&EPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Policy, Planning,
And Evaluation
(2124)
EPA230-R-94-C03
March 1994
Institutional Frameworks For
Watershed Management
Programs
Profiles And Analysis Of
Selected Programs
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed on paper that contains
at least 50% recycled liber
-------
Institutional Frameworks for
Watershed Management Programs
Profiles and Analyses of Selected Programs
Prepared for the
United States Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Order No. 2W-6317-NASA
Information Resources Center
US EPA (3404)
401 M Street, SW
Washington, DC 20460
Prepared by
River Federation
"The National Association for State and Local River Conservation Programs"
8630 Fenton Street, Suite 910
Silver Spring, Maryland 20910
(301)589-9454
February 1994
-------
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, DC 20460
OFFICE OF
POLICY, PLANNING AND EVALUATION
Dear Colleague:
There is growing interest across the country in using watershed-based water resource
quality protection approaches. Private and public entities are joining together to achieve
comprehensive water resource protection goals. Water suppliers have taken watershed planning
approaches for reservoir maintenance, and for protection of drinking water supplies. States such
as Florida have instituted Water Districts to coordinate water activities across traditional
jurisdictional boundaries. The EPA has recognized the importance of watershed-based
decisionmaking by championing its Watershed Protection Approach initiative.
Despite all the ongoing activity there is, however, a lack of information detailing how
organizations currently accomplish watershed-based water resource quality management. We
think this report provides a valuable baseline look at a number of different watershed entities
across the country. It profiles organizations responsible wholly or partly for water quality, water
supply and groundwater management. The assessment identifies the original missions of these
watershed groups. It looks key factors such as the management techniques employed, sources
of funding, partnership and management arrangements, and the role of the private sector.
We hope in the future to be able to expand the analysis found in this report to provide
more detailed examinations of specific program elements that other watershed organizations can
emulate. Suggestions for further areas of study are welcome: This is still a growing field of
experience.
Sincerely,
Rodges Ankrah
Water Policy Branch
Office of Policy Analysis
-------
Table of Contents
Table of Contents ii
The Institutional Framework of Selected WatershedManagement
Prograrnsrlntroduction and Overview 1
Task Description/Purpose 2
Methodology 2
Findings 4
Overview of Programs 4
Impetus for Establishment 10
Strategic Focal Points 15
Geographic Scale 17
Mechanisms for Intergovernmental Cooperation 18
Funding Sources and Budget Information 20
Assistance Provided by US EPA 24
Resource Management Techniques.... 26
Specific Management Techniques Employed 26
Mechanisms for Enforcement 42
Monitoring Systems 43
Grassroots Involvement 43
List of Tables
Table 1. Institutional History and Program Impetus 12-13
Table 2. Budget and Sources of Funding 22-23
Table 3. Permit and Planning Powers 27-28
Table 4. Agricultural Management Practices 30-31
Table 5. Urban Watershed Management Practices 33-34
Table 6. Land Use Planning Techniques 36-37
Table 7. Groundwater, Forestry Practices, and Other Techniques 40-41
List of Figures
Figure 1. Watershed Programs Selected for Review 6
Figure 2. Management Focus of Reviewed State Programs 7
Page ii
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
The Institutional Framework of Selected Watershed
Management Programs:
Introduction and Overview
Managing nonpoint sources of water pollution is a problem many people are attacking in
different ways. The notion of pollution and sediment control has become an accepted part of
public life, and there is more and more evidence mat people are taking more personal
responsibility for limiting their contribution to the pollution stream. This acceptance of
responsibility is important to the future of nonpoint source control programs.
There is also a general awareness of the fact that the US Environmental Protection Agency
(US EPA) cannot hope to build enough control systems to stem the flow of pollution into our
rivers, stream, lakes, wetlands, estuaries and oceans. Given the public demand for pollution
control and the recognition that there are not enough dollars around to take care of the
problem (as we have with point source pollutants), technical experts and the public are both
left wondering how one attacks a massive problem with not near enough money to solve it in .
the traditional way we have addressed point source problems.
The response has been to address the problem in nontraditional ways, and every interest group
and unit of government has made its own contribution to these changes. EPA is proceeding
with an integrated program known as the "Watershed Approach". The states either adopted
tills style before EPA did or due to the leadership of EPA. Other agencies without the
regulatory power or construction funding of EPA have pursued conservation programs
embodying watershed management by facilitating community-based planning approaches.
The National Park Service has led the way in mis effort
Other agencies have developed their own methods to address water pollution problems
stemming from their programs. For instance, the USDA Soil Conservation Service has
produced the guide for planning and installing BMPs for agriculture that has been adopted for
use in most states. Zoning authorities are adopting increasingly stringent comprehensive soil
conservation plans to reduce erosion and runoff from land disturbance sites. River
conservation plans use the control of nonpoint sources of pollution as the basis for many of the
elements contained in their land use control plans. And many people are embracing plans to
recreate natural systems to control pollution and soil erosion.
Other trends are also occurring. There is a movement to approach rivers as ecological systems,
rather than as segments. The public is increasingly interested in taking part in direct, hands-on
pollution control and restoration projects. There is more acceptance of the need to pursue the
program that offers the best return per dollar of investment, even if that means adopting
nontraditional, ecologically based approaches.
Given these little movements, how have the states, local units of government, and the private
sector adapted their programs to control multiple sources of pollution? What programs
actually operate on a watershed basis with a comprehensive program? Can these programs
serve as models to be adapted elsewhere? What other programs implement parts of the
February 1994 Page 1
-------
River Federation
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
Watershed Management Programs
watershed agenda/ and can those commitments be expanded to a more comprehensive
approach? How can US EPA help these programs along? These are the questions addressed by
this analysis.
Task Description/Purpose
The purpose of this assessment is to inform EPA of the status of watershed planning in the
United States. This report examines the multi-governmental management organizations
responsible wholly or partly for water quality, water supply and groundwater management
The author produced profiles to identify and compare the operating and management
characteristics of these agencies and the extent to which the mission has been realized.
The assessment describes the results and impacts of these plans and provides a basis for the
future analysis of options and opportunities for involvement in watershed planning by the
Environmental Protection Agency. This report offers a reasonable overview of what is going on
in the area of watershed planning by multi-governmental jurisdictions across the country. The
profiles show what has been done well, where there are gaps in planning, what is the quality of
enforcement and implementation, and what are the relative levels of success.
Methodology
The project was divided into three tasks. The first covered the collection and analysis of data on
multi-governmental watershed planning organizations from around the country with an
emphasis on agencies responsible for the combined management of water quality, water
supply and groundwater. This analysis also identifies programs that were originally
authorized to address other issues that now also include watershed management functions or
water quality protection in their list of primary objectives.
The second covered the preparation of profiles of watershed management organizations,
drawing from official documentation, outside assessments, and interviews with agency
personnel. Emphasis was placed on preparation of profiles for organizations operating under
unique models and a representative sampling of agencies operating according to common
models. The profiles report on the following characteristics:
Q Impetus for establishment
Q Year and method of establishment
a Key enabling and governance documents
Q Comprehensive planning documents
Q Representative projects
Q Nature and uniqueness of structure
Q Assistance provided by US EPA
Q Mission statement
Q Sources of funding
Q Management techniques
Q Budget information
Q Methods of multi-governmental partnerships
Q Integration of water quality, quantity and
groundwater management
Q Level and status of implementation
Data tables (Tables 1-7) were constructed for comparative purposes and this written analysis
was prepared to assess the following variables:
• The geographic or hydrologic extent of the planning area and how boundaries were
determined
February 1994
Page 2
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
• The range of key issues identified and techniques or solutions proposed to deal with them
• The extent and types of research done to support the plans
• How they were started, organized, managed, carried out and funded
• Techniques used for public involvement and coalition-building and the role of the private
sector in planning, management, and long term implementation
• An estimate of what conditions are necessary for a successful partnership to emerge and
the threshold beyond which mis takes place
This assessment reviewed over one hundred programs in summary form and nearly sixty in
more detail before concentrating on the twenty-nine programs for which profiles were
prepared. Programs were sought from across the country that are watershed-oriented, cover a
reasonably large management area (80 square miles or more), have a plan of management in
place or nearly in place, and is substantially different from other programs selected for review.
No national estuary programs were selected since information on those projects is readily
available now. Appendix A. contains the individual profiles prepared on the twenty-nine
programs.
February 1994 Page 3
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Findings
This assessment examined programs that address watershed protection from many different
angles. Traditional pollution control programs, citizen-oriented programs, agricultural projects,
river conservation programs, groundwater management programs, ecosystem protection
programs, municipal utility providers, and others became part of this review. Eventually, they
were sorted into four major groupings: (1) multi-state programs, (2) state programs, (3)
regional programs, and (4) individual river or watershed projects. Some of the programs
selected are not effective models for action, but they are effective representatives of classes of
programs across the country mat cannot contribute to watershed management activities
without fundamental changes in their organizations.
Overview of Programs
While there is general technical agreement on what constitutes a watershed, there is little or no
agreement on what constitutes a watershed management organization. For the purposes of mis
analysis, a watershed management organization ideally possesses a breadth of characteristics:
• Its geographic scope and focus of activity is on an entire watershed or subwatershed and is
sufficiently large (80 or more square miles) to be valuable as a federal or state model
• It is comprehensive in nature; that is it concentrates on as wide a range of water resources
management and protection as possible, including:
• management of water resources development
- water conservation
- water quality management
- groundwater management and protection
• It has an ecosystem approach, an intentional management strategy that relates the health of
one area of the watershed to the remaining parts:
management and protection of riparian zones
- holistic approach to environmental management
the provision of habitat corridors
• It is not primarily concerned with point source discharges
• It includes a program for the control of nonpoint sources of water pollution, including the
following techniques:
- employs structural and nonstructural techniques
- encompasses rural and urban environments
- supported by good science and scientific practice
addresses all major nonpoint source dischargers
protects groundwater and surface water
• It has the financial and legal or statutory capabilities with which to implement and enforce
its plan of management
• For the purposes of this analysis, it has a plan of management in place by which to evaluate
the program
February 1994 Page 4
-------
The Institutional Framework* of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
This analysis looked into nearly one hundred programs on a preliminary basis before settling
on twenty-nine for profiles. Many programs, especially nonprofit organizations, say they are
watershed organizations, but few are able to deliver services close to the criteria described
above. What is true is mat more organizations are developing a watershed outlook. This is an
awareness and acknowledgement of the need for watershed management, even if they do not
have the capability to deliver watershed services.
In fact, none of the programs fit the mold perfectly but all offer some elements of die ideal
program. All possess some of the elements of a watershed-oriented program. The common
thread in most of these programs is the control of nonpoint sources of water pollution. The on-
site management programs identified are strongly oriented to the control of stormwater runoff,
soil conservation, and the control of nonpoint sources. The land use controls identified do the
same. Acquisition programs favor the protection of habitat or riparian zones. Other permitting
programs are generally oriented toward the control of nonpoint sources. In fact the corridor
and land conservation programs reviewed base their land use ordinance provisions in large
part on pollution prevention and soil conservation. Coupled with the fact that small watershed
programs in the past have been oriented toward soil conservation and pollution control, it is
not surprising mat many of the best programs profiled are nonpoint source control programs.
What follows is a capsule description of each of the programs selected for review. A map
showing their location is included on the following page as Figure 1. Figure 2 shows the state
level programs that were reviewed.
The multi-state programs chosen for review are:
1. Delaware River Basin Commission—Delaware River—This is a multi-state program that is
fully watershed-oriented. The Commission has permitting authority over point and
nonpoint sources and for water resources development. It is tracking groundwater
withdrawals although it does not yet regulate them. Given the need to protect national
interest resources (the Upper and Middle Delaware Wild and Scenic River segments), the
Commission is increasingly concerned with nonpoint source pollution.
2. Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin—Potomac River—The ICPRB was
started by federal compact to address pollution problems in the Potomac River. This
Commission has no permitting power, but it has a strong research and technical support
capability, and it is watershed-oriented.
3. Ohio River Sanitation Commission—Ohio River—ORSANCO focuses primarily on the
Ohio River main stem, and primarily on point source dischargers. It uses its review and
approve powers on point source discharge only when necessary. It does coordinate the
activities of several affected governments.
February 1994 Page 5
-------
n
cr
-o
03
Mtifttitt W»UnH«d Rtufenttoo CwmiitMi
u
II
3 5
si
3 £
I!
'5
-------
TJ
&
n
Figure 2.
Focus of Reviewed State Programs
States with Programs
that Are Groundwater-Oriented
States with Programs
that Are Surface Water-Oriented
m
•^
^n
II
11
1%
\\
w
II
2 E
3 ?
« a
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
The state programs chosen for review are:
1. Arizona Active Management Area Program—The Arizona program is exclusively oriented
to groundwater. It maintains controls on withdrawals and recharges.
2. Maryland Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission—Commission programs extend
back from the Bay only 1,000 feet, but the program is an example of the tools and
techniques that can be employed within mat area to control nonpoint sources.
3. Nebraska Natural Resource District Program—Nebraska's NRDs are responsible for many
aspects of water resources management With their strong farm orientation, they have
several programs aimed at controlling runoff from farm operations.
4. Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program—The Wisconsin program has
been in place since 1979. Nearly 60 watersheds have been designated as priority
watersheds, and planning and implementation is complete on many of mem.
5. Vermont Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program—The Vermont program, still new,
provides a straightforward implementation of EPA's nonpoint source rules under the
Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987. It is priority watershed based, supported by good
science, and given the state's ability to control land use, it should have a successful and
comprehensive nonpoint program.
The regional programs chosen for review are:
1. Cape Cod Commission—MA—The Cape Cod Commission demonstrates the marriage of
sole source aquifer protection and performance zoning. The Commission also
demonstrates strong permit approval capabilities, and the value of on-staff technical
expertise in surface and groundwater hydrology.
2. New Jersey Pinelands Commission—NJ—The Pinelands program is worth looking at
because it aims to control water quality in groundwater and surface water in ways
different than how everyone else does it This program has unusually strong regulatory
authority. It is a good example of the potential for marriage of pollution control and land
and riverine protection programs.
3. Northwest Florida Water Management District—FL—This is one of three Florida Water
Management Districts chosen for review. Northwest Florida WMD is a good example of
water quality management for terrestrial and marine purposes.
4. Phoenix Active Management Area—AZ—The Phoenix AMA is one example of the overall
Arizona state program.
5. South Florida Water Management District—FL—The South Florida WMD is a valuable
insight into nonpoint source management in complicated and sensitive ecosystems. It
employs a comprehensive set of rules for nonpoint control.
The river or watershed programs chosen for review are:
1. Anacostia River—MD and DC—The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee is a
useful study of nonpoint source management in an urban, built environment. It is also
exclusively project based.
February 1994 Page 8
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
2. Bamegat Bay Estuary Program—NJ—The Bamegat Bay plan, while still in the review
stages, is a good example of a comprehensive plan for land and water that has strong
connections to nonpoint management This is a state-local-private program.
3. Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed Project-WI-Black Earth Creek is an important
trout stream that benefits from designation as a priority watershed. This plan addresses
agricultural and urban nonpoint sources, and fishery enhancement
4. Grande Ronde Critical Basin Project—OR—The Grande Ronde project is an Oregon
project that shows the two-stage process of the Oregon DEO/s critical basin process.
5. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority—TX—This is one of the twenty-three Texas river basin
authorities. Authorized by the Texas legislature in the 1930's, mis system of basin
authorities covers the entire state. These agencies do not have a strong nonpoint source
mandate, but they are good examples of how basin management works in the Southwest
6. Menomonee River Priority Watershed Project—WI—The Menomonee is a Wisconsin
priority watershed that encompasses both rural areas and Milwaukee suburbs. The most
recent of nearly sixty plans completed since the program's inception in 1979, the plan is a
current example of how the priority watershed program addresses agricultural nonpoint
sources, urban housekeeping practices, and urban stormwater management
7. Middle Fork River—WV—This is a pilot project for the control of acid mine drainage. It is
a cooperative project between federal and state agencies. It is the only program profiled
that addresses mine drainage control.
8. Mississippi Headwaters Board—MN—Upper Mississippi River (above St Paul)—The
Mississippi Headwaters Board protects the upper 400 miles of the Mississippi River. It
works like but is not a scenic river. With a 1,000-foot from each bank protection corridor, it
protects about 200 square miles of land and water. Its updated plan is an example of local
ordinances backed up by enforcement mechanisms.
9. Nisqually River Council—W A—The Nisqually River was identified twenty years ago as a
river of statewide significance by the state shorelands study. Draining the west side of
Mount Rainier, flowing through Fort Lewis, and emptying into Puget Sound through a
national wildlife refuge, the river is largely undisturbed in many reaches. A large
partnership works together to protect the river, using land management and nonpoint
source techniques.
10. Lower East Branch Pecatonica River Priority Watershed Project—WI—This is a Wisconsin
priority watershed that demonstrates fully the use of agricultural BMPs in a multi-county
environment The cost-sharing arrangements and educational requirements that are part
of this program are quite detailed.
11. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority—WA—The Authority has enacted a wide-ranging
comprehensive plan that is implemented on a voluntary basis by dozens of state agencies,
counties and municipalities. The state enabling legislation requires affected counties and
municipalities to adopt applicable parts of the comprehensive plan into their own laws,
plans and ordinances so mat future actions are consistent with the legislation. Consistency
is required, but there is no clear enforcement mechanism if local political subdivisions fail
to take appropriate action. State agencies are encouraged to act consistently with the
legislation and comprehensive plan.
February 1994 Page 9
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
12. Suwannee River Water Management District—FL—The Suwannee program employs land
acquisition and forest management techniques to control nonpoint sources and protect the
watershed. Silviculture BMPs are required for any forestry permit
13. Sweetwater Authority—CA—The Sweetwater Authority was ordered to prevent upstream
nonpoint pollution from degrading one of its water supply reservoirs. The Authority is
not a watershed management agency per se, but it is required by the state water quality
board to protect its reservoir from urban pollution.
14. Tualitan River Critical Basin Project—OR—It demonstrates a combination of land use
controls, agricultural and silvicultural BMPs/ and tightened up TMDLs on point source
dischargers. The City of Portland and the regional stonnwater management agency are
required to implement the regulations through land use controls or changes in
management practice. The state Department of Forestry further contributes to the project
with a pilot silviculture management plan.
15. Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River—NY—PA—The Upper Delaware is part of
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Due to conflicts between Pennsylvania and
New York land use laws, the zoning program for the project is based heavily on pollution
prevention from nonpoint sources and on soil conservation objectives. It is the best
example of the use of land use control techniques for water quality protection in the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. The program has strong water quality and
fishery objectives.
16. Watershed Committee of the Ozarks—MO—This group is a nonprofit organization whose
members are the City of Springfield, Greene County, and the local utility company. The
watershed committee approaches watershed protection from the angle of advocacy and
coordination. It uses no regulatory programs, except for its ability to guide local land use
decisions and to provide leadership in the community. It features excellent educational
programs.
Impetus for Establishment
Watershed programs have been around the agricultural community for years. Programs have
been aimed at small watersheds for soil conservation, flood control, water supply, and
increasingly, pollution control. Programs for river corridor conservation have pointedly not
been watershed-oriented until quite recently, the consensus being that applying park-like
management strategies to such vast areas would cause havoc with property owners,
developers, commercial interests and local governments. Nonpoint source watershed programs
have also been rare, in part due to the nation's difficulty in addressing the nonpoint control
concepts.
The most common denominator is that twenty of the programs reviewed for this report were
initiated wholly or partly by the states. Five were initiated by congressional action. Of the
twenty-nine programs, only half began as programs devoted primarily for nonpoint source
control. Seven programs, the Florida water management districts, the Texas river authority,
and the Arizona Active Management Areas, operate primarily as water resources management
programs. As awareness grew of the delicacy of Florida's ecological balance, the water
management districts have drawn up more aggressive water quality programs.
February 1994 Page 10
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
The Pinelands, Mississippi Headwaters Board, and Upper Delaware are the land and riverine
conservation programs with the strongest connection to the control of nonpoint sources. The
structure and planning processes of these programs is similar to mat used in Wisconsin and by
the Nisqually River Council This is a system based partly on a strong local planning but with
implementation guaranteed by a more powerful higher authority.
The pattern that emerges is that there are very few programs that are truly watershed oriented,
although the states are steadily moving in that direction. Table 1 summarizes the formation of
each program.
February 1994 Page 11
-------
ID
a
CO
(O
u
ID
n
Table 1.
Watershed Management Programs
Institutional History and Program Impetus Table
I Year YearMgmt. Impetus to ,
State(s) Started Began | Initiate Program
Multi-State: Programs . •• '... •-•'•, ;. ,;,•"-.- v '• -\ . .&' W$mMMfflWigB&
Delaware River Basin Commission
Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
DE.NJ.
NY.PA
MD.VA,
WV
14 States
1961
1940
1948
1961
1940
1948
Lltigation-NJ v NY-Supreme Court required minimum flow at northernmost NJ gauge;
DRBC bom out ol agreement to coordinate water resources management
Interstate concerns over flood and drought cycle; need lor water supply
Concerns over interstate pollution problems; need for waste treatement plants
State Programs '-•.'•.'.• •.,.'•-"- • .. :• • ,., •..••'^^"^A'^ftY
Arizona Active Management Areas
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Commission
Nebraska Natural Resource Districts
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program
Vermont Nonpoint Source
Management Program
AZ
MD
NB
Wl
VT
1980
1984
1972
1978
1988
1980
1985
1972
1979
1989
Arizona Groundwater Management Act of 1980 passed to address problem of over-
withdrawal from groundwater
Part ol comprehensive Maryland response to pollution and wildlife damage in Bay
Need to coordinate and consolidate overlapping and contradictory authorities among
154 varying districts
Enacted by Wisconsin legislature
Response to Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987
m .
Regional Programs ; L, i; ?
Cape Cod Commission
NW Florida Water Management District
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
Phoenix Active Management Area
South Florida Water Management District
MA
FL
NJ
AZ
FL
1990
1972
1978
1980
1972
1990
1972
1981
1980
1972
Voter and legislature approved initiative
Legislature approved plan to address flood/drought cycle and need for water supply
State/federal response to development pressures
Arizona Groundwater Management Act of 1 980 passed to address problem of over-
withdrawal from groundwater
Legislature approved plan to address flood/drought cycle and need for water supply
n
II
M O
P
fl
Si
5i
If
-1 IP
I I
a a.
-------
n
o-
t>
.3
TJ
11
(Q
(D
Tablet (Continued)
Watershed Management Programs
Institutional History and Program Impetus Tablo
IYear Year Mgmt. Impetus to
Program State(s) Started Began Initiate Program
III 1
Rlve'r',andW^ifsHe
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
The most interesting exception to this trend has been the Wisconsin nonpoint program.
Approved by the state legislature in 1978 and supported by a voter-approved bond program
(The Wisconsin Fund), the program has gained increasing focus over the years and now covers
sixty watersheds 100-300 square miles in size. New priority watersheds are added almost every
year by the legislature, to begin an eight year process of assessment, contracting, installation
and monitoring in each watershed1.
Also differing from most of the programs represented in mis analysis are the groundwater
programs, in this review represented by the Cape Cod Commission and the Arizona Active
Management Areas. The Cape Cod Commission is primarily a regional planning commission
with powers vested in it by the Commonwealth and by the municipalities in its one county
service area. Due to the Cape's location on the Atlantic Ocean and its dependence on a small
aquifer for all water supply, the Commission maintains an active and sophisticated water
resources program that has defined strong pollution control policies and regulations through a
.system of performance zoning aimed at the protection of sensitive areas such as wellheads,
recharge zones, and potential water supply source areas. These environmental factors were
important in voter and legislative decisions to give the Commission additional authority to
review and approval of local plans and permits.
Conclusions. Three programs are reviewed here mat were established specifically to deal with
nonpoint problems. They are the the Wisconsin Priority Watershed Program, the Vermont
priority watershed program, and the Oregon critical basin projects. The programs in Vermont
and Oregon have come about only in the past five years, due to Congressional action on the
Clean Water Act Amendments or due to litigation. Wisconsin began its program nearly fifteen
years ago as part of an overall effort to stem water pollution. Relative to the state's point source
program, it is a poor stepchild. Relative to the investments made in most other states, it is a
well-funded, aggressive program.
The other programs sprung up due to unique environmental conditions in their respective
regions. The Upper Delaware Council acted to protect a clean and free-flowing river. The Cape
Cod Commission took action to protect its sole source aquifer. Arizona acted out of concern for
pollution and groundwater shortfalls. The Barnegat Bay plan grew out of a settlement between
the State of New Jersey and a corporation guilty of polluting the Bay.
These programs have built-in advantages and disadvantages to EPA in watershed
management They already exist, have professional capabilities, and have passed the test of
time. Existing systems can be built up to address watershed management more thoroughly.
The disadvantage is mat these programs have grown out of local environmental conditions,
and may not be as easy for EPA or states to start in other areas.
There are several programs that have similarities to regional councils or councils of
government (COGs). COGs are formed by two or more local jurisdictions to carry out some
public purpose or provide a government service on a combined basis. COGs are frequently
formed to provide services such as public transit, municipal waste collection and disposal,
1 The nonpoint program is the minor part of the voter-approved fund, the larger balance being allocated to pollution control at
point source sites
February 1994 Page 14
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
wastewater treatment, mental health facilities and many other functions. COGs are an excellent
means for providing common services across jurisdictional boundaries and for sharing services
mat otherwise would be too expensive for one jurisdiction to manage. Known as joint powers
boards in some states, COGs only have as much or as little authority as the members jointly
agree to give them. For instance, one regional planning commission may have review and
approve powers over municipal zoning decisions, while another one may not They may also
have taxing authority or the authority to issue bonds. The ease with which such bodies may
form varies greatly from state to state, and whether the state itself can be a member of a COG
also varies greatly.
The Upper Delaware Council, the Mississippi Headwaters Board, the Nisqually River Council,
and the Cape Cod Commission operate much like COGs, and all but the Upper Delaware
Council have the special legislative provisions mat enable mem to operate in some ways like
COGs. Only the Cape Cod Commission covers the entire watershed. It is likely mat few
existing COGs or regional councils are organized on a watershed basis, making mem
potentially poor choices absent other authority to lead watershed planning projects. The better
choice is to build more watershed management capabilities within the responsible state
agencies and have mem organize through MOUs or special legislation affected political
subdivisions into watershed management groups.
Strategic Focal Points
The programs surveyed fall into several distinct groups, each with their own primary
purposes. Groupings include:
• Groundwater programs such as mat employed by the Cape Cod Commission and the
Arizona Active Management Areas which seek to manage both groundwater withdrawals
and recharges
• Programs such as those in Vermont and Wisconsin which work to meet state water quality
standards while also protecting and enhancing aquatic diversity
• Programs that protect urban water supplies such as those of the Sweetwater Authority in
California and the Watershed Committee of the Ozarks in Missouri
• Programs that implement water quality objectives as part of larger landscape or riverine
protection systems such as the Nisqually River Council, the Mississippi Headwaters Board,
the Upper Delaware Council, or the New Jersey Pinelands Commission
• Special districts implemented by state legislatures that originally addressed flood control,
irrigation or water supply needs, but which now also concentrate on pollution control such
as the Florida Water Management Districts, the Texas River Authorities, or the Nebraska
Natural Resource Districts
• Interstate compacts established to address water pollution problems such as the Interstate
Commission for the Potomac River Basin or the Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
• State programs planned to protect bays and embayed areas such as Barnegat Bay or the
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission in Maryland
February 1994 Page 15
-------
The Institutional Framework* of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
These programs tend to be concerned about the same potential pollutants—sediment
phosphorus/ and nitrogen-nitrates. Concerns were expressed in some programs regarding
dissolved oxygen and temperature. Other chemical and biological factors were expressed less
often.
The state water quality programs in Oregon, Wisconsin and Vermont used similar evaluation
systems to determine which streams in the state are priority watersheds. The system for
evaluation used in Wisconsin is a fair example of this process.
The Wisconsin Priority Watersheds Program deals with entire watersheds on a selective or
priority basis and strives to control every significant source of nonpoint pollution in these
watersheds.
The purpose of the program is to control nonpoint source pollution in a systematic manner so
surface and groundwater quality goals can be accomplished within a reasonable time frame.
The program is designed to deal with the wide variety of nonpoint sources that exist
throughout the state including sediment from croplands, construction sites, stream banks, and
grazed woodlots; nutrient loads from barnyard runoff, cropland runoff, manure spread on
croplands, and runoff from city lawns and streets; and heavy metals and other toxic substances
in stormwater runoff from various urban sources.
Wisconsin DNR uses six selection criteria to select priority watershed projects. They are:
1. Severity of the water quality problems
2. The magnitude of the pollutant load and potential for significant reduction
3. Willingness of landowners to participate
4. Willingness of local government to participate
5. Willingness and capability of local government to control nonpoint pollution; for instance,
their willingness to enact erosion control ordinances for construction sites
6. Potential public use and benefits that will result from the project
The program is coordinated with the state Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection. The watershed project covers an eight to nine year period. Following approval of
the watershed plan, three years are allotted to recruiting landowners to participate and enter
into agreements to install the practices. They then have up to five years to install the BMP
systems.
Conclusions. Wisconsin has developed a system that it has used successfully nearly sixty
times. It is a cooperative process that lures in local governments with 100% financing and
people who would install BMPs with 50% to 70% financing. Increasing the participation rate
among the targeted land operators means increasing the percentage of cost the government is
willing to shoulder.
February 1994 Page 16
-------
The Institutional Framework* of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Geographic Scale
The geographic scale of these programs varies greatly. Ten of the twenty-six programs profiled
were less than 200 square miles in area. Another ten ranged in area from 4,000 to 18,000 square
miles. The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission led the way with eight states and
203,000 square miles.
The programs concentrating on small areas are able to address nonpoint issues one landowner
at a time if need be, while the smallest unit the larger areas can address is at the level of
individual point source dischargers. Nonpoint programs appear to be effective in areas up to
300 square miles in size.
Programs addressing larger areas appear to go in two directions—providing the broad brush
controls of zoning and education, or combining this system with additional programs aimed at
specific sources. For instance, the Cape Cod Commission enforces an intricate performance
zoning system that seeks to protect the county's sole source aquifer by sharply limiting
discharges in various subregions such as wellhead protection zones and aquifer recharge
zones. Under performance zoning, a land use is not judged according physical parameters
(size, setback, etc.) but by whether it can meet certain tolerance thresholds (in this case, 5 ppm
nitrate-nitrogen loading for impact on groundwater).
The Grande Ronde Critical Basin Project in Oregon uses a two-stage approach. It first attempts
to eradicate the river's "water quality limited" status by assigning total maximum daily loads
(TMDLs) to existing point source dischargers to further reduce specific pollutant levels from
their daily discharges. If this fails, the next step will be for the state Department of
Environmental Quality to enact regulations to limit discharges from prominent nonpoint
sources, notably timber harvesting and agriculture in this region.
This review also examined two small management areas in which the aim was to protect the
quality of urban water supplies in municipal reservoirs. Even in small watersheds, costs can
vary dramatically. The Watershed Committee of the Ozarks is a nonprofit organization whose
members are the City of Springfield, Missouri, Greene County, and the municipal utilities. The
Committee is a low-cost effort to encourage non-polluting uses of the watershed above the
reservoirs without the use of regulations or what some people refer to as an "added layer of
government" with its own regulatory authority. There are few costs but no guarantees.
Conversely, the Sweetwater Authority is the municipal water supplier for Chula Vista and
National City, suburbs of San Diego, California. It was organized in 1978 and took over
management of waterworks from private suppliers. Upon taking over, the California Water
Quality Control Board ordered it to control inflows to one of its reservoirs from upstream
development Fifteen years and several million dollars later, the $9.1 million project to route
polluted flows around the reservoir is recently underway. The Authority is attempting to get
upstream developers and landowners in a small drainage area to pay for the improvements
and to limit further polluted runoff from their lands.
The New Jersey Pinelands Commission is a good example of the second direction for larger
areas. It combines a strong zoning program—covering seven counties and 53
municipalities—with additional controls (septic system standards, special protection zones) to
protect the aquifer and sensitive terrestrial areas. The Commission is well on its way to
February 1994 Page 17
-------
The Institutional Framework* of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
purchasing 100,000 acres in its 1.1 million acre management area, and it uses transfers of
development rights (TDRs) to further concentrate development away from sensitive zones.
Alternatively, the South Florida Water Management District is seeking to control the flow of
phosphorus into Lake Okeechobee by buying out cattle from rarohefs (49 ranches with cover
15,000 head of cattle) and by developing a constructed wetland 3^00 acres in size to filter out
phosphorus from agricultural and urban flows.
The size of the management area has substantial implications for EPA. Focusing on small
watersheds in rural areas can have a significant impact on water quality and the fishery
without excessive cost However, over 15,000 such projects of 200 square miles or less could fit
into the land area of the continental 48 states. Given mat the average small project reviewed in
this study cost about $3 million, coverage of all rural areas would cost $45 billion, not counting
urban controls, the advance assessments, operation and maintenance, management,
enforcement, and monitoring. This will present challenges to EPA in defining the appropriate
scopes of future watershed management programs.
The USDA's Soil Conservation Service (SCS) has been operating a small watersheds program
for many years. The program has local extension offices in most U.S. counties and has
developed a strong tradition of working closely with the agricultural community on soil
conservation, pollution control, flood control and water supply projects. One of the traditions
in the SCS operation is that projects on private property are cost-shared, usually with a
50%-70% federal match. Usually, a goal of 50% to 75% participation by farmers is built into
budget models. Given this history, it is not likely that a program with more than 30% to 50%
private cost-sharing would be successful for future rural watershed plans.
Conclusions. The small programs appear to work well in rural and agricultural areas, but
using them as the model could result in prohibitive expense. Urban drainages would still have
to be addressed separately.
Mechanisms for Intergovernmental Cooperation
Twelve of the twenty-nine programs selected for review feature strong state-local cooperative
relationships as the basis for implementing the programs. Seven of these programs provide for
voluntary participation by local governments only in setting up watershed management
programs. Five have state enabling legislation that either require local governments to conform
to the program or which say that state agencies will cany out specific management actions if
local governments fail to do so.
Two Washington programs—Puget Sound Water Quality Authority and the Nisqually River
Council—were established by the state legislature as coordinating and advocacy bodies
without the power to require local governments to take specific actions, although each has
responsibility for coordinating implementation of comprehensive plans. The legislature did
direct participating state agencies to develop complementary or consistent plans with these
programs. Both programs employ a cooperative planning process in which all affected units or
agencies of government and private sector interests are represented on the planning
committee.
February 1994 Page 18
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
The programs for the Tualitan and Grande Ronde Critical Basin Projects in Oregon work in a
different way. The legislature adds priority watersheds to the list and directs the Department of
Environmental Quality to prepare a plan mat establishes a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL)
for the stream and for each identified point source discharger. The Tualitan plan requires local
governments and one special service agency to use their existing powers to address the
problems. This first includes reducing the TMDLs from existing waste treatment facilities. If
this step is not fully successful in meeting water quality goals, then land use controls can be
put into place by the state land planning agency. Some cooperative projects have been added to
the program as demonstrations or pilots.
The Grande Ronde, still in its early stages, covers an area twenty times larger man the Tualitan
basin. TMDL plans will be coordinated with several other plans and studies now underway on
the river system. The river is a study component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers
System, and it is a designated component of the Oregon Scenic Waterway Program. Both
programs use nondegradation as their resource management standard. Several state and
federal agencies have banded together on two other programs—the Northwest Power Planning
Council's Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program and the Upper Grande Ronde
Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Program, a project proposed by freshwater biologists
from the USDA Forest Service and other scientists mat is being considered under the NEPA
process as an amendment to the national forest plan for the region.
The model watershed program is an effort by the Northwest Power Planning Council to
mitigate damages caused by dam construction in the Columbia River Basin. The Council has
established one model river in each of the three primary Columbia basin states—Washington,
Oregon, and Idaho—for which to design a restoration program for anadromous fish species.
The Council is working to coordinate the activities of all major agencies and units of
government on the restoration program in the Grande Ronde basin. Restoration work will be
funded in part by the Bonneville Power Administration.
It is likely mat these programs will be coordinated with Oregon DEO/s Critical Basin Project
during the next two years. This will most likely occur through execution of a Memorandum of
Understanding.
The Wisconsin priority watershed program is a voluntary, cooperative system in which the
Department of Natural Resources does not designate a stream as a priority watershed unless
local governments and sufficient numbers of targeted property owners or operators indicate in
advance their willingness to participate in the program. A contract is executed between the
state and the counties and municipalities for the assessment and then for the implementation
work. The state pays 50% to 75% of the cost of installation of the practices and 100% of the cost
of local government participation. This system helps to maximize the value of the limited
dollars the agency has available for the program.
The Wisconsin program also features one other cooperative system worth examining. The state
and federal agencies, counties and the University of Wisconsin Extension cooperate in the
preparation of discrete layers of information to be added to and interpreted by the statewide
geographic information system, known as CONSOIL. Three federal agencies, three state
agencies, the affected county(ies), and the University collaborate on this natural resources
database by sharing information layers.
February 1994 Page 19
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Conclusions. The managers whom the reviewers interviewed generally agree that
implementing comprehensive watershed programs is a time-consuming, labor-intensive
process mat requires a large amount of personal interaction between project managers, local
governments, private entities and citizen groups. Having sufficient funding to put a sufficient
number of state water quality personnel out in the field will be important to the success of
future programs. Providing them with sufficient training in negotiating these agreements, both
with local governments and with property owners, will be the next step.
Third, the Wisconsin, Vermont Washington, and Oregon nonpoint programs appear to have
effective processes, but they do not integrate land use powers into the system very well. The
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission does an outstanding job of mis, but its powers are
so broad and of such a top-down nature mat it is unlikely to be duplicated anywhere else.
Watershed program managers would do well to examine how land use powers protective of
water quality have been integrated into state and federal river and land conservation plans.
Good examples are the Mississippi Headwaters Board, the Pinelands Commission, and the
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River. Working closely with the state scenic river
coordinators is a good first step. These people have experience in building these kinds of
intergovernmental and private property owner agreements.
Funding Sources and Budget Information
These programs differ markedly in their sources of funding and budget allocations. The
techniques employed also contribute greatly to the diversity of budget levels. Table 2. shows
the base funding, special grants, and total budgets with sources for the programs profiled.
Base Funding and Sources. The state and regional programs draw base funding from state
legislative appropriations, voter approved special bonds (Wisconsin Fund, Washington
Centennial Clean Water Fund, New Jersey Green Acres Fund), property tax levies (Nebraska
Natural Resource Districts), and ad valorem taxes (Florida Water Management Districts). Base
funding levels range typically from $100,000 to $5 million per program.
The exceptions are the Nebraska system, the South Florida Water Management District, the
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority, and the Sweetwater Authority. In Nebraska, the twenty-
three districts take in a combined property tax total of $360 million, or an average of about $15
million per district
South Florida takes in over $117 million in ad valorem taxes, funds used for operations,
monitoring, planning, project implementation, and land acquisition. This area has special
environmental challenges, which make it unfair to compare to other situations, even in Florida.
The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority uses its funds from service and utility fees to build and
maintain systems and provide services for water supply, flood control, irrigation, and
wastewater treatment. Its portfolio of projects is worth hundreds of millions of dollars. The
Sweetwater Authority budget listed in Table 2. is the amount budgeted to construct a runoff
diversion to protect a water supply reservoir. It is useful in that it shows some of the potential
costs of having suburban nonpoint sources foul water supplies in urban environments.
February 1994 Page 20
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Three programs reviewed have active land acquisition programs for watershed protection.
Preservation 2000 is a combined acquisition program in the State of Florida for the protection of
wetlands, rivers/ coasts, the Everglades, recreation lands, rails-to-trails corridors, and other
areas. Since 1981, the Save Our Rivers program, enacted by the legislature as The Water
Management Land Trust Fund, one of eight programs now encompassed by Preservation 2000,
has been the source of funding for the acquisition of 51,885 acres for $42,374,762 in the
Suwannee River Water Management District and 156,178 acres for $113,504,481 in South
Florida. Funds from Congress and the New Jersey Green Acres bond, a voter approved bond,
have been the source for the acquisition of 63,400 acres in the New Jersey Pinelands, totaling
nearly $50 million.
None of the programs reviewed lists separable costs for fish habitat restoration although the
Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed in Wisconsin and the anadromous fish restoration project
on the Grande Ronde in Oregon include habitat restoration as project purposes.
February 1994 Page 21
-------
n
or
Table 2.
Watershed-Oriented Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Programs
Budget and Sources of Funding Table
,-:.-:• : ••'• -••• ' ' -... .-. •• ~ - #:PW • r :' m tjwftjis: ;|^iii^;^>'|?;/Tetai. T ;im;ii»?i[iin^w^< >
Program ; Funding' • •• v^Sourc'eh^Pr> p' Grants ••'• ^t^;Spiirca'-^-i/ I Budget-: •-:•• ''•':• '•'••":'> "Sources '>:.•••..':'.'••• '.-:• '. •
MulU-StaWPrografhs,; A,, W. ••*.-• ;.i "•••.•• . • .. . ' ^^^'^t^n-I/V^ft-'^^iKW^^flW^^
Delaware River Basin Commission
Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
1.834.800
766.953
811.875
Member States
Member Slates
Member States
240.000
1.417.901
379.825
EPA CSO study
EPA.COE.States
EPA 106 Grant
2.674.728
2.269.957
1.454.168
Fines; DOI; miscellaneous
Miscellaneous
Interest and Miscellaneous
State1 Programs', l'W/<''-' ,:,,',' • • :.•;, . '... •'•..•• . . •.•. ,K. .^. TEIV. '*.-"';..^ . ^'^;^;-'^''':,\^\?Ki&
Arizona Active Management Areas
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Commission
Nebraska Natural Resource Districts
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program
Vermont Nonpoint Source
Management Program
<1. 000.000
1.100.000
360.000.000
4.000.000
AZ Depl. of Agriculture
Legislature
Property tax levies
Wisconsin Fund-voter
approved special fund
VT General Fund
800.000
40.000.000
650.000
EPA CZM Grant
$8 million from federal
Some projects assisted
by EPA 31 9 grants
EPA 319 grant; also 205J
and 604b grants
<1. 000.000
1.900.000
400.000.000
4.000.000
CZM is pass through for local planning
purposes
Divided among 23 districts
Fund does not pay for urban CSO and
re/detention systems
Regional Programs : . . • • =• • .-'^•:- .' ', .'W*-WV'-.-W<\tifr'--W
Cape Cod Commission
NW Florida Water Management District
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
Phoenix Active Management Area
South Florida Water Management District
1.022.816
2.300.000
117.169.639
Ad Valorem Taxes
State appropriations
State appropriations
Ad valorem taxes
350.000
198.441
15.000
24.993.824
Federal & slate grants
4 federal grants
Federal contract
Intergovernmental funds
350.000
9.164.524
2.491.500
155.952.021
State & Local contracts ($6.4 million)
Interest income
Fees on groundwater withdrawals
Interest, permits, and other
(Q
CD
II
-------
^^ ' - Total ^:P. V^ .v^' Refining '%?:"'«•.-: f
Program "'- ': Funding :!/;'!.!;"Source'"^;';:: ' i/;Qrants ;; •'^'i:':;';iSdurce^M;'v Budget ' | • •' • " ••>"•? ; " Sources": ••: •'•'/ '.''<:•' ' *.•
River and Watershed Programs'1 * ,
Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee
Bamegat Bay Watershed Plan
Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed
Grande Ronde Critical Basin Project
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority
Menomonee River Priority Watershed
Middle Fork River Watershed Pilot Project
Mississippi Headwaters Board
Nisqually River Council
Lower East Branch Pecatonica River
Priority Watershed
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Suwannee River Water Management
District
Sweetwater Authority
Tualitan River Critical Basin Project
Upper Delaware Scenic and
Recreational River
Watershed Committee of the Ozarks
. -.- f '?m&^:: ;•: - • • • ' = -~ ;: ,.:••,- ; • ' y: '.. • *+,•• • . -. ,/•
***
***
2.563.500
Staff/overhead
13.000.000
898.584
800.000
100.000
5.015.105
2.593.900
9.100.000
Staff/overhead
300.000
Wisconsin Fund
Oregon DEQ
Service revenues
Wisconsin Fund
State and counties
WADept of Ecology
Wisconsin Fund
State appropriations
Ad valorem taxes and
slate appropriation
Negotiating with
upstream developers
and owners to recover
cost of project
Oregon DEQ
Appropriated via
National Park Service
Local govls and utility
company members
*••
*•*
5.000,000
100.000
10.777.600
25,000
EPA 319 & 106
Match by other agencies
Centennial Clean Water
Fund
Documentary stamp tax
and Preservation 2000
fund for land acquisition
Foundation grant NYS
hazmat grant
US EPA; USGS
***
***
2.726.964
***
13.000.000
1.053.852
800.000
200.000
6.366.934
8.900.000
14.904.300
9.100.000
14.300.000
350.000
Projected funded as part of overall budget
for ICPRB; see above
Plan provides no funding
Locals pay $328.714
No separable costs estimated
Service revenue only; no tax funds
Locals pay $155.268
All funding so far from EPA
Also RiverWatch grant received
Locals pay $1.351.829
For 1993
Fees, other small grants, transfers, interest
and SWIM grant
Reflects cost of pollution control project only
Funds for sewerage agency from rate-
payers ($4.9 million); City of Portland ($9.1
million); OR Dept of Forestry ($34.600); OR
Dept. of Agriculture ($250.000)
Donations. Interest, special building grant
Can receive donations, foundation grants
and other sources
II
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Special Grants. These programs have received funds from several special sources. Many of the
programs have received EPA funding from one or more of the following authorities: Section
319 stonnwater management, Section 106 authorities, Section 205j, Section 604b, and Coastal
Zone Management These agencies at times have also received from the US Geological Survey,
the Army Corps of Engineers, the Department of Agriculture (Forest Sendee, Agricultural
Conservation and Stabilization Service, or Soil Conservation Service), and the National Park
Service. Funding has ranged from $15,000 to $5 million.
The three programs operating as nonprofit organizations have received dues and donations,
corporate and government grants, and foundation funding in order to carry out various
aspects of their program, including pollution control
Conclusions. The state programs that are working the best are those in what are typically
thought of as environmentally progressive states. The programs in Vermont; Wisconsin,
Washington, and Oregon are likely typical of what will be considered good nonpoint programs
in the future. Two are funded predominantly by their legislatures and two by special purpose,
voter-approved bonds. None of them are funded well enough to handle anything but rural
nonpoint programs and the development and enactment of urban erosion control, urban
housekeeping, and stonnwater management ordinances. Wisconsin can also fund street-
sweeping programs. As Table 2. shows, however, even small projects with only 50% of
potential land operators actually participating, will have direct costs of up to $5 million,
exclusive of costs for storm sewers, CSO controls, and stonnwater retention/detention
systems. The questions of how to address urban stonnwater retention/detention and
combined sewer overflows remain unanswered.
Assistance Provided by US EPA
Many of the agencies have received funds or technical support from EPA. Typically, agencies
will have used Section 319 funds in preparing stonnwater management plans as part of their
overall watershed approach. Others have received funds under Sections 106,205j, 604b, Coastal
Zone Management, National Estuary Program, and one special pilot program. Table 2 indicates
which programs have received EPA funds in the past few years.
Agency personnel indicate several needs to make the nonpoint programs more successful:
• Funding for agency field personnel Most BMP arrangements are cost-shared programs that
are entered into on a voluntary basis with private landowners or operators. These people
do not make personal financial commitments en masse, resulting in the need for individual
site visits and negotiations which take time and money. Some voluntary programs have
participation from only 15 percent of those eligible to participate, too small a number to
make a serious dent in nonpoint pollution abatement
• Funding for the government share of the installation costs of BMPs and other practices.
Even a state like Wisconsin, with a specially funded program, only spends an average of $4
million per year on nonpoint controls, and a substantial portion of that money is paid to
local governments to manage implementation.
February 1994 Page 24
-------
The Institutional Framework* of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Funding for the assessment work. The state process begins with a statewide assessment that
identifies priority watersheds. Then for each priority watershed a detailed assessment is
prepared/ following which public education begins in earnest, contracts are negotiated,
BMPs are installed and ordinances enacted/ and implementation is monitored, recorded
and assessed. Vermont has divided the state into seventeen watersheds, Wisconsin has
done nearly sixty plans so far. They believe sufficient funding to do the analysis work is
imperative.
Conclusions. Not surprisingly, funding continues to be the issue on which the success of these
programs depends. Rural land disturbance projects mat require public permits such as
silviculture, mining, trail-building, pipeline construction, utilities management, and roadway
construction and maintenance likely can have more stringent nonpoint management standards
built into their normal operations without additional specific funding. Agricultural BMPs have
traditionally been cost-shared. Raising participation levels to 75 percent or higher of targeted
operations will require major additional investment Having legislatively established cost-share
percentages and unit costs on BMP installations, as is done in Wisconsin, will help to clarify the
level of investment
Urban programs are more difficult The enactment of comprehensive local ordinances to
control soil erosion and to improve urban housekeeping practices likely can be accomplished
without staggering costs. This may also extend to street-sweeping, controlling stormwater on
site for new land uses and changes of land uses, and similar controlled cleanup and moderate
stormwater management programs.
A phased implementation strategy may help to control financial outlays and stem the onset of
new problem areas. An initial phase could:
• Stress the implementation of plans to avoid future hazards
• Require the installation of BMPs for new land uses and changes of land uses
• Require the passage of appropriate ordinances
• Implement lower cost urban practices
• Fund training and state staffing levels
• Introduce a build-up of investment in agricultural BMPs
• Require planning and implementation of BMPs for new public projects such as roads, river
projects, conservation programs, and so on
A second phase could address more persistent problems:
• Initiate separation of sanitary and storm sewers on a priority basis
• Begin stormwater retention/ detention projects on a priority basis
• Undertake the installation of BMPs in abandoned mine lands watersheds
• Begin retrofitting on a priority basis existing public project with BMPs and comprehensive
plan changes
February 1994 Page 25
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Resource Management Techniques
The twenty-nine programs profiled for this review employ an array of over fifty practices,
programs, and authorities to control nonpoint sources of pollution. What became clear over the
course of the analysis is mat project managers must have a balanced combination of these
capabilities to be successful in controlling nonpoint sources. This means that (1) mere must be
an adequate and appropriate set of installable practices mat actually reduce pollution; (2) the
management programs must be sufficiently funded, staffed, trained, and empowered to create
positive and continuous action; and (3) the legal authorities must be there to ensure
implementation by all parties in and out of government
Specific Management Techniques Employed
The programs profiled use many different techniques for controlling nonpoint sources. The
mixture depends on how the program was originally established, and what the primary issues
are that it has addressed to date. This analysis divides mem up into five groupings:
1. Permit and planning powers
2. Agricultural practices
3. Urban watershed practices
4. Land use practices
5. Education and other practices
Permit and Planning Powers. Permit and planning powers indicate what the basic powers of
each organization are. This analysis examined six key capabilities, which are summarized in
Table 3. They are:
1. Voluntary program—Sixteen of the programs are voluntary in whole or in part. For
instance, in the Wisconsin program, counties, municipalities and landowners can choose
whether or not to participate in the program. But the fact that the state has sixty plans in
place or in progress attests to the fact that the system is working. The Watershed
Committee of the Ozarks is relying on education, technical credibility and persuasion to
convince people to protect the water supply watershed.
2. Review and comment responsibility for permit applications—Twenty-two programs have
the ability to review and comment on permit applications. The programs that do not are
those which do not create new managing or coordinating agencies.
3. Review and approval power over permit applications—Twelve programs have the ability
to review and approve local permit applications. The Florida water management districts
have permitting power over many water resource and land use related permits in their
districts. The Cape Cod Commission is a regional planning commission granted approval
powers by affected municipalities. This power generally distinguishes between state or
federally authorized joint powers boards or compacts and more locally based programs.
4. Review and approval power over local plans and ordinances—The power to review and
approve local plans and ordinances is generally restricted to special powers authorities.
The priority watershed program in Wisconsin reviews and approves erosion control and
stormwater management ordinances only. The Pinelands Commission is legally required
February 1994 Page 26
-------
n
g-
tt
Program
Table 3.
Watershed Management Programs
Permit and Planning Powers Table
Review & Consistency Review &
Review & Review & Approve Power In Approve
Voluntary Comment Approve Local Planning & State
Program on Permits Permits Plans Permits Actions
Other Powers
Multi-State Proarams • W
Delaware River Basin Commission
Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
State Programs
Arizona Active Management Areas
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Commission
Nebraska Natural Resource Districts
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program
Vermont Nonpoint Source
Management Program
Regional Programs
Cape Cod Commission
NW Florida Water Management District
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
Phoenix Active Management Area
South Florida Water Management District
' !,i' i i
1 'rl '
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes/No
No
No
No
No
No
.", ' J|
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Sparingly
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
• '"'''',";,','!"
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
< !' , , )' i, i
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
'i i' i ' i ii ' , '! i ', '
Yes
No
Yes
Sparingly
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
' f
No
No
Yes
No
No
n'a'\»
DRBC prepares a comprehensive coonfnated Joint plan approved by
al signatory parties
Biggest efforts by the Commission are he preparation of technical
studies under contract to local, state and federal agencies
ORSANCO prefers not to use Its approval powers unless absolutely
necessary
" '••'''",• .t '!*i i,!'1!'*"',: v1"' 4tf Mte : sW^lW'ftRt Wtt'
State Dept of Water Resources has permit approval power
Ties into state zoning powers and agriculture-oriented voluntary BMP
programs
• i', ••'•*,'. '':•'•' ' '."'•''"<,. ,!' *'"^i$j;/>^A!/l$'^$';,l!!$>j',
Strong focus on groundwater protection and recharge
State maintains some permit powers
Enforcement and permit approval through Dept of Water Resources
State maintains some permit powers
IQ
0
K)
-------
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
to ensure that local plans conform to the Pinelands Comprehensive Plan. The situation is
likewise for the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission. This is a strong capability if it
can be had.
5. Consistency power over planning and permits—The consistency provision is one in which
the watershed program's enabling legislation states that all other agencies within mat unit
of government will only take actions that are in furtherance of the goals and missions of
the program. The Commission encourages towns to develop comprehensive plans that
are consistent with its regional policy plan offering funding, planning and the ability to
exact impact fees on development In many circumstances, this provision stops problems
before they occur. Multi-agency watershed programs mat tie the program together with
consistency agreements usually have the best management plans available. Eight of the
programs in this analysis possess this provision. Within mis study, the program with the
most complicated planning environment for which consistency provisions exist is the
Upper Delaware Council.
The National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act provides for consistent action by all federal
agencies, including the responsible federal agency, the National Park Service. The River
Management Plan, the basis for the Council, called on the Delaware River Basin
Commission to adopt the parts of the plan relevant to its own mission as part of its
comprehensive plan, which it did. The Governor of Pennsylvania signed an Executive
Order bringing that state's actions into consistency, and a similar order is awaiting
signature by the Governor of New York. Each affected municipality mat becomes a
member of the Council signs an agreement committing the municipality to consistent
action. These enforceable obligations enable the Council to affect the direction of plans,
permits, and programs managed by all potentially affected units of government
6. Review and approval power over state actions—Only six programs have mis power,
prominent among them the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission. This is a power
generally reserved for state agencies and multi-state compacts. It provides a strong,
enforceable power that guarantees implementation of the program.
Agricultural Practices. Fifteen of the programs have adopted the USD A Soil Conservation
Service Technical Office Guide as the official planning handbook for installing agricultural
BMPs. The programs have also adopted other special agricultural programs. These practices
are summarized in Table 4:
1. USDA SCS BMPs -The SCS Technical Office Guide lists the following (list adapted from
Wisconsin Priority Watershed Program) as acceptable best management practices for
agricultural lands conservation and pollution control:
Contour Fanning Reduced Tillage
Contour Strip Farming Critical Area Stabilization
Field Strip Cropping Shoreline Buffers
Field Diversions and Terraces Barnyard Runoff Management
Grassed Waterways Animal Lot Relocation
Grade Stabilization Structures Wetland Restoration
Agricultural Sediment Basins Nutrient and Pesticide Management
Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization Manure Storage Facilities
Roofs for Barnyard Runoff Management Livestock Exclusion from Woodots
& Manure Storage Facilities
February 1994 Page 29
-------
n
o-
c
u
to
IO
Table 4.
Watershed Management Programs
Agricultural Management Practices Table
Follows SCS Technical
Program Office Guide for Follows State Handbook on
Agricultural BMPs Agricultural BMPs Other Techniques Used for Agricultural Pollution Control
Miiltt^ltiProflrams '.,•;••. ., ••!•.". "" .-.:• >'.':• • '• "\v •••.•'*'.•.:: i.'-r,
Delaware River Basin Commission
Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
NA
NA
NA
i
NA
NA
NA
v <''•'• • ';>:',
-------
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
2. Special dairy practices—The South Florida Water Management District follows the state
dairy rule/ a program to reduce phosphorus flows to Lake Okeechobee by controlling
animal and high-nutrient waste. The District also has a dairy buyout program to move
dairy operations out of the Lake Okeechobee-Everglades drainage area. The Puget Sound
Water Quality Authority also employs a dairy waste management program for similar
purposes.
3. Other state agricultural BMPs—Vermont, Nebraska and Florida have their own
handbooks and guidelines for installing agricultural BMPs.
4. Other practices—The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission requires the installation
of BMPs for soil/ water/ fertilizer, pesticides/ crop residues/ and animal husbandry.
Nebraska has a special chemigation program for controlling the flow of agricultural
chemicals into irrigation waters. The Pinelands Commission adopted its own standards
for the control of erosion, runoff/ animal waste, fertilizers and pesticide. For the Grande
Ronde Critical Basin Project agricultural BMPs will be follow-ups/ if necessary, to the first
phase TMDL control program. The Watershed Committee of the Ozarks recommends
adoption of SCS guidance on agricultural BMPs. The Upper Delaware plan prohibits new
animal feedlot and intensive livestock uses; and limits existing feedlot and intensive uses
to present sizes. The TuaU&h River project has a voluntary program focused on reduced
pollution flows from fertilizer and animal waste. The Mississippi Headwaters Board
requires the adoption of farm conservation plans that maintain vegetation on steep slopes
and avoids bluff impact zones. The plan requires adoption of a vegetation management
plan, prohibits new feedlots, and prohibits vegetation clearing within setback and bluff
impact zones.
Urban Watershed Practices. There are a collection of a dozen or more techniques that can be
used to control nonpoint sources in urban watersheds. Since this analysis searched for
programs operating as much as possible on a whole watershed basis, many urban programs
worthy of review were filtered out of the review. However/ the Wisconsin program, the
Anacostia project, and the Puget Sound project offer reasonable insight into urban-oriented
programs. Table 5 offers a summary of the watershed practices employed by the profiled
programs. These practices include:
1. Stabilization of critical areas—Twelve of the programs provide for the stabilization of
critical or sensitive areas within the urban zone. The river conservation programs avoid
the use of rip-rap, gabions, and similar structures, preferring instead to employ more
natural methods of stream bank and sensitive zone stabilization.
2. Grade stabilization structures—Ten programs provide for grade stabilization structures.
3. Shore and bank stabilization—Eleven programs use shore and stream bank stabilization.
Again, river conservation programs avoid the use of rip-rap, gabions, and similar
structures, preferring instead to employ more natural methods of stream bank and
sensitive zone stabilization.
4. Shoreline buffers—Fourteen of the programs require the use of shoreline buffers. States
with shoreland management programs—in this analysis, Vermont, Wisconsin, Minnesota
Florida, and Washington fall into this category—enforce this system rigorously.
5. Restore wetlands—Thirteen of the programs provide for wetland restoration projects as
nonpoint source control systems.
February 1994 Page 32
-------
01
Program
Table 5.
Watershed-Oriented Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Programs
Urban Watershed Management Practices Table
•'"" :'"". . ' , • Urban Storm-
Stabilize Grade Shore & Structural House- water
Critical Stabil. Bank Shoreline Restore Urbqn Street keeping Re/
Areas Structure Stablliz. " Buffers Wetlands Practices Sweep Practices Detention
CSO
Manage-
ment
Other Practice Used
Multi-State ProlaraWsl'liTfcr' ^'T^!'"^:',')11'1 ''.''"'''".'J'r'vHi "\'"'A< ';•''•'•'" V1' 'J|''i, "''"'iV'i '|VI' ' .'i-hii,'''', '''• * Hi-il''!"''!^!^''^''^!!
Delaware River Basin Commission
Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
KSsSiSI
to
No
No
No
ffiisui
Yes
No
No
iiiipii
Yes
No
No
Siit^Programi/K'' •'"•'••'..'•.•'. .,•">'- .•' ','• • .-l!f •' • • • '• ' : i'^fi'*''":<.!>f.y'-^',': ,,,ia\.y •&••' 'A%W^J^$ir''iJ&&
Arizona Active Management Areas
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Commission
Nebraska Natural Resource Districts
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program
Vermont Nonpoint Source
Management Program
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
RMlohialPr6^ra^te^:i'rSSf'vi|.ft5'ii:'!::'- • • "••" ' ' • -''HH-I'W&N^
Cape Cod Commission
NW Florida Water Management District
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
Phoenix Active Management Area
South Florida Water Management District
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Groundwater emphasis
Nonpoint not used yet
Rural-oriented program
O
•I
Q
TJ •*
Si
TJ
B>
CO
m
-------
(D
fi>
3
_k
(D
2
Program
Table 5. (Continued)
Watershed-Oriented Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Programs
Urban Watershed Management Practices Table
••' -..'';"'•' .'..'. '::;. ••'"•/.•, •'•••."; • .'• •' Urban Storm- '. ' •
Stabilize Grade Shore & . Structural House- water CSO
Critical Stabil. Bank Shoreline Restore Urban, Street keeping Re/ Manage- '.
Areas Structure Stablliz. Buffers Wetlands Practices Sweep Practices Detention ment Other Practice Used
Rl^!ih^:Watersfieafrolrarns'1!r^1,i''ii'':
Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee
Barnegat Bay Watershed Plan
Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed
Grande Ronde Critical Basin Project
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority
Menomonee River Priority Watershed
Middle Fork River Watershed Pilot Project
Mississippi Headwaters Board
Nisqually River Council
Lower East Branch Pecatonica River
Priority Watershed
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Suwannee River Water Management
District
Sweetwater Authority
Tualitan River Critical Basin Project
Upper Delaware Scenic and
Recreational River
Watershed Committee of the Ozarks
„,;';' foil ,/'?;'
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
tK/V ' '
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
•
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
NA
No
• ,• x';,"1;'
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
W'-WB
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
»:«*«'
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
WOTW
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
^Sllftlli!1!
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
WIWll^liOTi
Training, plantings
Rural & point source
orientation
Point source oriented
Rural program
Rural program
Rural and wetland
oriented program
First phase targets
TMDLs from point
sources
Natural stream bank
stabilization preferred
Education & advocacy
ffl
•o
u
CO
n
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
6. Structural urban practices—Fourteen programs provide for the use of structural urban
practices.
7. Street-sweeping—Street-sweeping, a practice only recently classified to be a nonpoint
source control mechanism, is provided for by ten programs. Wisconsin provides cost-
sharing for the practice.
8. Urban housekeeping practices—A variety of techniques are known as urban
housekeeping practices. Thirteen programs provide for such uses. The Portland, Oregon,
City Council has banned the sale of phosphate detergents as part of the Tualitan River
program. To limit pesticide, herbicide, and fertilizer runoff, the Pinelands Commission
limits lawn sizes to 2,000 square feet, the remaining areas to be maintained in indigenous
vegetation. The Cape Cod Commission prohibits the use of septic tank chemical cleaning
systems.
9. Stormwater retention/ detention—Stormwater retention/detention systems are provided
for in sixteen of these programs. Wisconsin funds planning projects but not construction.
The Sweetwater Authority's system to have polluted inflows bypass the water supply
reservoir is a variation of Stormwater management The Mississippi Headwaters Board
requires that stormwaters be held on site for natural and distributed recharge.
10. Combined sewer overflow management—Only twelve of these programs address the
issue of combined sewer overflow, an indicator that most of these are rural oriented
programs. The Wisconsin program pays for planning to resolve these problems, but it
provides no construction funds. CSOs are a prohibited use on the Upper Delaware.
Vermont has money allocated to resolving CSO problems in the City of Burlington.
11. Other practices—The Barnegat Bay plan emphasizes training of municipal and county
personnel in nonpoint management methods and in the use of tree, grass and vegetative
plantings as another method of nonpoint control.
Land Use Planning Practices. Land use management practices are an important part of
management for many land and riverine conservation projects In many instances, these
practices are designed specifically to reduce erosion and water pollution from nonpoint sources
such as home sites, roadways, timber harvesting and mining areas, as well as agriculture.
There are a collection of a dozen or more techniques mat can be used to control nonpoint
sources in urban watersheds. The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, Upper Delaware
Council, and Mississippi Headwaters Board use all of the techniques identified, and the
Nisqually River Council and New Jersey Pinelands Commission use all but one. The key
indicators of the most thorough programs for land use planning are requirements for larger
minimum lot sizes and development controls on ridge lines. Table 6 presents a summary of
the land use planning techniques employed by the profiled programs. These practices include:
Q Limit development on steep slopes Q Require larger minimum lot sizes
Q Limit size of impervious surface Q Require shoreline buffers
Q Make use of cluster development Q Limit development on ridge lines
Q Limit intensive livestock uses Q Septic system controls
Q Forestry practices controls Q Erosion control ordinances
Q Road building management Q Performance zoning techniques
February 1994 Page 35
-------
A
tr
01
§
Program
Table 6.
Watershed-Oriented Nonpolnt Source Water Pollution Control Programs
Land Use Planning Techniques Table
Limit ' -.-.vA-p TV •••; •';.-:.• Limjr '-Mmit .; ".
Dvlpmnt Larger Limit Us,e Require, Make Use Dylpmnt Intensive Septic Forestry Erosion
on Steep Minimum oflmpery. Shoreline of Cluster pnflidge Livestock System Practice Control
tti«^^i!:Pjiiraml®i;aa!^^il^i'^
Delaware River Basin Commission
Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
SS£teW6grarhs&,'.'/*' , ' '", "J >»,:;,;
Arizona Active Management Areas
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Commission
Nebraska Natural Resource Districts
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program
Vermont Nonpoint Source
Management Program
Regional Programs :;'i,j«P- •,: W;K^ <;/ .-
Cape Cod Commission
NW Florida Water Management District
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
Phoenix Active Management Area
South Florida Water Management District
'i:i!,,v !i;'i ,•',!„
1 il1 »"l
No
No
No
•18. ' '
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No ,_•
'"t^f.^'if
No
No
No
' *!
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
, No
;t"i,''^' i-
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
" . . , ,• •'
No
No
No
/;••!-• :
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
"•• '••' *! l(
No
No
No
;.; ; •'
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
'i&flTl'l'V'.
No
No
No
..;'. >
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
:.'rT'««
No
No
No
' ' ,'V?
No
Yes
No
No
No
•' - .
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
•:'i|;;:W;«!i
No
No
No
rf'.itoflJPfi.
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
v; ',!i!'fi,vi
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
!»«!
No
No
No,'.
fr'r(v;;«fti
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
!
i '* i'
No
Yes
Yes
r
No
Yes
I'itiMai
No
No
No
SW^W
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
';?''ilil
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
siSiiiiiiiiiiiisii
No local regulations
No local regulations
No local regulations
imswttGwm
i'liSlW''^'^''!!'^^
Plan is performance
standards-oriented
Limit lawn size (and
chemicals); limit waste
oils, detergents, other
chemicals
u
(Q
O)
-------
7
O1
Program
Table 6. (Continued)
Watershed-Oriented Nonpolnt Source Water Pollution Control Programs
Land Use Planning Techniques Table
Limit Limit Limit
Dvlpmnt Larger Limit Use Require Make Use Dvlpmnt Intensive Septic Forestry Erosion
on Steep Minimum oflmperv. Shoreline of Cluster on Ridge Livestock System Practice Control
Slopes Lot Sizes Surfaces Buffers Dvlpmnt Lines Uses Controls Controls Law Other Practice Used
River and Watershed Programs
Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee
Barnegat Bay Watershed Plan
Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed
Grande Ronde Critical Basin Project
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority
Menomonee River Priority Watershed
Middle Fork River Watershed Pilot Project
Mississippi Headwaters Board
Nisqually River Council
Lower East Branch Pecatonica River
Priority Watershed
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Suwannee River Water Management
District
Sweetwater Authority
Tualitan River Critical Basin Project
Upper Delaware Scenic and
Recreational River
Watershed Committee of (he Ozarks
">> '.-i •
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
4^'' •, •-
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
;-':• ••','•':,
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
'- !
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
-•T."A.fti$l|
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
»?»'!
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
$#$$&&
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
flW!PWft
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
#mKwmsw»
Mostly a structural
program
Road building
management
Voluntary programs
Erosion control in
permit controls
Can only contract for
these reforms
Voluntary programs
Education
•o
&
n
'»
~ o
IE
-------
The Institutional Framework* of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Education and Other Practices. Table 7. includes a potpourri of practices, programs, and
authorities that nonpoint programs employ to cany out their missions. The three programs
that make best use of this array of capabilities are the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program,
the Vermont program, and the Pinelands Commission. The capabilities identified include:
1. Forestry practices BMPs—Eight of the programs include forestry practice BMPs in their
arsenals. Florida and Vermont are two states with well-defined programs in mis regard.
The Headwaters Board and the Tualitan River program also have active programs.
2. Groundwater protection BMPs—The Cape Cod Commission is the only local entity
working actively to protect groundwater. Five of the state and regional programs have
groundwater protection programs, however, well illustrated by the Vermont program
which addresses the issue through a groundwater protection BMP program.
3. Wetlands creation—Wetlands creation appears to be built into some programs, but it is
difficult to tell how frequently the technique is used. The South Florida Water
Management District is constructing a 3,600 acre wetland to trap phosphorus inflows to
Lake Okeechobee, and the Middle Fork pilot project in West Virginia is using constructed
wetlands to trap acid mine drainage and sediment runoff.
4. Fishery enhancements—Nearly all of the locally based programs have fishery
enhancement as one of their nonpoint source goals, while the Florida Water Management
Districts, Vermont, the Critical Area Commission, and the Pinelands Commission also
maintain active programs in mis regard. Fishery enhancements usually are oriented
toward control of turbidity, dissolved oxygen, algal growth, and temperature.
5. Wellhead protection and aquifer recharge zones—Six programs use surface-oriented land
use controls to protect zones around wellheads and aquifer recharge areas. The best
defined local program is that for the Cape Cod Commission, which uses a performance
based system for protecting these areas. The Critical Area Commission, Vermont, the
Arizona program, and the Pinelands Commission also have programs governing these
areas, although each approaches the issue differently.
7. Controls on roadway construction and maintenance—Only the Pinelands Commission
and Mississippi Headwaters Board include specific provisions for limiting pollution from
roadway construction and maintenance. The Pinelands Commission concentrates on
reducing pollutants from herbicide and pesticide spraying along roadsides. The
Headwaters Board controls those activities and directs the location of roadways away
from sensitive zones. It also enforces standards on stormwater management techniques.
None of the programs are yet requiring the use of innovative technology. For instance,
new surfacing materials exist that many reduce the imperviousness of parking lots and
driveways.
8. Regulatory review and approval—Sixteen of the programs have some level of review and
approval of permits or ordinances. This is a fundamental requirement for the success of
these programs.
9. Provide technical assistance to private owners and units of government—Nineteen of
these programs advertise that they provide technical assistance to local governments or
property owners and operators in their service areas. It is likely that all the programs do
this to a certain degree.
February 1994 Page 38
-------
The Institutional Framework* of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
10. Public involvement or education programs—Twenty-two programs have active public
involvement or educational programs in place. A good example of an effective state-level
program is Wisconsin. When local governments sign contracts with the state to implement
priority watershed programs, they also agree to cany out the educational programs
developed by the state in cooperation with the University of Wisconsin. The Watershed
Committee of the Qzarks relies on its newsletter, an active media program, including the
production of public service announcements, an outreach program, hands-on water
quality improvement projects, and a wealth of publications to educate and involve the
public.
11. Other practices employed—Several other techniques were employed by these programs
that do not fit under any of the existing headings. These include:
Q Land acquisition—The Florida water management districts reviewed have plans to
acquire over 100,000 acres for rivers protection over the next five years. The
Pinelands Commission is well on the way to acquiring 100,000 acres in the Pinelands
preservation zone.
Q Agricultural easements—Wisconsin includes the purchase of easements for shoreline
buffers as one of its accepted practices.
Q Mine acid drainage controls—The only mining area reviewed here was the Middle
Fork pilot project in West Virginia. However, mis technique may become ubiquitous
in the Appalachian states over the coming decades.
Q Development credits for transfers of development rights—The Pinelands
Commission is the only organization presently using development credits to manage
development
Q Limitations on gold dredging, ski trail erosion, and the control of nuisance aquatic
plants—Vermont has established policies or BMPs for these problems areas.
Q Limitations on sand, gravel, and borrow pits—The Pinelands Commission, Upper
Delaware Council, and Mississippi Headwaters Board all have limitations requiring
on-site control of stormwater runoff, filter systems, and similar programs for
controlling pollution from sand and gravel operations and from borrow pit areas.
February 1994 Page 39
-------
I
Program
Table 7.
Watershed Management Programs
Groundwater, Forestry Practices, and Other Techniques Table
Ground- Grassroots
Forestry water Fishery Wellhead Aquifer Manage Regulat Involvement
Practices Protect Wetlands Enhance- Protect Recharge Roadway Review/- Technical or Education
BMPs BMPs Creation ment Zones Zones Practices Approval Assistnce Program Other Practice Used
Multi-State Programs
Delaware River Basin Commission
Interstate Commission on the Potomac
River Basin
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission
State Programs
Arizona Active Management Areas
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Commission
Nebraska Natural Resource Districts
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program
Vermont Nonpoint Source
Management Program
Regional Programs
Cape Cod Commission
NW Florida Water Management District
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
Phoenix Active Management Area
South Florida Water Management District
No
No
No
.;
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
. ' V: '
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
.
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
,
No
No
No
No
No
1 ^'i'",
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
' 1 ' !* '
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
^'.' W
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
f,,, :.',V:
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
'•? :!i''''?,^l!i!i'>'i"
Yes
Yes
Yes
1 if ' i
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
j
",''/;•:, A!;', '
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
••wfflsmiim
<^
-------
A
«T
Program
Table 7. (Continued)
Watershed Management Programs
Groundwater, Forestry Practices, and Other Techniques Table
Ground- Grassroots
Forestry water Fishery Wellhead Aquifer Manage Regulat. Involvement
Practices Protect. Wetlands Enhance- Protect. Recharge Roadway Review/- Technical or Education
BMPs BMPs Creation ment Zones Zones Practices Approval Assistnce Program Other Practice Used
RiVIriind:;Watirsriea;proarlms"v; •' " ' •,•&. "v v;1 "%;"<< „ •; :••? MWfy „: tft&tOffi ••'.•'! • ;:k -'-V ••••'#;•••. ri;! : • rtWX^JffltM&ffrl
Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee
Barnegat Bay Watershed Plan
Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed
Grande Ronde Critical Basin Project
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority
Menomonee River Priority Watershed
Middle Fork River Watershed Pilot Project
Mississippi Headwaters Board
Nisqually River Council
Lower East Branch Pecatontea River
Priority Watershed
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Suwannee River Water Management
District
Sweetwater Authority
Tualitan River Critical Basin Project
Upper Delaware Scenic and
Recreational River
Watershed Committee of the Ozarks
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
No
No
No
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
Yes
'iWIWWiillS
Require TMDL's
Mine add controls
TJ
u
to
(P
o
u
01
1
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Conclusions. The programs with the most built-in capabilities are the Chesapeake Bay Critical
Area Commission/ the New Jersey Pinelands Commission/ and the Mississippi Headwaters
Board. Capabilities are built into their enabling legislation mat ensures these programs will be
implemented. The Critical Area Commission has review and approve powers over the relevant
ordinances of nearly sixty units of local government and over projects permitted or developed
by other state agencies. The Pinelands Commission has similar review and approve powers, it
can manage the transfer of development rights, and it is coordinating the acquisition of 100,000
acres of land in sensitive zones. The Headwaters Board also has review and approve powers,
and it has established land use standards that go further in building nonpoint management
into the core of the conservation program than any other program reviewed here. These
entities have special powers that enable them to take strong action, but such agencies are not
likely to be duplicated elsewhere, precisely because they do have extraordinary powers.
The Vermont and Wisconsin programs possess powers that are not far behind the first three
programs. They were not as successful in combining permit review and approve powers with
land use powers. They are bom strong in establishing agricultural BMPs, while Vermont
appears to require BMPs for many more activities than are covered by the Wisconsin system.
The Upper Delaware Council is a valuable model for the ways in which it ties in the use of its
members authorities to the overall success of the program. The Puget Sound Water Quality
Authority pursues many different programs in implementing water quality controls. The
Bamegat Bay plan includes an effective array of programs that could be emulated elsewhere.
Its weakness is mat there is no guarantee that it will be implemented.
Of special note is the groundwater plan for the Cape Cod Commission. It is exhaustive in the
land use planning system it uses to protect groundwater. The combination of special use zones
and performance standards for all developments appears to be a system worthy of emulation
elsewhere in groundwater dependent areas.
Mechanisms for Enforcement
The programs profiled fall into two distinct groups with regard to enforcement powers. The
first includes council-type programs that rely on the existing authorities of their members for
implementation and enforcement The second includes programs that are largely self-sufficient,
have the authority to implement the program, and the legal and political clout necessary to
ensure the plan is implemented. The effectiveness of these enforcement mechanisms can be
increased through the use of educational programs.
The big issue is convincing private land operators to install BMPs. This appears to depend on
two factors: the quality and training of assigned program personnel and their ability to
negotiate with and assist the landowners and operators, and the level of subsidized support for
the installation of BMPs.
Conclusions. Effective education programs can bolster enforcement as can hiring and training
qualified personnel to staff state and federal programs. The ability of these people to work with
affected populations will determine to a substantial degree how well government programs are
implemented and how many land operators agree to participate in cost-shared BMP programs.
February 1994 Page 42
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Monitoring Systems
The watershed programs use monitoring for three different purposes: (1) to acquire baseline
data from which to make future management decisions; (2) to review the enforcement and
effectiveness of management standards already in place; and (3) as an educational tool for
involving the public in water quality issues.
These agencies use dozens of techniques to do the monitoring work, ranging from the use of
water quality testing stations, to Riverwatch programs, aerial overflights, LANDSAT
programs, and monitoring indicator species. Many of these locations are using GIS systems to
plot data, and more of them are integrating their data layers with those of other agencies and
universities, a method that provides a more comprehensive view of the situation.
Conclusions. There is little to be learned from reviewing the monitoring systems of these
twenty-nine projects. The newest trend in monitoring is to build stronger connections between
the science of monitoring and educational and public involvement activities, not to actually do
the mission critical monitoring functions, but to establish for the public the importance of
monitoring and the overall nonpoint program.
Grassroots Involvement
Nearly every program profiled has an ongoing educational or grassroots involvement
program. The programs established specifically to undertake nonpoint programs for
watersheds have public education and grassroots involvement as integral elements. See Table 7
for a summary of the programs with grassroots or education programs.
Wisconsin requires each local government partner to agree to implement the educational
program development jointly with the University of Wisconsin Extension. The educational
programs are multi-faceted, and they take advantage of the existing links of agricultural
communities to government farm organizations. This is a strong system worth emulating
elsewhere.
Direct grassroots involvement takes place in several ways—through participation in
assessment or study groups, as governing board members, through citizen-based water quality
monitoring programs, and through direct, hands-on restoration projects such as stream
cleanups, tree planting, or natural streambank stabilization projects. Many programs also have
developed special programs for schools. The exception is for groundwater management
projects, which tend to be highly technical and poorly suited (so far) to grassroots participation.
Examples of projects with excellent citizen involvement in planning are the Upper Delaware
Council, the Watershed Committee of the Ozarks, and the Wisconsin program. Members of the
public serve on task forces or review teams responsible for preparing the analysis. The public
becomes a shaper and reviewer of the overall plan.
The Watershed Committee of the Ozarks is a good example of how citizens become members
of the governing board. The Committee's original board members were agency personnel from
the participating municipality, county and utilities, with some additional at-large members.
The agencies and utilities are now represented on the board by members they have selected
February 1994 Page 43
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
from the public, a move made to strengthen the program's ability to advocate change in agency
programs.
Water qualify monitoring programs abound. Models used include the Riverwatch system/ the
Save Our Streams program, and the Trout Unlimited program. All can be effective.
Nebraska Natural Resource Districts have planted over 50 million trees since they were
organized in 1972, many of mem by members of the public. The Anacostia Watershed
Restoration Committee encourages citizens to participate in cleanups, park or open space
improvement, and stream bank stabilization projects.
Conclusions. Twenty-two of the twenty-nine programs rely to some degree on voluntary
participation for their success. Voluntary steps can be taken either by private landowners or by
other units of government Not surprisingly/ each of these programs has developed a public
involvement program or an open planning process to leverage more participation.
The public involvement programs reviewed here have four different modes of operation. The
first, as represented by the Watershed Committee of the Qzarks/ places private citizens on
boards that make policy decisions regarding the direction of the program. The second, as
represented by the Menomonee River Priority Watershed, uses a citizens advisory committee
approach to gathering public comment about the study and planning process. The third and
most common method is to use an educational program to inform the public about the
watershed project The fourth is typified by the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee
which uses citizen participation in direct/ hands-on stream restoration projects.
These techniques all have merit and should be built into all future programs as appropriate.
February 1994 Page 44
-------
The Institutional Framework* of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Conclusions:
The Elements of a Successful Partnership for Watershed Protection
The central question to be answered is what does this information add to the present debate
over the format of watershed management The traditional model has been for the states to be
the partners with EPA in carrying out these projects, but the practice of watershed
management is quite different from the construction of facilities and promulgation of
regulations to control point sources of water pollution. The nature of this system is diverse and
decentralized. Top-down management styles normally do not adapt well to these conditions.
These programs should be based upon a cooperative planning and management approach.
Reforms involving cooperative planning among federal, state and local agencies are built into
the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) enacted in 1991. The unique
tradition of water in American politics has grown some traditions that are top-down in
approach, and others that are bottom-up.
Geographic Orientation. One important issue is the need for being geographically oriented.
The watershed approach addresses whole river systems or subsystems in a manner mat is
potentially effective. The one agency that has been active on a watershed basis for decades is
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), an agency within the Department of Agriculture. It
operates local soil and water conservation districts throughout the country. The small
watershed projects developed under its most commonly used authority, P. L. 566, average
about 250 square miles in area. Other than SCS, there are only a few entities that actually
operate on a watershed basis, and most of these were established by the states.
The states do have the power to create bodies that can address whole watersheds. Depending
on state constitutions and traditions, these bodies can be imbued with simple coordinating and
communication powers, or they can be given extraordinary powers, as has happened with the
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, the New Jersey Pinelands Commission, and the
Mississippi Headwaters Board in Minnesota.
In the case of urban areas, regional planning agencies and councils of government are not
organized on a watershed basis. They will need cooperation from other parties to match the
management and jurisdiction structure to the watershed. Given the states' differing support for
council of government type operations, this may not be easy to do in legal terms. As the
priority watershed programs in Vermont, Wisconsin, Washington, and Oregon show, the
states can readily create watershed partnerships with the credibility to accomplish the goals
set out for them.
Identify Priority Watersheds. The continental United States has approximately three million
miles of stream flowing through about three million square miles of land area. Divided into the
manageable units employed in Wisconsin, this could mean the need to create over 22,000
separate plans. Fortunately, not all streams are in a state of non-attainment, but there would
still be a need for thousands of individual watershed plans. Since this large number cannot be
digested all at once, a logical process for identifying priority watersheds is essential for any
future watershed management program.
February 1994 Page 45
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Organizational Structures. The legal and organizational structures through which the selected
programs operate varies greatly. In general, they fall into five categories: (1) federal compacts
for interstate organizations; (2) normal state programs operated by state agencies; (3) specially
authorized state programs operated by semi-independent agencies or joint powers boards;
(4) cooperative projects operating without a formal and centralized management structure; and
(5) nonprofit organizations whose members are government agencies or other units of
government
Statewide watershed management is done most easily through onoing state agencies operating
within their normal assisgned areas of responsibility. Wisconsin's Priority Watershed Program
is a good example of an onoing state program. However, special authority commissions and
boards can be enabled with considerable authority as they manage water resources with
limited management boundaries. The Cape Cod Commission in Massachusetts typifies this
approach. Cooperative projects come into being through the execution of Memoranda of
Understanding between participating agencies. The Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Committee in Maryland and the District of Columbia is a fine example of a joint, cooperative
effort of many agencies working to restore a watershed, without need of a separate centralized
management bureaucracy.
The extraordinary powers bestowed on special authority programs make them the most
effective in addressing single or regional watersheds. The programs with the most built-in
capabilities are Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, the New Jersey
Pinelands Commission, and the Mississippi Headwaters Board in Minnesota. These entities
have special powers that enable them to take strong action, but such agencies are not likely to
be duplicated elsewhere, precisely because they do have extraordinary powers.
Ongoing programs in states with aggressive environmental management agencies are the most
effective in addressing all watersheds in a state. The Vermont and Wisconsin programs possess
powers that are not far behind those of the special powers boards mentioned in the previous
paragraph. They were not as successful in combining permit review and approve powers with
land use powers. They are both strong in establishing agricultural Best Management Practices,
(BMPs), while Vermont appears to require BMPs for many more activities than are covered by
the Wisconsin system.
Of special note is the groundwater plan for the Cape Cod Commission. It is exhaustive in the
land use planning system it uses to protect groundwater. The combination of special use zones
and performance standards for all developments appears to be a system worthy of emulation
elsewhere in groundwater dependent areas.
There are several programs that have similarities to regional councils or councils of
government (COGs). The Upper Delaware Council, the Mississippi Headwaters Board, die
Nisqually River Council, and the Cape Cod Commission operate much like COGs. Only the
Cape Cod Commission covers the entire watershed. It is likely that few existing COGs or
regional councils are organized on a watershed basis, making them potentially poor choices to
lead nonpoint planning. The better choice is to build more capabilities within the responsible
state agencies and have them organize affected political subdivisions into watershed
management groups through Memoranda of Understanding or special powers legislation.
February 1994 Page 46
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Opportunities for Voluntary Participation. Most programs rely to some degree on voluntary
participation for their success. Voluntary steps can be taken either by private landowners or by
other units of government Not surprisingly, each of these programs has developed a public
involvement program or an open planning process to leverage more participation.
Educational Programs and Grassroots Involvement. Effective education programs can bolster
enforcement as can hiring and training qualified personnel to staff state and federal programs.
Their ability to work with affected populations will determine to a substantial degree how well
government programs are implemented and how many land operators agree to participate in
cost-shared BMP programs.
The public involvement programs reviewed here have four different methods of involvement
The first places private citizens on boards that make policy decisions regarding the direction of
the program. The second uses a citizens advisory committee approach to gathering public
comment about the study and planning process. The third and most common method is to use
an educational program to inform the public about the watershed project The fourth uses
citizen participation in direct, hands-on stream restoration projects. Public involvement and
educational techniques all have merit and should be built into all future programs as
appropriate.
Monitoring Systems. Many of the programs profiled use geographic information systems
(GIS) to track changing conditions and to guide decision-making. This tactic is bogged down in
some states as they work to convert disparate GIS databases into compatible systems accessible
to all agencies, universities, researchers and consultants, and the business community. Some
programs used aerial fly-overs to check for recent land use changes, while others seek
placement of the newest water quality gauging stations. Several of these programs use
RiverWatch or Save Our Streams programs that make use of volunteers and school children to
track some key water quality indicators.
Funding. Funding continues to be the issue on which the success of these programs depends.
Half the programs profiled depend on state legislative appropriations for base funding, while
four others in two states receive funding from voter-approved bonds. Service revenues,
property taxes, ad valorem taxes, member contributions (the interstate compacts receive money
from their state members), and county or municipal appropriations account for the balance of
primary funding sources. Only one project was funded primarily through direct congressional
appropriation. Half the programs receive special EPA contract or grant funds either directly or
indirectly through a state agency. Only one program, the Middle Fork mined lands stream
restoration project in West Virginia, depended on EPA as its primary revenue source. The
significant dependence on state legislative funding underscores the relationship between
watershed management programs and state sponsorship. Unless a new source of primary
funding is provided, it seems reasonable to nurture the relationship between the states and
watershed management.
Staffing and Training. The managers whom the reviewers interviewed generally agree that
implementing watershed management programs is a time-consuming, labor-intensive process
mat requires a large amount of personal interaction between project managers, local
governments, and those entities that would install BMPs on their land or property. Having
sufficient funding to put a sufficient number of state water quality personnel out in the field
February 1994 Page 47
-------
The Institutional Frameworks of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
will be important to the success of future programs. Providing them with sufficient training in
negotiating these agreements, both with local governments and with property owners, will be
the next step. Preparing them to manage cooperative planning processes is the third step.
Applying Land Use Controls. Land use controls, street sweeping, urban housekeeping
ordinances/ and education programs appear to produce benefits, and they remain the cost-
efficient choice for addressing some aspects of urban nonpoint problems. Watershed managers
would do well to examine how land use powers have been integrated into state and federal
river and land conservation plans. Good examples are the Mississippi Headwaters Board, the
Pinelands Commission, and the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River. Land
management controls include limitations on the disturbance of ridge or bluff lines, steep slopes,
and land immediately along streams, lakes or ponds; requirements for soil conservation
practices, forest and vegetative cover; and limitations on polluting uses and uses which create
imprevious land cover.
Certain other land use controls conducive to ecosystem-oriented watershed protection are not
as apparent As yet, there is no strong link to the protection of riparian zones and habitat
corridors. There is also little apparent connection between river protection plans and flood
plain management
February 1994 Page 48
-------
The Institutional Framework* of Selected
River Federation Watershed Management Programs
Recommendations
A phased implementation strategy may help to control financial outlays and stem the onset of
new problem areas. An initial phase could:
• Stress the implementation of plans to avoid future hazards
• Require the installation of BMPs for new land uses and changes of land uses
• Require the passage of appropriate ordinances
• Implement lower cost urban practices
• Fund training and state staffing levels
• Introduce a build-up of investment in agricultural BMPs
• Require planning and implementation of BMPs for new public projects such as roads, river
projects, conservation programs, and so on
A second phase could address more persistent problems:
• Initiate separation of sanitary and storm sewers on a priority basis
• Begin stormwater retention/detention projects on a priority basis
• Undertake the installation of BMPs in abandoned mine lands watersheds
• On a priority basis, begin retrofitting existing public projects with BMPs and
comprehensive plan changes
February 1994 Page 49
-------
Appendix A.
Program Profiles
-------
Table of Contents
Notes on Research Methods.. .; 3
Multi-State Programs 5
Delaware River Basin Commission 6
Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin 10
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission 14
State Programs 17
Arizona Department of Water Resources 18
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission/ MD 22
Nebraska Natural Resource Districts 27
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program 31
Vermont Nonpoint Source Management Program 40
Regional Programs 46
Cape Cod Commission, MA 47
NW Florida Water Management District ; 53
New Jersey Pinelands Commission 57
Phoenix Active Management Area 64
South Florida Water Management District 68
-------
Appendix A. Program Profite* Profiles of WatenrMdOrimted
River and Watershed Programs. .....73
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee...... . 74
Barnegat Bay Watershed Plan 80
Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed, WI .....85
Grande Ronde Critical Basin Project 94
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority of Texas 98
Menomonee River Priority Watershed, WI 101
Middle Fork River Watershed Pilot Project 110
Mississippi Headwaters Board 114
Nisqually River Council, WA 119
Lower East Branch Pecatonica River Priority Watershed, WI 123
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority 131
Suwannee River Water Management FL 135
Sweetwater Authority, CA 139
Tualatin River Critical Basin Project, OR 142
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River, NY & PA 147
Watershed Committee of the Ozarks, MO .;, 154
February 1004 Appendix A-2
-------
^^MfefH^A *tM **•—* *- —•
trow** 01 vwvtwwa
Notes on Research Methods
During the course of this investigation, the researchers reviewed nearly seventy
programs from across the country to determine if they met the characteristics of an
integrated nonpoint source water quality management program. The programs were
divided into four types: multi-state programs usually enabled through federal
compacts; state level programs that provide guidance to regional or local programs;
regional programs in which the states are divided into large units but not on a
watershed basis; and individual river or watershed specific programs.
The following sections identify the programs selected and those not selected/ along
with a brief explanation describing why those not selected were passed over in favor of
others.
Multi-State Programs—Selected
The programs chosen for review are:
1. Delaware River Basin Commission—Delaware River
2. Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin—Potomac River
3. Ohio River Sanitation Commission—Ohio River
State Programs—Selected
The programs chosen for review are:
1. Arizona Active Management Area Program
2. Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission—MD
3. Nebraska Natural Resource District Program
4. Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program
5. Vermont Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program
Regional Programs—Selected
The programs chosen for review are:
1. Cape Cod Commission—MA
2. New Jersey Pinelands Commission—NJ
3. Northwest Florida Water Management District— FL
4. Phoenix Active Management Area—AZ
February 1994 Appendix A-3
-------
Apptndte A. Program Profiles ProfilMofWiteralMdOrtentod
5. South Florida Water Management District—FL
River or Watershed Programs—Selected
The programs chosen for review are:
1. Anacostia River- MD and DC
2. Barnegat Bay Estuary Program—NJ
3. Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed Project- WI
4. Grande Ronde Critical Basin Project-OR
5. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority—TX
6. Menomonee River Priority Watershed Project—WI
7. Middle Fork River-WV
8. Mississippi Headwaters Board—MM—Upper Mississippi River (Above St Paul)
9. Nisqually River Council—WA
10. Lower East Branch Pecatonka River Priority Watershed Project-WI
11. Puget Sound Water Quality Authority-WA
12. Suwannee River Water Management District— FL
13. Sweetwater Authority—CA
14. Tualatin River Critical Basin Project-OR
15. Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River—NY—PA
16. Watershed Committee of the Ozarks - MO
February 1994 Appendix A-4
-------
Appcndta A. Program Profites Profiles of WiterstMd Oriented
Parti.
Profiles of Multi-State Programs
H Delaware River Basin Commission—Delaware River
H Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin—Potomac River
H Ohio River Sanitation Commission- Ohio River
February 1994 Appendix A-«
-------
Appendta A. Program Profltos
Profile* of Watershed Oriented
Delaware River Basin Commission
Agency
Agency:
Delaware River Basin Commission
Address:
P.O. Box 7360
Citv-ST-Zio:
West Trenton, New Jersey 08628
Telephone:
609-883-9500
Fax Telephone:
Contact Person:
Dick Albeit x 256
Notes:
Year and Method of Establishment
The Delaware River Basin Commission (DRBQ was established in 1961 by an interstate
compact The states involved in this compact are Pennsylvania, Delaware, New Jersey,
New York, and the federal government through the Department of the Interior. The
Commission was born out of litigation between New Jersey and New York over use of
headwater flows to the Delaware. The City of New York proposed to divert most of the
flow for use as water supply, while New Jersey and other downstream uses demanded
adequate flows to meet many domestic, environmental, and industrial uses. The US
Supreme Court finally resolved the controversy, requiring an average daily minimum
flow to be maintained at the northernmost gauge in New Jersey and suggesting that
management of water resources be coordinated among all the affected states and the
federal government since the Delaware is classified as interstate waters. The resulting
compact established the DRBC in 1961.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The Commission develops plans, policies, and projects relating to the water resources
of the basin. It designs and promotes uniform policies for water conservation, control,
use and management in the basin. It also seeks to promote the development and
financing of projects relating to the conservation of water and water quality in the
basin.
February 1994
Appendix A4
-------
Appendu A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Geographic Scale
The basin covers 12,755 square miles and extends from the mouth of the Delaware Bay
to the headwaters above Hancock, New York.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The Delaware River Basin Commission is responsible for managing the water resources
of the basin. The Commission includes the Governors of each of the four states and a
presidential appointee/ traditionally the Secretary of the Interior. Other governmental
agencies that play an active role in the management effort of the basin include: the
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection, the New York Department of
Environmental Conservation, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental
Resources, the Pennsylvania Fish Commission, the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, the US. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Geological Survey, the New York City Department of
Environmental Protection, and the Philadelphia Water Department
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
Sources of funding include the federal government Pennsylvania Department of
Environmental Resources, other signatory states, and corporate grants. The budget
amounts to $2.5-$3 million per year. Contributors include the States of Delaware
($253,500), New York ($269,600), New Jersey ($554,000), and Pennsylvania ($633,800);
the federal government ($427,750), federal water pollution control grant ($240,000),
project review fees ($114,430), interest ($116,000), and fines ($27,500).
Management
Organizational Management
From Article 3, Section 3.6 of the Compact Agreement '"The Commission may plan,
improve, operate, own any and all projects, facilities, properties, activities and services
determined by the commission to be necessary for the purposes of the commission;
establish standards of projects in the basin which affect water resources; conduct and
sponsor research on water resources; compile and coordinate systematic stream stage
and ground water level forecasting data; conduct special ground water investigations
tests; prepare, publish, and disseminate information and reports dealing with the water
quality of the basin; negotiate for loans, grants, services, or any other method of aid
that would serve to assist the Commission with desired goals; and to exercise the laws
and powers as delegated by the compact agreement"
February 1894 Appendix A-7
-------
Appmdta A. Program Profiles ProfllM of Watershed Oriented
Management Techniques
The Commission has many of the powers that a State would have for managing water
resources and water quality. In particular, it issues permits for point source dischargers
in the basin/ sets water quality standards against which permit applications are tested/
and increasingly is involved in setting standards for nonpoint source controls.
Enforcement Mechanisms
The Commission has the power to issue administrative orders to support its permitting
authority and to seek redress in any court of competent jurisdiction. The Commission
collected $27/500 in fines in FY1991.
Monitoring System
The Commission maintains several monitoring programs for water quality. In the
Delaware Estuary/ it checks 20 monitoring points 18 times per year. This work is
conducted in cooperation with New Jersey/ Delaware and Pennsylvania. From May
through December/ the DRBC monitor several points in cooperation with the National
Park Service on the main stem and tributaries within and above the Upper Delaware
Scenic and Recreational River and the concurrently managed Middle Delaware Scenic
and Recreational River and the Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area.
Representative Projects
Some projects of the basin are Scenic Rivers Protection/ the Scenic Rivers Monitoring
Program/ Toxics Management Flood Stage Mapping/ and Fish Ladder Improvement
Water quality studies were also begun to measure the levels of bacterial concentrations,
toxics/ thermal stress/ sediment oxygen demand/ chlorination/ heavy metals/ pesticides/
phenols/ PCBs/ and the impact of combined sewer overflows. Under contract with the
Army Corps of Engineers/ the DRBC undertook a project of flood stage mapping for the
reach of the Delaware River between River Mile 139.5 and 148.
The Commission recently upgraded water quality standards in the watersheds of the
Upper and Middle Delaware National Wild and Scenic Rivers to meet the existing
water quality levels in the river. On the Upper Delaware/ for instance/ the major
indicators were raised 30 to 70 percent These segments/ and the tributaries within the
boundaries of these nationally significant areas/ are now classified as Outstanding
Basin Waters. The primary criterion for allowable discharge into these watersheds is
"no measurable discharge/'
February 1994 Appendix A-8
-------
Appmdh A. Program Profites Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Grassroots Involvement
The Commission maintains several advisory committees for water conservation/ water
resources management and several special issues. The Commission undertook an
extensive public involvement and comment program in its recent effort to upgrade
water quality standards on the Upper and Middle segments of the river.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
The Commission has received a $525/000 grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency to study and develop control strategies for combined sewer overflows in the
Delaware Estuary.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Delaware River Basin Compact
The DRBC requires the Commission to adopt a Water Resources Program each year
based upon its Comprehensive Plan for the use and development of the basin's water
resources.
The Commission adopted regulations during 1991 that govern the transfer of water and
wastewater to and from the Delaware River Basin. The Commission will seek to
discourage the exportation of water from the Delaware Basin or importation of
wastewater. All projects involving a significant transfer of water must be submitted to
the Commission.
Watershed Management Documents
Comprehensive Plan/ Water Code of the Delaware River Basin: policies and
regulations/ Rules of Practice and Procedure/ Water Quality Regulations Document
February 1994 Appendix A4
-------
Apponou A* Program Profltes
Profiles of Watershed Ortantod
Interstate Commission for the Potomac River Basin
Agency
Agencv:
Interstate Commission for the
Potomac River Basin
Address:
Suite 300
6110 Executive Blvd.
Citv-ST-Zio:
Rockville, MD 20852-3903
Telephone:
301-984-1908
Fax Telephone:
301-984-5841
Contact Person:
Beverly Bandler
Notes:
Year and Method of Establishment
Established as an interstate compact by an Act of Congress in 1940. Members of the
Commission include the five signatories (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, West
Virginia, and the District of Columbia) plus the federal government
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The ICPRB mission includes interstate and basin-wide coordination; stimulation of
federal and state action; basin-wide water quality monitoring evaluation, and other
water related studies; liaison with citizen and government groups; dissemination of
information about the Potomac Basin; and provision of technical support to compact
members.
Geographic Scale
The basin includes 14,670 square miles in four states (Maryland, Virginia, West
Virginia, and the District of Columbia). The basin lies in five geological provinces:
Appalachian Plateau, Ridge and Valley. Blue Ridge, Piedmont Plateau, and Coastal
Plain. The major tributaries to the basin are the Shenandoah, South Branch, Monocacy,
Savage, Cacapon, Anacostia, and Occuquan Rivers; Antietam and Conococheague
Creeks.
February 1994
Appendix A-10
-------
Appmdb A. Program ProfHtt Profiles of WatervtMd Oriented
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
Commissioners appointed by states (and the federal government), meet on a regular
basis.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The ICPRB is supported by contributions from the signatory states, the District of
Columbia, and the federal government The Commission also receives an annual
interstate agency grant under the Clean Water Act from the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency in partial support of water quality program activities. The budget
was $1,903,214.00 available in 1992.
Management
Type of Authority
Non-regulatory
Management Techniques
Encourage cooperation and coordination/ plus public involvement
Enforcement Mechanisms
Non-regulatory
Monitoring System
The ICPRB conceived the Baseline Water Quality Monitoring Network (BWQMN).
This network is composed of 72 stations strategically located to provide information for
basin-wide examination/ 32 of which are part of the nationwide EPA Core sampling
network.
Representative Projects
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement of 1987 signed by the District of
Columbia/ the State of Maryland/ and its affected counties/ Montgomery and Prince
George's. The goals for this agreement are:
• Achievement of improved water quality and the protection of aquatic life/ habitat
and other ecological perspectives.
February 1994 Appendix A-11
-------
Appmdta A, Program Prefita* Profiteer Watershed Oritnted
• Basin-wide management of erosion, sediment and other sources of pollution;
maintenance of the tidal portion of the Anacostia as navigable for commercial and
recreational uses.
• Expansion of activities for public recreational use.
• The enhancement of public interest and public participation in restoration activities.
Participating agencies include the Metropolitan Council of Governments, the Maryland
Departments of the Environment and Natural Resources, the D.C Departments of
Consumer Affairs and Public Works, Maryland-National Capital Parks and Planning
Commission, Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection, and the
Prince George's County Health Department and Department of Environmental
Resources, The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the National Park Service.
Washington area jurisdictions (working with the Metropolitan Washington COG Water
Resources Planning Board), state regulatory agencies, and Regional HI of US EPA have
joined forces in efforts to improve the Potomac's water quality. Several studies are
complete, including an alternative disinfection study, feasibility study, sludge/solid
waste co-disposal study (all for the Blue Plains wastewater treatment facility), D.C.
combined sewer overflow study, estuary modeling, regional Potomac monitoring,
Virginia Embayment Studies, and EPA Chesapeake Bay program studies. ICPRB has
two specific tasks: 1) public education and participation and 2) living resources
enhancement
The ICPRB periodically disseminates water quality assessments of the Potomac's water
and related land resources.
Grassroots Involvement
There is a large degree of public participation in the ICPRB. The ICPRB Anacostia
Public Education and Participation Program has reached over 50,000 people. The three
main elements to this program are its newsletter In the Anacostia Watershed (12,000
circulation), a coordinator covering the sub-basins, and other educational products and
activities. As part of the Commission's information and education activities, the agency
publishes a widely read newsletter entitled the Potomac Basin Reporter (18,000
circulation). The ICPRB does encourage citizen involvement in Potomac issues. The
Commission also publishes technical and citizen-oriented reports and papers
concerning the basin and encourages action on important regional issues.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
106 grant very helpful.
February 1994 Appendix A-12
-------
Appendb A. Program Profites Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Potomac Valley Conservancy District Compact
Watershed Management Documents
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreement of 1987
February 1994 Appendix A-13
-------
ApfMndw JL Pro0nvn Ptofltes
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission
Agency
Aaencv:
Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation
Commission (ORSANCO)
Address:
49 E. Fourth Street
Citv-ST-Zio:
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202
Telephone:
513-421-1151
Fax Telephone:
Contact Person:
Alan Vicory
Notes:
Year and Method of Establishment
Established June 30,1948 by an interstate compact agreement
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The Commission shall conduct a survey of the territory included within the District
study the pollution control problems of the District and make a comprehensive report
for the prevention or reduction of stream pollution. The Commission is to recommend
to the Governors of the signatory states uniform legislation dealing with the pollution
of rivers/ streams, and other water resources of the District The Commission is also
established to consult with and advise the various states, corporations, agencies, or
persons on issues dealing with water resources. (Stated in Article Vm of the Ohio River
Valley Water Sanitation Compact the original mission).
Geographic Scale
The range of the agency spans eight states with a total drainage basin of 203,000 square
miles.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The agency is directed by a commission of 27 members, three representatives from each
signatory state and three from the federal government
February 19M
Appendix A-14
-------
Appendte A. Program Profites Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Sources of Funding
Funded (partially) by the federal government and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. It is also supported proportionally by the eight member states/ taking into
account population and land area in the drainage basin.
Budget Information
Backing for each state: Illinois $40,595, Indiana $151,415, Kentucky $173,985, New York
$8,445, Ohio $205,810, Pennsylvania $113,175, Virginia $29,310, W. Virginia $89,140.
EPA 106 grant $379,825.
Management
Management Structure
The structure is classified into five general categories: Water Quality Monitoring,
Wastewater Discharge Standard Setting and Enforcement Water Quality Assessment
Toxic Substances Control, and Spill Control.
Degree of Authority
Set pollution control statistics for Ohio River, try to let state handle problem.
Management Techniques
Compact adopted by Congress to follow, work with state agencies - top people from
their Board of Directors.
Enforcement Mechanisms
The Commission does have regulatory authority mat it does not use unless necessary.
ORSANCO's primary task is to continuously monitor water quality in the river. It will
notify the proper authorities, state tries to correct situations, go in only if state needs
help.
Monitoring System
Established an automated monitoring system which provides continuous
measurements of temperature, pH, and dissolved oxygen levels at strategic points on
the Ohio River and its tributaries. Monthly samples are taken at 36 locations in the
basin and are analyzed for 22 parameters. ORSANCO also monitors the river system
February 1994 Appendix A-16
-------
Appendte A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
through the use of electro-fishing programs/ monitoring wells/ and the tracking of
certain discharges for the compliance of the Pollution Control Standards.
Representative Projects
Volunteer monitoring project Kentucky/ Ohio/ Indiana (began in 1992). Sampling
programs/ organics detection system (at 15 places on river).
Grassroots Involvement
ORSANCO implemented the "Ohio River Sweep" program in conjunction with the
Ashland Oil Company. This program was designed to serve as a campaign for public
awareness and participation to address the problem of litter along the Ohio River
shoreline. In 1992, the program drew over 17/000 volunteers from six states. They
gathered 13/000 tons of trash and debris. ;SS z
tp
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
ORSANCO and the EPA operated a water quality testing station where visitors could
help perform simple water quality experiments.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Compact June 30,1948. Agreement signed
between the states.
Watershed Management Documents
The ORSANCO Outlook, quarterly newsletter.
Annual Report Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission.
The Ohio River Valley Water Sanitation Commission and Its Activities, presented at the
International Conference on Environmental Pollution, Lisbon, Portugal. April 1991.
February 1»M Appendix A-16
-------
Appcncix A. Program Proftttt ProfUMofWattrstMdOritnted
Part II.
Profiles of State Programs
H Arizona Active Management Area Program
H Nebraska Natural Resource District Program
H Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program
H Vermont Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Control Program
February 19M Appendix A-17
-------
Appendbt A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Arizona Department of Water Resources
Agency
Agencv:
Arizona Department of Water
Resources
Address:
15 South 15th Avenue
Citv-ST-Zip:
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Telephone:
(602)542-1550
Fax Telephone:
Contact Person:
Mark Frank, Dennis Sundie
Notes:
This program is marginally relevant to this research. However/ focusing as it does on
critical groundwater management areas, the coordinating strategies between the state
agencies with regard to the protection of groundwater is useful to understand.
Year and Method of Establishment
Arizona's Groundwater Code was enacted in 1980 to address the groundwater
overdraft problem of the state.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The primary objectives of this plan are: to control the allocation of groundwater in
certain areas of the state to remedy the problems of severe over-drafting, and to
establish regulatory measures by which conservation goals can be accomplished. The
primary goals of the Active Management Areas are to achieve maximum safe yield by
the year 2025.
Geographic Scale
The Groundwater Code established four Active Management Areas within the state
where the regulation of groundwater is the most severe. These areas are Phoenix,
Tucson, Final, and Prescott The Code also established two Irrigation Non-expansion
Areas in Douglas and Joseph City. A third area was added in 1982 in Harquahala.
The Final AMA covers approximately 4,000 square miles. This area includes five
groundwater sub-basins: Maricopa-Stanfield, Eloy, Vekol Valley, Santa Rosa Valley,
and Aguirre.
February 1994
Appendix A-18
-------
Appendte A. Program Profiles ProWec of Watershed Oriented
The Phoenix AMA covers 5,646 square miles. This area is divided into seven sub-
basins: East Salt River Valley, West Salt River Valley/ Hassayampa, Rainbow Valley,
Fountain Hills, Lake Pleasant and Carefree. The Tucson AMA covers 4,600 square
miles and includes both the Upper Santa Cruz and Avra Valley sub-basins. The
Prescott AMA cover 485 square miles in central Yavapai County. This area is
comprised of Little Chino and the Upper Aqua Fria groundwater sub-basins.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
River Basin Coordinating Commission - meet quarterly - North Arizona Council of
Governments, Department of Water Resources, USD A Forest Service, Soil Conservation
Service. For the purposes of meeting water quality and groundwater quality standards,
the Department of Water Resources has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding
with the state Department of Environmental Quality to assure the coordination of
responsibilities in the Active Management Areas.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
Funding is from the Department of Agriculture, about $750,000-$! million per 3 years.
Management
Management Structure
There are five management periods established within the Groundwater Code. The first
four of these time periods run for ten years each beginning in 1980, with the remaining
fifth period lasting five years. A separate management plan is to be adopted by each of
the AMAs. The composition of the management plan is primarily the conservation
requirements of persons whom must comply to the rules of groundwater allocation.
The state Environmental Quality Act, which established the Department of
Environmental Quality, provides for coordinated enforcement of the federal Clean
Water Act the Safe Drinking Water Act the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act,
and other relevant laws. The Departments of Water Resources and Environmental
Quality are empowered to carry out groundwater quality investigations and
remediation.
Degree of Authority
The requirement of the management plan are directly enforceable by the Director of
Water Resources. Likewise, the Department of Environmental Quality has full
permitting authority in the areas of groundwater quality protection.
February 1994 Appendix A-19
-------
ApfMOdu A* ProQTvn Profites Pfofwts of WdwsfMd Orimlsd
Management Techniques
The program of most relevance to this research is the Aquifer Protection Permit
program. It provides for the protection of aquifers, including the use of Best
Management Practices for agricultural uses.
Enforcement Mechanisms
If an annual report suggests that a particular user is in noncompliance with the
requirements they are supposed to be meeting, then the Department may audit the
records of the person for whom the report was filed. Audits may also be undertaken
even if no evidence or suggestion of noncompliance is witnessed. The Department may
inspect withdrawal locations to ascertain the compliance of requirements and may
obtain search warrants should these measures be necessary. If the Director holds reason
the believe a person is in violation of requirements, then he possesses the ability to
begin a process of judicial review if the individual can prove their compliance at a
hearing. The Director may recommend imposition of a courtf or a civil penalty of up to
ten thousand dollars per day or seek injunctive relief. The Groundwater Code allows
for criminal sanctions at the misdemeanor level for those who knowingly violate
requirements. No criminal prosecution has been brought to date under the
Groundwater Code.
Monitoring System
The monitoring requirements for entities with distribution systems are located in
section 4-104 of the Second Management Plans. The goal is to achieve the maximum
safest water supply by the year 2025.
Representative Projects
Major programs covered in the Second Management Plans are: agriculture conservation
requirements (irrigation water duties, maximum annual groundwater allotments, and
operating flexibility accounts, irrigation distribution systems), municipal conservation
program, total gallons per day program, alternative conservation program (includes
groundwater use limitation requirements, residential GPCD program, nonresidential
requirements, small municipal providers, institutional providers, untreated water
providers), individual use requirements, municipal distribution systems, monitoring
and reporting requirements, industrial conservation program, groundwater quality
assessment and management program, and the augmentation and reuse program.
February 1994 Appendix A-20
-------
ApfMixix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Grassroots Involvement
The Department of Water Resources actively encourages public participation and
comment There are events dealing with public education that are sponsored by the
Department of Natural Resources.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
None.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Arizona Groundwater Code, Area Management Plan
Watershed Management Documents
Producing one - available in July, Arizona Water Resources Study
February 1994 Appendix A-21
-------
Appmdbc A. Pragrm Proflh
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission, MD
Agency
Agency:
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area
Commission
Address:
45 Calvert Street 2nd Floor
Citv-ST-Zip:
Annapolis, MD 21401
Telephone:
(410) 974-2426
Fax Telephone:
(410)974-5338
Contact Person:
Sarah J. Taylor/ Executive Director
Notes:
Year and Method of Establishment
The Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission was created by act of the Maryland
General Assembly in 1984. The legislation to create the Commission was one of ten
pieces of legislation regarding restoration of the Chesapeake Bay that was enacted by
the Maryland General Assembly that year.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The Commission's two purposes are described in the enabling legislation:
1. "Establish a Resource Protection Program for the Chesapeake Bay and its
tributaries by fostering more sensitive development activity for certain shoreline
areas so as to minimize damage to water quality and natural habitats; and "
2. "Implement the Resource Protection Program on a cooperative basis between the
State and affected local governments/ with local governments establishing and
implementing their programs in a consistent and uniform manner subject to State
criteria and oversight"
The operating goals are to:
1. Manage adverse impacts on water quality that result from pollutants discharged
from structures or conveyances that have runoff from surrounding land
2. Conserve fish/ wildlife, and plant habitat
3. Establish land use policies for development in the Chesapeake Bay critical area that
accommodate growth and also address the fact that/ even if pollution is controlled/
the number, movement and activities of persons in that area can create adverse
impacts.
February 1994
Appendix A-22
-------
AppsndU A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Geographic Scale
The critical area is defined in the legislation as the Maryland waters of the Chesapeake
Bay, the lands under those waters/ and an area 1,000 feet back from the tidal waters of
the Bay. The regulations govern the land use and development activities within that
boundary of sixteen counties and thirty-seven municipalities.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The General Assembly defined a system of intergovernmental coordination for the
Critical Area Commission that is quite different from that negotiated in most states. It
defines a sharply hierarchical program in which the Commission has the authority to
review and approve local plans/ ordinances and significant development proposals;
and state projects within the critical area. The legislation urges local jurisdictions to
enter into cooperative agreements with relevant state and federal agencies for review of
projects/ technical support and advisory functions. The Commission's role as lead
agency for the Coastal Zone Program provides federal consistency as well.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The Critical Area Commission is funded via appropriations from the state legislature
and by contracts via its status as the state participant in the federal Coastal Zone
Management Program. Appropriations amount to about $1.1 million annually. CZM
funds/ all of which are allocated for planning use by the participating local
governments/ amounts to about $800/000 annually.
Management
Organizational Structure
The Commission is supported by a 25-member Board/ a full-time Chairman/ an
Executive Director/ and executive staff. The Board is filled according to a formula
defined in the legislation. Each of the seven counties names one member to the
Commission. The Chairman is named by and serves at the pleasure of the Governor/
while the Executive Director is hired by the Chairman. The Commission is an
independent state agency.
Types of Authority
The Commission's authority comes from the enabling legislation and the Criteria for
management The Commission was authorized to prepare the criteria and recommend
a system to the legislature. The General Assembly voted upon and approved the
February 1994 Appendix A-23
-------
App«ndU A. Program Proflto ProlU«« of Watershed Ortentod
criteria as a group by previous agreement so as not to bog the system down in special
interest amendments.
Management Techniques
The management Criteria approved by the General Assembly provide for a wide range
of beneficial environmental management techniques. Three objectives that apply
throughout the critical are:
1. Reinforce and expand state programs for sediment control and stormwater
management If standards are maintained, these programs are designated to local
jurisdictions for long term management
2. Conserve or enhance the forest resources within the critical area for water quality
benefits. This is done by requiring watercourses, shorelines, and nontidal wetlands
to be buffered by strips of natural plant communities.
3. Require that soil conservation and water quality management plans be
implemented on all farms. Techniques to be used include the application or
installation of best management practices for the following: soil, water, fertilizer,
pesticides, crop residues, and animal husbandry.
Within intensely developed area, the following practices are required to correct existing
water quality problems from nonpoint sources:
• Establish urban forestry programs and through landscape improvements.
• Reduce the amounts of impervious surfaces
• Redevelopment projects are required to incrementally improve the quality of
surface runoff.
In limited developed areas:
• Minimize surface areas disturbed by new development
• Limit the impervious area to 15 percent of the site
• Reduce road standards if safety is unaffected
• Prohibit development on steep slopes
• Limit forest clearing
• Require replanting of all cleared forests
In resource conservation areas:
• Maintain or increase the acreage of forest cover
• Require all farms to adopt a soil conservation and water quality management plan
• Low density development allowed in resource conservation areas must adhere to
the standards prescribed in limited development areas.
February 1994 Appendix A-24
-------
Appendta A. Program Profiles Profiles of Wcterched Oriented
Enforcement Mechanisms
The Chainnan of the Commission is given legal standing to pursue violators or to
appeal administrative decisions through all means of legal recourse. The Commission is
vested with consistency powers to ensure that the program is fully implemented.
Monitoring System
The Commission reports that its wide-ranging management area makes monitoring
difficult given the number of other Bay-oriented programs. A University of Maryland
study projects a positive long term effect on the Bay from the Critical Area Program.
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been In Force?
The Commission was instituted by the General Assembly in 1984.
Representative Projects
Commission projects are actually project reviews or ordinance reviews submitted for
approval by local jurisdictions or other state agencies.
Grassroots Involvement
This is not a grassroots-oriented program.
Program Benefits Identified to Date
No clear measurements of benefits is in place.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
Nearly half of the Commission's funding comes from the Coastal Zone Management
Program for use in planning functions by local jurisdictions.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission: Title 14 Independent Agencies, Natural
Resources Article Section 8-1801-1816, as amended.
Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Commission: Final Regulations, Subtitle 15 (COMAR
14.15.01 -14,15,11). 1986.
February 1994 Appendix A-26
-------
Apptndu JL Piuyitfn ProMM
Profiles of Watershed Orfcnted
Watershed Management Documents
Forty-six of the fifty three affected local units of government have prepared ordinances
and plans consistent with critical area criteria. These may be obtained from their
planning departments.
Notes:
The following comities are within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area:
Ann Arundel County
Baltimore County
Calvert County
Carolina County
Cecil County
Charles County
Dorchester County St Mary's County
Harf ord County Somerset County
Kent County Talbot County
Prince George's County Wicomico County
Queen Anne's County Worcester County
The following municipalities are within the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area:
Elkton Oxford
Federalsburg Perryville
Fruitiand Port Deposit
Annapolis
Baltimore City
Betterton
Cambridge
Centreville
Charlestown
Chesapeake Beach
Chesapeake City
Chestertown
Church Hill
Crisfield
Denton
Easton
Greensboro
Havre de Grace
Hillsboro
Indian Head
Leonardtown
Mardela Springs
Millington
North Beach
North East
Princess Anne
Queen Anne (Town)
Queenstown
Rock Hall
St Michaels
Secretary
Sharpstown
Snow Hill
Vienna
February 1994
Appendix A-26
-------
ApfwidbcJC Pioyimi Prafites
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Nebraska Natural Resource Districts
Agency
Aoencv:
Nebraska Natural Resource Districts
National Association of Resource
Districts
Address:
1327 H Street
Citv-ST-Zio:
Lincoln, NE 68508
Telephone:
(402)476-2729
Fax Telephone:
Contact Person:
Paul Zilig
Notes:
Don't have a comprehensive watershed management program.
Year and Method of Establishment
The Nebraska legislature created laws in 1969 that combined 154 special interest groups
into 24 Natural Resource Districts. In 1989 the number was reduced to 23 due to a
merger. These Districts became operational in 1972.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
As stated by the Statutes Relating to the Natural Resource District the purpose of the
Districts are to cover: erosion prevention and control; prevention of damages from
floodwater and sediment flood prevention and control; soil conservation; water supply
for any beneficial uses; development management utilization, and conservation of
groundwater and surface water; pollution control; solid waste disposal and sanitary
drainage; drainage improvement and channel rectification; development and
management of fish and wildlife habitat development and management of recreational
and park facilities; and forestry and range management
Geographic Scale
Encompasses the entire state of Nebraska. Individual NRDs vary in size from district to
district
February 1994
Appendix A-27
-------
Appmdta A. Program Profites Promts of Watershed OriMited
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
Inter-local agreements with other agencies, voluntary cooperation
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The NRDs possess the authority to levy properly taxes to fund their programs. The
NRDs will also combine and receive funds from other state/ local/ or federal agencies.
90% from local property tax/ 2% federal income at $8 million annually.
Management
Management Structure
The NRDs have directors that are elected by local voters, and serve for a four-year term
while governing the activities of the District
In order to bring together all of the NRDs/ the Nebraska Association of Resource
Districts (NARD) was created in 1972. This association is governed by a board of
elected delegates representing each of the 23 NRDs. The responsibilities of the NARD
include: to represent the NRDs and their viewpoints at the Nebraska Unicameral,
United States Congress/ and any other governmental agencies where the natural
resource policies of Nebraska are being reviewed and legislatively impacted with
various environmental programs; to provide service and materials to the districts which
can aid in the implementation of district goals and district operation (such as
economical retirement insurance/ and benefit package for NRD staff allowing more
local dollars to be spent on projects involving conservation); and to provide director
training, workshops, and citizen environmental awareness programs.
Degree of Authority
The NRDs are involved in monitoring and managing Nebraska's surface and
groundwater resources. They possess the authority to establish regulations concerning
controlling groundwater usage. The NRDs may also form a rural water district to
supply for domestic, industrial, and livestock uses. The NRDs are the agencies
responsible for organizing and administering these rural water districts in order to
provide for a potable supply of water. The NRDs may implement a variety of
legislative and administrative programs that allow for the maintenance of a high
degree of water quality. The NRDs provide for water quality testing and monitoring
programs of rural wells to determine the quality of water supplies and to inform
people of potential hazards. NRDs may also ask for and establish areas for special
protection due to contamination. Each NRD is required to inspect and certify that all
February 1994 Appendix A-28
-------
Appwidta A. Program Promts Profiles of Watershed Orimted
irrigation systems which pump agricultural chemicals through closed piping comply
with the Nebraska Chemigation Act This act was created in order to mitigate
groundwater contamination through the use of irrigation practices. The NRDs
sponsored programs aimed at helping the farmer control erosion through conservative
soil practices. The NRDs/ either alone or with state and federal agencies/ build and
operate flood control structures. These structures could include dams/ reservoirs/
levees/ dikes/ or linear parks along rivers or streams.
Management Techniques
Each NRD has a Ground Water Management Plan that documents resources/
establishes management techniques/ and protects the groundwater.
Enforcement Mechanisms
No authority over floodplain or zoning authorities.
Design of Data Collection Efforts
NRDs measure and record groundwater levels.
Monitoring System
Studies to determine overall quality
Representative Projects
Many of the NRDs administer the PL 556 - Watershed Program with the Soil and
Conservation Service. Under this program/ the whole watershed is designated as under
the need of protection. Grade stabilization and flood control dams could be
implemented to help to slow down the rainwater runoff flowing into rivers and
streams. By controlling flooding there is hope that overall soil erosion will be reduced.
Grassroots Involvement
Most NRD board meetings are covered by the media and news releases are often sent
to local TV stations/ radio stations/ and newspapers. Information about the NRDs may
be maintained through newsletters/ brochures/ and visiting speakers. Many of the
NRDs will provide displays at various community events. NRDs participate in
National Soil and Water Stewardship Week by distributing packets of soil and water
conservation materials to schools and churches. There are also educational programs to
help both students and teachers become more aware of the natural environment Many
of the NRDs provide scholarships to high school students who pursue a career in the
February 1994 Appendix A-29
-------
ProtllM of WMmtad Ortontod
field of natural resources and teachers who attend environmental education courses or
workshops by the NRD themselves.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
Indirect through State - i.e, clean lake study very important to have.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Groundwater Management Act
Nebraska Chemigation Act
Erosion and Sediment Control Act
Statutes relating to Instream Appropriations
Watershed Management Documents
None
Closing Notes
The 23 NRDs are:
Central Platte NRD
Lewis and Clark NRD
Little Blue NRD
Lower Big Blue NRD
Lower Elkhorn NRD
Lower Loup NRD
Lower Niobrara NRD
Upper Niobrara White
NRD
Lower Platte South NRD
Lower Republican NRD
Middle Niobrara NRD
Middle Republican NRD
Nemaha NRD
North Platte NRD
Papio-Missouri River NRD
Lower Platte North NRD
South Platte NRD
Tri-Basin NRD
Twin Platte NRD
Upper Big Blue NRD
Upper Elkhorn NRD
Upper Loup NRD
Upper Republican NRD
February 1994
Appendix A-30
-------
AppMMHX JL PlOQnm PfOUM
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program
Agency
Agency: Telephone:
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources (608) 266-9254
Nonpoint Source and Land Mgmt
Section
Bureau of Water Resources Mgmt
Address:
101S. Webster Street
P.O. Box 7921
Citv-ST-Zip:
Madison WI53707-7921
Fax Telephone:
(608)267-2800
Contact Person:
Rebecca R. Wallace, P.E., Chief
Notes:
Year and Method of Establishment
The Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program was enacted by
the state legislature in 1978 under S. 144.25 of the Statutes and Chapter NR120,
Wisconsin Administrative Code. It is part of a larger program that provided federal
and state funding for pollution cleanup, known as the Wisconsin Fund.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The Wisconsin Priority Watersheds Program deals with entire watersheds on a
selective or priority basis and strives to control every significant source of nonpoint
pollution in these watersheds.
There are three basic premises that shape the program:
1. It must be comprehensive. All critical nonpoint sources must be controlled.
2. Because of the comprehensive nature of Wisconsin's program and the emphasis on
water quality goals, the nonpoint source control program is separate from existing
soil conservation programs. The two are coordinated through a Memorandum of
Understanding.
3. Nonpoint source pollution control is, by definition, a water quality program. As
such, it requires strong technical involvement by Wisconsin DNR, the state water
quality agency.
February 1994
Appendix A-31
-------
AppMdte A. Program ProMM ProlHes of Watershed Oriented
Geographic Scale
fcThe program covers the entire state. By 1992, fifty-six watersheds/ ranging in size
typically from 100 to 300 square miles, had been designated as priority watersheds by
die Department of Natural Resources.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The program requires coordinated implementation on a voluntary basis from the state
and federal agencies; municipal/ country and town governments; and landowners and
land operators. The two primary state agencies involved/ the Department of Natural
Resources and the Department of Agriculture/ Trade and Consumer Protection/ are tied
together by MOU to assure coordination. Local governments are responsible for local
implementation. Landowners and municipalities that participate voluntarily receive
educational and technical assistance plus 50% to 70% cost sharing from state funds to
install approved management practices.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The source of funding is the Wisconsin Fund/ set up in 1978 to pay for major pollution
cleanup programs in the state. It is also responsible for funding the state's point source
reduction efforts. The nonpoint program is known as the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source
Water Pollution Abatement Program. From FY1979 through FY1987, at a time when
the program had 29 priority watersheds, the state had allocated $36 million to the
program/ less than 20% of which was spent on administration.
Management
Management Structure
The program is administered by the Department of Natural Resources through the
Nonpoint Source and Land Management Section of the Bureau of Water Resources
Management Each watershed plan has five major components that mirror the overall
state program:
1. A statement of program purpose and objectives
2. Establishment of criteria for project selection
3. A plan stating objectives and identifying critical pollution sources
4. Program and project administrative structure
5. State budget support
February 10M Appendix A-32
-------
Appendbc A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
The management plan is a cooperative, coordinated system administered by the
Department of Natural Resources. The counties, participants in the preparation of the
watershed assessment which is the basis for the plan/ participate in the planning
process via resolution of the County Boards of Supervisors. The counties enter into
agreements with DNR for the purpose of receiving funds for management
enforcement and cost-sharing with private property owners and land operators.
Types of Authority
The program essentially is a voluntary program that works to recruit at least 75% of the
property owners or operators that create nonpoint problems. Counties and
municipalities are encouraged to enact or strengthen erosion control ordinances and
stormwater management plans. Some may be asked to enact special ordinances
governing the control of animal waste.
The primary vehicle for implementation is the cost share agreement between the county
and the property owner/operator. It specifies a package approach to the installation of
Best Management Practices to ensure that all forms of pollution reduction .are
employed, rather than those viewed as most desirable by landholders.
Management Techniques
The purpose of the program is to control nonpoint source pollution in a systematic
manner so surface and groundwater quality goals can be accomplished within a
reasonable time frame. The program is designed to deal with the wide variety of
nonpoint sources that exist throughout the state including sediment from croplands,
construction sites, stream banks, and grazed woodlots; nutrient loads from barnyard
runoff, cropland runoff, manure spread on croplands, and runoff from city lawns and
streets; and heavy metals and other toxic substances in stormwater runoff from various
urban sources.
The three major program objectives are to:
1. Identify the most effective approach for achieving specific water quality objectives
and to provide adequate financial and technical assistance to landowners and
operators for installation of approved nonpoint source control practices
2. Provide coordination between the nonpoint source pollution control program and
other state water quality programs
3. Focus limited technical, educational and financial resources on critical geographic
areas
The DNR uses six selection criteria to select priority watershed projects. They are:
1. Severity of the water quality problems
2. The magnitude of the pollutant load and potential for significant reduction
February 1994 Appendix A-33
-------
Appendh A. Program PnMn _ Profiles of Waterehed Oriented
3. Willingness of landowners to participate
4. Willingness of local government to participate
5. Willingness and capability of local government to control nonpoint pollution; for
instance, their willingness to enact erosion control ordinances for construction sites
6. Potential public use and benefits that will result from the project
The watershed project covers an eight to nine year period. Following approval of the
watershed plan, three years are allotted to recruiting landowners to participate and
entering into agreements to install the practices. They then have up to five years to
install the BMP systems.
The state cost-share rates for Best Management Practices are as follows:
Best Management Practice Flat Cost-Share Rate
Contour Farming [[[ . .............. $6.00/ac.
Strip Cropping [[[ $12.00/ac.
Field Strip Cropping [[[ $10.00/ac.
Reduced Tillage [[[ !. $15.00/ac. 1
Reduced Tillage [[[ $45.00/ac. 2
-------
Appendta A. Program ProMM Profiles of Wrtmtwd Oriented
Best Management Practice State Cost-Share Rate
Rural BMPs
Contour Farming 50% *
Contour Strip Farming 50% *
Field Strip Cropping 50% *
Field Diversions and Terraces.. 70%
Grassed Waterways 70%
Reduced Tillage 50%
Critical Area Stabilization 70% 1
Grade Stabilization Structures 70%
Agricultural Sediment Basins 70%
Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization 70%
Shoreline Buffers 70% 1
Barnyard Runoff Management 70%
Animal Lot Relocation 70%
Manure Storage Facilities 70% **
Livestock Exclusion from Woodlots 50%
Wetland Restoration 70% 1
Roofs for Barnyard Runoff Management
& Manure Storage Facilities 70%
Nutrient and Pesticide Management 50% 2
Urban BMPs
Critical Area Stabilization 70% 3
Grade Stabilization Structures. 70%
Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization 70%
Shoreline Buffers 70% 3
Wetland Restoration 70% 3
Structural Urban Practices 70% 4
Street Sweeping 50% 5
1. Easements may be entered into with landowners identified in the watershed plan in
conjunction with these BMPs.
2- Spill control basins have a cost-share rate of 70 percent.
^ Wildlife habitat restoration components of this practice are cost-shared at 70 percent.
** Maximum cost-share amount is $10,000 including no more than $5,000 for manure transfer
equipment.
3. Easements may be used in conjunction with these practices.
4- Applies only to structures for established urban areas. Established urban surfaces are
considered to be those in existence prior to the date the DNR approves the watershed plan.
5- This is an alternative best management practice not listed in NR 120 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code..
February 1994 Appendix A-36
-------
Appmdta A. Program PraffM Profiles ofWaterriMd Oriented
The projected total budget for the rural portion of the watershed plan includes capital
costs, easements/ local government costs/ information and education, and other direct
costs.
Priority Watershed Plans
Urban Strategies Eligible for Funding
Urban Strategy • Flat Cost-Share Rate
Development of Construction Erosion Control Ordinances 100%
Development of Stormwater Management Ordinances 100%
Engineering Studies for Existing Urban Areas; Studies for
Planned Urban Areas 100% 1
Design and Engineering for Structural BMPs 100%
Local Enforcement Staff. 100% 2
Staff for Accelerated Street Sweeping : 100% 2
Development of Alternative Financing And Admin. Strategies.. 100%
1. Funding not available for components dealing exclusively with drainage and flooding.
2. Funding limited to five years. Level of staffing based on a work plan submitted by local units
of government and approved by the DNR.
Landowners/ land operators/ villages/ cities/ counties/ and state agencies all have a
hand in implementing the program. Their major responsibilities are as follows:
Landowners and Land Operators: Adopt Rural Best Management Practices which
reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution and protect and enhance fish, wildlife and
other resources.
For the urban program/ private landowners in certain circumstances will install BMPs
on their property.
Villages and Cities: For the rural program/ enact a manure storage ordinance meeting
the provisions outlined by the Department of Agriculture/ Trade and Consumer
Protection in Ag 166.98. The intent of this ordinance is to prevent pollution of
groundwater by poorly designed and constructed animal waste storage facilities.
For the urban program/ there are two parts to the program/ a set of core programs and
segmented programs (those projects requiring site specific investigations prior to
implementation). The core tasks are to:
• Enact an adequate construction erosion ordinance
• Develop and implement a community specific program of urban housekeeping
practices that reduce urban nonpoint source pollution
• Implement the information and education strategy
February 1994 Appendix A-36
-------
Appendta A. Program ProMn Profiles of Watershed Oriented
The segmented program tasks are to:
• Identify high priority segments the community wishes to pursue in existing and
planned urban areas/ including an evaluation of source reduction and financing
• Conduct engineering feasibility and site location studies for high priority areas
• Adopt administer/ and enforce a comprehensive stormwater management
ordinance
• Enter into cost-share agreements for eligible BMFs
• Conduct detailed alternative financing/implementation studies which determine
the means to pay for administering nonpoint source control program in each
municipality
Counties: For the rural program:
• Develop farm conservation plans consistent with the needs of the project
• Enter into nonpoint source cost-share agreements with eligible landowners and
enforce the terms and provisions of the agreements and management their
reimbursement
• For county-owned and operated lands/ enter into cost-share agreements with the
DNR to correct identified nonpoint sources and fulfill their obligations as cost-share
recipients
• Design best management practices and verify proper practice installation
• Prepare and submit annual work plans and an annual work load analysis and grant
application to the Department of Agriculture/ Trade and Consumer Protection
• Prepare and submit annual resource management reports to monitor
implementation by tracking changes in the nonpoint source inventory and
quantifying pollutant load reductions which result from installing BMPs.
• Conduct the information and education activities identified in the plan for which
they are responsible
For urban areas/ the counties must take the same urban actions as municipalities for
their unincorporated areas.
Department of Natural Resources: DNR responsibilities include project administration/
financial support via local assistance grant agreements and nonpoint source grant
agreements; project evaluation; technical assistance; assisting county staff with site
reviews of projects affecting wetlands or groundwater; and assisting county staff with
the integration of fish and wildlife management concerns into the BMPs.
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection: The DATCP role is
identified in s. 144.25, stats/ ch. 92 stats; and NR 120. The major responsibilities are:
manage a training program for the staff involved in implementation; act as a
February 1994 Appendix A-37
-------
ApfMndb A. Piuymi PretHcs
ProfUM of Watershed Orimted
clearinghouse for information related to agricultural BMPs, sustainable agriculture and
nutrient and pest management; assist in carrying out the information and education
programs/ assist in identifying watershed participants subject to federal or state
conservation compliance programs; assist counties in developing manure storage
ordinances; assist in developing technical standards for agricultural BMPs; and assist in
evaluating the site specific practicality of implementing rural BMPs.
Management Techniques
This is a management plan for the abatement of rural nonpoint source pollution. The
Best Management Practices employed generally use specific standard specifications
included in the Soil Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide. Additional
specifications may apply. The techniques used include:
,oc. . M.
Grade Stabilization Structures
Agricultural Sediment Basins
Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization
Shoreline Buffers
Barnyard Runoff Management
Animal Lot Relocation
Manure Storage Facilities
Wetland Restoration
Nutrient and Pesticide Management
Contour Farming
Contour Strip Cropping
Field Strip Cropping
Field Diversions and Terraces
Grassed Waterways
Reduced Tillage
Critical Area Stabilization
Livestock Exclusion from Woodlots
Roofs for Barnyard Runoff Management
& Manure Storage Facilities
Enforcement Mechanisms
Wisconsin DNR has the power to review and approve local plans, including all aspects
of administration and management Stormwater management plans must be consistent
with die state model ordinance and must meet pollutant reduction goals. Individual
BMPs are controlled via contract Landowners or operators required to participate but
who do not would lose the cost-share arrangement in favor of a low-interest loan
program.
Monitoring System
The plan includes a regimen for monitoring both administrative and pollutant load
management systems. The County is primarily responsible for administrative and
pollutant load tracking. The system using CAMPS, the Computer Assisted
Management and Planning System, developed by SCS.
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been in Force?
This program was enacted in 1978.
February 1984
Appendix A-M
-------
Appwxix A. Program Profltes Profiles of Watershed Oricnta
Representative Projects
There are fifty-six priority watershed plans in practice or under development Four
examples—Lower East Branch Pecatonica River/ Black Earth Creek, Milwaukee River/
and Menomonee River—are included as separate profiles in this report
Grassroots Involvement
DNR convenes advisory subcommittees to assist in preparing the plan. Acting
primarily as a policy guidance group/ the committee also reviews plan chapters.
Members include representatives of local governments/ conservation groups/ interested
citizens/ and utility and planning agencies. Each plan has an extensive program built in
for raising awareness and providing information. It uses printed materials/ audio- l
visual programs/ exhibits/ media/ tours/ demonstrations, signs/ workshops/ meetings/
and youth education. Sub-groups targeted include rural landowners and operators/
local governments/ urban residents/ business and industry/ and youth. The program is
tailored for each sub-group and designed by the University of Wisconsin Extension.
Program Benefits Identified to Date
Results over the first eight years indicate pollutant load reductions of 50% to 70%.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
US EPA has funded many of these plans in part through the Section 319 program. The
assistance is considered very valuable by the State.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Section NR 120.08(2)(cr) of the Wisconsin Administrative Code. 1978.
Watershed Management Documents
Nonpoint Source Evaluation Monitoring Activities. Prepared by the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources. March 1991. Publication WR-279-91.
Fields and Streets, the Newsletter for Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement Program. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
Nonpoint Source Pollution: Where To Go with the Flow: Wisconsin's Challenge for the
Next Decade. Wisconsin DNR Special Report January-February 1986.
February 1994 Appendix A-39
-------
Appendbt A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Vermont Nonpoint Source Management Program
Agency
Aoencv:
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources
Dept of Environmental Conservation
Water Quality Division
Address:
Building 10 North
103 South Main Street
Citv-ST.-Zip:
Waterburv, CT 05671-0408
Telephone:
(802)244-6951
Fax Telephone:
(802)241-3287
Contact Person:
Stephan B. Syz
Notes:
This analysis is based in part on a document entitled Vermont Nonpoint Source
Management Program; Phase One of the State Clean Water Strategy, dated August,
1988. A newer version of this report was released at press time. Germane data will be
included in the print version of this report.
Year and Method of Establishment
The Vermont Nonpoint Source Management Program was prepared in response to the
federal Clean Water Act Amendments of 1987. It is a state program managed by the
Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental Conservation.
The process which led to the enactment of this program was commissioned by the
Secretary of the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources. It is part of the Vermont Clean
Water Strategy.
The Secretary commissioned the Vermont Nonpoint Source Task Force and directed it
to perform two tasks: (1) using a public process, identify priority or targeted
water-bodies to be emphasized in future nonpoint programs, and (2) review the
technical and programmatic adequacy of nonpoint source control measures, including
best management practices and implementation programs. Vermont is one of the first
states with an EPA-approved NPS program. It was approved in March 1989.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The goal of this program is to meet the spirit and intent of the Federal Qean Water Act
The program is seeking to make every stream and water body in the state suitable for
all uses. The review processes completed by the state indicate that the following
nonpoint problems exist and are the priorities for action in this plan:
February 1994
Appendix A-40
-------
AppMdta A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Surface Waters Groundwater
Siltation and turbidity Pollutants originating from landfills
Nutrients Petroleum product storage or transport
Flow alteration Human waste disposal systems
Noxious aquatic plants
Geographic Scale
The Vermont program is statewide in scope/ addressing 17 separate watershed basins/
some lake drainage and some river and stream drainage. The plan covers the state's
5/264 stream miles; 600 lakes and ponds over five acres in area/ covering 228/383 total
acres (including Lake Champlain at 174/175 acres); and approximately 220/000 acres of
wetlands. Focal points of the planning and management efforts are the state's twelve
regional planning and development commissions; fourteen natural resource
conservation districts/ and five district fisheries managers/ part of the Vermont
Department of Fish and Wildlife. The average size of the water basins is 565 square
miles.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
None specifically defined.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
As of December 1992, Vermont had received $645/700 from US EPA for Section 319
during FY1991-1992. Additional funding from EPA was provided from Section
205 (j)and 604(b) funds. Most of this funding is passed through to municipalities and
the regional planning and development commissions. The Lake Champlain Special
Designation Act provides $25 million to address lake-wide pollution control projects, of
which $265,000 was allocated in 1991 to three nonpoint source projects. The USD A
operates several programs aimed at reducing agricultural pollution, including the
Rural Clean Water Program. The most aggressive program in the state/ for the St
Albans watershed, has resulted in signed contracts from farmers covering 35% of the
watershed at a cost of $2.2 million.
Management
Organizational Structure
Vermont's Nonpoint Source Management Program is a straightforward implementation
of EPA's guidance on nonpoint management as governed by the 1987 Clean Water Act
February 1994 Appendix A-41
-------
Appendta A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Amendments. Similarly to the successful Wisconsin program/ Vermont has completed a
process of assessment and identification/ followed by a program for installation of
BMPs, local coordination/ coordination with other state and federal agencies/ active
educational programs/ regular monitoring, and continued planning. Because the state is
more homogeneous than many and has a small population/ it is not wracked with the
extreme burdens of large scale combined sewer overflows/ and can concentrate its
program on the rural parts of the state.
Types of Authority
Vermont is one of the few states in which land use control authority resides at the state
level. The state has also adopted many different programs that address nonpoint source
problems wholly or in part The Lake Champlain Special Designation enables the state
to pursue special programs to monitor and control phosphorus loading, a significant
problems/ and to attack a noxious plant the Eurasian Milrift that threatens 12% of the
state's larger lake acreage.
One program that is unusual compared to other states is a system for identifying high
priority river basins/ establishing river management goals/ and applying those
standards for hydroelectric facility relicensing by the Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission. Hydroelectric relicensing is a major water resource issue in Vermont but
FERC historically overrides state concerns on the environmental impacts of
hydropower development in favor of increased power production. The program/ is
designed to address directly language in the Federal Power Act that says FERC may
adopt state comprehensive plans that address all river uses/ including hydropower
uses. This proposes a "highest and best use" strategy that designates some rivers for
hydropower development and others for other public purposes.
In Vermont four rivers have had comprehensive river plans prepared that will lead to
local river protection efforts/ may include hydropower relicensing sensitive to state
concerns. These rivers will be focal points of nonpoint source management programs.
Management Techniques
The nonpoint program uses six basic management systems to achieve its goals. They
are education/ financial assistance/ technical assistance/ monitoring and evaluation,
regulatory enforcement and oversight and continued planning. As with other state
nonpoint programs/ it identifies certain impaired and threatened surface and ground
water areas as water resources of primary concern. Eighty-seven surface water bodies
and four groundwater bodies are accorded this distinction.
The state has adopted ten sets of Best Management Practices which apply directly to the
nonpoint source program. They are:
February 1994 Appendix A-42
-------
AppmdU A. Program Proflto* Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Best Management Practice .......... Responsible Agency/Department
Agricultural Acceptable Management VT Department of Agriculture
Practices
Acceptable Management Practices for VT Dept of Forests, Parks, and Recreation
Silviculture
Policy on Gold Dredging VT Agency of Natural Resources
Rules and Standards for Septic Systems VT Agency of Natural Resources
Procedures for Bridge Cleaning VT Agency of Transportation
Soil Erosion and Sediment Control on VT Department of Environmental Conservation
Construction Sites Handbook
Standards for Ground Water Protection VT Department of Environmental Conservation
Standards for Ski Trail Erosion Control VT Dept. of Forests, Parks, and Recreation
Silviculture
Policies for Controlling Spread of VT Department of Environmental Conservation
Nuisance Aquatic Plants
Wetland Rules VT Department of Environmental Conservation
The 305(b) report prepared in December 1992 defines a four-year action plan to address
nonpoint issues. The program/ which includes budget estimates for the period/ is
outlined in the following table. ;
Enforcement Mechanisms
Best Management Practices are installed under contract with a managing agency. The
contract itself is one device to assure implementation. However/ most BMP programs
are voluntary/ and may get no more than 15 percent of the watershed's land area under
contract Other than that the state has full authority to carry out its regulatory and
monitoring systems.
Monitoring System
Monitoring programs are built into all phases of the program.
February 1994 Appendix A-43
-------
AppMidb A. PiuyiHii Profltes
Profile* of Watershed Oriented
Vermont Nonpoint Source Management Program
Program and Funding Projections 1989-1992
(Taken from Vermont NPS Management Program 8/88)
Major Priority Action
Program
Control/Reduce Agricultural Land Runoff
Available Funds
1989
$ 2,000,000
Control/Reduce Erosion/Sedimentation 65,000
from Construction Sites & Logging Operations
Reduce River Flow Alteration & Regulation
Impacts
Reduce Threat, Control Spread & Alleviate
Impairments Caused by Eurasian Milfoil
Lake Champlain Phosphorus Management
Strategy
Lake Watershed Growth Management
Correction of CSO Problems
Landfill Assessment and Management
Management/Remediation of Hazardous
Sites and Generators
Protection of Wetlands
Ground Water Management & Protection
Aquatic Toxidty Assessment
Reduce Impacts of Hydroelectric
Modifications in Upland Areas
Design/Implement Atmospheric Deposition
Monitoring (Acid and Toxic Forms), Seek
Federal Adoption of Emission Standards
Reduce/Eliminate Failed Septic Systems
Total Funding Available/Needed
75,000
82,000
850,000
157,000
14,000,000
890,000
2,500,000
40,000
130,000
(Needed) 25,000
25,000
5,000
50,000
40,000
$20,934,000
Needed
1990
$ 2,800,000
55,000
145,000
472,000+
Unknown
90,000
20,000,000
1,900,000
4,100,000
185,000
1,600,000+
50,000
75,000
150,000
175,000
$31,797,000+
Needed
1991
$ 2,800,000
75,000
95,000
465,000+
Unknown
90,000
29,000,000
Unknown
4,100,000
185,000
1,600,000+
50,000
75,000
150,000
175,000
$40,760,000+
Needed
1992
$ 3,700,000
55,000
95,000
465,000+
Unknown
90,000
31,000,000
Unknown
4,100,000
185,000
1,600,000+
50,000
75,000
150,000
175,000
$43,640,000+
How Long Has the Management Program Been in Force?
The document was approved by US EPA in March 1989.
February 1994
Appendix A-44
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profile* of Watershed Oriented
Representative Projects
Vermont is one of the few states that have enacted shoreland zoning programs. These
require local governments to establish setback and management systems for
development including agriculture/ around lakes larger than five acres. This technique
is applicable to the lake watershed growth management program listed above. The
state also uses an agricultural BMP program similar to that used in Wisconsin.
Grassroots Involvement
The process to identify priority watersheds included twelve regional workshops and
one statewide meeting. The Nonpoint Source Task Force consisted of twenty
representatives from diverse organizations/ including four state agencies/ municipal
governments/ industry and tourism groups/ environmental and planning organizations.
Program Benefits Identified to Date
Vermont reports several benefits from the nonpoint program to date. They include:
establishment of minimum flows below hydroelectric facilities through the
comprehensive rivers planning initiative/ lake water quality protection efforts/ the
designation of three outstanding resource waters and reclassification of two stream
segments from Class 8 to Class A.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
Vermont has received $645,700 from US EPA for Section 319 projects during FY1991-
1992. Funding from EPA was provided from Section 205 (j)and 604(b) funds. Most of
this is passed through to municipalities and the regional planning and development
commissions. The funding appears to be critical to the success of the program.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Vermont Nonpoint Source Management Program; Phase One of the State Clean Water
Strategy. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, Department of Environmental
Conservation, Water Quality Division. Waterbury, Vermont August 1988.
Watershed Management Documents
1992 Water Quality Assessment (Section 305(b) Report). Agency of Natural Resources,
Department of Environmental Conservation, Water Quality Division. Waterbury, VT.
December 1992.
February 1994 Appendix A-46
-------
Appendix A. Program ProfUM Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Part III.
Profiles of Sub-State or Regional Programs
H Cape Cod Commission—MA
H New Jersey Pinelands Commission—NJ
H Northwest Florida Water Management District- FL
H Phoenix Active Management Area—AZ
H South Florida Water Management District— FL
H Southwest Florida Water Management District—FL
February 1994 Appendix A-46
-------
Appcndu A. PiuyiMn Pioflws
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Cape Cod Commission, MA
Agency:
Cape Cod Commission
Address:
3225 Main Street
P.O. Box 226
Citv-ST-Zip:
Barnstable, MA 02630
Telephone:
(508) 362-3828
Fax Telephone:
(508)362-3136
Contact Person:
Thomas C Cambareri
Water Resources Coordinator
Notes:
The focus of the Cape Cod Commission is on groundwater protection.
Year and Method of Establishment
The Cape Cod Commission was formally approved as the regional land use regulatory
agency for Barnstable County and its incorporated municipalities in 1990. Prior to that
time, it had operated as a regional planning and advisory agency. The Commission had
been formed initially by Act of the Massachusetts legislature.
The voters of Barnstable County moved the Commission from being a normal regional
planning agency with advisory powers to one with regulatory powers due to the
impacts of development and growth on the Cape, and concern about the regions
resources, especially its water supply.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The Commission is empowered with three responsibilities: (1) regulatory control of
developments with regional impact (DRIs); (2) comprehensive planning services for the
county and its political subdivisions; and (3) technical services in support of the
regulatory and comprehensive planning programs. The Regional Policy Plan sets the
minimum performance standards for land use/growth management, natural resources,
economic development, community facilities and services, affordable housing and
historic preservation.
The Regional Plan has two goals related to water quality and nonpoint sources of
pollution:
February 1994
Appendix A-47
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
1. Maintain the overall quality and quantity of Cape Cod's ground water to ensure a
sustainable supply of high quality untreated drinking water and to preserve and
improve the ecological integrity of marine and fresh surface waters
2. Encourage the use of public and private sewage treatment facilities in appropriate
areas where they will provide environmental or other public benefits and where
they can be adequately managed and maintained
Geographic Scale
The Commission is responsible for all of Barnstable, which is wholly the arm of Cape
Cod. It is seventy in length and covers 399 square miles.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The Cape Cod Commission is a regional commission empowered by the Cape Cod
Commission Act under the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. The approval
to regulate development proposals of regional impact and districts of critical planning
concern was granted by the voters in 1988 and 1990. The Regional Policy Plan, which
was required by the Legislative Enabling Act, sets minimum performance standards for
land use and growth management and Local Comprehensive Plans.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The Commission's Water Resources Program received about $70,000 funding this year.
It is drawn mostly from a variety of grant programs, both state and federal. The total
budget is $1.9 million drawn mostly from property taxes.
Management
Organizational Structure
Each of the fifteen municipalities sends a representative to the Commission. They are
joined by a Governor's appointee, a representative of the minority community, a Native
American representative, and a County Commissioner.
Types of Authority
The Commission has the authority to regulate Developments of Regional Impact (DRIs)
and Districts of Critical Planning Concern (DCPCs). DRIs are projects, according to
interim standards, that would construct thirty or more new housing units, or 10,000
square feet or more of new commercial space. DCPCs allow increased scrutiny on areas
needing special attention. Adopting upon a nomination process, these areas may
February 1994 Appendix A-48
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
possess a major public capital facility, or significant coastal, natural, historic, economic,
cultural, archeological, architectural or recreational resources. They may also be areas
with sensitive ecological conditions rendering them unsuitable for development
The voting members of the Commission have the power to approve, approve with
conditions, or disapprove permit applications falling under the scope of these
thresholds.
The Commission is also empowered to prepare the Regional Policy Plan for the county.
It is a plan emphasizing goals and objectives, rather than specific standards or
techniques.
The Cape Cod Aquifer, which serves nearly all of Cape Cod, was designated by US
EPA as a Sole Source Aquifer. The EPA and MA Department of Environmental Quality
Engineering, in cooperation with the US Geological Survey, initiated the Cape Cod
Aquifer Management Project to improve the coordination of groundwater
management
State programs that affect the management area include the Department of
Environmental Protection's (DEP) Groundwater Discharge Permit Program, the
Wellhead Protection Program, the Aquifer Lands Acquisition Program, and
Massachusetts Environmental Protection Act A detailed study of the safe yield of the
aquifer is being completed under the auspices of the State Water Management Act
Once completed the DEP will regulate groundwater withdrawals to ensure a safe yield.
Finally, the municipalities each have their own land use plans that affect the
management of nonpoint source water pollution.
Management Techniques
The Commission sets minimum performance standards to meet important objectives
pertaining to the protection of groundwater. One of these states that all development
and redevelopment shall not exceed 5 ppm nitrate-nitrogen loading for impact on
groundwater according to a Commission approved methodology.
Another is for Wellhead Protection Areas, defined as zones of contribution to existing
public and community water supply wells. Maintaining the 5 ppm nitrate-nitrogen
impact standard, the plan states that DRIs that generate more than 2000 gpd of sewage
effluent may be required to perform a cumulative impact analysis according to
Commission-approved methodology.
For these areas, commercial and industrial proposals that involve the use, treatment,
generation, storage or disposal of hazardous waste or hazardous materials, with the
exception of retail sales and household uses, are not permitted.
February 1994 Appendix A-49
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Public and private sewage or septage treatment is generally not permitted in these
areas.
fresh Water Recharge Areas consist of recharge areas to fresh water ponds. To control
phosphorus inputs, 300 foot setbacks from these sites is required for subsurface
disposal unless the applicant demonstrates by groundwater study that the site is not in
a Fresh Water Recharge Area.
DRIs that generate over 2000 gpd of sewage effluent may be required to delineate
ground water recharge areas to potentially affected fresh water ponds to identify and
mitigate adverse impacts.
Marine Water Recharge Areas are nitrogen-sensitive embayments. Development
proposals may be required to delineate the ground water recharge areas to
downgradient embayments and other marine waters that may be nitrogen sensitive in
order to avoid or mitigate adverse impacts.
Development and redevelopment shall not exceed identified critical nitrate-nitrogen
loading standards for nitrogen impact on marine ecosystems. Proposals that would
generate more than 2000 gpd of sewage effluent may be required to prepare a
cumulative impact analysis, including flushing rate determination, prior to a permit
being issued.
Impaired Areas are sites where ground water may have been degraded by point and
nonpoint sources of pollution, including but not limited to unsewered residential
developments where lots, on average are less than 20,000 sq. ft; landfills, septage and
wastewater treatment plant discharge sites; high density commercial and industrial
areas; and those downgradient areas where the ground water may have been degraded
by these sources. All identified growth centers are also classified as Impaired Areas.
Generally, development shall meet the 5 ppm standard for nitrate-nitrogen loading for
impact on ground water, but may increase to 10 ppm where it can be demonstrated that
such increase will cause no significant adverse impact on wetlands, water bodies,
public or private drinking water supply wells and potential water supply wells.
Where existing development exceeds 10 ppm, redevelopment of that property shall not
increase the existing nitrate-nitrogen loading factor.
Public and private sewage treatment facilities and other similar remedial systems shall
be encouraged to locate in Impaired Areas. The development of public or community
water supply systems shall be encouraged for areas serviced by private wells in
Impaired Areas.
Water Quality Improvement Areas are Impaired Areas that are located within
Wellhead Protection Areas, Fresh Water and Marine Water Recharge Areas. In such
areas, water quality improvement is a major goal. In these areas, development shall not
February 1994 Appendix A-60
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
exceed 5 ppm of nitrate-nitrogen loading or an identified marine water standard as
applicable. Where existing development exceeds that standard, redevelopment shall
improve existing levels of nitrate-nitrogen loading. Public and private sewage
treatment facilities may only be used in Water Quality Improvement areas within
Wellhead Protection Areas to remedy existing problems.
Potential Public Water Supply Anas are sites identified as future well sites and their
associated recharge areas. No development shall be permitted in the well site area and
in the area within 400 feet of the potential well site. Within the recharge areas, the plan
states that DRIs that generate more than 2000 gpd of sewage effluent may be required
to perform a cumulative impact analysis.
For these areas, commercial and industrial proposals that involve the use, treatment
generation, storage or disposal of hazardous waste or hazardous materials, with the
exception of retail sales and household uses, are not permitted. Public and private
sewage or septage treatment is generally not permitted in these areas.
Enforcement Mechanisms
Permits are subject to a strict and rigorous review process. Enforcement of the regional
plan takes place through the appropriate authorities of agencies or units of government
that identify violators.
Monitoring System
The Commission maintains an active program in monitoring recharge and discharge
zones in the county. Ground water observation wells are placed throughout the county
and regularly sampled to track enforcement and current subsurface conditions.
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been in Force?
The regional plan was adopted June 20,1991.
Representative Projects
The Commission's water resource office takes on many technical assistance projects that
include watertable mapping, hydrogeologic landfill assessments, hazardous waste site
management, wellhead protection delineations, non-point source nitrogen loading as
well as supporting regulatory and comprehensive planning efforts of the Commission-
Grassroots Involvement
Grassroots involvement comes through the participation by each of the municipalities
in the voting decisions of the Commission, and the development of Local
February 1994 Appendix A-61
-------
Appmdta A. Program Profltes Profiles of Watershed Oritnttd
Comprehensive Plans that are consistent with the Commission Regional Policy Plan
and technical service outreach and assistance to the communities.
Program Benefits
The system has been in place for less than two years. The impact on water quality is not
yet known. Other benefits include approval conditions emplaced upon developments/
adoption of a regional set of minimum performance standards, comprehensive land use
planning, and supported technical assistance to the communities.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
Over the years/ EPA has provided funding to the Commission for projects authorized
under Sections 205(j), 604(b), and 319(h). Given the emphasis of the regional plan on
protecting the sole source aquifer/ the funding has been invaluable.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Regional Policy Plan, County of Barnstable, Massachusetts. Prepared by Cape Cod
Commission. Final Draft June 20,1991.
Watershed Management Documents
Nitrogen Loading. Technical Bulletin 91-001 (Final). Cape Cod Commission, Water
Resources Office. Barnstable, MA. April 1992.
Sub-Marine Groundwater Discharge and Nitrate Loading to Shallow Coastal
Embayments. in Proceedings of Focus, Eastern Regional Groundwater Conference,
October 13-15,1992, at the Newton Marriott, MA. Thomas C. Cambareri, Eduard M.
Eichner, Craig A. Griffeth. Cape Code Commission. Barnstable, MA.
Draft Scope of Work for Watershed Delineations of Barns table's Coastal Embayments.
Cape Cod Commission, Water Resources Office. October 22,1992.
February 1BM Appendix A-62
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
NW Florida Water Management District
Agency
Aoencv:
Northwest Florida Water
Management District
Address:
Route 1
Box 3100
Citv-ST-Zio:
Havana, Florida 32333-9700
Telephone:
904-539-5999
Fax Telephone:
Contact Person:
Janet Starnes
Notes:
Year and Method of Establishment
The District is empowered under the Water Resources Act, enacted by the Florida
legislature in 1972.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The mission of the Northwest Florida Water Resource District is to implement the
provisions of the 1972 Florida Water Resources Act Chapter 373. The District goals
include: to insure the adequate supply of water through the promotion of conservation,
resource protection, and the development of alternative water supply; to enhance and
protect natural systems through land management and water resource management; to
minimize the harm caused by flooding; to improve the quality of available water
resources; to encourage public participation and education concerning comprehensive
water management and to further develop the District's overall water management
capabilities/ and abilities that provide assistance to local agencies.
The focus of the profile is the Surface Water Improvement and Management Program
(SWIM), a system authorized by the state legislature in 1987. It is a broad spectrum
program designed to improve the water quality and related aspects of the state's
surface waters. In terms of Northwest Florida, this becomes a comprehensive plan for
the restoration and preservation of the Apalachicola River and Bay, Lake Jackson, Deer
Point Lake, and the Pensacola Bay system.
February 1904
Appendix A-63
-------
Apptmflx A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Geographic Scale
The District encompasses 16 counties stretching from the St Marks River Basin in
Jefferson County to the Perdido River in Escambia County. There are five major
drainage basins located in the District The total area contained within the District is
11,200 square miles.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The District used technical advisory groups/ an interstate coordination committee, and
similar devices/ depending on the issue facing the agency.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
Under Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes/ water management districts possess the
authority to levy ad valorem taxes to support water management activities. The
Northwest Water District is allowed 0.05 of a mil (five cents for every $1/000 of taxable
property) as a taxing authority limit
Funds are also received from state general revenues, special grant programs and state
land acquisition trust funds.
Management
Management Structure
The District is served by a Governing Board/ Executive Director, and Deputy Executive
Director. The Governing Board is a nine-member unit appointed by the Governor/ and
confirmed by the Florida State Senate, whose primary function is to oversee the
activities of the District Board members serve four year terms/ receive no salary, and
may be reappointed. One member is selected from each of the five major hydrologic
basins and four are selected at-large from throughout the District The organization is
also split into four different divisions: the Division of Resource Management, the
Division of Administration, the Division of Land Management/ and the Division of
Resource Regulation.
Degree of Authority
The District is authorized to participate in technical evaluations/ develop basin
management and special project plans/ evaluate growth management plans of local
governments/ purchase and manage wetlands and related uplands/ implement flood
control, and regulate surface water management facilities, consumptive use of water,
February 1994 Appendix A-64
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
aquifer recharge/ and well construction. Technical assistance to state, county, or local
governments is also provided when requested.
Management Techniques
The SWIM program addresses five major program areas: nonpoint source pollution,
point source pollution, habitat preservation and restoration, public education and
awareness, and interagency coordination and cooperation. The program identifies
watersheds on a priority basis for action. Targeted watersheds must have at least
regional or state level significance.
Enforcement Mechanisms
Regulatory program for some wetlands, encourage other agencies to enforce.
Monitoring System
The monitoring system focuses at present on ambient surface waters. The District takes
monthly samples, and at certain times, it may establish a monitoring network in
specific areas.
Representative Projects
Projects the District is currently engaged in or have recently completed include: the
City of Tallahassee/Leon County Stormwater Management Plan, Escambia County
Utilities Authority Ground Water Modeling Project Surface Water Improvement and
Management (SWIM) Plans, Ambient Ground Water Monitoring Program, Ambient
Surface Water Monitoring Project, Renovation of Megginnis Arm Stormwater
Treatment Facility, Megginnis Arm Sediment Removal Project, Interstate 10 Storm
Water Treatment Facility, Jackson County Permitting Program, RUA Western
Subregional Well Field, Apalachicola-Chattahoochee-Flint River Comprehensive Study,
Apalachicola River and Bay Freshwater Needs Assessment, City of Quincy Stonnwater
Plan, delineation of Karst Features in Leon County, Waterways Educational Program,
purchase of Garcon Point Land Acquisition and Management District-wide
Abandoned Well Plugging Program, Regulations Protect the Water Resources of the
Region, Analysis of Sediments Within Fords Arm, Permanent Outdoor Educational
Displays for Lake Jackson, Leon County and City of Tallahassee Stormwater
Monitoring Project, Diagnostic Feasibility Study for Lake Munson, and Restoration
Plans for the Pensacola Bay Area.
Grassroots Involvement
The District has two programs designed to help educate the public on comprehensive
water management The Water-Ways Educational Program entitled WaterWays:
February 1994 Appendix A-66
-------
Appendix A. Program ProfilM Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Exploring Northwest Florida's Water Resources was extended into six additional counties
in 1991. All of the public middle schools within the District receive these materials.
Since its beginning the program has served as a model for other educational programs
throughout Florida and the United States at large. The District also has educational
displays at five boat landing sites at Lake Jackson. These displays include information
concerning Lake Jackson and its surrounding resources. The purpose of these displays
are to educate the public about the uniqueness of the lake and methods as to how to
preserve and protect These exhibits highlight die recreational/ aesthetic, biological/ and
hydrological values of die lake.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
The District has received various grants in the past from US EPA, which the District has
found to be very valuable.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Chapter 373, Florida Statutes
1972 Florida Water Resources Act
Watershed Management Documents
Lake Jackson Management Plan/ effective December 1990
Pensacola Bay System S.W.I.M. Plan, adopted November 1990
Apalachicola River and Bay SWIM Plan, adopted May 1992.
Deer Point Lake SWIM Plan, adopted April 1991.
February 1984 Appendix A-66
-------
Appendta A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
Agency
Aoencv:
New Jersey Pinelands Commission
Address:
P. O. Box 7
Citv-ST-Zip:
New Lisbon, NJ 08064
Telephone:
(609) 894-9342
Fax Telephone:
Contact Person:
Robert A. Zampella, Ph.D., Science
Coordinator; Susan Uibel
Notes:
Year and Method of Establishment
Congress in 1978 created the Pinelands National Reserve and called upon the state of
New Jersey to create a planning and management agency to cany out the effort The
New Jersey Legislature did that in 1979, creating the New Jersey Pinelands
Commission. Its mission is to carry out the Pinelands Comprehensive Plan, a
framework for protecting the natural resources, and particular the groundwater, of the
1.1 million acre area.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The primary goal of the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan is to preserve,
protect, and enhance the natural and cultural resources of the Pinelands. These
resources include the quality and quantity of surface and ground water, characteristic
landscape features, biological diversity, historic and archaeological sites, and
compatible agricultural uses.
Geographic Scale
The Pinelands is located in southern New Jersey. It is 1.1 million acres in size and
stretches through all or part of seven counties, and 56 municipalities. There are two
management areas in the Pinelands, a core Preservation Area of 337,000 acres, and an
outer Protection area covering the remainder of the acreage. Over 360,000 acres is
presently in public ownership, including four areas covering 46,000 occupied by
February 1994
Appendix A-67
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
military installations. The two aquifers underlying the Pinelands hold an estimated
17 trillion gallons of water/ enough to cover all of New Jersey to a depth of ten feet
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The NJ Pinelands Commission is enabled under state law as a state commission. Their
is also concurrent legislation from Congress that structures the management focus and
techniques. The Commission has fifteen members—seven appointed by the Governor,
one each appointed by the seven counties, and one appointed by the US Secretary of the
Interior. The Commission also reviews and approves land use decisions made by the 56
municipalities.
The Commission has also entered into five memoranda of understanding to provide for
coordinated management of various potential environmental hazards within the
management area.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The Pinelands are the beneficiaries of funding for land acquisition from the National
Park Service. A sum of $26 million was authorized in the 1978 legislation, of which
$8.25 million was made obligated immediately. The State of New Jersey also acquires
land in the Pinelands through the Green Acres Fund, a voter-approved bond for
acquisition. By 1991, nearly $50 million was invested in land acquisition, purchasing a
total of 63,400 acres. These funds do not pass directly through Commission accounts.
The Commission budget for FY1991 was $2,491,500, nearly all of which comes from
state appropriations. The remainder comes from interest on investments, and $15,000
from federal contracts.
Management
Management Structure
See the section above on intergovernmental cooperation.
Types of Authority
The Pinelands Commission likely possesses the most aggressive land use and
preservation capabilities of any conservation body in the country. Its mandate includes
the acquisition of 100,000 acres, and it has the power to review and approve land use
controls that are as stiff as any around. Each of the land use plans of the seven counties
and the 52 municipalities must conform to the Comprehensive Plan. At present, the
seven counties and 49 municipalities have prepared conforming plans and ordinances.
February 1994 Appendix A-68
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
The Commission also has project review responsibilities. In 1991, the Commission
reviewed over 1/800 permit applications.
Management Techniques
The Pinelands Comprehensive Plan is a major document covering fourteen distinct
areas of natural resource and infrastructure management With respect to the control of
nonpoint pollution/ the plan employs the following techniques:
Above and beyond individual elements/ the Comprehensive Plan is designed to protect
the area as a national reserve. The resource being reserved by Congress is the
groundwater. Therefore/ the land use plans/ infrastructure management Pinelands
Development Credit plan/ the land use plan/ and the system for consistent state and
federal permitting are all directly designed to protect the water resources of the
Pinelands.
Land Use. Land use provisions are adopted that affect nonpoint sources of pollution:
• Minimum lot sizes ranging from 3.2 to 10 acres outside of municipal boundaries
• Lawn size restricted to 2/000 square feet (Minimize yard chemicals)
• Sharp frontage restrictions along waterbodies—15 feet per 1,000 feet
• When using standard septic systems/ minimum lot size is 3.2 acres and system is
above groundwater levels
• When using innovative treatment systems, minimum lot size is at least one acre
Water Quality. The Comprehensive Plan governs point and nonpoint sources of water
pollution. Nonpoint measures include:
• For on-site conventional septic waste water treatment systems, the location of the
system and its discharge point, and the size of the parcel on which the system is
located, will ensure that ground water exiting from the parcel or entering a surface
body of water will not exceed 2 parts per million nitrate/nitrogen
• The depth to seasonal high water table is at least five feet
• For surface water runoff, the volume of runoff generated from the parcel by a 50-
year/24 hour storm will not increase as a result of any development of the parcel
• Surface water runoff from impervious surfaces will be retained to facilitate
infiltration into the ground water;
• Runoff shall not be recharged where depth to water table is more than 20 feet below
the surface, wherever practical
• Excessively and somewhat excessively drained soils, as defined by the Soil
Conservation Service, should be avoided for recharge of runoff wherever practical
February 1994 Appendix A-69
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
• Regarding prohibited chemicals and materials, the use of septic tank cleaners and
waste oil is prohibited
• Storage facilities for de-icing chemicals shall be lined to prevent leaking into the
soil/ and shall be covered with an impermeable surface which shields the facility
from precipitation
• The application of herbicide to any road or public utility right-of-way unless
necessary to protect an adjacent agricultural activity is prohibited
• No hazardous, toxic, chemical, petroleum (including oil spill pollutants), septic or
nuclear waste or liquid sludge shall be discharged or disposed of on any land in the
Pinelands, except as part of a land application of liquid sludge for agricultural
purposes.
Mineral Extraction. Mining activities are governed by the following water quality
related standard:
• Surface runoff will be maintained on the parcel in a manner that will provide for
on-site recharge to groundwater
Forestry. Forestry standards are reasonably strict in the Pinelands. Water quality
related standards are:
• Avoids wetland areas except as absolutely necessary
• Avoids stream crossings with high unstable banks
• Stream banks shall be stabilized during and after harvesting
• Culverts and bridges are temporary
• Trees that stabilize banks will remain standing
• A 25' vegetated buffer along streams, ponds, lakes, and marshes shall be maintained
• The use of active or intermittent stream channels for skidding of logs is prohibited
• Skidding shall not occur within 25* of streams, lakes, ponds, and marshes except for
necessary crossings
• Accessways for forestry activities shall be located at least 100 feet from streams,
ponds, lakes and marshes where practical
• Landings shall be located in well drained areas where practical, at least 200 feet
from ponds, lakes, and marshes
• Filter strips shall be located between harvest areas, lands, and skid trails; and
streams, ponds, lakes, and marshes
Agriculture. Best management practices are required for the following:
• Erosion and runoff
• Animal waste
February 1994 Appendix A-60
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
• Fertilizers and pesticides
General Standards for the Protection of Wetlands (Includes all water bodies).
Wetlands include swamps, bogs, marshes/ lakes and ponds, and rivers and streams.
Development is prohibited in all such areas. A 300' buffer strip is also required around
any such area. Significant adverse impacts (not allowable) include any of the following:
• An increase in surface water runoff discharging into a wetland
• A change in the normal seasonal flow patterns in the wetland
• An alternation of the water table in the wetland
• An increase in erosion resulting in increased sedimentation in the wetland
• A loss of wetland habitat
• A reduction in wetland habitat diversity
• A change in wetlands species composition
• A significant disturbance of areas used by indigenous and migratory wildlife for
breeding, nesting, or feeding.
Enforcement Mechanisms
While the Commission reported over 1,800 permit applications and 13,500 inquiries in
FY1991, it also reported 136 violations, of which 67 had been resolved. Enforcement
requires the coordination and cooperation of several state agencies, federal agencies
and over 60 local governments.
The Commission is seeking additional authority from the state legislature for
enforcement Specifically, it is seeking the authority to issue administrative orders, levy
fines, and withhold final approval on permits if persistent violations by an applicant at
other sites have not been resolved.
Monitoring System
The Commission issues an annual surface water quality report based on gauge results
at 175 testing stations located throughout the management area. This provides baseline
data. It monitors twelve sites on the Great Egg Harbor River as part of the overall effort
for the Great Egg National Scenic and Recreational River. It is designed to assess the
hydrologic impact of sewering in Monroe Township. It monitors ten sites in the Atsion
River watershed in cooperation with the US Geological Survey as part of a similar effort
to monitor sewering impacts. The Commission is testing innovative septic systems to
find more compatible alternatives to address the sandy soils and near-to-the-surface
groundwater in many parts of the management area.
February 1994 Appendix A-61
-------
AppendU A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
The Commission is also putting the finishing touches on a detailed long term
monitoring program to assess the impact of the plan on the management area.
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been In Force?
The comprehensive plan went into effect on January 16,1981.
Representative Projects
The primary Commission programs are for project review and review of ordinances,
amendments, and variances. The new comprehensive monitoring program will be the
basis for many long term Commission decisions.
Grassroots Involvement
The Commission handles grassroots involvement through a citizens advisory
committee and through its outreach program. In 1991, Commission staff and associated
speakers reached over 5,000 people via 150 speaking engagements, field trips, and slide
shows.
Program Benefits Identified to Date
The Commission reports that 63,400 acres has been acquired through FY1991. In
addition, it estimates that 96% of all new homes have been located in regional growth
areas and out of the sensitive preservation zones.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
None identified.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
National Parks and Recreation Act P.L. 95-625, Section 502. 92 STAT. 3492.1978.
Pinelands Protection Act 1979 Senate No. 3091. Title 13 of the New Jersey Revised
Statutes. June 28,1979.
February 1994 Appendix A-62
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Watershed Management Documents
New Jersey Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan. New Jersey Pinelands
Commission. November 1980.
An Assessment of Sewer and Water Supply Alternatives for Pinelands Growth Areas in
the Mullica River Basin. New Jersey Pinelands Commission. 1988.
An Assessment of the Hydrologic Impact Resulting From Development in Regional
Growth Areas in Hamilton Township, Atlantic County. New Jersey Pinelands
Commission. August 1990.
Long Term Pinelands Monitoring Program; Task 1: Study Area Selection. New Jersey
Pinelands Commission. April 1992.
A Brief History of the New Jersey Pinelands and the Pinelands Comprehensive
Management Plan. Pinelands Commission. August 1989.
1991 Annual Report New Jersey Pinelands Commission. New Lisbon, NJ. 1991.
February 1994 Appendix A-63
-------
AppJHoto A. PioQrani Profiws
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Phoenix Active Management Area
Agency
Aoencv:
Phoenix Active Management Area
Address:
15 South 15th Avenue
Citv-ST-Zio:
Phoenix, Arizona 85007
Telephone:
(602)542-1512
Fax Telephone:
Contact Person:
Mark Frank, Area Director
Notes:
Plans for the Prescott, Final, and Tucson Active Management Areas are in most ways
identical to the Phoenix AMA plan/ and therefore they are not printed reported on here.
Year and Method of Establishment
Established in 1980 as a result of the Arizona Groundwater Code.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The main goal of the Phoenix AMA is to obtain safe-yield of the area's groundwater by
the year 2025 or before. Objectives of the Department include: to set water requirements
which allow for the conservation efforts of all groundwater users; to provide the
monetary and technical staff assistance for the implementation of water conservation of
groundwater; design projects intended to increase the water supply of the AMA; to
inform the public of water legislation, water demands and supplies, and the Tucson
AMA; and to suggest a method by which alternative water supplies can be utilized.
Geographic Scale
The Phoenix AMA covers 5,646 square miles and is divided into seven sub-basins. The
sub-basins include: East Salt River Valley, West Salt River Valley, Hassayampa,
Rainbow Valley, Fountain Hills, Lake Pleasant, and Carefree. Most of the urban and
agricultural activity of the area is centered around the East and West Salt River Basins.
February 1994
Appendix A-64
-------
AppwKHx A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
Water management functions of the area is performed by a number of different
agencies. City, county/ and regional governmental authorities exercise control over
flood control/ wastewater management water production, water quality management
planning/ and zoning. Federal water management involves the Bureau of Reclamation's
activities in the construction of the Central Arizona Project (CAP), and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency's Superfuhd and National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permit programs. The U.S. Geological Survey assists with
the collection of data. The Indian communities of Fort McDowell, Gila River, and Salt
River Pima-Maricopa are all governed by their respective councils. Also there are
several water groups and organizations whose role is significant to the conservation of
groundwater resources.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The Department of Water Resources and the Department of Environmental Quality are
funded through the normal appropriations process by the state legislature. Information
on allocations to this program were not immediately available.
Funding for water augmentation (the introduction of new water supplies), primarily
from the federal Central Arizona Project, is tied to a complicated federal repayment
mechanism that is not relevant to this analysis.
A separate fund known as the Augmentation and Conservation Assistance Fund
provides for the collection of fees on groundwater withdrawals of up to $2.00 per acre-
foot per year. Monies in the fund designated for augmentation will be used to provide
funds for augmentation projects and studies initiated or conducted by the Department
of Water Resources, and for cost-sharing grants for augmentation projects and studies
initiated or conducted by others. Revenues are projected to peak early at around $2
million, then dwindle to $1.3 million over time as conservation practices reduce
demands for groundwater withdrawals.
Management
Management Structure
The Department of Water Resources is empowered by the legislature to prepare and
implement the Active Management Area plans. The program staff for the Active
Management Area acts largely in a coordinating capacity designed to encourage the
flow of public information and education and to encourage maximum participation in
the program by the public.
February 1994 Appendix A-66
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Management Techniques
This program is one that primarily provides for the acquisition, distribution and
protection of public water supplies. While water quality management can logically be
thought of as part of this process, it nevertheless is a small part of the overall program.
The goal of the program is to manage the quality of the groundwater and to maximize
the quantity of water available for beneficial use consistent with the overall goal of
maximum safe yield. The water quality program has four objectives:
1. Protection of groundwater quality from degradation
2. Collect groundwater quality data on a continual basis
3. Identify areas of poor quality groundwater
4. Correct groundwater quality problems
The accompanying strategies to achieve these objectives are to:
• Prevent the introduction of contaminants to aquifers
• Prevent or minimize the migration of poor quality groundwater
• Monitor groundwater quality trends
• Encourage the beneficial use of poor quality groundwater
• In cooperation with the Department of Environmental Quality, oversee remedial
action to correct groundwater quality problems
• Cooperate with other water quality management agencies
The principle nonpoint source control program to be employed under this program is
the aquifer protection permitting program. It specifically provides for the use of BMPs
for agricultural activities.
Remediation projects could include nonpoint source control programs, but none have
been proposed at this time.
Enforcement Mechanisms
The Department of Water Resources is empowered with an elaborate monitoring
enforcement program to ensure that the objectives are reached. The agency plans to use
public information and education as the primary vehicle through which to secure
enforcement of the Groundwater Code. However, the agency is also empowered to levy
civil and criminal penalties to ensure the program is implemented.
Monitoring System
The Groundwater Code allows the AMA to enter the property where water withdrawal
or transportation facilities are located, and where the use of groundwater is located.
February 1994 Appendix A-66
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
The AMA can then inspect facilities, obtain data or access records, and determine
compliance with codes and regulations.
Representative Projects
The major programs designed within the project include: the groundwater quality
assessment and management program, the agricultural conservation program, the
municipal conservation program, the industrial conservation program, and the
augmentation and reuse program.
Grassroots Involvement
The plan was developed with the participation of four technical advisory committees
addressing agriculture, augmentation and water quality, municipal and industrial, and
turf (lawn and landscaping uses).
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
None directly noted.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Arizona Groundwater Code
Watershed Management Documents
Second Management Plan, 1990-2000, Phoenix Active Management Area. Arizona
Department of Water Resources. March 1991. (See also similar plans for the Prescott,
Final, and Tucson Active Management Areas).
February 1994 Appendix A-67
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
South Florida Water Management District
Agency
Aaencv:
South Florida Water Management
District
Address:
P.O. Box 24680
Citv-ST-Zio:
West Palm Beach, Florida 33416-4680
Telephone:
(407)-686-8800
Fax Telephone:
Contact Person:
David Thatcher (407) 687-6330
Notes:
State law requires cities and counties in Florida to submit comprehensive plans to the
state for approval. These plans must include programs to address infrastructure needs
and environmental issues.
Year and Method of Establishment
Established 1972 as a result of the Florida Water Resources Act
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
"Manage water and related resources for the benefit of the public and in keeping with
the needs of the region." The key elements of their mission include: environmental
protection and enhancement, water supply, flood protection, and water quality
protection. The mission is accomplished through planning and research, operations and
maintenance, community and government relations, land management, regulation, and
construction. Also included in the mission statement is the responsibility to assist both
public and governmental officials with the protection of water resources.
Geographic Scale
The total area covered by the region is 17,930 square miles and encompasses the entire
South Florida peninsula from Orlando to the Florida Keys. There are two basins located
within the district—Big Cypress and Okeechobee—within all or part of sixteen
counties.
February 1994
Appendix A-68
-------
Appmdix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The district is managed by a Governing Board composed of nine members appointed
by the Governor—four specific counties within the District and five appointed at-large.
The Governing Board appoints the agency's Executive Director and the Director of the
Office of Internal Audit The District has a Local Government Assistance Program
designed to form and maintain partnerships with local governments so that their views
may be implemented into the District plan. The District works closely with local
governments as they update their comprehensive plans enabling the District to share its
goals for the future as well as expertise and water resource data.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The district is a special taxing district with the budget of the district being funded
through various sources. Taxes are levied in each of the two basins and then added to
the overall tax of the District
The budget for Fiscal Year 1993 is $213.5 million. This includes $160,738,435 in tax
revenues and $17,564,922 from intergovernmental funds.
Management
Management Structure
The District works in eight different program areas. These program areas are: water
resource management planning; regulation; acquisition and development of lands and
facilities; implementation through external entities; operation and maintenance of water
management land tracts; hydrologic, hydrogeologic, and environmental support
services; and administration and indirect support services.
Degree of Authority
Establishment of a number of regulatory programs. Permits are needed to construct
water wells; take water from lakes, canals, streams, and the ground; construct and
operate surface water management systems; and use district canal and levee right-of-
way or other District lands. Permits for the management and storage of surface water
require more of a variety of BMPs to address water quality and the maintenance of pre-
development discharge rates for stonnwater runoff.
Management Techniques
This section will highlight only the nonpoint source pollution control techniques
employed by the District Techniques employed by the District include:
February 1994 Appendix A-69
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Land acquisition. The District has acquired 21/000 acres to protect the Everglades, Big
Cypress/ the Kissimmee River/ and Lake Okeechobee values over the past twenty years
toward an ultimate goal of 68/000 acres.
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation Dairy Rule. The Dairy Rule is
designed specifically to reduce phosphorus inflows to Lake Okeechobee and the
Everglades. Enacted in 1987, it requires that phosphorus inflows be reduced by 40% in
Lake Okeechobee and 25% in the Everglades by requiring the use of BMFs by dairy
operators in the basin. Specifically targeted are high intensity use areas such as feedlots,
milking barns/ holding pens/ milk herd pastures with a vegetative cover of 80% or less.
The rule requires that animal or other high-nutrient waste be collected stored and
distributed over the farm by spray irrigation. Forty-nine farms are targeted/ 30 of which
are installing the systems.
The BMPs are those described in the USDA Soil Conservation Service Technical Office
Guide. BMP practices employed include fencing cattle away from watercourses;
collection/ storage/ containment and treatment of manure and wastewater runoff from
high intensity areas; crop spray irrigation and land application of wastewater/ solids
and sludge; and buffer zones along watercourses and drinking water supplies.
The State Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services provided funding for
cost-sharing the installation of BMPs. Additionally/ a dairy buy-out program was
instituted for farmers unwilling or unable to comply with the Dairy Rule. Eighteen
farms participate in the program. The program pays dairies the dollar amount required
to construct BMPs to stop milk production/ then the District adds additional funds to
relocate the cows and place a deed restriction on the property prohibiting future use as
a dairy or concentrated animal feeding operation. This has cost a combined $8.45
million for the relocation of just over 14/000 cows. One other farm was purchased as
part of the Save Our Rivers program.
Works of the District Regulatory Program. Working in tandem with the Dairy Rule,
the Works of the District permit is also designed to reduce phosphorus loads from non-
dairy land operations. This requires land operators undertaking specific uses to apply
for a permit be subject to water quality monitoring to track phosphorus-laden runoff,
and install remedial BMPs if the monitoring indicates that there is a 50% probability
that discharge reduction objectives will not be met Nearly 500 such permits have been
issued. The uses for which general permits are required are: urban stormwater, golf
courses/ sugar cane/ horse farms, nurseries/ land spreading of sludge, and sod farms.
Individual permits are required for dairies not covered by the Dairy Rule, improved
pasture, vegetable farms and row crops, heifer farms/ hog farms/ poultry farms/ and
goat farms.
The Use of BMPs in the Everglades Agricultural Area. The SWIM plan for the
Everglades concentrates on lowering phosphorus levels from point and nonpoint
February 1994 Appendix A-70
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
sources in the District Studies indicate that phosphorus levels could be reduced by
employing the appropriate BMPs listed below:
• Calibrated soil test recommendations could reduce P from 0-25%. This procedure
reduces the potential for overfertilizing.
• Banding fertilizer for vegetable production instead of broadcasting it could reduce P
discharges from 10-40 percent and application rates of 50 percent
• Preventing fertilizer spills and the spreading of fertilizer into drainage ditches could
reduce P discharges by 0-15 percent
• Minimizing water table fluctuations by not overdraining in vegetable and sugar
cane fields could reduce P losses by 0-50 percent
• Applicable only to sugar cane production, retention of on-farm drainage could
reduce P losses from 15-60 percent by keeping water continuously moving from
field to field.
• Retention of vegetables field drainage water in sugar cane or fallow lands could
reduce P losses from 20-90 percent from any particular farm.
• Aquatic cover crop for off-season vegetable production and fallow rotation of sugar
cane could reduce P losses from 5-20 percent A crop such as rice will uptake a
portion of the excess phosphorus that becomes readily available during any fallow
flooding operation.
• On-farm retention ponds used to store excess rainfall for later use as irrigation
water could reduce P losses from 10-60 percent
Stormwater Treatment Areas. Stormwater treatment areas are large-scale constructed
wetlands designed to trap and absorb pollutant loads in Stormwater runoff in
agricultural drainage canals. They succeed through the employment of intensive
management of the wetland.
Enforcement Mechanisms and Schedule
The District is empowered to issue permits, violation of which may result in fines or
additional court actions.
Monitoring System
The division of the District responsible for permit enforcement monitors activity in the
watershed via aerial fly-overs every 1-2 weeks. The program also uses satellite imagery
to monitor land use and other changes in the environment
1989-1990 the District developed a ten year strategic plan designed to be crucial to
agency planning projects and the annual budget process.
February 1994 Appendix A-71
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Representative Projects
Projects currently being worked on by the District include: Everglades restoration and
Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan (SWIM) program/ Kissimmee River
restoration, the Lake Okeechobee SWIM program/ and the "Save Our Rivers" program.
Each of these projects contain smaller efforts within them.
Grassroots Involvement
Actively seek public participation.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
No financial assistance from US EPA.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Florida Statutes, Chapter 373.
Watershed Management Documents
Draft Indian River Lagoon Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan. South
Florida Water Management District and St Johns River Water Management District
September 1992. Also contains Appendices A-H.
Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan. South Florida Water
Management District April 1989. Also contains Appendices A-K.
The Everglades: Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan. South Florida
Water Management District March 1992. Also contains Supporting Information
Document and Appendices A-G.
Draft Lake Okeechobee Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan Update.
South Florida Water Management District October 1992. Also contains
Appendices A-H.
February 1994 Appendix A-72
-------
AppendU A. Program ProfUM Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Part IV.
Profiles of Individual River or Watershed Programs
H Anacostia River-MD and DC
H Barnegat Bay Estuary Program—NJ
H Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed Project-WI
H Grande Ronde Critical Basin Project-OR
H Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority—TX
H Menomonee River Priority Watershed Project—WI
H Middle Fork River-WV
H Milwaukee River Priority Watershed Project- WI
H Mississippi Headwaters Board—MN—Upper Mississippi River (Above St Paul)
H Nisqually River Council—WA
H Lower East Branch Pecatonica River Priority Watershed Project—WI
H Puget Sound Water Quality Authority - W A
H Suwannee River Water Management District— FL
H Sweetwater Authority—CA
H Tualatin River Critical Basin Project-OR
H Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River—NY and PA
H Watershed Committee of the Ozarks—MO
February 1994 Appendix A-73
-------
Appeitdte A. Piuymii Profile*
Profile* of Watershed Oriented
Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee
Agency
Aaencv:
Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments
Address:
777 North Capitol Street
Citv-ST-Zip:
Washington, DC 20002-4226
Telephone:
(202) 962-3343
Fax Telephone:
(202) 962-3203
Contact Person:
Jim Shell, Chief
Anacostia Restoration Team
Notes:
The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee serves as the basin-wide coordinator
for the program to restore the highly urbanized Anacostia watershed.
Year and Method of Establishment
In 1987 the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, Montgomery County, and
Prince George's County signed into effect the Anacostia Watershed Restoration
Agreement The Agreement formalized a cooperative partnership to restore the
Anacostia River and tributaries and utilized all resources to achieve this goal. To guide
the restoration process, the Agreement called for the establishment of the AWRC to
develop a restoration plan and coordinate the efforts of the local, state, and federal
agencies.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The main goals of this agreement are: to improve the water quality of the region; to
protect the ecology and wildlife of the river; manage erosion, sediment, and pollution;
maintain part of the waterway as navigable; expand the opportunities for the public
use of the area for recreational purposes; and to enhance public participation and
awareness.
February 1994
Appendix A-74
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Geographic Scale
The drainage area encompasses 179 square miles. Two physiographic areas comprise
the region, the Piedmont Plateau and the Coastal Plain. The sub-basins of the region
include: Sligo Creek, Northwest Branch, Paint Branch, Little Paint Branch, Indian
Creek, Beaverdam Creek, Northeast Branch, Lower Beaverdam Creek, and the Tidal
Anacostia. The watershed is highly urbanized.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The AWRC is involved with policy issues related to the goal of improving water
quality and protecting aquatic habitat within the Anacostia River and its tributaries. In
addition, the Committee is charged with enacting the goals of the Six-Point Action Plan
to restore the Anacostia River. The six goals are:
GOAL #1 Dramatically reduce pollutant loads delivered to the tidal estuary to
improve water quality conditions by the turn of the century.
GOAL #2 Protect and restore the ecological integrity of urban Anacostia streams to
enhance aquatic diversity and provide for a quality urban fishery.
GOAL #3 Restore the spawning range of anadromous fish to historical limits.
GOAL #4 Increase the natural filtering capacity of the watershed by sharply
increasing the acreage and quality of tidal and non-tidal wetlands.
GOAL #5 Expand forest cover throughout the watershed and create a contiguous
corridor of forest along the margins of its streams and rivers.
GOAL #6 Make the public aware of its key role in the cleanup of the river, and
increase volunteer participation in watershed restoration activities.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
Congressional appropriation, Sec. 106 of Qean Water Act, funding for Maryland and
Washington, DC.
February 1994 Appendix A-7S
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Management
Management Structure
Under the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee/ there are other committees
established. These committees include: the Reforestation Work Group (RWG) which
provides the technical assistance on and coordinates the activities of waterway
reforestation; the Small Habitat Improvement Work Group (SHIP) which seeks to
design low cost small-scale projects implemented by citizen/environmental groups
concerning the restoration of habitats; and the Anacostia Monitoring Subcommittee
which monitors progress made in achieving non-point source pollution reduction goals.
Degree of Authority
The AWRC is not a regulatory agency in itself, but its members, being other local, state,
arid federal government agencies, have considerable regulatory authority over the river
system, and the Committee acts as a successful coordinating body.
Management Techniques
The Committee uses the existing authorities of its members to carry out the plan. Much
of the management is a series of over 440 restoration projects, including wetlands
creation, stream restoration, sewer and stormwater management fishery enhancement
projects, reparian reforestation, and public participation projects.
Enforcement Mechanisms
The members of the Committee use their existing authorities to secure enforcement of
the program. However, the program is oriented decidedly more toward restoration and
improvement projects than toward enforcement actions.
Monitoring System
The watershed area is monitored by the coordinated Anacostia Monitoring Sub-
committee (CAMP). The Metropolitan Council of Governments (COG) assumes the
responsibility for the coordination of activities involved with the sampling processes of
the various agencies involved, and maintains a computerized data base. The agencies
that participate in the sampling activities are: the Maryland Department of the
Environment, D.C. Environmental Control Division, Maryland National Capital Parks
and Planning Commission, Montgomery County Department of Environmental
Protection, and the Prince George's County Health Department
February 1994 Appendix A-76
-------
Appwtcix A. Program ProfHtt Profile* of Watershed Oriented
Long term monitoring programs are also developed for each of nine priority sub-
watersheds.
Representative Projects: Summary of Anacostia Restoration Blueprint
Note: This list is preliminary and is subject to change based on AWRC review.
Stormwater Retrofits Projects: includes the creation of new best management practices or modifications of existing
ponds or BMP's to improve the quality of urban runoff.
total number of projects 159
total area controlled approximately 35 square miles
projects in-progress or completed to date 45 (28%)
estimated capital cost $27.6 million
Stream Restoration Projects: includes bioengineering and other measures that stabilize eroding stream banks and
create better fish habitat.
total number of projects2 60
total project length approximately 20 stream miles
projects in-progress or completed to date 8 (13%)
projected capital cost1 $8.0 million
Fish Passage Projects: includes projects to eliminate barriers to anadromous and resident fish migration.
total number of projects 31
projects in-progress or completed to date 6 (20%)
projected capital cost) $1.1 million
Riparian Reforestation: includes the reestablishment of forest habitats within 300 feet of the Anacostia and its
tributaries.
total number of projects2 68
total project length approximately 15 stream miles
projects in-progress or completed to date 25 (37%)
projected capital cost1 $800,000
Wetland Creation: includes the creation of emergent wetlands in both tidal and non-tidal areas, j
total number of projects2 34
area one square mile
projects in-progress or completed to date 10 (30%)
projected capital cost1 $7.3 million
Small Habitat Improvement Program (SHIP): includes small scale restoration projects (excluding reforestation)
suitable for implementation by citizens. These projects include stormdrain stenciling, stream cleanups, wild/lower
plantings, etc.
total number of projects 400
projects in planning 72 (18%)
projects completed 12
projected capital cost1 $800,000
February 1994 Appendix A-77
-------
Appendix A. Program Profile* Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Other Restoration Projects: includes CSO abatement, river dredging, sewer rehabilitation, reclamation and other
activities that contribute to the restoration of the river.
total number of projects 17
projects jn-progress or completed to date 3 (25X)
projected capital cost1 $70 million
Notes: 1. Cost projections do not include costs for preject planning, design, permitting,
maintenance, and land acquisition (if any). Projections are based on 1990 dollars, and
therefore will increase gradually over the next decade.
2. The total number of restoration projects i nthis category may increase as further field
surveys are performed.
3. Does not inlcude wetland acreage created by stormwater retrofit projects, which is
significant.
Grassroots Involvement
The public participation program involved with the Anacostia River began in the
spring of 1988. This program is said to be highly active and involves a large number of
participants. The program includes a newsletter, In the Anacostia Watershed, a
coordinator for each of the nine priority sub-basins, and a wide variety of other
educational activities.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
Financial - very valuable, help to educate citizens regarding what is being done to
preserve water quality. There is also a connection to EPA through the Chesapeake Bay
Program.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
1987 Anacostia Watershed Restoration Agreements
February 1994 Appendix A-78
-------
Appendfe A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Watershed Management Documents
Under direction of the AWRC, MWCOG staff have developed a Six-Point Action Plan
to restore the Anacostia River; a document that identifies six broad goals and a strtagy
for restoring the watershed. In addition, the AWRC directed MWCOG staff to prepare
a blueprint of planned restoration activities that will be needed to implement the goals
of the Six-Point Action Plan.
There are periodic "State of the Anacostia" status reports issued by the Committee
through the Council of Governments with the ICPRB. Sub-watershed action plans,
known as SWAPs, are being developed for the nine priority sub-watersheds.
February 1994 Appendix A-79
-------
ApfMfMU A. PrOQfflm PrOIlMS
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Barnegat Bay Watershed Plan
Agency
Aoencv:
New Jersey Dept of Environmental
Protection and Energy
Office of Land and Water Planning
Address:
Citv-ST-Zip:
Trenton, NJ
Telephone:
(609) 984-0058 or (609) 292-2113
Fax Telephone:
(609) 984-2147
Contact Person:
Theresa Fowler PP, AICP
Notes:
Water Quality in the Bay is currently being degraded by nonpoint sources of pollution/
especially those sources involved with land use development This is a new plan
without special funding. Therefore, project sponsors it will be indicated in stages.
Year and Method of Establishment
The New Jersey State Legislature's enactment of P.L. 1987, Chapter 397 mandated a
study of the Bay and the effects of growth and development upon it
The Association is still in its formative stage.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The Watershed Management Plan for Barnegat Bay is divided into seven chapters,
each with its own set of action plans. These chapters are: Watershed Management,
Sensitive Area Protection, Water Area and Use, Fisheries Management, Public Access,
Public Participation and Education, and Research and Monitoring.
Each action plan consists of several action items. Each action item includes a
management objective; the rationale for most objectives; the lead agency responsible for
overseeing the action item; cooperating parties; possible secondary sources; and
required legislation or policy changes.
The objectives for watershed management include: to encourage planning and
regulatory agencies to promote land use that will protect and preserve the natural
environment; to improve water quality of the Bay, primarily through the decrease in
nonpoint sources, to the extent where biotic and recreational potentials are reached; to
February 1994
Appendix A-80
-------
Appendk A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
promote development which minimizes the increase in storm water run-off and
associated pollution; to maintain open shoreline; and to recommend and promote
development strategies that minimize the impact to natural habitat and maintains
wildlife corridors. The objectives for watershed protection include: to maintain and
improve the overall water quality of the Bay through land use methods sensitive to the
natural environment; to protect and enhance the overall quality of natural habitats near
the shore or in estuarine environments critical to maintaining a balanced ecosystem;
and to maintain and improve the quality and diversity of native flora, fauna, and
biological communities. The objectives for water area and use include: to reduce
erosion of natural shorelines and wetlands due to wake of watercraft; the restriction of
vessels in the proximity of near shore critical habitats, to regulate waterfront to reduce
safety hazards of waterfront property, to minimize the conflict between watercraft by
identifying areas suitable for special uses, encouraging those uses in specified areas and
to establish special speeds in hazardous areas; to improve adherence to Boat Operation
Regulation; to minimize the conflict between watercraft and fishing equipment; to
permit or expand facilities only in environmentally suitable areas; to minimize the need
for structural shore protection of natural shorelines; to maintain navigation channels
that facilitate recreational uses and cause minimal impact to the environment; and to
manage the existing and proposed boating facilitates to have little impact upon the
environment The proposed plan also includes management suggestions for fisheries,
and the objectives listed include: to reduce user conflicts relevant to the Blue Crab; to
enact regulations concerning the Blue Crab fishery in order to protect resources of the
Barnegat Bay; to obtain additional information and amend regulation concerning
winter flounder populations; and to obtain information and amend regulations
concerning the American eel fisheries. The Public Access section of the Watershed Plan
proposes a series of public and private actions to maintain, enhance, and protect
physical and visual access to the Barnegat Bay waterfront The Public Participation and
Education objective of the plan is to encourage the implementation of the management
plan and to support environmental education that promotes and encourages an
environmental ethic in the citizens of the Bay area emphasizing their connection to and
impact on the health and welfare of the region. The objectives for Research and
Monitoring include: the establishment of an integrated program of data collection,
analysis, synthesis, and interpretation that will enhance baseline information;
characterize spatial and temporal trends of conditions in the Bay and the human factors
affecting those conditions; to establish and maintain a system of priorities, funding,
and dissemination of research that will aid in the knowledge of the Bay and its systems.
Geographic Scale
The Barnegat Bay watershed lies within the coastal plain of New Jersey, and is a 75
square mile ecosystem. The Bay drains from an area of approximately 450 square
miles. The watershed area consists of four different sub-areas: the barrier islands; the
northeast mainland area; the southeast mainland area, in which environmentally
sensitive areas such as the Barnegat National Wildlife Refuge and the Manahawkin
February 1994 Appendix A-81
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Fish and Wildlife Management areas are located; and the western side of the watershed
protected by the Pinelands Comprehensive Management Plan.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The plan creates no new coordinating or planning agency. The only mechanism for
intergovernmental coordination is the plan itself/ which lists specific action items and
the lead and cooperating agencies relevant to implement each item. The plan has been
endorsed by the lead and cooperating agencies involved. Because most of the
watershed is located within Ocean County, much of the responsibility for
implementing the plan fall on that county, and it has the job of overseeing plan
implementation. The role of the state is to provide technical assistance and funding to
local governments.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The plan assigns responsibilities but it provides no funding. Rather, it lists funding
sources to implement each action item, usually recommending the state as the funder.
Not surprisingly, the plan is being implemented in stages.
There is no budget for implementing the plan. Rather, the plan recommends that
agencies seek additional appropriations to implement those parts of the plan for which
each is responsible.
Management
Organizational Management
The plan provides for coordinated implementation without benefit of a new central
body responsible for oversight The authority of the plan lies in the endorsements and
sign-offs it has received from potential participators. The Watershed Management Plan
recommends that participating agencies make specific policy or legislative changes to
implement various aspects of the plan.
Management Techniques
The primary emphasis is on strengthening existing plans and ordinances. The
management plan endorses but does not mandate other tools such as cluster zoning,
transfers of development credits, property donation, regional tax base sharing,
development allocation, performance zoning, and others. The plan also suggests that
designation as a component of the National Estuary Program would be beneficial.
The plan proposes the following elements to control nonpoint source pollution:
February 1994 Appendix A-82
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
• Municipalities should adopt stormwater management plans and ordinances
• Conduct demonstration projects to encourage and test BMPs, that are innovative,
low-cost and long-term
• Alter flood control systems to also serve stormwater management needs
• Conduct training programs on nonpoint source control for municipal and county
employees
• Install native species landscaping to demonstrate water conservation, pesticides
reduction and fertilizer reduction on public lands and common open spaces
• Amend municipal construction codes to include provisions for water quality
improvement including requiring grass swales in place of roadway curbs
• Enact soil erosion and sediment control ordinances to reduce sedimentation
• Empower Ocean County to review programs with regional impact such as drainage,
roadways, and similar projects in order to control cumulative impacts
• Develop a coastal nonpoint pollution control program as stipulated by the NJ
Coastal Zone Reauthorization amendments of 1990
• NJ DEPE should initiate monitoring program to identify areas in Barnegat Bay that
have exceeded water quality standards.
• Provide for cluster zoning to reduce impervious surfaces and provide buffers to
sensitive areas
• Establish minimum buffers adjacent to coastal wetlands
• Create critical zones no less than 150 feet in width along the Bay and other water
bodies and storm sewer inlets
• Establish incentives program, such as conservation easements and re-evaluation of
real property, to entice property owners and real estate developers to create buffer
areas consisting of indigenous vegetation to protect wetlands and surface waters
Enforcement Mechanisms
Enforcement is up to the individual agencies that are implementing their aspects of the
plan. Interestingly, the plan endorses the creation of a "baykeeper" citizens watchdog
position.
Monitoring System
The plan recommends that the NJ Department of Environmental Protection and Energy
establish a system to monitor the bay's resources.
February 1994 Appendix A-83
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Representative Projects
The plan recommends several specific enhancement projects related to stormwater
management point source infrastructure, and public access.
Grassroots Involvement
The plan recommends that "residents of the watershed", "members of the watershed
association"/ and the "baykeeper" be involved in implementing specific tasks in the
action program.
Additionally, the plan proposes a multi-faceted information program to educate the
public about the Bay program.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
The US EPA is listed as a participating agency in many of the action recommendations.
The program is beginning to get underway, so there is no way to assess the value of
assistance.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
No enabling documents. No formal authorization has been issued.
Watershed Management Documents
A Watershed Management Program for the Barnegat Bay (Draft). New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection and Energy. Volumes I and n. August 1992.
February 1994 Appendix A-84
-------
Appwidta A. PiuyiMii Profltai
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed, Wl
Aaencv: Telephone:
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources (608) 266-9254
Nonpoint Source and Land Mgmt
Section
Bureau of Water Resources Mgmt
Address:
101S. Webster Street
P.O. Box 7921
Citv-ST-Zio:
Madison, WI53707-7921
Fax Telephone:
(608) 267-2800
Contact Person:
Rebecca R. Wallace, P.E., Chief
Notes:
This appendix includes a separate profile on the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program.
Year and Method of Establishment
The Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed, plan was prepared under the provisions of
the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program, initiated in 1984
under Chapter NR120, Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The management plan sets forth several goals:
• A 50 percent reduction in the sediment from croplands, construction sites and other
sources of sediment
• A 50 percent reduction in the manure entering the stream
• Habitat restoration in selected stream segments
Geographic Scale
The Black Earth Creek Watershed is located primarily in Dane County, Wisconsin.
Approximately 100 square miles in size, it flows to Blue Mounds Creek, a tributary of
the Wisconsin River, a tributary of the Mississippi River. Land use in the watershed is
56 percent agricultural and 32 percent forested.
February 1994
Appendix A-86
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The management plan is a cooperative, coordinated system administered by the
Department of Natural Resources. Dane County/ through its Land Conservation
Committee/ participates in the planning process via resolution of the County Board of
Supervisors. The county entered into an agreement with DNR for the purpose of
receiving funds for management, enforcement and cost-sharing with private property
owners and land operators.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The state program provides cost-share funds to assist in implementing the nonpoint
program. Projects may be funded up to five years after the watershed plan is approved
by DNR. Funding does not cover some costs such as land acquisition or the renovation
or construction of new storm sewer systems needed to comply with this program or
other state or federal laws.
The state program provides for cost-sharing agreements to be entered into between the
participating counties and landowners or land operators. If landowners fail to
participate voluntarily/ the offer of the cost-sharing arrangement may be revoked and a
low-interest loan arrangement may be substituted.
The state cost-share rates for Best Management Practices are as follows:
Best Management Practice Flat Cost-Share Rate
Contour Farming $6.00/ac.
Strip Cropping ,...$12.00/30.
Field Strip Cropping $10.00/ac.
Reduced Tillage $15.00/ac. 1
Reduced Tillage $45.00/ac. 2
1. Reduced tillage systems for short crop rotations, and establishment of forages and small
grains (Includes no-till).
2. Reduced tillage systems for continuous row cropping or long rotations (does not include no-
till).
February 1994 Appendix A-86
-------
Appcndte A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Orienttd
Best Management Practice State Cost-Share Rate
Rural BMPs
Contour Farming 50%
Contour Strip Farming 50% *
Field Strip Cropping 50%
Field Diversions and Terraces. 70%
Grassed Waterways 70%
Reduced Tillage 50%
Critical Area Stabilization 70% 1
Grade Stabilization Structures 70%
Agricultural Sediment Basins 70%
Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization 70%
Shoreline Buffers 70% 1
Barnyard Runoff Management 70%
Animal Lot Relocation 70%
Manure Storage Facilities 70% **
Livestock Exclusion from Woodlots 50%
Wetland Restoration 70% 1
Roofs for Barnyard Runoff Management
& Manure Storage Facilities 70%
Nutrient and Pesticide Management 50% 2
Urban BMPs
Critical Area Stabilization 70% 3
Grade Stabilization Structures 70%
Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization 70%
Shoreline Buffers 70% 3
Wetland Restoration 70% 3
Structural Urban Practices 70% 4
Street Sweeping 50% 5
'. Easements may be entered into with landowners identified in the watershed plan in
conjunction with these BMPs.
2 Spill control basins have a cost-share rate of 70 percent.
Wildlife habitat restoration components of this practice are cost-shared at 70 percent.
Maximum cost-share amount is $10,000 including no more than $5,000 for manure transfer
equipment.
3. Easements may be used in conjunction with these practices.
4- Applies only to structures for established urban areas. Established urban surfaces are
considered to be those in existence prior to the date the DNR approves the watershed plan.
5 This is an alternative best management practice not listed in NR 120 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code.
February 1994 Appendix A-87
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
The projected total budget for the rural portion of the watershed plan includes capital
costs, easements, local government costs/ information and education, and other direct
costs. The table specifies the state share versus the local share.
Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed Plan
Projected Budget (8 Years) for Rural Operations
(Assumes 100% Participation by Landowner* and Land Operators)
Cost Center
BMP Capital Costs
Easement Costs
Staff Needs
Information Education/Direct
Other Direct
Total State Share
Local Share
Dane Co.
$ 1,165,250
225,000
8,000
15.000
1,398,250
328,714
Total Budgeted Cost
$ 2,726,964
The urban segment of the program provides services to thirteen municipalities
including the City of Milwaukee. Cost-sharing will not cover the cost of land
acquisition or the renovation or construction of storm sewer systems. Cost-sharing is
available for the following actions in addition to the listing of eligible BMPs above:
February 1994
Appendix A-88
-------
AppwMb A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Black Earth Creek Priority Watershed Plan
Urban Strategies Eligible for Funding
Urban Strategy Flat Cost-Share Rate
Development of Construction Erosion Control Ordinances 100%
Development of Stormwater Management Ordinances 100%
Engineering Studies for Existing Urban Areas; Studies for
Planned Urban Areas 100% 1
Design and Engineering for Structural BMPs 100%
Local Enforcement Staff. 100% 2
Staff for Accelerated Street Sweeping 100% 2
Development of alternative financing and admin, strategies 100%
1. Funding not available for components dealing exclusively with drainage and flooding.
2. Funding limited to five years. Level of staffing based on a work plan submitted by local units
of government and approved by the DNR.
Management
Organizational Structure
The plan is carried out under a joint plan approved by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Programs, and
the Dane County Land Conservation Department Also participating are the Soil
Conservation Service and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. The
University of Wisconsin Extension provides support in developing and conducting a
public information and education program aimed at increasing voluntary participation
in the project Three villages—Cross Plains, Middleton, and Manzanie—participate in
the urban program.
Types of Authority
Landowners, land operators, villages, cities, counties, and state agencies all have a
hand in implementing this program. Their major responsibilities are as follows:
Landowners and Land Operators: Adopt Rural Best Management Practices which
reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution and protect and enhance fish, wildlife and
other resources.
For the urban program, private landowners in certain circumstances will install BMPs
on their property.
February 1994 Appendix A-89
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Villages: For the rural program, enact a manure storage ordinance meeting the
provisions outlined by the Department of Agriculture/ Trade and Consumer Protection
in Ag 166.98. The intent of this ordinance is to prevent pollution of groundwater by
poorly designed and constructed animal waste storage faculties.
For the urban program/ there are two parts to the program/ a set of core programs and
segmented programs (those projects requiring site specific investigations prior to
implementation). The core tasks are to:
• Enact an adequate construction erosion ordinance
• Develop and implement a community specific program of urban housekeeping
practices that reduce urban nonpoint source pollution
• Implement the information and education strategy
The segmented program tasks are to:
• Identify high priority segments the community wishes to pursue in existing and
planned urban areas/ including an evaluation of source reduction and financing
• Conduct engineering feasibility and site location studies for high priority areas
• Adopt administer/ and enforce a comprehensive stormwater management
ordinance
• Enter into cost-share agreements for eligible BMPs
• Conduct detailed alternative financing/implementation studies which determine
the means to pay for administering nonpoint source control program in each
municipality
Dane County
• Develop farm conservation plans consistent with the needs of the project
• Enter into nonpoint source cost-share agreements with eligible landowners and
enforce the terms and provisions of the agreements and management their
reimbursement
• For county-owned and operated lands/ enter into cost-share agreements with the
DNR to correct identified nonpoint sources and fulfill their obligations as cost-share
recipients
• Design best management practices and verify proper practice installation
• Prepare and submit annual work plans and an annual work load analysis and grant
application to the Department of Agriculture/ Trade and Consumer Protection
• Prepare and submit annual resource management reports to monitor
implementation by tracking changes in the nonpoint source inventory and
quantifying pollutant load reductions which result from installing BMPs.
February 1994 Appendix A-90
-------
Appendta A. PiuyiMii Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
• Conduct the information and education activities identified in the plan for which
they are responsible
Department of Natural Resources: DNR responsibilities include project administration,
financial support via local assistance grant agreements and nonpoint source grant
agreements; project evaluation; technical assistance; assisting county staff with site
reviews of projects affecting wetlands or groundwater; and assisting county staff with
the integration of fish and wildlife management concerns into the BMPs.
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection: The DATCP role is
identified in s. 144.25, stats, ch. 92 stats; and NR120. The major responsibilities are:
manage a training program for the staff involved in implementation; act as a
clearinghouse for information related to agricultural BMPs, sustainable agriculture and
nutrient and pest management; assist in carrying out the information and education
programs, assist in identifying watershed participants subject to federal or state
conservation compliance programs; assist counties in developing manure storage
ordinances; assist in developing technical standards for agricultural BMPs; and assist in
evaluating the site specific practicality of implementing rural BMPs.
Management Techniques
This is a management plan for the abatement of rural nonpoint source pollution. The
Best Management Practices employed generally use specific standard specifications
included in the Soil Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide. Additional
specifications may apply. The techniques used in this plan include:
Contour Farming
Contour Strip Cropping
Field Strip Cropping
Field Diversions and Terraces
Grassed Waterways
Reduced Tillage
Critical Area Stabilization
Livestock Exclusion from Woodlots
Roofs for Barnyard Runoff Management
& Manure Storage Facilities
Grade Stabilization Structures
Agricultural Sediment Basins
Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization
Shoreline Buffers
Barnyard Runoff Management
Animal Lot Relocation
Manure Storage Facilities
Wetland Restoration
Nutrient and Pesticide Management
Enforcement Mechanisms
Wisconsin DNR has the power to review and approve local plans, including all aspects
of administration and management Storaiwater management plans must be consistent
with the state model ordinance and must meet pollutant reduction goals. Individual
BMPs are controlled via contract Landowners or operators required to participate but
who do not lose the cost-share arrangement in favor of a low-interest loan program.
February 1994
Appendix A-91
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Monitoring System
The plan includes a regimen for monitoring both administrative and pollutant load
management systems. Wisconsin DNR is primarily responsible for administrative and
pollutant load tracking. It uses the WIN (Wisconsin Nonpoint) System for monitoring
the reduction of sediment, and the Wisconsin Modified ARS model to evaluate the
reduction of manure from barnyards. The Dane County Land Conservation
Department uses its GIS system to monitor reductions in pollutant and sediment loads
throughout the watershed.
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been in Force?
The management plan was prepared and approved in March 1989. It was added as an
amendment to the regional water quality management plan for the Lower Wisconsin
River Basin and as part of the area management plan for Dane County.
Representative Projects
The Black Earth Creek Watershed is divided into seventeen sub-watersheds, each with
its own management objectives. One of these is for the Headwaters to County Highway
P area. It is divided into two segments. For the upper area, the plan lists three
objectives:
• Prevent potential discharge of toxic substances into the stream
• Maintain integrity of recharge area of springs
• Reduce sediment and oxygen demanding substances to protect next stream segment
downstream by 50%
The lower segment has these objectives:
• Maintain a Class I trout fishery in this stream by:
- increasing dissolved oxygen levels
- lowering high water temperatures
- reducing sedimentation
- decreasing organic loading to this stretch of stream
• Improve habitat to reduce macrophyte-caused dissolved oxygen sags and to reduce
sedimentation
• Reduce sediment and oxygen demanding substances by 50% to protect next stream
downstream segment
Grassroots Involvement
This plan has an extensive program built in for raising public awareness and providing
public information. The program uses printed materials, audio-visual programs,
February 1994 Appendix A-92
-------
Appendte A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
exhibits, media/ tours, demonstrations, signs, workshops, meetings, and youth
education. Sub-groups specifically targeted include rural landowners and operators,
local governments, urban residents, business and industry, and youth. The program is
tailored for each sub-group.
Program benefits identified to date
No data available.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
None identified.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
The enabling legislation is woven into the state administrative code.
Watershed Management Documents
A Plan for the Control ofNonpoint Sources and Related Resource Management in the Black
Earth Creek Priority Watershed Project. Prepared cooperatively by the Wisconsin
Department of Natural Resources; and the Department of Agriculture, Trade and
Consumer Protection, in cooperation with the Dane County Land Conservation
Department March 1989. Publication WR-218-89.
Nonpoint Source Evaluation Monitoring Activities. Prepared by the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources. March 1991. Publication WR-279-91.
Fields and Streets, the Newsletter for Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement Program. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
February 1994 Appendix A-83
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Grande Ronde Critical Basin Project
Aaencv:
OR Dept of Environmental Quality
Address:
811SW Sixth Avenue
Citv-ST.-Zip:
Portland, OR 5696
Telephone:
(503) 229-56%
Fax Telephone:
Contact Person:
Debra Sturdevant (503) 229-5289
Notes:
The program is less than two years old, and is just now moving beyond the
monitoring/sampling stage.
Year and Method of Establishment
A1987 consent decree issued by the U.S. District Court directed the state of Oregon to
enforce water quality management programs for streams classified as water quality-
limited under the Clean Water Act The state was ordered by the judge to adopt two
total maximum daily load (TMDL) plans per year. Thus far, fifteen rivers in Oregon
have been designated as priority waterbodies under the Department of Environmental
Quality's Critical Basin Program, among them the Grande Ronde in eastern Oregon.
Monitoring work began in earnest on the Grande Ronde in 1991. The Critical Basin
Program is Oregon's system for designating priority watersheds under EPA rules for
nonpoint source management
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
Samples indicate that the river exceeds allowable standards for pH, dissolved oxygen,
fecal bacteria, phosphorus, nuisance algal growth, and temperature. The goal of the
program is to restore the river to "high quality water" status, that is, to return the river
to a condition that supports all beneficial uses. The project has five objectives:
1. Characterize water quality problems, pollution sources and factors that impact
water quality in the basin
2. Establish water quality objectives or targets
February 1994
Appendix A-94
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
3. Develop an implementation strategy and schedule/ including responsible parties
and designated management agencies, program plan schedules, permit
amendments, compliance dates and a monitoring plan
4. Work with the public, potentially affected parties and local governments to develop
an understanding of the project and the water quality objectives, and to foster
effective implementation
5. Coordinate with other agencies conducting studies and projects in the basin to share
information and accomplish the water quality, flow and habitat goals for the basin.
Geographic Scale
The Grande Ronde River Basin covers 5,265 square miles in northeastern Oregon and
southeastern Washington, of which 4,916 square miles are in Oregon. The main stem of
Grande Ronde is about 210 miles in length. It flows into the Snake River, a tributary of
the Columbia River.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
Many agencies have direct involvement with the waters of the Grande Ronde,
including the Bureau of Reclamation, the US Forest Service, the US Soil Conservation
Service, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Water Resources, the Confederated Tribes
of the Umatilla, and the Northwest Power Planning Council. The DEQ coordinates with
each in work that protects water quality and promotes beneficial uses.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
State appropriations for the DEQ are die source of funds for the program.
Management
Organizational Structure
Plans would be implemented under the leadership of the Department of Environmental
Quality. The state's Strategic Water Management Group, a coordinating group
empowered by the legislature, identified twenty-eight authorities in Oregon law and
regulation that pertain, at least in part, to the management of nonpoint sources of water
pollution. It would be expected that DEQ would coordinate the installation of BMPs
with these agencies as appropriate.
February 1994 Appendix A-96
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profile* of Watershed Oriented
Types of Authority
The Grande Ronde is a river with which many different agencies have an active
interest DEQ has interest for water quality purposes, the Department of Water
Resources tracks it as an Oregon State Scenic Waterway and as a stream restoration
project The USDA Forest Service is studying the river as a potential component of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. Several agencies have banded together on the
Power Planning Council's Model Watershed program and also on the Upper Grande
Ronde Anadromous Fish Habitat Restoration Program. Each of these programs is
directly related to the protection of beneficial uses and the control of nonpoint sources.
Management Techniques
Since the assessment phase is not yet complete, active management has not yet begun.
The Department will establish TMDLs and load allocations in 1993 to address pH,
dissolved oxygen/ and algal growth. A plan to address temperature reduction will go
into operation in 1994.
The Grande Ronde is also part of the Northwest Power Planning Council's Model
Watershed Program. The Council sponsored a major regional hydropower study,
focused particularly on the Columbia River basin, that also addressed other public uses
and demands for river systems in the area. In particular, restoration of historical
salmon migrations was identified as a high priority.
Enforcement Mechanisms
This program operates under its existing authorities without separate authorization by
the legislature. As such, those authorities each have established enforcement
mechanisms to assure the program is carried out by the public.
Monitoring System
An elaborate monitoring system is in place. Many agencies contribute to the monitoring
activities, including the Bureau of Reclamation, the US Forest Service, the US Soil
Conservation Service, the Oregon Department of Environmental Quality, the Oregon
Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Oregon Department of Water Resources, the
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla, and the Northwest Power Planning Council.
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been in Force?
Program will go into operation in mid-1993.
February 1994 Appendix A-96
-------
ApptndU A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Representative Projects
No management plan in place yet
Grassroots Involvement
The Critical Basin Program exists in part due to litigation by environmental
organizations in the Northwest to force the states to improve their efforts to implement
the provisions of the Clean Water Act
Program Benefits Identified to Date
Program is still in the assessment stage. No benefits yet
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
No direct assistance sited.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Watershed Management Documents
1988 Water Quality Status Assessment (305b) Report, Appendix T-C5, Grande Ronde
River Total Maximum Daily Load Report Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality. 1988.
Grande Ronde Critical Basin Project Workplan. Oregon Department of Environmental
Quality. June 5,1991. Updated March 24,1992.
February 1994 Appendix A-97
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority of Texas
Agency
Agency: Telephone:
Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority of (210) 379-5822
Texas
Address: Fax Telephone:
P.O. Box 271 (210) 379-9718
933 E. Court Street
Citv-ST-Zip: Contact Person:
Seguin, Texas 78156-0271 David M. Welsch
Notes:
Year and Method of Establishment
The Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority (GBRA) was created in 1935 by an act of Texas
Legislature.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The GBRA was established in order to develop/ conserve, and protect the waters of the
Guadalupe River Basin.
Geographic Scale
The Authority covers ten—Kendall, Comal, Hays, Guadalupe, DeWitt, Caldwell,
Gonzalez, Victoria, Refeigio, Calhoun counties, an area of about 7,000 square miles..
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
GBRA is governed by a board of nine directors appointed by the Governor. Each
member serves a six-year term with three directors appointed or reappointed every two
years. Management and administrative functions are performed by the General
Manager under practices that are established by the board.
February 1994
Appendix A-98
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The GBRA cannot levy taxes or assessments. Revenues are from services including
water supply, power generation/ and provision of sewer and other services. GBRA
operates on a fiscal year that runs from September 1st to August 31st The budget is
about $13 million per year. There are 121 employees.
Management
Organizational Structure
The GBRA is divided into eleven divisions that include: the General Guadalupe Valley
Hydroelectric, Rural Utilities, Water Supply, Calhoun Canal, Port Lavaca Water
Treatment Plant Calhoun County Rural Water Supply, Victoria Regional Waste
Disposal, Coleto Creek, Luling Water Treatment Plant/and Canyon Hydroelectric
Division.
Degree of Authority
The Authority is non-regulatory, although it has major responsibilities for the
construction and operation of water projects.
Management Techniques
The GBRA primarily operates water resources projects.
Enforcement Mechanisms
It is not a regulatory authority. It has intervened in support of a lawsuit against a
federal agency to protect water supplies.
Monitoring System
There is monthly water quality testing and a fully equipped testing and research
laboratory.
Representative Projects
Coleto Creek - Constructing cooling pond reservoir. Canyon Hydroelectric Generator,
sponsor of Canyon Reservoir construction, operate wastewater plant in Victoria; rural
waste water treatment plants.
February 1994 Appendix A-99
-------
Appmdte A. Program ProfNM Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Grassroots Involvement
The GBRA sponsored a program entitled "Major Rivers" as a state-wide education
program designed to introduce students to Texas River systems/ water and wastewater
treatment conservation, and the preservation of natural resources. The GBRA has also
developed it own educational program entitied Journey Through the Guadalupe Basin.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
None
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Enabling Act passed in 1935 by the Texas Legislature. Last revision was in 1975.
Vernon's Civil Statutes, Article 8280-106.
Watershed Management Documents
Regional Water Plan for the Guadalupe River Basin. Guadalupe-Blanco River Authority
and HDR Engineering, Inc. January 1991.
February 1994 Appendix A-100
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Menomonee River Priority Watershed, Wl
Aaencv: Telephone:
Wisconsin DepL of Natural Resources (608) 266-9254
Nonpoint Source and Land Mgmt
Section
Bureau of Water Resources Mgmt
Address:
101S. Webster Street
P.O. Box 7921
Citv-ST-Zip:
Madison, WI53707-7921
Fax Telephone:
(608)267-2800
Contact Person:
Rebecca R. Wallace, P.E., Chief
Notes:
This appendix includes a separate profile on the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program.
Year and Method of Establishment
The Menomonee River Priority Watershed plan was prepared under the provisions of
the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program, initiated in 1984
under Chapter NR120, Wisconsin Administrative Code.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The Menomonee River Watershed is one of five watersheds within the Milwaukee
River Watershed, an 838 square mile drainage that flows into Lake Michigan at
Milwaukee, Wisconsin.
The management plan sets forth several goals:
• Overall, a 50 percent reduction in the existing 1985 sediment loading is needed to
improve the aquatic habitat in nearly all streams in the watershed.
• A high reduction level (50 percent to 70 percent) in phosphorus loading to most
streams is needed to reduce the prevalence of excessive aquatic weed and algae
growth.
• A reduction in the concentration of heavy metals and other toxic materials in urban
runoff. In this watershed, lead is used as an indicator pollutant for evaluating the
impact of urban runoff on water quality.
February 1994
Appendix A-101
-------
AppendU A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
• Watershed wide, a 35 percent to 70 percent reduction in lead concentrations in
stormwater effluents is needed to achieve a level below the acute toxicity standard
set forth in Chapter NR105 of the Wisconsin Administrative Code.
• A reduction in heavy metals from future urban areas, existing and planned areas) to
50 percent of the 1985 level will also be needed to reduce the lead concentrations
measured in the Menomonee River to levels that do not violate toxicity standards
for fish and aquatic life.
Geographic Scale
The Menomonee River Watershed includes 167 miles of streams within an area of 136
square miles. There are no significant lakes.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The management plan is a cooperative, coordinated system administered by the
Department of Natural Resources. The counties, participants in the preparation of the
watershed assessment which is the basis for the plan, participate in the planning
process via resolution of the County Boards of Supervisors. The counties enter into
agreements with DNR for the purpose of receiving funds for management, -
enforcement and cost-sharing with private property owners and land operators.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The state program provides cost-share funds to assist in implementing the nonpoint
program. Projects may be funded up to five years after the watershed plan is approved
by DNR. Funding does not cover some costs such as land acquisition or the renovation
or construction of new storm sewer systems needed to comply with this program or
other state or federal laws.
The state program provides for cost-sharing agreements to be entered into between the
participating counties and landowners or land operators. If landowners fail to
participate voluntarily, the offer of the cost-sharing arrangement may be revoked and a
low-interest loan arrangement may be substituted.
February 1994 Appendix A-102
-------
Appmdta A. Program ProffiM Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Best Management Practice State Cost-Share Rate
Rural BMPs
Contour Farming 50% *
Contour Strip Farming 50% *
Field Strip Cropping 50% *
Field Diversions and Terraces. 70%
Grassed Waterways 70%
Reduced Tillage 50%
Critical Area Stabilization 70% 1
Grade Stabilization Structures 70%
Agricultural Sediment Basins 70%
Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization 70%
Shoreline Buffers 70% 1
Barnyard Runoff Management 70%
Animal Lot Relocation 70%
Manure Storage Facilities 70%
Livestock Exclusion from Woodlots 50%
Wetland Restoration 70% 1
Roofs for Barnyard Runoff Management
& Manure Storage Facilities 70%
Nutrient and Pesticide Management 50% 2
Urban BMPs
Critical Area Stabilization 70% 3
Grade Stabilization Structures 70%
Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization 70%
Shoreline Buffers : 70% 3
Wetland Restoration 70% 3
Structural Urban Practices 70% 4
Street Sweeping 50% 5
1. Easements may be entered into with landowners identified in the watershed plan in
conjunction with these BMPs.
2 Spill control basins have a cost-share rate of 70 percent.
^ Wildlife habitat restoration components of this practice are cost-shared at 70 percent.
** Maximum cost-share amount is $10.000 including no more than $5,000 for manure transfer
equipment.
3. Easements may be used in conjunction with these practices.
4- Applies only to structures for established urban areas. Established urban surfaces are
considered to be those in existence prior to the date the DNR approves the watershed plan.
5 This is an alternative best management practice not listed in NR 120 of the Wisconsin
Administrative Code..
February 1994 Appendix A-103
-------
Appendix 4C Pioyimt Profiles
Profiles of Witershed Oriented
The state cost-share rates for Best Management Practices are as follows:
Best Management Practice
Flat Cost-Share Rate
Contour Farming $6.00/ac.
Strip Cropping $12.00/ac.
Field Strip Cropping $10.00/ac.
Reduced Tillage $15.00/ac. 1
Reduced Tillage $45.00/ac. 2
1. Reduced tillage systems for short crop rotations, and establishment of forages and small
grains (Includes no-till).
*. Reduced tillage systems for continuous row cropping or long rotations (does not include no-
till).
The projected total budget for the rural portion of the watershed plan includes capital
costs, easements/ local government costs/ information and education, and other direct
costs. The table specifies the state share versus the local share.
Menomonee River Priority Watershed Plan
Projected Budget (8 Years) for Rural Operations
(Assumes 75% Participation by Landowners and Land Operators)
Cost Center
Ozaukee Washington Waukesha
Totals
BMP Capital Costs
Easement Costs
Staff Needs
Information Education/Direct
Other Direct
$ 205,589 $ 138,233 $ 49,695 $ 393,517
45,000 112,500 22,500 180,000
106,973 128,740 51,355 287,067
0
15,000 15,000 8,000 38,000
Total State Share
Local Share
$ 372,562 $ 394,473 $ 131,550 $ 898,584
90,392 44,513 20,363 155,268
Total Budgeted Cost
462,954 $ 438,986 $ 151,913 $ 1,053,852
The urban segment of the program provides services to thirteen municipalities
including the City of Milwaukee. Cost-sharing will not cover the cost of land
February 1994
Appendix A-104
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Waterched Oriented
acquisition or the renovation or construction of storm sewer systems. Cost-sharing is
available for the following actions in addition to the listing of eligible BMPs above:
Menomonee River Priority Watershed Plan
Urban Strategies Eligible for Funding
Urban Strategy Flat Cost-Share Rate
Development of Construction Erosion Control Ordinances 100%
Development of Stormwater Management Ordinances 100%
Engineering Studies for Existing Urban Areas; Studies for
Planned Urban Areas 100% 1
Design and Engineering for Structural BMPs 100%
Local Enforcement Staff 100% 2
Staff for Accelerated Street Sweeping 100% 2
Development of alternative financing and admin, strategies 100%
1. Funding not available for components dealing exclusively with drainage and flooding.
2. Funding limited to five years. Level of staffing based on a work plan submitted by local units
of government and approved by the DNR.
For the thirteen municipalities, the DNR estimates the cost of detailed engineering
feasibility studies to be $5,411,500. The cost of implementing the recommended urban
program in existing urban areas ranges from $90,880,000 to $181,780,000 (50 percent to
100% participation), the state's share being $11,814,000 to $23,628,800 (50 percent to
100% participation). The cost of implementing the recommended urban practices in
planned urban areas amount to $3,451,600 for wet detention strategies and $444,720 for
stormwater management planning. Some of the counties have indicated that they may
have difficulty allocating the large non-state sums to the program.
Management
Organizational Structure
The plan is carried out under a joint plan approved by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Programs, and
the Counties of Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha. Also participating are the Soil
Conservation Service and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. The
University of Wisconsin Extension provides support in developing and conducting a
public information and education program aimed at increasing voluntary participation
in the project Thirteen cities and villages including the City of Milwaukee participate
in the urban program.
February 1994 Appendix A-105
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Types of Authority
Landowners, land operators, villages, cities, counties, and state agencies all have a
hand in implementing this program. Their major responsibilities are as follows:
Landowners and Land Operators: Adopt Rural Best Management Practices which
reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution and protect and enhance fish, wildlife and
other resources.
For the urban program, private landowners in certain circumstances will install BMPs
on their property.
Villages and Cities: For the rural program, enact a manure storage ordinance meeting
the provisions outlined by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer
Protection in Ag 166.98. The intent of this ordinance is to prevent pollution of
groundwater by poorly designed and constructed animal waste storage facilities.
For the urban program, there are two parts to the program, a set of core programs and
segmented programs (those projects requiring site specific investigations prior to
implementation). The core tasks are to
• Enact an adequate construction erosion ordinance
• Develop and implement a community specific program of urban housekeeping
practices that reduce urban nonpoint source pollution
• Implement the information and education strategy.
The segmented program tasks are to:
• Identify high priority segments the community wishes to pursue in existing and
planned urban areas, including an evaluation of source reduction and financing.
• Conduct engineering feasibility and site location studies for high priority areas.
• Adopt administer, and enforce a comprehensive stormwater management
ordinance.
• Enter into cost-share agreements for eligible BMPs.
• Conduct detailed alternative financing/ implementation studies which determine
the means to pay for administering nonpoint source control program in each
municipality.
February 1994 Appendix A-106
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Counties ofOzaukee, Washington, and Waukesha:
For the rural program:
• Develop farm conservation plans consistent with the needs of the project
e Enter into nonpoint source cost-share agreements with eligible landowners and
enforce the terms and provisions of the agreements and management their
reimbursement
• For county-owned and operated lands, enter into cost-share agreements with the
DNR to correct identified nonpoint sources and fulfill their obligations as cost-share
recipients
• Design best management practices and verify proper practice installation
• Prepare and submit annual work plans and an annual work load analysis and grant
application to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
• Prepare and submit annual resource management reports to monitor
implementation by tracking changes in the nonpoint source inventory and
quantifying pollutant load reductions which result from installing BMPs.
• Conduct the information and education activities identified in the plan for which
they are responsible
For urban areas, the counties must take the same urban actions as municipalities for
their unincorporated areas.
Department of Natural Resources: DNR responsibilities include project administration,
financial support via local assistance grant agreements and nonpoint source grant
agreements; project evaluation; technical assistance; assisting county staff with site
reviews of projects affecting wetlands or groundwater; and assisting county staff with
the integration of fish and wildlife management concerns into the BMPs.
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection: The DATCP role is
identified in s. 144.25, stats, ch. 92 stats; and NR120. The major responsibilities are:
manage a training program for the staff involved in implementation; act as a
clearinghouse for information related to agricultural BMPs, sustainable agriculture and
nutrient and pest management; assist in carrying out the information and education
programs, assist in identifying watershed participants subject to federal or state
conservation compliance programs; assist counties in developing manure storage
ordinances; assist in developing technical standards for agricultural BMPs; and assist in
evaluating the site specific practicality of implementing rural BMPs.
Management Techniques
This is a management plan for the abatement of rural nonpoint source pollution. The
Best Management Practices employed generally use specific standard specifications
February 1994 Appendix A-107
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
included in the Soil Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide. Additional
specifications may apply. The techniques used in this plan include:
Contour Farming
Contour Strip Cropping
Field Strip Cropping
Field Diversions and Terraces
Grassed Waterways
Reduced Tillage
Critical Area Stabilization
Livestock Exclusion from Woodlots
Roofs for Barnyard Runoff Management
& Manure Storage Facilities
Grade Stabilization Structures
Agricultural Sediment Basins
Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization
Shoreline Buffers
Barnyard Runoff Management
Animal Lot Relocation
Manure Storage Facilities
Wetland Restoration
Nutrient and Pesticide Management
Enforcement Mechanisms
Wisconsin DNR has the power to review and approve local plans/ including all aspects
of administration and management Storm water management plans must be consistent
with the state model ordinance and must meet pollutant reduction goals. Individual
BMPs are controlled via contract Landowners or operators required to participate but
who do not lose the cost-share arrangement in favor of a low-interest loan program.
Monitoring System
The plan includes a regimen for monitoring both administrative and pollutant load
management systems. Ozaukee County is primarily responsible for administrative and
pollutant load tracking. The system uses CAMPS, the Computer Assisted Management
and Planning System, developed by SCS.
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been in Force?
The management plan was prepared and approved in March 1992. An earlier regional
nonpoint water quality management plan was prepared by the South Eastern
Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission in 1979.
Representative Projects
Not applicable.
Grassroots Involvement
DNR convened the Menomonee River Advisory Subcommittee to assist in preparing
the plan. Acting primarily as a policy guidance group, it also reviewed plan chapters.
February 1994
Appendix A-108
-------
Appwidix A. Program ProfllM Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Members included representatives of local governments, conservation groups,
interested citizens/ and utility and planning agencies.
This plan has an extensive program built in for raising public awareness and providing
public information. The program uses printed materials, audio-visual programs,
exhibits, media, tours, demonstrations, signs, workshops, meetings, and youth
education. Sub-groups specifically targeted include rural landowners and operators,
local governments, urban residents, business and industry, and youth. The program is
tailored for each sub-group.
Program benefits identified to date
The plan has been in operation for less than one year. No data available.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
Region V of the US EPA provided Section 319 funds to pay in part for this plan.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
The enabling legislation is woven into the state administrative code.
Watershed Management Documents
A Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the Menomonee River Priority Watershed Project,.
Prepared cooperatively by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources; and the
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection, in cooperation with the
Ozaukee, Washington, and Waukesha County Land Conservation Departments and the
Menomonee River Advisory Subcommittee. March 1992. Publication WR-244-92.
Nonpoint Source Evaluation Monitoring Activities. Prepared by the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources. March 1991. Publication WR-279-91.
Fields and Streets, the Newsletter for Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement Program. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
February 1994 Appendix A-109
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Middle Fork River Watershed Pilot Project
Agency
Aaencv: Telephone:
Middle Fork River Watershed Project (304) 755-1461
West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection
Address: Fax Telephone:
10 Mcjunkin Road
Citv-ST-Zip:
Nitro/WV 25143
Contact Person:
Ken Politan
Notes:
Preparation is underway to develop a watershed plan for the Middle Fork River next
year.
Year and Method of Establishment
On February 21,1991 in West Virginia a signing of a Memorandum of Understanding
(MOU) took place to address the problems of nonpoint acid mine drainage in the rivers
of West Virginia. The signatory agencies include: the West Virginia Division of Natural
Resources, the West Virginia Division of Environmental Protection, the West Virginia
State Soil Conservation Committee, the U.S. Office of Surface Mining, the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, and the U.S. Soil Conservation Surface.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The main objective of this MOU is to reduce the harmful effects caused by acid mine
drainage through the establishment of a national pilot program for the watershed.
Activities will involve technical, regulatory, and procedural aspects.
Geographic Scale
The Middle Fork River Watershed encompasses a 151 square miles in three counties of
north central West Virginia. The area includes roughly 227 miles of stream course.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The Memorandum of Understanding described above.
February 1994
Appendix A-110
-------
Appendte A. Program ProtHts Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Sources of Funding
The major sources of funds for this project include the West Virginia Division of
Environmental Protection special reclamation funds for bond forfeiture sites/
Abandoned Mines Lands Fund (AML) administered by the U.S. Office of Surface
Mining, Rural Abandoned Mine Program (RAMP) portion of AML funds/10 percent
set-aside of AML funds established under the 1990 SMCRA Amendments/ and the
Nonpoint Source Program under Section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act This project
will continue to coordinate the activities and seek the financial support of support
groups other than the signatory agencies.
Budget Information
The estimated cost of reclaiming the mine sites is $5 million. As additional information
is obtained concerning the treatment of these mines/ the budget will be adjusted
accordingly.
Management
Organizational Structure
The signatory agencies have developed work plans to achieve the goals established by
the pilot program.
Degree of Authority
The agencies have the capability under existing authority to undertake this pilot
project
Management Techniques
Initial efforts to reduce acid mine drainage and reclaim abandoned mine lands have
included the construction of alkaline trenches leading to a wetland system/ construction
of wetlands designed to treat acid mine drainage/ and land reclamation activities.
BMPs have been initiated in the watershed to improve the water quality in the river
and to restore water uses downstream. Actions taken in situ to remedy the acid mine
drainage are:
• Design, construction and monitoring of four engineered wetland cells
Additional work done included the assessment phase: inventory of abandoned mines
and active mines/ undertake ongoing monitoring of the Pierce Contour engineered
wetland (an abandoned mine site); mapping and database compilation of inventoried
February 1994 Appendix A-111
-------
Appendix A. Program Profile* Profiles of Witershed Oriented
sites and water quality data; surface and groundwater quality monitoring plan;
biomonitoring plan for each surface water station; and a public information campaign
to secure applications for assistance under the Rural Abandoned Mine Program.
Future programs include fish re-stocking, additional abatement sites/ and fish habitat
improvements (shading, vegetation, and establishment of pools and riffles).
Enforcement Mechanisms
Enforcement falls to the existing authorities of the participating agencies. No special
enforcement programs have been enacted for this pilot project
Monitoring System
The lower 24 miles of the river, where the most damage has occurred, is monitored.
Representative Projects
This is a pilot project
Grassroots Involvement
No active public involvement although the public may be involved later in order to
build additional support for the project
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
US EPA provided section 319h funds to assist with the project Funds paid for the
establishment of a geographic information system, a baseline monitoring program,
installation of an engineered wetland to assimilate acid mine drainage, and continued
efforts to evaluate and implement abatement technology at sites identified as causing
major stream degradation.
Funds under Section 106 have been used to support groundwater monitoring at six
stations.
Region HI personnel provide technical assistance and to investigate potential resources
to support the project
February 1984 Appendix A-112
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Memorandum of Understanding, February 21,1991, between the Office of Surface
Mining, US Department of the Interior; US Environmental Protection Agency; US Soil
Conservation Service; West Virginia Soil Conservation Committee; WV Department of
Commerce, Labor, and Environmental Resources, Division of Natural Resources,
Division of Energy (now the Division of Environmental Protection)
Watershed Management Documents
Federal and State Cooperative Effort to Reduce Acid Mine Drainage in the Middle Ford
River Watershed. By signatory parties. April 1992. Produced under cooperative
agreement with US EPA by the Terrene Institute.
February 1994 Appendix A-113
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Mississippi Headwaters Board
Agency
Agency:
Mississippi Headwaters Board
Address:
Cass County Courthouse
Citv-ST-Zip:
Walker, Minnesota 56484
Telephone:
218-547-3300
Fax Telephone:
218-547-2440
Contact Person:
Molly MacGregor
Notes:
The MHB is a corridor plan/ not a watershed plan/ but it includes many management
elements for nonpoint source control.
Year and Method of Establishment
The Mississippi Headwaters Board (MHB) was established in 1980 under a joint
powers agreement of the eight counties in the headwaters region of the Mississippi
River. It was formed in response to a proposal to designate the river as a component of
the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The tasks of the MHB include preserving and protecting the shorelands of the River
and the lakes in the signatory counties, stewardship/ and water quality. The Board was
also assigned the task of conducting an inventory of the resources in the vicinity,
including such aspects as cultural sites/ protected waters/ scenic waters, endangered
species/ and recreational areas.
Geographic Scale
The first four hundred miles of the River are included as under the authority of the
MHB. The Board's authority stretches over an area of 1000 feet in wild areas/ and 500
feet in populated areas.
February 1994
Appendix A-114
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The board must depend upon counties for information due to the small size of the
organization and the amount of land covered. The MHB requires that county
commissioners report on development within their area in order to provide for a
constant and consistent flow of information between agencies. Due to this dependency
upon county officials, the MHB hosts annual training sessions for local officials. One
mechanism for intergovernmental coordination used by the MHB has been the
development of working relationship with other agencies.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
In 1990 the MHB received a grant from the Charles B. Blandin Foundation to develop a
Mississippi Headwaters River Watch. This River Watch is to be a citizen's river
monitoring and protection group. This program is designed to complement the other
monitoring programs of the MHB.
The State of Minnesota provides a grant of $95,000, which the counties must match with
in-kind services. The total annual budget is approximately $250,000.
Management
Organizational Structure
The Board consists of eight representatives, one appointed from each of the signatory
counties. The Board convenes once a month, and is served by a committee comprised
of zoning officers and land commissioners from the signatory counties, the Chippewa
National Forest, county Soil and Water Conservation Districts, townships, and the
Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, and property owners from each of the
signatory counties, and four members at large. These individuals represent
conservation groups, recreational groups, agriculture, cultural interest, and the like.
Degree of Authority
The MHB is established by Minnesota Statutes (103F.361-.377). The Board has the
power to certify local zoning decisions. The Board receives its mandate through the
adoption of shoreline ordinance and land use and recreation management plans. The
Board can then review and certify actions that are variances of the ordinance.
Management Techniques
While the MHB's direct management area extends back from the Upper Mississippi
only 1,000 feet, the management focus on nonpoint source control is as strong as that
February 1994 Appendix A-115
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
for the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area Program. The program employs the following
management techniques:
Stormwater Management. BMPs for urban water quality described by the Minnesota
Water Pollution Control Agency are recommended for use.
• Existing natural drainageways, wetlands, and vegetated soil surfaces must be used
to convey/ store/ filter/ and retain storm water runoff before discharge to public
waters.
• When conditions prevent the use of natural features and vegetation for controlling
stormwater runoff/ constructed devices may be used with preference given to the
use of surface drainage/ vegetation/ and infiltration rather than pipes or man-made
faculties.
• Development must be planned and conducted in a manner that will minimize the
extent of disturbed areas/ runoff velocities, erosion potential/ and reduce and delay
runoff volumes. Disturbed areas must be stabilized and protected soon after and
facilities or methods used to retain sediment on site.
• New development may not have impervious surface coverage of more than 25
percent; stormwater facilities must adhere to the field office technical guide of the
County Soil and Water Conservation District; and stormwater outfalls must be
filtered or settled and surface-skimmed to trap suspended elements before
discharge; and a natural landscape protection plan must be prepared.
Shoreland Alternation. Alterations of vegetation or topography are regulated to
prevent erosion to public waters/ fix nutrients/ preserve shoreland aesthetics/ prevent
bank slumping, and for other purposes.
• For agricultural uses, a conservation plan that maintains vegetation on steep slopes,
avoids bluff impact zones, and operates meets the minimum standards of the
County Soil and Water Conservation District recommendations for agriculture and
water quality is required.
• A vegetation management plan is required to minimize erosion and to protect water
quality.
• New animal feedlots are prohibited in the river corridor.
• Existing feedlots may continue provided they are not expanded.
• Best management practices are required for forestry practices
• Intensive vegetation clearing within the setback and bluff impact zones and on steep
slopes is not allowed. Drainage or filling of wetlands is generally not permitted.
Public Roads and River Crossings. New road construction and reconstruction is
sharply controlled to avoid sensitive areas and minimize adverse impacts. Some of the
hazards that should be avoided are:
February 1984 Appendix A-116
-------
Appendix A. Piugnm Piolites
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Areas of plastic soils
subject to extensive
slippage
Building within 200 feet
of the Mississippi River
Soils whose high
susceptibility to erosion
would create
sedimentation and
pollution problems
Wetlands
Intrusions into stream
valleys and open
exposures of water
Areas with high water
tables
Cuts and fills during
construction
Ridge crests and high
points
Forests (prefer forest
fringes)
Open space recreation
areas
Steep slopes
Sand, Gravel, and Borrow Pits. This is a conditional use for which site development
and restoration plans are required. They are designed to control dust discharge of
materials that may be pollutants/ vegetative alterations, topographic alterations/ soil
erosions/ groundwater contamination/ and the system for rehabilitation.
Enforcement Mechanisms
The capability to review and approve local zoning decisions is the teeth in the MHB
enforcement program. Violators are required to take down/replace what has been
damaged. MHB may assess fines or initiate remedial litigation to secure enforcement
The MHB's biggest obstacle has been the refusal of state agencies to incorporate the
Board's authority to certify local zoning decisions in their planning process. A
suggested way of improving the authority of the Board is to expand the role of the
Board under the Clean Water Act to address water quality.
The MHB has achieved success in the denial of zoning permits due to the adoption of
uniform codes for the eight counties involved.
Monitoring System
The MHB reviews the operations of its member counties and cooperating managing
agencies. Monitoring has long since been a goal of the Mississippi Headwaters Board.
With the assistance of the River Watch Network/ a monitoring system called the
Mississippi Headwaters River Watch has been implemented. The program is a
partnership of school, citizen groups, government agencies, and private sector
individuals who work together to realize the potential damage of human use on river
resources. Some of the practices monitored include failing septic tanks, land
development vegetation removal, and agricultural practices.
February 1994
Appendix A-117
-------
AppwidU A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Representative Projects
Grassroots Involvement
The MHB is involved with the public through the dissemination of information and
education. The Board provides information on the impact of land use on water quality
through the publication of a User's Guide to Shoreland Development and a video on
lakes. The Board traditionally relies on non-traditional methods to get their point
across; such as a training workshop held for the administration of local land use
regulations. The MHB also produces a newsletter, public education materials, canoe
trips, and property guides.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
None
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
The Minnesota Statues, Mississippi Headwaters Conservation Ordinance, Mississippi
Headwaters Management Plan.
Watershed Management Documents
Mississippi Headwaters Management Plan. Mississippi Headwaters Board. July 1992.
February 1994 ' Appendix A-118
-------
Appendb A. Pioyiwi Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Nisqually River Council, WA
Agency:
Nisqually River Council
Address:
P.O. Box 1076
Citv-ST-Zip:
Yelm, WA 98597
Telephone:
(206) 459-6780 / 438-7425
Fax Telephone:
(206)438-7537
Contact Person:
Steve Craig or Peter Moulton
Notes:
The River Council is staffed by personnel from the WA Department of Ecology
Year and Method of Establishment
The Nisqually River Management Plan was adopted by the Washington State
legislature in June of 1987. The plan was prepared pursuant to an act of the legislature
adopted in 1985 directing the Department of Ecology to prepare a plan which provided
for a balanced stewardship of the basin's economic, cultural and environmental
resources. The river was first recognized in 1972 under the state Shorelands
Management Act which identified the Nisqually as a river of statewide significance.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The twenty-one member Nisqually River Council is a broadly-based organization
committed to the protection and enhancement of the Nisqually River and its basin.
Geographic Scale
The river is 78 miles in length, extending from its origins as the west drainage of Mount
Rainier on the Nisqually Glacier in Mount Rainier National Park, downstream through
the Nisqually Indian Reservation, the Fort Lewis military complex to the Nisqually
National Wildlife Refuge on Puget Sound. Flowing through three counties, the
management area extends back from the river a maximum of 3/4 of a mile. The
boundary is defined by viewshed. The Council is actively involved in issues
throughout the basin. The watershed covers 722 square miles.
February 1994
Appendix A-119
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The state legislation provides for the formation of the Nisqually River Council as an
interagency body that functions through the use of its members existing authorities and
as an advocate and coordinator of agency actions.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The program is funded through the Department of Ecology by the legislature. The
annual budget is $100,000, of which 50% is spent on staff and 50% on projects. Project
money is matched on a 1 to 1 basis by other agencies participating directly in the
project
Management
Organizational Structure
There are twenty-one agencies and units of government that are members of the
Nisqually River Council. They are: three counties (Pierce, Thurston, and Lewis), three
municipalities (Town of Yelm, Town of Eatonville, City of Roy), seven state agencies
(Parks and Recreation Commission, Secretary of State, and the Departments of Natural
Resources, Agriculture, Ecology, Fisheries, and Wildlife), the University of
Washington's Pack Experimental Forest Fort Lewis, US Army Corps of Engineers,
Nisqually Indian Tribe, Nisqually National Wildlife Refuge, Mount Rainier National
Park, Gifford Pinchot National Forest and Tacoma City Light In addition, there is the
Citizens Advisory Committee with twenty-one members representing all facets of the
public. The CAC sends three to the Council itself. The Council and Advisory
Committee meets monthly.
Types of Authority
The Council relies on the existing authorities of its members. Its central powers are
those of advocacy for the river and coordination of actions of member agencies.
Management Techniques
The use of existing authorities implies that member agencies and governments will
make many decisions regarding the Nisqually River plan. For instance, two of the three
counties have moved during the past year to incorporate the plan into their
comprehensive land use and zoning plans, one as an endorsement that carries a
commitment of consistency, the other by adding the plan as overlay zone. Stormwater
management plans are in preparation, and special water quality studies are underway.
February 1994 Appendix A-120
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Ortmted
Enforcement Mechanisms
The council relies on effective coordination to generate appropriate enforcement actions
by the member agencies.
Monitoring System
The Council maintains an active program for monitoring water quality through a
Riverwatch-type effort Additionally/ the program funded the purchase of water
quality equipment for the Nisqually Tribe.
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been in Force?
The plan was approved in June 1987.
Representative Projects
The Nisqually Basin Watch enables citizens who live in or visit the Nisqually area to
help protect it by alerting the proper authorities in case of illegal burning, dumping,
poaching, or similar activities.
The Nisqually River Education Project works through the Yelm school district A field-
oriented environmental education program, it is a Riverwatch-type program. There is
also a separate water quality monitoring program.
Grassroots Involvement
A citizens advisory committee with twenty-one members regularly meets to provide
advice and convey citizen concerns to the river council.
Program Benefits Identified to Date
Program staff indicates that the primary benefit has been unanimity of purpose among
the participating agencies and units of government
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
The program was a Northwest region finalist in EPA's 1992 national Pollution
Prevention Awards for geographic initiatives.
February 1994 Appendix A-121
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
WA SHE 323,1985. Study authorization. Washington State legislature.
Watershed Management Documents
Nisqually River Management Plan. Nisqually River Task Force, Shorelands and Coastal
Zone Management Program, Washington Department of Ecology. Olympia, WA. 1987.
Nisqually River Public Access Site Feasibility Analysis. Prepared by Jones & Jones,
Architects and Landscape Architects, for the Nisqually River Council, through the
Washington State Department of Ecology. June 1989.
Nisqually Basin Interpretation and Environmental Education Enhancement Feasibility
Analysis. Prepared by Jones & Jones, Architects and Landscape Architects, for the
Nisqually River Council, through the Washington State Department of Ecology.
June 1988.
February 1994 Appendix A-122
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Lower East Branch Pecatonica River Priority Watershed, Wl
Aoencv: Telephone:
Wisconsin Dept of Natural Resources (608) 266-9254
Nonpoint Source and Land Mgmt
Section
Bureau of Water Resources Mgmt
Address:
101S. Webster Street
P.O. Box 7921
Citv-ST-Zio:
Madison, WI53707-7921
Fax Telephone:
(608) 267-2800
Contact Person:
Rebecca R. Wallace, P.E., Chief
Notes:
This appendix includes a separate profile on the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water
Pollution Abatement Program.
Year and Method of Establishment
The Lower East Branch Pecatonica River Priority Watershed plan was prepared under
the provisions of the Wisconsin Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Abatement Program,
initiated in 1989 under Chapter NR120, Wisconsin Administrative Code.
V.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The Lower East Branch Pecatonica River Watershed plan has several goals:
• A 25 percent reduction in the sediment reaching streams from agricultural uplands
in all subwatersheds.
• A 40percent reduction in streambank sediment delivered to all streams and a 25%
overall repair of bank habitat in all subwatersheds.
• A 60 percent reduction in organic pollutants from barnyards in all subwatersheds
with an emphasis on several high priority creeks.
• A 50 percent reduction in organic pollutants from winter-spread manure on
"unsuitable" acres in all subwatersheds.
• A restoration of 30% of degraded wetlands.
• Control of gullies producing over 30 tons of sediment per site per year.
February 1994
Appendix A-123
-------
Appendix A. Prognm Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Geographic Scale
The Lower East Branch Pecatonica River Watershed includes an area of 145 square
miles and seventeen sub-watersheds. The Pecatonica drains into the Sugar River in
southern Wisconsin which in turn flows into the Rock River/ a tributary of the
Mississippi River. Eighty-two percent of the land is agricultural, with a population of
only 2,800.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The management plan is a cooperative, coordinated system administered by the
Department of Natural Resources. The counties, participants in the preparation of the
watershed assessment which is the basis for the plan, participate in the planning
process via resolution of the County Boards of Supervisors. The counties enter into
agreements with DNR for the purpose of receiving funds for management,
enforcement and cost-sharing with private property owners and land operators.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The state program provides cost-share funds to assist in implementing the nonpoint
program. Projects may be funded up to five years after the watershed plan is approved
by DNR. Funding does not cover some costs such as land acquisition or the renovation
or construction of new storm sewer systems needed to comply with this program or
other state or federal laws.
The state program provides for cost-sharing agreements to be entered into between the
participating counties and landowners or land operators. If landowners fail to
participate voluntarily, the offer of the cost-sharing arrangement may be revoked and a
low-interest loan arrangement may be substituted.
The state cost-share rates for Best Management Practices are as follows:
February 1994 Appendix A-124
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Lower East Branch Pecatonica River Priority Watershed Plan
Cost Share Rates by Type of BMP
Best Management Practice State Cost-Share Rate
Rural BMPs
Contour Farming 50%
Contour Strip Farming ; 50% *
Field Strip Cropping 50% *
Field Diversions and Terraces 70%
Grassed Waterways 70%
Reduced Tillage 50%
Critical Area Stabilization 70% 1
Grade Stabilization Structures 70%
Agricultural Sediment Basins 70%
Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization 70%
Shoreline Buffers 70% 1
Barnyard Runoff Management 70%
Animal Lot Relocation 70%
Manure Storage Facilities 70%
Livestock Exclusion from Woodlots 50%
Wetland Restoration 70% 1
Roofs for Barnyard Runoff Management
& Manure Storage Facilities 70%
Nutrient and Pesticide Management 50% 2
1. Easements may be entered into with landowners identified in the watershed plan in
conjunction with these BMPs.
2- Spill control basins have a cost-share rate of 70 percent.
^ Wildlife habitat restoration components of this practice are cost-shared at 70 percent.
** Maximum cost-share amount is $10,000 including no more than $5,000 for manure transfer
equipment.
February 1994 Appendix A-125
-------
Appendta A. Program ProfUes
ProfUes of Watershed Oriented
Lower East Branch Pecatonica River Priority Watershed Plan
Flat Cost Share Rates
Best Management Practice
Flat Cost-Share Rate
Contour Farming $6.00/ac.
Strip Cropping $12.00/ac.
Field Strip Cropping $10.00/ac.
Reduced Tillage $15.00/ac. 1
Reduced Tillage $45.00/ac. 2
1. Reduced tillage systems for short crop rotations, and establishment of forages and small
grains (Includes no-till).
*. Reduced tillage systems for continuous row cropping or long rotations (does not include no-
till).
The projected total budget includes capital costs, easements/ local government costs/
information and education/ and other direct costs. The table specifies the state share
versus the local share.
Lower East Branch Pecatonica River Priority Watershed Plan
Projected Budget (8 Years) for Operations
(Assumes 75% Participation by Landowners and Land Operators)
Cost Center
Green
Lafayette
Totals
BMP Capital Costs
Easement Costs
Staff Needs
Information Education/Direct
Other Direct
$ 1,412,668 $ 1,658,798 $ 3,071,466
129,300 229,500 358,800
667,714 713,121 1,380,835
2,002 2,002 4,004
100.000 100,000 200,000
Total State Share
Local Share
$ 2,311,684 $ 2,703,421 $ 5,015,105
623,076 728.753 1.351.829
Total Budgeted Cost
$ 2,939,760 $ 3,432,174 $ 6,366,934
February 1994
Appendix A-126
-------
Appendb A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Management
Organizational Structure
The plan is carried out under a joint plan approved by the Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Programs, and
the Counties of Green and Lafayette. Also participating are the Soil Conservation
Service and the Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service. The University of
Wisconsin Extension provides support in developing and conducting a public
information and education program aimed at increasing voluntary participation in the
project
Types of Authority
Landowners, land operators, villages, cities, counties, and state agencies all have a
hand in implementing this program. Their major responsibilities are as follows:
Landowners and Land Operators: Adopt Rural Best Management Practices which
reduce nonpoint sources of water pollution and protect and enhance fish, wildlife and
other resources.
Counties of Green and Lafayette: Enact a manure storage ordinance meeting the
provisions outlined by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
in Ag 166.98. The intent of this ordinance is to prevent pollution of groundwater by
poorly designed and constructed animal waste storage facilities.
• Develop farm conservation plans consistent with the needs of the project
• Enter into nonpoint source cost-share agreements with eligible landowners and
enforce the terms and provisions of the agreements and management their
reimbursement
• For county-owned and operated lands, enter into cost-share agreements with the
DNR to correct identified nonpoint sources and fulfill their obligations as cost-share
recipients
• Design best management practices and verify proper practice installation
• Prepare and submit annual work plans and an annual work load analysis and grant
application to the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection
• Prepare and submit annual resource management reports to monitor
implementation by tracking changes in the nonpoint source inventory and
quantifying pollutant load reductions which result from installing BMPs.
• Conduct the information and education activities identified in the plan for which
they are responsible
February 1994 Appendix A-127
-------
Apptndix A. Program Profllts
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Department of Natural Resources: DNR responsibilities include project administration,
financial support via local assistance grant agreements and nonpoint source grant
agreements; project evaluation; technical assistance; assisting county staff with site
reviews of projects affecting wetlands or groundwater; and assisting county staff with
the integration of fish and wildlife management concerns into the BMPs.
Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection: The DATCP role is
identified in s. 144.25, stats, ch. 92 stats; and NR120. The major responsibilities are:
manage a training program for the staff involved in implementation; act as a
clearinghouse for information related to agricultural BMPs, sustainable agriculture and
nutrient and pest management; assist in carrying out the information and education
programs, assist in identifying watershed participants subject to federal or state
conservation compliance programs; assist counties in developing manure storage
ordinances; assist in developing technical standards for agricultural BMPs; and assist in
evaluating the site specific practicality of implementing rural BMPs.
Management Techniques
This is a management plan for the abatement of rural nonpoint source pollution. The
Best Management Practices employed generally use specific standard specifications
included in the Soil Conservation Service Field Office Technical Guide. Additional
specifications may apply. The techniques used in this plan include:
Contour Farming
Contour Strip Cropping
Field Strip Cropping
Field Diversions and Terraces
Grassed Waterways
Reduced Tillage
Critical Area Stabilization
Livestock Exclusion from Woodlots
Roofs for Barnyard Runoff Management
& Manure Storage Facilities
Grade Stabilization Structures
Agricultural Sediment Basins
Shoreline and Streambank Stabilization
Shoreline Buffers
Barnyard Runoff Management
Animal Lot Relocation
Manure Storage Facilities
Wetland Restoration
Nutrient and Pesticide Management
Management activity is aimed at four specific areas:
• About 27,268 critical acres of agricultural lands with soil losses above 0.26
tons/acre/year and above the "T" measurement for tolerable soil losses
• Approximately 97 barnyard animal lots that contribute in excess of five pounds of
phosphorus, with high priority given to those exceeding seven pounds
• Farm operations in which manure is spread on 10 or more unsuitable acres during
winter. Unsuitable means have a slope in excess of 6 percent of that are flood prone.
February 1994
Appendix A-128
-------
Appendfe A. Program Profile* Profiles of Watershed Oriented
• Farm operations with stream banks that are trampled, eroding at a rate in excess of
0.07 tons per linear foot per year and with stream banks in excess of 2,000 feet
Enforcement Mechanisms
Wisconsin DNR has the power to review and approve local plans, including all aspects
of administration and management Individual BMPs are controlled via contract
Landowners or operators required to participate but who do not lose the cost-share
arrangement in favor of a low-interest loan program.
Monitoring System
The plan includes a regimen for monitoring both administrative and pollutant load
management systems. Green and Lafayette Counties are responsible for administrative
and pollutant load tracking. The system using a CAMPS, the Computer Assisted
Management and Planning System, developed by SCS.
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been in Force?
The management plan was prepared and approved in September 1991. It was adopted
in addition as an amendment to the regional water quality management plan for the
Sugar-Pecatonica river basin.
Representative Projects
Not applicable.
Grassroots Involvement
This plan has an extensive program built in for raising public awareness and providing
public information. The program uses printed materials, audio-visual programs,
exhibits, media, tours, demonstrations, signs, workshops, meetings, and youth
education. Sub-groups specifically targeted include rural landowners and operators,
local governments, urban residents, business and industry, and youth. The program is
tailored for each sub-group. An advisory group is planned.
Program Benefits Identified to Date
The plan has been in operation for less than two years. No data available.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
Region V of the US EPA provided Section 319 funds to pay in part for this plan.
February 1994 Appendix A-129
-------
Appendix A. Program Profit** ProfilM of Watershed Oriented
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
The enabling legislation is woven into the state administrative code.
Watershed Management Documents
Nonpoint Source Control Plan for the Lower East Branch Pecatonica River Priority Watershed
Project,. Prepared cooperatively by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources;
and the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection/ in cooperation
with the Green and Lafayette County Land Conservation Departments. June 1992.
Publication WR-288-92.
Nonpoint Source Evaluation Monitoring Activities. Prepared by the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources. March 1991. Publication WR-279-91.
Fields and Streets, the Newsletter for Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source Water Pollution
Abatement Program. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.
February 1994 Appendix A-130
-------
Apperaflx A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Agency
Aoencv:
Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
Address:
217 Pine Street
Suite 1100
Citv-ST-Zip:
Seattle, Washington 98101
Telephone:
206-493-9300
Fax Telephone:
Contact Person:
Cathy Minsch, 206-493-9408 direct
Notes:
Year and Method of Establishment
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority was created in 1985 by an act of the
Washington State Legislature. (RCW 90.70.001)
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority along with EPA Region X and the
Washington Department of Ecology manages the Puget Sound Estuary Program. The
principle responsibility of the Authority is to oversee development and implementation
of the Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Major initiatives under this plan
include: monitoring, research, education and public involvement nonpoint source
pollution, shellfish protection, municipal and industrial discharges, contaminated
sediments and dredging, stormwater and combined sewer overflows, wetlands
protection, spill prevention and response, laboratory support household hazardous
waste, and legal and personnel support The plan aims to prevent the type of
development that presents management challenges to more urbanized eastern
estuaries—to not make the same mistakes. The goal of the nonpoint program is to
reduce and ultimately eliminate harm from nonpoint sources of pollution to Puget
Sound, including pathogens, toxic contaminants, and sediment
The nonpoint program employs three strategies:
1. Target state and local resources on priority watersheds through a cooperative local
2.
watershed planning process
Supplement the watershed plans with education and preventive programs
February 1994
Appendix A-131
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profile* of Watershed Oriented
3. Develop or enhance state programs or regulations for those nonpoint sources that
are most effectively controlled at the state level
Geographic Scale
The jurisdiction of the Authority includes the Puget Sound south of Admirality Inlet;
the waters north to the Canadian border/ including portions of the Strait of Georgia; the
Strait of Juan de Fuca just south of the Canadian border; and all of the land draining
into these waters.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority oversees implementation of the water
quality management plan. It plays a coordinating role.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
Most of the funding has been requested from the state legislature, with the remaining
assisted by the Centennial Clean Water Fund. Possible other sources of funding that
has been identified include: discharge permit fees, the state general fund, the state
toxics fund, local funding, and federal funding. Estimated costs in 1987 were $26
million.
Management
Organizational Structure
The Puget Sound Water Quality Authority has eleven members appointed by the
governor. Both the Department of Ecology Director and the Commissioner of Public
Lands serve as ex-officio members to the board. The authority holds monthly board
meetings, as well as numerous informal meetings for citizen groups.
Degree of Authority
Cannot require local governments to comply - but it is happening - required to submit
bi-annual reports to measure degree of compliance.
Management Techniques
The PSWQA standards for nonpoint source water pollution control provide for the
adoption of watershed action plans by watershed management committees. These
watersheds are chosen via the priority watershed selection process. Led by the
Department of Ecology and the affected counties, the committee would have as
February 1994 Appendix A-132
-------
Appendbc A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
members all affected local governments/ special purpose districts, tribes, interested
state agencies, and others. The Department of Ecology administers a grant fund from
the Centennial Clean Water Fund to finance the watershed action planning work. The
Washington Conservation Commission funds local conservation districts to participate
in the planning. Tax relief for property owners whose lands have been fenced as part of
plan implementation may apply for open space tax status.
The following listing shows the array of management techniques employed under this
program:
e Agriculture BMPs (consistent with the US SCS Technical Office Guide)
e Stormwater BMPs
• Control of on-site sewage disposal
• Education programs
e Certification of on site septic systems by qualified professionals
• Dairy Waste Management Plan
• Boater education program
• Construction of pumpouts at priority state parks
• Enforcement of marine sanitation device regulations
• Potential use of no-discharge areas
• No anchorage areas
The following table summarizes the estimated cost of the nonpoint program from the
1990-91 biennium through FY1994 (in millions of dollars):
Budget Projection
$13.6
$9.4
$8.9
$6.9
(In millions of dollars)
Enforcement Mechanisms
Oversee water quality monitoring, so it is in the best interest of local governments to
comply with the objectives of the plan.
Monitoring System
Measuring results project - interview people in watershed area to monitor how well
plan is doing - also program to measure water quality.
February 1994
Appendix A-133
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Representative Projects
Stormwater program, outreach program - staff liaisons with local governments/
wetlands program
Grassroots Involvement
Strongly encouraged by public outreach and input
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
Yes, via National Estuary Program, - very valuable.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Statute - cwq070 - that created WQA, National Estuary Section 320 under Clean Water
Act
Watershed Management Documents
1989 Puget Sound Water Quality Management Plan. Adopted October 19,1988. Puget
Sound Water Quality Authority.
February 1994 Appendix A-134
-------
Appendbt A. PraQnni Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Suwannee River Water Management, FL
Agency
Agencv:
Suwannee River Water Management
District
Address:
Route 3, Box 64
Citv-ST.-Zip:
Live Oak, Florida 32060
Telephone:
904-362-1001
Fax Telephone:
Contact Person:
Marvin Raulston
Notes:
Year and Method of Establishment
Established in 1972 as a public agency by Chapter 72-299, Laws of Florida, 1972, under
the provision of the Florida Water Resources Act
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
"The mission of the Suwannee River Water Management District is to implement the
programs described in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes, in order to manage water and
related natural resources for the present and future residents of the region and the
state" (p.9, Citizen's Guide). Elements of this statement include, the development of
regulatory programs, implementation of land acquisition and management programs,
the promotion of public awareness, to provide for the availability of water of sufficient
quality, and to encourage nonstructural surfacewater management techniques.
Geographic Scale
This district covers 9,950 square miles in two states (Florida and Georgia).
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
In order to eliminate the duplication of permitting efforts, the District possesses the
ability to enter into agreements with other agencies that hold powers that affect the
water resources of the State. Agreement Number 82/83-1 between the District and the
Florida Department of Environmental Regulation states that these two agencies entered
February 1994
Appendix A-135
-------
Appendta A. Progran Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
into agreement in regards to public drinking water applications, applications for
projects involving the construction and operation of artificial recharge facilities/ and
applications for projects utilizing land disposal of treated wastewaters.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
Funding is provided through state grants/ ad valorem taxes/ permit and license fees/ the
SWIM fund/ and also by the Florida Department of Resources for work dealing with
the Water Quality Assurance Act
The FY1991 budget amounted to $14.9 million/ of which $10.9 million was allocated to
the Land Acquisition and Management Fund. The FY 1992 budget is estimated to
increase to $19.3 million, with $13.9 million allocated to land acquisition and
management Each year $1/286/400 is allocated to the SWIM fund/ the Surface Water
Improvement and Management Plan.
Management
Organizational Structure
The Department of Permitting and Assistance is responsible for all of the regulatory
programs within the District These programs include: water use/ surface water
management and the works of the District programs. This department must also
provide technical assistance to local governments. The Department of Programming is
responsible for all studies on water resource use/ hydrological data collection/ internal
planning activities/ and as an external liaison with State and Regional agencies/ and
local units of government The Department of Program Support deals with the financial
operation of the District Its duties include budget preparation/ payroll/ purchasing/
and maintenance of the physical plant The Department of Land Acquisition and
Management is responsible for the implementation of the District's Save Our Rivers
Program, this program includes the acquisition and management of District lands. The
Office of Public Information and Education produces publications, coordinates the
annual District's River Day, and disseminates information to the public and the press.
Degree of Authority
"The District is delegated authority by the Department of Environmental Regulation to
assume certain responsibilities of Chapter 373, Florida Statutes. This delegation, general
to the Water Management Districts, is pursuant to authority contained in sections
373.016 and 373.103, Florida Statutes, and is described in Section 17-101.040, Chapters
17-21 and 17-22, Florida Administrative Code"
February 1994 Appendix A-136
-------
Appendix A. Proenmi Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
The provisions used to identify and prioritize lands for the Save Our Rivers Programs
are that they will be evaluated for their resource value for the purpose of establishing
which parcels, in whole or in part annually or seasonally, are conducive to general
public recreational purposes. To Qualify for the Preservation 2000 program, areas must
not only meet the requirements for the Save Our Rivers program, but must also show
that a significant portion of the land is in imminent danger of being developed, a
significant portion of the land is in danger of separation which would result in multiple
ownership thus making the acquisition of the land difficult appreciation of a
significant portion of the land that makes purchasing the land a priority, a significant
portion of the land serves to protect or recharge ground water and to protect other
valuable natural resources, the project can be purchased at 80% of the appraised value
or less, and if a significant portion of the land serves as habitat for endangered species
or communities.
Management Techniques
Three implementation programs: regulations, land acquisition, outreach. Statutory
authority, legislative appropriations to buy land. Direct meetings with local
governments. Work directly with local government and other agencies in Florida.
The District has purchased 59,062 acres of river front property through 1991, with
contracts pending on another 1,112 acres. This results in the protection of 150 miles of
river frontage within the district The new five-year plan would acquire another 65,979
acres, or 327 miles of riverside lands, primarily in flood plains of the district's major
rivers.
Enforcement Mechanisms
Correct damage, fines, stop - work order - anything with in law.
Monitoring System
Regional networks check quality and quantity of surface and ground water.
Representative Projects
Major regulatory programs the district is involved in include: water use permitting,
surfacewater management, regulation of wells, and well water contract licensing. Major
nonregulatory programs include: Save Our Rivers, ground water basin resource
availability inventories, emergency water shortage planning and procedures, minimum
flows and levels, water resources studies and data collection, abandoned artesian well
plugging, development of regional impact reviews, technical assistance to local
governments, agricultural water management systems, water conservation, flood
damage protection, wetlands protection, surfacewater improvement and management
February 1994 Appendix A-137
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
(SWIM)/ water management plans/ education/ sewage treatment Suwannee Area
recreational development springs restoration/ and Suwannee River Restoration
Coordination Committee.
Grassroots Involvement
Very little general involvement by the public.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
Very indirect via State Department of Environmental Regulation. Valuable help.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Suwannee River Water Management District Chapter 40B-1/ Florida Administrative
Code; Water Management Lands Trust Fund: CH. 373.59, Florida Statutes. 1987.
Watershed Management Documents
Water Management Plan. 1992 Preliminary Draft Suwannee River Water Management
Coastal Rivers Basin: Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan. Suwannee
River Water Management District May 1991.
A Citizens Guide to the Responsibilities/ Programs/ Budget and Annual Work Plan of
the Suwannee River Water Management District Fiscal Year 1991-1992. Suwannee
River Water Management District 1991.
1992 Land Acquisition and Management Plan. Suwannee River Water Management
District December 19,1991.
1990 Suwannee River Annual Report Suwannee River Water Management District
Agricultural and Forestry Activities; SurfaceWater Management Permitting Manual.
Suwannee River Water Management District Undated.
February 1994 Appendix A-138
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Sweetwater Authority, CA
Aaencv:
Sweetwater Authority
Address:
905 Garrett Avenue
P.O. Box 2328
Citv-ST-Zio:
Chula Vista, CA 91912-2328
Telephone:
(619)420-1413
Fax Telephone:
(619)425-7469
Contact Person:
Richard A. Reynolds, General Mgr.
Notes:
This project is listed to show design alternatives for managing urban runoff that affects
urban water supply systems.
Year and Method of Establishment
The Sweetwater Authority is a public agency serving the cities of Chula Vista, National
City, and surrounding areas. Its service area includes about 160,000
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The mission of the Sweetwater Authority is to provide urban water supplies to the
Cities of Chula Vista, National City, and surrounding areas. It also operates a water
treatment plant in the watershed.
Geographic Scale
The Sweetwater Authority is in the South Bay area of San Diego County. It serves a
population of about 160,000. The land area upstream of the Sweetwater Reservoir, the
focus of this project, is 51,200 acres. Approximately 30 percent of the land area is
developed (1982 estimate).
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
None.
February 1984
Appendix A-139
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The projected cost for the project is $13 million. Being a public agency responsible for
water supply, the Authority is negotiating contracts with upstream developers and
property owners to recover the cost of the project through payment of developer fees
enforced by the County of San Diego covering discretionary review.
Management
Organizational Structure
The Sweetwater Authority is a California public agency.
Types of Authority
The organization has the authority to levy developer fees on upstream property owners
and land developers who contribute nonpoint runoff to the water column which can
significantly diminish groundwater quality and surface water quality, both of which
are fully appropriated under California water law and controlled by the Authority.
Management Techniques
Upstream development is contributing polluted run-in to the Sweetwater Reservoir, a
water supply reservoir serving downstream customers in Chula Vista, National City,
and surrounding areas. The California Water Resources Control Board ordered the
Authority in 1978 to divert these flows in order to prevent pollution of the water
supply. The Authority has gone through several design plans to come up with a
suitable project The preferred alternative captures dry flow and stormwater runoff
upstream of the reservoir and diverts it to be captured by retention ponds downstream.
As many as four retention ponds would be constructed at the bottom of several sub-
drainages. Consultants estimate the retention ponds would capture 90 percent of
pollutants prior to being gradually released back into the Sweetwater River system.
Enforcement Mechanisms
The Authority's only enforcement mechanism are its reserved water rights under
California law and its ability to levy developer fees on parties that impinge on those
appropriated water rights.
Monitoring System
The Authority monitors water quality at several gauging stations in the river basin.
February 1994 Appendix A-140
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been in Force?
The proposed project has been in design for the past eleven years. It has been 50%
complete for two years. Plans for completion of the project are now in final design.
Representative Projects
Loveland Reservoir, Sweetwater Reservoir, Robert A. Perdue Water Treatment Plant
Grassroots Involvement
None.
Program Benefits Identified to Date
Diversion of approximately 400 acre feet per year of poor quality water.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
None.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
None available.
Watershed Management Documents
Design Study: Urban Runoff Control Facilities—Sweetwater Reservoir. Luke-Dudek,
Civil Engineers. Prepared for the Sweetwater Authority. September 1,1982.
Preliminary Design Report Sweetwater Reservoir—Urban Runoff Diversion System
(Initial Work). Boyle Engineering Corporation. Prepared for the Sweetwater Authority.
April 1989.
Preliminary Design Report for North Side Diversion Pond and Low-Flow
Interceptor—Sweetwater Reservoir—Urban Runoff Diversion System. Boyle
Engineering Corporation. Prepared for the Sweetwater Authority. June 1992.
Draft Environmental Impact Report Phase n of the Sweetwater Reservoir Urban Runoff
Diversion System. A.D. Hinshaw Associates. Prepared for the Sweetwater Authority.
November 1992.
February 1984 Appendix A-141
-------
ApptndU A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Tualatin River Critical Basin Project, OR
Aaencv:
OR Dept of Environmental Quality
Address:
811SW Sixth Avenue
Citv-ST.-Zip:
Portland, OR 97204
Telephone:
(503) 229-5686
Fax Telephone:
(503)229-6124
Contact Person:
D. Mitch Wolgamott (503) 229-6691
Notes:
Year and Method of Establishment
A suit was brought against US EPA in 1986 by environmental organizations alleging
that Oregon was not implementing nondiscretionary actions required under Section 303
of the Qean Water Act in the Region X EPA service area. A1987 consent decree issued
by the US. District Court directed US EPA through the state of Oregon to enforce water
quality management programs for streams classified as water quality-limited under the
Clean Water Act Under the settlement the state, through the Department of
Environmental Quality, agreed to establish two total maximum daily loads (TMDL) per
year, of which one of the first was the Tualatin River. Thus far, fifteen rivers in Oregon
have been designated as priority waterbodies under the Department of Environmental
Quality's Critical Basin Program. The Critical Basin Program is Oregon's system for
designating priority watersheds under EPA rules for nonpoint source management
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The Tualatin was classified as a water quality-limited river after repeated violations of
the standards for dissolved oxygen. The state's chlorophyll-a action level, an indicator
of excessive algae growth, was also being exceeded. There are also concerns with
bacteria, sediment, and temperature, especially in some tributaries, and nitrogen
ammonia were recorded. The primary focus of the plan, upon completion of upgrades
to existing waste treatment facilities, is to resolve the phosphorus loading problem in
the river. The goal of the program is to improve water quality within the Tualatin River
subbasin to meet the existing water quality standard.
February 1994
Appendix A-142
-------
Appendix A. Program Profile* Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Geographic Scale
The Tualatin River Basin is in north central Oregon.. The watershed is about 700
square miles in area, of which about 7/500 acres is within the urban services area of the
City of Portland. The basin is generally west of Portland within Washington County,
the river flowing generally eastward into the Willamette River near Oregon City and
south of Portland proper. In all there are fifteen incorporated cities in the watershed.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
This plan does not establish a joint powers group of any kind. Under the leadership of
Oregon DEQ, it requires local agencies to use their existing authorities to meet the
planning goals. Local management agencies and DEQ do meet on a regular basis to
discuss progress. A new compliance schedule is currently being negotiated with the
state and local agencies involved in implementation of NFS control plans. The schedule
includes specific tasks for all agencies and encourages them to work cooperatively.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
Funding for die Unified Sewerage Agency program would come from fees imposed
upon rate payers in its service area. USA estimates that its budget needs are at least $4.9
million. The Department of Forestry has allocated $34,600 to its monitoring program,
while the animal waste control program for the special hydrologic unit area of Dairy
Creek/McKay Creek has $4.2 million set aside over five years. The federal Water
Quality Incentive Program has brought in an additional $280,000 incto the area over
two years.
Management
Organizational Structure
The plans are prepared under DEQ administrative rules set out in OAR 341-40-470.
Designated Management Agencies have responsibility for developing and
implementing plans to improve water quality in the watershed. Unified Sewerage
Agency and Washington, Clackamas, and Multnomah Counties each were assigned
pollution cleanup and control projects under the plan.
Types of Authority
Regulatory authorities at work in this plan include the powers to upgrade wastewater
treatment facilities and land use authorities for controlling soil erosion and runoff at
construction sites. DEQ issues NPDES permits for treatment plants and urban
stormwater. The Forest Practices Act controls forest harvest activities on state and
February 1994 Appendix A-143
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
private forest land. DEQ also maintains controls for confined animal feeding operations
and container nursery operations.
Management Techniques
The Department has established TMDLs and load allocations to address dissolved
oxygen/ nitrogen ammonia/ phosphorus/ and chlorophyll-a active level. The USA and
the City of Portland are making changes to their wastewater facilities as the first step.
The Soil Conservation Service/ Department of Forestry and the Agricultural
Conservation and Stabilization Service have initiated a voluntary program to control
agricultural and forestry discharges for the Dairy Creek/McKay Creek Hydrologic Unit
Area/ about 165/000 acres. Fifteen of the estimated seventy farms are presently
participating. The emphasis is on fertilizer and animal waste controls.
The municipalities have enacted bans on detergents containing phosphate and have
tightened controls on soil erosion from construction sites.
Rules stipulate that if voluntary programs and the wastewater facility upgrades do not
resolve the water quality problems/ DEQ may enact regulations to govern farm and
forestry operations/ and urban uses.
Generally/ the plan follows the state's Forest Practices Rules and Implementation
Guidelines, SCS Technical Manual/ Surface Water Quality Facilities Technical Guidance
Handbook/ and EPA's Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Program Guidance.
Enforcement Mechanisms
This program operates under its existing authorities without separate authorization by
the legislature. As such/ those authorities each have established enforcement
mechanisms to assure the program is carried out by the public.
Monitoring System
The DEQ, USA and the City of Portland are working jointly to monitor water quality at
many sites throughout the river basin. The Oregon Department of Forestry has initiated
an enhanced monitoring program for the Tualatin watershed for the 1991-1993
biennium. The program will monitor at seventeen sites chosen specifically to assess
phosphorus loading caused by forest management practices.
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been in Force?
The program went into effect in February 1990.
February 1994 Appendix A-144
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Representative Projects
Representative projects include the wastewater treatment facility upgrades, the
Department of Forestry monitoring program, and the USDA SCS agricultural BMP
program.
Grassroots Involvement
The Critical Basin Program exists in part due to litigation by environmental
organizations in the Northwest to force the states to improve their efforts to implement
the provisions of the Clean Water Act USA formed a Citizens Advisory Committee to
assist in preparing its plan. Environmentalists, community planning organizations, and
developers participated. Presentations were made to many community interest groups,
and a public hearing was held to receive public comment
Program Benefits Identified to Date
Wastewater treatment facility upgrades are due to be completed by June 30,1993. Local
governments have placed a ban on detergents containing phosphate. Stricter erosion
control standards for construction sites have been enacted.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
EPA funding under section 2059j) was obtained to conduct the watershed assessment
EPA Region X provided technical assistance for development of the TMDLs, WLAs,
and Las. Region X has provided funding through section 319(h) for implementation of
NFS control programs and effectiveness monitoring. The Department reports that the
program could not have been established without the technical and financial support of
US EPA.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Oregon Administrative Rules, Chapter 340, Division 41, Department of Environmental
Quality. Special Policies and Guidelines for the Tualatin River subbasin, 341-40-470.
1988.
Watershed Management Documents
Portland's Tualatin Basin Water Quality Management Plan. City of Portland.
February 1990.
February 1994 Appendix A-146
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Surface Water Management Plan. Unified Sewerage Agency of Washington County.
February 1990.
Nonpoint Source Watershed Management Plan Development Guidance. Oregon
Department of Environmental Quality. November 15,1990.
Proposal: A Watershed Management Strategy for Oregon. Summary Report of the
Strategic Water Management Group. State of Oregon. August 11,1992.
Tualatin River Watershed Management Plan for Controlling Rural Nonpoint Source
Pollution. March 1991.
Lower Tualatin River Oswego Lake Subbasins Nonpoint Source Management
Clackamas County and River Grove. March 1990.
Multnomah County. Tualatin River Basin Nonpoint Source Control Watershed
Management Plan. January 1992.
Oregon Department of Forestry. Nonpoint Source Water Quality Management Plan for
the Tualatin River Basin.
February 1994 Appendix A-146
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River, NY & PA
Aaencv:
Upper Delaware Council
Address:
P.O. Box 217
Citv-ST-Zip:
Narrowsburg, NY 12764
Telephone:
(914) 252-3022
Fax Telephone:
(914)252-3359
Contact Person:
William Douglass/ Executive Director
Notes:
The Upper Delaware is a component of the National Wild and Scenic Rivers System. A
large area/ it is almost all in private property and relies for its success on the successful
use of local planning and zoning functions. Standards for the river corridor are based
heavily on the prevention of nonpoint sources of pollution and erosion control.
Year and Method of Establishment
The Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River was designated for study by
Congress when it enacted the National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act in 1968. It was
designated as a component of the System in 1978. The Final River Management Plan/
which governs management of the corridor/ was approved and went on line in
January 1988.
Within the context of overall management of river flows in the Delaware River Basin,
the river was designated to protect it as a source of water supply for human and
industrial uses/ fish and wildlife purposes/ and environmental purposes in downstream
areas. Flows from the Upper Delaware have generally excellent water quality, and the
plan and overall management of the basin by the Delaware River Basin Commission
seeks to protect that quality. The headwaters of the Delaware are a major source of
drinking water for New York City. Downstream users include New Jersey and
Philadelphia suburbs
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The primary goal in protecting any river as a component of the National Wild and
Scenic Rivers System is to protect rivers and their immediate environments that possess
outstandingly remarkable scenic/ recreational/ geologic/ fish and wildlife/ historic,
cultural, or other similar values for the benefit and enjoyment of present and future
February 1994
Appendix A-147
-------
Appamfix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
generations. These rivers are to be preserved in their free-flowing condition to protect
the water quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national conservation purposes.
Relevant to water quality/ this purpose is carried out by pursuing a management policy
of nondegradation. The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act assumes in its language that other
federal laws governing water quality will be implemented/ thus protecting water
quality. However/ the management plan for the Upper Delaware recognizes that the
river's water quality is one of the outstandingly remarkable characteristics/ further
focusing management actions on the protection of this characteristic. Surveys indicate
that the need to protect water quality in the river is one of the most widely shared
beliefs among the people who own property in or visit the area.
Geographic Scale
The Upper Delaware River is the 73.4-mile segment of the Delaware River that forms
the north-south between Pennsylvania and New York. It encompasses parts of three
New York and two Pennsylvania counties, eight New York towns and seven
Pennsylvania townships. The corridor/ the largest per mile of any component of the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System/ is 55/575 acres.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The plan provided for the formation of the Upper Delaware Council/ a nonprofit
corporation/ the members of which are the state and regional agencies and unite of local
government that are responsible for implementation of the plan. Participation is
arranged through two instruments/ the bylaws governing membership in the Council/
and the cooperative agreement between the National Park Service and the Council that
provides for coordinated implementation of the plan. Members of the Council commit
to implementing their part of the plan and to take actions consistent with it
Agencies and unite of government eligible for membership are those that are directly
affected by implementation of the plan. At present, three Pennsylvania townships,
eight New York towns, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, the State of New York,
and the DR6C are members of the Council. The DRBC participates in a non-voting
capacity. The Citizens Advisory Committee participates as a special observer since it
has neither legal status nor implementing authority. The NPS, as the federal party in
the cooperative agreement, is not a member in the Council but agrees contractually to
be a full partner in Council programs and to be consistent with the plan.
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The Upper Delaware Council is funded by Congress via a line item in the budget of the
National Park Service for the Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River. Funding
has been $300,000 annually. As a nonprofit corporation/ the Council has been eligible to
receive grants and donations from foundations, government agencies, and the general
February 1994 Appendix A-148
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
public. Funding in this area has been received/ but it is not relevant to nonpoint source
pollution. Financial commitments by DRBC and NFS for nonpoint source control and
monitoring systems is not available.
Management
Organizational Structure
The plan divides responsibilities according to the legal capabilities of each of the
partners. For instance/ NFS manages riverine recreation/ while the states manage fish
and wildlife. The DRBC manages Delaware River water quality (but not the
tributaries—those are the domain of the states)/ and the municipalities handle zoning.
The Council/ operating with its own staff/ coordinates the efforts/ facilitates
communication/ handles permit reviews/ and acts as watchdog over all the agencies.
Types of Authority
Although the Upper Delaware Council is a coordinating body/ it can be quite
influential. As an advocate for the people and resources of the river corridor, it can
speak out on and review any program or project proposals that may affect the river
valley. For instance, speaking in a unified voice on matters related to the management
of water resources/ the Council can have impact on major decisions that may affect the
area.
Management authorities are designed to accomplish two primary objectives: maintain
or enhance the outstandingly remarkable resources and values of the river corridor,
including its free-flowing nature, and to prevent incompatible uses ("clear and direct
threats") of the corridor's land and resources. To this end, the Council uses:
• Local zoning
• Reviews of permit applications for significant projects requiring DRBC, federal or
state approval
• Reviews of challenges, variances, and other legal and procedural changes to local
land use standards
• Recreation and cultural resources management actions by the National Park Service
• Land acquisition (as a last resort) by the National Park Service
• State permitting and management for forest and game lands; water quality and
water resources management; controls of toxic or hazardous substances; fish and
wildlife management; the management of historical, cultural and archeological
resources; recreation management; landfill controls; and similar programs.
• Water resources permitting by the DRBC
February 1994 Appendix A-149
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Management Techniques
The control of nonpoint sources of pollution is based in the Land and Water Use
Guidelines. Among the standards imposed are the following:
• Limit soil erosion and sedimentation from construction on steep slopes by requiring
conditional use reviews or a Professional Engineer's Plan for projects involving
slopes over 15%, or requiring slopes of less than 16% for all principal structures
• Maintain natural cover to control stormwater runoff, limit flooding/ protect
groundwater supplies and provide erosion control by limiting impervious service
cover to 10% maximum lot coverage; limiting clearing for construction to 20% of the
lot area or 10% involving slopes greater than 15%
• Protect special erosion hazard areas along river banks by requiring setbacks consist
with State required setbacks of septic systems (100 feet in NY, 50 feet in PA)
• Protect special erosion hazard areas along the ridge lines by requiring a setback of
100 feet from mapped ridge line areas
• Limit pollution problems from septic systems by requiring a lot size of two acres or
more outside hamlets (designated growth areas)
• Prohibit intensive livestock operations with the river corridor
• Prohibit clearcuts over two acres in size or make them conditional uses
• Develop local law provisions requiring soil stabilization and setting other
performance standards
• Prohibit large scale groundwater withdrawals
• Prohibit stream channelization
• Encourage the use of clustering techniques to reduce lot sizes and maximize open
space and stream buffer zones
• Prohibit junkyards, subsurface mining, major surface mining, impoundments,
channel modifications, landfills, and similar uses
Enforcement Mechanisms
The Council relies on the residual authorities of its members for enforcement By
becoming a member of the Council, the member agrees to active consistently with the
river management plan. Municipalities amend and upgrade local ordinances and plans.
The states adopt executive orders that order all relevant state agencies to act
consistently with the plan. The DRBC builds the applicable portions of the river
management plan into its Comprehensive Coordinated Joint Plan. These consistency
agreements assure the enforceability of the plan.
One of the Council's primary functions is that of project review. All permit applications
for actions in or directly affecting the river corridor come before the Council for review.
February 1994 Appendix A-150
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Proposals must be in substantial conformance with the plan and guidelines. While the
Council does not have the authority to approve or disapprove projects, reviews are
successful in heading off potential problems.
If a town grants a permit for an incompatible use or a developer persists in continuing
an incompatible use, provisions in the plan set out a process to resolve the problem, or,
if necessary/ to institute action by the National Park Service to take the property
through eminent domain. No permit in five years of operation has warranted such
action. One of the Council's chief accomplishments is that the process it convenes is
successful at resolving issues before they become problems.
Monitoring System
The DRBC and the National Park Service jointly conduct wcter quality monitoring in
the river corridor. The Upper Delaware Council monitors develop permit applications
through its project review process and through its resource management process.
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been in Force?
The management plan took effect January 4,1988. Interim protections took effect upon
designation of the river by Congress on November 10,1978.
Representative Projects
Representative projects for water quality include the DRBC-NPS monitoring system,
the upgrades in water quality standards, and the local zoning program.
Grassroots Involvement
The special legislative provisions for the Upper Delaware set forth a standard for
"participation in the development of the said general guidelines by all levels of States,
county, and local governments, and concerned private individuals and organizations."
The planning process used a task force approach that included fifty-four agencies and
organizations and over 100 individual representatives. The planning process used open
sessions, public informational meetings and hearings, key person interviews,
landowner and user surveys, and many other techniques to elicit public involvement
Both the Upper Delaware Council and the National Park Service maintain active
grassroots involvement programs. NFS operates an active media program designed to
increase awareness about NPS programs and management initiatives. Its primary
vehicle for citizen involvement is the Citizens Advisory Committee, created pursuant to
the special legislative provisions for the Upper Delaware. This committee operates
under the auspices of the Federal Advisory Committee Act
February 1994 Appendix A-151
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
The Council publishes a newsletter distributed to over 16,000 residents and readers
quarterly. The Council recruits volunteers with special expertise to participate as
advisory members on Council management oversight committees, and it has
established a Friends of the Upper Delaware program to encourage hands-on
volunteerism in the corridor. Current Friends programs include a Green Watch
program, Adopt-A-Highway, Adopt-A-Stream, and a Save Our Streams-oriented water
quality monitoring program.
Program Benefits Identified to Date
In the area of water quality protection, several program benefits have accrued since the
plan took effect The DRBC recently moved to upgrade water quality standards in the
upper basin to match the water quality presently existing in the river. Major standards
rose by 30 to 70 percent This is consistent with the policy of nondegradation.
The DRBC has also established a water quality monitoring system for the river in
conjunction with the National Park Service.
Eight of the fifteen towns have upgraded or enacted zoning and land use ordinances to
bring them into substantial conformance with the river management plan's Land and
Water Use Guidelines. These ordinances contribute to the overall framework for the
protection of the river's water quality and prevention of nonpoint sources of water
pollution.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
US EPA is providing Section 319 funds to Sullivan County, New York, and Wayne
County, Pennsylvania, for the completion of storm water management plans for Upper
Delaware tributaries. Other than that, US EPA has not been party to studies or
management activities in the Upper Delaware corridor area.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
National Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, Public Law 90-542,82 Stat 906, as amended.
October 2,1968.
National Parks and Recreation Act, Public Law 95-625, 92 Stat 3533,
November 10,1978.
National Wild and Scenic Rivers System; Final Revised Guidelines for Eligibility,
Classification and Management of River Areas; Federal Register, September 7,1982.
February 1994 Appendix A-152
-------
AppmdU A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Watershed Management Documents
Final River Management Plan/ Upper Delaware Scenic and Recreational River, New
York and Pennsylvania/ Prepared by the Conference of Upper Delaware Townships in
cooperation with the National Park Service/ November 19186.
February 1994 Appendix A-153
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles
Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Watershed Committee of the Ozarks, MO
Agency:
Watershed Committee of the Ozarks
Address:
300 West Brower Street
Citv-ST-Zip:
Springfield, MO 65802-3817
Telephone:
(417) 855-1127
Fax Telephone:
(417) 866-1918
Contact Person:
Loring Bullard, Executive Director
Notes:
Year and Method of Establishment
The predecessor to the Watershed Committee of the Ozarks (WCO) was founded in
1984 as the Watershed Management Coordinating Committee. It in turn was the
creation of a Watershed Task Force formed in 1983 to assess the current status of, and
potential threats to, metropolitan Springfield's water supply. A proposal to locate a
large residential subdivision immediately upstream of the city's two drinking water
reservoirs was the immediate cause for concern, especially since these homes would be
serviced by septic systems which might potentially foul water supplies. The community
was also concerned about other land development proposals within the water supply
drainages. The Task Force worked for ten months to prepare a set of recommendations
to protect water quality in general, and water supply in particular.
The Task Force found that the community was fortunate that most urban development
had located downstream of the reservoirs, but that identified development pressures
and changes in agricultural use would threaten the water supply. It found that septic
systems, historically the system of choice for waste management, was poorly suited to
the karst terrain found throughout the study area.
The Task Force recommended that watershed management practices should begin
before water quality is degraded below acceptable levels and before extensive
development takes place. The group saw watershed management as a preventative
practice—not a cure, as a continuing process that yields long term rather than short
term results, and that is multi-jurisdictional in nature.
The group wanted the program to focus on (1) planning and coordinating authority;
(2) regulatory authority; (3) monitoring; (4) technical assistance; (5) selective acquisition
February 1994
Appendix A-164
-------
Appmdk A. Program ProfllM Profiles of Watershed Oriented
of land or interests in land; (6) capital improvements programming; (7) enforcement;
(8) operation and maintenance facilities; and (9) public information and education.
The Task Force also recommended the formation of a coordinating body to oversee
implementation of a joint plan and to ensure its success. This was the Watershed
Management Coordinating Committee. In 1987, this Committee incorporated and
became the Watershed Committee of the Qzarks.
Mission Statement/Strategic Focus
The goal of the program is to protect the drinking water supply for the Springfield
community.
Geographic Scale
The WCO addresses the watersheds of the Springfield community and its water supply
sources.
Mechanism for Intergovernmental Coordination
The WCO is a coordinating body with representatives from the City, County, utilities,
and the public. It operates as a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization. This entity was set up
specifically not to become "another layer of government". Its operation depends on
maintaining the good will of its founding members. No other specific mechanisms
exist
Sources of Funding and Budget Information
The organization is funded by the local governments and utilities in its membership. In
addition, as a 501(c)(3) organization, it can receive foundation and government grants
and other sources of revenue. It has also received funding from US EPA for several
programs. Its largest project was the development of a GIS for the watershed at a total
cost of $325,000. The City, County, Utilities, and US EPA were joined by the US
Geological Survey in funding the program.
Management
Organizational Structure
The Board of the WCO has six members: one representing the Greene County
Commissioners, one representing the City of Springfield, one representing the City
Utilities of Springfield, and three representing the public at-large. Formerly, members
from Greene County, Springfield and the utilities were employees or elected officials.
February 1994 Appendix A-166
-------
Appendix A. Program ProlUec Profiles of Watershed Oriented
These entities now send non-governmental members to the Board to increase its focus
as a citizen's organization.
Types of Authority
The WCO has no statutory authority to regulate or review and approve powers over
watershed-affected decisions. Its functions are to educate, review, recommend,
coordinate, monitor, and research.
The WCO reviews zoning cases, plats, and development proposals in the watershed
areas, with recommendations forwarded to the City and County Planning
Departments. Typically, there are 15-30 major reviews per year. The WCO reviews
building codes, zoning ordinances, and subdivision regulations to assure their
consistency with watershed management standards. The WCO also reviews major
policy and regulatory proposals from state and federal agencies that may affect the
watersheds and makes recommendations to the appropriate bodies, facilitates
coordination, or provides other assistance as may be useful.
On paper, the WCO appears to be a citizen's group operating in an advisory capacity.
However, because its founding members are agencies, the organization can operate
effectively as a quasi-governmental body, and it will take on public credibility as it
operates credibly within that construct
Management Techniques
The WCO has no direct management techniques, aside from securing consistent action
from the City, County, and utilities. Its other major technique is a strong educational
program. Additionally, it enters into many projects with agencies such as Missouri
DNR, the local Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, the University of
Missouri Extension, the USDA Soil Conservation Service, US EPA, the US Geological
Survey, area universities, and local governments. It uses influence and prestige to
secure participation and the implementation of successful projects.
Enforcement Mechanisms
The WCO relies on its position as a quasi-governmental body to secure consistent
actions by its city and county members and by the utilities.
Monitoring System
Among the monitoring projects the WCO has in place are the GIS system to monitor
land and water use changes, the Fullbright Spring Monitoring System, the
McDaniels/Fellows Lakes 319 project, and the Pearson Creek Stormwater Sampling
Project
February 1994 Appendix A-156
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
How Long Has the Plan of Management Been in Force?
The plan of management went into effect in 1984.
Representative Projects
The WCO has coordinated development of a GB for the region, sponsored a spring
monitoring project participated in a 319 project does project reviews, coordinates
several stream monitoring programs, publishes a newsletter, sponsors an annual
conference, produced a multi-media program, distributes water test kits to schools,
produced public service announcements, published geologic maps, instituted a sign
program, and produces informative fact sheets and other publications.
Grassroots Involvement
The WCO Board membership has three at-large members from the community and
three non-governmental representatives from the City, County, and utilities. The
program combines the planning and review aspects of a quasi-governmental body with
the citizens advocacy enthusiasm of a grassroots organization. The WCO seeks major
public involvement in its stream monitoring programs, and it places a strong emphasis
on public education.
Program Benefits Identified to Date
No data available.
Assistance Provided by US EPA; Assessment of Value of the Assistance
EPA has partially funded the development of the regional CIS, the Fullbright Spring
Monitoring System Project and, through Missouri DNR, a 319 grant for the
McDaniels/ Fellows Lake project The latter is oriented toward the control of
agricultural runoff and on-site wastewater systems.
Sources
Key Enabling and Governance Documents
Ten Year Portfolio 1984-1994. Discussion Draft Watershed Committee of the Ozarks.
Springfield, Missouri. 1992.
February 1994 Appendix A-157
-------
Appendix A. Program Profiles Profiles of Watershed Oriented
Watershed Management Documents
Report of the Watershed Task Force. City Utilities of Springfield, City of Springfield,
Greene County. Springfield, Missouri. 1983.
February 1994 Appendix A-168
------- |