prac-
tices that address particular needs, in this case sediment
control.
Table 1 is a matrix of New York's current management
practices by control objective. Utilizing expertise from
New York Soil Conservation Service specialists as well
as experience and concepts from other states, BMPs
have been incorporated as standards in the guide. Each
standard explains the definition, purpose, conditions
where the practice applies and the criteria for its use.
The structural practices also include a standard drawing
and construction specification. An example is shown in
Figures 2 and 3 for Grade Stabilization Structure (Slope
Protection).
At present the guide contains 14 temporary structural
practices, 8- permanent structural practices, and 14
vegetative practices. We are in the process of adding two
additional temporary structural and five permanent struc-
tural practices. One advantage of the guide is that for
using temporary practices little engineering is required.
Standard drawing dimension requirements can be com-
pleted with a knowledge of the drainage area. For ex-
ample, to design a grade stabilization structure over a
slope whose drainage area at that point is 3 acres, refer-
ring to Figure 2, the pipe size required is 24 inches.
Based on this diameter (D), the remaining dimensions
can be computed for Figure 3, since they are multiples or
additives to the base dimension.
EDUCATIONAL ACTIVITIES
In order to establish an adequate erosion and sediment
control program and have it function properly, a number
of items need to be accomplished. It is necessary to edu-
cate legislators, developers, and other interested groups
in the hazards and effects associated with the erosion
and sediment from development sites. Once these are
recognized, they should be measured, corrected, and
prevented.
In New York not only has a guide been developed that
details the factors that influence erosion, problems that
development activities can cause, and management
practices to control those problems, but the state has
gone a step further. New York has instituted an aggres-
sive campaign to educate local planners, consultants,
contractors, and reviewing officials on the problems and
alternate solutions.
Since the fall of 1988, 37 sessions, both seminars and
workshops, have been held in the state. They covered 33
of our 57 counties and were attended by 1,088 par-
ticipants.
The seminars introduced the guide; its format, contents,
and application were demonstrated by the use of specific
site examples for which participants had to complete
conceptual erosion and sediment control designs. The
64
-------
— 1
o
cc
5 s
O *
0 |
f— o
Z TS
UJ 3
«^; Ł
^
Q
UJ
w
LARGE
A DC AC
AHcAo
CM A I 1
AREAS
OUNVtl
SEDIMENT
TRAP
SEDIMENT
FILTER
SEDIMENT
obJJlMcN 1
BASINS
SEDIMENT
pii TFR^
MUD AND
DUST CONTROL
Objective
Purpose
Embankment Sediment Basin
Bocavated Sediment Basin
Combination Sediment Basin
Banter Filter
Vegetative Filter
Stabilized Construction Entrance
Dust and Traffic Control
Standard
Practice
Figure 1. Flow chart approach to selecting BMPs.
workshops went into more specific design detail for par-
ticular practices. In addition, for the past three years, an
urban erosion course has been taught at the New York
State District Employees Association annual training ses-
sion. This course was structured for four days and in-
volved onsite field evaluation of existing development
sites and their problems and required participants to
design E&S plans after gathering field data and evaluat-
ing resource conditions.
It is not enough just to provide the tools to do the work.
The guide's ease of use and the information it contains
also must be demonstrated through hands-on training.
SUMMARY
The New York guidelines provide information on minimiz-
ing erosion and sediment problems on land undergoing
urban development. They explain the selection process
for BMPs for specific problems in site management. The
guide is a "hands-on" tool for designers, consultants, and
contractors, and contains standard drawings and
specifications for ready incorporation in erosion and sedi-
ment control plans. In this manner, it provides statewide
consistency for local programs. As technical advances
continue and additional practices are developed, they will
be added to the guide.
Having the guide establishes a level of quality but there
is one BMP we can't overlook—support training. We
need to inform concerned public officials of the hazards
associated with erosion and sediment and continue ef-
forts to teach planners, consultants, property owners,
land developers, and others how to apply these BMPs to
protect our water quality and the environment.
REFERENCES
1. USDA, 1988. New York Guidelines for Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control, Soil Conservation
Service, Empire Chapter Soil and Water Conserva-
tion Society, March.
2. USDA, 1975. Standards and Specifications for Soil
Erosion and Sediment Control in Developing Areas,
Soil Conservation Service, Maryland Water Resour-
ces Administration, Maryland Department of Natural
Resources, State Soil Conservation Committee, July.
3. North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission,
1988. Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual, North Carolina Department of
Natural Resources and Community Development,
Division of Land Resources, Land Quality Section,
September.
4. Northeastern Illinois Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control Steering Committee, 1981. Procedures and
Standards for Urban Soil Erosion and Sedimentation
Control in Illinois, October.
65
-------
Tabla 1. Matrix of New York's Current Management Practices by Control Objective
Control Objective
RUNOFF CONTROL
SOIL STABILIZATION
SEDIMENT CONTROL
earth dike
temporary swale
storm drain
grassed waterway
diversion
lined waterway
lined outlet
rock outlet
protection
subsurface drain
grade
stabilization
structure
permanent dike/
swale
temporary seeding
permanent seeding
sodding
topsoiling
mulching
vegetating waterways
vegetating sand/
gravel pits
vegetating dunes
protection
protecting trees
recreation area
improvement
silt fence
straw bale dike
stabilized construction
entrance
sediment trap
sediment basin
waterway crossing
portable sediment tank
storm drain inlet
debris basin
land grading
66
-------
STANDARD AND SPECIFICATIONS
FOR
GRADE STABILIZATION STRUCTURE
(SLOPE PROTECTION)
Definition
A temporary structure placed from the top of a slope to the
bottom of a slope.
Purpose
The purpose of the structure is to convey surface runoff down
slopes without causing erosion.
Conditions Where Practice Applies
Pipe slope drains are used where concentrated flow of sur-
face runoff must be conveyed down a slope in order to prevent
erosion. The marimnm allowable drainage area shall be 5
Design Criteria
Sec Figures 4.7 and 4.8 on pages 4.18 and 4.19 for details.
General
Sl7P.
PSD-12
PSD-18
PSD-21
PSD-24
PSD-30
Pipe/Tubing
Diameter fin^
12
18
21
24
30
Maximum Drainage
Area (Acres)
0.5
12
2^
3.5
5.0
Inlet
The height of the earth dike at the entrance to the pipe slope
drain shall be equal to or greater than the diameter of the pipe
(D) plus 12 inches.
Outlet
The pipe slope drain shall outlet into a sediment trapping
device when the drainage area is disturbed. A riprap apron
shall be installed below the pipe outlet where clean water is
being discharged into a stabilized area.
Construction Specifications
1. The pipe slope drain shall have a slope of 3 percent or
steeper.
2. The top of the earth dike over the inlet pipe and those
dikes carrying water to the pipe shall be at least one (1)
foot higher at all points than the top of the inlet pipe.
3. Corrugated metal pipe or equivalent shall be used with
watertight connecting bands.
4. A flared end section shall be attached to the inlet end of
pipe with a watertight connection.
5. The soil around and under die pipe and end section shall
be hand tamped in 4 in. lifts to the top of the earth dike.
6. Where flexible tubing is used, it shall be the same
diameter as the inlet pipe and shall be constructed of a
durable material with hold down grommets spaced 10 ft
on centers.
7. The flexible tubing shall be securely fastened to the cor-
rugated metal pipe with metal strapping or watertight
connecting collars.
8. The flexible tubing shall be securely anchored to the slope
by staking at the grommets provided.
9. Where a pipe slope drain outlets into a sediment trapping
device, it shall discharge at the riser crest or weir eleva-
tion.
10. A riprap apron shall be used below the pipe outlet where
clean water is being discharged into a stabilized area.
See Figures 4.7 and 4.8 on pages 4.18 and 4.19.
IL Inspection and any needed maintenance shall be per-
formed after each storm.
March 1988
Page 4.17
New York Guidelines for Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control
Figure 2. Structural practices—standard drawing.
67
-------
Pipe Slope Drain - Rigid
Earth Dike
Riprap Aoron
STANOAflD SYMBOL
4mh.
Side Slope* 2:1
CoaugaKd Mclal
Riprap sholl consat of 6 diameter ston«
placed as shown and tholl be a mininwm
of 12" in thickness.
RIPRAP APRON PLAN
Holt: Silt designation a: PSD-Pip« Otam.
(ex., PSO-t2=Pip« Slog* Drain with I2~ diameter pipe)
1. THE PIPE SLOPE DRAIN SHALL WWE A SLOPE OF 32 OR STEEPER.
2. TCP OF THE EARTH DIKE OVER THE INLET PIPE AND ALL DIKES CARRYING WATER TO TK= PIPE
SHALL BE AT LEAST ONE FOOT HIGHER THAN THE TCP OF THE PIPE.
3. AD 0.3 FOOT TO DIKE HEIGHT FOR SETTLHefr.
A. SOIL AROUND AND UNDER THE SLOPE PIPE SHALL BE HAND TAfFEO IN 4 INCH LIFTS.
5. . THE PIPE SHALL BE CORRUGATED METAL PIPE WITH KATERTIGHT 12 INCH CONNECTING OWDS
OR FLANGE CONNECTIONS.
6.' RIP-RAP TO BE W INCHES IN A LAYER AT LEAST 8 INQES THICKNESS AND PRESSED INTO
THE SOIL.
7. PERIODIC INSPECTION AND REQUIRED MAINTENANCE MUST BE PROVIDED AFTER EACH RAIN EVENT.
Maximum Drainage Area: 5 Acres .
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
GRADE STABILIZATION STRUCTURE
STANDARD
DRAWING
GSS-2
New York Guidelines for Urban
Erosion and Sediment Control
Page 4.18
Figure 3. Structural practices—construction specifications.
March 1988
68
-------
DEVELOPING EFFECTIVE BMP SYSTEMS FOR URBAN WATERSHEDS
Thomas Schueler, John Galli, Lorrie Herson,
Peter Kumble, and David Shepp
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Team
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Washington, DC
INTRODUCTION
Urban stream degradation is a classic example of the dif-
ficulty of addressing long-term cumulative environmental
change. Urbanization is a gradual process that spans
decades and occurs over a wide region. It is, however,
composed of hundreds of individual developments that
take place over a much shorter span and transform only
a few acres. Consequently, the true scope of stream
degradation may not be fully manifested at the water-
shed scale for many years.
The challenge for managers in urban watersheds is that
they must evaluate the impact of each individual
development proposal over the longterm and the water-
shed scale. Such a long view requires a sophisticated
approach that considers the impact of the best manage-
ment practice (BMP) system at the scale of the site,
stream, and watershed. A BMP system is defined as a
combination of structural and nonstructural measures to
attenuate, convey, pretreat, treat, and polish urban
stormwater runoff. BMP systems should be distinguished
from traditional stormwater management BMPs, which
are basically runoff treatment facilities located at one
point. ,
In order to develop an effective BMP system for a
proposed development site, the designer or reviewer
must simultaneously consider how the BMP system will:
• Contribute to the achievement of a specific long-term
watershed quality target for the watershed
• Mitigate the expected impact to the stream caused
by the proposed development
• Control the spectrum of future stormwater runoff
events generated from the site
• Integrate with the proposed site plan and environ-
mental reserve areas
This paper provides guidance in each of these areas.
DEVELOPING REALISTIC TARGETS FOR
URBAN WATERSHEDS
The first step in the design of an urban BMP system is
the selection of an appropriate and achievable watershed
target. Target refers to the level of stream quality within a
watershed that will exist when all development is com-
pleted. Although an endless number of possible water-
shed targets can be envisaged, most fail within one of six
general categories (see Figure 1). The six watershed tar-
gets are ranked from the least level of stream quality to
the greatest. Clearly, it is much harder to design a BMP
system that meets a high stream-quality target than a
lower stream-quality target. The recommended BMP sys-
tem components needed to achieve a particular stream
quality target are shown in Figure 1, and each stream
target is described below.
Flood Control
This target is geared to prevent downstream flood
damage within the watershed and reduce the extent of
channel destruction. As such, the target can be achieved
with only modest difficulty, through a combination of
stormwater detention, floodplain delineation, and im-
provements in channel conveyance. The flood control
target, however, results in a low degree of stream quality.
"Generic" Urban NPS Control
The objective of this target is to reduce the magnitude of
the increase in urban pollutant loads in a watershed. The
basic strategy is to treat the. first flush of pollutant
washoff with urban BMPs, as well as to trap sediments
during the construction stage of development. Achieve-
ment of this watershed target, however, will still result in
some degradation to the stream and its receiving waters.
"Generic" Urban Stream Protection
In this watershed target, the primary goal is to reduce the
severity of urban stream degradation that is likely to
occur. A number of additional BMP system components
are needed to accomplish this task, such as stream buf-
fers, extended detention to control frequent floods, and
some watershed and site environmental planning
measures. These planning measures are intended to
partially protect the major functional components of the
stream—its channel, floodplain, wetlands, and riparian
forests. However, in all but the most lightly developed
69
-------
WATERSHED TARGET
"GENERIC" URBAN NPS
POLLUTANT CONTROL
"GENERIC" URBAN
STREAM PROTECTION
MINIMUM TOOLS NEEDED TO
ACHIEVE WATERSHED TARGET
O Floodplain Restrictions
O Channel Conveyance
O Detention Ponds (2 yr and 4 yr)
O Use of Urban BMP's to Treat First Flush
of Runoff
O Standard E & S Control During
Construction Stage
O Additional Use of ED or Infiltration to
Control Bankfull Flooding
O Designation of Stream Buffers
O General and Site-Specific Development
Criteria
CONTROL OF SPECIFIC
POLLUTANTS
O Enhanced Urban BMP Design/ Criteria
O Moderate Limits on Watershed and
Site Imperviousness
PROTECTION OF
SENSITIVE STREAMS//
WETLAND AREAS
O
a
o
a
a
o
Expanded Stream Buffers
Severe Limits on Watershed and Site
Imperviousness
Sophisticated BMP Design/ Siting
Extraordinary E & S Control
Waterway/ Wetland Protection
Active Stream Stewardship
RESTORATION OF
DEGRADED URBAN
STREAM ECOSYSTEMS
O. .Stormwater Retrofit Ponds
O Stream Restoration Techniques
O Riparian Reforestation
O Wetland Restoration
O Fish Barrier Removal
Figure 1. Targets for NPS control in urban watersheds.
70
-------
watersheds, this target is not capable of maintaining the
integrity of a stream ecosystem as it may have existed
prior to development.
Control of NFS-Specific Pollutants
The goal for this watershed target is to reduce the
delivery of urban pollutant loads such that a specific
water quality standard or pollutant load allocation can be
met. Examples of this target include control of nutrient in-
puts to alleviate eutrophication in lakes and estuaries,
control of bacteria to shellfish harvesting areas, and
reduction of sediment toxics. In many cases, this target
implies nondegradation (that is, no net increase in, the
delivery of a particular set of pollutants). Given the upper
limits of BMP performance, this target cannot consistent-
ly be met unless the BMP system includes moderate
limits on watershed and site imperviousness, more strin-
gent urban BMP performance requirements, and stream
buffers.
Protection of Sensitive Streams.
For this high-quality target, the goal is to maintain the in-
tegrity of the predevelopment stream ecosystem. Its
achievement is typified by the persistence of sensitive
aquatic indicator species and/or habitat areas. These
sensitive stream indicators include salmonoid and
anadromous fish, certain assemblages of aquatic in-
sects, and tidal or nontidal wetland complexes. Sensitive
streams have little tolerance for even moderate levels of
watershed development. In the mid-Atlantic region, for
example, sensitive trout streams cannot persist when
watershed imperviousness exceeds 15 percent, and are
difficult to maintain even at lower levels of development.
Therefore, BMP systems in most sensitive streams re-
quire severe restrictions on both watershed and site im-
perviousness, enhanced stream buffers, extraordinary
sediment and erosion control during construction, and
extremely sophisticated BMP treatment design.
Restoration of Degraded Urban Streams.
Urban stream restoration is arguably the most difficult of
all watershed targets to attain. The broad objective is to
restore the functional integrity of a stream ecosystem, as
demonstrated by the reestablishment and persistence of
important aquatic species or ecosystem functions that
had been diminished over time by urbanization. It is a
complex and costly process of repair that involves
stormwater retrofits, riparian reforestation, stream and
wetland restoration, fish reintroduction, and removal of
fish barriers. The ability to meet this target in an ur-
banized watershed is governed by two factors. First,
enough opportunities must be available to retrofit BMP
systems into urban catchments to provide meaningful
hydrologic control and pollutant removal. Second, any
new watershed development that occurs must be accom-
panied by stringent BMP systems so that the improve-
ments brought about by retrofits are not canceled out.
Watershed Targets and Imperviousness
The nature, severity, and reversibility of environmental
impacts in urban watersheds is typically a direct function
of watershed imperviousness (1). Further, BMP systems
have only a limited capability to mitigate all stream im-
pacts. Consequently, the ability of a BMP system to meet
a particular watershed target is constrained by the
degree of watershed imperviousness. In other words,
some watershed targets cannot be met once a certain
threshold of watershed imperviousness has been sur-
passed.
This phenomenon is shown in schematic fashion in
Figure 2, which illustrates the general relationship be-
tween the intensity of watershed development and the
severity of stream impacts. Superimposed on the plot are
several approximate thresholds where a specific water-
shed target cannot be met due to the overwhelming in-
fluence of watershed imperviousness.
As might be expected, stream impacts become more
severe with increasing watershed imperviousness. For
example, point A on the graph represents the predicted
impact for a development associated with a specific
amount of watershed imperviousness. In this case, the
development is expected to exceed the thresholds for
controlling specific pollutants or protecting a sensitive
stream.
The implementation of a BMP system at the site can be
viewed as an attempt to reduce the actual or,"net" imper-
viousness of the development. This is shown as the shift,
downward and to the left, back to the main line at point
B. The extent of the downward shift is related to the over-
all performance of the BMP system. Because BMP sys-
tems are not completely effective in replicating
predevelopment conditions for all storm events expected
in the long term, the downward shift is limited, and may
not be sufficient to cross a watershed target threshold.
It should be noted that the same downward shift can be
attained merely by reducing the imperviousness of the
development through site planning techniques. Alterna-
tively, the same shift can be induced by installing
stormwater retrofit elsewhere in the watershed. The im-
portant point is that a BMP system for an individual
development site is effective only if it reduces net water-
shed imperviousness.
While Figure 2 is grossly simplified, it does provides a
useful perspective on how individual BMP systems can
relate to overall watershed targets. The model explicitly
recognizes that watershed imperviousness imposes
thresholds that may make it impossible to achieve a
desired watershed target, regardless of what kind of
BMP system is designed. The model also helps one to
visualize the direction in which a particular watershed is
headed, i.e., what level of future stream quality can be ex-
pected for a given level of ultimate watershed development.
7.1
-------
100 —
CO
u
c
0)
=1
0>
O.
E
TJ
O
(A
2
(0
Threshold for effective flood control
0
Threshold for
generic urban
NFS control
Threshold for control
of specific pollutants
Threshold for protecting
sensitive streams
Low
Mod.
High
Severe
Degree of Impact on Streams <Łi>
Figure 2. Relationship among watershed imperviousness, stream impacts, and target thresholds.
The challenge for watershed managers is to determine
the levels of watershed imperviousness where thresholds
exist, and to determine whether a BMP system can
defeat them. These limits cannot be precisely defined be-
cause of the inherently complex behavior of urban
streams and the uncertain performance of BMP systems.
However, experience in the mid-Atlantic region has
shown that reasonably well-defined threshold limits do
exist for several high-quality watershed targets ,(2). Fur-
ther, some success has been encountered in defining the
effectiveness of urban BMP systems, after extensive field
research, aquatic monitoring, and long-term observation
of reference and disturbed streams.
Understanding the Impacts on Urban Streams
No deterministic model yet exists that can predict exactly
how a stream system will respond to urbanization, or
how a BMP system may compensate for these impacts.
Until such a model is devised, planners and engineers
will still need to rely on their knowledge and under-
standing of urban streams to develop urban BMP systems.
One point, however, is clear. It is absolutely essential to
check the site and walk the stream prior to reviewing a
proposed BMP system at a new development or devising
a retrofit scheme for a developed area. A great deal of
useful design information can be gained from reading
sites and streams. Figure 3 shows some of the key fac-
tors to investigate when conducting an urban stream-
walk, and Table 1 indicates several specific items to look
for within each area.
The 12 stream assessment factors shown in Figure 1
provide useful clues to both the current and future state
of an urban headwater stream (orders 1 to 3). The key to
the assessment process is to identify undeveloped "refer-
ence" streams and compare them to urban streams of
various levels of watershed imperviousness.
Nearly all of the stream factors are strongly influenced by
the watershed imperviousness, and most behave in a
more or less predictable manner. After gaining some ex-
perience with the assessment technique, a designer ac-
quires a better sense of how to configure a BMP system
to protect important stream factors. It is also an extremely
72
-------
Watershed Development Factor (gT)
Urban BMP Factor (hT)
Hydrologic Change Factor (77)
Channel Form Stability Factor Q/)
Substrate Quality Factor UcJ
Water Qualitv Factor (l- )
Stream Community Factor
Riparian Cover Factor
Stream Reach Factor
Contiguous Wetland Factor
Floodplain Change Factor
Receiving Water Target
Figure 3. Stream assessment factors in urban headwater streams.
73
-------
useful exercise to conduct the stream assessment tech-
nique again after the BMP system is installed, to test its
performance.
Some of the basic aspects of the stream assessment
technique are described below.
a) Watershed Development Factor.
The watershed development factor is the dominant factor
that influences all remaining stream factors. It can be
conveniently described by watershed area and water-
shed imperviousness, both of which are readily obtained
from site maps.
b) Urban BMP Factor.
This factor relates to how a proposed urban BMP or
retrofit will influence the other stream factors, given the
level of watershed development. A BMP's influence is
governed by its hydrologic performance and the propor-
tion of the contributing watershed that it effectively serves.
c) Hydrologic Change Factor.
Hydrologic change in a stream is a direct function of
watershed imperviousness, and the degree of the
change can be easily inferred by comparing the
predevelopment and postdevelopment watershed runoff
coefficients. The dry weather flow rate is also a very im-
portant indicator of hydrologic change, and can be rapid-
ly measured in the stream.
Dry weather flow rates in most undeveloped streams are
relatively constant on an areal basis (about 1 cublic foot
per second per square mile in the Anacostia). Measured
departures from this constant in an urbanized stream
may reflect decreased infiltration, increased exfiltration,
or the presence of springs and seeps. Changes in dry
weather flow rates are extremely significant to the ecol-
ogy of headwater streams.
d) Channel Form/Stability Factor.
The form and stability of urbanized stream channels
respond directly to the altered hydrologic regime. A
progressive series of degraded channel forms are rough-
ly associated with increasing levels of watershed imper-
viousness (I). The progression is as follows: natural
channels, eroding channels, severely degraded chan-
nels, channelized open reaches, rip-rap or concrete lined
channels, and enclosed storm drain systems. Table 1 in-
dicates other factors to assess the form and stability of
headwater streams. A particularly useful item that quan-
tifies the degree of channel widening is the ratio of the
reference stream dry weather wetted perimeter to the ur-
banized stream wetted perimeter.
Given the current channel form and the expected
hydrologic change, future channel stability can be
predicted. A designer can use this information to select
appropriate hydrologic controls for the BMP, as well as
determining the best means of protection for upstream
conveyance and downstream channels.
e) Substrate Quality Factor.
The streambed is the major site of ecological processing
and activity in headwater streams and is extremely vul-
nerable to degradation during urbanization. The quality of
the substrate of an urban stream can be inferred by com-
paring it with a natural reference stream of similar size
and gradient. Factors to examine are the median size of
the bed sediments, the degree of embededness and the
presence or absence of sand and si.lt bars.
Substrate quality in urbanized streams is strongly in-
fluenced by the scope and recent history of construction
in the watershed, as well as the degree of watershed im-
perviousness. The presence of high-quality substrate in-
forms the designer of the need to minimize disturbed
area at the site and to practice extraordinary sediment
and erosion controls.
f) Water Quality Factor.
Current and future water quality conditions in the stream
can be rapidly assessed in a streamwalk. Summer dry-
weather water temperatures, for example, can be used to
characterize whether the aquatic community is adapted
to cold, cool, or warm water conditions. Changes in fu-
ture stream temperature can be predicted on the basis of
watershed I (3). Rock turning can also reveal the water
quality status of a stream. The presence of organic slime
(carbon), benthic algae (nutrients), blackened stones
(hydrocarbons), silt plumes (sediment), and trash and
debris all give useful clues about stream water quality.
The change in annual downstream pollutant loads can be
readily calculated for different levels of watershed I, as
well (4).
These data can be used by the designer to customize
the runoff treatment capacity of the BMP system to main-
tain the desired state of water quality.
g) Stream Community Factor.
The diversity and composition of the aquatic community
is directly governed by the prevailing level of watershed I.
For example, in the Anacostia watershed, both fish and
macroinvertebrate diversity in streams has been
demonstrated to be inversely related to watershed I (5,6).
Useful information about the status of the aquatic com-
munity can be discerned in a streamwalk without exten-
sive biological surveys. Rock turning or kick sampling
can be used to identify important aquatic macroinver-
tebrate indicator organisms, such as stoneflies, caddis
flies, chironmids, and snails. Previous fishery surveys
can be researched to determine if any sensitive fish
species may be present.
The quality and diversity of the stream community in-
forms and challenges the designer more than any other
assessment factor.
h) Riparian Cover Factor.
ideally, an urban headwater stream system should have
a continuous cover of mature riparian forest. The riparian
74
-------
Table 1. Stream Assessment Factors for Urban Headwater Streams
a) Watershed Development Factor
b) Urban BMP Factor
c) Hydrologic Change Factor
d) Channel Form/Stability Factor
e) Substrate Quality Factor
f) Water Quality Factor"
g) Stream Community Factor
h) Riparian Cover Factor
i) Stream Reach Factor
j) Contiguous Wetland Factor
k) Floodplain Change Factor
I) Receiving Water Target Factor
Current and ultimate imperviousness of contributing watershed. Age of development.
Nature of upstream land uses. Percent forest cover.
Proportion of contributing watershed effectively controlled by a proposed urban BMP
or retrofit. Type and performance of BMP.
Ratio of 11 to 12 less Ic. Dry weather flow rate. Two-year return flood and associated
channel dimensions.
Natural, open, eroded, lined, protected, or enclosed channel form. Dry-weather wetted
perimeter. Evidence of widening or downcutting. Bedrock controlled channel?
Consolidated or unconsolidated banks. Channel gradient.
Median diameter of bed sediment. Degree of embeddedness. Reference substrate in
undeveloped stream. Existing and future disturbed construction areas. Evidence of
shifting sandbars, discolored cobbles.
Summer maximum temperature. Benthic algal growth. Organic slime on rocks. Silt and
sand deposits in stream. Presence/absence of sanitary lines along stream. Type and
height of trash jams. Discolored or black rocks upon turning. Dry-weather water velocity.
Reference macroinvertebrate and fish species expected. Evidence of benthic algae or
lead processing? Rock turning or kick sampling. Cold, cool, or warm water community.
Presence or absence of riparian canopy cover over stream? Width of buffer 21/a H max?
Is vegetation stabilizing banks?
Presence or absence of pool and riffle structure. Minimum dry-weather flow.
Sinuosity of channel. Open or closed to fish migration? Creation of linear barrier
across stream.
Presence or absence of nontidal wetlands in riparian, floodplain, or BMP zone.
Quality, area, and function of wetlands present. Downstream wetlands to be affected?
Constrained or unconstrained floodplain? Extent of ultimate floodplain.
Property in floodplain.
Are there any unique watershed water-quality targets in a downstream river,
lake, or estuary?
zone extends outward from each streambank for a dis-
tance approximately equal to two or three times the max-
imum height of the mature forest canopy. The riparian
zone interacts extensively with headwater streams. The
riparian zone functions to regulate stream water
temperatures, stabilize streambanks, contribute leaf litter
to the aquatic food chain, provide woody debris for
stream habitat structure, and filter and remove pollutants.
The extent and quality of riparian cover is often related to
the form and stability of the channel, and in this sense, is
also related to watershed I.
The presence/absence and quality of riparian cover
should be noted during streamwalks, particularly along
the streambanks. This information helps the designer
delineate appropriate stream buffers and identify areas
for future reforestation or bank-bioengineering.
/; Stream Reach Factor.
Urbanization impacts stream reaches in four basic ways:
the degradation of pool and riffle structures on the
stream, the creation of linear barriers to fish migration,
the enlargement of the channel and corresponding
reduction in the wetted perimeter of the stream, and the
reduction of channel sinuousity. All four changes are
caused by the hydrologic change accompanying ur-
banization, and their severity can be, to some degree, re-
lated to the level of watershed I. All contribute to the
degradation of stream habitat.
By noting these factors during a streamwalk (and com-
paring them to a natural reference stream), the designer
obtains useful information on the priorities for hydrologic
control within the BMP system, the future need for
stream restoration activities, and the need to eliminate
any fish barriers created by the development of the BMP
system.
j) Contiguous Wetland Factor.
Wetlands are an integral part of the stream system, and
their presence and quality should be delineated during a
streamwalk. The designer can use these data to mini-
mize disturbance to wetlands by configuring the develop-
ment site pattern, BMP system, and stormwater outfalls
to avoid these areas.
k) Floodplain Change Factor.
Floodplains are usually delineated by computer models
and are defined based on the maximum vertical elevation
and horizontal distance associated with the 100-year
75
-------
postdevelopment runoff event. As such, the change in
floodplain dimensions and habitat value is directly related
to watershed I.
During a streamwalk, floodplain delineations can be
checked to ensure safe conveyance in the BMP system.
I) Receiving Water Target Factor.
The last stream assessment factor relates to how the
changes at the site will affect water quality targets for
downstream rivers, lakes, and estuaries. This subject
has been discussed at length earlier in this paper. For
quantitative purposes, these impacts can be assessed
using simple pollutant loading models and estimates of
BMP performance. An example of such an assessment
technique is given in Schueler and Bley (4). Once the
downstream change in urban pollutant loadings is
known, the designer can evaluate whether the size, ser-
vice area, and treatment method of the BMP system are
adequate to meet the particular watershed target.
A Systems Approach to Urban BMP Design
An effective urban BMP system is composed of six basic
components, as shown in Figure 4. A BMP system can
be defined as a configuration of structural and nonstruc-
tural measures at a development site that attenuate, con-
vey, pretreat, treat, and polish urban stormwater runoff.
Traditionally, engineers have almost exclusively focused
their efforts on runoff conveyance and runoff treatment.
However, consideration of all six components is critical to
designing urban BMPs that perform effectively over time.
Runoff Attenuation.
The first step in BMP system design is to reduce the
generation of stormwater runoff and pollutant loads from
the site, primarily through reductions in site impervious-
ness and the delineation and protection of environmental
reserve areas. A wide variety of environmental land
planning techniques can be utilized for this purpose.
The importance of runoff attenuation cannot be overem-
phasized. For example, the reduction of site impervious-
ness by 10 percent will result in a significant reduction of
runoff volume, frequent flood occurrence pollutant loads,
thermal inputs, and stream degradation. In addition,
runoff attenuation can serve to enhance the performance
of the remaining components of the BMP system.
Runoff Conveyance.
The second step in BMP system design is to safely
deliver stormwater runoff to the BMP in a manner that
minimizes disruption to the existing stream network, and
promotes some infiltration or filtering treatment as it pas-
ses through the conveyance system. Examples of good
runoff conveyance systems include swales with check-
dams and exfiltrating storm drains. In some cases, a flow
splitter is needed to divert a portion of runoff to a BMP; in
others, a parallel pipe system is used to convey excess
runoff around a sensitive stream or wetland area.
Runoff Pretreatment.
The purpose is to capture or trap coarse sediments
before they enter a BMP so as to preserve storage
volumes and/or prevent clogging within the BMP.
Pretreatment is located in an area where sediment can
be easily removed without interfering in the operation of
the BMP. Examples include sediment forebays and
micropools within pond systems, and stilling basins,
grass filter strips, and filter cloth barriers for infiltration
systems. In some industrial or transportation areas, it
may be advisable to use water quality inlets or settling
basins to remove oily wastes prior to entry into a BMP
system.
Runoff Treatment.
The key component of a BMP system is, of course,
urban runoff treatment. Although there are a great num-
ber of BMP alternatives (7), there are four basic treat-
ment options available: filtering, detention, retention, and
infiltration. In many cases, an effective BMP system will
be composed of two, three, or even all four of these
options.
The objective of runoff treatment is to provide multiple
control of up to four "zones" on the runoff frequency
spectrum. This spectrum is shown in schematic form in
Figure 5. Quite simply, it shows the expected runoff
volume (in watershed-inches) produced in a series of
rainfall events of different recurrence intervals, ranging
from the smallest storm that may occur once a year to
the greatest storm that may occur only once in 100
years. In a sense, it is the probability distribution of the
entire spectrum of runoff events that will occur in a
stream over time.
As shown in Figure 5, development acts to shift the
runoff spectrum upward, particularly so for the more fre-
quent rainfall events. The designer has the difficult
problem of providing multiple control through fixed weirs,
orifices, and spillways for four overlapping zones across
the postdevelopment runoff frequency spectrum. These
zones are as follows:
• Zone I: First Flush Treatment. In this zone, the ob-
jective is to capture runoff from 75 to 90 percent of
all storms and subject this volume to detention,
retention, or infiltration treatment. In most areas of
the country, this criterion can be met by sizing the
BMP to accommodate all storms up to 0.3 to
0.5/year return interval (practically, this translates to
1.0 watershed-inch multiplied by the watershed
runoff coefficient).
• Zone II: Control of Frequent Floods. The objective
in this zone is to reduce the increased frequency of
bankfull and sub-bankfull flood events within the
stream, and thereby reduce the degree of channel
and bank erosion. This is accomplished by detaining
the runoff volumes for storms with a recurrence inter-
76
-------
RUNOFF
ATTENUATION
Reduce she imperviousness. Reduce disturbed irta. Disconnect impervious areas.
Designate stream buffers. Protect non-tidal wetlands. Protect site tree cover.
Utilize cluster development and site fingerprinting. Source control.
RUNOFF
CONVEYANCE
Use of vegetated swales w/checkdarm. Flow splitters. Install parallel pipes to
poled sentiiive streams. Level spreaders fo un-concentratc runoff. Reduce stream
enclosure by storm drains. Storm drain infiltrauon/oulfill protection.
RUNOFF
PRETREATMENT
Use of sediment fore boys (R) or settling Basins (I) to remove grit before entry
into BMP. Design for frequent/rapid removal. Use of grass filler strips and/or Water
Quality separators for inlilttalion facilities. Micropools in Extended Detention Ponds.
RUNOFF
TREATMENT
' ^
-
-
Pollutant
Removal
Frequent
FliHids
Frdqurnt
Floods
SYSTEM
MAINTENANCE
•Relention/Dciention or infilbattun of 75% to 90% of all storms.
-Detention or infiltration -for up to 24 hours for 0.5 to 1.0 WINCH volume.
•Delcntion of 2, 10 and/or 100 yr frequency storm event.
Inspection to approve/accept tlie structure. Sedinieiil disposal plan. Strict specifications
on BMP materials for longeviiy. Native landscaping and moving plans. Easy access
to. around and in the BMP. Two year check-up. Infiltration replacement Flexibility
in design.
SECONDARY
IMPACT
MITIGATION
Evaluation of Downstream Delta T. Outfall protection. Safe conveyance of ihe safety
storm. Mixinj of runoff to keep Oi levels high and carbon slime down. Reestablish
canopy closure downsueam. Downstream wetland protection.
Figure 4. Components of an effective urban BMP system.
val of 0.3/year to 1.0/year for up to 12 to 24 hours
(practically, this translates to 1.0 to 1.5 watershed-
inches times the watershed runoff coefficient).
• Zone III: Control of Bankfull Floods. The objective
here is to keep the postdevelopment flow within the
predevelopment stream channel dimensions. The
most common design rule is to control storms with a
return interval somewhere between 1.5 to 3 years,
thereby preventing massive downstream channel
erosion and reducing the frequency of overbank
floods. In some regions, additional control of the 10-
year return storm is provided to control the mag-
nitude of overbank flooding.
• Zone IV: Control of Extreme Floods. The objective
in this zone is to safely convey extreme storm events
(for example, the 100-year event) in such a manner
as to preserve the integrity of the BMP structure.
System Maintenance.
The fifth component of an effective BMP design is a
realistic plan to maintain the long-term performance of
the first four components of the system. Since the sys-
tem will be trapping significant quantities of sediment and
possibly toxic pollutants, careful consideration must be
given to how these trapped residuals are disposed or
contained within the system. The BMP system must be
designed to allow for easy and permanent access to
these residuals, as well as environmentally and economi-
cally sound removal procedures.
Secondary Impact Mitigation.
The final component of an effective BMP design is an as-
sessment of whether or not the treatment system creates
any secondary impacts to the downstream community. In
the case of ponds, these secondary impacts can include
the discharge of hypoxic and/or thermally enriched water
77
-------
V)
o
**
"u
S
2.0 -•
o
I
I
fa
o
e
Post development Spectrum
Pre development Spectrum
1.0 -
Rainfall Recurrence Interval (log)
Figure 5. The runoff frequency spectrum.
downstream, the removal of downstream riparian cover,
and the possible filling or alteration of wetland areas ad-
jacent to the pond. For infiltration systems, secondary
impacts include the possible risks of groundwater con-
tamination and system failure. The basic objective of this
design component is to rapidly reestablish natural stream
conditions in the shortest distance possible from the out-
fall of the BMP system.
The Role of Site Planning in BMP System Design
Site planning is the often neglected but critical stage in
the development of a BMP system. Good site planning
can not only attenuate runoff, but also improve effective-
ness of the conveyance and treatment components of
the BMP system. In addition, it can be used to blend the
constructed landscape with the natural one.
78
-------
Figure 6 shows a process for integrating a BMP system
into a site plan for an idealized development scenario. In
the first stage, important environmental reserve areas
are delineated and permanently protected from further
disturbance. These reserve areas may include the 100-
year floodplain, stream buffers, steep slopes, wetlands,
environmentally sensitive areas, .tree-save areas, and
reforestation areas. Wherever possible, the reserve
areas are linked together to provide redundancy and
create a larger habitat and filtering unit (as shown in
Figure 6A).
The second stage of the site plan is to configure the
development pattern into the nonreserve areas. Figure
6B shows two widely different development configura-
tions for the same residential zoning density. A conven-
tional residential subdivision is shown on the lower left
side, whereas the upper right side features a cluster
development. The value of cluster development in reduc-
ing watershed imperviousness is readily seen in Figure
6B. The same number of residential density units are
concentrated in one area, which allows for the reserva-
tion of an expanded natural buffer and community open-
space.
The third stage of the site plan involves the fingerprinting
of the BMP system throughout the site (Figure 6C). Two
BMP systems are shown for the intensive development
scenario. The upper storm drain leads to a sediment
forebay and then into an extended detention shallow
marsh system. The outfall from the marsh is linked to the
receiving stream so as to skirt around a protected wet-
land. The lower storm drain enters a plunge pool (for
pretreatment), and then enters an extended detention
wet pond. Again, both the pond and its outfall are
situated so as to bypass a wetland area.
Figure 6C also shows two BMP systems that serve the
conventional subdivision. "Soft" infiltration and/or filter
areas are reserved in suitable areas between adjacent
lots. Conveyance to the BMP system is provided by a
series of grassed swales with checkdams. The upper
swale discharges into a plunge pool and grass filter strip
for pretreatment, and then passes into an infiltration
trench. The trench is housed within a dry stormwater
detention pond that controls infrequent storm events. The
outfall from the dry pond daylights at the stream.
The lower swale drains a smaller area and leads to an in-
filtration facility. Pretreatment is provided by a stilling
basin, grass filter strip, and a filter fabric barrier within the
trench itself. A forested filter strip is then used to link the
trench to the environmental reserve.
Urban Stormwater Retrofit Techniques
As noted earlier, the restoration of degraded stream sys-
tems is perhaps the most difficult and complex water-
shed target that can be conceived. To restore a
degraded urban watershed in any meaningful degree, it
is critical to retrofit a BMP system into the existing
drainage network. Quite simply, some hydrologic control
must be created to shift the postdevelopment runoff fre-
quency spectrum closer to predevelopment levels, par-
ticularly for frequent storms. Otherwise, little if any
improvement will1 occur in any of the stream factors
described earlier.
Opportunities for urban retrofitting are limited in
developed watersheds, but they can be discovered
through extensive onsite evaluations. For example, in the
179 mi2 Anacostia watershed, over 250 candidate retrofit
sites have been reported (8,9,10).
The following sections describe some of the retrofit tech-
niques developed in the Anacostia watershed.
Urban Retrofit Techniques
The range of possible retrofit techniques employed in the
Anacostia watershed is shown in Figure 7. Basically, the
eight categories of retrofits differ with respect to where
the retrofit is inserted in the storm drainage network.
Some kind of pond system or made-soil system is util-
ized in most retrofit applications, as urbanized soils sel-
dom can infiltrate runoff. The retrofit categories are
described below: ;
* Non-Retrofit.
Retrofits may not be possible in intensively
developed storm drain networks that outfall directly
to a large receiving water, and where little or no ad-
jacent space or useable head is available.
• Source Retrofit.
Source retrofit is a collective term for a series of
techniques that reduce stormwater and/or pollutant
generation before it enters into a storm drain system.
This can be done by disconnecting impervious areas
(installing dry wells to collect rooftop runoff), reduc-
ing impervious areas (reforestation), better materials
storage and handling (to prevent pollutant washoff
or spills), and pollution prevention (improved
homeowner fertilizer, pesticide and used oil handling;
better urban housekeeping such as litter, trash, and
pet waste control; storm drain stenciling; and
revegetation/reforestation of barren or vacant areas).
Source retrofits alone may not make major improve-
ments to a stream, but they can act as an effective
complement to other retrofit practices.
• Open Channel Retrofits.
Open channel retrofits are installed within an open
channel immediately below a storm drain outfall. The
retrofit usually consists of a extended detention-shal-
low marsh pond system,. The best locations for this
retrofit practice are found where road embankments
cross the open channel. A secqnd alternative is to
employ a flow splitter to divert,the first flush from the
79
-------
mctfopoutaa
COUNCIL OP GOVERNMENTS
Figure 6A. Delineation of environmentally sensitive areas.
open channel into an off-line ED pond system lo-
cated in or adjacent to the f loodplain. As a third alter-
native, lateral storage treatment capacity can be
added within the open channel itself, through a se-
quence of ported weirs and checkdams. All three
retrofit practices are being utilized in the Anacostia
watershed restoration effort (5).
Natural Channel Retrofit.
The presence of a natural channel often provides
several retrofit options. Depending on the size of the
natural channel and the area of the floodplain, retrofit
pond systems can either be installed in-line or off-
line (using a flow splitter). If the natural channel is
80
-------
Figure 6B. Patterns oi site development—cluster vs. conventional subdivision.
particularly sensitive, a third possible option is to in-
stall a parallel pipe system that routes excess
stbrmwater runoff along the floodplain to a point fur-
ther'downstream. Several such systems have proven
to be effective in preventing extensive channel
degradation in sensitive streams in Anacostia water-
shed.
Off-line Retrofit.
In this retrofit practice, a flow splitter is installed
within the storm drain system to divert the first flush
of runoff to a lower open area for treatment. Both
peat-sand filters and shallow marsh systems have
been used as the primary treatment facility in the
81
-------
$*
Ł&^!^&~&K:.****
A
Figure 6C. Fingerprinting BMP systems at the development site.
Anacostia. The primary requirement for the use of
off-line retrofits is site topography where suitable
head (5 to 10 feet) is available between the invert of
the flow splitter and the bottom of the proposed treat-
ment facility.
BMP Retrofit.
BMP retrofits are by far the most widely used retrofit
technique used in the Anacostia. Older, dry
stormwater detention or flood control structures are
modified to improve their runoff storage treatment
82
-------
capacity. The storage is formed either by excavating
the older detention pond, adding to the elevation ot
the embankment, or by constricting low flow orifices.
The newly created storage is used to provide a per-
manent pool, extended detention storage, or a shal-
low wetland (or a combination of all three). Nearly 20
such retrofits are in some stage of design or con-
struction in the Anacostia.
• In-line Retrofit.
The strategy behind the in-line retrofit is to provide
additional runoff treatment capacity within the storm
drain network itself. This can be done by using
slotted storm drainpipes to exfiltrate runoff into un-
derlying soils, or by increasing the size and treat-
ment capability within catchbasins and manhole
junctions. An example of the latter practice is a plan
to install large capacity oil/grit separators within the
storm drain network discharging to a tributary of the
Anacostia. The approach of exfiltrating runoff
through perforated or slotted storm drainpipes is not
common in the Anacostia due to poor soils, but has
been used with some success in other areas of the
country.
Identifying Urban Retrofit Opportunities
The basic process used to identify urban retrofit sites is
to delineate the Individual storm drain networks within an
urbanized watershed. Significant networks on the order
of 25 to 500 acres in size are then inspected in the field
to find appropriate points for where a retrofit can be in-
serted. Typically, the best sites for retrofits will be found
at the terminus of a storm drain, across or within an open
channel, adjacent to a natural or open channel, or within
an older BMP system.
Potential sites are then screened to determine if
adequate topography and space are present to accom-
modate runoff storage. Catchment area and impervious-
ness are planimetered from maps, and a computation is
then made to evaluate if a minimum storage of 0.5 water-
shed-impervious-area inches can be accommodated. If
the site meets this criterion, it is further evaluated to as-
certain whether land ownership, utilities, wetlands, future
uses, or other factors would render the site unfeasible. If
the site still appears feasible, preliminary engineering
analysis and concept plans are prepared. The concept
plans are then compiled in standardized form in a water-
shed retrofit inventory for possible future design and
construction.
SUMMARY
A broad and deep knowledge of both urban streams and
urban landscapes is needed to design effective BMP
systems. Site plans cannot be made with cookie cutters,
nor can BMPs with cookbooks. Instead, the planner and
designer must work together to customize a unique BMP
system at the site, for the stream, and within the water-
shed.
REFERENCES
1. Schueler, Tom, in press. Mitigating the Adverse Im-
pacts of Urbanization on Streams: A Comprehensive
Strategy for Local Governments.
2. Schueler, Tom and John Galli, 1990.
3. Galli, John, 1991. Thermal Impacts Associated with
Urbanization and Stormwater BMPs. Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG),
prepared for Maryland Sediment and Stormwater Ad-
ministration.
4. Schueler, Tom and Matt Bley, 1987. Framework for
Evaluating Compliance with the 10% Rule in the
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. MWCOG, prepared
for Maryland Critical Areas Commission.
5. Kumble, Peter, 1990. The State of the Anacostia:
1989. Status Report, MWCOG, prepared for Anacos-
tia Watershed Restoration Committee.
6. Karouna, Natalie, 1991. Unpublished data, MWCOG.
7. Schueler, Tom, 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A
Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban
BMPs. MWCOG.
8. Galli, John and Lorrie Herson, 1989. Anacostia
Watershed Retrofit Inventory—Prince George's
County, Maryland. MWCOG, prepared by Prince
George's County Dept. of Environmental Resources.
9. Galli, John and Lorrie Herson, 1988. Anacostia
Watershed Retrofit Inventory—Montgomery County,
Maryland. MWCOG, prepared for Montgomery
County Department of Environmental Protection.
10. Shepp, David, 1991. Anacostia Watershed Retrofit
Inventory—District of Columbia. D.C. Water and
Sewer Utility Administration.
83
-------
1. No Retrofit
2. Source Retrofit
3. Open Channel
Retrofit (I)
•*. Open Channel
Retrofit (II)
5. Natural Channel
Retrofit
6. Off-Line Retrofit
7. BMP Retrofit
8. la-Line Retrofit
KEY
Watershed
Storm Drain Q Off-Line Retrofit
Open Channel /*\^ In-Line Retrofit
Natural Channel Jjj BMP Retrofit
Receiving Stream ^\/ Source Retrofit
Figure 7. Urban stormwater retrofit techniques.
84
-------
SECTION SIX
DEVELOPING A MONITORING SYSTEM
-------
THE USE OF BIOCRITERIA IN THE ASSESSMENT OF NONPOINT AND HABITA T
IMPACTS IN WARMWA TER STREAMS
Edward T. Rankln
Ohio Environmental Protection Agency
Columbus, Ohio
INTRODUCTION
Nonpoint source and habitat impacts account for the
majority of miles of streams and rivers not meeting the
aquatic life goals of the Clean Water Act (1). Although
point source impacts on rivers are still widespread, there
is a consensus that in many states nonpoint pollution and
habitat destruction have received relatively scant atten-
tion. The traditional water-quality approach of targeting
chemical load reductions of nonpoint pollutants in
streams is insufficient by itself. It is especially weak as a
tool for measuring overall achievement of nonpoint
source water resource improvements. Controlling chemi-
cal impacts alone does not ensure the restoration of
water resources (2). The U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has recognized this and has called for in-
tegrated approaches to monitoring for the effects of non-
point source pollution and habitat degradation (3).
Ohio has been directly assessing the biota of rivers and
streams (fish and macroinvertebrates) since 1978 as part
of Us basic monitoring strategy. The Ohio EPA has
developed statewide and ecoregional expectations for
the biota based on more than 300 least-impacted refer-
ence sites. Reference sites provide a means to deter-
mine attainable background qualities of the biota by
accounting for natural variations inherent to the
landscape and stream and river size (4). Although
originally funded to assess wastewater treatment plant
(WWTP) construction grants projects, the Ohio EPA's
methods, approach, and criteria have proven invaluable
in the assessment of nonpoint pollution and habitat im-
pacts. This paper presents the advantages of including
biosurvey data and biocriteria in monitoring programs to
assess nonpoint and habitat-related impacts on aquatic
life.
METHODS
Biosurvey Sampling
The success of Ohio's program hinges on the use of
standardized biosurvey methods for fish and macroinver-
tebrates. The emphasis on standardization has led to
consistency among data collected by the Ohio EPA and
other state agencies in Ohio. Fish communities are
sampled with pulsed-DC electrofishing methods with
three variations related to stream size and morphology
(5). Macroinvertebrates are sampled with modified
Hester-Dendy multiple-plate artificial substrate samplers
and qualitative grabs of all habitats at a station. Stand-
ardization is emphasized through training and written
QA/QC procedures (5) that minimize data variability (6).
Water quality, sediment chemistry, tissue analysis, and
other environmental measures are also sampled during
intensive surveys to provide integrated and environmen-
tally inclusive data for assessing impacts. Physical
habitat is sampled with a qualitative index based on
visual estimates of substrate quality, instream cover,
channel quality, riparian quality, pool/riffle quality, and
stream gradient (5,7). Other biosurvey methods are
described in the EPA's rapid bioassessment protocols (8).
Analytical Tools
Why Use Fish and Macroinvertebrates to Measure NFS
Impacts?
Fish and macroinvertebrates have several advantages
over traditional water-quality chemistry parameters alone
as measures of nonpoint source impacts: 1) as a whole
community, they inhabit the receiving water continuously;
2) they integrate past stressful events (e.g., floods,
droughts, spills, nutrient enrichment) of both long and
short duration and natural and anthropogenic origin; 3)
they reflect and integrate the effects of cumulative im-
pacts (e.g., nutrient enrichment, sedimentation, habitat
degradation), which are important characteristics of non-
point source impacts; 4) they have a long life span; and
5) they are a direct measure of the biological goals of the
Water Quality Act. To take advantage of these attributes
of the biota we use "multimetric" indices that incorporate
multiple aspects of the structure, function, and health of
biotic communities and compare them with the same
components under least-impacted conditions. In essence
these indices extract ecologically relevant information
from the community and improve the comprehension of
complex ecological data.
The five principal factors that affect and determine water
resource integrity are illustrated in Figure 1 (modified
86
-------
Solubilities
Temperature
Adsorption
Nutrients
Organics^s"
Alkalinity -s
v
Chemical
Variables
«-EV
Turbidity^
»
7\ Hardness
Land Use
Ground
Water
High/Low
Extremes
WATER RESOURCE
INTEGRITY
Riparian /
Vegetation ,*
Seasonal
Cycles
1 and 2
Production
Habitat
Structure
\Substrate
Current-
Width/Depth
Bank
Stability
Channel
Morphology
Gradient
Instream
Cover
Canopy
Figure 1. The five principal factors, with some'of their important chemical, physical, and biological components, that
influence and determine the integrity of surface water resources (modified from Karr et al., 1986).
from Karr et al. (2)). The traditional water-chemistry ap-
proach to water-resource monitoring addresses water
quality only, which is but one of the five major com-
ponents that affect water-resource integrity. The biota, in
contrast, are directly affected by all of these components
and provide a holistic view of water-resource integrity.
Fish
For fish communities, Ohio EPA uses the Index of Biotic
Integrity (IBI) developed by Karr (9) and Karr et al. (2)
and the Modified Index of Well Being (Mlwb) modified
from the original Iwb (10,11). The IBI is composed of 12
metrics and has been modified from Karr et al. (2) to
reflect Ohio faunal characteristics (12). The construction
of the IBI and the conceptual framework for this and
similar indices is summarized by Karr et al. (2) and
others (see summary in Miller et al. (13)). In short, these
indices function much like the index of leading economic
indicators does for the U.S. economy by measuring the
functioning of important aspects of the fish community
relative to least-impacted conditions as drawn from refer-
ence sites. :
Macroinvertebrates
For macroinvertebrate communities, the Ohio EPA uses
the Invertebrate Community Index (ICI) which was formu-
lated from concepts similar to the IBI by DeShon and
others (12). It is composed of 10 metrics that measure
important aspects of macroinvertebrate communities in
streams and rivers. Like the IBI, the ICI relates the value
of each of its subcomponents to what is expected under
least-impacted conditions as drawn from regional refer-
ence sites.
The use of two organism groups (the IBI and the ICI) by
Ohio EPA is not redundant but complementary. Especial-
ly in complex situations (e.g., multiple sources of impact)
the unique response of each organism group according
to type of impact provides clues about the cause of im-
pairment. We do not consider a stream to be fully attain-
87
-------
ing its aquatic life use until both organism groups achieve
their respective biocriteria.
Biocriteria and Regional Reference Sites
The calibration of the indices mentioned above and the
derivation of biological criteria based on these indices
are dependent on the use of least-impacted reference
sites, in an ecoregion framework, to provide reasonable
expectations of the biota that can be attained in an area.
Biocriteria are simply the expectations for an organism
group in a particular size stream of an ecoregion as
reflected in the index scores. For Ohio's most common
aquatic life use (warm-water habitat) the biocriteria are
defined as the 25th percentile value of the reference
sites for an ecoregion (12).
The use of regional reference sites is especially impor-
tant for assessing the effects of diffuse sources of non-
point pollution where the use of traditional upstream
control sites are unworkable (4). Reference sites can
provide a framework for examining how NPS pollution
and its effects vary regionally and provide a conceptual
framework for choosing best management practices and
conlrol strategies. Reference sites are also important in
understanding how the effects of nonpoint source pollu-
tion change with stream and watershed size (i.e., chang-
ing effects from headwaters to larger rivers). Finally, the
use of reference sites encourages standardization of
methods and approaches and setting of common goals
lor regions (14),
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Specific Uses of Biocriteria in Nonpoint Source
Pollution Control Programs
Because biocriteria do not translate directly into a
"numerical permit limit" there has been some resistance
to their inclusion in water-resource monitoring and
management programs at the state level. The integration
of biocriteria into a monitoring program, however, is es-
sential for accurate assessment of nonpoint source pollu-
tion and habitat degradation. The remainder of this paper
summarizes some important uses of biocriteria in Ohio in
relation to nonpoint source pollution and habitat
degradation.
Prior/tization of Nonpoint Source Impaired Areas
One important use of biological data is in the prioritiza-
tion of streams and stream segments for nonpoint source
implementation (1). Biological indices are used to portray
the severity and extent of impairment related to point and
nonpoint sources of pollution, this effort moves beyond a
two-dimensional "attainment/nonattainment" approach to
one in which the degree of impairment can be measured.
A quantification of the; degree of impairment that we use
to prioritize target areas is simply calculated as the area
between a plot of a biological index versus stream dis-
tance and the ecoregion biocriteria value plotted on the
same graph (Figure 2) as a straight line and is termed
the Area of Degradation Value (ADV).
This measure was used in Ohio's Nonpoint Source As-
sessment to prioritize areas for 319 implementation (1).
IBI
30 20
River Mile
10
Figure 2. Example of the method used to estimate the severity of pollution on the basis of biosurvey data. The area
between the graphed data and the straight line representing the ecoregion biocriteria is integrated to calculate area of
degradation values (ADV).
88
-------
The biological criteria also serve as a standard for as-
sessing the degree of success after implementation of
best management practices.
Impact Assessment, Baseline Conditions, and
Longitudinal Patterns of Nonpoint Pollution
Biosurvey data are the principal arbiters of aquatic life
use attainment in Ohio streams and rivers and are an im-
portant component of our integrated basin intensive sur-
veys. Longitudinal plots of the biological indices provide
a visual indication of pollution or impairment severity.
Changes in values of the biological indices as a stream
or river flows through areas of changing land use, ex-
amined in concert with other data from an intensive sur-
vey, are useful indicators of the degree of impact relative
to nonpoint sources of pollution. For example, limitations
on the extent of biological recovery from a predominantly
point source impact in the middle Scioto River (Figure 3)
are partially related to nonpoint pollution from agricultural
runoff, which precludes the river from fully attaining the
criteria for Ohio's exceptional warm-water habitat use.
Similarly, data collected from a river with predominantly
nonpoint pollution impacts can act as a baseline against
which the success of best management practices can be
measured with subsequent sampling. For example,
Table 1 shows results from Wills Creek in the eastern
coal-bearing region of Ohio. The upper watershed is af-
fected by runoff from surface mining, which results in the
extensive siltation of the substrates. This nonpoint runoff
masks most of the influence from point sources in this
basin. While some localized point source impacts are
present, the overall nonattainment of the warmwater
habitat use is affected by the mining-related sedimenta-
tion and exacerbated by the low gradient in the stream.
Assessment of Trends in Nonpoint Pollution
Biosurvey data, because it integrates multiple types of
impacts, is probably the best data to use for examining
overall trends in a water resource. Biosurvey results can
be illustrated by plotting data by year separately on a lon-
gitudinal graph (see Figure 3). Individual sites can be ex-
amined as a time series, as illustrated in Figure 4.
Numeric measures, such as ADVs, can be examined in
tabular form. Biosurvey data can be used to measure the
overall success of nonpoint management plans by
providing a "common currency" for assessing success (or
failure) of restoration activities. Biosurvey data are the
focal point of our 305(b) Water Resource Inventory (15),
and a separate volume of this report examining biosur-
vey data for trend assessment is in preparation.
Use of Biosurveys and Simple Habitat Measures to
Assess Habitat Degradation
Stream habitat quality and protection are a "poor step-
child" of regulatory efforts to address nonattainment of
aquatic life uses in streams and rivers. Perhaps a result
of the inability to relate habitat quality to discrete numeric
criteria, efforts to protect habitat have been of secondary
importance to reducing "loads" of chemically measured
substances, and are overlooked in most efforts to control
nonpoint pollution. Habitat conditions can be the
60
50
40
IBI 30
20
10
0
Middle Scioto River
i—i—i—i—|—i—i—F—i—|—i—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—pn—i—i—i—|—i—i—i—i—|—i—I—i—i—|—i i i r
; Exceptional Warmwater Habitat^
Nonpoint Source
QWarmwaterHabitat*^
Point Source
Limited - 1979
I Poor
IBI-1979
--e>-IBI-1988
140 130 120 110 100 90 80 70 60
River Mile
Figure 3. Longitudinal trend of the index of biotic integrity in the middle Scioto River between Columbus, Ohio, and
Chillicothe, Ohio, in 1979 and 1988.
89
-------
Table 1. Aquatic Life Use Attainment Status for the Warm-Water Habitat (WWH) Use Designation in the Wills Creek
Malnstem Based On Data Collected During July-September 1984
River Mile
Fish/Invert.
75.9/75.8
74.0/71.0
68.1/68.1
66.5/66.7
65.3/65.1
62.4/62.7
61 .8/ -
60.7/60.1
58.4/58.6
56.4/56.5
53.5/53.5
46.6/46.6
37.77 -
27.0/ -
IBI
33
24(a)
22(a>
29
28(a)
27
22
25
M(a)
26
29(a)
26(a)
28{a)
26
Modified
Iwb
7.7
5.8
5.3
7.0
6.4
6.9
5.7
7.7
6.3
6.6^
7.8(a)
6.2
6.5
5.8
ICI
30(a)
34(b)
14(a)
16(a)
18(a)
22(a)
-
28(a)
20(a)
20(a)
34(b)
22(a)
-
-
QHEI(c)
52
34
41
33
38
48
54
52
37
42
55
42
39
37
WWH
Attainment
Status
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
NON
(NON)(d)
NON
NON
NON
PARTIAL
NON
(NON)(d)
(NON)(d)
Comment
Ust. all point sources
Ust. Byesville WWTP
Dst. Byesville WWTP
Dst. NCR
Dst. sewer break
Dst. Cambridge WWTP
Dst, Crooked Cr.
Dst. Salt Fork
Dst. numerous mines
*a' Significant departure from ecoregion biocriteria; poor and very poor results are underlined.
(b) Nonsignificant departure from ecoregion biocriteria (4 IBI or ICI units; 0.5 Iwb units).
(c) All Qualitative Habitat Evaluation Index (QHEI) values are based on the most recent version (7).
^ Use attainment status based on one organism group is parenthetically expressed.
Ecoregion Biocriteria: Western Allegheny Plateau
Index - Site Type
IBI - Boat
Mod. Iwb - Boat
ICI
WWH
40.0
8.6
36.0
EWH
48.0
9.6
46.0
MWH(a)
24.0
5.5
30.0
Modified warm-water habitat for mine-affected areas.
90
-------
Scioto River at RM 102
ICI
bu
50
40
30
20
10
0
7
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 !~"l | 1 1 1 1
- Nonpoint Source -
1 Exceptional 0__------^"ed ~
L Good
-------
Table 2. Habitat Characteristics of Warm-water Streams with Modified and Natural Habitats in Ohio
Modified Warm-Water Streams
Warm-Water Streams
1. Recent channelization(a) or recovering(b)
2. Silt/muck substrates(a) or heavy to
mod. silt covering other substrates(b)
3. Sand substrates*1*13031, hardpan origin(b)
4. Fair-poor development^
5. Low-no sinuosity(b)l
-------
Chemical Impairment
Only (2.8%)
Biological Impairment
Only (49.8%)
Agreement (47.4%)
Case II: Ecoregional threshold concentrations for nutrients
improves the performance of water chemistry
Chemical Impairment
Only (6.2%)
Biological Impairment
Only (36.4%)
Agreement (57.4%)
Figure 6. Comparison of the abilities of biocriteria and chemical criteria to detect impairment of aquatic life uses in
625 waterbody segments throughout Ohio. Based on the use of chemical water-quality criteria as currently in the Ohio
WQS (upper) and supplemented with nutrients data using threshold values based on ecoregional analysis (lower).
93
-------
bias in estimates of water-resource status related to the
exclusion of tools such as biosurveys has been un-
known.
We performed an analysis to estimate the degree of bias
between an integrated biosurvey-based environmental
assessment and its water-column chemistry subcom-
ponents compared against water quality numerical
criteria (17). We found that the use of the water-column
chemistry data alone failed to detect impairment in 49.8
percent of the water bodies where an integrated biosur-
vey-based assessment indicated the aquatic life was im-
paired (Figure 6, top panel). Only 2.8 percent of the
water bodies examined showed impairment of chemical
water-quality criteria when the integrated biosurvey-
based assessment indicated attainment. A majority of the
water bodies with impaired aquatic life uses exhibited
problems related to organic enrichment or low dissolved
oxygen, sedimentation, and habitat degradation.
The inclusion of nutrient parameters (in relation to
ecoregional background concentrations of these
parameters (17)) improved the performance of the water
chemistry in detecting the impairment of aquatic life (an
additional 13.4 percent of the water bodies). However,
greater than one-third of the water bodies examined
were biologically impaired, but still not detected by the
water-column chemistry (Figure 6, bottom panel). Ob-
viously, simple water-chemistry-based "screening" ap-
proaches to detecting nonpoint source impaired waters
are insufficient to characterize all nonpoint impacts on
aquatic life uses. This is an especially critical finding,
considering that dollars are being spent on implementa-
tion of best management plans.
SUMMARY
Our experience in Ohio suggests that it is not possible to
adequately assess the effects of nonpoint pollution and
habitat degradation accurately without the use of biosur-
vey data. In situations where temporal impacts are in-
dividually small but cumulatively large over time (a
characteristic of many nonpoint and habitat problems),
environmental measures that reflect cumulative impacts
are important. Without the "common currency" of biosur-
vey results that provide overall measures of biological in-
tegrity, nonpoint control and restoration efforts will be
susceptible to the same criticism that the construction
grants program received: "What did the public receive for
the dollars spent on pollution control?" (18).
As a percentage of the money and effort that will be in-
vested in control and restoration for nonpoint pollution,
monitoring and biosurvey costs are comparatively small
(19). Finally, habitat assessment must be part of any
nonpoint assessment activity because of the close
relationship between the activities that cause nonpoint
runoff and habitat disturbance. Without integrated as-
sessment techniques, including chemical, physical, and
biological methods, important impacts to the nation's
aquatic life will be underrated or altogether overlooked.
REFERENCES
1. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. State
of Ohio Section 319 Annual Report Fiscal Year 1990.
Nonpoint Source Management Section, Division of
Water Quality Planning and Assessment, Columbus,
OH.
2. Karr, J.R. and others, 1986. Assessing biological in-
tegrity in running waters: A method and its rationale,
///. Nat. Hist. Surv. Spec. Publ. 5, 28 pp.
3. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990.
Biological Criteria: National Program Guidance for
Surface Waters. EPA/440-5-90-004, U.S. EPA, Of-
fice of Water Regulations and Standards,
Washington, DC.
4. Hughes, R. M. and others, 1986. Regional reference
sites: a method for assessing stream potentials, Env.
Mgmt. 10:629-635.
5. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1989.
Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life:
Volume III, Standardized Biological Field Sampling
and Laboratory Methods for Assessing Fish and
Macroinvertebrate Communities, Division of Water
Quality Planning and Assessment, Columbus, OH.
6. Rankin, E.T. and C.O. Yoder, 1990. The nature of
sampling variability in the index of biotic integrity (IBI)
in Ohio streams, Proc. 3rd Midwest Poll. Control
Biologists Conf., U.S. EPA, Region V, Chicago, IL,
pp. 9-18.
7. Rankin, E.T., 1989. The Qualitative Habitat Evalua-
tion Index (QHEI): Rationale, Methods, and Applica-
tion, Division of Water Quality Planning and
Assessment, Columbus, OH.
8. Plafkin, J. L. and others, 1989. RapidBioassessment
Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic
Macroinvertebrates and Fish, U.S. EPA, EPA/444/4-
89-001, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
9. Karr, J. R., 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using
fish communities, F/s/7er/es6(6):21-26.
10. Gammon, J.R., 1976. The fish populations of the
middle 340 km of the Wabash River. Tech Rep. 86,
Purdue University, Water Resource Research
Center, West Lafayette, IN.
11. Gammon, J.R. and others, 1981. The role of
electrofishing in assessing environmental quality of
the Wabash River. In J.M. Bates and C.I. Weber,
Ecological Assessments of Effluent Impacts on Co/77-
-------
munities of Indigenous Aquatic Organisms, STP 703,
ASTM, pp. 307-324.
12. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1987.
Biological Criteria for the Protection of Aquatic Life:
Volume II, Users Manual for Biological Field Assess-
ment of Ohio Surface Waters, Division of Water
Quality Monitoring and Assessment, Surface Water
Section, Columbus, OH.
13. Miller, D.L. and others, 1988. Regional applications
of an index of biotic integrity for use in water
resource management, Fisheries 13(5): 12-20.
14. Hughes, R.M. and others, 1990. A regional
framework for establishing recovery criteria, Env.
Mgmt.-\ 4: 673-683.
15. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. 1990
Ohio Water Resource Inventory: Executive Summary
and Volume I, Ecological Assessment Section,
Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment,
Columbus, OH.
16. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. Na-
tional Water Quality Inventory, 1988 Report to Con-
gress, EPA/440-4-90-003, U.S. EPA, Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
17. Rankin, E.T. and C.O. Yoder, 1990. A comparison of
aquatic life use impairment detection and its causes
between an integrated, biosurvey-based environ-
mental assessment and its water column chemistry
subcomponents, Appendix I in Ohio Water Resource
Inventory, Volume I, Ecological Assessment Section,
Division of Water Quality Planning and Assessment,
Ohio EPA, Columbus, OH.
18. U.S. Government Accounting Office, 1986. The
Nation's Waters: Key Unanswered Questions about
the Quality of Rivers and Streams. GAO/PEMB-86-6,
U.S. GAO, Program Evaluation and Methods
Division, Washington, DC.
19. Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, 1990. The
Cost of Biological Field Monitoring, Division of Water
Quality Planning and Assessment, Columbus, OH.
20. Yoder, C.O., 1989. The Development and Use of
Biological Criteria for Ohio Surface Waters, U.S.
EPA, Criteria and Standards Div., Water Quality
Stds. 21st Century, pp. 139-146.
95
-------
DEVELOPING NFS MONITORING SYSTEMS FOR RURAL SURFACE WATERS:
WATERSHED TRENDS
Donald W. Meals
School of Natural Resources
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont
INTRODUCTION
Nonpoint source (NFS) monitoring systems must be tied
closely to monitoring objectives. If, for example, the ob-
jective is to establish a cause-effect relationship between
treatment and response, four criteria must be met: as-
sociation, where, for example, a change in water quality
is correlated with a change in land use; consistency,
where the same association holds in different cases;
responsiveness, where the dependent variable changes
predictably when the independent variable changes; and
mechanism, where the relationship can be attributed to a
step-by-step path of specific processes (1). Rigorous es-
tablishment of cause-effect in NFS monitoring is very dif-
ficult and requires the tight experimental control generally
found only in short-term intensive monitoring of specific
practices or sites.
However, demonstrating the effectiveness of single prac-
tices in isolation is not the ultimate goal of many NFS
programs; the objective is more often to evaluate the
overall effectiveness of a program of practices at a
watershed or regional level. To do this, we must look at
broad watershed trends, most likely using a long-term,
fixed-station network.
The following discussion will focus on five important
points to consider in developing a monitoring system that
will provide a data base suitable for watershed trend
detection, i.e., a long sequence of data, collected sys-
tematically at regular intervals by consistent methods.
UNDERSTAND THE SYSTEM YOU WANT TO
MONITOR
A basic understanding of how the system to be
monitored behaves and what variables are important is
essential. The first step, therefore, is to collect and
evaluate existing background data. A more detailed in-
ventory or reconnaissance may be required to identify
hot spots or critical areas. Some preliminary new data
collection also may be necessary if adequate back-
ground data do not exist. Early development of stage-dis-
charge ratings, for example, should be a top priority at
previously ungauged stream stations.
These early efforts will contribute to one of the most im-
portant elements in designing the monitoring system:
identification and quantification of variability (2,3).
Variance and covariance, seasonality, and autocorrela-
tion are particularly important. Knowledge of the variance
of parameters to be monitored is essential to the deter-
mination of required sampling frequency; identification of
significant covariates may allow elimination of redundant
parameters. Cyclic seasonal patterns, which may
obscure trends, must be accounted for in trend analysis.
Autocorrelation must be assessed for two reasons. First,
most trend detection tests are sensitive to lack of inde-
pendence in time-series data. Second, in systems with
significant autocorrelation, reduced sampling frequency
may yield almost as much information at lower cost,
compared to more frequent sampling.
The primary goal of this preliminary assessment is to
characterize patterns not associated with treatment, e.g.,
natural variability; daily, monthly or seasonal cycles;
hydrologic cycles or changes; and preexisting trends, so
that their effects can be removed in subsequent analysis.
These sources of variability must be understood to detect
the signal amid the noise. Ward and Loftis (2) and Reck-
how and Stow (3) present excellent discussions of these
issues.
DESIGN THE MONITORING SYSTEM TO MEET
OBJECTIVES
Clear objectives for NFS monitoring should translate
easily into testable hypotheses; a specific hypothesis
provides a direct indication of what is necessary to ade-
quately test that hypothesis. In other words, monitor what
and where you expect response to treatment. Each site
or parameter should be tested against this rule.
Monitoring sites should be as close to the impaired use
and/or the treatment area as possible to avoid confound-
ing influences. If measurement of load is important to
project objectives, then streamflow monitoring is neces-
sary and the suitability of a site for flow measurement
adds an additional set of site-selection criteria. If violation
of water-quality standards is an issue, the parameters to
96
-------
be monitored and the site to be selected may be obvious.
In other cases, the impaired use or known source ac-
tivities will provide guidance in parameter selection.
Here, understanding of important covariates should as-
sist in parameter selection and might also improve cost
effectiveness by streamlining the parameter list. Conduc-
tivity, for example, may be a cheaper surrogate analysis
for total dissolved solids.
One monitoring design feature deserves special mention:
the control or reference watershed. Availability of parallel
water-quality data from an adjacent, untreated watershed
is of great value in controlling for the effects of year-to-
year climatic and hydrologic variation. In the LaPlatte
River Watershed Project in Vermont, data from an un-
treated control watershed was used in a paired water-
shed analysis. This analysis revealed significant changes
in posttreatment phosphorus export that were not
detected in a simple time series (4).
Once background variability is assessed, sampling fre-
quencies can be chosen for the level of precision re-
quired by the objectives or the magnitude of change
hypothesized (3). High variability, greater precision, and
smaller changes, of course, require higher sampling fre-
quencies. Some balance must be struck between captur-
ing significant information and the problems of
autocorrelation. Cost will also play a part.
Stream NFS monitoring often requires special considera-
tion of individual storm or snowmelt events. To maintain
the flexibility needed for such intermittent, intensive
monitoring without prohibitive cost, a schedule of routine-
ly collecting discrete samples that can be composited
over base flow periods might be appropriate. Such a
program, however, requires automated sample collection
and close coordination. Given'appropriate instrumenta-
tion and data, flow-proportional sampling may be the
most efficient sampling routine. Gilbert (5) provides a
thorough discussion of many specific monitoring designs.
PAY ATTENTION TO DETAILS AT THE
BEGINNING
Many of the nuts-and-bolts details of long-term monitor-
ing, which seem trivial at the start of a 10-year project,
loom large at the end. Management of large data sets,
for example, is a critical issue that requires more person-
nel and even more time than is initially believed.
Moreover, the people and the technology to manage
large amounts of data will inevitably change over the life
of a long-term project. Data checking and error screening
procedures must be built into a data management
system.
Quality assurance (QA) must be designed into all
aspects of the monitoring, including field operations as
well as the traditional laboratory QA/QC program. Even if
chain-of-custody protocols are not legally required, a
detailed sample tracking system is extremely valuable,
allowing unusual values on a data printout to be tracked
back to the time and place of sample collection. The im-
portance of routine maintenance, frequent field checks,
and detailed record-keeping cannot be overemphasized.
These are especially important in cold, northern climates.
Finally, some practical logistics must be considered. Im-
portant factors include site access, landowner coopera-
tion, availability of power, travel, and scheduling between
lab and field. Such considerations will inevitably temper
statistically ideal monitoring designs with practicality.
Optimum sampling frequency, for example, may differ for
different parameters; some compromise may be
necessary.
Some adjustment of parameter selection may also be
needed. Transient parameters such as dissolved inor-
ganic P and ammonia N, with short holding times for
laboratory analysis, often drive monitoring schedules and
personnel requirements, and thereby monitoring costs.
The question must be asked—are these parameters
worth the effort? In many cases, the answer will be yes,
but perhaps not always. In the LaPlatte River Watershed
Project, for example, results of trend analysis and overall
project conclusions were not substantially different for TP
and PO4-P or for TKN and NHa-N. In hindsight, analysis
for the transient parameters did not add dramatically to
the project results, but probably cost one full-time
equivalent in the laboratory each year for 10 years.
MONITOR SOURCE ACTIVITIES
In watersheds with point sources, it is essential to
monitor such discharges to account for their influence.
Because of their relative consistency, monitoring
schedules for point sources may differ from those
designed for NFS. The variability and vagaries of small,
rural wastewater treatment facilities, however, should not
be underestimated.
More often overlooked in this regard is land use and ac-
tivity monitoring. Generally, simple counting of best
management practices (BMPs) implemented will not be
enough. Land use and agricultural (or other source) ac-
tivity monitoring should be initiated early and information
should be collected at as great a level of detail as pos-
sible. Tracking compliance with BMPs after contract ex-
piration is particularly important.
In two Vermont agricultural NPS monitoring projects, for
example, land-use monitoring was a combined effort of
the land treatment implementation agencies (USDA-SCS
and ASCS) and the water-quality personnel (4,6). Infor-
mation was collected directly from watershed farmers.
The parameters monitored included:
• Animal population (animal units)
• Animal density (animal units/acre)
• Animals under BMP (percent of total)
97
-------
• Land in corn (acres and percent of watershed)
• Land in pasture (acres and percent of watershed)
• Land receiving manure (acres and percent of water-
shed)
• Manure applied (tons)
* Manure from storage (percent of total)
* Manure incorporated (percent of total)
• Erosion control (acres and percent of watershed)
The information collected in this program provided impor-
tant insights into observed water-quality data. Such land-
use monitoring efforts can be complex, time consuming,
and labor intensive. A Geographic Information System
(GIS) is an effective platform for management and
analysis of this kind of spatially referenced data.
BUILD IN FEEDBACK LOOPS
In intensive monitoring efforts, it is easy to focus on the
process and ignore the meaning of the accumulating in-
formation. It is very important, therefore, to build in feed-
back between monitoring data collection and evaluation
of monitoring results. The best way to do this is to look at
the data and look at it frequently. One effective but
sometimes painful way of doing this is to impose regular,
perhaps quarterly, reporting requirements, in addition to
traditional annual reports. Such requirements focusing on
basic data, not detailed analysis or interpretation, force at
least a minimum level of housekeeping so that data are
not lost or garbled.
More importantly, frequent looks at the data provide the
feedback loops that can improve both the monitoring and
implementation programs. Problems with field installa-
tions, sample collection, or laboratory analysis can be
caught before they become fatal. A close look at the data
can improve monitoring efficiency. Some parameters, for
example, might be eliminated if they are adequately rep-
resented by covariates. Station redundancy can be
evaluated by examining correlations between stations.
Monitoring data can be tested against objectives—does
the monitoring program provide the basis for testing the
initial hypotheses and meeting monitoring objectives? If
not, opportunities for a mid-course correction may exist.
Implementation patterns can also be adjusted, based on
water-quality results.
SUMMARY
Proper design of NPS monitoring systems makes trend
detection and data interpretation easier. Understanding
of the system to be monitored, especially quantification
of variability, will facilitate separation of the signal from
the background noise. Clear objectives for the monitoring
program should translate to hypotheses that are testable
using monitoring data. Practical details like data manage-
ment, QA/QC, and logistics should be carefully ad-
dressed at the start. Land treatments, as well as land use
and source activities, should be monitored in order to re-
late changes in water quality to the land treatment
program. Finally, feedback between data collection and
data evaluation should be built into the program to im-
prove monitoring effectiveness and, perhaps, to adjust
implementation patterns to serve water-quality goals.
The LaPlatte River Watershed Project was funded by the
USDA-Soil Conservation Service under the PL-566
program.
REFERENCES
Mosteller, F. and J.W. Tukey, 1977. Data Analysis
and Regression, Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., Reading,
MA.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Ward, R.C. and J.C. Loftis, 1986. Establishing statis-
tical design criteria for water-quality monitoring sys-
tems: Review and Synthesis. Water Resources. Bull.
22(5):759-767.
Reckhow, K. and C. Stow, 1990. Monitoring design
and data analysis for trend detection, Lake and
Reserv. Management. 6(1):49-60.
Meals, D.W., 1990. LaPlatte River Watershed Water
Quality Monitoring and Analysis Program - Year 11,
Program Report No. 12, Comprehensive Final
Report, Vermont Water Resources Research Center,
University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, 345 pp.
Gilbert, R.O., 1987. Statistical Methods for Environ-
mental Pollution Monitoring, 1987. Van Nostrand
Reinhold Co., Inc., New York, NY.
Vermont RCWP Coordinating Committee, 1989.
1989 Summary Report St. Albans Bay Rural Clean
Water Program, Vermont Water Resources Re-
search Center, University of Vermont, Burlington
VT, 257 pp.
98
-------
DEVELOPING A MONITORING SYSTEM FOR RURAL SURFACE WATERS:
INDIVIDUAL BMPS
John C. Clausen
University of Connecticut
College of Agriculture and Natural Resources
Storrs, Connecticut
INTRODUCTION
The previous paper discussed the development of a
water quality monitoring system for evaluating long-term
water quality trends in the data. An alternative objective
for a water quality monitoring study might be to evaluate
water quality improvements associated with individual
best management practices (BMPs). This latter objective
is appropriate when:
1. The water quality problem can be addressed by in-
dividual BMPs
2. Monitoring results are desired in the short-term (3 to
5 years)
3. The watershed receiving the BMP is small and
uniform
Monitoring individual BMPs may be highly appropriate.
There may be some quantitative uncertainty in their ef-
fectiveness of transferring results from other locations.
This paper reviews the steps needed to plan such a
monitoring system, suggests criteria for selecting sites,
discusses several experimental approaches in conduct-
ing the monitoring, and presents cost data. The informa-
tion presented in this paper is based primarily on
experiences obtained through monitoring the St. Albans
Bay Watershed Rural Clean Water Program and the
Laplatte River Watershed PL-566 land treatment
program.
STUDY PLANNING
Similar to the design of this workshop, there are several
steps that should be followed in planning a monitoring
system for an individual BMP (1,2,3). These steps are:
1. Define objectives. The objectives must address the
identified water quality problem. They also must be
useful to the study planners and executers to keep
everyone on track. The monitoring objective should
not be confused with a water quality goal or objec-
tive. An example of a monitoring objective might be:
"determine the effect of a vegetated filter strip on
fecal coliform exports." The associated water quality
goal might be: "reduce fecal coliform concentrations
in Unlucky Bay below 200/100 ml." The objectives
are critical in making sure that the right data are col-
lected from the right sites at the right time.
2. Select water quality parameters. These charac-
teristics of water quality should directly link to the ob-
jectives and are related to the activity being
monitored (e.g., mining, agriculture); the type of
waterbody (e.g., lake, stream); and previous
knowledge (e.g., probability of exceeding standards).
Activity matrices, correlation matrices among charac-
teristics, and probabilities of exceeding standards
are all useful tools in selecting parameters. Fre-
quently, too many parameters are measured. Two
parameters that are highly related to each other,
such as total P and ortho P, can often be reduced to
one. Parameters that are rejated to the public's per-
ception of the problem are highly recommended ad-
ditions. For example, some measurement of algae
productivity would be useful in impaired eutrophic
waters even though the cause of the problem may
be phosphorus.
3. Select sampling method. There are several
methods for sampling surface waters, including:
grab, depth integrated, continuous, and composite
collections. Furthermore, for composite sampling, a
decision is needed on whether to composite on a
time or flow basis.
4. Determine sampling locations. The actual location
to sample depends on the type of water body, the
study design, and characteristics of the station itself.
5. Estimate sampling frequency. Some method
should be used to determine how frequently to
sample. Sampling can be random, systematic, or
flow related. The number of samples to collect
should be based on the variability in the system as
well as the desired precision.
99
-------
6. Describe data analysis strategy. A system should
be established that identifies how data will be
managed and analyzed during and at the end of the
monitoring program.
SITE SELECTION CRITERIA
For monitoring the effectiveness of an individual BMP,
proper site selection is critical. The following is a list of
site-selection criteria that can serve as a basic beginning
point in selecting locations for monitoring:
• Topographically defined "small" watershed(s)
• Homogeneous land cover/use and soils
• Accessible, with power available
• Suitable for monitoring setup
• Land-use history is known
• Water-quality problem is documented
• Located within priority watershed
• Landowner is cooperative and willing to adopt BM P
• Ownership is economically stable
In our experience, the most difficult criteria to fulfill is
finding a small enough watershed, in a single land use,
with good topographic control, and no outside influences.
Also, I would recommend the use of multi-disciplinary,
multi-agency site-selection teams to develop criteria and
final selections.
STUDY DESIGNS
There are several experimental designs that have been
used for evaluating the water quality effect of a change in
activity in small watersheds (1). Four of these designs
are shown in Figure 1. Single watersheds are sometimes
monitored before and after treatment (Figure 1a). This
before period has sometimes been referred to as
"baseline." Differences in water quality due to the BMP
are usually expressed as means for the two time periods,
which are analyzed using the t-test. This is one of the
worst designs to use since differences may be due to
weather and not the BMP. For example, a dry year may
be followed by a wet year, in which case, concentration
reductions would be observed.
Monitoring in a single watershed above-and-below an
area receiving a BMP (Figure 1b) also has been used. If
done only after the BMP has been installed, the differen-
ces between stations may be inherent watershed dif-
ferences and not due to the BMP. This design is not as
susceptible to year-to-year climate differences as the
single watershed design with before and after sampling.
If monitored both before and after BMP implementation,
the design resembles paired watersheds as further dis-
cussed below.
Two watersheds, one with the BMP and one without,
also have been used to evaluate water quality effects
(Figure 1c); however, this method is incorrect since any
differences may be due to the watersheds and not the
BMP. The only conclusion from this two watershed ap-
proach is that the water quality may be different; the
cause cannot be identified, even when differences are
large.
The paired watershed design (Figure 1d) also uses two
watersheds but includes before and after periods (1, 4).
Since no two watersheds are alike, a regression equation
is used to describe the relationship between a control
and treatment watershed prior to the implementation of a
BMP. A second regression is developed following use of
the BMP and the two regressions are tested for differen-
ces in slopes and intercepts. The data used in this
design are paired concentrations, flows, organisms, in-
dices, or mass exports. Data may represent individual
samples or more often, daily, weekly, or monthly com-
posites. The paired watershed technique is considered
the best method for use at the watershed scale.
Two other designs described elsewhere are the nested
and multiple watershed methods (5, 6). These techni-
ques have some advantages over paired watersheds.
For example, the multiple watershed approach utilizes
perhaps 30 watersheds, half in the BMP and half without
it. These watersheds are typically spread over a broad
region and, therefore, represent a broader range of con-
ditions than obtainable with a single paired watershed
study. Multiple watershed sampling, however, also can
be conducted in a relatively short time frame. Nested
watershed designs facilitate separation of inherent water-
shed differences due to, for example, geology.
COSTS
The costs of conducting a paired watershed experiment
in Vermont ranged from $30,000 to $50,000/yr for three
or four years. These costs included personnel, con-
tinuous discharge and water sampling, and the analysis
of approximately six water quality characteristics.
SUMMARY
When developing a monitoring system for evaluating in-
dividual BMPs, a systematic planning approach is highly
recommended. An appropriate study design should be
selected before monitoring commences. Many frequently
used study designs have severe shortcomings for the
evaluation of water quality improvements associated with
BMPs.
REFERENCES
1. Ponce, S.L., 1980. Water Quality Monitoring
Programs, U.S. Forest Service, WSDG-TP-00002.
Fort Collins, CO.
100
-------
B
SINGLE WATERSHED
(Before & After)
ABOVE AND BELOW
D
TWO WATERSHEDS
PAIRED WATERSHEDS
Figure 1. Alternative study designs for evaluating BMP water quality efectiveness. (a) a single watershed sampled
before and after, (b) single watershed sampled above and below, (c) two watersheds in two activities/uses, and (d)
paired watersheds (1).
101
-------
2. Sanders, T.G., Ward, R.C., Loftis, J.C., Steele, T.D., 5.
Adrian, D.D., and Yevjevich, V., 1983. Design of Net-
works for Monitoring Water Quality, Water Resour-
ces Publications, Littleton, CO.
3. Whitfield, P.H., 1988. Goals and data collection 6.
designs for water quality monitoring, Water Resour-
ces Bulletin 24(4):775-780.
4. Clausen, J.C., 1991. Paired Watersheds for NPS
Water Quality Studies, Univ. of Conn, (in prep).
Striffler, W.D., 1965. The selection of experimental
watersheds and methods in disturbed forest areas,
I.A.S.H. Pub. No. 66, Symp. of Budapest, p. 464-.
473.
Clausen, J.C. and Brooks, K.N., 1983. Quality of
runoff from Minnesota peatlands: II, A method for as-
sessing mining impacts, Water Resources Bulletin.
19(5):769-772.
102
-------
MONITORING PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT IN AN URBAN WATERSHED
Thomas E. Mumley
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Oakland, California
INTRODUCTION
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Francisco Bay Region (Regional Board) is the state
water pollution control agency responsible for protection
of the beneficial uses of San Francisco Bay and its
tributaries. Using its authority under both state and
federal law, the Regional Board required the develop-
ment and implementation of a nonpoint source control
program by the municipalities in the Santa Clara water-
shed, which drains into the South Bay segment of San
Francisco Bay. The focus of the program has been the
control of toxic pollutants in urban runoff within this
watershed.
An integral element of the program has been the
development of a comprehensive monitoring program.
The rationale and general design of the monitoring
program resulted from linking precise objectives for
monitoring with key management issues and questions
relating to nonpoint pollutant discharge in the watershed.
Monitoring tasks to fulfill these objectives were then iden-
tified, including an awareness of how these tasks will
provide for more informed management of the nonpoint
source control program. Explicitly linking management is-
sues and monitoring program objectives is vital if
monitoring programs are to generate information useful
to decision makers. Without this linkage, scientifically
valid (and costly) monitoring programs may be estab-
lished that generate new data about pollution but do not
provide relevant information from the management
perspective.
MANAGEMENT QUESTIONS
The discharge of toxic pollutants in urban runoff is con-
sidered an important source of pollution in the South Bay
and its tributary watersheds. To obtain the information
necessary to address this issue, the following working
management questions must be answered:
1. To what degree is nonpoint source discharge con-
tributing to water-quality standards exceedances in
the South Bay watersheds?
2. What are the pollutants of concern in urban runoff
nonpoint source pollution?
3. What are the pollutant loads entering the South Bay
due to nonpoint source discharge to tributary
streams?
4. What are the relative contributions of runoff loads
from various land uses?
5. Are pollutant loads during dry-weather periods im-
portant compared with wet-weather loads?
6. How do nonpoint source loads of pollutants compare
with point source loads?
PROGRAM OBJECTIVES
The next step in the monitoring program design involves
developing monitoring program objectives which, when
achieved, will provide the necessary information to
answer (to the maximum extent possible) these manage-
ment questions. The following objectives were developed
for the Santa Clara program:
• Determine whether water-quality standards (chemi-
cal specific and toxicity) are being attained in South
Bay watersheds
• Obtain sufficient precipitation and hydrology data to
calibrate and verify hydrologic model
• Determine pollution concentrations and loads during
storm events from sites repesentative of various land
use categories (open, single-family residential,
multifamily residential, commercial, and heavy
industry)
• Calibrate and verify watershed (systemwide)
hydrologic pollutant load model and provide nonpoint
source pollutant load estimates
• Evaluate the role of stream bed sediments as both a
source and sink of pollutants associated with non-
point source runoff
103
-------
MONITORING PROGRAM ELEMENTS
To meet the established objectives, specific monitoring
program elements or tasks are identified and imple-
mented, A handicap on any monitoring program is the
limited availability of funds. It is important, therefore, to
(ocus available resources toward obtaining the most rep-
resentative data that will meet program objectives. It is
also appropriate to consider a phased implementation
schedule that relies on initial pilot scale or screening ac-
tivities leading toward more long-term comprehensive
elements to meet program objectives. Additionally, single
monitoring tasks may satisfy, in part, several objectives.
This is an inherent benefit of an effective monitoring plan
with clearly defined objectives. Finally, all elements
should include rigorous sampling and laboratory quality
assurance protocols.
The following monitoring program elements or tasks
were Identified and implemented in the Santa Clara
program:
1, Twelve monitoring stations were selected.
Eight were points in storm drains which drain small,
relatively homogeneous land use catchments.
These stations were assumed to represent runoff
from areas of similar land use categories throughout
the watershed. Water-quality data from these catch-
ments were used as input to the loading model.
Four were in streams located in the lower portions of
the watershed, which received a composite of storm
runoff waters from multiple land use categories.
Stream stations were monitored to provide data to
compare with numerical water quality standards and
to calibrate the loading model.
2. The hydrology monitoring element consisted of con-
tinuously monitoring flows at streams and land use
stations at hourly intervals throughout the duration of
the program in order to estimate the hydrological
component of the load.
3. Wet-weather monitoring consisted of monitoring
water quality at land use and stream stations for
seven storm events. Flow composite samples were
collected using automatic samplers to provide event
mean concentrations. Parameters monitored in-
cluded toxic pollutants (metals, petroleum hydrocar-
bons, pesticides, and herbicides), nutrients, bacteria,
and conventional pollutants (BOD, suspended sedi-
ments, pH, etc.).
4. Dry-weather monitoring was conducted by obtaining
grab samples at the four stream stations quarterly.
The same suite of pollutants as the wet-weather ele-
ment were monitored.
5. Streambed sediment sampling for toxic pollutants
and sediment characteristics (organic carbon, grain
size, etc.) was conducted quarterly at the four stream
stations.
6. A toxicity testing program was designed as an initial
screening of toxicity exerted by wet-weather samples
(three events) obtained from land use and stream
stations and dry-weather samples (three events) at
stream stations. Bioassays were conducting using
three test species: ceriodaphnia dubia (water flea), sur-
vival and reproduction; pimephales promelas (fathead
minnow), survival and growth; and selanastrum
capricornutum (green algae), cell density.
7. The empirical data obtained from the monitoring
program were incorporated into a systemwide
hydrologic and pollutant load model (the Stormwater
Management Model).
MONITORING PROGRAM RESULTS
The initial phase of the Santa Clara monitoring program
was conducted over, a 2-year period. The examples of
monitoring program results (see Table 1) illustrate how
the monitoring program objectives were met and how the
management questions were addressed by implementa-
tion and completion of the monitoring program elements.
Selected trace metals results from stream station
monitoring are presented in Table 1. The site median
concentration for each station is the transform of the log
mean of all data from that station. (The data were repre-
sented by a log-normal distribution.) The presentation of
these data illustrates two points:, 1) concentrations of
these metals at the steam stations are significantly
greater during storm events than during dry-weather
periods; and 2) water-quality standards for these metals
are exceeded at the stream stations during storm events
but not during dry-weather periods.
Selected trace metal results from land-use station
monitoring are presented in Table 2. These data illustrate
several points: 1) there was no significant difference
among site median concentrations from the various
residential and commercial land-use sites; 2) there were
significant differences among the combined residential-
commercial data and the industrial land-use median
concentrations and the open land-use median concentra-
tions; and 3) the open land-use results were comparable
to dry-weather period stream station results.
A time series plot of annual total nonpoint source load for
copper versus Water Year is presented in Figure 1. The
loads are predicted by application of the Stormwater
Management Model using the hydrologic and water
quality monitoring data. Water Years begin on October 1.
The upland 'areas of the Santa Clara watershed contain
several reservoirs. The Wet Weather Reservoir Releases
loads represent the copper loads associated with
releases from these reservoirs during intensive rainfall
periods.
104
-------
so-r
fl 40-
"5
c. soH
•o
2
9- 20-j
10 H
• Diy Weather Row
D Wet Weather Reservoir Releases
Wot WeattMr Runoff
Average Annual Point
Source Load (8000 fcs)
77-78 78-79 79-80 80-81 81-82 82-83 83-84 84-85 85-86 86-87 87-88 88-89
Water Year
Figure 1. Santa Clara monitoring program—time series of annual total nonpoint source load for copper.
Several points are illustrated in this figure: first, dry-
weather flow loads are insignificant compared to wet
weather runoff loads; second, annual wet-weather runoff
loads vary significantly. They are related to the significant
variation in annual precipitation and associated runoff.
For example, precipation during Water Years '82-'83 and
'85-'86 was much greater than the norm, whereas
precipation during Water Years '87-'88 and '88-'89 was
much less than the norm. Third, during 1987 and 1988
the average annual load of copper from the three public
treatment works that discharge to the South Bay was
8,000 pounds. Thus, the total nonpoint source load of
copper is significantly greater some years and sig-
nificantly less other years when compared with the total
point source load of copper.
The above results are representative of the success of
the Santa Clara monitoring program. The main results of
the monitoring program are summarized below:
1. Water-quality loads are directly proportional to
cumulative runoff volume.
2. Concentrations of pollutants at land-use stations are
relatively uniform among runoff events. Higher
values are not observed for the first storm event of
year.
3.
4.
5.
Concentrations of pollutants in streams are higher
during the first storm event compared with later
events.
Water quality was distinctly different for open, com-
mercial/residential, and heavy industry.
Trace metals (cadmium, chromium, copper, lead,
nickel, and zinc) were prevalent during wet weather.
6. Organochlorine pesticides (DDE, DDt, etc.) and
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons were detected at
trace levels (u.g/L) in about 25 percent of wet-
weather samples.
7. Wet-weather runoff is distinctly toxic, both acute and
chronic, to test species.
8. Trace metals (chromium, copper, lead, nickel, and
zinc) in sediments are consistently detected at levels
well above 50 mg/kg.
9. Organochlorine pesticides and polynuclear aromatic
hydrocarbons are commonly detected in sediments.
10. Stream sediments may be acting as a sink (during-
low flow periods) and a source (during high-flow
periods).
105
-------
Table 1. Santa Clara County Trace
Site
Wet Weather
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
Water Quality Standard
Dry Weather
S-1
S-2
S-3
S-4
Table 2. Santa Clara County Trace
Site
Residential/Commercial Land Uses
L-1
L-2
L-3
L-4
L-5
Metals Results — Stream Sites
Copper
47
42
48
33
20
7
3
3
6
Site Median Concentrations (|ig/L)
Lead
39
39
52
'44 ' '" ' ' •
10
1
1
2
1
Nickel
47
32 . • ...-,..;.
65 ; - ,
23
100 ••,•:•'."
2
2
2
2
Metals Results— Land-Use Sites
Copper
35
22
22
33
47
Site Median Concentrations (p.g/L)
Lead
63
47
40
44
49
Nickel
47
15
25
23
27
All Residential Commercial Sites
31
37
25
Industrial Land Use
L-2
49
121
48
Open Land Use
L-7
106
-------
11. Runoff loads are comparable to point source loads.
12. Annual loads are highly variable from year to year.
SUMMARY
The Santa Clara, program provides an instructive ex-
ample of the successful development and implementa-
tion of a monitoring program in an urban watershed. The
key to the program's success is the approach taken to
develop clearly defined monitoring program objectives.
Precise objectives were linked with key management is-
sues and questions relating to nonpoint pollutant dis-
charge in the watershed. This approach allows limited
monitoring resources to be focused on monitoring tasks
designed to fulfill these objectives and consequently ad-
dress the management issues of concern. The success
of the Santa Clara program has enabled managers in the
Santa Clara watershed to design a comprehensive and
cost-effective nonpoint source control program.
Monitoring efforts continue and build upon results ob-
tained to date. The continuing monitoring program is
based upon an annual evaluation of management issues
and monitoring program objectives. This intrinsic linkage
between management issues and monitoring objectives
should ensure continued success of the program.
107
-------
-------
SECTION SEVEN
BUILDING SUCCESSFUL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROGRAMS
-------
BUILDING SUCCESSFUL RURAL STATE-LEVEL TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER
PROGRAMS
Thomas E. Davenport, Wayne P. Anderson, and
James W. Meek
EPA Region 5, Chicago, Illinois;
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul,
Minnesota;
USDA, Washington, DC
INTRODUCTION
The 1987 amendments to the Clean Water Act estab-
lished Section 319 to address nonpoint source pollution.
For many waterbodies, nonpoint source pollution ex-
ceeds that of point source pollution and still needs to be
addressed. Section 319(1) mandates EPA "collect infor-
mation and make available, through publications and
other appropriate means, information pertaining to
management practices and implementation methods,"
thus EPA has a mandate to implement a national tech-
nology transfer program. In accordance with Section
319(b), states have the leadership role in technology
transfer and information/education at the state and local
levels.
Nonpoint source management tools are evolving in
response to the need for clear, useful methods for con-
trolling nonpoint source pollution and prioritizing actions
to reduce or eliminate nonpoint source pollution. These
tools must be distributed at the local level for use, and to
other members of the research community so as not to
waste money through a duplication of effort. This trans-
ferring of ideas and tools will be accomplished through a
two part process of information/education and technology
transfer efforts. The information/education process builds
awareness and acceptability of technology transfer tools
and kteas. The technology transfer process provides the
tool to the end user. For the purpose of this paper, tech-
nology is defined as the branch of knowledge that deals
with applied science.
ERA'S ROLE
In January 1989, EPA released "Nonpoint Sources Agen-
da for the Future: Nonpoint Source Solutions." This
Agenda set forth a National Nonpoint Source Program
aimed at supporting and reinforcing state and local
governments' nonpoint source control efforts developed
in response to Section 319 requirements. The Agenda
outlined five areas for EPA to focus its energy, resour-
ces, and actions on:
• Public awareness
• Successful solutions
• Financial forces and incentives
• Regulatory programs
• Good science
EPA's nonpoint source technology transfer activities are
included in two areas, "successful solutions" and "good
science." Each area has its own focus. For EPA to
achieve its goals in either of these two areas, the "public
awareness" component needs to be successfully imple-
mented. Under "good science," EPA will be developing
tools state and local governments need to establish
sound water quality programs for nonpoint source con-
trol. EPA's Office of Research and Development and in-
dividual program offices have specific areas of
responsibility under this component.
Under successful solutions, EPA will 'Work with the
public and private sectors to package and deliver high-
quality technology transfer and training workshops to
help states and local governments" (1). Rather than un-
dertaking an enormous technology development
program, EPA will direct its energies and resources to
sharing information and experiences with existing and/or
new creative nonpoint source management approaches
developed by others.
STATES' ROLE
Section 319 required states to complete a State Assess-
ment Report describing the state's nonpoint source
problems, and a state management program document-
ing what the state plans to do in the next four years to
address their nonpoint source problems. The manage-
ment program should include information/education and
technology transfer programs, since the statute specifi-
cally mentions technology transfer under Section 319
(b)(2)(B). This legislative mandate establishes the state's
leadership role in nonpoint source technology transfer ef-
110
-------
forts. Through the Management Program development
process, the state should have identified clear agency
roles for the nonpoint source technology transfer
program. For example, in Minnesota the Metropolitan
Council is responsible for conducting technical transfer
activities in the Twin Cities metropolitan area. The Min-
nesota Pollution Control Agency is the lead agency for
nonpoint source control in Minnesota and is responsible
for establishing the framework and funding priorities for
technology transfer activities under Section 319.
TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER PROCESS
The act of disseminating technical material from the
development/modification stage to the local end user is
called the technology transfer process. The technology
transfer process is considered an ideal process. Suc-
cessful technology transfer programs are built upon ag-
gressive and comprehensive information/education
programs which create an awareness of what the
problems are and what can be done to solve them.
Technical products (tools/techniques) are developed in
response to three factors, the first two of which are re-
lated to problem awareness:
• Identified nonpoint source problem
• Concern of agencies and landowners about the
problem
• Inadequate materials to address problem
Recognition of a problem, the need to address the
problem, and the lack of an appropriate tool constitute
the first steps in the technology transfer process. Based
upon this recognition, the appropriate organization
develops an action plan to address the need through the
development/modification of a tool or technique. For ex-
ample, in 1990, the United States Department of Agricul-
ture-Cooperative Extension Service distributed
information/education packets on the National Drinking
Water Week and National Water Quality Initiative to their
county offices. The purpose of these packets was to
develop an awareness of these programs at the county
level . The initial results from the followup surveys indi-
cate awareness of these programs had increased sub-
stantially.
The action plan needs to include the following:
• A development/modification process
• A clearly identified end product (i.e., a tool/technique
with user's guide)
• A product distribution mechanism or implementation
strategy
• An evaluation component
The development/modification process needs to include
field application/demonstrations to verify the end product.
Through the use of cost sharing with individual land-
owner/operators, Section 319 highlights the need for
demonstrations of new technology or approaches. It is
important to note that tools/techniques not properly field
tested or verified, can create greater water quality
problems than they are designed to solve. Untested
tools/techniques may transfer the problem to another
media or water resource type such as ground water.
The development of the Agricultural Nonpoint Source
(AgNPS) model followed this approach. Based upon the
initial acceptance of the AgNPS model, the Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency expanded the model's initial
development group and established a steering commit-
tee of interested agencies to assist in the further
development of the AgNPS Model. The Steering Com-
mittee assisted the initial group in creating a framework
for the long-term development and distribution/transfer of
the AgNPS model. The AgNPS development plan al-
lowed other agencies to target funding for their specific
program needs. The process provided the framework
under which the USDA National Standards and
Specifications for Nutrients and Pesticides were
developed.
Any developed or modified tool or technique needs to be
field tested prior to large scale distribution, and in recog-
nition of the "Hawthorne Effect," the evaluation com-
ponent needs to be targeted at examining the
implementation of the product outside of the develop-
ment setting. The "Hawthorne Effect" describes how in-
dividuals produce at a higher level in response to special
attention. Specifically, the evaluation needs to con-
centrate on the following: whether or not the tool addres-
ses the identified need, whether the tool is being used
properly, and whether there have been problems with its
application.
PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION PROCESS
For each tool being developed or modified, a distribution
plan needs to be developed to effectively transfer the tool
from the development stage to the implementation
phase. Figure 1 shows three mechanisms for transferring
technology to the end user. Each mechanism needs a
specific evaluation component to determine if the end
user is using the tool properly. Any new tool needs a
combination of all three mechanisms to be transferred to
the end user in an effective manner. For tools being
modified, such as the CREAMS model, only two of the
three mechanisms for distribution are needed for the suc-
cessful transfer of technology—workshops (training) and
publications.
Workshops or training walk the end user and trainer
through the application of the tool, while publications ex-
plain the tool and provide documentation of its com-
ponents and its effectiveness. Demonstration projects
are designed to educate individuals on the use of non-
111
-------
PRODUCT DISTRIBUTION
MECHANISM
WORKSHOP/TRAINING
PUBLICATIONS
DEMONSTRATIONS
Figure 1. Distribution plan for transferring technology.
point source best management practices (BMPs) and to
demonstrate their feasibility and utility. They may also be
research projects that document the effectiveness and
applicability of BMPs as nonpoint source management
tools. Demonstration projects have three different phases
as they relate to the technology transfer process:
• Announcement phase. The purpose of this phase is
to detail the concept and purpose of the demonstra-
tion project.
• Progress report phase. The purpose of this phase is
to keep interest in the concept and to document
progress on the issue.
• Results phase. The purpose of this phase is to report
the results of the tool's application.
In order to build support for the concept being
demonstrated, outside the demonstration area as well as
within, it is imperative to keep the public, including re-
lated projects' personnel, informed.
The target audience for technology transfer efforts in-
cludes those who deliver the tool (agencies/private
sector), those who are affected by the tool (land-
owner/operator), and those who support the change
(private sector). The acceptability of the tool to the latter
two groups is affected to varying degrees by the success
of the information/education program in developing
awareness of the problem and the need to do something
about it.
FARMSTEAD ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
CASE STUDY
The University of Wisconsin Extension, working with
farmers, identified a need for a systematic evaluation
process that farmers could use to assess the potential of
their farmstead layout and activities to contaminate
ground water. Recognizing this need, the University of
Wisconsin-Extension and other state and federal agen-
cies initiated the farmstead assessment project. This
project resulted in the development of the Farmstead As-
sessment System, which consists of a series of basic
worksheets that provide information on the factors that
affect ground-water pollution risks and provide guidance
in evaluating farm-specific pollution potential. The
worksheets also provide information on methods to
reduce the contamination potential of the activities or
structures evaluated. In addition, each worksheet iden-
tifies local resource agencies and personnel who can
provide advice on the 'assessment system and assis-
tance in making recommendations concerning possible
changes in farmstead operations. The worksheets repre-
sent the best professional judgment of experts, and
these worksheets were extensively peer reviewed. The
System has received extensive national exposure
112
-------
through various publications, and this has generated in-
terest in the project nationwide.
The evaluation of the applicability and feasibility of the
System consists of a two pronged approach: 1) focus
group discussions and 2) field testing. The focus group
discussions with farmers, county-level staff, and private
sector personnel concentrate on the following areas:
• Clarity and utility of worksheets and the overall Sys-
tem
• Degree of technical support and training required for
technical staff as well as users (farmers)
• Effectiveness of procedures designed to assist
farmers in establishing priorities for minimizing
ground-water contamination
• Effectiveness of the delivery mechanisms
• Potential for behavior modification based on use of
the System
The field testing approach consisted of applying the as-
sessment in four counties and examining the same five
factors as the focus group discussions did. The field test-
ing component has been completed and the results are
being analyzed. Based upon the initial results and the
nationwide interest in the Farmstead Assessment Sys-
tem approach, there is a process underway to transfer
the farmstead assessment system nationwide. For more
information on the development of the Farmstead As-
sessment System, see Jones (2). For information on the
status of the Farmstead Assessment System, please
contact Ms. Sue Jones, University of Wisconsin-Exten-
sion Service, Environmental Resource Center, Agricul-
ture Hall, Room 216, 1450 Linden Drive, Madison, Wl
53706. Her phone number is 608-262-2031.
REFERENCES
1. EPA, 1989. Nonpoint Source Agenda for the Future:
Nonpoint Source Solutions.
2. Jones, S.A. and G.W. Jackson, 1990. Farmstead As-
sessments: a strategy to prevent groundwater pollu-
tion, Journal of Soil and Water Conservation,
March-April, 45 (2).
113
-------
MITIGATING THE ADVERSE IMPACTS OF URBANIZA TION ON STREAMS:
A COMPREHENSIVE STRATEGY FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT
Thomas Schueler
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
Washington, DC
INTRODUCTION
Urban streams are arguably the most extensively
degraded and disturbed aquatic systems in North
America. In general, stream systems tend to reflect the
character of the watershed in which they drain. Given the
massive physical conversion in a watershed that accom-
panies urbanization, the degraded nature of urban
streams is not surprising.
Over the last two decades, substantial evidence has ac-
cumulated regarding the pervasive impacts of urbaniza-
tion on stream hydrology, geomorphology, water quality,
habitat, and ecology (Table 1). In response, local
governments within the rapidly growing Washington
metropolitan area have developed an increasing number
of stringent measures to mitigate the impact of new
development on streams. The effectiveness of these
measures has varied considerably, in large part because
they have not been applied in a coordinated and com-
prehensive manner.
This paper outlines a watershed approach for urban
stream protection that incorporates the most useful and
effective planning and engineering techniques that have
evolved in the Washington metropolitan area. The
stream protection strategy is based on comprehensive
and continuous regulation of the development process
from the master planning stage until it is ultimately
realized.
THE IMPACTS OF URBANIZATION ON
STREAMS
Urbanization has a profound influence on stream quality.
The extent of this influence is obvious when an urban
stream is compared with another in a rural or natural
watershed. Impacts on urban streams can be loosely
grouped into four categories: changes to stream hydrol-
ogy, geomorphology, water quality, and aquatic ecology.
The intensity of the impacts is typically a function of the
intensity of urbanization. A convenient measure of
development intensity is the percentage of watershed
area devoted to impervious surfaces (roads, parking lots,
rooftops, sidewalks, compacted fill, etc.). Operationally,
watershed imperviousness can be simply defined as the
fraction of watershed area that is unvegetated.
Changes in Stream Hydrology
The hydrology of urban streams changes immediately in
response to site clearing. The natural runoff storage
capacity is quickly lost with the removal of the protective
canopy of trees, the grading of natural depressions, and
the elimination of spongy topsoil and wetland areas. As
the soil is further compacted and resurfaced by imper-
vious materials, rainfall can no longer percolate into the
soil and is rapidly and effectively converted into surface
runoff. Thus, the net effect of development is to dramati-
cally change the hydrologic regime of the urban streams
such that:
• The magnitude and frequency of severe flood
events increases. In extremely developed water-
sheds (impervious >50 percent), the postdevelop-
ment peak discharge rate may increase by a factor
of five from the predevelopment rate. These more
severe floods reshape the dimensions of the stream
channel and its associated floodplain.
In addition, watershed development increases the
frequency of bankfull and sub-bankfull flooding
events. Bankfull floods are defined as floods that
completely fill the stream channel to the top of its
banks, but do not spill over into the floodplain.
Schueler (1) estimated that the number of bankfull
floods increases from one every other year (prior to
development) to over five each year (fora 50 percent
impervious watershed). In practical terms, this
means that a short but intense summer thunderstorm
that scarcely raised water levels prior to develop-
ment may turn an urban stream into a raging torrent.
The greater number of bankfull floods subject the
stream channel to continual disturbance by channel
scour and erosion.
• More of the stream's annual flow is delivered as
surface storm runoff rather than baseflow or in-
terflow. In natural undeveloped watersheds,
anywhere from 5 to 15 percent of the annual
streamflow is delivered during storm events, depend-
114
-------
Table 1. Major Stream Impacts Caused by Urbanization
Changes in Urban Stream Hydrology
Increase in Magnitude and Frequency of Severe Floods
Increased Frequency of Erosive Bankfull Floods
Increase in Annual Volume of Surface Runoff
More Rapid Stream Velocities
Decrease in Dry-Weather Baseflow on Stream
Changes in Urban Stream Morphology
Stream Channel Widening and Downcutting
Increased Streambank Erosion
Shifting Bars of Coarse-Grained Sediments
Elimination of Pool/Riffle Structure
Imbedding of Stream Sediments
Stream Relocation/Enclosure or Channelization
Stream Crossings Form Fish Barriers
Changes in Urban Stream Water Quality
Massive Pulse of Sediment During Construction Stage
Increased Washoff of Pollutants
Nutrient Enrichment Leads to Benthic Algal Growth
Bacterial Contamination During Dry and Wet Weather
Increase in Organic Carbon Loads
Higher Levels of Toxics, Trace Metals, and Hydrocarbons
Water Temperature Enhancement
Trash/Debris Jams
Changes in Stream Habitat and Ecology
Shift from External to Internal Stream Production
Reduction in Diversity of Aquatic Insects
Reduction in Diversity and Abundance of Fish
Destruction of Wetlands, Riparian Buffers, and Springs
ing on watershed vegetative cover, soils, and geol-
ogy. By contrast, in developed watersheds, the
majority of annual streamflow occurs as surface
runoff. As a general rule, the amount of storm runoff
increases in direct proportion to the amount of water-
shed imperviousness. For example, surface runoff
typically comprises half the annual streamflow in a
watershed that is 50 percent impervious (1).
Consequently, the amount of baseflow and interflow
available to support streamflow during extended
periods of dry weather is greatly reduced. In smaller
headwater streams, the reduction in dry-weather flow
can cause a perennial stream to become seasonally
dry. In larger urban streams, the reduced dry-
weather flow can significantly restrict the wetted
perimeter of the stream that is available for aquatic
habitat.
• The velocity of flow during storms becomes
more rapid. This is due to the combined effect of
greater discharge, rapid time of concentration, and
smoother hydraulic surfaces. In a 50 percent imper-
vious watershed, postdevelopment runoff velocities
exceed thresholds for erosivity, requiring channel
protection measures or even stream enclosure. In
addition, streamflow becomes extremely flashy, with
sudden and sharp increases in discharge followed by
an equally abrupt return to prestorm discharge
levels.
Changes in Urban Stream Morphology
Stream channels in urban areas must respond and ad-
just to the altered hydrologic regime that accompanies
urbanization. The severity and extent of stream adjust-
ment is a function of the degree of watershed imper-
viousness, and can be summarized as follows:
• The primary adjustment to the increased
stormflow is channel widening, and to a lesser ex-
tent, down-cutting. Stream channels in moderately
developed watersheds may become four times wider
than after development (1). The channel-widening
process is primarily accomplished by lateral cutting
of the streambanks. As a consequence, the riparian
zone adjacent to the channel is severely disturbed by
undercutting, tree-fall, and slumping.
• Sediment loads to the stream increase sharply
due to streambank erosion and upland construc-
tion site runoff. The coarser-grained sediments are
deposited in the new wider channels and may reside
there for years until the stream can export them from
the watershed. Much of the sediment remains in
temporary storage, in the form of constantly shifting
sandbars and silt deposits. The shifting bars often
accelerate the streambank erosion process by
deflecting runoff into sensitive bank areas.
• Together, the massive sediment load and channel
widening produce a major change in the morphology
of urban streams. The series of pools and riffles
so characteristic of natural streams is eliminated,
as the gradient of the stream adjusts to accom-
modate the frequent floods. In addition, the depth of
flow in the channel becomes shallower and more
uniform during dry-weather periods. The loss of pool
and riffle structure in urban streams greatly reduces
the availability and diversity of habitat for the aquatic
community.
• The nature of the streambed is also modified by the
urbanization process. Typically, the grain size of
the channel sediments shifts from coarse-
grained particles towards a mixture of fine- and
coarse-grained particles. This results in a
phenomenon known as imbedding, whereby sand,
silt, and even clay fill up the interstitial voids between
115
-------
larger cobbles and gravels. Imbedding reduces the
circulation of water, organic matter, and oxygen to
the filter-feeding aquatic insects that live among and
under the bed sediments. These insects are the
basic foundation of the stream food chain. In addi-
tion, imbedding of the stream sharply limits the
quality and availability of fish spawning areas, par-
ticularly for trout.
• In intensively urbanized areas, many streams are
totally modified by man to "improve" drainage
and reduce flooding risks. Headwater streams
tend to suffer disproportionately from enclosure.
Quite simply, the headwater stream is entirely
destroyed, and is replaced by an underground net-
work of storm drainpipes. In the past, larger urban
streams have been engineered and channelized to
more efficiently and safely convey floodwaters.
Although large-scale stream channelization is now
discouraged, some form of future channel
"improvement" is inevitable if development is allowed
within the postdevelopment f loodplain.
• Another inevitable consequence of urbanization
is stream crossings by roads and pipelines.
These structures must be heavily armored to
withstand the down-cutting power of stormwater.
Many engineering techniques utilized for this pur-
pose (drop structures, gabion mats, culverts, etc.)
create barriers to the migration of both resident and
anadromous fish. Even a 6 in. drop can block the
upstream movement of many fish species, making
recolonization of upstream areas impossible after a
disturbance event.
Changes in Stream Water Quality
During the initial phase of development, an urban stream
receives a massive pulse of sediment eroded from
upland construction sites. Unless erosion and sediment
controls are used, sediment loads and turbidity levels in-
crease by two to three orders of magnitude from
predevelopment levels. Sediment levels often decline
once upland development stabilizes but never return to
predevelopment levels, because of increased stream-
bank erosion.
Once construction is complete, the dominant pathway of
pollutants to a stream is the washoff of accumulated
deposits from impervious areas during storms (2). Sub-
stantial quantities of nitrogen, phosphorus, carbon,
solids, and trace metals are deposited on urban surfaces
as both dry and wet atmospheric deposition, and are
rapidly and directly conveyed to the stream via storm
drains. Other non-atmospheric sources of pollutant ac-
cumulation are also important, such as pet droppings,
leaf litter, vehicle leakage, and deterioration of urban
surfaces.
In general, the pollutant levels in urban streams are one
to two orders of magnitude greater than those reported in
forested watersheds. The degree of pollutant loading has
been shown to be a direct function of the percentage of
watershed imperviousness (1). In urban streams, the
higher pollutant loadings translate into water-quality
problems, such as:
• Nutrient enrichment. Nitrogen and phosphorus con-
centrations in urban runoff stimulate excessive algal
growth, particularly in shallow, unshaded stream
reaches. Most algal growth is benthie in nature, at-
taching on rocks or growing within the slime coating
that surrounds rock surfaces in urban streams.
• Bacterial contamination. Bacterial levels in urban
streams routinely exceed U.S. Public Health stand-
ards during both wet and dry weather, rendering
them unsuitable for water contact recreation. The
sources of bacterial contamination are complex, but
include the washoff of pet feces and leakage from
sanitary sewer lines.
• Organic matter loads. Loads of organic matter
delivered during storm events are equivalent in
strength to primary wastewater effluent. When the
organic matter eventually settles out in slower
moving lakes and estuaries, the oxygen demand ex-
erted during their decomposition depletes oxygen
from the water column.
• Toxic compounds. A large number of potentially
toxic compounds are routinely detected in urban
stormwater. These include trace metals (lead, zinc,
copper, cadmium, and zinc), pesticides, and
hydrocarbons (derived from oil/grease and gasoline
runoff), among others. While the duration of ex-
posure to these toxic chemicals is limited during
storms, they tend to accumulate in benthal sedi-
ments of urban streams, lakes, and estuaries. Not
much is known about the individual or collective
toxicity of these compounds to the stream com-
munity. However, some degree of impact is likely,
given the consistently poor aquatic diversity noted in
these ecosystems.
• Temperature enhancement. Impervious areas act
as heat collectors. Heat is then imparted to
stormwater runoff as it passes over the impervious-
ness. Recent data indicate that intensive urbaniza-
tion can increase stream water temperatures by as
much as 5 to 10°C during storms (3). A similar
temperature increase may occur during dry weather
periods, if a stream's protective riparian forest
canopy has been eliminated or if ponds and lobes
are created upstream.
The thermal loading severely disrupts aquatic or-
ganisms that have finely tuned temperature limits.
116
-------
Cold-water organisms such as trout and stoneflies
are particularly sensitive, and often become locally
extinct in intensively developed streams.
• Trash/debris. A conspicuous and diagnostic feature
of urban streams is the presence of large debris
jams in the stream and floodplain, composed of litter,
leaves, and trash that have washed through the
storm drain system. The debris jams greatly detract
from the scenic appearance of the stream.
Changes in Stream Habitat and Ecology
The ecology of urban streams is shaped and molded by
the extreme shifts in hydrology, morphology, and water
quality that accompany the development process. The
stresses on the aquatic community of urban streams are
both subtle and profound, and are often manifested in
the following ways:
• Shift from external to internal stream production.
In natural streams, the primary energy source driving
the entire aquatic community is the import and
decomposition of terrestrial detritus, namely leaf litter
and woody debris. However, in many urban streams,
internal benthic algal production becomes a major
energy source supporting the aquatic community,
due to the combined effect of increased light
penetration and nutrients (and the rapid washout of
terrestrial detritus through the stream system). This
shift is often manifested in changes in the-rnix of
species found in the stream community. For ex-
ample, environmental conditions are more favorable
for species that graze algae from rocks (e.g., snails)
than for species that shred leaves or filter coarse-
grained detritus (e.g., caddis flies, stoneflies).
• Reduction in diversity in the stream community.
The cumulative impact of the loss of habitat structure
(pools/riffles), the imbedding of the streambed,
greater flooding frequency, higher water tempera-
tures, extreme turbidity, lower dry-weather flows,
eutrophication, and toxic pollutants conspire to great-
ly reduce the diversity and richness of the urban
stream community. In intensively developed areas,
streams support only a fraction of the fish and mac-
roinvertebrates that exist in natural reference
streams.
• Destruction of freshwater wetlands, riparian buf-
fers, and springs. In the past decade, it has been
necessary to abandon the notion that a stream
ecosystem is defined solely by its channels. It is now
understood that a stream ecosystem extends to in-
clude the extensive freshwater wetlands, floodplains,
riparian buffers, seeps, springs, and ephemeral
channels that are linked to the stream. These areas
contribute, in varying ways, many of the ecological
functions and processes upon which the stream
community depends. Unfortunately, these areas are
frequently destroyed or altered by indiscriminate
clearing and grading during the construction phase
of development.
COMPREHENSIVE URBAN STREAM
PROTECTION STRATEGY
For the past two decades, governments in the
Washington metropolitan area have attempted to deal
with the complex impacts of urban growth on streams by
creating an equally complex series of regulations,
programs, and controls on the urban development
process. The success of these measures in mitigating
the impacts on streams, however, has been less than an-
ticipated. The primary reason has been that individual
measures are developed in response to a single impact
that occurs during a unique phase of the development
cycle. Until recently, little effort has been made to craft a
comprehensive stream protection strategy throughout the
entire development cycle, from development of water-
shed master plans to the ultimate realization of that
development.
What follows is an attempt to outline the elements of an
effective local stream protection strategy that can mini-
mize the impacts of growth on urban streams (see Table
2). It is hoped that this strategy can be further refined
and adjusted to aid local governments in developing ef-
fective programs to maintain stream quality.
The comprehensive stream protection strategy has six
primary components that roughly relate to various stages
of the development cycle. They are:
1. Watershed Master Planning
2. General Development Restrictions
3. Environmental Site-Planning Techniques
4. Sediment and Erosion Control During Construction
5. Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices
6. Community Stream Restoration Programs
Watershed Master Planning
The future quality of an urban stream is fundamentally
determined by the broad land-use decisions made by a
community. It is therefore essential that the impact of
future development on streams be assessed during the
master planning process. The appropriate planning unit
for this assessment is the watershed. The location and
intensity of future development within the watershed
should be carefully examined from the following
perspectives:
• Evaluating stream resources. The first step in the
planning process is to survey the stream resources
within a jurisdiction to obtain basic information on
their use, quality, and value. It is also useful to sur-
vey and delineate floodplains, wetlands, and other
environmentally sensitive areas during this stage.
117
-------
Table 2. Six Elements of a Comprehensive Stream Protection Strategy
1. Watershed Master Planning
Evaluation and Mapping of Stream Resources
Designating Stream Quality Classes
Zoning to Protect Unique and Sensitive Stream Systems
Evaluation of Adequacy of Current
Stream Protection Programs
Regional Stormwater Management Planning
2. Adoption of General Development Restrictions
Variable-width Stream Buffer Requirements
Floodplain Development Restrictions
Steep Slope Restrictions
Nontidal Wetland Protection
Protection of Environmentally Sensitive Areas
Upland and Riparian Tree Cover
Requirements
Waterway Disturbance Permits
Community Open-Space Requirements
3. Environmental Site Planning Techniques
Cluster Development
Transferable Development Rights
Planned Unit Developments
Flexible Road Width Requirements
Fingerprinting of Site Layout
4. Sediment and Erosion Control During Construction
Limit Area and Time of Construction Disturbance
Immediate Vegetative Stabilization of Disturbed Areas
Use of Super-basins for Sediment Control
Frequent Inspection of Erosion and Sediment Controls
Strong Civil Enforcement Authority for Violations
5. Urban Stormwater Best Management Practices
BMP Performance and Maintenance Criteria
First Flush Treatment Requirements
Use of Extended Detention Wet Pond Marsh Systems
Use of Infiltration Systems with Pretreatment
BMP Landscaping, Safety, and Appearance Guidelines
Careful Environmental Review of Urban BMPs
Strong Local BMP Plan Review and Inspection
Public BMP Maintenance Responsibility and Financing
6. Community Stream Restoration Programs
Long-term Stream Trends Monitoring
Watershed Assessment of Restoration Opportunities
Retrofitting of Older Urban BMPs
Construction of New Urban BMPs
Riparian and Upland Reforestation Programs
Instream Fish Habitat Improvements
Urban Wetland Restoration and Creation
Removal of Fish Barriers
Urban Stream Stewardship
• Designating stream quality classes. The next step
Is to rank and prioritize the stream systems within a
locality, based on the stream resource surveys.
Stream use classes are designated to set forth the
appropriate targets for stream quality that will be
maintained during the development process. Unique
areas, such as cold-water trout streams, warmer
water stream fisheries, scenic reaches, and exten-
sive stream/wetland/floodplain complexes should be
targeted for special protection. The upland water-
sheds draining to these unique areas can only be
protected through a combination of low-density
zoning, open space preservation, and stream valley
park acquisition (as well as strict subdivision, sedi-
ment, and Stormwater controls during the low-density
development process). Based on experience in the
Washington area, it is almost impossible to maintain
the quality of these unique systems if upland water-
shed imperviousness exceeds 10 to 15 percent.
* Evaluating the adequacy of stream protection
programs. The watershed master planning stage
provides an excellent opportunity for a community to
critically review the adequacy of its stream protection
measures before development begins. This requires
a thorough analysis of whether the community has
the authority, criteria, review staff, and enforcement
capability to maintain its stream protection programs
in the areas of environmental subdivision review,
construction sediment controls, Stormwater manage-
ment, and stream restoration. If a community is un-
willing to commit the financial and staff resources to
stream-protection programs, watershed master plan-
ning becomes a meaningless exercise.
• Regional Stormwater management planning. An
important component of watershed master planning
is the use of hydrologic and hydraulic simulation
models to project a stream's future hydrologic
regime. Models are a useful (but not sufficient)
means of evaluating the impact of future develop-
ment scenarios on stream quality. The models also
can be used to identify the most effective locations in
the watershed to construct regional Stormwater
118
-------
management facilities, thereby enabling a com-
munity to acquire the sites to construct regional
facilities before development begins.
Development Restrictions
The second phase in a community stream protection
plan is the adoption of a comprehensive and integrated
set of environmental restrictions to govern the develop-
ment process. The greatest level of stream protection is
afforded when a single development ordinance is
adopted by a community and administered by a single
planning authority. In short, the ordinance mandates a
minimum level of environmental site planning during
development and includes, but is not limited to, the fol-
lowing items. Several innovative local regulations from
the Washington metropolitan area are referenced.
• Stream buffer requirement. Development is not al-
lowed within a variable width buffer strip on each
side of ephemeral and perennial stream channels.
The minimum width of the buffer strip is 50 ft for low-
order headwater streams, but expands to as much
as 200 ft in larger streams (4). The stream buffer fur-
ther expands to include floodplains, steep slopes,
wetlands, and open space areas to form a con-
tiguous system, according to prescribed rules.
• Floodplain restrictions. No development is allowed
within the boundaries of the post-development 100-
year floodplain, as designated in the watershed
masterplan. This eliminates the need for future flood
protection measures for these properties, and forms
an essential component of the stream buffer system.
• Steep slope restriction. No clearing and grading is
permitted on slopes in excess of 25 percent (5).
These areas may be tied into the stream buffer sys-
tem, or may exist as isolated open space reserves.
• Nontidal wetland protection. No development is
permitted within nontidal wetland areas and a
perimeter buffer area (25 to 50 ft). In many cases,
the establishment of the stream buffer system will
have already protected these important areas (6).
• Protection of environmentally sensitive areas.
Development is not allowed within unique habitat
areas and plant communities and protective
perimeter buffers, as identified in the watershed
master planning study (7). It is critically important to
provide corridors from upland environmentally sensi-
tive areas to the stream buffer system.
• Upland and riparian tree cover requirements. An
allotted percentage of upland pre-development tree
cover must be maintained after site development (8).
In addition, the riparian tree cover (which should be
entirely contained within the stream buffer system)
must also be retained, or reforested (if no tree cover
currently exists). Where possible, tree-save areas
should be lumped into large blocks tied into the buf-
fer system rather than small and isolated stands.
Numerous studies have confirmed that local wildlife
diversity cannot be maintained in small islands of
trees surrounded by urbanization (9).
• Waterway disturbance permits. Certain forms of
development such as roads and utilities, must, by
their very nature, cross through the stream buffer
system and thereby reduce its effectiveness. Linear
developments must be closely scrutinized to locate
them in the narrowest portions of the buffer system,
and ensure that they do not form barriers to either
fish or riparian migration. In addition, the time "win-
dow" during which the stream and buffer system can
be disturbed by construction activity should be
limited to exclude critical fish spawning seasons.
• Community open-space requirements. Once the
stream buffer system has been delineated, the
developer is still required to preserve an additional
percentage of open space at the site to accom-
modate the residents, future requirements for parks,
playgrounds, ballfields, and other community needs.
If an acceptable amount of commmunity open space
is not reserved for this purpose, it is extremely dif-
ficult to maintain the integrity of the stream buffer in
the future.
Environmental Site Planning at the Site Level
Significant opportunities still remain to protect streams
during the site planning stage. The major objective is to
minimize the total amount of site imperviousness at the
site, and cluster development into centralized areas
where stormwater can be effectively treated. The best
tools at this stage are incentive methods, such as trans-
ferable development rights, cluster zoning, site
"fingerprinting," planned unit development, and flexible
site and road width layout. An excellent review of how
these site-planning methods can be applied to protect
streams is contained in Yaro et al. (10).
Erosion and Sediment Control During Construction
The fourth objective of an effective stream protection
strategy is to reduce the massive pulse of sediment that
inevitably occurs during the construction stage of
development. To accomplish this goal, it is necessary to
both minimize the degree of erosion within the construc-
tion site (erosion control) and to remove sediments borne
in construction site runoff as they leave the site (sedi-
ment control). An excellent design manual of state-of-
the-art erosion and sediment control techniques is the
forthcoming Maryland Standards and Specifications (11).
119
-------
Several strategies have been shown to be very effective
in reducing downstream sediment concentrations during
the construction phase. These include:
• Reduce the area and length of time that a site is
cleared and graded. This reduces the potential for
erosion and can be done by prohibiting clearing and
grading from all postdevelopment buffer zones at the
site, configuring the site plan to retain as much un-
disturbed open space as possible (e.g., cluster
zoning and the environmental site planning techni-
ques noted earlier); and phased construction se-
quencing to limit the amount of disturbed area
exposed at any given time.
• Immediate vegetative stabilization of disturbed
areas. Recent studies in the Washington
metropolitan area indicate that the rapid estab-
lishment of a grass or mulch cover on cleared and
graded areas in construction sites can result in a six-
fold reduction in downstream suspended sediment
levels (12).
• Use of "super" sediment control basins.
Superbasins have wet and dry storage equivalent to
1 in. of sediment per acre of upland watershed area.
If properly designed and maintained, superbasins
can provide reliably high rates of sediment removal
for most of the storms during the year (12). Smaller,
conventionally designed sediment basins and sedi-
ment traps exhibit highly variable sediment removal
rates, and are often overwhelmed during larger
storms.
• Frequent onslte inspection of erosion and sedi-
ment controls. The landscape at a construction site
often changes dramatically from week to week. Con-
sequently, it is critically important that sediment in-
spectors visit the site at least every two weeks to
ensure that the sediment control plan is working and
that all control measures are being properly initiated
and maintained. In particular, inspections should be
concentrated during the latter stages of construction,
when the sediment delivery potential from the site is
at its highest.
• Provide sediment control inspectors with strong
enforcement authority. This authority is needed to
allow inspectors to direct contractors to promptly cor-
rect violations of the sediment control plan in the
field. The best success has been enjoyed in com-
munities where inspectors are empowered to issue
automatic and costly civil fines for sediment control
violations. These strong enforcement tools are criti-
cal in forcing construction contractors to make
erosion and sediment control a part of their daily
operations.
Urban Best Management Practices and
Stormwater Control
The fifth objective of an effective stream protection
strategy is establishing local requirements to install urban
stormwater best management practices (BMPs) to con-
trol postdevelopment stormwater runoff. Urban BMPs try
to replicate the natural, predevelopment hydrologic
regime of a stream by infiltrating, retaining, or detaining
the increased quantity of urban stormwater produced by
development. In addition, urban BMPs may partially
reduce the increased load of pollutants generated from
developed areas.
In recent years, major advances have been made in
urban BMP planning and design. While a thorough dis-
cussion of current urban BMP techniques is outside the
scope of this paper, several reviews are available on the
subject (1,13). In addition, area local governments have
prepared model ordinances to implement effective urban
stormwater programs (14).
Several important points should be kept in mind about
urban BMPs. First, urban BMPs can never fully mitigate
the wide spectrum of hydrologic and water-quality im-
pacts that accompany urbanization. That is, they can
never compensate for poor watershed master planning,
an inadequate stream buffer network, or sloppy site plan-
ning. Second, urban BMPs are a simple technological
solution to a complex problem, and in some cases may
create as many environmental problems as they
eliminate. For example, pond BMPs have been shown to
increase water temperatures and stress cold-water or-
ganisms (3), to be a significant cause of destruction of
freshwater wetlands, and to represent a local interruption
to the stream continuum. Similarly, infiltration BMPs may
increase the risk of ground-water contamination and
have a high rate of failure (13).
Third, urban BMPs are a significant feature of the com-
munity, and can become a locally unwanted land use
(LULU) if careful attention is not paid to concerns such
as landscaping, appearance, safety, stagnation, and
maintenance. Finally, urban BMPs must be maintained if
they are to continue to protect streams in the future.
Communities must recognize, accept, and finance the
maintenance burden of stormwater management.
Stream Restoration Techniques
The final element of an effective stream protection
strategy is a community stream restoration program. The
primary purpose of stream restoration is to enhance the
aquatic habitat and ecological functions of urban streams
that have been lost or degraded during the urbanization
process. In a sense, stream restoration programs are an
attempt to fix the mistakes made during the development
process. The best way to identify these mistakes is to
120
-------
look at the postdevelopment stream from the perspective
of a fish. That is, what are the dominant changes in the
postdevelopment stream that have contributed most to
the decline of a healthy stream community?
• Long-term stream trends monitoring. The first
step is to conduct systematic biological surveys
throughout the stream system every five to ten years
to identify reaches where the aquatic community has
shown the greatest decline. These reaches indicate
that some aspect of the stream protection effort has
failed, and they become the first candidates for
stream restoration.
• Watershed assessment of restoration oppor-
tunities. The second step is to walk the stream and
its upland watershed to determine the dominant im-
pacts that have degraded the aquatic community,
and identify feasible opportunities for restoring
stream habitat or water quality. Stream assessments
are best done on 1 to 10 mi2 sub-watersheds, where
a team of aquatic biologists and engineers can iden-
tify possible restoration opportunities within urban
BMPs, the stream buffer network, and the stream
itself.
• Retrofitting of urban BMPs. The best restoration
opportunities often involve the improvement of exist-
ing urban BMPs. Unfortunately, many urban BMPs
never achieve in the field what was hoped for at the
drafting table. In addition, since urban BMP design is
constantly changing and improving, most older urban
BMPs do not have the pollutant removal capability of
current designs (e.g., the dry stormwater manage-
ment pond).
These older urban BMPs offer great opportunities for
retrofitting at relatively modest investment. Pond
retrofitting has been the primary focus of restoration
efforts in the Washington metropolitan area (15), and
has typically involved converting older dry
stormwater ponds into extended wet pond marsh
systems.
• Construction of additional urban BMPs. In water-
sheds where development has occurred prior to1 the
implementation of a community stream protection
strategy, it is often necessary to retrofit new urban
BMPs into the urban landscape. This is not an easy
task, given the limited amount of space available.
However, surveys have shown that acceptable sites
can be found in a developed watershed, and that
public land agencies will participate in a retrofit
program, particularly if it is demonstrated that the
proposed urban BMPs will improve the, amenity
value on those public lands (5,16). Innovative retrofit
techniques are currently being developed for these
areas, including the peat-sand filter (17), oil grit
separator inlets (18), and extended detention
lake/wetland systems (19).
• Riparian reforestation programs. A common
problem encountered in urban streams is that the
riparian stream buffer zone has been cleared. For-
tunately, the buffer zone can be gradually reforested
within a matter of years, through cooperative com-
munity tree-planting programs at a relatively low
cost. These volunteer programs have become ex-
tremely popular in the Washington area, and are
most effective when local governments arrange the
logistics, assemble the sites, and secure the plant
stock according to a long-term watershed plan.
• Upland reforestation programs. A useful method
for reducing the adverse impact of watershed imper-
viousness on urban streams is to reforest upland
areas. Quite simply, impervious areas are converted
into pervious, forested areas. Again, a community
reforestation program, that utilizes native tree
species and citizen volunteers, is a useful tool.
These programs have the additional benefits of in-
creasing citizen awareness about environmental
stewardship and improving the appearance of the
urban landscape.
• Instream fish habitat improvement. From the
perspective of a fish, the dominant impact associated
with urbanization is probably the degradation of
stream habitat structure, most notably the loss of
pools, riffles, and clean spawning areas. These
habitat features can be re-created within urban
streams by adapting habitat improvement techniques
developed by stream biologists to increase fish
production in more natural stream systems. These
techniques include the use of boulder and log deflec-
tors, log drop structures, brush bundles, willow wat-
tles, boulder placement, and imbricated rip-rap.
These stream restoration techniques are being ap-
plied in several highly degraded stream reaches of
the urbanized Anacostia watershed to test the
hypothesis that an improvement in stream habitat
can improve local fish diversity and abundance in
urban streams (3).
• Urban wetland creation/restoration. Despite recent
regulatory protections, it is likely that most water-
sheds have lost, and will continue to lose, large
areas of freshwater and tidal wetlands to the
development process. This is because urban
stormwater runoff exerts the same series of per-
vasive and adverse impacts to urban wetlands as it
does to urban streams. It is therefore critical to ac-
tively restore and manage urban wetlands, rather
then merely conserve them. Otherwise, the ecologi-
cal value and functions of urban wetlands will
gradually diminish over time. It is equally critical to
create new urban stormwater wetland areas that par-
tially substitute for the lost ecological functions of the
destroyed or degraded wetland system.
121
-------
A series of urban wetland restoration and creation
projects are currently being performed in the
Anacostia River basin (20). At present, the goal of
these programs is to augment the total acreage and
environmental function of urban wetlands at the
scale of the sub-watershed.
* Identification and removal of fish barriers. The
urban stream network should be periodically sur-
veyed to detect possible barriers to anadromous and
resident fish migration. Fish barriers can be detected
through systematic upstream/downstream fish col-
lections at suspected structures during spring runs
(21), or in some cases, by visual surveys. In many
cases, urban fish barriers are created by relatively
low-drop structures that can be rather easily modified
to allow migration. In the Anacostia, simple and low-
cost modifications to two-drop structures are planned
that are expected to open up several miles of spawn-
ing habitat to anadromous fish (22).
• Stream stewardship. The foundation of effective
community stream restoration programs are citizens
who take an active and personal interest in maintain-
ing urban stream quality. Local governments should
recognize these individuals, and encourage them to
adopt a stream and participate in streamwalks, tree-
plantings, and other volunteer programs. These
urban stream stewards can also be of great value in
reporting oil spills, sediment control violations, pollu-
tion problems, and sewer overflows. Most of all,
stewards can act as effective advocates for urban
streams.
SUMMARY
Protecting urban streams from development is obviously
a difficult task. The six-step strategy outlined in this
paper requires an extensive commitment of knowledge,
resources, and staff on the part of a community. To be
successful, a community must be willing to place the
protection of urban streams on a par with economic
growth and the creation of urban infrastructure. If these
conditions can be met, it is possible to mitigate the im-
pact of development, and to maintain a quality stream
system for the future generations that will live and work
within them.
REFERENCES
1, Schueler, Thomas R., 1987. Controlling Urban
Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Design-
ing Urban Best Management Practices, Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments.
2. Montgomery County Planning Board, 1983.
Guidelines for the Protection of Slopes and Stream
Valleys, Environmental Planning Division, Maryland
National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Sil-
ver Spring, MD.
3. Galli, F. John, 1990. A Study of Thermal Impacts As-
sociated with Urbanization and Stormwater Manage-
ment. Final Report. Prepared for Maryland
Department of the Environment, Dept. of Environ-
mental Programs, Baltimore, MD.
4. Baltimore County Department of Environmental
Protection and Resource Management, 1989.
Regulations for the Protection of Water Quality,
Streams, Wetlands and Floodplains. Towson, MD.
5. Galli, F. John and Lorraine Herson, 1989. Prince
George's County Stormwater Retrofit Inventory,
prepared for the Prince George's County Dept. of
Environmental Resources by the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments.
6. Maryland Department of Natural Resources, 1989.
Draft, Non-tidal Wetland Protection Regulations,
Non-Tidal Wetlands Division, Annapolis, MD.
7. Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commis-
sion, 1986. Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Criteria for
Local Critical Area Program Development, Maryland
Registered Code (COMAR) Title 14, Subtitle 15. An-
napolis, MD.
8. Prince George's County Department of Environmen-
tal Resources, 1989. Tree Cover Ordinance and
Handbook, County Administration Bldg. Upper
Marlboro, MD.
9. Hench, J.E., K. Van Ness, and R. Gibbs, 1987.
Development of a Natural Resources Plan and
Management Process, p. 29-25, in L.W. Adams and
D.L. Leedy, (eds.). Integrating Man and Nature in the
Metropolitan Environment, Proceedings of a National
Symposium on Urban Wildlife. Chevy Chase, MD.
4-7, November, 1986.
10. Yaro, R.D., R.G. Arendt, H.L. Dodson, and E.A.
Brabec, 1988. Dealing with Change in the Connec-
ticut River Valley: A Design Manual for Conservation
and Development. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
11. Maryland Department of the Environment, 1990.
Revised Standards and Specifications for Erosion
and Sediment Control. Sediment and Stormwater
Administration, Baltimore, MD.
122
-------
12. Schueler, Thomas R. and Jonathan Lugbill, 1989.
Performance of Current Sediment Control Measures
at Maryland Construction Sites, prepared for the
Maryland Dept. of Environment by the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments. 90 p.
13. Maryland Department of the Environment, 1983.
Standards and Specs for Infiltration Practices. Sedi-
ment and Stormwater Administration, Baltimore, MD.
14. Montgomery County Department of Environmental
Protection, 1985. Stormwater Management Regula-
tions 93-84 (and subsequent amendments), Rock-
ville, MD.
15. Herson, Lorraine, 1989. The State of the Anacostia:
1988 Status Report, Metropolitan Washington Coun-
cil of Governments, Washington, DC.
16. Galli, F. John and Lorraine Herson, 1988.
Montgomery County Stormwater Retrofit Inventory,
prepared for the Montgomery County Dept. of
Environmental Protection by the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments.
17. Galli, F. John, 1989. Peat Sand Filters: A proposed
Stormwater management practice for urbanized
areas. Department of Environmental Programs,
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments.
18. Shepp, 1989.
19. Schueler, Thomas R. and M. Helfrich, 1988. Design
of Extended Detention Wet Pond Systems, in Design
of Urban Runoff Controls. L. Roessner and B. Ur-
bonas (eds.), American Society of Civil Engineers.
20. Kumble, Peter, 1990. The State of the Anacostia:
1989 Status Report, Metropolitan Washington Coun-
cil of Governments.
21. Cummins, James, 1989. Maryland Anacostia Basin
Fisheries Study. Phase II. Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, MD.
22. Cummins, James, 1988. Maryland Anacostia Basin
Fisheries Study. Phase I. Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, MD.
123
-------
-------
SECTION EIGHT
PLANNING AND IMPLEMENTING AN EFFECTIVE
INFORMA TION/EDUCA TION PROGRAM
-------
EFFECTIVE INFORMATION AND EDUCATION PROGRAMMING—
A RURAL PERSPECTIVE
Bud Stolzenburg
University of Nebraska
Lincoln, Nebraska
INTRODUCTION
An effective information and education (I&E) program is
a key component in watershed projects concerned with
nonpoint source pollution. Whether the project is re-
search or demonstration oriented, information is either
available or being generated, and must be communi-
cated to the appropriate audiences. This communication
of information is the education component of I&E. If
education is to occur then there must be 1) a selection of
appropriate information, 2) suitable methods for com-
municating that information, and 3) a response from the
audience.
This paper provides assistance in planning and im-
plementing an effective I&E program, particularly in a
rural watershed program. It is generic in nature with the
intent of being suitable in a variety of situations. Any I&E
program will, of course, need to be adapted and fitted to
the particular location, need, and audience.
PREPROJECT PLANNING
The I&E program needs to be included in the early, plan-
ning stages of the watershed project. The following items
should be considered in preproject planning:
1. Historical Resources. We have learned a great
deal from watershed projects already completed.
Search out reports and materials that have been
written about other projects. Much information has
been generated and many lessons learned already.
Find and contact people who have worked with these
projects. There is no need to re-invent the wheel.
2. Budget Considerations. I&E should be a budget
item. You should include staff salary and support, as
well as program development and support.
3. Staff/Agency. Staff and/or staff time needs to be al-
lotted for I&E. This can be done by assigning primary
responsibility to a particular agency or portions of the
responsibility to different agencies. In a total program
all participants will have I&E roles, but overall coor-
dination should be assigned to one agency.
4. Program Responsibility. The overall responsibility
for I&E should be clearly defined and assigned, just
as technical assistance and fiscal management.
5. Plan of Action/Calendar/Time Line. Develop a
chronological plan of action. Your plan can have
flexibility to respond to mitigating circumstances, but
it needs to be outlined and have a logical sequence.
6. Local/State/Federal Coordination. It is important to
establish a communication system that shares infor-
mation at all levels of the project. An effective team
at all levels is needed to assess the project and
respond to needs and concerns.
PROJECT ACTIVITIES
As you make planning decisions, both preproject and on-
going, you need to include those activities that will con-
tribute to the success of the project. The following
discussion suggests some activities and ideas you may
want to consider.
A good local leadership group can be a real asset to your
project. This group may include agency representatives,
appropriate local organizations, lending institutions,
producers, related businesses, and government officials.
The membership of the group will be determined by the
project and the local environment. This is the group of
people that needs to know what is going on with the
project. They help to identify needs, propose and evaluate
solutions, and provide "local ownership" of the project.
Keep the public informed through various media that are
available to you—newspapers, newsletters, radio,
television, etc. A regular newsletter to those producers
and people associated with the project is also an effec-
tive information tool. Community activities such as county
fairs, special water festivals, and agriculture days provide
another opportunity to profile your activities. Videotapes
have been used to highlight project efforts. Youth
programs such as Future Farmers of America, Boy and
Girl Scouts, and 4-H are other ways to increase visibility.
One of the keys to success is one-on-one contact with
the producer. This one-on-one relationship should be
126
-------
one of respect and confidence. This process takes time
and a lot of effort, but it produces results.
As you work with producers you need training and infor-
mation meetings to assist them in incorporating new
and/or different ideas and practices into their manage-
ment scheme. Informal "coffee-cup" sessions with small
groups have worked well and provide good opportunities
for discussion.
Demonstrations are one of the most important keys to
success. They can be set up and organized in a variety
of ways. The important point is that they take an idea
from paper to practice. They can be the focus for field
trips and field days. They provide excellent material for
the news media. Demonstrations don't just tell how a
practice works, they show how it works. The learning
process is enhanced with visual and sensory com-
ponents.
Also, be aware of the "expansion effect." An idea or
practice that is developed and accepted in a project has
the potential to spread to the surrounding area. If a
problem is recognized as legitimate and valid, others will
work towards the solution.
Monitoring and evaluation are important parts of any
project. They can be incorporated into the I&E program
or they can be handled independently. But they need to
be included from the inception of the project.
Finally, the I&E component should continue for the dura-
tion of the project, from preproject planning to final
evaluation. It is needed early on to publicize and explain,
it is needed throughout to support and nurture, and it is
needed at the conclusion to summarize, evaluate, and
share the results.
127
-------
THE DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION OF AN URBAN NONPOINT
POLLUTION EDUCA TION/INFORMA TION PROGRAM
Richard Badics
Huron River Pollution Abatement Project
Washtenaw County Health Bureau
Ann Arbor, Michigan
OVERVIEW OF THE HURON RIVER POLLUTION
ABATEMENT PROJECT
The Huron River Pollution Abatement Project (HRPAP)
was formed in 1986 by the Washtenaw County Drain
Board. The project was modeled after successful pilot
projects in the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti. These
innovative pilot projects discovered that 17 percent of the
660 buildings dye-tested from 1982 through 1986 had il-
licit storm drain connections.
The HRPAP was given the responsibility of locating and
eliminating sources of nonpoint pollution to the Huron
River. The methodology includes sampling the river and
storm drain outfalls and laterals, surveying and dye-test-
ing buildings to locate and eliminate improper discharges
to the storm drains, responding to pollution complaints
and emergency release incidents, and education.
The funding is entirely generated through annual assess-
ments on properties within the district. The total for the 6
year project is over $1.7 million including investments.
The assessments are made through the Michigan Drain
Code, P.A. 40 of 1956, as amended, and range from an
annual fee of $4.50 per year for homes to $200.00 per
year for large commercial parcels.
The HRPAP district is 32,633 acres of the urbanized core
of Washtenaw County located in southeast Michigan. It
includes the cities of Ann Arbor and Ypsilanti as well as
portions of Ann Arbor, Pittsfield, Scio, Superior, and Yp-
silanti Townships. To date, 15 percent of the over 2,200
buildings dye-tested have had improper storm drain con-
nections.
The HRPAP is considered a national model for
demonstrating that local governments can abate non-
point pollution. The HRPAP was cited in the Federal
Registry in December 1988 and November 1990, used
as a model program (i.e., Wayne County, Michigan), and
the project was a part of Michigan's Urban Nonpoint Pol-
lution Committee. The HRPAP won the Michigan State
Health Department's Director's Award in 1988, the 1990
Michigan Department of Natural Resources Environmen-
tal Excellence Award, and received a Letter of Recogni-
tion from the United States Department of Health,
Education, and Welfare in 1991.
PLANNING FOR NONPOINT POLLUTION
EDUCATION
The development and implementation of a nonpoint pol-
lution education and information program is critical to
having a successful urban nonpoint pollution project. The
reason is twofold. First, public awareness of urban non-
point pollution is low. The public is inundated daily with a
barrage of potential risks by the press ranging from the
threat of war, crime, and youth violence to recession,
drugs, and the threat of AIDS. In the environmental field,
the news is of radon, toxic waste, recycling, air pollution,
and contaminated ground water—not urban nonpoint pol-
lution. Therefore, the publicizing of urban nonpoint pollu-
tion to the community is an important first step in gaining
public support.
Second, the education and information program is impor-
tant to having a successful urban nonpoint project be-
cause most of the urban nonpoint pollution can be
directly attributed to people. This is true even of the col-
lection systems that were designed mainly for water
quantity not quality. However, newer and customary
sources of urban nonpoint contamination such as air-
borne contaminants and erosion need to be included in
the public's awareness. It is the actions of people at both
home and work that affect the type and amount of non-
point pollution from their community. Simple changes in
individual activities can have dramatic results. A study by
the Michigan Department of Natural Resources in 1989
found that more oil is illegally released into the environ-
ment in Michigan annually than was released in the Val-
dez, Alaska, incident. Getting the community to buy into
the idea that they are a "major part" of the problem is an
important first step in gathering their support and
cooperation.
The first step in developing a successful urban nonpoint
education and information program is to define your tar-
get audience. A specific program tailored for each
audience is required to address their particular wants
128
-------
and needs. An education program that is too general will
not provide this and will not be as successful. The one
goal that must always be remembered is to provide un-
derstandable and useful information. The better you un-
derstand your target audience (education, background,
industry type) the better your education program will be.
The second step in developing a successful urban non-
point education and information program is to define the
types of media to use in your programs. A multi-media
approach will increase the chances of reaching all com-
munity segments. Different approaches work more effec-
tively with various groups. For example, pamphlets will
not reach the segment of the community that cannot
read. Some of the more beneficial methods to use in-
clude:
1. Fact sheets
2. Pamphlets
3. Radio/television
4. Newspaper/magazines
5. Displays/models/posters
6. Group presentations/one-on-one community events
The education and information component must be a key
element in any urban nonpoint pollution program. To be
successful the community must "buy into" their contribu-
tion to nonpoint pollution and their ability to abate it. The
education and information program must be innovative
and well conceived to reach all segments of the com-
munity. A nonpoint education and information program
designed for a homeowner will not necessarily address
the needs and problems of industry. Each program
should be tailored to best reach its audience.
HRPAP EDUCATION AND INFORMATION
PROGRAM
Overview
The education and information program during the earlier
pilot water quality projects in the cities of Ann Arbor and
Ypsilanti from 1982 through 1986 evolved as needs
arose. The first need was the need for funds to conduct
the project. This required the education of the two cities
and the county as to the benefits of starting and later
continuing a local nonpoint pollution program. Since the
survey and dye-test program was voluntary, each in-
dividual or organization contacted needed to be edu-
cated on nonpoint pollution in order for our staff to gain
entrance.
When the HRPAP was formed, education was a key ele-
ment in the methodology. The education program was
designed after reviewing the pilot water quality programs
and analyzing the community. Some of the items that
were noted during this phase included that the com-
munity was mainly urban, well educated, generally sup-
portive of environmental issues, had many industrial
shops, and had numerous organized and influential civic
and professional groups.
Based on this analysis, the education and information
program was developed with three main components.
The first was the business and industry component, the
second was the community and civic groups component,
and the third was the classroom or school component.
HRPAP BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY
EDUCATION AND INFORMATION PROGRAM
The HRPAP enters facilities without regulatory powers.
The business and industry education and information
program is fundamental to gaining entrance for conduct-
ing the HRPAP survey and dye-test program. The educa-
tion and information program is designed to be a service
the HRPAP provides to the business, industry, and in-
stitutional community as well. The institutional community
includes local government facilities such as utility depart-
ment yards and the local colleges and universities.
When first entering facilities, owners and managers are
interviewed. In addition to providing information on the
HRPAP, staff provide information and contacts that may
assist their particular situation. An example would be ex-
plaining to a company the need for registering their un-
derground storage tanks or pointing out that poor
chemical storage practices may lead to future expensive
cleanup costs. Many facilities have reduced their chemi-
cal inventories after the HRPAP education and informa-
tion program, thereby saving thousands of dollars.
When a need is discovered during the interview process,
the HRPAP staff provide assistance. For example, a
number of facilities encountered had oil separators.
Many of the facility operators had no knowledge concern-
ing oil separator maintenance. The facility operators that
tried to maintain their oil separators could not find a
licensed waste hauler that would service them. The
HRPAP staff developed a short letter describing the
maintenance procedures for oil separators and a list of
licensed waste haulers operating in the area that would
service them. This information was distributed to all
facilities with oil separators.
HRPAP COMMUNITY AND CIVIC GROUP
EDUCATION AND INFORMATION PROGRAM
The HRPAP began in 1987 with four educational presen-
tations to the community. In 1989, the staff conducted 40
presentations for an increase of 1,000 percent. The first
groups targeted for education and information programs
were local civic groups. These programs allowed contact
with business owners and managers who were later in-
spected by the HRPAP and served as a forum for discus-
sions of common environmental issues faced in the
community. The HRPAP staff provided information on
nonpoint pollution abatement, new environmental regula-
129
-------
lions, problems discovered in the community based on
facility type, and distributed informational packets
generated by the HRPAP staff.
Informational posters, pamphlets, and two pollution dis-
play models were developed by HRPAP staff for use at
community gatherings. The posters and the models at-
tract people for one-on-one discussions to increase their
awareness of the many types of pollution and more im-
portantly to provide them with sensible practices they can
use at home and at work to abate nonpoint pollution.
The HRPAP uses the media for educating the com-
munity. The HRPAP staff early on developed a working
relationship with the local press. Feature articles con-
cerning the HRPAP were published including follow-up
stories. Press releases were made when significant
events occurred, such as winning an award or securing a
federal grant to do a study. The HRPAP staff also have
been interviewed on local radio talk shows and have ap-
peared on public access television. The project staff
have had articles published in professional magazines.
HRPAP SCHOOL EDUCATION AND
INFORMATION PROGRAM
The HRPAP school education and information program
is one of the most important and exciting programs. The
HRPAP made its first school education presentation to a
third grade class in 1988. Word of the presentation
spread to other teachers in the school system. This lead
to more presentations and the discovery of the need to
have a devised lesson plan for school education
programs.
HRPAP student interns with an education background
began to formulate lesson plans for various grade levels
on nonpoint pollution and issues such as the water cycle.
HRPAP staff later attended workshops for school
teachers to better define and target the programs.
Announcements are now annually sent out to the schools
within the HRPAP district. In October 1990, over 10
classroom presentations were made. The grade levels
now involved with the program range from third grade
through the twelfth grade.
The information gathered from teacher's surveys state
that the education program is particularly well received
by the lower elementary grades. These students discuss
the program throughout the year. One reason for this
success could be the use of hands-on models. One
model is electronic and is entitled "Pathways of Pollu-
tion." This model lights up various pollution pathways
when the appropriate button is pushed. The second
model is a transparent representation of a town showing
the sanitary and storm sewer systems. The students can
place a dye into catch basins, floor drains, and toilets
and observe the route the water takes to either the
stream or the treatment plant. The model has both
proper and improper examples.
Educational presentations have also been made at the
local universities for both the undergraduate and
graduate levels. These presentations include a more
technical presentation on nonpoint pollution and other
environmental programs. This overview allowed the stu-
dents to see a practical application of classroom instruc-
tion. A large number of the student interns used on this
project were hired after these college programs.
SUMMARY
The majority of urban nonpoint pollution can be directly
attributed to the activities of people. Most people are not
aware of the impact their routine activities at home and
work have on water quality. For these reasons, education
and information must be a major component in any urban
nonpoint pollution program.
Before developing an education and information
program, an analysis of target groups within the com-
munity must be made. Only after assessing the impact
and needs of these groups can effective programs be
designed.
When implementing an urban nonpoint pollution educa-
tion and information program, a multi-media approach
will increase the chances of reaching all segments of the
community. To be effective with the general community,
the program needs to educate and inform the public of
practical things they can do. For business and industry,
tailor the program to their specific situation and relate
how these changes can save money now or in the future.
School programs have greater impact when a hands-on
segment is included.
The community must be provided with information that
will sustain their awareness and respect for the inter-
dependence of all elements in the ecosystem. This will
lead to a sense of responsibility and commitment to en-
vironmentally appropriate actions over the long term.
130
-------
EXPERIENCES FROM PUGET SOUND
Nancy Richardson Hansen
City of Bellevue Storm and Surface Water Utility
Bellevue, Washington
INTRODUCTION
Those of us who work in the arena of nonpoint pollution
know that it is a topic unfamiliar to the general public. We
also know that, more than any other type of water pollu-
tion, effective nonpoint pollution control requires an in-
formed and supportive citizenry. Solutions involve
decisions and actions on behalf of everyone; they are not
easily relegated to agencies or technology.
This paper is drawn primarily from the experience of
several local governments working to educate and in-
volve a variety of audiences in nonpoint pollution control.
These governments were involved in developing water-
shed action plans in accordance with the nonpoint pollu-
tion program in the Puget Sound Water Quality
Management Plan*.
Two important points about education and public involve-
ment should be made at the outset. First, education and
public involvement are too often viewed as luxuries that
can only be carried out if staff time and budget permit, or
they are conducted to merely meet the requirements of
law. Rather than an adjunct to the planning process,
education and public involvement are essential com-
ponents and often key to the success of the plan.
Second, education and public involvement should not
just be used during the nonpoint planning process. They
are also important implementation tools. A well-planned
education program may be a far better approach for
reaching a particular audience than regulation.
PLANNING AN EFFECTIVE
INFORMATION/EDUCATION PROGRAM
There are three important questions to answer in plan-
ning an effective information/education (I/E) program:
• Who is your audience?
• What is your message?
• How will you communicate it?
These three questions should be asked for each
audience. An effective I/E program has several different
audiences, and information needs to be tailored to each
one.
Audience: Who Needs to Be Involved?
A common mistake in designing an I/E program is to as-
sume that there is only one audience. To be effective, an
education program needs to identify and target a number
of different audiences. For example, a member of an ad-
visory committee will need a different level of information
than a member of the general public attending a meeting.
Among the important audiences to consider are:
• Your "friends"—people who are supportive of the
nonpoint planning effort. Local environmentalists,
concerned citizens, Indian tribes, groups that stand
to benefit (e.g., oyster growers). These audiences
are basically on board, and their involvement needs
to be used in support of the planning process.
• "Affected parties"—individuals or groups who may
be contributing to nonpoint problems but who also
have a potentially important role in solutions. Com-
mon examples include farmers, developers, boaters,
and foresters. They usually need to be convinced
that there is a problem before they can be educated
as to their role in solutions.
• Local elected officials—key decision makers and
opinion leaders who have an influential role in allow-
ing a watershed planning effort to be accepted and
implemented. They are usually most interested in the
political and financial implications of the nonpoint
planning process.
"The Puget Sound plan was prepared by the Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, a state agency established in 1985 and directed
to develop a comprehensive water-quality management plan for Puget Sound. The Authority has jurisdiction in the 12-county Puget
Sound area. The Puget Sound plan contained a major new initiative addressing nonpoint pollution. Local governments were asked
to develop plans for controlling nonpoint pollution in priority watersheds. The plans are developed by a committee representative of
the local governments and other interests in the watershed.
131
-------
• Government agencies—officials and technical staff
from a wide range of local, state, and federal agen-
cies. Agencies can provide both technical and politi-
cal support to nonpoint planning efforts. Some
agencies, such as the transportation department or
forest management agency, may be contributors to
nonpoint pollution. Important agencies to consider in-
clude city and county government (such as planning,
public works, or health), special purpose districts
(such as drainage, ports, or sewer), state agencies
(such as fisheries, transportation, recreation, or
agriculture), and federal agencies (such as the U.S.
Soil Conservation Service, Forest Service, or EPA).
• The "general public"—that amorphous group that is
typically the target of any public involvement effort.
Each of these audiences is reached through different
channels. For example, local officials are usually best ap-
proached directly. Reaching the general public, however,
involves working through the media, public meetings, or
other large-scale formats. Groups of friends and affected
parties are often easily reached by working through or-
ganized groups and associations. However, it is also im-
portant to cultivate contacts with key individual members
of these groups.
Each nonpoint planning effort will have its own mix of
audiences, depending on the location and the nonpoint
issues of concern. The important question to ask when
identifying audiences as part of any nonpoint planning ef-
fort is, Who needs to be involved in order for this effort to
be effective? As many planners know, leaving an impor-
tant constituency out of the planning process can often
result in a prolonged and wasted effort.
Message: What Do They Need to Know?
As indicated by the variety of audiences listed above,
each audience may require a different message. Ex-
perience in Puget Sound shows that there are two
general types of information that people need to know.
First, they need to understand some basic concepts
about nonpoint pollution: What is it? How does it affect
me? What can be done about it? Second, they need to
understand the planning process: What am I being asked
to do? What is Section 319? How will the process work?
Concepts
For each audience, it is important to develop a clear un-
derstanding of nonpoint pollution and related concepts.
Some key concepts include:
• Watershed—This concept provides a geographic
framework 'for dealing with nonpoint pollution.
Everyone lives in a watershed. An understanding of
the watershed concept can also help explain other
related concepts, such as wetlands and ground water,
and places in the watershed where water is stored.
• Water cycle—This concept illustrates the relationship
between precipitation, surface water, groundwater,
and vegetation in the watershed. It explains, for ex-
ample, why underground piping of storm water tends
to remove water from the system, while use of
natural features for storm water control keeps water
in the watershed.
• Beneficial use—This concept is commonly used
when dealing with water-quality protection. In a
watershed, it usually relates to a water-quality goal to
be achieved or a level of water quality to be
protected. Uses that are considered beneficial in-
clude: fish consumption, shellfish harvesting, aquatic
life protection, swimming, provision of drinking water,
and irrigation.
• Source control—Efforts to curb nonpoint pollution
by various sectors such as agriculture or forestry are
often referred to in terms of source control. However,
this term tends to compartmentalize and target cer-
tain sectors as polluters. An alternative approach
would be to think in terms of controlling particular
pollutants ("bacteria control" or "sediment control")
targeting all the potential sources of a pollutant in a
watershed.
• Cumulative effects—This concept helps link all of
the previous concepts together. The concept of
cumulative effects points to the multiple causes of
nonpoint pollution within a watershed. It keeps
people from finger-pointing and promotes a sense of
shared responsibility for nonpoint problems and solu-
tions in the watershed.
Process
While concepts relating to nonpoint pollution are impor-
tant, people also need to understand the planning
process they're being asked to participate in. They need
to understand the sequence and timing of the planning
steps, as well as their individual role. It should also be
clear to participants what the expected outcome is.
Failure to adequately educate about the process can
lead to confusion and frustration on behalf of par-
ticipants.
Peer Education
Peer education—using members of a group to educate
others in the group—is an extremely valuable tool in
communicating information to difficult audiences. Infor-
mation about a planning process or changes that may
need to be made as the result of a watershed plan are
much better received from a fellow farmer or a realtor
than from a bureaucrat. Whenever possible, seek out
opportunities to use members of various audience
groups to deliver information.
132
-------
Format: How Should We Tell Them?
Given the endless combination of audiences and mes-
sages, there are also a variety of formats for conveying
information. The choice of format is closely linked to the
audience. Some commonly used formats include:
• Special events—Events, such as an open house or
information fair, work well as a "kickoff" to watershed
planning activities. Scheduled early in the process,
these activities can set a positive tone for the rest of
the process.
• Watershed tours or field trips—An outing is one of
the most effective means of providing an under-
standing of nonpoint pollution and watersheds. Field
trips are most useful for people who will have a sig-
nificant role in the watershed planning process. A
watershed tour is ideal for citizens, local elected offi-
cials, or other individuals called upon to help develop
a watershed plan. A smoothly run field trip requires
careful planning: routes should be driven prior to
each trip; knowledgeable speakers should be
recruited to describe each stop; maps and handouts
should be available.
• Written materials—Written materials such as
newsletters and brochures work best with larger,
more general audiences. Flyers and fact sheets may
be most useful in giving a quick overview of a project
or in announcing a meeting, while a newsletter offers
a means of periodically keeping people up to date on
the project. The effectiveness of printed materials will
be enhanced if they are planned in advance as a
coordinated package, with a similar graphic style. It
is also important to develop a mailing list for the
various audiences interested in the planning
process.
• Meetings and workshops—Unlike printed
materials, meetings provide unique opportunities for
two-way communication. Remember that what can
be learned from the public is often more important
than what you originally planned to tell them. Meet-
ings can serve as forums where issues can be
debated and discussed, while workshops allow
citizens and committee members to dig more deeply
into the issues. With either activity, success depends
on adequate preparation.
• Speakers—Guest speakers can be used effectively
to provide credibility and/or depth on certain topics.
Speakers who avoid technical jargon and who relate
their subject matter to the interests of the audience
are most effective. It can also be extremely fruitful to
request to be a guest speaker at an event involving
affected parties. For example, ask to speak at the
local farm bureau, association of realtors meeting, or
local chamber of commerce. This serves to get you
on their turf and provides an opportunity for a frank
discussion of issues.
• Media—Radio, newspapers, and television can all
be used to help educate the public about nonpoint
pollution, garner public support, and publicize meet-
ings and events. Personal contacts with reporters
and editors yield the best results.
In selecting formats, it is important to understand that
people have different styles of learning. Some people
can easily process written information; others may need
to see or experience something directly before they un-
derstand it. Because of the differences in the way people
learn, the educational activities and methods used
should be varied. A mix of techniques that reach a
variety of audiences, and that allow for different learning
styles, will have the greatest chance of being effective.
LESSONS FROM PUGET SOUND
A number of important lessons can be passed on to
other regions based on watershed planning experiences
in Puget Sound:
• View education and public involvement as neces-
sities, not luxuries. Education and public involve-
ment are needed to identify and involve all parties
that have a role in cleaning up nonpoint pollution. If
key audiences are left out of the process, they may
become involved later as vocal opponents.
• Make an up-front commitment of both time and
money. The time needed to adequately educate par-
ticipants in watershed planning concepts and
process should not be underestimated. Both budget
and staff time should be set aside to do the neces-
sary education work, especially at the start of the
planning process.
• Specifically tailor the message and format to
each audience. Target information on concepts and
process to each different audience. Use a variety of
educational techniques. Take advantage of peer
education wherever possible.
• Learn to anticipate and recognize common reac-
tions. People just learning about nonpoint pollution
(especially targeted groups) will exhibit some com-
mon reactions. They are likely to deny that a real
problem exists ("Prove it!"), point fingers at some
other source ("It's the sewage treatment plant!"), or
both. These reactions should be anticipated and
steps taken to diffuse them; otherwise, anger and
confusion may result.
• Use education as a solution to nonpoint
problems. Build education into the implementation
strategy of each nonpoint plan. Recognize and use
the important potential of education as a tool for solv-
ing nonpoint problems.
133
-------
REFERENCES
1. Hansen, N. R., C. Dyckman, and S. Kelly, 1990. Ef-
fective use of public involvement, education, and
decision making techniques in nonpoint pollution
control. In: Making Nonpoint Pollution Control
Programs Work; Proceedings of a National
Conference. National Association of Conservation
Districts.
2. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority, 1989. Manag-
ing Nonpoint Pollution: An Action Plan Handbook for
Puget Sound Watersheds. Seattle, WA.
134
-------
SECTION NINE
EVALUATING THE NFS WATERSHED IMPLEMENTATION PROJECT
-------
SURFACE WATER TRENDS AND LAND-USE TREATMENT
Donald W. Meals
School of Natural Resources
University of Vermont
Burlington, Vermont
INTRODUCTION
Most NPS implementation programs are designed to im-
plement changes in land-use treatment as quickly and
efficiently as possible. Monitoring to assess water quality
response is usually organized around this purpose. Lack-
ing the control of ideal experimental design, watershed-
level NPS monitoring programs are typically faced with
incremental implementation of BMPs, uneven spatial dis-
tribution of treatments, unknown operation and main-
tenance of practices, and uncooperative weather. From
the point of view of monitoring personnel, land treatment
often seems to occur too quickly or too slowly, at the
wrong place or at the wrong time, and during a prolonged
drought or an exceptional flood.
As a result, evaluation of NPS watershed projects can
rarely be treated as a simple short-term before/after or
above/below exercise. Rather, the approach must be to
evaluate long-term trends, gradual or subtle shifts in
water quality that may occur in response to the land
treatment program. Not only must such trends be
detected but they must also be linked with the land treat-
ments applied. All this must, of course, be done in the
context of the tremendous noise added by hydrologic
variability, seasonal cycles, and human activities.
This paper will outline some statistical considerations im-
portant in evaluating NPS monitoring data, present ex-
amples of water quality trends in one NPS
implementation project, and discuss several issues con-
cerning the analysis of land use/water quality relation-
ships.
STATISTICAL CONSIDERATIONS
Trend analysis is easier if it has been considered in the
monitoring design. Continuous regular data collection,
consistent monitoring procedures, and careful data
management are essential elements. If sources of
variability such as seasonality, flow dependence, and
pre-existing trends were evaluated at the start, then their
effects can be minimized or removed by appropriate
statistical techniques (1).
Trend detection in water quality data requires rigorous
statistical analysis; there is ample discussion of specific
techniques in the literature (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). Some
general guidelines can be applied.
The basic statistical behavior of the data set must be as-
sessed. Three assumptions are of concern—inde-
pendence of observations, constant variance, and
normal distribution—and water quality data generally vio-
late these. Violation of independence, often by
seasonality or autocorrelation, is thought to be the most
serious problem (5), potentially resulting in finding a
trend where none exists or failing to document a trend
that does exist.
The statistical structure of the data will dictate the selec-
tion of trend analysis technique. Nonparametric tests for
trend, for example, have been developed that account for
seasonality and lack of independence. Adjustments can
be made to the data. For parametric statistics, for ex-
ample, log transformation often normalizes distribution.
Time series data can sometimes be aggregated to
reduce autocorrelation and stabilize variance.
Control for the effects of climatic and hydrologic
variability on concentration, stream discharge, and load
is critically important. Year to year differences in rainfall
and runoff, for example, will obscure real changes in
NPS phosphorus export. Some specific statistical techni-
ques like analysis of covariance or nonparametric tests
such as the seasonal Kendall can be helpful in dealing
with variability.
One particularly effective approach is paired regression,
an adaptation of the paired watershed technique (10). A
regression relationship between a treated watershed and
a control (untreated) watershed is developed for a
specific parameter before land treatment (calibration).
After treatment, a similar regression relationship is
derived, and significant difference in slope and/or inter-
cept between the calibration and treatment regressions
indicate treatment effects. This technique accounts for
meteorologic and hydrologic variability by including the
variability from the control watershed that receives the
same background inputs as the treated watershed, but
no treatment. The effectiveness of this technique often
136
-------
justifies the effort required to monitor an untreated con-
trol watershed.
Finally, a number of different techniques should be used;
no single approach or test should be relied on exclusive-
ly. Some techniques may be exploratory; some must
control for hydrologic variability. In the LaPlatte River
Watershed Project, for example (11), the following tech-
niques were employed for trend analysis:
• Time regression, testing the slope of a regression
line of water quality data versus time
• Frequency distribution, comparing distributions
between years or monitoring periods, and evaluating
probability of exceedance of water quality standards
• t-test, ANOVA, comparing means between years or
monitoring periods
• Flow/concentration regression, evaluating chan-
ges in flow/water quality relationships following land
treatment
• Analysis of covariance, comparing groups after ad-
justment forcovariate effects (e.g., flow)
• Paired regression
• Nonparametric techniques, including seasonal
Kendall, Mann-Whitney, and Spearman/Lettenmaier
EXAMPLES OF WATER QUALITY TRENDS
Some trends are obvious, even before confirmation by
statistical analysis. For example, Figure 1 shows mean
fecal streptococcus (FS) bacteria counts from 10 years of
NPS monitoring at 4 stations in the LaPlatte River Water-
shed in Vermont (11); FS counts clearly declined bet-
ween 1980 and 1989. This decline was confirmed by all
statistical analyses, pointing to a 50 to 75 percent decline
in mean annual FS over the monitoring period.
Total phosphorus (TP) export, however, did not present
as clear a picture (Figure 2). Pronounced year to year
variations in precipitation and streamflow obscured, any
FECAL STREP BACTERIA
1980 - 1989
LaPlatte River Watershed
MEAN ANNUAL FS COUNT (#7100 ml)
700
0
1980
1981 1982 1983 1984 1985
YEAR
1986 1987 1988 1989
WS 1
WS 2
WS 3
WS 4
Figure 1. Trends in annual mean fecal strptococcus bacteria counts in four monitored subwatersheds, LaPlatte River
Watershed, Vermont. (11)
137
-------
TOTAL PHOSPHORUS EXPORT
WS 4 1980-1989
LaPlatte River Watershed
WEEKLY TP EXPORT (Ibs)
100s
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
0.01 i
0.001
TP
Figure 2. Weekly total phosphorus export from WS 4,1980-1989, LaPlatte River Watershed, Vermont. (11)
obvious trends. However, paired regression did reveal a
significant trend. The results of this analysis are shown in
Figure 3, with only the regression lines shown for clarity.
The pre-best management practice (BMP) period
(calibration) included 3 years of data collected before
land treatment was complete; post-BMP data were col-
lected over 5 years following full implementation of land
treatment. In Figure 3, Watershed 3 was the control
watershed and Watershed 4 was the treatment water-
shed.
The post-BMP regression line in Figure 4 is shifted sig-
nificantly downward from the pre-BMP line, suggesting a
significant decrease in TP export from the treated water-
shed. Under pre-BMP conditions, for example, a 5
IbA/veek TP export level from the control was associated
with an export of 8.25 Ib/week from Watershed 4. After
animal waste management was fully implemented in
Watershed 4, however, the same 5 Ib/week export level
from the control watershed saw a corresponding export
of 6 Ib/week from Watershed 4. Thus, paired regression
analysis was extremely valuable in evaluating the effects
of treatment despite high variability in phosphorus export.
Not all the parameters monitored in the LaPlatte River
Watershed Project showed such a response to land
treatment. Some of the parameters often monitored as
standard procedures—temperature, pH, and DO—did
not change significantly over 10 years of monitoring. Fur-
thermore, trends among some fractions—volatile
suspended solids, dissolved P, and ammonia N—did not
behave differently from trends in total suspended solids,
total phosphorus, or total Kjeldahl N, nor did the propor-
tions of these fractions change significantly during the
project. Thus, at least in hindsight, these analyses added
little to the overall conclusions of monitoring. It is, of
course, difficult to know this at the start, but it is worth
considering.
LAND-USE/WATER QUALITY RELATIONSHIPS
Linking observed changes in water quality to changes in
land use/treatment should be part of project evaluation.
Ideally, if land-use and management activity monitoring
was part of the monitoring design, detailed data will be
available. The lead land treatment implementation agen-
cies (e.g., USDA-SCS), may also be able to supply, data
138
-------
WS 4 TP LOAD
Pre-BMP vs Post-BMP
WS 4 TP LOAD (Ib/wk)
100 s
0.01
'• •'•0.05
0.5 5
WS 3 TP LOAD (Ib/wk)
Pre-BMP
Post-BMP
Figure 3. Paired regression lines of pre-BMP and post-BMP total phoisphorus loads, WS 4 versus WS 3 (control), La-
Platte River Watershed, Vermont. (11)
on land treatment and agricultural activities from par-
ticipating farms.
A Geographic Information System (GIS) is an effective
way to store and manipulate such spatially referenced
data. In the LaPlatte River Watershed Project, for ex-
ample, ARC/INFO was used to manage and display farm
management and activity data collected directly from
farmers and from USDA-SCS records. A result of this
land-use monitoring program is given in Figure 4, specifi-
cally identifying what land in the watershed received
manure and from what source in 1989. This manure data
set can be easily combined and compared with other GIS
coverages, such as soils, topography, or proximity to sur-
face waters.
Two key points must be emphasized in the effort to relate
land use and water quality. The fist is the confounding in-
fluence of weather and season on agricultural (or other
NPS) activity. In Vermont, for example, rainfall or snow-
melt are the major generators of surface runoff and
transport of field-spread manure to surface waters. Yet
these wet periods are often the times least likely for
manure to be spread, since farmers cannot readily work
their muddy fields. Thus, a straightforward correlation
analysis between manure application, runoff, and stream
nutrient levels would be inappropriate, since they may be
already inversely correlated.
Solutions to these confounding influences are not clear.
Application of multivariate statistical techniques such as
discriminant analysis may be useful. Alternatively, data
may be aggregated to seasonal or even annual periods
to avoid these confounding effects.
Secondly, the issue of spatial variation must be con-
sidered. For example, on a strictly numerical basis, the
same number of watershed acres may be in corn from
year to year, yet individual locations (fields) may rotate
into or out of corn production in any given year. The loca-
tion of these fields in relation to surface waters, for ex-
ample, may be a strong influence on water quality.
Methods of relating such spatial data to water quality
data have not been adequately studied.
139
-------
MANURED AREA LAPLATTE RIVER WATERSHED, 1989
LEGEND
m
Hum 1 1 in limit -
Ml iitirpi'liri|i 10!
Uutri ail tt«ic4 -
28J icft:
set iti«
92 sett]
2.OI inn
[""] l> rni« if('i*' 22,tit iciti
[717] litMuItt il S«i«iU
-------
(a)
PHOSPHORUS AND BMPs
WATERSHED 2 1981 - 1989
LaPIatte River Watershed
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Mean Annual P Cone, (mg/l)
-r = 0.03
° 0.05
j L_
0 10 20
30 40 50 60 70
Animals Under BMP (%)
—- [TP] "«- [P04-P]
80 90 100
(b)
PHOSPHORUS AND BMPs
WATERSHED 2 1983 - 1989
LaPIatte River Watershed
Mean Annual P Cone, (mg/l)
90 91
93 94 95 96 97
Animals Under BMP (%)
98 99 100
[TP]
v" [PO4-P]
Figure 5. Regressions for WS 2 annual mean phosphorus concentration versus percent of animals under BMP waste
management: (a) all data; (b) 90-100% of animals under BMP, LaPIatte River Watershed, Vermont. (11)
141
-------
However, looking at the data points in Figure 5(a) sug-
gests that something may be going on with the points on
the far right (where >90 percent of the animals are under
BMP). Expanding that region of the plot (Figure 5(b))
suggests that there may indeed be a relationship: r =
0.59, P » 0.043. This region represents year-to-year
variation in the extent of BMP waste management and in
animal populations after most implementation was com-
plete. This pattern seems to suggest that above a certain
level of land treatment, lower stream P levels may be as-
sociated with higher levels of manure management. In
the LaPlatte River Watershed, similar relationships were
found in several other monitored subwatersheds for both
P and N concentrations, leading to the possible inference
of a threshold principle, where a certain level of treat-
ment must be achieved before a water quality response
is observed. Such as observation would certainly have
been overlooked relying on statistics print-out alone.
SUMMARY
Evaluation of water quality trends in NPS project areas
requires rigorous statistical analysis. The basic statistical
behavior of the data set must be assessed with particular
regard to the critical assumptions of independence, con-
stant variance, and normal distribution.
Control for the effects of hydrologic variation is critically
important. Paired regression is an effective method to
control for such background variability; in long-term
monitoring, paired regression may reveal significant
changes in water quality hidden in noisy time series data.
Efforts to link observed changes in water quality to the
land treatment program require detailed land treatment
data that may be effectively managed in a GIS. The con-
founding influence of weather and season on source ac-
tivities and the spatial variability of source activities are
important issues that need to be addressed.
Visual and graphical examination of data is extremely im-
portant. Looking at the data can help identify patterns
that are not obvious in statistical print-out.
The LaPlatte River Watershed Project (11) was funded
by the USDA-Soil Conservation Service under the PL-
566 program.
REFERENCES
1. Reckhow, K. and C. Stow, 1990. Monitoring design
and data analysis for trend detection, Lake and
Reserv. Manage. 6(1):49-60.
2. UNESCO, 1978. Water Quality Surveys, R.M. Gale,
W.H. Gilbrich, R: Helmer, M.S. Konovalori, P. Perret,
R.H. Siddifi, eds., IMD-WHO Working Group on
Water Quality, UNESCO-WHO, Paris, 248 pp.
3. Hirsch, R.M., J.R. Slack, and R.A. Smith, 1982.
Techniques of trend analysis for monthly water
quality data, Water Resour. Res. 18(1):107-121.
4. Crawford, C.G., J.R. Slack, and R.M. Hirsch, 1983.
Nonparametric tests for trends in water-quality data
using the Statistical Analysis System, U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey, Open-File Report 83-550, USGS,
Lakewood, CO, 103 pp.
5. Ward, R.C. and J.C. Loftis, 1986. Establishing statis-
tical design criteria for water quality monitoring sys-
tems: review and synthesis, Water Resour. Bull.
22(5):759-767.
6. Gilbert, R.O., 1987. Statistical Methods for Environ-
mental Pollution Monitoring, Van Nostrand Reinhold
Co., Inc., New York, NY.
7. Berryman, D., B. Bobee, D. Cluis, and J. Halmmerli,
1988. Nonparametric tests for trend detection in
water quality time series, Water Res. Bull. 24(3) :545-
556.
8. Lettenmaier, D.P., 1988. Multivariate nonparametric
tests for trend in water quality, Water Res. Bull.
24(3):505-512.
9. Fisher, F.M., K.L. Dickson, J.H. Rodgers, K. Ander-
son, and J. Slocomb, 1988. A statistical approach to
assess factors affecting water chemistry using
monitoring data, Water Res. Bull. 24(5) :1017-1026.
10. Hewlett, J.D. and L. Pienaar, 1973. Design and
analysis of the catchment experiment, In E-.M. White,
ed., Proc. Symp. Use of Small Watersheds in Deter-
mining the Effects of Forest Land on Water Quality,
Univ. Kentucky, Lexington, pp 88-106.
11. Meals, D.W., 1990. LaPlatte River Watershed Water
Quality Monitoring and Analysis Program - Year 11,
Program Report No. 12, Comprehensive Final
Report, Vermont Water Resources Research Center,
University of Vermont.
142
-------
EVALUATING INDIVIDUAL BMPSAND MODELS
John C. Clausen
University of Connecticut
Storrs, Connecticut
INTRODUCTION
A critical component of a nonpoint source control
program is the evaluation of the best management prac-
tices (BMPs) being implemented. This paper discusses
evaluating the success of individual BMPs. Additional
brief mention will be made of the application of models to
evaluation, since this practice seems to be increasing.
Most of this paper is based on experiences obtained
through the evaluation of the St. Albans Bay Rural Clean
Water Program and the Laplatte River Watershed PI-566
land treatment projects in Vermont.
Evaluating the success of a BMP should be relatively
simple if the appropriate steps have been followed in
designing a reliable monitoring program (1). However,
surprises occur even in the best-planned experiments.
The methods of evaluating individual BMPs can best be
viewed following the concept of causality, which was dis-
cussed previously in the workshop (2). At the end of the
monitoring period there is a need to determine whether
there is an association between the BMP and water
quality that 1) is consistent with other data, 2) changes
appropriately with the level of BMP implementation, and
3) follows a logical mechanism. In addition, during the
monitoring period, preliminary insights into the success
of the BMP may be developed.
EVALUATING BMPS
The ability to evaluate the success of the BMP will be a
function of the monitoring design employed. If the design
was to sample watershed water quality before the BMP
and compare that with the water quality after the BMP,
differences due to the BMP could be confounded with
climate variations year-to-year (Table 1). Sampling
above and below a BMP after it has been installed does
not allow separating the cause due to the BMP from that
associated with watershed differences. As Table 1 indi-
cates, only the paired and multiple watershed designs
allow isolating the effect of the BMP. Significant differen-
ces obtained through the use of the other designs do not
allow attaching causality to the BMP alone.
LESSONS LEARNED
There were several lessons learned from evaluation of
the effectiveness of BMPs in the St. Albans and Laplatte
projects.
Year-to-year water quality differences because of climate
can be significant and can overshadow the effect from
the BMP. For example, during a paired watershed study
of the effect of manure applications to a hayland in Ver-
mont, concentrations in field runoff from the control
declined from the calibration period to the treatment
period for suspended solids and ammonia nitrogen
(Table 2). Runoff during the treatment period was half
that during the calibration period (3). Any evaluation
method that cannot control for this effect is weakened by
climate variations. This issue is also pertinent to long-
term trend analysis, as the previous paper by Meals
(1991) discussed.
Watershed-to-watershed water quality differences can be
significant and possibly greater than the BMP effect. In
the paired hayland study in Vermont, the soon-to-
become treatment watershed was higher in concentra-
tions than the control watershed during the calibration
period for suspended solids, phosphorus, and nitrogen
(Table 2). These two fields were adjacent and land
usage was identical. This influence is especially true for
large watersheds used for long-term trend analysis.
Constant care must be exercised in supervising the ac-
tual BMP to avoid catastrophic surprises for the land-
owner. For paired watershed studies, land-use activities
must be identical between fields, except for the BMP
change. Landowners frequently want to continue to
manage a field, for example, with a manure application,
because they always did. In one paired watershed study
where the water quality effects of winter-applied manure
were being investigated, the manure to apply to the field
actually had to be purchased because the owners'
manure pit had frozen.
143
-------
Table 1. Potential Causal Factors Explaining Significant Water Quality Differences for Various Watershed Designs
Design
Time Period
Single watershed — before and after
Above and below— after
Two watersheds — two treatments
Paired watersheds — before and after
Multiple watersheds— after
Typical
Statistical Approach
t-test of means
t-test of means
t-test of means
regression
ANOVA
Causal
Factors
BMP-Weather
BMP-Watershed
BMP-Watersheds
BMP
BMP
Table 2. Mean Runoff Concentrations (mg/L) from the Control and Treated Hayland Fields During Calibration and
Treatment Periods
Calibration
Control Treated
Treatment
Control Treated
Total suspended solids
Total phosphorus
Ammonia nitrogen
Discharge (cm)
13.0
0.49
0.6
10
19.3
0.59
2.0
12
9.1
0.64
0.4
5
15.8
0.98
0.7
5
A multitiered evaluation approach for BMPs is recom-
mended. Intensive short-term evaluations should be
planned and complemented with broader long-term
evaluation. In our studies, which spanned 10 to 12 years,
we were annually asked to assess BMP effectiveness in
large watersheds. However, responses took many years
and we could only demonstrate responses due to in-
dividual BMPs and develop preliminary assessments
after3 to 5 years of monitoring.
EVALUATION USING MODELS
BMP evaluation is a test in which the primary question is:
"What are the effects on water quality of implementing
this BMP or package of BMPs?" Models can only simu-
late the water-quality conditions that one might expect in
a given situation. A great deal of uncertainty exists in at-
tempting to model the water quality achievable by im-
plementing a given set of BMPs. Models may be used as
planning tools and are especially useful for targeting
priority areas for BMP implementation. However, models
should never be used to evaluate the effectiveness of
BMPs.
SUMMARY
The evaluation of the water-quality effectiveness of in-
dividual BMPs can be straightforward if properly planned
from the beginning. Actual causality can be
demonstrated with some, but not all, commonly used
designs. Year-to-year and watershed-to-watershed
water-quality differences must be planned for in design-
ing and evaluating water quality monitoring studies. The
author discourages the use of models in evaluating the
water-quality effectiveness of BMPs.
REFERENCES
1. Clausen, J.C., 1991. Developing a monitoring sys-
tem for rural surface waters: individual BMPs, Proc.
Nonpoint Source Watershed Workshop, U.S. En-
vironmental Protection Agency, New Orleans, LA,
Jan.29-31.
2. Mosteller F. and J.W. Tukey, 1977. Data Analysis
and Regression: A Second Source in Statistics,
Addison-Wesley Pub., Reading, MA.
3. King, J.R. and J.C. Clausen, 1989. Hayland manure
applications and the quality of surface runoff, Proc.
Dairy Manure Management Symp., Northeast
Regional Agricultural Engineering Service Publ.,
NRAES-31, Syracuse, NY. Feb. 22-24.
144
-------
EVALUATION OF SITE-SPECIFIC GROUND-WATER QUALITY DATA
Jeanne Goodman
South Dakota Department of Water and Natural
Resources
Pierre, South Dakota
INTRODUCTION
This discussion will present information on techniques
used for site-specific ground-water quality data evalua-
tion of nonpoint source pollution projects. The informa-
tion presented is based on experience gained during the
Oakwoods/Poinsett Rural Clean Water Program (RCWP)
project in eastern South Dakota. The Oakwoods/Poinsett
RCWP project is a Comprehensive Monitoring and
Evaluation project with the goal of evaluating the impacts
of agricultural best management practices (BMPs) on the
vadose zone, the ground water, and the Oakwood Lakes
system. The BMPs selected for implementation in the
project were accepted for surface water pollution abate-
ment, but the effects on ground water were not known.
The primary pollutants evaluated are nitrate and pes-
ticides in the vadose zone and ground-water portions of
the project, and nitrate and phosphorus in the Oakwood
Lakes study portion of the project.
The land areas evaluated for nonpoint source pollution
problems are usually large. Adequate ground-water
monitoring and evaluation of large areas can be cost
prohibitive, so smaller areas that are representative of
the whole project must be selected (1). Site-specific
monitoring also increases the probability of detecting
changes in ground-water quality due to changes in the
land use.
The Oakwoods/Poinsett project area is over 106,000
acres. Seven field sites between 10 and 80 acres were
selected for ground-water monitoring. Six of the sites
were farmed fields and one site was an unfarmed state
park. One of the farmed sites was not subjected to land-
use changes through the implementation of BMPs. BMPs
were implemented on the farmed sites prior to the instal-
lation of monitoring equipment, so the control site con-
cept (sites with no BMPs and an unfarmed site) was
necessary to determine cause and effect relationships of
pre- versus post-BMP implementation.
The following discussion describes the statistical
methods used in data evaluation, the types of data ag-
gregation used, and other analyses completed using
hydrologic parameters and spatial and temporal distribu-
tions. Specifically, the use of the geozone classification
system, evaluation of nitrate data, and evaluation of pes-
ticide data will be discussed.
GEOZONES
Progress reports with data analysis were required for the
RCWP projects. This provided an opportunity for the
project technical team to reevaluate the monitoring and
evaluation strategies annually. Following the annual
report on 1985 activities, a new method to aggregate and
reduce the variability in the data was developed for the
project.
The "geozone" classification system was devised to char-
acterize each monitoring well by: 1) the geologic material
in which the well was screened, 2) the depth of the well
screen, and 3) the thickness of the overlying fine-grained
materials (for wells screened in sand and gravel). The
depth of the well screen was expressed by the depth
below ground surface for wells screened in till, and depth
below the water table for wells screened in sand and
gravel. There were 11 geozone classifications for the
Oakwoods/Poinsett project. Even though the classifica-
tions were project specific, the methodology is applicable
to any ground-water investigation (2).
Figure 1 illustrates the 11 geozones on a diagrammatic
cross-section. This is not a real cross-section but a com-
posite of stratigraphic sequences encountered during
test hole drilling at the field sites. The water table depicts
the relative position of the water table to the geozone
and does not represent the ground-water flow direction.
The relative vertical position of each geozone to another
is accurately depicted. Horizontal relationships have
been forced and are not accurate, as in where the sand
and gravel is shown in connection with the till (2).
The geozone classification system was used to ag-
gregate the water-quality data into hydrologically and
geologically meaningful groups. It was used as a sorting
criteria during the statistical analysis. The geozone
diagram was used to illustrate the analytical results in
relationship to the site geology.
145
-------
GEOZONES
S6LT5GTIO- •"• •....;
LEGEND
- SIIT/SANO (ALTER)
- WEATHEBEO TILL H|] - CLAYjSILT AOWTARO
WWEATHEREOTIU. U-'H - SAND a GRAVEL
Figure 1. Geozone cross-section.
NITRATES
Several analysis methods were used for the evaluation of
the nitrate data: "looking" at all data, median nitrate con-
centrations for each geozone, testing for statistical dif-
ferences, trend analysis, analysis of variance, and
correlations.
All nitrate values from wells unaffected by point sources
of contamination were plotted versus sampling depth
below water table. Figure 2 is the resulting plot, which il-
lustrates the distribution of nitrates from all the wells rela-
tive to the sample depth. The analysis was valuable
because it indicated further analysis was needed to ex-
plain the mechanisms of nitrate reduction with depth.
Vertical ground-water velocities were estimated to deter-
mine if it was mathematically possible for nitrates to
move deeper in the saturated zone. Since the calcula-
tions indicated it was possible, it was theorized that
denitrification was occurring. Plots similar to the nitrate
plots in Figure 2 were prepared for dissolved oxygen and
chloride to substantiate the denitrification theory.
The nitrate data set was tested for normality and was
found to have nonnormal distributions. When data have a
nonnormal distribution, the median is a more appropriate
measure of central tendency (3). The median concentra-
tions were used in describing the nitrate data for each
geozone as shown in Figure 3. The plot was used for dis-
cussing "hot spots" in nitrate concentrations relative to
the geology and depth below the water table. This type of
information was also used to evaluate the nitrate con-
centrations in relation to the position of the geozone in
the subsurface. For example, the median nitrate con-
centrations for five geozones were plotted by year. The
geozones represented the logical progression through
the hydrogeologic system from the land surface to depth.
The plot (Figure 4) illustrated the ranking of nitrate con-
centrations and the magnitude of changes through time.
The plot showed less magnitude of change with depth
and a lag time for change of the deeper geozones com-
pared with the shallower geozones.
Various levels of data aggregation were used and tested
for significant differences. A test for significant differen-
ces between all the data for various populations were
conducted using the Mann Whitney U or equivalent Wil-
coxan 2 sample test (4). These nonparametric tests for
comparing two populations are more appropriate and
more powerful (3) than the equivalent parametric tests
when the population distribution is nonnormal. Popula-
tions of nitrate data were compared between the follow-
ing: field sites, site types (outwash and till), the control
(unfarmed and no BMPs) sites, geozones, wells, and
years. This analysis has proven the need for control-type
sites when using real farmed sites. Statistical testing has
not shown significant differences in nitrate concentrations
146
-------
10-
-50-
NO3-N (mg/l) vs. DEPTH BELOW WATER
2469 Samples From May 1984 to December 1989
et below the water table
<--- 5 mg/l nitrate as nitrogen
- 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
NO3-N Concentrations (mg/l)
Figure 2. Nitrate concentration (mg/L) versus depth below water table.
40
45
50
Median Nitrate Concentrations
WTLT15
WTGT15
UT
SS-A
e SG-UA
§ SGLT5LT10
CD
0 SGLT5GT10
SGGT15
SG5-15LT10
SG5-15GT10
SC
4 5 67
Median Nitrate as N Cone, (mg/l)
10
Figure 3. Median nitrate concentration by geozone.
147
-------
MEDIAN NITRATE CONCENTRATIONS
by Year
Figure 4. Median nitrate concentrations by year.
between sites with BMPs and sites with no BMPs, but
there are significant differences between all farmed sites
and the unfarmed site.
The preceding methods of nitrate evaluation were used
with success. Other analyses that were found to be less
useful or were labor intensive include cluster analysis,
analysis of variance, and trend analysis. The cluster
analysis and analysis of variance yielded information on
the distribution of nitrate concentrations between sites
and geologies and differences in the sample populations,
but the differences were often of low statistical sig-
nificance. Simpler techniques such as the median nitrate
concentration of wells in each geozone were less work
intensive and more illustrative of the system. The non-
parametric analyses were also more "statistically ap-
propriate" than the equivalent parametric tests. To date,
analysis of trends in nitrate concentrations with time have
been inconclusive.
PESTICIDES
Pesticide data analyses were concentrated on evaluating
the spatial and temporal distribution of the number of
pesticide detections. Any further analyses were difficult
since 85 percent of the pesticide detections were one-
time events, i.e., a sample had positive detections of
pesticides one month, but there were no detections in
samples from the same well taken the following sampling
event.
The geozone classification system was used to illustrate
the spatial distribution of pesticide detections. Figure 5
shows the resulting plot. The number of pesticide detec-
tions also were examined by grouping data from all sand
and gravel geozones and comparing them to data from
all glacial till geozones. Although more samples were
taken from the sand and gravel, a higher percentage of
detections were from till samples. This type of analysis
allowed a comparison of the sample population with the
hydrogeologic system in the project area. It also il-
lustrated the importance of preferential flow in the till
materials. This type of information can be used in dis-
cussing relative vulnerability of materials with various
permeabilities.
Sampling of representative monitoring wells for pesticide
analysis was done on a monthly basis for most of the
project period. This frequency allowed a determination of
the times of the year most likely for pesticide detections
in the ground water (Figure 6). This type of monitoring
not only yielded information on the timing of the use of
the chemicals on the land surface, it also allowed the
project's technical team to adjust the sampling schedule
to more efficiently assess pesticide occurrence in the
ground water. The frequency of pesticide detections also
were compared on an annual basis. The annual frequen-
cy distribution showed that the number of detections
greatly increased during two years of well below normal
precipitation. This indicated a more thorough investiga-
148
-------
Geozones with Pesticide Detections
WTGT15(10.1%)
WTLT15(29.5%)
SGLT5LT10(25.6%)
SG-UA(10.1%)
SG5-15LT10(4.7%)
UT (6.2%)
Figure 5. Geozones where pesticides were detected.
SGLT5GT10(5.4%)
SS-A (8.5%)
Months when Pesticides were Detected
•JUN (18.096)
MAY (14.8%)
APR (4.7%)
FEB (0.8%)
JAN (4.7%)
JUL(18.0%)
DEC (8.6%)
NOV(1.6%)
OCT (4.7%)
SEP (10.9%)
Figure 6. Months of pesticide detections,
AUG (13.3%)
149
-------
tion is needed of the relationship between precipitation
and the number of detections.
The occurrences of pesticide detections also were ex-
amined in conjunction with the hydrologic data that had
been collected on a weekly basis. The timing of the
detections was compared to hydrographs to determine
the relationship of the detections with the fluctuation of
the water table. It appeared most detections were on the
falling limb of the peaks, corresponding to post-spring
recharge events. However, the recharge events also
were the most common times of application, which has
been deemed the most important factor in the timing of
the detections (5).
The pesticides detected in the ground water were com-
pared with the land-use data, which included chemical
type, rate, and timing, for the sites where pesticides were
detected. Over 65 percent of the detections could not be
related to use on that site (6). The exact mechanisms for
this are not known, but field observations of runoff events
during chemical use and crop growth in the later years of
the project indicated overland flow from adjacent land,
ponding, and subsequent ground-water recharge may be
an avenue for chemical transport to the subsurface.
SUMMARY
In summary, information on techniques used to evaluate
site-specific ground-water quality data for the Oak-
woods/Poinsett RCWP project were presented. In par-
ticular, methods used to evaluate the nitrate and
pesticide data were discussed and a classification sys-
tem (geozones) used to aggregate and reduce variability
of data was described. The 10-year report for the Oak-
woods/Poinsett project is currently being prepared. The
data analysis for the report will include in-depth analysis
of each field site. Land-use data for each site have also
been tracked throughout the life of the monitoring project.
The land-use data, such as cropping patterns, type,
amount, and timing of agricultural chemical application,
timing and depth of cultivation, and timing of harvest
have been collected. These data will be used to evaluate
what, if any, correlations exist between the land surface
activities and the water-quality data by creating new ag-
gregation categories based on land-use information.
The vadose monitoring portion of the Oakwoods/Poinsett
RCWP project will be used extensively for explaining the
impacts of land-use practices on the chemical and water
movement through the soil profile and unsaturated zone.
The Master Site is extensively instrumented with state-of-
the-art equipment to provide continuous measurements
of water and chemical movement. Work at this site has
been on the leading edge of defining macropore flow and
the implications for ground-water impacts. Although this
high-budget study is not feasible for many nonpoint
source pollution projects, the information generated by
the Agricultural Chemical Leaching Study of the Oak-
woods/Poinsett RCWP project will be used for assess-
ment of the effectiveness of various BMPs and the im-
pacts on water resources.
Some of the lessons learned from the 10-year Oak-
woods/Poinsett RCWP project relative to data evaluation
are as follows:
1. Annual progress reports required periodic data
analysis, which allowed modification and refinement
of the monitoring program to ensure meeting the
project's goals and objectives.
2. A detailed description of the hydrogeologic system
and the use of the geozone classification system will
contribute to extrapolating the site-specific informa-
tion to the whole project area and areas of similar
geology. The geozone classification system also al-
lowed a practical application of the statistical
analysis results.
3. Understanding the hydrogeologic system is impera-
tive to evaluating the ground-water quality data. This
includes the collection of hydrologic data such as
water levels and hydraulic conductivities.
4. The tracking of land use is difficult, and very
cooperative landowners are needed. Consistently
working with the landowners helps to gather land use
data, but results can be mixed.
5. The control sites (unfarmed and no BMPs) were
necessary when working with real farmed fields.
However, it would have been extremely valuable to
have the land use at a site radically change after the
first few years of monitoring. (This is true for this
project, since no monitoring was possible prior to
BMP implementation.)
6. Onsite precipitation measurements are needed be-
cause precipitation is the vector by which nutrients
and contaminants are transported through the soil
profile to the ground water.
7. Shallow ground-water quality appears to change
faster than originally envisioned. It was initially an-
ticipated that changes could be seen in 5 to 6 years,
but the data indicate there is the potential for chan-
ges to occur in a much shorter time period.
REFERENCES
1. Kimball, C.G., 1988. Ground-Water Monitoring Tech-
niques for Non-Point-Source Pollution Studies,
Ground-Water Contamination: Field Methods, ASTM
STP 963, A.G. Collins and A.I. Johnson, Eds.,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadel-
phia, PA, pp.430-441.
2. South Dakota Department of Water and Natural
Resources, 1986. 1986 Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett
RCWP Annual Progress Report - Project 20, Open
File Report, 194pp.
150
-------
3. Crawford, C.G., 1984. Application of Selected Non- 5.
parametric Statistical Methods to the Analysis of
Hydrologic Data, prepared for Statistical Analysis of
Water Quality Data (G0062), U.S. Geological Sur-
vey, Reston, VA.
4. Sokal, R.R. and F.J. Rohlf, 1969. Biometry, W.J. 6.
Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA.
Kimball, C.G. and J. Goodman, 1989. Non-Point
Source Pesticide Contamination of Shallow Ground
Water, paper presented at 1989 International Winter
Meeting, The American Society of Agricultural En-
gineers, New Orleans, LA, December 12-15.
South Dakota Department of Water and Natural
Resources, 1989. 1989 Oakwood Lakes - Poinsett
RCWP Comprehensive Monitoring and Evaluation
Technical Report Project 20, Open File Report,
Pierre, SD.
151
-------
EVALUATING NONPOINTSOURCE CONTROL PROJECTS IN AN URBAN
WATERSHED
Thomas E. Mumley
California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Oakland, California
INTRODUCTION
The California Regional Water Quality Control Board,
San Francisco Bay Region (Regional Board) is the state
water pollution control agency responsible for protection
of the beneficial uses of San Francisco Bay and its
tributaries. Using its authority under both state and
federal law, the Regional Board has required the
development and implementation of a nonpoint source
(NFS) control program by the municipalities in the Santa
Clara watershed which drains into the South Bay seg-
ment of San Francisco Bay. The focus of the program
has been on the control of toxic pollutants in urban runoff
within this watershed.
The local municipalities in the Santa Clara watershed
have responded pro-actively to develop and now imple-
ment a comprehensive NFS control program. The
program was developed through an extensive planning
process. The planning process priorities were set
through the establishment of clearly defined goals for the
overall program and tangible objectives for the assign-
ment and implementation of control measures. This al-
lowed for an effective project screening process resulting
in assignment of projects with specific goals and objec-
tives that when implemented will result in attaining the
overall program goals. These specific projects are now
being implemented. The built-in evaluation process in the
Santa Clara program provides an illustration of how the
effectiveness of specific projects and the overall program
can be evaluated.
EVALUATION PROCESS
The watershed project evaluation process involves the
recurring review and assessment of project activities to
ensure that resources are being utilized in the most ef-
fective way to achieve established objectives. At a mini-
mum, there should be a formal evaluation annually of the
project which provides documentation of project
progress, milestones accomplished, and degree of suc-
cess in meeting objectives. The annual evaluation should
also include considering modifications to project activities
based on experience and knowledge gained during the
year. With planning foresight, this flexibility should en-
sure that project goals and objectives remain quantitative
and measurable and should lead to attaining overall
program goals and objectives.
Evaluating the effectiveness of a project is a challenge
because: 1) the sources of specific pollutants found in
storm drain systems are not currently well understood; 2)
the effectiveness of control measures, especially those
that focus on source control, are by their very nature dif-
ficult to predict; and 3) the annual variability in rainfall
and the storm-to-storm variability in water quality and
pollutant load will tend to mask any long-term (multi-year)
gradual trends in improved water quality associated with
implementation of the project.
Because of these uncertainties, most projects are
designed so that many of the early activities focus on
evaluating the feasibility of implementation through pilot-
scale studies. Also, monitoring efforts are being designed
to assist in identifying important sources before im-
plementing costly control measures. Additionally, the
evaluation takes into account experience gained in other
programs, such as hazardous waste management
programs and technical results from demonstration
studies.
Because of the difficulty of evaluating project effective-
ness from routine monitoring data, surrogate measures
are, used where appropriate. For example, the effective-
ness of storm drain stencilling to discourage illegal
dumping of used oil and incentives for recycling used
motor oil may be based on estimates of the increased
volume of used oil recycled. In some cases, where sur-
rogate measures of effectiveness are not available, level
of effort is provided. Although level of effort does not
provide a measure of effectiveness towards attaining
water quality objectives, it does provide a means of
documenting that the best job is being performed at the
most reasonable cost (i.e., maximum extent practicable).
In most cases implementing a control measure and
evaluating its effectiveness should be done in a phased
process. In general, the phases include:
152
-------
• A planning phase to analyze, evaluate and plan in
greater detail the initial tasks for implementation in-
cluding establishing objectives for implementation.
• A preparation phase, which follows the planning
phase or is done concurrently with final planning
tasks, consists of preparing budget and resource
needs and obtaining permits and necessary ap-
provals.
• A pilot-scale (or initial level) implementation
phase as a means to test procedures or tech-
nologies, to gain experience with new activities, to
determine feasibility of implementing at full scale,
and to evaluate the effectiveness and cost ramifica-
tions of the proposed approach. Alternatively, this
phase may consist of an initial level of implementa-
tion (reduced or limited level) of a demonstrated con-
trol measure, where full-scale implementation would
be costly.
• A full-scale implementation phase that is the ma-
ture, final phase of a control measure. The tasks and
activities in this phase will be. operating at the ap-
propriate level of effort, and in the final design, as
determined during earlier phases. " ,
• An evaluation/documentation phase that will be
conducted continuously for each control measure
simultaneously with each of the other phases. Con-
trol measure tasks are reviewed and considered pe-
riodically in order to determine effectiveness (in
terms of controlling pollution; in terms of doing the.
best job for the most reasonable cost; and in terms
• of adaptability to municipal agency structure, prac-
tices, and resources). This effort may be considered
as a revision of existing compounds, where the ap-
propriateness of each task is assessed and new
tasks may be considered.
Also in this phase, an annual report is prepared
documenting the achievements and effectiveness of
the control measures during the preceding year. The
report may contain recommendations for changing
tasks or schedules in the forthcoming year(s). The
report should allow an agency, such as the Regional
Board, to monitor progress, review the kinds of tasks
implemented, to verify level of effort, and to comment
on proposed activities and schedules.
The following example based on the .Santa Clara
program illustrates, how these phases could be described
for a given control measure.
EXAMPLE OF PHASING IMPLEMENTATION
AND EVALUATION
Control Measure
City X decides to change the frequency of cleaning storm
drain inlets (currently it is done on an as-needed basis, in
response to complaints and when the inlets overflow),
and possjbly modify the method of cleaning, if a proven
more effective method 'can be found (currently, lines are
flushed).
Planning Phase
• Study what is currently being done in other cities and
states to clean and maintain storm drain inlets.
Choose a method (e.g., using a vactor truck to clean
out debris prior to flushing lines) that appears to
have success in another location.
• Choose a new frequency, such as seasonally (i.e.,
before the first large storm events each year).
• Develop a plan to pilot test the selected method in
the city. (For example, choose two test areas: in one
area, use the old cleaning method and simply vary or
• increase the frequency; in the second area, test the
new method in combination with a new frequency.)
• Determine how to evaluate the effectiveness of the
new method. For example, monitoring the water in a
downstream outfall for each test area by analyzing
physical characteristics (e.g., with field test kits) on a
monthly basis.
• Determine the length of time for a good pilot-scale
study ,in order to observe and measure effectiveness
(e.g., one year). .
• Determine the resources needed to conduct the pilot
test, such as additional or specially trained staff,
and/or new or leased equipment.
Preparation Phase
• Submit the plan with projected costs and schedule to
the appropriate agencies, departments, and City
Council. Obtain all approvals/authorizations neces-
sary to proceed with the work.
Pilot-Scale Implementation Phase
• Purchase/lease equipment and hire/train personnel
to conduct the work. Alternatively, hire a contractor
and execute contracts.
• Send personnel or contractors to the test areas to
conduct the work described in the pilot program plan.
153
-------
Evaluation/Documentation Phase
• Study and measure effectiveness (e.g., by inspecting
the identified outfalls in the test areas on a monthly
basis), if debris is found, note amount and physical
characteristics.
• Based on the results of the pilot-scale implementa-
tion, choose the combination that results in best
water quality found at the test outfall during
inspections.
Full-Scale Implementation Phase
• Design the full-scale implementation program, iden-
tify outfalls in which to monitor effectiveness over a
period of time, and obtain approvals for schedule
and costs.
• Purchase/lease equipment and hire/train personnel
to conduct the work. Alternatively, hire a contractor
and execute contracts.
• Conduct work in all areas of the city, according to the
full-scale implementation schedule.
Evaluation/Documentation Phase
• Study effectiveness of the full-scale improved main-
tenance program by inspecting the identified outfalls
on a regular basis and comparing water quality over
a period of time. Record observations of improved
water quality for preparing annual report for the
Regional Board.
• Prepare and submit annual report to the Regional
Board, and make modifications to the program as
necessary based on comments.
SUMMARY
Evaluating the effectiveness of a watershed project is a
challenging endeavor. The process involves the recurring
review and assessment of project activities to ensure that
resources are being utilized in the most effective way to
achieve established objectives. This requires estab-
lishment of clearly defined goals for the overall program
and tangible objectives for the assignment and im-
plementation of control measures. In addition to routine
monitoring data, surrogate measures are used where ap-
propriate. Effectiveness evaluation normally should be
conducted in a phased process including a planning
phase, a preparation phase, a pilot-scale implementation
phase, and a full-scale implementation phase. Finally,
there should be a formal evaluation annually of the
project that provides documentation of project progress,
milestones accomplished, and degree of success in
meeting objectives. The annual evaluation should also
include considering modifications to project activities
based on experience and knowledge gained during the
year. With planning foresight, this flexibility should en-
sure that project goals and objectives remain quantitative
and measurable and should lead to attaining overall
program goals and objectives.
154
-------
SECTION TEN
INNOVATIVE STATE AND LOCAL REGULATORY PROGRAMS
THAT SUPPORT LOCAL NFS PROJECTS
-------
CONTROLLING STORMWATER: SOME LESSONS FROM THE MARYLAND
EXPERIENCE
Greg Llndsey
Molly Cannon
Maryland Department of the Environment
Sediment and Stormwater Administration
Baltimore, Maryland
INTRODUCTION
The State of Maryland has implemented a number of
programs designed to control nonpoint source pollution.
Maryland's Stormwater Management Program is the
cornerstone of efforts to control urban nonpoint source
pollution and has received national and international at-
tention. This paper provides a synopsis of state efforts to
control Stormwater, a review of the strengths and weak-
nesses of the programs, and some observations about
the implications of new federal programs and regulations
for Maryland programs.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT IN MARYLAND
The Stormwater Management Act
Programs to control urban Stormwater in Maryland are a
sub*set of a wide variety of programs aimed at controlling
urban nonpoint source pollution. The Stormwater
Management Program is administered by the Sediment
and Stormwater Administration (the Administration)
within the Maryland Department of the Environment. Re-
lated programs not reviewed here include a parallel,
complementary Erosion and Sediment Control Program,
also administered by the Sediment and Stormwater Ad-
ministration; the Department of Natural Resources'
Chesapeake Bay Critical Areas Program; and the
Department of the Environment's Water Quality Certifica-
tion Program. The timeline in Figure 1 shows significant
events in the evolution of programs to manage
Stormwater in Maryland.
The Stormwater Management Act was passed by the
Maryland General Assembly in 1982. The primary goal of
state and local programs established by the Act is to
"maintain after development, as nearly as possible, the
predevelopment runoff characteristics." In terms of quan-
tity control, regulations promulgated by the state in 1983
define this as onsite control of 2- and 10-year storm
events for most of Maryland. In addition, the Administra-
tion has established a list of preferred management prac-
tices for quality control. Pursuant to this list, local officials
responsible for plan review are required to investigate
the feasibility of infiltration of the first half-inch of runoff.
This so-called first flush contains most of the pollutants in
runoff. If infiltration is not feasible, other practices may be
used. These other practices, in order of preference, are
vegetated swales, retention ponds, extended detention
ponds, and detention facilities. The position of each prac-
tice on the list was determined primarily by its potential to
provide pollutant removal. Infiltration is preferred be-
cause it offers the highest potential for reduction in pol-
lutants such as sediment and phosphorus, has potential
for groundwater recharge and maintenance of base flow,
and mitigates thermal impacts. All incorporated counties
and municipalities in Maryland were required to adopt or-
dinances by 1984 that establish programs which, at mini-
mum, provide these controls on every development that
disturbs more than 5,000 ft2 of land and significantly
changes site hydrology (waivers may be issued if the dif-
ferences in 2- and 10-year discharge for pre- and
postdevelopment are less than 10 percent).
The Act is quite broad, and those who drafted it recog-
nized that it would significantly change the way develop-
ment occurs throughout the state. The authors also
recognized that the mandates of the law would push
technical knowledge in the area of Stormwater manage-
ment and that significant assistance would have to be
provided to local governments to achieve successful im-
plementation. The Act authorizes local governments to
establish fee systems to cover the cost of plan review
and program implementation, mandates that state
regulatory officials review local programs at least trien-
nially, requires that the state conduct research and
provide technical assistance and training in the applica-
tion of Stormwater management technology and program
implementation, and provides for civil and criminal penal-
ties for violation of the law.
In addition to establishing minimum controls and
preferred practices, the 1983 regulations establish state
responsibilities, criteria for exemptions and waivers, and
requirements for construction and maintenance inspec-
tion and enforcement. State regulatory staff responsible
156
-------
1983
1990
STATE ACTIVITIES
MARYLAND
SUM
MGHT.
ACT
ADOPTED
MARYLAND COUNTY
SUM AND
REGULATIONS MUNICIPAL
PROMULGATED ORDINANCE
ADOPTED
PROGRAM
GRANTS-
Itf-AID
AUTHORIZED
STATE REGULATORY REVIEWS OF LOCAL STORMHATER
MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS UNDERTAKEN
PROGRAM GRANTS-IN-AID AWARDED
CAPITAL COST SHARE GRANTS AWARDED
CHESA-
PEAKE BAY
NUTRIENT
REDUCT ION
GOALS
ESTABL ISHED
MD ' S
NUTRIENT
REDUCT ION
PLAN
PREPARED
BAYWIDE
NUTRIENT
REDUCTION
STRATEGY
ADOPTED
CAPITAL COST
SHARE GRANTS
AUTHORIZED
FEDERAL ACTIVITIES
CONGRESS
PASSES
WATER
QUALITY
ACT
EPA
I SSUES
DRAFT
NPOES
REGULA-
TIONS FOR
STORMWATER
SYSTEMS ,
CONGRESS
ALLOCATES
FUNDS FOR
NONPOI NT
PROGRAMS
EPA
AWARDS
NONPOINT
SOURCE
GRANTS
TO STATES
FINAL
NPDES
REGULA-
TIONS TO
BE ISSUED
1982
1985
1986
SWM=STORMWATER
Figure 1. Milestones in the evolution of Maryland's stormwater management program.
157
-------
for program review are required to determine whether
local programs are acceptable. To be acceptable, local
programs must have 1) an approved ordinance, 2) ade-
quate administrative procedures, 3) adequate plan
review, 4) acceptable construction inspection and enfor-
cement, and 5) acceptable maintenance inspection and
enforcement.
Since 1982 the Administration has worked with
Maryland's 23 counties and 151 municipalities to imple-
ment local programs. Forty-seven municipalities chose to
implement programs; the remaining 104 adopted resolu-
tions that gave the county governments the authority to
implement programs within their respective jurisdictions.
The Administration has conducted 25 local program
reviews, completed a number of research studies, and
held several training conferences and workshops to as-
sist local officials. Details concerning implementation are
summarized below.
Stormwater Program Grants-In-Aid
In 1984, as part of a legislative package known as the
Chesapeake Bay Initiatives, the General Assembly
authorized two additional programs related to stormwater
management. One of these was the Stormwater
Management Grants-in-Aid Program. This program,
which became effective in 1985, allocated approximately
$1.5 million annually to local governments to assist them
with implementation. Grants-in-aid may be used to fund
personnel, but local governments must have an Ad-
ministration-approved program to apply. Criteria used to
evaluate funding requests are not rigorous and pertain
mainly to the "reasonableness" of the request. In general,
this refers to whether there appears to be sufficient work
to justify the proposed positions. To assist local jurisdic-
tions in estimating manpower requirements, the Ad-
ministration provides productivity guidelines. Most funds
are used to pay plan-review staff and inspectors, al-
though some clerical and administrative positions also
are funded. Since the grants-in-aid program is competi-
tive and is not an entitlement program, some local
governments choose not to seek support.
Stormwater Pollution Control Cost Share Program
The Stormwater Pollution Control Cost Share Program,
which also was authorized in 1984 and implemented in
1985, is a grant program that matches up to 75 percent
of the cost of stormwater management retrofits. These
projects serve areas developed without stormwater
management. The objectives of the Cost Share Program
are to demonstrate best management practice (BMP)
pollutant removal efficiency, cost effectiveness, social ac-
ceptability, and maintenance requirements. Grants are
awarded competitively and funds for the projects are
raised through the sale of state bonds. In total, between
1984 and 1990, the Maryland General Assembly
authorized $5 million for stormwater capital projects
under this program.
Chesapeake Bay Agreements
In 1987 the governors of Maryland, Virginia, and
Pennsylvania, the mayor of Washington, DC, the chair-
man of the Chesapeake Bay Commission, and the U.S.
EPA administrator signed an agreement calling for a 40
percent reduction in nutrient loadings to the Chesapeake
Bay. In 1988, Maryland's Nutrient Reduction Plan was
completed, outlining a strategy for implementation of the
nutrient reduction objectives. The Plan calls for a 40 per-
cent reduction in all point and nonpoint sources, includ-
ing urban stormwater. To control urban runoff, three
strategies are identified: 1) the continuation of the exist-
ing cost share program, 2) a massive new retrofit
program to be funded by stormwater utilities, and 3) a
redevelopment program aimed at "explicit management
of development intensity." No complete cost estimates
for implementing these programs are available. Although
direct construction costs for retrofits have been estimated
at $71 million, this estimate is extremely low and does
not include any ancillary costs such as planning, model-
ing, or design.
EPA Nonpoint Source Control Programs
In 1987 Congress passed the Water Quality Act, a com-
prehensive overhaul of the Clean Water Act. Section 319
of the Act requires that all states develop assessment
and management reports that identify and categorize
sources of nonpoint pollution and outline coordinated
strategies for implementation of programs to control
them. The primary goal of Maryland's Assessment and
Management Reports is to implement the Nutrient
Reduction Plan. State officials made nutrient reduction
the focus of the nonpoint source program because sig-
nificant effort had been put into developing the Nutrient
Reduction Plan, quantitative goals already were in place
(i.e., the 40 percent reductions), and steps towards im-
plementation already were underway. Maryland's As-
sessment and Management Reports were approved in
August and December 1989, respectively. In 1989, Con-
gress authorized $40 million for implementation of non-
point source management plans, and in March 1990,
EPA awarded Maryland a $447,771 grant for FY 1990.
NPDES Permits for Stormwater Discharges
The 1987 Water Quality Act also directed EPA to promul-
gate regulations to require National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Permits for stormwater dis-
charges. It appears that numerous industries and at least
five major jurisdictions in Maryland will be required to
apply for permits. To receive permits, local jurisdictions
must have in place, among other items, programs to con-
trol pollutants from urban runoff from both existing and
new development. Final regulations are to be issued in
July 1990. Like existing NPDES programs for wastewater
treatment facilities and hazardous waste management
operations, the program is designed to be administered
by the states.
158
-------
Observations
To summarize, Maryland requires by statute and regula-
tion that local governments manage both the quantity
and quality of runoff from new development. The state
assists local governments in implementation with both
program grants and technical assistance. The state also
has established a grants program for capital projects to
address pollution problems in older areas developed
without stormwater controls. Since creation of these
programs, the state has established an extremely am-
bitious objective: a 40 percent reduction of nitrogen and
phosphorus loadings from urban runoff from existing
areas. More recently, EPA has required that the state
develop nonpoint source management plans to address
urban stormwater runoff. EPA will soon begin regulating
some stormwater systems and facilities.
Thus, the government apparatus to manage stormwater
in Maryland includes the state's regulatory program, two
grant programs, and the nutrient reduction program, all of
which now are overlain by two federal programs, one of
which is regulatory. This in itself may seem complicated,
but readers should keep in mind that this is only a partial
picture. For example, the state's Erosion and Sediment
Control Program, which in certain ways is more complex
than the regulatory program required under the
Stormwater Management Act, has not been described at
all. In addition, the Maryland Critical Areas Law estab-
lishes special stormwater-related requirements for
projects in the Critical Area (the strip of land 1,000 ft wide
that surrounds the high tide area of the Chesapeake
Bay). The Department of Environment's Water Quality
Certification Group has issued special guidance and re-
quirements for stormwater discharges into wetlands.
These brief summaries, though incomplete, provide a
good snapshot of some of the major state and federal ac-
tivities that impact the stormwater management com-
ponent of the nonpoint source management program.
IMPLEMENTATION
This section provides an overview of implementation
status for each of the programs summarized above, fol-
lowed by a subjective evaluation of overall progress.
When possible, judgments of both technical progress
(i.e., an assessment of progress toward objectives) and
administrative performance are provided.
The Stormwater Management Act and
Implementation of Local Programs
Local jurisdictions implemented stormwater management
programs in 1984, following approval of local ordinances
by the Administration. In late 1984 and early 1985, the
state completed a cursory review to determine whether
local jurisdictions had begun implementation. The data
that were collected were used to set priorities for the first
round of triennial field reviews. To date, 23 jurisdictions
have been reviewed. The Administration has reviewed all
the counties but one and Baltimore City. None of the 47
smaller municipalities that opted to implement their own
programs has been reviewed. Using the five criteria
noted above, the Administration determined that 13 of
the programs were acceptable and 10 were unaccep-
table. Since the initial review, two programs have been
brought into compliance and are now acceptable
(Table 1).
These findings require some interpretation. Per the
regulations (COMAR 26.09.01), a program is unaccep-
table if it is deficient in any of the categories mentioned
previously. In general, programs found to be deficient
had inadequate administrative procedures or documenta-
tion in files, were failing to provide adequate plan review,
were issuing waivers for too many projects, or were fail-
ing to provide adequate construction inspection. During
the first round of reviews, reviewers essentially ignored
the issue of maintenance because the program was too
new for local officials to establish a performance record
in this area. While about a third of the counties apparent-
ly were operating unacceptable programs, these data
may be misleading. Many of the findings were made 4 to
5 years ago, when programs were new and few data
were available for evaluation.
During the early reviews, programs were judged to be
acceptable if all program elements were in place. Track
records for performance evaluations are not available.
The findings of program evaluations are summarized by
year in Table 2. It is concluded from these data that the
Administration has become more stringent in its review of
local programs. This makes sense, and as local officials
gain experience, it seems reasonable to expect more of
them. However, given that almost a third of the programs
were last reviewed in 1985 and 1986 when reviews were
less rigorous, it may be that more than eight of the major
jurisdictions are not operating acceptably.
Although a number of programs may be unacceptable, it
is difficult to judge what this means in terms of environ-
mental impact. For example, a finding of unacceptable
for failure to provide adequate documentation in plan-
review files.may be nothing more than a paper deficien-
cy. On the other hand, it may be a clue that local officials
are issuing waivers in situations in which stormwater
management, or at least quality controls, ought be re-
quired. In and of itself, issuance of a waiver may not be
significant, either in terms or runoff quantity or quality.
However, the cumulative effects of waiving projects are
precisely those that the regulations are intended to
prevent.
Several problems emerged consistently during the
reviews. These include the issuance of waivers for
development of agricultural land in row crops because
hydrologic models show that runoff volumes will
decrease following development, failure to adhere to the
preference list for facilities, lack of construction inspec-
tions, failure to require submittal of as-buiit plans, lack of
159
-------
Table 1. Most Recent Sediment and Stormwater Administration Stormwater Reviews
County/
City
Allegany
AnneArtindel
Baltimore County
Baltimore City
Calvort
Caroline
Carroll
Cecil
Charles
Dorchester
Frederick
Garrett
Harford
Howard
Kent
Montgomery
Prince George's
Queen Anne's
Somerset
St. Mary's
Talbot
Washington
Wicomlco
Worcester
Date of Review
2/87
6/89
4/86
4/87
10/85
4/87
4/86
3/90
11/85
4/87
5/89
7/87
8/87
10/88
3/87
1/88
11/86
4/90
9/89
3/86
9/89
Ongoing
4/86
11/85
Finding
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Unacceptable
Acceptable
Acceptable
Current Status:
15 Acceptable (65%)
8 Unacceptable (35%)
(Note: Programs in Cecil and Anne Arundel Counties initially were found unacceptable but in later reviews were found to be acceptable.)
facility maintenance (including failure to maintain inven-
tories), and failure to notify homeowners' associations
that responsibility for maintenance had been transferred
to them. While some of these problems were corrected
during the review process, others will require changes in
regulations.
In assessing the review process, we also examined our
own performance. First, reviews have not been com-
pleted as frequently as required by the Stormwater
Management Act. Not only have the major jurisdictions
not been reviewed triennially (in 1990 a second round of
reviews should be completed), but only one of the 47
municipalities (Baltimore City) which elected to imple-
ment their own programs has been reviewed. The failure
to achieve timely reviews is attributable primarily to staff
shortages; only two to three individuals have been avail-
able at any one time to undertake reviews, and these in-
dividuals had other responsibilities.
The 23 reviews completed initially were conducted by
nine individuals, including several engineers, a geog-
rapher, and a planner. Despite general guidance in the
regulations, different reviewers have emphasized dif-
ferent criteria, and the reviews reflect this. We examined
each of the reviews in detail to determine if the reviewers
addressed the same program elements. We established
17 items pertinent to the review and noted whether
reviewers commented on each of these program
aspects. For example, we found that each review in-
cluded a summary comment on the quality of plan
review, but that comments about the quality of hydrologic
and hydraulic calculations were included in only 15 of the
23 reviews. Seventeen of the reviews included the num-
ber of inspectors on staff, but only eight noted the types
160
-------
Table 2. Findings of Program Reviews by Year
Year
1985
1986
1987
1988
1989*
1990*
Total
Jurisdictions
Found
Acceptable
3
4
4
1
1
2
IF
Jurisdictions
Found
Unacceptable
0
1
3
2
4
0
To
Reviews
3
5
7
3
5
2
25
* Includes one review in which one county was upgraded from
unacceptable to acceptable.
of enforcement tools available to the inspectors, and nine
reviewers included findings relative to enforcement ac-
tivity and the use of enforcement tools. Of the 17
program elements that were included in the review, the
only single program element that was mentioned explicit-
ly in each of the 23 initial reviews was the quality of plan
review and design. To ensure consistency in administra-
tion, the assessment of past reviews is used to develop
new procedures for conducting triennial reviews. These
include a requirement for annual administrative reviews
based on data supplied by each local jurisdiction in a
detailed 20-page data form.
Stormwater Program Grants-in-Aid
Data on the grants-in-aid awarded by the Administration
are presented in Table 3. Between 1985 and 1988,
Maryland awarded almost $9 million in grants-in-aid.
Twenty-one of Maryland's 23 counties have requested
and received funds, and nine of the 47 municipalities
have requested and received funds. Slightly over 82 per-
cent of the total funds have been awarded to counties,
and almost 18 percent have been awarded to
municipalities. Of the counties that have received funds,
14 of the programs were acceptable at the last review,
and seven were unacceptable. One of the two counties
that had not requested funds was unacceptable; a review
has not been completed for the other. The City of Bal-
timore is the only municipality to receive funds that has
been reviewed. In sum, 65 percent of the grants have
gone to counties with acceptable programs, and just over
17 percent have gone to counties with unacceptable
programs. Just over 6 percent of the total grants have
been given to Baltimore City, which operates an accept-
able program. Program reviews have not been com-
pleted for the other eight municipalities that have
received almost 12 percent of the total awards.
It is difficult to assess the effect that the grants have had
on jurisdictions responsible for implementing stormwater
programs, let alone the effects of the grants on mitigating
adverse effects of development on water resources, it is
not even known, for example, the percentage of each
local stormwater budget that is made up of state funds.
Thus, the extent to which state funds have helped local
jurisdictions establish successful programs cannot be as-
sessed. It is noted above that just over 17 percent of the
grants ($1.56 million) have been allocated to seven
counties that operate unacceptable programs; it is
believed that the number of unacceptable programs
would be higher if state funds were not available.
With respect to impact on the environment, enough data
are available to make a general assessment of whether
the funds are being allocated to the "right" jurisdictions.
Intuitively, organizations would hope to grant funds to
those jurisdictions where the greatest impact on the en-
vironment is occurring, which is, in this case, those with
the most development. Table 4 shows the total funds
granted to each major jurisdiction between 1985 and
1990 along with the total number of housing starts bet-
ween 1985 and 1988. Although the grants are not tied
directly to development levels, the funds would be ex-
pected to track development. This generally seems to be
the case. In most cases, the difference between the per-
centage of total funds received and the percentage of
total housing starts is very small.
The following conclusion can be made: for the smaller
jurisdictions, the percentage of funds received generally
corresponds to the percentage of housing starts.
However, among the larger jurisdictions, there is greater
variation. For example, Prince George's County has
received more than 22 percent of the total grants, al-
though just 12.2 percent of the total housing starts have
occurred within the county. For Baltimore, Howard, and
Montgomery counties and Baltimore City, the percentage
of housing starts that have occurred in the jurisdiction is
higher than the percentage of total program grants that
have been awarded to the jurisdiction. Howard County is
the only one of these five major jurisdictions that had an
unacceptable program at the time of review. It appears
that local officials in Prince George's County have been
more aggressive in seeking funds than other local juris-
dictions. One other program that stands out in this crude
analysis is St. Mary's County, which has received ap-
proximately 6 percent of the total grants awarded, al-
though the number of housing starts in the area
comprises just 2 percent of the total. Despite receiving
funds disproportionate to development activity, St. Mary's
program was unacceptable at the time of the last review.
Stormwater Pollution Control Cost Share Grants
Since 1984 the General Assembly has authorized ap-
proximately $5 million for stormwater pollution control
grants. The Sediment and Stormwater Administration
has obligated 47 grants totalling $4.97 million. The funds
have been used to support a variety of projects, including
seven infiltration facilities, 19 extended detention facilities
with wetlands, two extended detention dry ponds, eight
161
-------
Table 3. Stormwater Management Grants-in-Aid Program
The Cr«nt-fn-Aid Progra« (s designed to assist Local jurisdictions in reducing stream channel erosion, pollution, local flooding, and adverse impacts
County FIBS
Allcginy S<6.««5
AnneArun 1134,097
liltlnor* 191,554
C.lvert 132.378
Orel Ine
C»rrol 128,817
C«cll
Chtrlei 158.292
DorcheXer $30,466
Frederick HO. 552
Gtrrelt $24.877
Hirford 177,763
Kouird 182,21?
Kent 122,419
Montgooery 133,835
Prince Ceo $118,366
Oueen Anne's $38, 162
Soneriet 18,790
St.mry't 171.736
Tatbot 124,876
Uithlngton
Uleoalco 132.895
Worcester
Hunlclpilltlet
Aberdeen
Araupolis 133,021
liltoCUy $78,637
loule 16,144
Ceo&rldge $20,644
Frederick
Ocean City $32,422
RockvllU 135,789
Salisbury
FY86
$35,787
$109,994
$111,032
$30,579
$24,727
$51,982
$25,184
$25,802
$75,231
$64,518
$22,419
$113,239
$378,013
$26,125
$80.494
$27,134
$37,443
$35,246
$92,346
$29,282
$4,870
$18,250
$9,325
$36,643
$1,410
FYB7
$36,152
$138,861
$102,611
$30,399
$27,963
$50,862
$57,233
$26,380
$21,952
$26,504
$71,500
$33,989
$22,437
$95,880
$423,375
$28,720
$77,064
$13,741
$34,000
$5,688
$10,000
$38,680
$95,293
$39,472
$2.150
$9,195
$66,353
$13,153
Fvaa
$36,355
$142,122
$105,589
$31,615
$29,082
$52,896
$59,018
$15,524
$74,360
$30,510
$22,436
$128,580
$423,000
$29,869
$102.253
$35,360
$7,789
$23,385
$40,194
$99,105
$41,051
$2,236
$13,140
$33,965
$18,160
FV89
$33,080
$129,330
$109,080
$28,770
$26,460
$52,298
$63,493
$14,130
$20,770
$25,080
$76,467
$48,266
$20,420
$117,300
$384,930
$19,712
$93,100
$32,180
$21,280
$36,570
$90,180
$37,360
$2,030
$60,934
$9,950
$30,910
$16,520
FY90
$31,503
$143,800
$175,882
$43,710
$28,000
$56,409
$54,627
$15,745
$21,960
$32,577
$67,038
150,355
$18,786
$133,312
$283,132
$30,616
$108,735
131,984
$10,140
$33,092
$90,157
151,024
$52,207
$8,640
$32,671
$16,520
Total
FY85-FY90
$219,542
$798,204
$695,750
$197,451
$165,049
$212,465
$344,645
$127,429
$75,234
$134,840
$442,359
$309,855
$128,917
1622,146
12010,816
1173,204
$8,790
$533,382
165,751
$203,862
$13,477
164,805
1216,803
$545,718
$204,333
$31,930
$131,391
$82,672
$236,331
$68,141
construct!
'/. of Total
2.4X
8.8%
7.7X
2.2X
o.ox
1.BX
2.3%
3.8%
1.4%
0.8%
1.5%
4.9%
3.4%
1.4%
6.9%
22.2%
1.9%
0.0%
5.9%
0.7%
0.0%
2.3%
0.2%
0.7%
2.4%
6.0%
2.3%
0.4%
1.5%
0.9%
'2.6%
0.8%
$1175,416
$1467,075
$1599,607
$1597,594
$1600,600
$1625,000
$9065,292
162
-------
Table 4. Stormwater Management Grants-in-Aid and Housing Starts
COUNTIES
Program
Grants
TOTAL
FY 1985
FY 1990
PERCENT OF
TOTAL GRANTS
HOUSING
STARTS
1985-1988
PERCENT OF
TOTAL
Allegany
Anne Arundel
Baltimore
Calvert
Caroline
Carroll
Cecil
Charles
Dorchester
Frederick
Harford
Howard
Garrett
Kent
Montgomery
Prince George's
Queen Anne
Somerset
St. Mary's
Talbot
Washington
Wicomico
Worcester
219,542
798,304
695,750
197,451
0
165,049
108,707
344,645
127,409
75,234
442,359
309,855
134,840
128,917
622,146
2010,816
173,204
8,790
533,382
65,751
0
203,862
13,477
2.4%
8.9%
7.8%
1
1
6
22
1
2%
0.0%
1.8%
1.2%
3.8%
1.4%
0.8%
4.9%
3.5%
5%
4%
9%
0.1%
6.0%
0.7%
0.0%
2.3%
0.2%
877
15,429
21,222
3,515
954
6,698
3,252
6,242
721
7,844
11,338
15,805
1,200
399
30,342
20,121
2,182
674
3,327
1,426
2,955
2,829
3,730
0.5%
9.3%
12.8%
2.1%
0.6%
4.0%
2.0%
3.8%
0.4%
4.7%
6.8%
9.5%
0.7%
0.2%
18.3%
12.2%
1.3%
0.4%
2.0%
0.9%
1.8%
1.7%
2.3%
163
-------
wetlands, one sand filter, and 10 other practices. The
projects are at various stages of implementation.
Overall, 14 jurisdictions have received cost share grants,
including 11 counties and three municipalities. Of the
counties that received grants, four had unacceptable
stormwater programs at the time of the last review. Two
of the municipalities that received grants never have
been reviewed. As Table 5 shows, Prince George's
County has received a disproportionate share of funds
(21.7 percent), and Baltimore County has received an
unexpectedly small share (3 percent). Like the Grants-in-
Atd, the cost share program is not an entitlement
program. Since retrofits are not required by state law or
regulation, the effort put forth at the local level to identify
and rectify stormwater pollution problems varies greatly.
To a significant degree, the allocation of cost-share funds
to local jurisdictions reflects the sophistication of local
programs.
Chesapeake Bay Agreements
Regionally, implementation of the Chesapeake Bay
Agreements is being coordinated through an Interstate
Implementation Committee. In Maryland, the Sediment
and Stormwater Administration has been designated as
the lead agency for nonpoint source pollution controls.
An Interagency Steering Committee has been estab-
lished to coordinate all statewide efforts to control all
types of nonpoint source pollution, including nutrients,
conventional pollutants, and toxics. The Committee
presently is updating Maryland's Nutrient Reduction
Plan, which is the best-developed statement of the
state's overall efforts to control pollution in the Bay. Sec-
tions of the Nutrient Reduction' Plan concerning nonpoint
pollution have been extracted and used to develop
Maryland's nonpoint source management plan for EPA
pursuant to Section 319 of the Water Quality Act.
Specific implementation activities have included exten-
sive retrofit efforts in selected or targeted watersheds.
EPA Nonpoint Source Control Programs
While the State of Maryland has been active in
stormwater management, direct federal support for im-
plementation of related nonpoint source management
programs has evolved more recently. Maryland has
redefined existing programs to control nonpoint pollution
in the Bay, particularly the Chesapeake Bay nutrient
reduction plan, to fit into the framework outlined by EPA
pursuant to Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. In March
1990, Maryland received its first nonpoint source im-
plementation grant. Projects, activities, and items funded
include:
• One staff position to coordinate nonpoint source
programs
• Two staff positions to implement stormwater utilities
• One stormwater retrofit project manager
• Four agricultural soil conservation planners
• Ground-water modeling study
• Demonstration wetlands joint use project
• Cooperative Extension Service nonpoint source
conference
Table 5. Stormwater Pollution Control Cost-Share Grants by County
County
Allegany
Anne Arundel
Baltimore
Cah/ert
Caroline
Dorchester
Harford
Howard
Kent
Montgomery
Prince George's
Baltimore City
Crisfield
Ocean City
Total
Number of
Projects
1
5
2
1
1
2
4
1
1
9
12
3
1
4
47
Total Funds
$65,000
777,000
147,000
24,578
25,000
320,908
416,750
37,500
45,000
826,000
1,080,000
628,508
303,750
272,400
$4,969,394
Percent of Funds
1 .3%
15.6
3.0
0.5
0.5
6.5
8.4
0.8
0.9
16.6
21.7
12.6
6.1
5.5
1 00.0 %
164
-------
These projects were identified by a statewide, interagen-
cy task force that was created to guide implementation of
projects funded by EPA. As is evident from the projects,
about half of the programs are for projects related to
urban nonpoint source programs. The coordinator posi-
tion will be based in the Sediment and Stormwater Ad-
ministration to strengthen existing programs. The staff to
assist with utilities will build on ongoing technical assis-
tance activities to help local jurisdictions identify ade-
quate financing for programs, and the stormwater retrofit
project manager will improve the existing cost-share
program by strengthening management capabilities, in-
cluding capabilities for project evaluation. At this time, it
is anticipated that funds will be available under Section
319 for the next three or four years and that in years
hence, funds will be used increasingly for implementation
of capital and educational projects.
NPDES Permits for Stormwater Discharges
EPA expects to issue final regulations for implementation
of the permit system in late July or August 1990. The
State of Maryland has determined that municipal permits
will be issued by the Sediment and Stormwater Ad-
ministration, and industrial permits will be issued by the
Hazardous and Solid Waste Management Administra-
tion. While details of the permitting program have not yet
been developed, it is clear that implementation of the
program will require substantial effort and resources not
currently available to the Administration.
Administration
Primary responsibility for implementation of the
Stormwater Management Act initially was delegated to
the Sediment and Stormwater Division within the
Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR). In
1984 the Division included only three staff members. In
1987 a new Department of the Environment (MDE) was
created, and programs were transferred from DNR to
MDE. The Division was elevated to the Sediment and
Stormwater Administration (SSA), an organizational leap
of two steps. The Administration now includes three
programs: 1) the Policy and Evaluation Program, which
is responsible for local program reviews, 2) the Construc-
tion Management Program, which administers the two
state grant programs, and 3) the Compliance Program,
which is responsible for sediment and erosion control in-
spection and enforcement and is the largest program.
Table 6 includes a summary of the Administration budget
and number of staff for fiscal years 1987 through 1991.
The budget remained relatively constant between FY
1987 and FY 1989, but increased significantly between
FY 1989 and FY 1991. The growth primarily has been for
more inspectors to strengthen the erosion and sediment
control inspection and enforcement programs.
The Compliance Program is by far the largest in the Ad-
ministration, accounting for over two-thirds of the staff (in
FY 1990), very few of whom have any involvement with
stormwater management. The Construction Management
Program is the second-largest in terms of budget and
personnel. The FY 1991 budget figures for this program
include, however, about $1.6 million for the Stormwater
Program Grants-in-Aid, about 89 percent of the Program
budget. The Policy and Evaluation Program, which has
primary responsibility for review of local stormwater
programs, is the smallest of the three programs. It ac-
counts for fewer than 10 percent of the Administration
employees and about 12 percent of the Administration
Budget. The division responsible for review of local
programs currently includes only three staff members.
Excluding administrative and clerical staff, approximately
five to six technical staff (planners and engineers) actual-
ly work to administer stormwater regulations and grant
programs. No new positions have been authorized to the
Administration specifically for development of programs
to achieve the 40 percent reductions in nutrients in urban
nonpoint source loadings to the Bay, although the sedi-
ment and erosion control initiatives work towards this
goal. Since the Sediment and Stormwater Administration
has been designated the lead agency in Maryland to ad-
minister EPA's nonpoint source programs, the Section
319 grant will fund four additional staff people in the
SSA. The SSA also has been assigned responsibility for
development and administration of the NPDES system;
however, no positions have been authorized to assist
with development of the program.
LESSONS LEARNED
To sum up, the state has made significant investments in
managing stormwater. Since 1984, the state has
awarded $9 million in program grants-in-aid and about $5
million for pollution control cost share projects. It is es-
timated that the annual costs to administer these
programs (including stormwater regulatory reviews) is
about $1 million annually. These investments have
resulted in significant progress: all the counties have im-
plemented programs. Literally thousands of best
management practices (BMPs) have been built in
Maryland. Most of these are functioning, though perhaps
not as designed. With respect to existing programs, a
number of areas need to be improved, at both local and
state levels. The pending stormwater regulations have
the potential to significantly impact the Administration's
current operations and budget. It is unlikely that im-
plementation of new federal permit requirements will
proceed smoothly. For example, the draft regulations
specify that, to obtain a permit, local governments must
have water-quality monitoring and modeling programs as
well as stormwater management programs, sediment
and erosion control programs, and retrofit programs
similar to those already in place in Maryland. These will
require significant new resources.
165
-------
Table 6. Sediment and Stormwater Administration, Staff and Budget
Fiscal Year
1987
1988
1989
1990
1991
Budget ($ Million)
Policy and Evaluation
Construction Management
Compliance
Other Grants and Administration
Total Budget
Permanent Positions
Policy and Evaluation
Construction Management
Compliance
Other Grants and Administration
Permanent Positions
3.3
46
3.2
44
3.4
4.1
43
58
0.6
1.8
1.4
1.1
4.9
5
8
39
6
58
The following observations should be noted.
• State law and regulations are making a difference.
On-site controls are helping to mitigate the effects of
urbanization. With respect to pollution control,
however, these controls simply slow the rate of pollu-
tion. BMPs are not 100 percent effective. Regulators
and Stormwater managers should clearly communi-
cate the limitations of the practices that are being
used.
• Effective Stormwater management requires a com-
mitment by elected decision makers at the local
level. Despite the existence of state regulations and
technical assistance activities, a number of programs
at the local level in Maryland are not acceptable.
This probably results, in large part, from the failure of
local officials to allocate adequate resources to the
programs. This is particularly a problem in moderate-
ly populated jurisdictions that now are experiencing
significant growth.
• Given that BMPs have limitations in their ability to
control pollutants, growth management must be
viewed as a key element of nonpoint source control
efforts. Planning at the watershed level to mitigate
against nonpoint source pollution will be required for
efficient allocation of scarce resources. For example,
major, yet-to-be defined elements of Maryland's
Nutrient Reduction Plan involve definition of growth
management objectives through watershed planning
processes.
The State's plans for implementation of the federal
NPDES program are not well developed. It is not
known at this time exactly what the regulations will
require or the number of people that will be required
to administer the permit system. According to
timetables set forth by EPA, implementation should
be occurring soon.
Finally, the Maryland experience suggests that
evolution of programs will be required to control
urban nonpoint source pollution effectively. Despite
the existence of path-breaking regulations and sig-
nificant financial and technical assistance, there
have been problems with implementation. Recogni-
tion of the pervasiveness of the nonpoint source
problem and the limitations of even innovative struc-
tural approaches leads to the conclusion that growth
management approaches are essential. Maryland's
program must evolve to incorporate these. Respond-
ing to federal regulatory requirements will require ad-
ditional new elements in the state's Stormwater
programs, and continual evaluation and reevaluation
will be essential to achievement of objectives.
166
-------
THE CLEAN COLORADO PROJECT AND URBAN NONPOINT SOURCE
POLLUTION CONTROL: THE LCRA PROGRAM
Patrick Hartigan and Kolleen Wilwerding
Environmental Quality Division
Lower Colorado River Authority
Austin, Texas
BACKGROUND
The Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) is a soil and
water conservation district that was created in 1934 by
the Texas legislature to manage the resources of the
lower Colorado River. The LCRA has a 10:county
statutory district encompassing some 9,800 mi of the
Colorado River basin from San Saba County in Central
Texas to Matagorda Bay on the Texas coast. The agen-
cy has a 15-member board of directors appointed by the
governor, with each director serving a six-year term. Bet-
ween 1935 and 1951, the Authority constructed a series
of dams that created a chain of reservoirs in Central
Texas known as the Highland Lakes. These lakes
provide water supply, hydroelectric power, flood control,
tourism and recreational opportunities, and wildlife
habitat for the region.
One of the main goals of the LCRA is to protect the water
quality of the Colorado River. In order to develop and im-
plement aggressive and innovative strategies to protect
and enhance the water quality of jts district, LCRA
launched the Clean Colorado project in 1988. The Clean
Colorado project is a multifaceted project that includes
LCRA's nonpoint source pollution prevention program,
an extensive water-quality monitoring program, scientific
research projects to determine the effectiveness of
water-quality management strategies, and a public infor-
mation and education program that includes a citizen-
based water-quality monitoring program.
Although water-quality protection has traditionally meant
the addressing of wastewater issues, a recognition has
developed in recent years for the need to control non-
point source (NFS) pollution. An analysis of LCRA's
monitoring program shows that over 90 percent of the
pollution in the Highland Lakes is NFS in origin. LCRA
estimates that the NFS loads in the Lake Travis basin
could increase on the order of 200-600+ percent in the
future, largely due to the conversion of rangeland to
urban and suburban development. While the exact ef-
fects of this increase are not well known, intuitively it ap-
pears the impacts could be severe. Already there is
some noticeable degradation resulting from new
development, especially following heavy rainfalls when
turbidity and sedimentation increase.
Responding to the need to protect the quality of the
reservoirs in the face of this continuing urban develop-
ment, the LCRA began exercising its pollution control
powers in the 1980s. A key step was the development of
the Water Quality Leadership Policy in 1988 by the board
of directors, which mandated that LCRA take the lead
role in controlling NFS pollution in its 10-county district,
beginning with the Highland Lakes. The policy discus-
sions made it clear that pollution prevention would be the
basis of LCRA's programs, along with a "polluter pays"
philosophy. An extensive public education program was
conducted in 1988 and 1989, including the production of
a 30-minute video titled "Pointless Pollution: America's
Water Crisis," narrated by Walter Cronkite. Realizing that
public education alone would not be sufficient to protect
the lakes, LCRA proposed in 1989 to develop a
regulatory program for the Lake Travis watershed in
Travis County. This proposal received widespread public
and private support, and the Lake Travis Nonpoint
Source Control Pollution Control Ordinance was adopted
by the LCRA Board of Directors in December 1989. The
Ordinance went into effect on February 1, 1990, and ex-
pansion of the ordinance to the other Highland Lakes is
expected to occur in 1991. The Ordinance targets new
urban and suburban development for an area of ap-
proximately 250 mi2 in western Travis County. The or-
dinance exempts agriculture and existing development.
The Lake Travis Ordinance establishes a set of "perfor-
mance" standards that require new development to
remove a specified amount of the annual NFS pollution
load, depending on the site's proximity to the shoreline
and the slope of the property, as shown in Table 1. Sites
within 500 feet of the lake and/or those on steep slopes
require a higher level of runoff treatment than inland or
flatter sites. In general, the more intensively a site is
developed, the more pollution must be removed. This ap-
proach acknowledges the link between land use and
NFS pollution. However, there are no land use control
stipulations in the ordinance, as LCRA's mandate is to
167
-------
protect water quality and not to control land use. A Tech-
nical Manual has been developed in conjunction with the
Ordinance, which provides criteria on how to meet the
Ordinance's standards. The manual does not mandate
specific practices, as its intent is to provide guidance and
recommendations on options for achieving the perfor-
mance standard.
DEVELOPMENT OF THE ORDINANCE
STANDARDS
II was the LCRA's goal to develop a set of performance-
based standards that were strict but feasible, readily un-
derstood, and easily enforceable. Several steps were
taken to develop these standards.
First, LCRA defined three specific pollution problems
which the Ordinance targets for control:
1. Sedimentation—primarily caused by construction site
runoff and streambank erosion
2. Eutrophication—resulting from nutrients in urban
runoff (e.g., landscaping and golf courses)
3. Toxics—such as pesticides, oil and grease from
parking lots and roads, and heavy metals from urban
areas
LCRA investigated three possible approaches to control
these problems:
1. Set effluent standards for runoff.
2. Establish technology-based standards to treat runoff.
3. Set receiving water-quality standards.
An important aspect of LCRA's approach is that it in-
tegrates water quantity and quality control, since conven-
tional flood detention basins should also be designed to
accomplish water-quality treatment.
Option 1 was not considered viable due to the extreme
variability of flows and pollutant concentrations, the un-
predictable nature of runoff events, and the difficulty of
monitoring for compliance.
Option 3 would "be the preferred approach, but our
knowledge of the lake's dynamics are currently too
limited to develop such standards. In particular, the
trophic dynamics and transport fate of pollutants are
poorly understood.
Option 2 has been adopted at this time with the intent of
eventually linking technology-based standards to desired
receiving water-quality conditions. By technology-based,
LCRA means the use of best management practices, or
Table 1. Percent of the Annual Pollutant Load, Over Predevelopment Conditions, That Must be Removed
Property
Location
Inland
Near shore
(within 500 ft
of 691 msl)
Slope of
Property
under 1 0%
10-20%
over 20%
under 1 0%
10-20%
over 20%
Total
Suspended
Solids
70%
80%
90%
75%
90%
90%
Total
Phosphorus
70%
75%
85%
75%
85%
85%
Oil&
Grease
70%
75%
85%
75%
85%
85%
Notes:
1. Oil and grease standards apply to commercial and multifamily development only.
2. Inland property located more than 500 ft from the 691-ft msl contour measured horizontally in a direction away
from the lake surface.
3. Near-shore property is located within 500 horizontal ft of the 691 -ft contour.
To summarize the sequence one must follow to meet the performance standard:
- Determine what the performance standards are for TSS, TP, and O&G (if commercial or multifamily) based on the slope
of the site and its proximity to Lake Travis.
- Calculate the annual pollutant loads for the site for both pre- and postdevelopment conditions.
- Determine the streambank erosion control volume requirement.
- Screen the BMPs in the Technical Manual and select ones which, separately or together, can meet the pollutant
removal requirements.
- Proceed with a detailed design of the site and BMPs.
168
-------
BMPs. Examples of BMPs are vegetative filter strips,
sedimentation ponds, silt fences, and even source reduc-
tion techniques, such as street sweeping and low-
maintenance landscaping.
The technology-based approach was then linked to the
three targeted problems by developing standards to:
1. Control sedimentation from construction sites by re-
quiring temporary erosion and sedimentation
controls.
2. Control streambank erosion by using permanent
BMPS to control the release of stormwater flows
from developed sites—recognizing that streambank
erosion is often the largest source of sediment.
3. Remove pollutants in stormwater by treating runoff
with permanent BMPs. The BMPs used for runoff
treatment may be the same BMPs used to control
streambank erosion.
To meet the first standard, a temporary erosion control
plan must be developed using BMPs such as silt fences,
brush berms, rock berms, and sediment ponds.
The second standard, controlling streambank erosion,
evolved from studies indicating that low-frequency
storms (e.g., less than two-year return periods) may
largely define the shape and characteristics of natural
channels (1). The Ordinance currently requires that the
one-year storm be detained for a period of 24 hours to
control streambank erosion. The intent here is to retain
the natural hydrologic flow regime to the fullest extent
possible.
The third standard, treating pollution in the runoff, was
developed by investigating the relationship between the
pollutant removal efficiencies of BMPs and the increase
in pollutant loads resulting from development. The
primary goal was to develop an easily understood proce-
dure that allowed land developers to quickly assess their
sites by estimating pollutant loads, comparing those
loads with the performance standards, and selecting
BMPs that would reduce the pollutant loads to the perfor-
mance standard levels. Several steps were required to
develop this standard, as summarized and discussed in
the following:
1. Select parameters that are indicators of the pollution
problem targeted by the Ordinance.
2. Develop a methodology to estimate pollutant loads.
3. Evaluate the effectiveness of BMPs to treat the in-
dicator pollutants.
4. Apply the BMPs to various development scenarios to
select feasible performance standards.
STEP 1. SELECT INDICATOR PARAMETERS
The following indicator parameters in stormwater runoff
were selected for treatment by the Ordinance:
a. Total Suspended Solids (TSS) as an indicator of
sedimentation
b. Total Phosphorus (TP) as an indicator of
eutrophication
c. Oil and Grease (O&G) as an indicator of toxics
The advantage of using these indicator parameters is
that they represent the range of suspended, soluble, and
colloidal pollutants. Thus, BMPs designed to treat these
three pollutants will also treat a wide range of other
pollutants.
STEP 2. ESTIMATE POLLUTANT LOADS
A simple loading equation was developed which is the
product of annual runoff volume and the average annual
stormwater pollutant concentration:
L =AxRFxRvxCxK
where:
L = Annual pollutant load in pounds
A = Area of site in acres
RF = Annual rainfall in inches (32.5" assumed)
Rv = Annual average runoff-to-rainfall ratio
C = Annual average pollutant concentration
in mg/L
K = A conversion factor (0.2266)
This load is the annual pollutant load for an average year
of rainfall. In order to maintain consistency and fairness
for all developments, LCRA has defined rainfall (RF),
runoff coefficient (Rv), and pollutant concentrations (C).
This also streamlines the administrative review process.
The area used in this calculation is the developed area of
the site, not the total area. This distinction is made to
clarify the intent of the Ordinance, which is to treat runoff
from developed areas. Runoff from undeveloped land is
considered as the natural "background" load. For urban
development, the amount of impervious cover is the best
index for estimating runoff volumes and, indeed, is the
best indicator of urbanization overall. A national runoff
equation was adopted (1):
Rv = 0.05 + (0.009 x 1C)
where:
1C is the percent impervious cover of the
developed area
Next, pollutant concentrations had to be defined, and a
review of both local and national data was conducted.
The LCRA concluded that there is a difference in con-
centrations between developed and undeveloped land.
However, there is no conclusive evidence that a dif-
ference exists in concentrations for different types of
developed land (i.e., residential concentrations are as-
sumed to equal commercial concentrations). Table 2
169
-------
shows pollutant concentrations, in mg/L, which were
defined for the Ordinance (2,3,4):
As more local data are collected it is likely that these as-
sumed concentrations will be revised.
Table 2. Pollutant concentrations
Indicator Parameter
Background Developed
Conditions Conditions
(mg/L) (mg/L)
Total Suspended Solids (TSS) 48 130
Total Phosphorus (TP) 0.08 0.26
Oil and Grease (O&G) 0 15
STEP 3. EVALUATE EFFECTIVENESS OF BMPS
A wide variety of BMPs were evaluated for their ability to
treat urban runoff. Some BMPs can theoretically achieve
removal efficiencies of 60 to 80 percent. The efficiency of
BMPs varies not only with the pollutant of interest but
also with the volume of runoff captured. As impervious
cover increases, the capture volume of a BMP must also
increase to maintain an equivalent level of treatment.
In order to achieve high levels of treatment for all three
parameters, the use of multiple BMPs was considered a
viable option. This concept is somewhat controversial as
there is very little information available to estimate the
removal efficiency of multiple BMPs. The LCRA has cur-
rently adopted a simple method to calculate the removal
efficiency of multiple BMPs by assuming that the cumula-
tive efficiency is the product of the individual BMP
efficiencies:
Etot
where:
{1 - ((1 - Ei/100) x (1 - Ł2/100))} x 100
= Annual pollutant removal efficiency
Ei » Annual removal efficiency of first BMP
Ea » Annual removal efficiency fo second BMP
For example, if EI has a removal efficiency of 60 percent
and Ea a removal efficiency of 40 percent, the total
removal eficiency would be calculated to be:
Etot - {1-((1-0.6)x(1-0.4))}x100, or
Etot - 76%
It is a high priority of LCRA's to determine the validity of
the assumption made for sequential BMPs.
LCRA's Technical Manual provides extensive criteria for
selecting various BMPs, and assigns annual pollutant
removal efficiencies for each. In addition to BMPs
described in the manual, other BMPs will be considered
on a case-by-case basis.
STEP 4. APPLY BMPS TO DEVELOPMENT
SITES
A variety of land use and BMP scenarios were simulated
in order to investigate potential reductions of annual pol-
lutant loads. There was a considerable interest in relating
the performance standards to predevelopment conditions
and maintaining those conditions to the fullest extent
possible. This does not appear to be feasible in a num-
ber of cases with medium to high development intensity.
In addition to the land use and BMP simulations, there
were extensive discussions with public and private inter-
ests. A citizens' technical advisory committee was also
formed to assist in the development of the ordinance
standards. The performance standards that were finally
adopted, as shown in Table 1, reflected the input of a
large and diverse group of people. Some of the features
of the performance standards are:
• Implementation of a sliding scale that recognizes the
increased likelihood of pollution from steeply sloped
sites and/or those located in close proximity to the
lake
• The O&G standard is required only for multifamily
and commercial development, based on recommen-
dations by Silverman and Stenstrom (5)
• The annual NPS pollution load to be treated is the
difference between the total annual load and the
predevelopment "background" load
It was discovered that low-intensity sites could, in many
cases, reduce loads to pre-development levels by simply
using vegetative filter strips. In response to this, an "Al-
ternative Standard" was developed for large-lot residen-
tial development; this does not have the extensive design
and engineering requirements of the performance stand-
ard process.
ADMINISTRATION OF THE ORDINANCE
The Ordinance requires all land owners/developers who
are proposing to develop land within the Lake Travis
watershed in Travis County to submit an application for
review and plans on how the surface water runoff from
the site will be handled. The plan must include the.
following:
• A temporary erosion and sedimentation control plan,
including a restoration plan for all disturbed areas
• Descriptions, calculations, locations, and design
details of BMPs used to meet the performance
standards
• Establishment of a maintenance organization to en-
sure that the BMPs are properly maintained
170
-------
• A letter of credit to cover the cost to correct problems
associated with the site's pollution controls
A fee schedule has also been established which lays out
review and inspection fees to recoup a portion of the
program's administrative costs. LCRA conducts inspec-
tions of development sites to ensure compliance with the
Ordinance. LCRA has several legal options available to
ensure compliance:
• Stop-work order for nonpermitted sites or those out
of compliance with the permit
• Permit revocation if compliance with stop-work or-
ders does not occur within 10 days of posting
• Penalties ranging from $500 to $10,000 per day per
violation
• Injunctions
The application process itself takes approximately 30 to
90 days to complete. There is a public notice require-
ment for properties situated within 500 feet of the
development site.
One of the key features of the Ordinance is that there are
no variance provisions, though direct appeals to the
LCRA Board of Directors are allowed. The LCRA
decision not to include a variance provision was in
response to the recognition that variance procedures
have, in some cases, seriously weakened the intent of
other regulatory programs.
EVALUATION OF THE ORDINANCE
There was strong support at the time the Ordinance was
adopted to have it evaluated on a periodic basis. The
evaluation is needed not only to check its compliance
record but also because much of the criteria in the Or-
dinance and Technical Manual has not been locally
verified. LCRA has thus embarked on a program to
monitor and model Lake Travis and the Ordinance. This
evaluation is being conducted jointly by LCRA and the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Geologi-
cal Survey, and private consultants.
This project will attempt to provide answers to and/or in-
sight into the following questions:
1. Will the ordinance standards be adequate for
protecting the water quality of Lake Travis?
2. Will the standards actually be met by the best
management practices (BMPs) required by the or-
dinance?
To answer these questions, a set of objectives has been
formulated foreach, as presented in the following:
Objective 1. Evaluate the factors that determine the
water-quality conditions of Lake Travis
Objective 2. Establish a cause-and-effect relationship
between land use and pollution protec-
tion/control strategies with receiving water
quality
Objective 3. Monitor the compliance record of develop-
ment regulated under the ordinance to
determine whether the standards are being
met
This is a five-year project with preliminary findings
scheduled to be reported in early 1993.
SUMMARY
LCRA's Lake Travis NPS Control Ordinance was
developed to protect Lake Travis from sedimentation,
eutrophication, and toxics problems caused by
stormwater runoff. Using a technology-based approach,
the Ordinance requires new urban and suburban
development to remove a large percent of its annual
NPS pollutant load (from 70 to 90 percent in most
cases). The Ordinance became effective in February
1990 and is currently being evaluated for effectiveness.
The work described in this paper was not funded by the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and therefore the
contents do not necessarily reflect the views of the agen-
cy and no official endorsement should be inferred.
REFERENCES
1. Schueler, T. R., 1987. Controlling Urban Runoff: A
Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban
BMPs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Govern-
ments, Washington, DC, July.
2. Chang, G. C., J.H. Parrish, and C. Soeur, 1988.
Modeling Studies for the City of Austin Stormwater
Monitoring Program, City of Austin, Department of
Environmental Protection, Austin, TX, October.
3. City of Austin, 1990. Stormwater Pollutant Loading
Characteristics for Various Land Uses in the Austin
Area, Environmental and Conservation Services
Department, Austin, TX.
4. United States Environmental Protection Agency,
1983. Results of the National Urban Runoff Program:
Volume 1—Final Report, Water Planning Division,
Washington, DC, December.
5. Silverman, G. S., and M.K. Stenstrom, 1988. Source
Control of Oil and Grease in an Urban Area,
Proceedings of Engineering Foundation Conference
Design of Urban Runoff Quality Controls, American
Society of Civil Engineers, New York, NY.
171
-------
REGULATION THROUGH LOCAL LEVEL NEGOTIATION—A SUCCESSFUL
APPROACH TO CONTROL OF NONPOINTSOURCE POLLUTION
Catherine Tyrrell
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project
Monterey Park, California
INTRODUCTION
In November 1990, an article appeared in the Los An-
geles Times lauding Environmental Defense Fund Ex-
ecutive Director Fred Krupp for negotiating a deal with
McDonald's to end the fast-food chain's use of poly-
styrene foam packaging (L.A. Times, November 12,
1990, View Section, page 1). Krupp is quoted saying
"...We may be entering a new era of environmental
problem-solving by negotiation."
The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project applied a
similar strategy when it brought together a group of its
Management Committee members representing
stormdrain operators, environmentalists, and regulatory
agencies to develop a program to control urban runoff
into Santa Monica Bay.
This paper discusses: 1) the importance of negotiated
regulation for solving nonpoint source pollution problems,
2) the process that was used to negotiate a permit to
control urban runoff into Santa Monica Bay and adjacent
coastal waters in the Los Angeles area, 3) the elements
thai were crucial to the negotiations, and 4) the sub-
stance of the resulting permit.
THE IMPORTANCE OF NEGOTIATION
Effective control of urban runoff is difficult. It makes good
sense, therefore, to use a negotiated strategy. Some of
the barriers to effective control include: 1) the diffuse
sources of the problem (e.g., atmospheric deposition and
tire residues on roads, runoff from fertilized lawns, and
automobile oil); 2) the need for individualized solutions
specific to each watershed's mix of sources, land uses,
rainfall patterns, and receiving water beneficial uses; and
3) in the case of metropolitan Los Angeles, the overlap of
multiple city/county jurisdictional responsibilities for
stormwater system operation and maintenance.
Negotiation can be very useful for lifting barriers to effec-
tive urban runoff control for several reasons:
1. To be effective, solutions must be customized;
negotiation allows for customization.
2. To be effective, solutions must be "owned" by the
agency responsible for implementation; negotiation
allows for the development of "ownership" of the
solutions.
3. To be effective, solutions must be financed creative-
ly; federal and state government cannot afford to pay
for implementation and substantive enforcement.
Negotiated programs can be phased in to allow for
the possibility of a realistic funding strategy at the
local level.
THE PROCESS
Santa Monica Bay was included in the National Estuary
Program (NEP) in 1988 .in recognition of its nationally
significant and unique resources. Bay pollution problems
attributed to urban runoff provided the impetus for the
Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project (the NEP for
Santa Monica Bay) to work toward a program to control
pollution, urban runoff, and stormwater discharges into
Santa Monica Bay and other coastal waterbodies in the
county.
An important component of the Santa Monica Bay Res-
toration Project is its Management Committee, co-
chaired by a member of the State Water Resources
Control Board and by the Director of U.S. EPA Region 9
Water Management Division, and composed of other
regulatory and governmental agency heads, environmen-
tal organizations, industry leaders, and elected officials at
the local, state, and federal levels. This diverse group,
along with a technical and a public advisory committee,
is responsible for developing a Comprehensive Conser-
vation Management Plan for Santa Monica Bay.
The Santa Monica Bay Restoration Project Management
Committee membership includes the key players who
were needed to negotiate a set of requirements and a
172
-------
compliance schedule for implementation of urban runoff
and stormwater management. The Los Angeles Regional
Water Quality Control Board, the U.S. EPA Region 9,
Los Angeles County, and other cities (principally Los An-
geles and Santa Monica) are all represented on this
panel. Key environmental organizations also involved in
the early discussions included Heal the Bay and the Sier-
ra Club. The Management Committee served as an in-
tegral mechanism for informal discussions and conflict
resolution between the involved parties.
THE INGREDIENTS
A successful negotiation requires that all players have a
reason to come to the table. Initially, the County of Los
Angeles' Department of Public Works-^he owner/operator
of over 2,000 mi of stormdrains in the county—was not in-
terested in entering into a National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit with the Regional
Water Quality Control Board earlier than would be re-
quired under anticipated federal Water Quality Act
regulations. Public works officials through their national
association had even considered filing suit against the
federal regulations, citing them as unworkable and cost-
prohibitive given the area's rainfall conditions, as well as
the size, extent, and jurisdictional complexity of Southern
California's stormdrain system.
On the other hand, the city of Los Angeles, the
owner/operator of approximately 1,100 mi of stormdrains,
was interested in pursuing an early permit as provided
for in the Water Quality Act. In recent legal settlements
with EPA and the state of California that stemmed from
sewage treatment violations, the City agreed to not only
correct its sewage treatment problems, but also to begin
clean-up of stormdrain pollution. Management changes
brought about as a result of the legal settlements thus
created the impetus for the City to act proactively on
stormwater pollution control.
Discussions between city and county public works offi-
cials (who together serve a population of more than 8
million), along with an assessment by a Bay Project
Committee of the merits of pursuing an early permit,
resulted in consensus. The County, as the principal per-
mittee, agreed to'pursue an early NPDES permit not only
for the Santa Monica Bay Watershed, but for the whole
of Los Angeles County. All 86 cities in the county would
be eventual co-permittees, with the city of Los Angeles
and other Santa Monica Bay Watershed cities as first
phase co-permittees.
Important factors that convinced county officials to under-
take negotiations for an early permit included: 1) agree-
ment to use a National Association of Flood and
Stormwater Management Agencies recommendation as
the starting point for permit development; 2) strong en-
couragement and commitment to participate in the
negotiations by high-level management at the regulatory
agencies; and 3) consensus that a locally developed
program would not only be less expensive than the
federal model, but also more effective.
Negotiations began once agreement to pursue an early
permit occurred at the end of 1989, and the process cul-
minated with the adoption of the permit by the Regional
Water Quality Control Board in June 1990.
THE PROGRAM
The resulting permit divides Los Angeles County's five
drainage basins into three areas. Programs to be carried
out under the permit are phased in, by area, over three
years.
During the first year, each of the cities in the first phase
area are required to submit information on stormwater
quality, rainfall amounts, and land-use patterns to deter-
mine the sources of stormwater pollution. They are also
required to implement early action programs.
In the second year, the county and cities must begin to
monitor stormwater discharges based on an approved
monitoring plan, establish a timetable to clean up the pol-
lution, and stop illegal discharges.
In the third year, local governments must show that they
have followed through on their monitoring programs and
cleanup plans and have begun to implement specific
programs that will be successful in controlling stormdrain
pollution from identified sources.
By the end of the five years, all of the 86 jurisdictions in
Los Angeles County will have completed first and second
year work, and some 60 will have completed third year
work as well.
Although supported by Heal the Bay and the' Sierra Club
as a "start" on solving the stormdrain pollution problems
of the area, the permit has been challenged by Natural
Resource Defense Council primarily on the grounds that
permit requirements exclude specific limits on con-
taminants in stormwater. Both state and federal
regulators contend that existing numerical limits cannot
be translated to standards for stormwater at this time. In
defense of the permit, the Regional Board stated in a
recent letter to the State Water Resources Control Board
that, "Faced with hard choices, that of issuing no permit
and having to go through yet another rainy season with
no controls whatsoever, or issuing a permit which,
despite its imperfections, attempts to reduce pollutants in
stormwater discharges in a systematic manner, the
Regional Board elected the active approach." A final
decision by the State Water Resources Control Board is
expected shortly. In the meantime, the County and other
Santa Monica Bay Watershed jurisdictions are proceed-
ing with meeting permit requirements.
173
-------
SUMMARY
Negotiation resulted in a workable stormwater program
tailored to the distinct structure and conditions of Los An-
geles County. The effort represents a significant ac-
complishment by regulatory and implementation
agencies to address the threat to water quality posed by
nonpoint sources of pollution, described by EPA Director
William Reilly as "one of the greatest failures of environ-
mental policy in the United States" (EPA Nonpoint
Source News-Notes, February 1990, page 1). Although
contested by one environmental group, the NEP process
as carried out by the Santa Monica Bay Restoration
Project resulted in support and cooperation from other
key Los Angeles environmental groups and early pro-ac-
tive steps, by governmental agencies, and can be con-
sidered a major success for Los Angeles.
174
-------
WORKING WITH LOCAL GOVERNMENTS TO ENHANCE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF
A BAYWIDE CRITICAL AREA PROGRAM
Jennie C. Myers
Land Management Project
Providence, Rhode Island
INTRODUCTION
As a component of its Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan (CCMP), the Narragansett Bay
Project (NBP) is defining an approach to land use prac-
tice for water quality protection and enhancement that
will involve focused attention to specific resource area
management needs. It is clear that land use practice will
continue to be the fundamental factor in the state's ability
to approach several key CCMP goals: improved control
of nonpoint source pollutant inputs to the Bay, protection
and restoration of habitat, and preservation of coastal ac-
cess and recreational amenities.
The Land Management Project (LMP), a U.S. EPA Office
of Marine and Estuarine Protection Action Plan program,
has been working with local communities during the
mandatory statewide comprehensive planning process to
apply results of NBP-sponsored research on land
use/water quality relationships. Dealing with the inter-
secting issues of growth management, land use, and
nonpoint source pollution control, the Project has
promoted the development of technical tools and
strategies that may be important to implementation of a
critical area program, and has been given a primary role
in program design.
Although the specific structure and content of the critical
area program under discussion will not be submitted for
NBP Management Committee review until April 1990,
several basic policy initiatives and program elements
have taken shape. The following sections outline poten-
tial elements of the proposed critical area program that
have been submitted by the author to the NBP. Sub-
sequent parts review the applicability of specific LMP ef-
forts to critical area management in the Narragansett Bay
basin and other developing watersheds.
BACKGROUND: THE CRITICAL AREA
CONCEPT
A detailed examination of critical area programs and spe-
cial area management initiatives in 12 states suggests
that these approaches can offer a versatile means of
protecting numerous public values, including public
health and safety; quality, productivity, and uniqueness
of natural characteristics; scenic and landscape values;
recreational importance; and historical, archeological,
and cultural significance. The programs have also been
able to consider in a timely fashion both the magnitude of
economic issues and the irreversibility of resource im-
pacts. A broad range of statutory authorities, jurisdiction-
al coverages, and implementation strategies have been
effective in addressing needs ranging from resolution of
complex harbor-use conflicts to control of construction
practice on fragile slopes.
Critical area programs appear to offer numerous ad-
vantages: the means to seize opportunity in the most
susceptible of key resource areas, to provide focus, and
to create predictability through multilevel commitment to
a shared vision or an agreed course of action. The ap-
proaches have generally been flexible, accommodating
adjustments through time and recognizing disparate
needs among jurisdictions. Of equal importance, the
programs reviewed have tended to encourage innova-
tion—in the use of economic incentives, management
approaches, and specific source controls—within and
outside the program purview (1).
Several factors emerge as fundamental to success:
leadership and advocacy among key political figures;
clearly articulated priorities that are carefully maintained;
a good match between scope and administrative clout;
specificity of intent; clear, defensible delineation criteria;
availability and careful use of data; breadth of repre-
sentation in program design; strong incentives for action;
and public support.
Areas of vulnerability show parallel consistency. Critical
area programs have tended to be subject to challenge
175
-------
when specific actions could be justified only by correlat-
ing small-scale land use change and in-stream pollutant
loads; when monitoring was inadequate to demonstrate
progress; and when unrealistic expectations for improve-
ment were created and a lag in showing results ensued.
Other key problems include inadequate attention to
grandfathered uses, reliance on acceptance of con-
centrated development patterns, insufficient local
flexibility, and weak justification of the delineation method
in terms of program objectives.
RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED RHODE
ISLAND PROGRAM
These findings were considered carefully in drafting ele-
ments of the proposed Rhode Island strategy so as to
give maximum land use decision-making flexibility and
discretion to local governments while acting upon scien-
tific findings to meet state resource protection and en-
hancement goals.
There is much to build upon: a strong base of regulatory
standards, a vigorous state natural heritage program, the
special area management program coordinated through
Rhode Island's coastal zone management program, and
several encouraging local efforts. Yet a number of legal
and institutional obstacles have limited the degree to
which state or local programs have succeeded in ad-
dressing the cumulative effects of poorly planned land
use alteration, or in effectively approaching restoration
(2).
A flexible critical area management approach could
serve to rationalize and strengthen specific protection
and restoration efforts while respecting Rhode Island's
strong home rule tradition. The program emphasizes im-
proved definition of those functional areas and values
that are currently considered in the state resource
management framework but that can also be related to
the health and welfare protection powers of local govern-
ment. Consequently, it is recommended that the initial
landward boundary of the critical area be established as
a uniform "study area" extension of existing regulatory
jurisdiction with respect to coastal features, floodplains,
recharge areas, and wetlands. Based upon results of
high priority inventories, the boundary could be adjusted.
Key objectives of the proposed program are to empower
local governments in the area of ecosystem manage-
ment while ensuring a consistent approach to cross-juris-
dictional needs; to encourage use of technically
appropriate and defensible management measures; and
to create predictability with regard to control of cumula-
tive impacts on the Bay basin's functional values.
The LMP has advocated that the Bay critical area ap-
proach be grounded in principles of bioregional planning
and landscape ecology, and that the program pursue a
goal of protecting the "vernacular" landscape of the Bay
basin. A vernacular landscape is valued as a reflection of
traditional human activities and uses, and for its visual
and cultural qualities. This goal would encompass res-
toration of formerly active anadromous and commercial
fisheries, as well as reinforcement of land-conserving vil-
lage settlement patterns and conservation of properly
managed prime agricultural lands.
Other related critical area goal recommendations are: to
manage growth so that land use is fully integrated with
nonpoint source pollutant treatment capacity on a water-
shed basis; to establish decision-making frameworks
capable of ensuring that Bay system functional values
are protected from cumulative impacts; to preserve maxi-
mum habitat diversity and ecosystem complexity in
tributary stream systems; to aggressively protect and
restore wetlands, transition zones, and intertidal areas;
and to emphasize availability and use of effective
economic incentives.
PROGRAM ELEMENTS UNDER DISCUSSION
The proposed critical area program component of the
CCMP will overlap with other CCMP sections in con-
sidering land use controls, nutrient management, com-
prehensive stormwater management planning, and
remedial stormwater management activities. Stormwater
initiatives will also depend upon the outcome of the state
stormwater policy revisions currently underway at the
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
(RIDEM). The administrative structure of the proposed
program will depend on the outcome of the current reor-
ganization of state environmental regulatory programs.
Legislative approval would be required for certain
proposed elements, but for a majority of those proposed,
a technical coordinating body could serve to complement
existing state program functions. Brief summaries of
major program elements follow.
DESIGNATING WETLAND CONSERVANCY
AREAS
It will be proposed that RIDEM implement a phased
program of mapping and registering all of the state's wet-
lands that are hydrologically connected to the Bay or to
tributary stream systems on a year-round basis and that
could be expected to influence the water quality of the
Bay system. Mapping would be based upon Rhode
Island Geographic Information Systems (RIGIS) data
and high-resolution infrared or other photographic tech-
niques. Maps would be verified by local conservation
commissions on a plat and lot basis, as has been ac-
complished in the town of Barrington, Rhode Island.
RIDEM would develop designation and valuation ranking
criteria, perhaps building upon the methods of Golet (3)
or Larson (4). It is recommended that the wetland
evaluation scheme consider the existing quality of
vegetation, existing surface water quality, relative water
quality maintenance attributes, wildlife habitat values,
and sociocultural values. RIDEM and the Rhode Island
176
-------
Department of Health would designate appropriate inter-
im buffer requirements based on RIGIS data evaluation.
Final buffer requirements would be based upon the
valuation ranking, and would consider potential for
damage to wetland function and for transport of viruses
and contaminants to water supply sources.
Landowners would have a specified time after notice and
public hearing within which to dispute the designation
and/or to voluntarily list their property as a designated
"Reforestation/Re-buffering Receiving Area," entailing
recording of a permanent negotiated easement. At the
close of the decision period, permanent land use restric-
tions would be entered in the land evidence records by
RIDEM or its designee. Defined restrictions would limit
activities that could be expected to impact wetland func-
tion, and would be incorporated into relevant manage-
ment practices of the proposed critical area.
Advance notice would serve to clarify permissible ac-
tivities, and the delineation of wetland functional values
would support other components of the proposed critical
area program as well as existing state programs. Restric-
tion authority would be drawn from the state's emerging
no-net-loss policy and from the anti-degradation
provisions of the Rhode Island water quality regulations.
DESIGNATING NUTRIENT-LIMITED
WATERSHEDS
Researchers at the University of Rhode Island have
recently completed a number of projects involving char-
acterization of nutrient discharges from septic systems
and turf. Simultaneously, the cycling of nutrient inputs to
enclosed embayments has been extensively studied in
nearby Buzzards Bay in Massachusetts. These efforts
have provided an excellent basis from which to approach
management of land-based nutrient loadings to Nar-
ragansett Bay.
For the purpose of Bay water quality management,
nutrient management efforts related to land use will be
targeted toward enclosed embayments and water supply
watersheds that are nitrogen sensitive or have already
been affected by nitrogen loads. Nitrogen-affected water-
bodies will be identified using Narragansett Bay Project
data and state assessments, while nitrogen-sensitive
ones will be identified using available tidal flushing data,
GIS, and build-out analyses currently being prepared by
most communities as part of the ongoing statewide local
comprehensive planning process.
Communities encompassing these nutrient-limited water-
sheds would be expected to perform a nitrate impact
evaluation and an analysis of management alternatives.
Such a study was completed in 1990 by the town of
Charlestown, Rhode Island, and is under consideration in
several other communities with regard to water supply
protection needs.
Due to the difficulties experienced by towns in basing in-
cremental development decisions on projected eleva-
tions of freshwater pond nutrient concentrations, it is
recommended that a strategy be pursued comparable to
that applied to pond protection by the state of Maine:
critical loading limits are set for each embayment based
on ultimate build-out, mass loading, and embayment-
specific flushing rates. For nitrogen-sensitive water-
bodies, allowable loadings would then be allocated to
each land use class.
To manage allowable loadings, towns would be required
to develop a coordinated strategy of growth manage-
ment, reduced fertilizer application, use of mandatory
cluster to preserve open space and accommodate re-
buffering, use of appropriate best management practices,
and upgrading to denitrifying septic systems. These
strategies would be reflected on a watershed or recharge
area basis in local land use regulations and density-shift-
ing programs, and through cooperative allocation arran-
gements with adjacent watershed communities.
Each community's strategy would be evaluated by the
Rhode Island Division of Planning as an element of the
upcoming comprehensive plan updates. RIDEM approval
of facilities' plans and permitting of community package
treatment plants would be contingent upon implementa-
tion progress. To avoid encouraging overreliance on
large-lot zoning, to improve management of cumulative
effects, and to reinforce effective on-site practice, it is
recommended that where possible a "declining balance"
method of permit availability be used in which a fixed
percentage of the remaining watershed nitrogen alloca-
tion is "awarded" annually on a jurisdictional basis. As a
means of integrating nutrient management with the den-
sity shifting strategy outlined below, towns should also
stipulate that some portion of the nutrient load allocated
annually for each land use category be reserved for
developers who have "offset" a potential nutrient load by
purchasing Bay Development Credits (see below).
For nitrogen-affected water bodies, communities would
be required to employ the planning strategies outlined
above for future development, and to implement restora-
tion strategies (see following sections), limited-capacity
sewering, or other wastewater management techniques
as necessary to address existing nitrate reduction needs.
Funding for analytical support is currently available from
the state Aquafund grant and loan bond program.
FOSTERING HABITAT RESTORATION AND
REFORESTATION
Numerous authors in Rhode Island and elsewhere have
demonstrated the important role that forested buffer
areas and headwaters ecosystems play in regulating
nutrient retention and processing, moderating stream
system function, assimilating pollutants, and maintaining
177
-------
habitat viability (3,5,6,7,8). In view of the need for broad
reliance on multiple-purpose buffer functions, and the
potential for haphazard development of key buffer
resources, it will be recommended that an accelerated
program be instituted to ensure that maximum buffering
capability is preserved on a sub-watershed basis and
that open space connectivity and shape configuration is
preserved to ensure habitat viability.
The Rhode Island Heritage Program is in the process of
defining endangered and threatened species' open
space needs in terms of size, shape, and connectivity on
protected and privately owned lands. It will be proposed
that the Heritage Program coordinate with the wetlands
mapping and valuation effort outlined previously to iden-
tify and set priorities among resource areas to guide ac-
quisition and restoration efforts. Priority habitats within
the critical area's jurisdiction would include Bay embay-
ment recharge areas, defined shoreline ecological zones,
and areas that significantly affect tributary water quality
(not limited to floodplains).
The identification process would target publicly or
privately owned habitats that would be suitable Refores-
tation/Re-buffering Receiving areas, as well as privately
owned Reserve areas needed to provide linkage. Land-
owners accepting Reforestation/Re-buffering Receiving
area designation would be required to grant permanent
conservation easements managed by the Heritage
Program, while Reserve landowners would be asked to
grant voluntary easements managed by land trusts.
Communities would work with land trusts, the Heritage
Program, and other entities to prepare habitat restoration
plans designed to enlarge, round out, and buffer existing
significantly protected wildlife habitat, to link protected
wildlife habitat with greenway corridors, and to effect
habitat restoration in accordance with state and local ob-
jectives. Eligibility for state Open Space Bond Funds
would be based on sufficient demonstration that a town,
in consultation with appropriate entities, could ensure
that a given habitat area was "buffered" from the effects
of anticipated or existing development; prevent adverse
habitat impacts on a case-by-case basis; or guarantee
timely protection from disturbance through covenants,
easement, or other permanent means.
DEVELOPING A STRATEGY FOR
MANAGEMENT OF SUBSTANDARD LOTS
Given its existing mission and its powers to acquire, hold
interest in, and dispose of property, the Rhode Island
Housing and Conservation Trust may be the most ap-
propriate entity to manage a key aspect of the proposed
critical area program: recovery of substandard or poorly
configured lots where development would contribute to
water quality degradation. Significant sections of several
older coastal communities are vulnerable to issuance of
variances, as they are perceived by local governments to
be open to takings claims because development is
precluded by current state requirements and guidance.
Efficient development patterns that allow for effective
wastewater and stormwater management are precluded
by the configuration of the lots, which are largely in multi-
ple ownership. The current real estate slowdown offers
an excellent opportunity to purchase and reconfigure
areas affected by poor lot layout, inadequate open
space, incompatible land use, scattered ownership, or
other factors potentially compromising the viability of vital
resource areas or impeding orderly and sustainable
development.
It will be recommended that the Trust be given power to
undertake, manage, or fund activities that would help im-
plement applicable elements of local comprehensive
plans or would otherwise serve to resolve land use con-
flicts and water quality management needs. These objec-
tives could be accomplished through redevelopment, site
reservation, resource enhancement (facility retrofitting
and/or habitat restoration), public access acquisition, or
urban waterfront restoration.
Authority would be available to acquire and dispose of
property, to accept gifts, to sell Bay Development Credits
(see below), and to acquire interest in land by means of
land exchanges, or other less-than-fee alternatives.
Grants and loans could be made available to local
governments or land trusts for appropriate projects. Any
project would be required to provide for maximum
feasible stormwater management and habitat protection
benefits, and to be consistent with any relevant
provisions of the critical area program.
CREATING A "BAY MODEL WATERSHED"
PROGRAM
In order to initiate a consistent consensus-based water-
shed management planning process for priority Bay
tributaries, a process will be proposed in which strong
technical support and guidance would be made available
on a sustained basis to local governments that share a
watershed in common and have demonstrated clear
commitment to sound land use and water resource
protection. The program would be designed to set a clear
course of action for joint water quality and flood hazard
management, from both a prevention and a mitigation
standpoint. Communities would also be provided a
means of obtaining, at low cost, continuing technical sup-
port for decision making and program refinement over
the long term.
Communities seeking to designate a Bay Model Water-
shed would be required to have in place the authority
and framework of stormwater management districts or
utilities that could provide dedicated funding and the ad-
ministrative/management structure necessary to imple-
ment a watershed management program. In rural
communities, existing fire districts, water districts, or
178
-------
wastewater management districts could prove suitable.
In addition, towns would have responsibility for gathering
specific supporting data required for the watershed
analysis as a part of the selection process, and for
demonstrating that certain local initiatives had been
taken to deal with the identified problems. A coordinating
body having sufficient authority to implement consensus-
based management decisions would also be established
by the town.
The Narragansett Bay institute recently established by
the Rhode Island Assembly is proposed as the entity
responsible for conducting actual studies, in coordination
with the USDA Soil Conservation Service (SCS) and the
advisory body. Upon formal acceptance of the results,
consistency with study recommendations would be re-
quired in state and local decision making. Arrangements
for continued support consistent with needs identified in
the study would be made with SCS and the conservation
districts in a manner paralleling that of the pilot Regional
Site Inspection Program now in place.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLANNING
A significant body of data produced by Hoffman et al.
(1982) and others within the state of Rhode Island, as
well as numerous researchers nationwide, indicates that
stormwater represents a major source of metals and
hydrocarbon loadings to principal Bay tributaries and
contributes to bacterial contamination in poorly flushed
embayments. Along with leachate from failed septic sys-
tems, stormwater sources are believed to be a primary
factor in shellfish bed closures and loss of other benefi-
cial uses. Yet most Rhode Island towns still employ tradi-
tional flood control-oriented "drainage" practices on
public roads and are only beginning to institute up-to-
date stormwater management requirements for sub-
divisions or other developments.
The proposed critical area program offers an opportunity
to improve coordination between stormwater manage-
ment and land use planning in areas influencing the Bay,
and to focus remediation activities to capitalize on new
state and federal initiatives. The timing is good. New
RIGIS coverages, buffer evaluation methods, and the P8
land-based water quality model offer powerful new tech-
nical tools with which to rationalize the decision-making
process and evaluate treatment capacity through time. It
will be recommended that local governments proceed on
two fronts to expedite management efforts, maintaining
consistency with emerging state stormwater manage-
ment policy.
Identification and Mapping of Existing Natural and
Manmade Stormwater Systems
Using RIGIS coverages, flood data, wetland maps, soils
data, and available buffer evaluation tools, towns encom-
passing critical area jurisdiction would map existing
natural stormwater management capability, from both
water quality and water quantity control standpoints. Soil
infiltration and buffering capacity would be mapped,
using acceptable methods (7, and others) and protocols
now under development at the University of Rhode Is-
land for evaluation of ambiguous, moderately well-
drained soils.
Wetlands, floodplains, natural depressional areas, and
drainageways would be mapped for overlay on plats and
composite maps. Basic characteristics of the existing
manmade system would be mapped at comparable
scale, showing the location and dimensions of pipes,
drainage areas, infiltration components and outfalls; loca-
tion of subsurface drainage networks and outfalls; and
appropriate invert elevations.
A key objective of these efforts would be the identifica-
tion of underutilized management alternatives that should
be considered in the development of subsequent water-
shed-based stormwater master plans that would draw
upon the watershed resource inventories described pre-
viously. High buffering capacity soils, natural treatment
and storage areas, and areas suitable for regional
stormwater management should be zoned and managed
to protect or enhance their multiple-use functions for
water management, habitat protection, scenic value, and
recreation. Towns would use delineations of high buffer-
ing capacity soils and potential regional treatment sites in
identifying and configuring appropriate density receiving
areas. Applicable procedures for site plan review evalua-
tion and for allocation of density bonuses should be ad-
justed to ensure that opportunities to integrate land use
and treatment capacity fully and efficiently, and to correct
existing problems, would be capitalized upon and
rewarded.
Targeting Stormwater Discharge Mitigation Efforts
Proposed elements of the critical area program and other
state and local efforts are aimed at correcting existing
stormwater runoff problems that are causing or contribut-
ing to water quality degradation or to Bay shellfish bed
closures. Both regional and local programs are already
being initiated to undertake appropriate mitigation
measures for existing stormwater discharges, via instal-
lation of new structures and retrofitting.
Several practical shoreline inventorying methods, sam-
pling regimes, and targeting protocols have been
developed and applied in Rhode Island and on Cape
Cod that can be used by town governments in setting
preliminary priorities among stormwater facility mitigation
projects. It will be proposed that each community encom-
passing critical area jurisdiction work with RIDEM and
the Rhode Island Coastal Resources Management
Council (CRMC) to identify proposed stormwater mitiga-
tion sites, and use an accepted numerical ranking
process to set priorities among projects. Rank would be
based on RIDEM and the Rhode Island Department of
Health water quality data, on an estimation of other con-
179
-------
tributing sources, and on the communities' current and
projected flood hazard mitigation needs.
It will be recommended that when ranking is complete, a
graduated hierarchy of required treatment levels be es-
tablished jointly for the watershed, based upon location
of facilities in the watershed, feasibility of improving
source control or installing best management practices,
and the beneficial use designation of receiving waters.
RIDEM, CRMC, and the communities involved would
then negotiate and specify a Critical Area Water Quality
Enhancement Level (based on a defined benefit/cost ex-
pectation), which would subsequently be required when
public road and drainage facilities were repaired and
when sites were redeveloped.
Public and private entities could work toward fulfilling
specified water quality improvement obligations by serv-
ing as Reforestation/Re-buffering Receiving areas or by
purchasing offsets serving the same purpose. Enhance-
ment specifications would be periodically renegotiated on
a watershed basis.
P8, the land-based water quality model, could be used
as a consistent method of evaluating retrofit design
potential per unit cost on sites, or in small catchments.
Until communities established a ranking and watershed
enhancement strategy, they would be subject, at a mini-
mum, to RIDEM's recommended 85 percent removal re-
quirement for facility repairs and redevelopments.
The Rhode Island Aquafund currently offers funds for
local watershed-based nonpoint source management
planning. It is recommended that a permanent source of
matching funding be established for watershed evalua-
tions, but that progress in the efforts outlined above, and
in establishment of a stormwater management district or
utility, be considered heavily in awarding grants or loans.
Progress toward targeted mitigation needs also should
be considered by RIDEM as it develops a strategy for
permitting discretionary stormwater discharge under the
new EPA stormwater rule.
BROADENING OBJECTIVES FOR SHORELINE
AREA DESIGNATIONS
Narragansett Bay Project research results, along with a
complementary body of previously existing research
results on the Bay system, suggest that the amount of
development that the estuary's watershed can sustain
while retaining the viability of the resource is uncertain
but limited, and that case-by-case permit review has
deepened uncertainty regarding the cumulative effects of
development and has lead to piecemeal disruption of es-
tuarine resource properties.
There is sufficient evidence to suggest that degradation
has proceeded to the point where documenting the
ecological importance of the loss of a specific component
of the system would be impossible, as would its attribu-
tion to a particular development event. Critical area
designation strategies must therefore focus on preysn-
tion and on ecological restoration. The proposed desig-
nations seek to strengthen existing state programs and
to maintain consistency with Rhode Islanders' traditional
willingness to enact measures to compensate for past
degradation.
Waterfront Revitalization Areas
It will be proposed that CRMC work with communities in
designating waterfront areas, consistent with CRMC's
established water use designations (including High-Inten-
sity Boating, Commercial and Recreational Harbors, and
Industrial Waterfronts) that are suitable for redevelop-
ment involving habitat restoration or re-creation of buffer
areas.
In these Waterfront Revitalization areas, proponents of
new construction or significant redevelopment would be
required to either 1) re-create on-site buffering or other
treatment capacity to achieve a minimum of 10 percent
reduction of pre-existing runoff pollutant load; or 2) pur-
chase sufficient capacity in an off-site stormwater facility
or retrofit project to achieve a similar percent reduction of
pre-existing pollutant load, with a commensurate opera-
tion and maintenance fee; or 3) if physical constraints
preclude either of these alternatives, purchase an offset
calculated on a square footage basis to be used in fee-
simple purchase or easement acquisition of Reforesta-
tion/Re-buffering Receiving areas within the same
watershed. Donation of appropriate space for regional
stormwater treatment could be applied toward reduction
of "fee in lieu of" charges.
Owners of existing developments in Waterfront
Revitalization areas would be able to list their properties
as Reforestation/Re-buffering Receiving areas if re-crea-
tion of a buffer was considered by CRMC to be desirable
from a management standpoint, or to sell Bay Develop-
ment Credits (see below). Easement restrictions would
then be placed on the buffer and it could be counted
toward future offset obligations on the property.
Bay Conservation Areas
It will be proposed that lands within CRMC's jurisdiction
that impact CRMC's designated Conservation areas or
Low Intensity Use areas be identified as Bay Conserva-
tion areas. In addition to existing requirements,
proponents of any new development in these areas
would be required to purchase an offset for use in
Reforestation/Re-buffering Receiving areas within the
same watershed or to replace disturbed buffer as
prescribed by CRMC. Again, owners of existing proper-
ties in Bay Conservation areas would have the option of
listing their properties as Reforestation/Re-buffering
Receiving areas if re-creation of a buffer was considered
advisable by CRMC, and/or by selling Bay Development
Credits. In either case, easement restrictions would then
be placed on the property and entered in the land
evidence records to ensure protection of restricted areas.
180
-------
LAUNCHING A DENSITY TRANSFER AND
RECEIVING PROGRAM
Although an increasing number of towns in Rhode Island
have expressed interest in density-shifting mechanisms,
fully successful program implementation will require:
• Legislative approval of revised zoning-enabling legis-
lation
• Revisions to state wastewater management regula-
tions to accommodate innovative individual and com-
munity wastewater management systems
• An enlarged scope of review for local comprehensive
plans
• Changes in administrative hearing processes within
the state permitting agencies
Nevertheless, a density-shifting mechanism within the
proposed critical area program could provide important
focus for communities in rationalizing growth manage-
ment efforts and meeting a range of water resource
protection requirements. A central objective of the den-
sity-shifting program would be to prevent prime develop-
ment sites having potentially significant pollutant
treatment capability from being preempted by premature
low density development. Also important would be the
opportunity to lower costs of housing in areas already
served by infrastructure that are outside of hazard zones,
and to avoid creating pressure for extensions into haz-
ardous or sensitive areas.
The following basic structure is recommended, based on
program implementation experience in similar areas, in-
cluding the New Jersey Pinelands and developing
Maryland counties.
A simple system of equivalency would be set up in
which, for example, one Bay Development Credit could
be sold for each 5 acres of land placed under conserva-
tion easement or coastal access easement. Bay
Development Credits could be sold by property owners in
Bay Conservation areas, in areas designated as ap-
propriate buffers or high value habitat areas through the
Wetlands Conservancy designation process, in areas
identified as having high stormwater management or
habitat value, or in other sensitive areas as identified by
RIDEM and CRMC. For agricultural lands, Bay Develop-
ment Credits would be apportioned on an acreage basis
that recognized speculation thresholds. In harbor and
urban waterfront areas designated by CRMC and RIDEM
as having high priority for public access, Bay Develop-
ment Credits could be sold by landowners who agreed to
record permanent public access easements. Trade in
development credits would be managed by the Rhode Is-
land Housing and Conservation Trust Fund on a supply
and demand basis.
Each Bay Development Credit could be redeemed for a
given incremental increase in density that would depend
upon the base zoned land use and density. Land value
increases with increases in permitted density, but un-
evenly. Outside urban settings, high density development
has proven to be inconsistent with traditional Rhode Is-
land development patterns. Given these considerations,
and to foster a market in development credits, bonus
units would be offered not only in areas zoned for higher
densities, but also where density increases yield highest
profits to developers—at low to moderate density. The
"value" of bonus units at varying base densities would be
accounted for by establishing a sliding scale for different
types of units.
Establishing a streamlined permit review process for
projects using Bay Development Credits would also
serve to create an active market for density transfers.
Additional bonus units might also be made available for
developments in which space or discharge easements
were donated for neighborhood or regional stormwater
management.
Growth Areas
Local governments would be responsible for designating
interim growth areas (town centers, villages, transporta-
tion centers), based on evaluations required in support of
local comprehensive plans and availability of support ser-
vices. State assistance would be available to towns in
assessing environmental constraints to the location of
growth areas. Soils evaluations, maps of stormwater
management capacity, wetland and habitat delineations,
and other critical area resource inventories discussed in
previous sections would be used as available in deter-
mining final growth area delineations, which would estab-
lish acceptable land use categories and locations within
which bonus units could be applied. An analysis of cur-
rent zoned density and density at build-out would be
completed, considering density increasing mechanisms
currently in place (e.g., incentive zoning, and flexible
zoning).
Based upon results of both the zoning and constraints
analyses, growth areas would be required to be zoned
for a significant (perhaps 50 percent) increase in average
base densities to accommodate use of bonus units.
Zoning ordinances would be revised to state where and
under what conditions Bay Development Credits could
be used to increase density in growth areas, for residen-
tial, commercial, and industrial use. It is recommended
that the Division of Planning be responsible for reviewing
the zoning amendments prepared to accommodate den-
sity shifting in growth areas and rural village areas, as an
element of the local comprehensive plan review process
in place.
Where existing villages and town centers are served by
infrastructure but encompass significant critical area
jurisdiction, or where growth is otherwise constrained by
sensitive areas, towns may wish to issue variances to
allow certain types of development serving important
181
-------
community needs. Any compromise of critical area
values anticipated by the issuance of a necessary
variance should require redemption of Bay Development
Credits. Likewise, the ability to sell Bay Development
Credits should be considered an economically viable use
of land, for the purpose of sheltering a community and
critical area implementing agencies from taking claims.
Rural Village Areas
Communities would be responsible for delineating rural
village areas, where environmental constraints could ac-
commodate new villages of clustered or neo-traditional
development that would be served by alternative
wastewater treatment technologies at individual or com-
munity scale. In these areas, in which Wastewater
Management Districts would have to be in place, towns
would designate and purchase sites for package treat-
ment plants or community alternative treatment systems.
Rural village designation would also be applicable to
areas in which a community system upgrade would be
appropriate to serve concentrations of failed septic sys-
tems. As in growth areas, developers would be required
to redeem Bay Development Credits to obtain bonus
density in the rural village areas, and could purchase and
redeem Bay Development Credits in the same watershed
toward a portion of the cost of buying future capacity in a
community wastewater treatment system. Construction,
operation, and maintenance would be managed by the
town and the Wastewater Management District.
Research in the New Jersey Pine Barrens revealed that
additional units could be added on an incremental basis
on relatively small sites with a significant improvement in
return to the developer (9). Consistent with these find-
ings, any nonclustered residential development in these
areas, and any new development using standard in-
dividual septic systems, would require additional redemp-
tion of Bay Development Credits. Rural village areas
would of necessity be relatively compact, since they
would be limited by environmental constraints and ser-
vice availability.
ROLE OF LAND MANAGEMENT PROJECT
EFFORTS IN SUPPORTING A CRITICAL AREA
PROGRAM
The Land Management Project has attempted to an-
ticipate the conclusions of the CCMP and to apply ele-
ments of NBP research results in an aggressive,
experimental fashion. The mandatory statewide com-
prehensive planning process will be nearly complete
prior to most critical area program deliberations. The
LMP's communication with towns during the process has
provided an opportunity to learn which constraints should
be considered by the CCMP and which alternatives are
most likely to be successful in critical area management.
By providing targeted assistance to towns sharing water-
shed resources, the LMP has been able to encourage
local application of new technical tools developed for
resource evaluation and to promote advance planning for
innovative low-tech stormwater control. By providing in-
terpretation of scientific findings on nonpoint source im-
pacts, the Project has supported towns in articulating
watershed management principles, protecting critical
areas, and designing appropriate regulatory approaches.
Essentially, the LMP has served as a proactive agent for
the critical area program, providing pre-interpreted scien-
tific support and assistance in a range of land use and
water quality protection areas. The following sections
outline some LMP activities and describe some specific
research products as they relate to proposed elements of
the critical area program.
TECHNICAL EVALUATION MODELS
Recent research at the University of Rhode Island and
elsewhere suggests that buffers can offer multiple use
benefits and can be effectively integrated into overall
watershed management schemes through land use plan-
ning. Since the late 1970s, vegetated buffer strips have
come into widespread use to control movement of sedi-
ments, nutrients, and other pollutants. However, their
variability of function from site to site and through time
has made delineation formulas difficult to interpret and
often cumbersome to apply.
On the local level, delineation for water quality protection
has proven to be extremely consumptive of local review
time and often poorly grounded in scientific foundation.
At the same time, multiple use wildlife and habitat values
are often underconsidered because of local level con-
fusion regarding the meaning and purpose of regulatory
setbacks versus functioning buffers. The relationship bet-
ween design and function is often poorly understood, and
attention to long-term maintenance needs insufficient.
Yet the incentive to expand the use of buffers in water-
shed management is great. Underuse or loss of natural
buffering capacity can lead to an increasing reliance on
expensive structural solutions that carry inspection and
maintenance requirements beyond the reach of
homeowners, associations, or small town governments.
In Rhode Island, effective buffer evaluation is expected
to be a necessary component of local implementation of
key critical area program components. In view of these
needs, the LMP has undertaken several initiatives in the
area of buffer delineation and management.
A focus of LMP activities has been the Hunt-Potowomut
watershed (North Kingston, East Greenwich, and War-
wick, Rhode Island), where severe induced infiltration
potential has enabled us to show that groundwater and
surface water quality management must be confronted
jointly.
182
-------
Hunt-Potowomut Buffer Utilization Study and
Shoreline Inventory
In the spring and fall of 1990, in three pilot sub-water-
sheds, the LMP worked with local board members, plan-
ners, and volunteers to conduct a simple but focused
inventory of stormwater discharges and low-tech control
opportunities, including use of existing infiltration and
buffering capacity. The intent was to determine the ex-
tent to which low-tech opportunities for flood hazard
mitigation and water quality treatment were being utilized
to test an evaluation method usable by volunteer boards,
and to prepare recommended revisions to local
regulatory requirements that would enhance "pollution
prevention" and institutionalize low-tech nonpoint source
management practices.
Using RIGIS and local public works maps, existing
drainage networks and buffers were identified and
delineated by land use coverage on United States
Geological Survey (USGS) topographic sheets for field
use. LMP staff, town staff, and board members then
worked on foot and from canoes to inventory and map
piped stormwater discharge outfalls affecting the Hunt-
Potowomut, indicating the age and size of the develop-
ment being drained, the availability of nearby buffer
areas, and the appropriateness of using the buffers for
stormwater treatment. The University of Rhode Island
Watershed Watch coding system for volunteer monitor-
ing was used, after having been augmented to include a
buffer description coding component.
Pilot sub-watersheds were chosen so as to evaluate (and
illustrate for town officials) prevention and retrofit options
at various stages of development. The four conditions in-
cluded: a) densely developed residential, with 20 to 30
percent of area remaining as potential buffer; b) mixed
use, moderate density development, with 50 percent of
area available as potential mixed buffer; c) mixed use,
moderate density development, with 35 percent of area
available as forested buffer; d) low density development,
with 65 percent of area available as potential buffer.
The LMP used the field data and other tools in working
with the communities to evaluate constraints concerning
discharge to the available buffers, and in considering
planning and retrofitting potential under a range of
growth scenarios. The project provided an excellent op-
portunity to field-test a buffer design guidance manual
recently prepared with NBP funding, and to test P8, the
land-based water quality model developed during the
past two years with NBP support.
Recommendations were made for significantly increasing
emphasis on infiltration capacity, revising local main-
tenance practice, and restricting public access to natural
buffers that show evidence of channelization. The
program has interested the towns in investigating buffer
discharge easements and in undertaking a feasibility
study to evaluate retrofitting and management oppor-
tunities. The town boards have also agreed to coordinate
with University of Rhode Island (URI) investigators in
monitoring buffers used for direct and indirect discharge
in sub-watersheds having a range of percent-impervious
area.
For the LMP, the program has yielded a tested methodol-
ogy for town officials to use in evaluating low-tech
stormwater management opportunities, on a watershed
basis, that can be directly incorporated into growth
management planning. The LMP has also funded URI to
prepare a protocol for use in evaluating the buffering
capacity of soils classified by the SCS as moderately
well drained. The soils of that classification have a wide
range of buffering capacities (7) and encompass nearly
50 percent of the state's land area.
OTHER ACTIVITIES APPLICABLE TO CRITICAL
AREA MANAGEMENT
Several LMP products have been used by town boards in
preparing data evaluations for local comprehensive
plans, and should be useful to them in meeting proposed
critical area data gathering requirements. In particular,
communities could use the LMP Wetlands Site Review
Guide and our guidance on listing wetlands by plat and
lot in corroborating the RIDEM registration process, set-
ting habitat protection priorities, and identifying areas of
high buffering capacity.
In developing a nutrient management and mitigation
strategy, town boards can make use of three LMP
products: a method developed for preliminary build-out
preparation, a review of nutrient loading models, and a
protocol and worksheet designed for use in developing a
defensible approach to nutrient loading.
Other technical products available from the LMP include
resource evaluation tools, ready reference matrices sum-
marizing the effects of land use on water quality, reviews
of research results, and water quality models. Project
staff have also prepared technical fact sheets, handouts
on planning techniques and best management practice
fundamentals, guidance on growth management and
regulatory options, bibliographies, case histories, model
and sample ordinances, sample resource protection lan-
guage for comprehensive plans, slide shows, and videos.
Demonstration projects initiated with designers in three
regions of the state illustrate recommended approaches
to problems, describe experimental methods, serve as
case study histories, or demonstrate use of LMP evalua-
tion tools. Local officials are offered both slide shows and
site tours showing good and bad examples of land and
water management practices.
The LMP has complemented its project-based technical
assistance efforts with an intensive schedule of training
programs. These include a series of nine technical con-
ferences for resource managers, practitioners, and plan-
ners on land use/water quality relationships, growth..,
•-7-J
183
-------
management, and sustainable development techniques.
Audio tapes and videotapes of presentations are avail-
able to interested groups. Together, the proceedings are
intended to serve as a fairly complete curriculum on
these issues.
Finally, our "in-town workshops" have proven to be a par-
ticularly important aspect of our outreach effort. In this
evening series, the LMP makes individual presentations
to town bodies on six basic land use/water quality issues
of particular importance during the comprehensive plan-
ning process.
CONCLUSION
A "marketable" critical area program for Rhode Island
must be essentially conservative but scientifically
grounded, and must enable an extraordinarily diverse
group of communities to focus specific management
tools in addressing widely differing problems.
Communities have thus far been hindered in their water
resource protection efforts by weak state zoning-enabling
legislation, a lack of other clear authorities for local
resource protection efforts, and a conservative state
judiciary whose decisions have reinforced local reluc-
tance to face takings claims. Nevertheless, the Special
Area Management plans have demonstrated that Rhode
Island communities are basically practical and can react
aggressively when there is a clear expectation that land
use impacts will cause significant change in susceptible
resources. It has been more difficult to encourage con-
sistent planning for compatible uses or to avoid loss of
traditional village character through sound growth
management.
A central source of debate in critical area program
deliberations will be the degree to which requirements
should be imposed on towns by the Assembly, neces-
sitating that the state provide a source of funds, and to
what extent actions can be encouraged via economic in-
centives or by piggy-backing requirements onto other
state-supported initiatives, such as the statewide plan-
ning or well-head protection programs. In fact, new
federal initiatives, such as no-net-loss of wetlands, anti-
degradation provisions, and discretionary stormwater dis-
charge permitting authority under Section 402 of the
1987 Clean Water Act, may prove to be vital in fostering
a consistent approach.
Anticipated critical area mandates will require that com-
munities expand mitigation efforts significantly, yet fiscal
constraints dictate that a significant supporting role in
technical decision making and priority setting will fall to
local volunteer boards and officials. Simple, effective
evaluation methods that make maximum use of Rhode
Island's highly developed geographic information sys-
tems capability will be called for.
Fundamentally, however, technical decision making re-
quires technical staff support. A consistent source of
funding for local technical staff has been essential in all
of the sustained local resource protection initiatives un-
dertaken in the state. Technical staff will become indis-
pensable to local bonds as zoning, subdivision
regulations, and site plan review provisions extend their
traditional scope to meet resource management needs.
Finally, it is clear that a valuable purpose can be served
by a technically grounded advisory entity outside the
state regulatory structure. Our experience suggests that
sound local decision making in large watersheds can be
significantly enhanced if a regionally focused service is
made available on a continuing basis to assist com-
munities with technical questions on land use/water
quality relationships and growth management. In addi-
tion, the face-to-face in-town workshops and conferences
held by the LMP have shown us how important fun-
damental education can be in building local commitment
and resolving misunderstandings.
Recovery of Narragansett Bay resources will present a
tremendous challenge for all involved—decision makers
who shape development trends, their advisors, design
practitioners, the development community, and the
citizens who love their Bay. Creativity, energy, and com-
mitment will be required, and must be nurtured. There is
also tremendous opportunity, and many communities are
ready to seize it. Let us hope that we can give them the
tools to do so.
REFERENCES
1. Myers, J.C., 1990. (Draft) Review of Critical Area
Programs and Special Area Management Initiatives
in Twelve States: Potential Applications in the Nar-
ragansett Bay Basin. Report to the Narragansett Bay
Project, Providence, Rl, 21 pp.
2. Myers, J.C., 1988. Governance of Nonpoint Source
Inputs to Narragansett Bay: A Plan for Coordinated
Action. Prepared for the Narragansett Bay Project,
Providence, Rl, 285 pp.
3. Golet, F.C., 1976. Wildlife wetland evaluation model,
p. 13-34. in J.S. Larson, ed., Models for Assessment
of Freshwater Wetlands. Water Resources Research
Center, Univ. of Massachusetts. Pub. No. 32.
4. Larson, U.S., ed., 1976. Models for evaluation of
freshwater wetlands. Water Resources Research
Center, University of Massachusetts. Pub. No. 32.
91 pp.
5. Carter, W.R. Ill, 1988. The Importance of Buffer
Strips to the Normal Functioning of Stream and
Riparian Ecosystems. Maryland DNR Tidewater Ad-
ministration, unpublished paper, 18 pp.
6. Klein, R.D., 1985. Effects of urbanization upon
aquatic resources (unpublished report). Maryland
Dept. of Natural Resources, Tidewater Administra-
tion, Annapolis, MD, 71 pp.
184
-------
7. Groffman, P.M., AJ. Gold, T.P. Husband, R. Sim-
mons, and W.R. Eddleman, 1989. An Investigation
into Multiple Uses of Vegetated Buffer Strips. Univ.
of Rhode Island, Dept. of Natural Resources,
Kingston, Rl.
8. Roman, CT. and R.E. Good, 1985. Buffer delinea-
tion model for New Jersey Pinelands wetlands. Div,
of Pinelands Research, Center for Coastal and En-
vironmental Studies, Rutgers—the State University,
New Brunswick, NJ, 72 pp.
9. Nicholas, J.C., 1988. A Report on the Economic
Value of Pinelands Development Credits, prepared
for the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, in The
Pinelands Development Credit Program: Report to
the Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, NJ.
ADDITIONAL REFERENCES
Bedford, B.L. and E.M. Preston, 1988. Developing the
scientific basis for assessing cumulative effects of wet-
land loss and degradation on landscape functions:
status, perspectives, and prospects. Jour, of Envir. Mgt.
12:751-771,
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, 1989 (J.K.
Sullivan). A Summary of the Chesapeake Bay Critical
Area Commission's Criteria and Program Development
Activities, 1984-1988. Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Commission, Annapolis, MD, 146 pp. with appendices.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, 1987. The
Prospects and Problems of Economic Instruments as
Complements to the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Program. Annapolis, MD, 87 pp. with appendices. '
Dennis, J., J. Noel, D. Miller, and C. Eliot, 1988. Phos-
phorus control in Lake Watersheds—A Technical Guide
to Evaluating New Development. State of Maine Dept. of
Environmental Protection, Augusta, ME.
Dillaha, T.A. et al., 1986. Long-term Effectiveness and
Maintenance of Vegetated Filter Strips. Bulletin 153. Vir-
ginia Water Resources Center, Virginia Polytechnic In-
stitute and State University, Blacksburg, VA.
Florida Chapter, American Planning Association, 1990.
The Florida Planning and Growth Management Hand-
book, APA, Tallahassee, FL, 193 pp.
Hartigan, J.P., 1988. Basis for Design of Wet Detention
Basin BMPs, in Urbonas, B. and L.A. Roesner, eds.,
Design of Urban Runoff Controls. Proceedings of an En-
gineering Foundation Conference, Potosi, MO; ASCE
Publications, NY.
Hoffman, E.J., J.S. Latimer, G.L. Mills, and J.G. Quinn,
1982. Petroleum hydrocarbons in urban runoff from a
commercial land use area. J. Water Polln. Control
Federation 54(11):1517-1525.
Huber, W.C., 1986. Modeling Urban Runoff Quality:
State of the Art, in Urbonas, B. and L.A. Roesner, eds.,
Urban Runoff Quality-Impact and Quality-Enhancement
Technology. Proceedings of an Engineering Foundation
Conference, Henniker, NH, ASCE Publications, NY.
IEP, Inc., 1990. P8 Urban Catchment Model User's
Manual and Program Documentation. Prepared for the
Narragansett Bay Project, Providence, Rl.
IEP, Inc., 1990. Vegetated Buffer Strip Designation
Method Guidance Manual. Prepared for the Narragansett
Bay Project, Providence, Rl, 27 pp. with appendices.
Livingston, E.H., 1988. State Perspectives on Water
Quality Criteria, in Urbonas, B. and L.A. Roesner, eds.,
Design of Urban Runoff Controls. Proceedings of an En-
gineering Foundation Conference, Potosi, MO, ASCE
Publications, NY.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection,
1990. Unpublished departmental summary of the Massa-
chusetts Wetlands Conservancy Program. Massa-
chusetts Dept. of Environmental Protection, Boston,
MA, 4 pp.
New Jersey Pinelands Commission, 1988. The
Pinelands'Development Credit Program: Report to the
Pinelands Commission, New Lisbon, NJ, 1988, 70 p. with
appendices.
Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management,
1988. Recommendations of the Stormwater Manage-
ment and Erosion Control Committee Regarding the
Development and Implementation ' of Technical
Guidelines for Stormwater Management. RIDEM Office
of Environmental Coordination.
Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management, Div.
of Water Resources, 1988 (revised 1989). Policy on the
Implementation of the Anti-Degradation Provisions of the
Rhode Island Water Quality Regulations.
Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management, Of-
fice of Environmental Coordination, 1989. Rhode Island's
Nonpoint Source Management Plan.
Rhode Island Dept. of Environmental Management, Of-
fice of Environmental Coordination, 1990. Rhode Island
Nonpoint Source Assessment, State of the States
Report. .
State of Delaware 'Dept. of Natural Resources and En-
vironmental Control, Div. of Water Resources, Nov.
1990. Draft Sediment and Stormwater Regulations.
37pp.
185
-------
THE STORMWATER UTILITY AS A LOCAL REGULATORY TOOL
Nancy Richardson Hansen
City of Beilevue Storm and Surface Water Utility
Bellevue, Washington
BACKGROUND
One of the most important challenges faced by local
governments is controlling the quantity and quality of
urban stormwater runoff. One answer is the estab-
lishment of a local stormwater utility that can provide on-
going funding and staff support for this purpose. The city
of Bellevue, Washington, established such a utility in
1974 in response to citizen concern over flooding and the
deteriorating quality of Bellevue's urban streams.
The City of Bellevue is located in the Puget Sound region
of Washington. First incorporated in 1953, it has grown
dramatically from a population of 6,000 and a land area
of 5 mi2 to over 86,000 residents and 30 mi2 today. The
cily has a varied topography, with a total relief of ap-
proximately 1,200 ft. Precipitation averages 35 to 40 in.
per year.
The city's rapid population growth was accompanied by
the water quality and quantity concerns that typically
plague urbanizing areas. Accelerated surface water
runoff from more impervious surfaces began to cause in-
creased flooding, water pollution, property damage,
streambank erosion, and threats to one of the region's
most precious resources, salmon. During this time, storm
drainage concerns were handled by competing for
general fund revenues within the city's Public Works
Department.
In 1965, state law was changed to allow the estab-
lishment of utilities as a funding mechanism for
stormwater control. A utility is a method of financing
based on payment for services, rather than from general
revenues such as property taxes. During the same time
period, citizen concern over the degradation of
Bellevue's surface water resources began to grow. The
City Council appointed a citizen committee to recom-
mend standards and procedures for preserving
Bellevue's streams.
In 1974, the City Council passed an ordinance estab-
lishing the utility and a system for surface water manage-
ment. The mission given to the new Storm and Surface
Water Utility (SSWU) was to "...manage the storm and
surface water system in Bellevue, to maintain a
hydrologic balance, to prevent property damage, and to
protect water quality for the safety and enjoyment of
citizens and the preservation and enhancement of
wildlife habitat."
Staff began preparing a drainage master plan to address
the pressing issues of flooding and in-stream erosion.
The plan examined a range of alternative solutions from
construction of large storm sewers to the use of open
streams and onsite flood control. An approach was finally
selected using an integrated network of open stream
channels and pipes for conveyance, with lakes, wet-
lands, ponds, and regional detention basins for peak
storage and water quality control. In addition, onsite flood
controls would be required of new development.. The
basic concept behind the selected approach was to use
the natural surface water drainage system to provide for
the conveyance and disposal of stormwater runoff
without degrading that natural system. This approach
has proven to be from four to ten times less costly than
traditional storm sewer improvements and is more
protective of the stream ecosystem.
A final hurdle in the establishment of the SSWU was set-
ting a rate structure to fund the utility's programs. After
significant citizen input, the City Council decided to base
drainage rates on the estimated amount of runoff in-
dividual properties contribute to the total drainage sys-
tem. Each property is classified according to its degree of
development (impervious surface). The classification
combined with total property area determines the service
charge which is billed every two months. Currently, an
average single family household pays $14.50 every two
months for 10,0.00 to 12,000 ft2 of property. Recognizing
the flood control and water quality benefits of wetlands,
changes were later added to the rate structure to benefit
properties encompassing wetlands.
SSWU PROGRAMS
The Storm and Surface Water Utility's programs have
changed and expanded over the years. With an initial
priority to control localized flooding, programs addressing
water quality have grown gradually. The SSWU currently
186
-------
has six major programs that enable it to accomplish its
mission: capital improvement, operations and main-
tenance, water quality, development regulations, public
education, and administration.
Capital Improvement
A fairly expensive capital improvement program was
necessary to put the flood control system in place, even
when using an open stream concept for flood control. A
series of 11 flood control ponds have been constructed
within the Bellevue stream system to provide protection
for the 24-hour, one in 100 probability storm event. They
are operated by remote control from a central telemetry
system which also includes rain gages and flow meters,
fully integrating the city's stream system surveillance.
The capital improvement program also includes storm
sewer and bridge construction, stream channel improve-
ments, wildlife habitat fish passage enhancement, and
water quality projects such as lake restoration.
Operations and Maintenance
An aggressive operations and maintenance program is
probably the most important key to a successful
stormwater utility. Flood control gates are operated
remotely by a central computer, freeing the crew mem-
bers to respond to system and citizen needs. Operation
procedures are designed to minimize fisheries impacts
while providing maximum flood control. During salmon
spawning season, flood control gates are left open until
significant heavy rains begin. The utility also operates a
24-hour emergency telephone line to respond to flooding,
pollution events, or other surface water related emergen-
cies. Maintenance and inspection staff serve as consult-
ants to private property owners working to solve
problems with private drainage systems. Major ongoing
maintenance activities include keeping storm drains and
trash racks clear of debris, repairing structural facilities,
cleaning catch basins, and controlling overgrown vegeta-
tion.
Water Quality
The SSWU is continuing to expand its water quality
programs. Current water quality activities include routine
monitoring of all receiving watersheds, investigative
monitoring of pollution events and sources, emergency
response for spills and other acute problems, stream en-
hancement and lake restoration projects, and inspection
of private stormwater systems. The Utility coordinates
with neighboring jurisdictions on water quality activities.
For example, the city is the lead in a major lake manage-
ment program involving several jurisdictions. The SSWU
has also played a leadership role in the development of
state and federal stormwater regulations. The Utility's
regulatory and education programs also have a sig-
nificant impact on preventing water quality problems. All
of these activities will contribute to successful com-
pliance with upcoming state and federal stormwater
regulations.
Development Regulations
A critical aspect of the SSWU's success is its ability to
use the city's land-use authority to regulate construction;
enforce clearing, grading, and development of sensitive
areas and prescribe strict development standards. The
SSWU has responsibility for enforcing a number of codes
relating to land use and construction. Onsite stormwater
controls for new development are required to provide
protection for the 24-hour, one in 100 probability storm
event. Clearing and grading permits require temporary
erosion and sedimentation control on all construction
sites. Floodplains, wetland, and steep slopes are
protected by a variety of codes that make up the city's
"natural determinants" program. Field inspectors and
development review staff work together to ensure protec-
tion of streams and sensitive areas both before and
during construction.
Public Education
The SSWU conducts a variety of educational activities in
support of its mission. The most visible is the innovative
"Stream Team" program which provides workshops and
volunteer monitoring activities for citizens. A newer
program is called "Business Partners for Clean Water,"
which involves five categories of local business in
developing water quality action programs for the
worksite. Other activities involving water quality and fish
habitat protection include storm drain stenciling (with
"Dump No Waste, Drains to Streams"), salmon rearing
and release projects, and stream rehabilitation.
Administration
Administration includes policy development, financial
management, rate administration, comprehensive drainage
planning, general administration, and support to the City
Council and the SSWU advisory commission. The Utility
also coordinates with other regional governments on
drainage and water quality issues.
STRENGTHS OF A STORMWATER UTILITY
The overriding advantage of a stormwater utility is that it
provides a mission and a source of funding dedicated to
addressing the water quantity and quality issues as-
sociated with urban drainage. The use of a service
charge provides an understandable link between the fee
paid and benefits received. Competition for general tax
revenue is eliminated. With a predictable revenue
stream, a stormwater management program can practice
long-range planning and act to prevent problems, rather
than being destined to react to them.
The establishment of a stormwater utility, however, does
not come without political investment. In Bellevue, al-
though the concept was endorsed by a citizen group and
approved by the City Council, the first utility billing led to
an uproar among some ratepayers. There had been
some advance publicity, but the residents did not fully
understand the basis of their fees or the function of the
187
-------
utility. It took concerted education and public involvement
to bring the community into full support of the SSWU's
existence.
After over 15 years of operation, other reasons for the
SSWU's success can be identified:
• A Unified Agency
A key to Believue's success is that all surface water
functions (operations and maintenance, capital plan-
ning and construction, permitting and enforcement,
and public education and involvement) are together in
one line department whose sole charge is surface
water control and management. This eliminates com-
petition for other priorities which often happens within
multi-purpose departments, and allows for maximum
coordination of activities in support of the SSWU's
mission.
• Strong Regulations
Believue's stormwater utility is effective in addressing
water quality concerns because it has definite
regulatory authority. As mentioned earlier, the SSWU
issues clearing and grading permits that cover all land
clearing and grading in the City. This allows the Utility
to help prevent water problems from occurring during
land development, as opposed to responding to
problems after the fact. The City of Bellevue also has
a strict set of codes addressing the protection of sen-
sitive areas such as wetlands, riparian corridors,
floodplains, and steep slopes and aggressively enfor-
ces these codes.
* Citizen Support
The SSWU would not have been able to move ahead
with a strong stormwater management program
without support from Believue's citizenry and the
leadership and will of the City Council. The Utility is
also supported and guided by a seven-member citizen
advisory commission. Bellevue is fortunate to be able
to be a "service oriented" city; calls for assistance are
responded to quickly and problems are resolved.
Public support of the SSWU is enhanced by educa-
tional programs such as the Stream Team. Through
the Stream Team's workshops, activities, and newslet-
ters, thousands of Bellevue residents have become
more aware of water quality concerns and the benefi-
cial work of the SSWU.
* Attention to Enforcement and Maintenance
Unlike other jurisdictions, all enforcement and main-
tenance activities are staffed within the Utility (as op-
posed to a separate maintenance division, for
example). The SSWU's rate structure also allows ade-
quate financial support for these important functions.
A staff of four full-time field inspectors have the
authority to stop work on a site if permit conditions are
not being followed. An operations and maintenance
staff spends time maintaining and improving the storm
drainage system between storms so that it functions
properly during those crucial times when it is needed.
• Interjurisdictional Coordination
Finally, Believue's stormwater utility does not operate
in a vacuum: it coordinates extensively with other
agencies and governments in the region. Several Bel-
levue streams run between city and county boun-
daries several times during their course. Coordination
with the water quality and drainage activities of neigh-
boring jurisdictions is essential to effective implemen-
tation of the SSWU's programs. The Utility has taken
an active role in several regional planning activities
and has initiated interiocal agreements in the interest
of managing water quantity and quality.
CHALLENGES
In spite of its successes, the SSWU still has challenges.
Although the Utility's purpose and mission is better un-
derstood by a greater cross section of the public, it still
occasionally meets with misunderstanding and disap-
proval. The utility fee is not understood by some who feel
that it is unfair to "tax rain." Debates also occur over who
is ultimately responsible for problems: "top of the hill" ver-
sus "bottom of the hill" property owners. Furthermore, the
benefits of a stormwater utility are not as visible as other
utilities such as water and power. The Utility's true value
lies in preventing problems such as flooding, erosion,
water pollution, and loss of wetlands. Since the SSWU's
benefits are difficult to demonstrate, there is a constant
need to be visible, responsible, and accountable to the
public.
Another challenge lies in adding an even stronger com-
ponent to address water quality. The fee structure
originally established for the utility did not include water
quality as a separate component. Water quality projects
have been funded from grants and as a natural by-
product of good stormwater quantity control. With in-
creasing state and federal regulations addressing water
quality in urban areas, it will become necessary to en-
sure a stable funding base for water quality activities.
This may eventually lead to a revision in the rate struc-
ture that includes a water quality component.
Finally, as with most government programs, last year's
budget is rarely enough for this year's program.
Believue's Storm and Surface Water Utility has under-
gone several rate increases to accompany the increased
cost of service. The ability to adequately fund the
program at a level protective of human property and
ecosystem values will be critically threatened unless
there is continuing public support.
188
-------
CASE STUDIES
-------
CASE STUDIES
INTRODUCTION
The purpose of the case study workgroups was to build
on and respond to the ideas presented in the plenary
sessions and panels; promote open exchange of ideas
by participants from different backgrounds; and reach as
much consensus as possible on the plan development
and implementation process. Each group worked on
developing an approach for restoring the water quality of
the watershed and for monitoring the effectiveness of the
approach.
Workgroup members discussing the case studies had
diverse experiences and backgrounds in handling non-
point source (NFS) problems, yet their philosophies and
technical approaches to addressing these problems were
similar. Most group members agreed that the watershed
case studies involve complex financial, legal, and social
barriers to overcome. The case study discussions were
set up to help participants view these complexities in the
long term and on a regional basis, but also to help in
identifying elements for detailed analysis.
To help organize the workgroup process, certain ques-
tions were used to relate to workshop presentations and
to aid in launching discussion. The questions related to
problem identification; goals and objectives; institutional
arrangements; major watershed plan components; and
NFS controls, monitoring, education, and evaluation.
The following section presents the case studies as they
were developed and used at the workshop. For each
case study, the following information is presented:
• A brief summary of the background material, includ-
ing maps and diagrams that were available to
workgroup participants
• Questions that were used to organize and guide
discussion
• A summary of what was discussed in each
workgroup, conclusions that were reached, and
participants' response to the discussions
CASE STUDY ^—URBAN-
WATERSHED
-BARNSTABLE
Background
Barnstable, Massachusetts, is a coastal resort town with
an area of 64 square miles (see Figure 1). It is the
largest town on Cape Cod (a 70 mile long peninsula in
the Atlantic Ocean) and is the commercial hub of the
area. Barnstable has more than doubled its population in
the last 20 years. It currently has a population of 43,321
year-round residents and 68,400 summer residents.
Most of this growth has been on the south side of the
town. Most jobs are in tourism, construction, fishing,
shellfish harvesting, and light industry. Construction has
recently declined, increasing unemployment.
The southern half of Barnstable is porous sand and
gravel with a gradually sloping (about 4 percent) topog-
raphy. The northern half is alternating areas of clay,
sand, boulders, and silt, with a more varied and steeply
sloped topography. Bedrock lies several hundred feet
below the ground surface throughout the town. Little
space is available in coastal areas for stormwater treat-
ment facilities, and what is available is expensive and
has a high water table.
One large, sole-source, freshwater aquifer lies below the
entire town (see Figure 2). This aquifer is the only source
of drinking water, most of which is still drinkable without
treatment. Some of the problems that have developed in
this watershed include:
• Two public supply wells have been shut down due to
chloroform and freon contamination
• Treatment is needed at two locations because of
gasoline leakage from underground tanks
• Elevated nitrate levels and bacterial counts occur in
the ground water in densely populated areas with on-
site septage tanks
• A large and growing industrial park is located over
one of the town's largest well fields
190
-------
BARNSTABLE, MASS
•<&> i
Atwowl S Bbtkwtll • Cnnsullinl tlaaam • Btttto, Haa
TOWN WIDE PLAN
VILLASE RESIDENTIAL |$SjSg3 WAREHOUSING &
DISTRIBUTION
COUNTRYSIDE RES.
:;;:;;;,:,>;,;,| COMMERCIAL RES.
HliH CENTRAL BUSINESS
HIGHWAY BUSINESS
NEIGHBORHOOD BUS.
RESEARCH PARK
OCEAN ORIENTED
DEVELOPMENT
'^SWi PUBLIC LAND, OPEN
' SPACE, FLOOD PLAIN
ZONE & CONSERVATION
MAJOR HIGHWAY
NETWORK
O MARINA
Figure 1. Barnstable, Massachusetts—town plan.
• Most of the stormwater in developed areas filters
directly into the ground and the aquifer
• The contaminated ground water increases the
nutrient loadings to town bays
• Stormwater runoff is known to cause shellfish bed
closures due to bacterial contamination
Several town agencies and committees are involved with
water-quality issues. The Board of Health issues septic
system and underground storage tank permits, tests
coastal waters, analyzes sources of contamination, and
inventories underground tanks. The Department of Public
Works designs and constructs stormwater treatment im-
provements, coordinates the development of sewer
facility plans, and oversees all government construction
191
-------
LEGEND.
~-20 Water-Tablt Contourt, In F««t Abov« S«a Levtl
Figure 2. Barnstable, Massachusetts—water table.
192
-------
Figure 3. Coastal resources management plan.
193
-------
in the town. The Natural Resources Department monitors
shellfish beds. The Conservation Commission regulates
work within 100 feet of wetlands and assists in the
development of coastal resource management plans.
The Planning and Development Agency is the primary
zoning authority. There is a Shellfish Advisory Committee
and a Water Quality Advisory Committee. Finally, the
Planning Board regulates subdivisions and makes
recommendations on proposed zoning changes.
The county reviews the development of large sub-
divisions and commercial buildings, provides
hydrogeological support to the towns, and advises towns
on issues related to marine water quality. Several state
and federal agencies also are important. For example,
the Massachusetts Division of Water Pollution Control, in
particular, establishes and administers onsite septic sys-
tem standards (and is currently rewriting these regula-
tions). On the federal level, the U.S. EPA provides
technical assistance, as well as funding for certain
projects.
To address water-quality problems, Barnstable mapped
the zones of contribution to 53 of the town's public water
supply wells, inventoried and prioritized 50 locations
where stormwater discharge should be treated, required
new developments to treat runoff, restricted land uses in
zones of contribution, developed a $1 million geographic
information system (GIS) to provide citizens with data on
zoning and water quality, and began work on a
wastewater treatment facility plan. In addition, a Coastal
Resource Management Plan (see Figure 3) has been
developed to improve the water quality of the Cotuit Bay.
Case Study Questions
1. How can the town increase the number of existing
underground tanks reported?
2. What provisions need to be included in the zoning
by-laws to protect water quality?
3. How should departments and agencies be structured
lo include all important parties in the process?
4. How can the town maximize the utilization of county
resources? What types of areas should the town
recommend to the county as areas of critical con-
cern? What requirements should be placed on
development in these areas?
5. What requirements should the town ask the state to
include in regulating onsite septage disposal
systems?
6. How can the town best utilize the technical assis-
tance and resources available from the U.S. EPA?
What funding is available for water-quality projects?
What work could the town do now to prepare it to be
eligible for funding water-quality improvement
projects?
7. How does the infiltration of stormwater through the
porous soils on Cape Cod affect the short-term and
long-term quality of the ground water?
8. With the porous soils along the coast, what criteria
should be established for depth-to-ground water for
infiltration facilities and septic systems and to
eliminate bacteria, heavy metals, and viruses?
9.. Very limited funds are available for stormwater treat-
ment. How should areas be prioritized? How can
treatment facilities be paid for?
10. What additional treatment methods besides infiltra-
tion are available?
11. Infiltration facilities are easily clogged by sediment in
runoff, sometimes within 7 years. How can facilities
be designed to have a longer useful life?
12. How can the productive use of the town's new
geographic information system (GIS) be maximized?
13. How can the town build popular support for the con-
struction of wastewater treatment facilities where it is
necessary to improve water quality? How can the
town include the users of such systems in the plan-
ning process and gain their input and support when
setting sewer user rates?
14. How can the town build popular support for the
recommended actions to improve water quality in
Cotuit Bay and elsewhere in town, establish
stormwater treatment facilities and no-discharge
zones for sanitary waste from boats, control the use
of fertilizer, and support operation and maintenance
facilities?
Workgroup Problem Identification
The workgroups identified major problem areas to be the
threats to drinking water, shellfishing, and recrea-
tion/tourism; poor coastal water quality due to bacterial
contamination; and rapid population growth on Cape
Cod. Table 1 illustrates one group's detailed analysis of
the poor coastal water-quality problem. The potential
sources identified included septic systems, stormwater
runoff, landfills, underground storage tanks, atmospheric
deposition, illicit discharges, recreational boats, animals,
spills/releases, and litter. One group suggested that
deficiencies in past and/or present facility planning and
siting, watershed planning and zoning, technical exper-
tise, growth management, enforcement, standards and,
regulations, regional cooperation, public involvement,
and legal agreements may have contributed to' the
problem.
194
-------
Table 1. Analysis of Poor Coastal Water Quality
Uses
Resources
Problems
Swimming
Support Shellfish
Bathing beaches
Shellfish
Recreation constraints
Shellfish contamination
Reduced shellfish quantities
Pollutants
Sources/Causes
Bacteria
Ground-water inflow
Septic systems
Landfill leachate
Infiltrated stormwater
Nutrients
Toxicants
Stormwater runoff
Septic systems
Pets
Fertilizer
Vehicles
Boats
Sewage
Bottom paint
Waterfowl
Pets
Goals and Objectives
The workgroups identified the following goals for the
project:
• Ensure fishable waters and open shellfish beds and
restore the local water-based economy
• Ensure swimmable waters and keep beaches open
• Protect against loss of wetlands
• Prevent eutrophication
• Guarantee safe supply of drinking water
• Control surface water problems while maintaining
acceptable ground-water recharge
The workgroups agreed that the rapid population growth
also must be limited or its effects must be greatly
mitigated to reach the goals for the project.
Administrative objectives included clearly defining the
problem; using zoning controls to reduce urbanization;
reporting progress to the. public; gaining acceptance by
government leaders; disseminating information; and
using existing organizations and programs to help imple-
ment the project. One group emphasized the importance
of prioritizing the goals and developing a project
schedule.
institutions
To achieve the project goals, the workgroups agreed that
governmental entities must coordinate activities and
provide adequate resources, including regulatory and
legal capabilities. Technical experts could inventory in-
dividual nonpoint sources, estimate loads, and develop
control options. The roles of participating groups must be
established in the beginning of the project to cultivate
project "ownership" and develop the project's driving for-
ces. It also was suggested that regional coordination and
special district authorization be considered. According to
one group, accountability at all levels of government was
strongly encouraged. Memoranda of understanding or
other institutional arrangements seem necessary to en-
courage the project team to deliver on their commit-
ments.
The groups suggested the following specific agencies for
help with the problem: Board of Health; Shellfish War-
den; Harbor Master; Department of Public Works; and
state and federal agencies, including the Soil Conserva-
tion Service (SCS), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS),
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Environmental Protec-
tion Agency (EPA), Food and Drug Administration (FDA),
and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administra-
tion (NOAA). Several groups recommended organizing a
195
-------
steering committee to include engineers, scientists,
businesspeople, government staff, politicians, environ-
mental groups, developers, local citizen advisors,
homeowners, and other interested people.
Watershed Plan
A detailed watershed plan must be developed using as
thorough an understanding of the problem as possible.
The groups identified the following major elements of a
watershed plan:
• Designate a lead board or agency.
• Develop an effective institutional framework.
• Assess the adequacy of the existing growth manage-
ment plan.
• Collect, organize, and assess information on the ex-
isting infrastructure (sanitary districts, zoning),
topography, hydrology, soils, nonpoint sources
(stormwater outfalls), underground storage tanks,
water quality (nitrate levels in ground water; bacteria
levels in clams), and other environmental concerns.
The Town of Barnstable's new geographic informa-
tion system (GIS) was considered to be a very help-
ful tool in completing this task.
• Develop a strong public awareness element.
* Develop a very detailed zoning map.
• Develop a comprehensive 20-year growth manage-
ment plan.
• Identify appropriate technologies.
• Evaluate the effectiveness of various alternatives
(e.g., retrofit versus prevention) and the means by
which the technologies can be implemented (e.g., in-
stitutional).
• Set priorities for the use of technologies.
• Develop a budget, cost estimates, and a schedule
with milestones.
• Develop a system to track progress and provide
feedback.
Monitoring
The workgroups agreed that the monitoring program
should focus both on the impacted resources (e.g.,
shellfish beds and ground water) as well as the
suspected sources of contamination (e.g., septic systems
and stormwater). In general, the monitoring program
should:
• Review existing data
• Continue Board of Health monitoring of shellfish and
recreational waters for bacterial contamination
• Monitor effectiveness of stormwater treatment
facilities and the presence of illicit connections
between septic tanks a'nd the stormwater con-
veyance system
• Monitor specific locations to aid in problem assess-
ments, estimating loads, and determining individual
sources
• Assess the status of wellhead protection in the
project area
• Monitor the effects of remedial activities as they are
implemented
Technology Transfer
The following nonpoint source controls were considered
most promising for application in the Barnstable case:
• Mobile boat pump-outs.
• Stormwater infiltration techniques, providing they are
tested in the Barnstable environment before they are
implemented on a widespread basis
*_ Limitation of impervious services in new develop-
ments
• Creation of open spaces (purchase easements)
• Septic system management programs
• Expansion of underground storage tank controls and
dissemination of information to industries that might
need to add controls to underground storage tanks
• Landfill controls
• Encouragement of social pressures to control ac-
tivities such as curbing pets and conserving water
• Wastewater management
The groups mentioned that site-specific factors, such as
water table elevation, costs, location, soil type, topog-
raphy, seasonality, maintenance and operation, and lon-
gevity should be considered in selecting and/or applying
NPS controls. Group members generally agreed that
preventative measures should receive priority over
remedial measures whenever practicable. Controls that
provide multiple benefits and/or treat "all" pollutants were
also preferred.
Information and Education
The groups agreed that the flow of information is very im-
portant and needs to be multidirectional and continuous
among local officials, citizen groups, schools, chambers
of commerce, commercial fishermen, tourists, industry
official, and the media. Project coordinators should
provide information on costs, alternatives, health
aspects, demonstration projects, and opportunities for
citizen involvement.
Workgroup members agreed that public education and
involvement must begin early, reflect specific project
196
-------
phases, target specific audiences (especially influential
groups), account for the seasonal variation in the popula-
tion, and be upbeat and optimistic. This approach should
build grassroots support to implement and pay for solu-
tions and reduce pollutants at their source. The groups
identified town meetings, mailings, field days, local press,
radio, and other media as useful communication
vehicles. One group suggested that a survey of
residents' views of the NPS problem would be useful in
gaining public support. Invited outside experts also could
generate ideas for solving the problems.
Program Evaluation
One way the program could be evaluated is to examine
the program's impact on the use of the affected resour-
ces, such as shellfish beds or beaches. The level of
nitrates in ground-water supplies was also noted as an
important ranking parameter. Implementation levels
could be evaluated, such as by how many septic sys-
tems have been improved. Information and education
whether programs could be evaluated by observing
people's behavior has changed and their interest in solv-
ing the problem has increased.
Stormwater Treatment Financing
Some recommendations for creative ways to finance
stormwater facilities were to establish stormwater and/or
NPS utilities, septic system maintenance districts, and
tax deductions (favored over charging fees) for
homeowners and businesses upgrading septic systems
or stormwater facilities.
CASE STUDY #2—EASTERN
AGRICULTURE—GROVE LAKE WATERSHED
Background
Grove Lake and its watershed are located in Pope Coun-
ty, in west-central Minnesota. The watershed is 10 mi
long and 6 mi wide. Grove Lake has a surface area of
378 acres, average depth of 8.6 ft, a maximum depth of
31 ft, and a shoreline length of 5.7 mi (see Figure 4). It is
used for fishing, swimming, boating, water skiing, aes-
thetics, and wildlife watching.
Grove Lake is epilimnetic in the summer and has the fol-
lowing long-term mean measures: total phosphorus of
44 u.g/L, secchi disc of 2.4 m, and chlorophyll a of 20.5
jig/L Nuisance algal blooms occur for 50 to 60 percent
of the growing season. Agricultural runoff increases
levels of sediment and nutrients to the lake, and septic
systems adjacent to the lake may also cause water-
quality problems. In the watershed's wetlands, ditching is
lowering water levels and volumes. Average rainfall is 25
inches per year, average lake evaporation is 30 inches
per year, and the lake generally is free from ice from
April 15 through November 15. Around the lake, the land
is either nearly level or gently sloping. On the north-
eastern side of the lake, 80 percent of the soil is subject
to drought and soil blowing, and 65 percent of the soil is
subject to erosion around the rest of the lake.
About 95 percent of the land around GroVe Lake is in
private ownership, 5 percent is owned by the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service, and less than 1 percent is a town
park. The following land patterns exist: 44 percent
agriculture (crops and domestic animals), 23 percent
pasture, 21 percent wetlands, 6 percent water, and 5
percent forested. In the watershed, there are ap-
proximately 25 farmsteads, 60 to 75 landowners away
from the lake, and 65 landowners adjacent to the lake.
There are 19 permanent and 46 summer homes along
the lake. A town-owned park on the northeast corner of
the lake includes a boat ramp, swimming beach, and a
picnic area.
A watershed management plan is being developed for
the Grove Lake area. Goals of the plan are to improve
water quality, recreational use, and wildlife habitat, and
to reduce sedimentation, flooding, and erosion problems.
Specifically, the following summer epilimnetic water
quality goals for Grove Lake are being proposed: 35 u.g/L
mean total phosphorus (a 38 percent reduction in the
current phosphorus load), 2.4 m mean secchi disc, 12
|ig/L mean chlorophyll a, and nuisance algal bloom
periods for less than 20 percent of the growing season.
The North Fork Crow River Watershed District
(NFCRWD) is sponsoring the development of the water-
shed management plan. NFCRWD has received a 50
percent matching grant from the Minnesota Pollution
Control Agency (MPCA). The Grove Lake Lake Associa-
tion (GLLA) was instrumental in securing the grant and
provides input into plan development. Local project rep-
resentatives are the treasurer and a board member of
the NFCRWD. A consulting firm has been hired to con-
duct the water-quality investigation, and the Pope Soil
and Water Conservation District and the Soil Conserva-
tion Service are conducting the watershed/nonpoint
source (NPS) evaluation. The Agricultural NPS Pollution
Control Model is being used to determine critical areas,
identify necessary best management practices, and es-
timate nonpoint pollution reduction. A GIS assessment of
nonpoint pollution priority areas also is being evaluated.
Water-quality monitoring will be conducted and will be
continued for at least one year after the plan is imple-
mented. The project will be evaluated through an assess-
ment of the BMPs implemented, and a comparison of
water-quality measures and how they relate to the
specified water quality goals. Technology transfer may
be pursued through fact sheets, individual contacts,
group meetings, newsletter articles, field demonstrations,
and tours. Public education and information may be
provided through the GLLA newsletter and annual meet-
ings, public meetings concerning the plan, and a
NFCRWD newsletter.
The MPCA has the authority to govern the storage,
transportation, disposal, and utilization of animal manure.
197
-------
GROVE LAKE
WATERSHED
LEGEND
* SAMPLE STATIONS
M WATER
— SUBWATERSHED
m USFWS LAND
1 mile
Grove Lake
Sampling
Watershed
Locations
ĄRM
Water Research
&
Management,
Inc.
14
St
Seventh
Cloud.
Ave
MN
N.
56303
Figure 4. Grove Lake watershed.
A joint county-state program to address agricultural
runoff is desirable because it promotes local involve-
ment, minimal disruption to agricultural operations, and
environmental protection. The county has the authority to
regulate onsite sewage treatment systems, but has not
adopted any ordinances. By 1993, the county will be re-
quired to enforce specific standards for onsite sewage
treatment systems on all dwellings in the shoreland
areas.
Case Study Questions
1. What are the most important and challenging
problems that need to be addressed in the water-
shed management plan?
2. How do the project goals and objectives relate to
each other? Are there any other goals and objectives
that might be worthy of consideration?
3. How can the individuals and organizations involved
with the water management plan (the cooperators)
best work together toward achieving water-quality
goals? What should the roles of each cooperator be?
How do the roles interrelate and contribute to the
5.
6.
achievement of objectives? What are the estimated
costs of involvement for the cooperators? What in-
stitutional barriers or breakdowns might exist and
what institutional arrangements should be recom-
mended?
What is an appropriate regulatory strategy that util-
izes the identified authorities and encourages land-
owners to implement NFS control measures in a
timely manner? What are the needed regulatory
capabilities for this project? How could they be used
to stimulate implementation of NFS controls? What
would be the positive and negative impacts of using
regulatory capabilities in the project?
Prepare a step-by-step watershed plan that will
enable the time.ly implementation of needed prac-
tices in critical areas. What roles should be played by
each project cooperator? What is a reasonable time
frame for accomplishing each step in the plan? Es-
timate the cost of the plan and relate those costs to
the project budget.
What particular NFS controls appear most promising
to address the problems found in this watershed?
198
-------
What are the specific steps needed to develop sys-
tems for each site that, when combined with all other
site plans in the watershed, will contribute to meeting
water-quality objectives? Make recommendations as
to the types of site plans that are most needed in the
project area. What would barriers be to the im-
plementation of these recommendations? How might
these barriers be overcome? What would the costs
be of these recommendations? What role would the
cooperators play?
7. What steps should be taken to:
a. review and interpret existing data?
b. develop specifics for a monitoring program (site
locations, sampling frequency, parameters,
QA/QC, etc.)?
c. develop an analytic approach?
d. line up needed resources and cooperation (in-
cluding easements)?
e. establish the role of monitoring data in project
development (including monitoring of BMP main-
tenance)?
8. Develop a monitoring program based upon the infor-
mation given. Include any initial provisions (e.g., ini-
tial sampling to get a handle on variability) that must
be made to develop a cost-effective monitoring
program. Estimate associated costs.
9. How can technology transfer become an integral part
of the project? What are the benefits and costs of
technology transfer? Which cooperators should per-
form what functions? When?
10. What outside information or knowledge should be
brought into this project? What can be taken from
this project and shared with others?
11. What additional methods could be used to inform the
general public and affected landowners? What
mechanisms should be used to implement these-
methods, and what are the costs?
12. Develop a project evaluation plan, including evalua-
tion objectives, analytic approaches to be used in
evaluating the project, information needs, methods
for collecting information, schedule, roles of
cooperators, and reporting of findings.
Problem Identification
Group members agreed that in addition to understanding
the physical, chemical, and biological condition of the
lake and its watershed, it would be critical to understand
how individuals or groups that live within the watershed
or use the lake perceive the problems. If the problem is
not clearly understood and defined, much effort could be
expended on improvements not perceived as problems
by lake users. Those responsible for solving the problem
at Grove Lake should also become knowledgeable about
how the problem was manifested, what symptoms are
present, if current data are adequate to diagnose the
problem and develop an implementation plan, or if further
studies are necessary. It also will be necessary to under-
stand socioeconomic issues, special interests, and politi-
cal realities.
Goals and Objectives
Playing the role of a local steering committee, one of the
workgroups formulated three primary goals: 1) to im-
prove water quality and restore wetlands, 2) to make the
project a community effort, and 3) to maintain farm
profitability. The group's objectives for improving water
quality were to define the specific lake water quality
desired, pollutant loading goals, and implementation al-
ternatives. Specific environmental goals have been ini-
tially set to reduce sediment loading to Grove Lake by 75
percent by 1998 and phosphorus loading by 38 percent.
The objectives for involving the community were to en-
sure that the public understands the issues and agrees
that there is a problem; to use existing institutional arran-
gements to the extent possible; and to make education
the initial priority.
Institutional Arrangements
The workgroups considered the formation of one or more
of the following institutional arrangements: a citizens
group to discuss issues, promote education, and surface
needs; an issues group that would include agricultural
representatives and other special interests; and a techni-
cal group, which would direct water-quality monitoring
and watershed assessment.
The groups agreed that a watershed district could serve
as the lead local governmental organization with an initial
activity of conducting a public information meeting to ex-
plain the project. Prior to this meeting, one-on-one dis-
cussions with leading representatives of the community
and target agencies (local, state, and federal) should be
arranged to provide accurate information to potential
speakers. At the meeting, support would be sought for
forming a Grove Lake Restoration Project steering com-
mittee. At a minimum, participation would be sought from
the watershed district, local soil and water conservation
district, state pollution control agency, lake association,
farm representatives, civic leaders, other community
leaders, and any special interest groups that emerge. A
follow-up to the meeting would be to provide the atten-
dees with a summary of what took place and to ask them
for additional input.
The steering committee would be chaired by a lay person
to aid in acquiring community ownership and to minimize
the potential for turf battles in setting project direction.
Staff from the MPCA and local districts would serve the
committee and provide technical guidance. A project
199
-------
consultant would conduct technical studies necessary
under the guidance of MPCA technical staff assigned to
the committee. Subcommittees could be formed, such as
a farm committee to assist in developing an implementa-
tion strategy for best management practices.
Watershed Plan
The workgroups identified three major areas of action for
a watershed plan. The first area was to educate the
public and build a community consensus to protect the
lake and its watershed. The second area was to seek
technical information and assistance from agencies, in-
cluding information on standards, violations, and uses of
the lake. The third area was to develop a detailed water-
shed plan that clearly identifies the problem and avail-
able tools/measures to solve the problem; sets
performance targets and a schedule; obtains commit-
ments by agencies, landowners, etc., to achieve
schedule milestones; and tracks progress.
The groups agreed that it also is important to understand
what tools currently are available to implement the
needed changes in the local land use and management.
Current state and local regulations, incentives, issues re-
lated to zoning ordinances, and plans for septic tanks
and feedlots must be assessed in terms of how they af-
fect Grove Lake. Financial commitments necessary to
implement the watershed protection program must be
made and funding must be secured. It would be useful to
evaluate the experiences of similar watershed protection
efforts. A water-quality monitoring plan should be
developed to establish baseline conditions and document
changes.
Information and Education
Education is a cornerstone of the implementation
strategy. Some available outlets for education include
youth organizations, media, and informal conversations.
Use of trained educators, including the school system
and extension service is important. Building bridges
between historically adversarial groups should be done
slowly and carefully. Whenever possible, issues should
be discussed in a context that appeals to individuals, i.e.,
"How does this benefit me or my children?" Finally, those
active in the project will need to accept varying levels of
acceptance by agencies, groups, and individuals.
Evaluation
To be accountable to the community as well as the
stakeholders (i.e., the funding sources), it is important to
evaluate the success of the project. The more clearly the
project goals and milestones are defined, monitoring sys-
tems are designed, and information is reported, the
easier it will be to evaluate the project. A final report
should be prepared that documents activities undertaken
and presents a project evaluation.
CASE STUDY #3—WESTERN
AGRICULTURE—OTTER CREEK WATERSHED
Background
Otter Creek is in the Great Basin hydrologic region of
Utah (see Figure 5). About one-third of the creek is in
Sevier County and two-thirds is in Piute County. The sur-
rounding watershed covers 240,000 acres and has a
topography characterized by mountains and valleys.
Otter Creek is diverted for irrigation in many locations.
The Koosharem Reservoir (at .the headwaters of Otter
Creek) and the Otter Creek Reservoir (at the end of the
creek) are used for fishing, boating, irrigation, and live-
stock watering. There is a state park facility on the south
shore of Otter Creek Reservoir.
Water-quality problems occur because of runoff from
livestock production, overgrazing, poor irrigation water
distribution and low irrigation efficiency (this has im-
proved in the last 10 to 15 years and sprinkler systems
now predominate), unstable streambanks, poor riparian
zone condition, and (potentially) pesticide use. Erosion
rates in some areas are 9 to 18 tons/acre/year (com-
pared with the Soil Conservation Service standard of 2
tons/acre/year). Sediment deposition in the watershed
exceeds 50 acre-feet/year. The creek fails state water-
quality standards for total phosphorus, nitrogen, total dis-
solved solids, and sodium, and contains high coliform
levels. Sedimentation in the reservoirs reduces their
storage capacities. The Otter Creek Reservoir fails state
water quality standards for total phosphorous,
nitrate/nitrite, sediments, nitrogen, and turbidity and is
eutrophic (and deteriorating).
Land ownership in the watershed is 50 percent Bureau of
Land Management (BLM), 35 percent Forest Service, 10
percent private, and 5 percent state. Land-use patterns
are 95 percent rangeland and 5 percent cropland. There
are 109 farm owners living in the area and 30 to 35 ab-
sentee owners. About 100 are limited-resource farmers,
6 are handicapped farmers, and 15 are minority farm
owners. Average farm size is 110 acres. There are 400
to 450 people in four communities within the watershed.
Most income is generated through livestock production.
There are high-intensity rains and rapid snow melt in the
area. Average crop growing seasons are May 15 to Sep-
tember 15 for alfalfa, April 28 to August 26 for spring
grain, June 2 to September 30 for field corn, and April 28
to October 18 for pasture. Below 8,000 ft elevation, soils
are shallow to deep gravelly and cobbley loams under-
lain with sandstone and shale bedrock; soils are well
drained with moderate to slow permeability; runoff and
sediment production are moderate; and vegetation con-
sists of big sagebrush, oakbrush, pinion pine, and as-
sociated grasses, forbs, and shrubs. Above 8,000 ft, soils
are moderate or deep acidic loams, silt loams, and clay
200
-------
'__si .<<[-••$ \\r
.. K:AA
Otter Creek Watershed
Hydrologic Unit
DIXIE NATIONAL FORES
-"' •
V) •
Figure 5. Otter Creek watershed.
201
-------
loams underlain by bedrock at a depth of 0 to 60 in. or
more; soils are well drained with slow to rapid per-
meability; runoff is slow to medium and sediment produc-
tion is moderately low; and, vegetation consists of aspen,
fir, grasses, forbs, and shrubs.
Otter Creek was once a very productive fishery. Live-
stock grazing, irrigated agriculture, and upstream reser-
voirs all contribute to the nonpoint source-related
problems downstream. Those using and responsible for
managing the watershed aim to alleviate the problems
through some type of cooperative effort. The goals for
the project include:
* Improve water quality so it meets state standards
• Minimize streambank erosion
* Reduce coliform and nutrient loadings, as well as
other contaminants
• Improve riparian habitat
* Provide for improved recreational use
* Inform the public about water-quality management
• Implement a planned water treatment and monitoring
program.
Appropriate management practices for the area include
permanent vegetative cover, irrigation water conserva-
tion, streambank protection, livestock exclusion, and
fencing.
Piute County Soil Conservation District (SCO), the Utah
Department of Agriculture, the Cooperative Extension
Service (CES), and the SCS will select a Project Coor-
dinator (which will be partially funded by the U.S. EPA).
The Coordinator will organize committees and coordinate
activities between the committees and local, state, and
federal agencies. Financial assistance is provided by the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service and
the Utah Department of Agriculture for improvements in
irrigation management. The SCS will provide technical
assistance to farmers and ranchers. Coordination with
the Forest Service and the BLM to control erosion on
federal lands will be necessary. The CES will conduct
public information activities on agricultural and nonpoint
source (NPS) pollution problems, farming practices being
used to address problems, and the promotion of best
management practices (BMPs). The overall project
budget will be $140,000 each year from 1991-1995.
Case Study Questions
1. What are the most important and challenging
problems that need to be addressed in the water-
shed management plan?
2. Discuss the goals and objectives for this project.
How do the project goals and objectives relate to
each other? Are there any other goals and objec-
tives that might be worthy of consideration?
3. How can the individuals and organizations involved
with the water management plan (the cooperators)
best work together toward achieving water quality
goals? What should the roles of each cooperator be?
How do the roles interrelate and contribute to the
achievement of objectives? What are the estimated
costs of involvement for the cooperators? Should the
Project Coordinator have any authorities to carry out
his/her responsibilities? What would be a reasonable
set of authorities? What institutional barriers or
breakdowns might exist and what institutional arran-
gements should be recommended?
4. What is an appropriate regulatory strategy that util-
izes the identified authorities and encourages land
owners to implement NPS control measures in a
timely manner? What are the needed regulatory
capabilities for this project? How could they be used
to stimulate implementation of NPS controls? What
would be the positive and negative impacts of using
regulatory capabilities in the project?
5. Prepare a step-by-step watershed plan that will
enable the timely implementation of needed prac-
tices in critical areas. What roles should be played by
each project cooperator? What is a reasonable time
frame for accomplishing each step in the plan? Es-
timate the cost of the plan and relate those costs to
the project budget.
6. Discuss specific steps, needed to develop systems
for each site that, when combined with all other site
plans in the watershed, will contribute toward meet-
ing water-quality objectives. Make recommendations
as to the types of site plans that are most needed in
the project area. Comment on barriers to implemen-
tation and how these might be overcome. Estimate
costs and identify the roles of cooperators. ,
7. What steps should be taken to:
a. review and interpret existing data?
b. develop specifics for a monitoring program (site
, locations, sampling frequency, parameters,
QA/QC, etc.)?
c. develop an analytic approach?
d. line up needed resources and cooperation (in-
cluding easements)?
e. establish the role of monitoring data in project
development (including monitoring of BMP main-
tenance)?
8. Develop a monitoring program based upon the infor-
mation given. Include any initial provisions (e.g., ini-
tial sampling to get a handle on variability) that must
be made to develop a cost-effective monitoring
program. Estimate associated costs.
202
-------
9. How can technology transfer become an integral part
of the project? What are the benefits and costs of
technology transfer? Which cooperators should per-
form what functions? When?
10. What outside information or knowledge should be
brought into this project? What can be taken from
this project and shared with others?
11. What methods could be used to inform the general
public and affected landowners? What mechanisms
should be used to implement these methods, and
what are the costs? What assistance, if any, should
be provided to CES to carry out the public informa-
tion campaign?
12. Develop a project evaluation plan, including evalua-
tion objectives, analytic approaches to be used in
evaluating the project, information needs, methods
for collecting information, schedule, roles of
cooperators, and reporting of findings.
Workgroup Problem Identification
The major environmental problems related to the water-
shed relate to the loss of riparian vegetation that stabi-
lizes the stream banks and the degradation of water
quality due to agriculture (excess nutrients and tempera-
ture changes). These water-quality problems directly af-
fect fishery values, aesthetics, recreation, drinking water,
and perhaps ground-water resources due to changes in
the stream geometry.
Some workgroup members felt that the problem was en-
hanced because the area lacks management flexibility.
For example, there are a lack of alternatives for relocat-
ing livestock. Some felt that even if livestock grazing was
discontinued, vegetation still would not return.
Goals and Objectives
Workgroup members agreed that the primary objective of
the project should be to enhance fish and wildlife. The
long-term objective would be to improve the area and
provide additional forage for livestock. „
Institutional Arrangements
Workgroups believed that the key to improving the water-
shed was to involve the local residents in the program.
Some suggestions included:
• Targeting local influential people and educating them
on the need for improved water quality.
• Utilizing small and large demonstration projects
sponsored by local scouting groups, churches,
schools, 4-H clubs, and similar organizations. An
"Adopt-a Stream" project is one example.
• Involving participation by land management agen-
cies, such as the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM) and the Forest Service.
• Educating the public, especially schoolchildren. One
group suggested that a survey conducted before and
after the project began would measure the effective-
ness of the education and information programs.
Many people in the area believe that if they do not par-
ticipate in the project, then a higher authority, such as the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, will take over.
Watershed Plan
The workgroups made several recommendations for an
Otter Creek watershed plan. Group members suggested
that the sources of the problems be mapped out to
properly manage the entire watershed, not just the
riparian zones. Natural recovery measures should have
priority over artificial measures. The workgroups also
agreed that it would be useful to develop a consensus
"vision" of what the area could look like after remedial
strategies were in place. It would also be useful to
develop "win-win" attitudes.
Workgroup members felt that cost-sharing should be
provided to help make the adjustment process as easy
as possible for those being affected by the plan and en-
courage participation by others.
CASE STUDY #4—FORESTRY—SOUTH FORK
SALMON RIVER WATERSHED
Background
The South Fork of the Salmon River (SFSR) is in central
Idaho. The surrounding watershed is in Valley County
and covers 237,098 acres (see Figures 6 and 7). The
topography is characterized by steep canyons with sharp
intervening ridges and steep basin slopes (many are
over 70 percent). The area primarily is forested and has
ponderosa pine at lower elevations, coniferous trees in
middle elevations, and subalpine fir at higher elevations.
Meadows are found along the stream course. The water
resources of the SFSR come primarily from snowmelt
(peak time is in the spring), which runs off directly into
"the drainage system and recharges ground water to
maintain baseflow in the river. Discharge from the lower
end of the SFSR ranges from a baseflow of 1,000 to
3,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) to 3,000 cfs in
springtime to 100 to 200 cfs during the rest of the year.
The SFSR is used for fish spawning and rearing—
Chinook and steelhead, which travel from the Pacific
Ocean, and local trout (see Figure 8). Average annual
precipitation varies with elevation from 20 to 60 inches;
most falls in winter as snow. The river flows on a granitic
bedrock formation composed mainly of quartz mon-
zonite. Soils are primarily coarse-textured and extremely
erosive because of high degrees of weathering.
Spawning is being impaired by water-quality problems
(primarily sedimentation). In the 1960s, a. large wildfire
and rain and snow events caused massive sedimentatibn
203
-------
Project Map - South Fork
Salmon River - North Half
Roads
SF Salmon River
Poverty burn
Figure 6. South Fork Salmon River—north half.
204
-------
in the area. Sediment yield has been monitored in the
SFSR since 1965. It peaked above 20,000 cubic meters
per year (m3/yr) (with an estimated 2,000,000 m3
delivered to the river channel). By 1980, sediment yield
declined to 3,000-4,000 m3/yr. Ultimately the river began
to carry fine sediments downstream. Currently surface
fines are between 10 and 15 percent, while depth fines
are between 20 and 36 percent. Cobble embeddedness
ranges from 14 to 56 percent. Nonpoint sources are
responsible for all sediments in SFSR. About 84 percent
of the sediment comes from natural sources (other than
burns), 14 percent comes from roads (logging and other),
and 2 percent comes from new burns.
All but a few hundred acres in the area are in federal or
state ownership, primarily National Forest System land.
There are no communities within the watershed, al-
though there are some summer homes and lodges (two
of which are year round) under special-use permits by
the Forest Service. Land use mostly has been for timber,
but there is currently a moratorium on both timber har-
vesting and road building. The moratorium was estab-
lished in 1966, lifted in 1978, and reinstated in 1984.
Grazing has been removed, and although there has been
some mining in the past, none currently occurs. Several
sediment control measures have been undertaken, in-
cluding the logging moratorium, dragline removal of sand
and gravel cleaning from stream beds, attempts to stabi-
lize cuts and fills on roads, reclamation of roads by mul-
ching and grass seeding, water barring fire lines, grass
seeding, and contour felling of trees. Road paving and in-
tensified cut and fill slope stabilization also have been
proposed.
The goal of the project is to restore the impaired benefi-
cial uses, namely Chinook and steelhead spawning.
Specific objectives are to increase the survival of young
fish and to establish appropriate depth fines, dissolved
oxygen concentrations, and cobble embeddedness for
spawning. A total maximum daily load (TMDL) should be
developed to identify practical levels of sediment reduc-
tion, prescribe best management practices (BMPs), and
monitor success. Site-specific and beneficial use status
monitoring will be conducted. The Forest Service also
has developed a recovery plan that, if implemented, is
expected to reduce half the volume of man-caused
sedimentation to the river if implemented. The SFSR In-
teragency Coordination team, which includes repre-
sentatives from Idaho Division of Environmental Quality,
Payette National Forest, Boise National Forest, U.S.
Forest Service-lntermountain Research Station, and
EPA-ldaho Operations Office, will work to develop the
TMDL and the rest of the program. The Forest Service,
Idaho Division of Environmental Quality, and EPA will
secure necessary funds.
Case Study Questions
1. What are the most important and challenging
problems that need to be addressed in the water-
shed management plan?
2. How do the project goals and objectives relate to
each other? Are there any other goals and objectives
that might be worthy of consideration?
3. How can the individuals and organizations involved
with the water management plan (the cooperators)
best work together toward achieving water-quality
goals? What should the roles of each cooperator be?
How do the roles interrelate and contribute to the
achievement of objectives? What are the estimated
costs of involvement for the cooperators? What in-
stitutional barriers or breakdowns might exist and
what institutional arrangements should be recom-
mended?
4. What is an appropriate regulatory strategy that util-
izes the identified authorities and encourages land-
owners to timely implementation of nonpoint source
(NPS) control measures? What are the needed
regulatory capabilities for this project? How could
they be used to stimulate implementation of NPS
controls? What would be the positive and negative
impacts of using regulatory capabilities in the
project?
5. Prepare a step-by-step watershed plan that will
enable the implementation of needed practices in
critical areas in a timely manner. What roles should
be played by each project cooperator? What is a
reasonable time frame for accomplishing each step
in the plan? Estimate the cost of the plan and relate
those costs to the project budget.
6. What particular NPS controls appear most promising
to address the problems found in this watershed?
What are the specific steps needed to develop sys-
tems for each site that, when combined with all other
site plans in the watershed, will contribute to meeting
water-quality objectives? Make recommendations as
to the types of site plans that are most needed in the
project area. What would barriers be to the im-
plementation of these recommendations? How might
these barriers be overcome? What would the costs
be of these recommendations? What role would the
cooperators play?
.7. What steps should be taken to:
a. review and interpret existing data?
b. develop specifics for a monitoring program (site
locations, sampling frequency, parameters,
QA/QC, etc.)?
205
-------
Project Map - South
Fork Salmon River
- South half -
Roads
SF Salmon River _
Figure 7. South Fork Salmon River—south half.
206
-------
Segmen t 918
UPPER S. F. SALMON RIVER
Major Tribs. above Secesh R.
Glory Hole
K r a s s e I
S e gme n t 919
Segme n t 920
P o v e r t y
Lower Sto
Upper Sto
Scale 1 : 254576
i i i 4 5
Miles
Major spawning areas
Figure 8. South Fork Salmon River—spawning areas.
207
-------
c. develop an analytic approach?
d. line up needed resources and cooperation (in-
cluding easements)?
e. establish the role of monitoring data in project
development (including monitoring of BMP main-
tenance)?
8. Develop a monitoring program based upon the infor-
mation given. Include any initial provisions (e.g., ini-
tial sampling to get a handle on variability) that must
be made to develop a cost-effective monitoring
program. Estimate associated costs.
9. How can technology transfer become an integral part
of the project? What are the benefits and costs of
technology transfer? Which cooperators should per-
form what functions? When?
10. What outside information or knowledge should be
brought into this project? What can be taken from
this project and shared with others?
11. What additional methods could be used to inform the
general public and affected landowners? What
mechanisms should be used to implement these
methods, and what are the costs?
12. Develop a project evaluation plan, including evalua-
tion objectives, analytic approaches to be used in
evaluating the project, information needs, methods
for collecting information, schedule, roles of
cooperators, and reporting of findings.
Case Study Problem Identification
The primary NFS problem at the SFSR is fine sediments,
which impair salmon spawning. Adding to the problem
are the adverse effects of the Columbia and Snake River
dams, which are known to increase smolt salmon and
steelhead mortality and inhibit the return of adults to the
spawning areas. Recovery of the water quality and
spawning reaches is expected only if the sediment load
from the drainage can be further reduced.
Goals and Objectives
• Restore 75 percent of the potential habitat quality for
salmon spawning and recover about 75 percent of
the potential natural recruitment of salmon in the
South Fork system.
• Use recently developed models to predict changes in
sediment yield as a result of applying the total maxi-
mum daily load (TMDL). State the statistical con-
fidence when reporting model outputs.
• Determine to what degree habitat is impaired by
natural incoming sediment. Use a reference stream
(Middle Fork Salmon River) to evaluate and account
for natural spatial and temporal variability. Base the
habitat recovery goal of 75 percent of potential on
the reference comparison.
• Determine the man-caused sediment sources, rela-
tive magnitude of each source, and what proportion
of this sediment yield can be eliminated by applying
nonpoint source controls.
• Use the refined sediment yield model to compare the
relative effectiveness of treatments and prioritize
specific sources requiring treatment.
• Produce an implementation plan which focuses on
treatment application, monitoring to link treatment ef-
fectiveness to beneficial use recovery, and
mechanisms to modify treatments if recovery is not
being achieved.
• Use the feedback loop process to assure that the
water-quality goals are attained.
Institutional Arrangements
The workgroups decided that the involvement of the fol-
lowing agencies, interest groups, and the general public
was important to the SFSR recovery effort:
• Forest Service, which manages the land and has
conducted most of the research on the SFSR. The
Service could link the TMDL planning to the National
Forest Management Plan and could provide a good
starting point for a technology-based approach to
restoring the beneficial uses in the system.
• U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Northwest
Power Planning Commission, both of which are
charged with stewardship of the salmon and steel-
head populations.
• U.S. EPA, responsible for implementing the Clean
Water Act.
• Idaho Division of Environmental Quality (DEQ) and
Department of Fish and Game.
• Idaho state government and Idaho's U.S. Senators,
due to a number of sensitive political issues in the
basin.
• Special interest groups, including the Columbia River
Intertribal Fish Commission, Idaho Conservation
League, Wilderness Society, Idaho Sportsmen's
Coalition, Trout Unlimited, and the timber industry.
• Local citizens.
The workgroups also suggested that those involved in
the project should try to persuade the Forest Service to
make the implementation of the recovery plan a priority
funding activity.
Watershed Plan Development
One workgroup felt that the TMDL approach is ap-
propriate for developing the watershed plan and had no
further comments. Another workgroup decided that a
policy advisory committee (PAC) should be formed under
the leadership of the DEQ to review all recovery plans
208
-------
and coordinate public input. A technical advisory sub-
committee made up of land managers (Forest Service),
water quality regulatory agencies (DEQ and EPA), and
research" personnel (Forest Service Intermountain Sta-
tion) would identify BMPs and projects compatible with
existing plans. This subcommittee would also develop a
compliance schedule requiring completion of the
measures under TMDL conditions within five years. The
PAC and the general public would review the plan, which
would be implemented by the Forest Service with the as-
sistance of DEQ and EPA.
Site Planning and Selection of NPS Control
Measures
The workgroups felt that site-specific planning was im-
portant in selecting nonpoint source control measures
through the identification and prioritization of the most
cost-effective treatments, such as closing roads, directly
removing sediment from tributary streams, constructing
debris basins, implementing erosion control measures on
existing roads, and revegetating road cut and fillslopes.
The group also felt that the expensive treatment
proposed for the SFSR road will be much less effective
in reducing sediment sources than many other less cost-
ly alternatives in the watershed.
Monitoring
One workgroup felt that the DEQ should develop a 10-
year monitoring program to assess the effectiveness of
the implemented BMPs and projects. Workgroup mem-
bers suggested that monitoring should utilize a reference
comparison (Middle Fork Salmon River). The monitoring
proposed on the SFSR should be expanded to include
macroinvertebrates and critical reaches of the stream.
Technology Transfer
The plan managers would educate the project super-
visors, contractors, and others conducting the tasks on
the water-quality concerns for the SFSR. The public
would be informed on the status of the project as plan-
ning and implementation progressed, through periodic
field trips, a project newsletter, and media coverage.
Program Evaluation
One workgroup recommended .evaluating the SFSR
recovery project after five years. Another group sug-
gested that feedback from monitoring should be applied
to make "mid-course" corrections. If the results of the
monitoring indicated that the salmon spawning potential
was recovered, additional measures to reduce sediment
yields would be unnecessary. If the monitoring results in-
dicated insufficient recovery of salmon spawning poten-
tial, additional sediment yield reduction BMPs and
projects would be required. Data on sediment movement
into and through the system also should be used to
refine the sediment models so that they more accurately
predict the effects that sediment delivery can have on the
habitat. Public interest groups would also assess the per-
formance of the implementation agencies and guide the
further progress of the program.
*U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1 99 3 .750. 003.60115
209
-------
-------
-------
> m c
(ODD
CD < ^
'
X <=
™ in
0) (/>
O :
o ^
'
o n
0) Z,
m
01
CO
to
s S
13 I
"83
r* «r n
u X
•5 2.
>CD
m,
9
CO
an
m
------- |