REVIEW OF FEDERAL AGENCY/NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION

      PARTNERSHIPS FOR STREAM RESTORATION
                   Water Policy Branch
                  Office of Policy Analysis
           Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                       MAY 1995

-------
REVIEW OF FEDERAL AGENCY/NONPROFIT ORGANIZATION

      PARTNERSHIPS FOR STREAM RESTORATION
                   Water Policy Branch
                  Office of Policy Analysis
           Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                       MAY 1995

-------
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This report was prepared by Apogee Research, Inc., for the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE), under Contract No.
68-W4-0022. Amy Doll, Senior Policy Analyst at Apogee Research, served as project manager.
Jennifer Bing, at Apogee Research, served as project analyst. Christine Ruf, of the Water
Policy Branch, Office of Policy Analysis, OPPE, served as Work Assignment Manager.
Much of the information in this report was gathered from telephone conversations and
written materials provided by representatives of federal agencies and nonprofit organizations
involved in stream restoration activities. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency gratefully
acknowledges the contributions of those representatives who provided information on stream
restoration programs and cooperative efforts among federal agencies and nonprofit organizations.
For additional copies of this report or comments, please contact:
Christine Ruf or Jamal Kadri
Water Policy Branch
Office of Policy Analysis
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
401 M Street SW (2124)
Washington, DC 20460
Phone: (202) 260-2756

-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PREFACE AND ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
1. INTRODUCTION
Purpose of Study
Summary of Approach
Summary of Findings
Organization of Report
6
8
• . . . 13
• . . . 19
• . . . 25
RIVERS, TRAILS, AND CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
SAVE OUR STREAMS PROGRAM
SECTION 319 NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
3. CONCLUSIONS 43
Advantages
Disadvantages
Opportunities for Future Cooperation
1
1
1
5
5
2. CASE STUDIES OF STREAM RESTORATION PROGRAMS
AMERICORPS AND NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE
CONSERVATION CORPS
BRING BACK THE NATIVES INITIATIVE
RIPARIAN-WETLAND INITIATIVE FOR THE 1990’s
RISE TO THE FUTURE FISHERIES PROGRAM
&
30
35
39
43
45
45
11

-------
1. INTRODUCTION
This study is part of the ongoing work on stream restoration being conducted by EPA’s
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation (OPPE). A previous OPPE report, Compendium of
Federal Programs with Stream Restoration Activities,’ compiled up-to-date information on
federal agencies engaged in programs that currently conduct, or are authorized to conduct,
scream restoration. The compendium documents numerous stream restoration activities that are
currently conducted at the federal, state, and local levels throughout the nation. OPPE is
distributing the compendium to encourage dialogue and cooperative efforts on stream restoration
activities among federal agencies as well as state and local agencies and nonprofit organizations
involved in stream restoration. This report presents a more detailed review of selected stream
restoration programs, with particular focus on cooperative efforts between federal agencies and
nonprofit organizations associated with those programs.
Purpose of Study
The purpose of this study was to review federal stream restoration programs and existing
cooperative efforts between federal agencies and private, nonprofit organizations for stream
restoration activities. Another purpose was to evaluate the advantages and opportunities
available for promoting stream restoration activities through cooperative efforts between federal
agencies and the private, nonprofit sector.
Summary of Approach
The OPPE report, Compendium of Federal Programs with Stream Restoration Activities,
identifies 21 programs involving 12 federal agencies that currently conduct, or are authorized
to conduct, stream restoration. Written information about these programs was reviewed and
some programs were contacted to determine whether their stream restoration activities currently
involve cooperative efforts with private, nonprofit organizations. Selected nonprofit
organizations were also contacted to identify whether any additional stream restoration initiatives
exist that involve cooperation among such organizations and federal agencies.
Based on this review, at least 12 established or new programs were identified that
currently involve cooperative efforts between federal agencies and nonprofit organizations.
Exhibit 1 presents a list of the 12 stream restoration programs that involve cooperative efforts.
This exhibit includes examples, not an all inclusive listing, of nonprofit organizations involved
in cooperative efforts with each stream restoration program.
‘U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, Compendium of
Federal Programs with Stream Restoration Activities, January 1995.
1

-------
Exhibit 1. List of Stream Restoration Programs that have Cooperative Efforts between
Federal Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations
Name of Program
Federal Agencies
Nonprofit Organizations
AmeriCorps
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; U.S. Department of
the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management; U.S. Department
of the Interior, National Park
Service; U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
National Association of Service &
Conservation Corps; Coalition to
Restore Urban Waters
Appalachian Clean Streams
Initiative
U.S. Department of the
Interior, Office of Surface
Mining
International Association of Fish
and Wildlife Agencies; National
Fish and Wildlife Foundation
(expected soon)
Bring Back the Natives Initiative
U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land
Management; U.S. Department
of Agriculture,
U.S. Forest Service
National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation; Trout Unlimited
Fisheries Across America
U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service
National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation
Partners for Wildlife/Private
Lands Habitat Assistance and
Restoration Program
U.S. Department of the
Interior, Fish and Wildlife
Service
Ducks Unlimited;
Quail Unlimited
Restore our Southern Rivers
Southern Rivers Council: U.S.
Forest Service Region 8,
Tennessee Valley Authority,
Office of Surface Mining, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers,
National Biological Service,
National Park Service, U.S.
Geological Survey, Natural
Resources Conservation Service
National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation; The Nature
Conservancy
Riparian-Wetland Initiative for
the 1990’s (Fish and Wildlife
2000)
U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land
Management
The Nature Conservancy; Trout
Unlimited; Ducks Unlimited;
Public Lands Restoration Task
Force of the Izaak Walton League
2

-------
Exhibit 1. List of Stream Restoration Programs that have Cooperative Efforts between
Federal Agencies and Nonprofit Organizations (continued)
Name of Program
Federal Agencies
Nonprofit Organizations
Rise to the Future Fisheries
Program
U.S. Department of the
Interior, U.S. Forest Service;
U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land
Management
Trout Unlimited; American
Fisheries Society; American Sport
Fishing Association; Federation of
Fly Fishers; Bass Anglers
Sportsman Society; Amerifish
Corporation
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation
Assistance Program
U.S. Department of the
Interior, National Park Service;
Federal Emergency
Management Agency
Association of State Wetland
Mangers; Association of State
Floodplain Managers; American
Rivers; America Outdoors; River
Federation; River Network;
Coalition to Restore Urban
Waterways
Save Our Streams Program
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service
The Izaak Walton League of
America; America’s Clean Water
Foundation; Appalachian
Community Fund
Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Program
U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Office of Wetlands,
Oceans, and Watersheds
Pacific Rivers Council; Trout
Unlimited
Taking Wing/Get Wild!
U.S. Department of
Agriculture, U.S. Forest
Service
National Audubon Society;
Ducks Unlimited;
The Nature Conservancy;
National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation
Seven programs were selected for further review and preparation of a case study on the
use of partnerships or cooperative efforts with nonprofit organizations to conduct stream
restoration activities. These programs were selected as good examples of such partnerships
based on discussions with individuals involved in stream restoration programs in both federal
agencies and nonprofit organizations. The seven programs selected for more detailed review
are:
• Bring Back the Natives Initiative;
• Americorps and National Association of Service & Conservation Corps;
• Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990’s;
• Rise to the Future Fisheries Program;
3

-------
       •      Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program;

       •      Save Our Streams Program; and

       •      Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program.

       Each selected stream restoration program was reviewed to determine and summarize,
where applicable, the following program characteristics:

       Background:

              •     Date of establishment and estimated timeframe of program;

              •     Geographic area where stream restoration activities are authorized; and

              •     Goals  and objectives of the program.

       Description of Stream Restoration  Activities:

              •     Types  of stream restoration activities;

              •     Monitoring activities, if any; and

              •     Examples of projects and resulting benefits.

       Description of the  Partnership:

              •     Roles  of the federal agency and the private, nonprofit organization  in
                    conducting stream restoration activities under the partnership;

              •     Major  components and mechanisms of cooperative efforts with private,
                    nonprofit organizations (e.g., types of cooperative agreements); and

              •     Readily available information on levels of resources shared  under the
                    partnership (e.g., number of projects, number of staff/volunteers, budgets
                    or expenditures, in-kind services).

      Analysis of the Partnership:

              •     Advantages of the partnership;

              •     Disadvantages, if any; and

              •     Additional opportunities for partnerships.

-------
Finally, the results of the case study research were used to evaluate the advantages and
opportunities for future cooperation between federal agencies and the private, nonprofit sector
to support stream restoration activities. The findings, which are presented in Chapter 3, are
summarized briefly below.
Summary of Findings
The results of the case study research indicate that numerous advantages are associated
with partnership arrangements between federal agencies and nonprofit organizations for stream
restoration activities. Partnerships serve as an effective mechanism for the sharing of
information and resources between different entities to leverage the resources available for
stream restoration. Federal agencies offer a wealth of technical expertise pertaining to stream
restoration and management to complement the expertise of nonprofit organizations. In turn,
nonprofit organizations possess site-specific and regional knowledge, as well as an established
volunteer network, which federal agencies may lack. Nonprofit organizations usually contribute
in-kind services and labor for stream restoration activities under such partnerships. In addition,
some nonprofit organizations (e.g., Trout Unlimited) are directly involved in fundraising
activities.
Legislation, memorandums of understanding (MOUs), or cooperative agreements serve
as the basis for all of the partnerships discussed in the case studies. MOUs and cooperative
agreements outline the roles, objectives, and responsibilities of each agency and organization for
effective communication among everyone involved. Several programs, such as Bring Back the
Natives and Rise to the Future, have established full-time Coordinator positions under MOUs
to manage these partnerships.
Opportunities exist for more partnerships between federal agencies and nonprofit
organizations for stream restoration activities. For example, the Rivers, Trails, and
Conservation Assistance Program receives three to four times the number of applications than
it can fund. Although funding availability limits the number of projects that can be
accomplished, utilizing partnerships to leverage additional funds for stream restoration activities
can help federal agencies address unmet needs.
Organization of Report
This chapter discusses the purpose of the study, and presents a summary of the approach
and the findings. Chapter 2 presents the case studies of selected stream restoration programs
that involve cooperative efforts between federal agencies and nonprofit organizations. Chapter 3
presents the results of the evaluation of opportunities for future cooperation on stream restoration
among federal agencies and the private, nonprofit sector.
5

-------
2. CASE STUDIES OF STREAM RESTORATION PROGRAMS
This chapter presents the seven case studies of selected stream restoration programs that
involve cooperative efforts between federal agencies and nonprofit organizations. Exhibit 2
provides a comparison of program characteristics for the seven programs examined in this study.
Exhibit 2. Characteristics of the Selected Stream Restoration Programs
Program
Location
Funding
Legislation!
MOUs
Program
Focus
Distinguishing
Characteristics
AmeriCorps
38 states and
the District of
Columbia
Grant award to
EPA under
President
Clinton’s
National Service
Program
Community
Service Act of
1990
EPA
Neighborhood
Improvement
Project
conducts urban
stream
restoration
activities
Engages young
people in
productive work
Bring Back the
Natives Initiative
Nationwide
(39 sites from
1992-1994);
public land
managed by
the BLM and
FS
BLM funding
supplemented by
TU matching
funds
Federal Land
Policy and
Management
Act of 1976;
Cooperative
Agreement
between BLM
and TU signed
in 1993
Watershed
restoration to
re-establish
native fish
species
Combines
restoration
activities with
improved land
management
practices
Riparian-Wetland
Initiative for the
1990’s
BLM land in
western states
Funds
appropriated by
BLM, additional
funds raised by
various nonprofit
organizations
Federal Land
Policy and
Management
Act of 1976;
MOUs
between state
BLM and
TNC offices
Management
and restoration
of
riparian-wetlan
d areas on
BLM land
Goal to restore
75 percent of
riparian-wetland
areas to proper
functioning
condition by
1997
Rise to the Future
Fisheries Program
FS land; 483
projects in
1992
Funding
distributed from
the FS Division
of Wildlife and
Fisheries
Granger-Thye
Act of 1950;
Collection
Agreement
between FS
and TU
Improvement
of the quality
of fisheries
habitats on FS
land
Action plan
developed to
implement
fisheries and
habitat
restoration
6

-------
Exhibit 2. Characteristics of the Selected Stream Restoration Programs (continued)
Program
Location
Funding
Legislation!
MOUs
Program
Focus
Distinguishing
Characteristics
Rivers, Trails,
and Conservation
Assistance
Program
Non-federal
lands
Funding from
NPS Recreation
Resources
Assistance
Division
Wild and
Scenic Rivers
Act of 1968;
MOUs drawn
up at the local
level
Open space
needs
including river
corridors, trail
systems and
connections,
and greenways
Program acts as
a catalyst that
organizes and
facilitates
community-
based
restoration
projects
Save Our Streams
Program
37 states
Funding from
IWLA
MOU between
IWLA and
NRCS signed
in 1993
Public
education on
water quality
issues;
collection of
data for
streams and
rivers
Encourages the
“adoption” and
monitoring of
streams to
preserve water
quality
Section 319
Nonpoint Source
Program
50 states
Federal grant
program
Section 319(h)
of the Clean
Water Act
Prevention and
control of
nonpoint
source
pollution
Grants to states
to implement
nonpoint source
management
programs
List of Acronyms:
EPA: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
BLM: Bureau of Land Management
PS: U S. Forest Service
TU: Trout Unlimited
MOU: Memorandum of Understanding
TNC: The Nature Conservancy
NPS: National Park Service
IWLA: Izaak Walton League of America
NRCS: Natural Resources Conservation Service
7

-------
                                AMERICORPS AND
       NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF SERVICE & CONSERVATION CORPS
BACKGROUND

       The National Association of Service & Conservation Corps (NASCC) is the membership
organization for youth corps programs.  Since its founding in 1985, NASCC has served as an
advocate,  clearinghouse, and source of assistance for the growing number of state and local
youth corps around the country. Corps programs engage young people, generally  16-25 years
old, in paid, productive, full-time work which benefits the young people in their communities.
Corps members usually work in crews or teams of eight to twelve with a paid adult supervisor
who sets and models clear standards of behavior.  Youth corps crews undertake a wide range
of work projects.

       More than 100  youth corps operate in 38 states and the District of Columbia. Some of
these programs are statewide; the majority are locally-based.  Most corps operate  year-round,
although some operate only during the  summer.  Nationwide, more than 26,000 young adults
serve each year in youth corps.

       Although youth corps have originated throughout the nation since 1976, only since the
advent of NASCC has there been a national informational clearinghouse and advocacy voice for
youth corps.  NASCC is a nonprofit organization governed by a board of directors composed
of corps program directors throughout the United States and prominent citizens.  NASCC
receives support from membership dues and registration fees, as well as from foundations and
corporations.  NASCC's primary mission is two-fold: to strengthen the quality of existing youth
corps programs and to promote the development of new ones.

       During 1992 and 1993, the National and Community Service Act of 1990 provided
funding for corps through grants to states.  In September 1993, the National and  Community
Service Trust Act (P.L. 103-82) was  signed into law by President Clinton.  The premier
program funded by the Act is known as AmeriCorps and currently enrolls 20,000  participants
nationwide through a network of 350 programs, including some 50 youth corps.  The Act allows
corps to apply for funding through  statewide population-based and competitive grants and to
serve as partners  with federal agencies in national service projects.

       On June 20, 1994, the White House announced a grant award of $1.8 million to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to conduct  ten AmeriCorps projects under President
Clinton's new National Service Program.  Of that amount, $820,000 supports stream restoration
projects in four sites.  The AmeriCorps grant makes EPA a key player in the implementation
of two  priority areas for National Service: improving neighborhood environments and reducing
community hazards.    EPA's  projects involve  135  AmeriCorps  members  in  conducting
high-priority environmental improvements in low-income, disadvantaged communities  located
in nine states and the District of Columbia.  Designed as pilots, all projects can be expanded and
replicated  in other communities in the future.
                                         8

-------
DESCRIPTION OF STREAM RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
The EPA AmeriCorps Neighborhood Improvement Project currently involves youth corps
in four sites in urban stream restoration activities, with partners that include the Rivers, Trails,
and Conservation Assistance Program of the National Park Service, and the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS). The Americorps Neighborhood Improvement Projects are located
in the East San Francisco Bay area in California; Newark, New Jersey; Tacoma, Washington;
and Atlanta, Georgia. All four sites are receiving technical assistance and training in stream
restoration techniques. In addition to the stream restoration work, AmeriCorps members are
working with local agencies to reduce health hazards from sources such as lead, radon, and
carbon monoxide in the communities they are serving.
The Washington Service Corps (WSC) and the Metropolitan Parks District of Tacoma
are currently conducting the Swan Creek Restoration Project, located along the east side of
Tacoma, Washington. Swan Creek is a heavily degraded, 12-mile tributary of the Puyallup
River located in the sub-basin of a major urban watershed. The primary goal of this project is
to complete habitat restoration projects that will enable the return of salmon to the creek’s
traditional spawning sites. Stream restoration activities include the construction and installation
of in-stream structures, erosion control, the repair of trails and construction of an elevated
walkway in a wetland area to protect fragile habitat, and the planting of native trees in riparian
areas. Project partners include the City of Tacoma, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Puyallup
Tribe of Indians, the Private Industry Council, the NRCS, the Tacoma Housing Authority, the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Northwest Watershed Education Alliance, Pierce County
Surface Water Management, and U.S. EPA Region X.
The Washington Conservation Corps, a sister program of the WSC, has also conducted
numerous stream restoration projects on U.S. Forest Service land and maintains a cooperative
agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to conduct a range of wetland and stream
restoration projects at several reftiges, with the overall objective of improving habitat values for
wildlife.
The Greater Atlanta Community Corps Neighborhood Improvement Project was
originated to produce neighborhood improvements by restoring urban waterways, reducing
exposure to lead and radon, and creating a more liveable community. This project includes
work in neighborhoods located in an empowerment zone in Atlanta, Georgia, which has the
largest public housing concentration in the nation. Stream restoration activities include
conducting stream surveys and water quality monitoring, stream bank stabilization using soil
bioengineering techniques, planting native trees to replace non-native vegetation and stabilize
erosion, the construction of a new linear trail for recreational access, and broadening support
for a proposed Chatahoochee River Greenway. The project also includes efforts to increase the
awareness of risks related to childhood lead poisoning and lower the risk of radon-induced lung
cancer.
9

-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP
The AmeriCorps Swan Creek Restoration Project is funded by an AmeriCorps grant to
the EPA. This grant provides for 85 percent of the living wages for the AmeriCorps volunteers,
while 15 percent of the project funding comes from the local community. The Swan Creek
project is managed by a steering committee with representatives from various organizations
representing conservation districts, municipal agencies, and local community groups, under the
overall direction of the WSC and the Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma. The steering
committee provides training, technical expertise, recruitment assistance, monitoring, and
evaluation services. AmeriCorps members are responsible for conducting the stream restoration
work and public outreach efforts, while the WSC will provide administrative services and work
closely with the Metropolitan Park District of Tacoma. EPA Region X will continue its
participation through providing staff for the steering committee.
For the Greater Atlanta Conservation Corps Neighborhood Improvement Project, the
Greater Atlanta Conservation Corps is responsible for the recruitment, training, and supervision
of the team members for the implementation of this project. Technical assistance on the project
has included training sessions with the Atlanta Adopt a Stream Program, the Atlanta Bureau of
Pollution Control, the Coalition to Restore Urban Waters, Sotir and Associates, the Southeastern
Radon Training Institute at Auburn University, and the Southeastern Lead Training Institute at
the Georgia Institute of Technology, and U.S. EPA Region IV. Local matching funds have been
provided by the National Park Service and Fulton County in return for restoration work being
performed on land under their jurisdiction. AmeriCorps members are planning new projects for
the second year of the Greater Atlanta Conservation Corps Neighborhood Improvement Project,
which include the construction of a boardwalk and a trail at a nature preserve to protect
threatened and endangered species, and restoration of a partially channelized stream to support
the creation of Freedom Park. EPA Region IV will continue its support of lead and radon risk
reduction efforts, while the Office of Air and Radiation’s Indoor Air Division will support a new
education and outreach initiative to reduce the risks of carbon monoxide poisoning targeted to
susceptible individuals in low income communities.
As another example of a case in which a youth corps program carries out watershed and
stream restoration projects for a different federal agency, the Cooperative Agreement No.
1422-E950-A2-0003 between the Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Montana State office,
and the Montana Conservation Corps, Inc. (MCC) provides procedures and guidance for
coordination and cooperation between the I3LM and the MCC. The objective is to establish job
training partnerships to enhance job training experience for young adults between the ages of 16
and 23 years. The partnership seeks to identify BLM projects that will assist in training,
developing, and educating selected young adults in the principles of resource management and
conservation.
Under the cooperative agreement, the MCC has responsibility for assigning MCC crews
to projects, providing transportation, equipment, tools, and materials. The MCC must also
handle the administrative records for participants in the program, pay the administrative and
operating expenses for maintaining the program, provide and maintain bodily injury and liability
insurance coverage for all MCC members, and provide the BLM with each MCC
representative’s job descriptions and MCC’s written employment policies relating to job
10

-------
performance and personal conduct. The BLM will provide natural resource management,
conservation, or community service work projects that are designed to maintain, improve, or
develop facilities or provide services on BLM managed land. BLM employees are expected to
provide technical direction for crew and crew leaders, but not to displace any currently
employed workers. Also, BLM is expected to provide available tools and equipment as per the
project task order and reimburse the MCC for all agreed upon costs.
ANALYSIS OF THE PARTNERSHIP
Corps recognize that a great deal of technical expertise resides within federal agencies.
In order to carry out projects well, corps need a linkage to these agencies. Since the EPA and
the states already have cooperative relationships for addressing nonpoint source pollution, it is
important for corps to carry out work within that context. Youth corps provide not only suitable
employment, but also training, with the objective to expose corps members to careers in the
environment. Because youth corps are community-based, this assists federal agencies in
realizing their outreach goals. For example, at-risk, minority youth are conducting stream
restoration projects where they live, which contributes to community building and the self-esteem
of corps members. Since youth corps projects depend for some support on reimbursement from
work sponsors, some federal agencies can provide this reimbursement. Also, the AmeriCorps
stream restoration projects serve as a model for youth corps to do additional work with EPA in
the future.
Working in partnership with federal agencies requires an understanding of the language
and structure within each agency. It is sometimes difficult to achieve numerous objectives at
once, which includes completing projects in the community, satisfying the work sponsor, and
providing a good work and learning experience for corps members.
Opportunities exist for additional partnerships between the NASCC and federal agencies.
In fact, one of the purposes of AmeriCorps is to get different groups to interact with one
another. For example, youth corps would like to assume a large part of the nonpoint source
pollution control efforts administered by the EPA under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and
are interested in working in urban and rural areas with the NRCS through its small watersheds
program. Youth corps are also interested in assisting the NRCS and the Bureau of Reclamation
with conducting a more environmentally sensitive approach to flood prevention through stream
restoration, along with assisting the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and other
federal land management agencies to achieve ecosystem and watershed management goals.
In order to forge these partnerships, youth corps need to prove themselves by bringing
their current successes to the attention of high-level people at federal agencies for support to
launch more demonstration projects or broad-based efforts to involve youth corps. Additional
authority or direction from Congress may be required to reflect the belief that youth corps
involvement is a good idea.
11

-------
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Personal communication with Andrew Moore, Director, Government Relations, National
Association of Service & Conservation Corps.
Personal Communication with Susan Handley, EPA Region X Volunteer Monitoring
Coordinator.
Personal Communication with Scott Bowles, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
“National Service Initiative Project Proposal, Draft.” U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Youth Corps Profiles 1993, National Association of Service & Conservation Corps.
12

-------
BRING BACK THE NATWES INITIATWE
BACKGROUND
The Bring Back the Natives (BBN) Initiative was conceived in 1991 by Dr. Jack
Williams, the National Fisheries Program Manager at the Bureau of Land Management (BLM).
A partnership between the BLM, the U.S. Forest Service (FS), and the National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation (NFWF) was formed and support for the program began during the same
year. With the help of Cindy Deacon-Williams, then Assistant Fisheries Program Leader,
FS-Washington Office, BBN has expanded and is now in its fourth fiscal year of operation.
The BLM and the FS manage nearly 70 percent of all public lands in the nation. One
of the most valuable services produced on these lands is high quality water and its associated
riparian and aquatic resources. These lands provide many of the best remaining opportunities
to conserve our aquatic biological diversity. They provide habitat for 68 percent of the 87
species and subspecies of fishes that are listed as threatened or endangered pursuant to the
Endangered Species Act.
BBN is designed to improve the status of native fish (both game and non-game) and other
aquatic species on public lands through riparian area rehabilitation, watershed restoration, and
species reintroduction. BBN projects span administrative boundaries (federal, state, and
interested private landowners) to implement watershed restoration projects. Through grants from
the NFWF, the BBN Initiative also provides financial support to projects on private land.
Headwaters, small creeks, and tributaries of larger rivers often provide the last quality habitat
for many native aquatic species. BBN uses these areas as the cornerstone for efforts to restore
and maintain habitat that supports at-risk fish stocks and to rebuild the productive capacity of
native fish populations. By coupling habitat restoration activities with improvements in land
management, BLM helps protect and conserve the long-term viability of endemic aquatic species
and the habitat upon which they depend.
Criteria for approval for BBN projects include changes in past land use practices that
have degraded watersheds, a commitment to habitat restoration and monitoring, and the presence
of local partners to facilitate implementation of such projects. Partnerships are a critical
component to the success of the BBN Initiative.
TU is a national organization dedicated to the conservation of America’s coldwater
fisheries resources and their habitats. TU is organized into state councils, with chapters within
each state council. Approximately 35 councils and over 400 chapters exist nationwide. The
NFWF is a nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of natural resources -- fish,
wildlife, and plants. The NFWF was established by Congress in 1984 to forge partnerships
between the public and private sectors and to support conservation activities.
13

-------
DESCRIPTION OF STREAM RESTORATION ACTIVITiES
Habitat restoration, species reintroduction, and improved land management associated
with BBN projects enhances water quality, aids in the recovery of endangered and threatened
plant and animal species, expands and diversifies quality recreational and fishing opportunities,
and benefits riparian-dependent species in each watershed that is revitalized. BBN projects
address a host of habitat issues, which include broodstock operations, the special needs of
populations of threatened and endangered species, and the preservation of unique gene pools,
such as Paiute and Greenback Cutthroat Trout. The BBN implements upland, riparian, and
in-stream restoration approaches, along with revised land management practices, to eliminate the
source(s) of degradation. For example, riparian recovery for a watershed may include
combinations of riparian pasture and exclusion fences, water developments away from the
stream, riparian plantings, and implementation of new rotational grazing schemes to aid in a
more rapid recovery of affected areas.
From 1992-1994, stream restoration work under the BBN Initiative included 39 sites,
with some projects conducted as multi-year efforts. In 1993, the BBN Initiative funded projects
in over 25 watersheds, including the Red River in Idaho and the Kern River in California. The
Red River acquisition, restoration, and education project is a multi-year effort to revitalize the
Red River watershed and its native fish species and provides a complete watershed approach to
native species restoration. The land acquisition project, a key portion of a larger watershed
improvement program, involved a 314-acre ranch, which has 1.5 miles of the Red River flowing
through it. The 1.5 mile stretch of river is a spawning area for Chinook Salmon, as well as
rearing habitat for the native Steelhead, Westslope Cutthroat, Bull Trout, and Mountain White
Fish. The goal of the restoration project is to improve stream conditions to support wild and
natural populations of these species. The restoration effort will improve an additional four miles
of the Red River, benefitting both fish and wildlife. The final improvements will be
accomplished through long-term investments in the future through an information and education
program.
The goal of the Kern River Project is to determine the needs and accomplish the recovery
of the Little Kern Golden Trout (Threatened), Kern River Rainbow Trout (Candidate), and
Volcano Creek Golden Trout (Candidate). A principal objective is to determine the true
distribution of the Kern River Rainbow Trout. The results will provide an accurate map
detailing current distribution of the species which in turn, will aid in the determination and
planning for species restoration. Ongoing genetic analysis will be used to verify the recovery
of populations that have been restored. Educational information regarding these unique species
will be created for public dissemination. BBN funds are supporting fish collection, genetic
analysis, interpretive signing, and monitoring of the program. This long-term restoration
program will eventually provide over 130 miles of riverine habitat for these three species of
trout. California can expect to recover a precious, living resource.
An upcoming BBN project, the Salt Creek/Dos Palmas Area of Critical Environmental
Concern on BLM land, involves the creation of 215 acres of marsh habitat suitable for the
protection, perpetuation, and expansion of two endangered species. Activities associated with
this project include the draining of ponds to remove non-native predator and competitive fish
species and to facilitate the necessary re-engineering and filling of ponds to achieve appropriate
14

-------
depths and surface elevations. The construction of concrete gate structures and the placement
of grouted riprap are required, along with the reconstruction of levees to separate each pond.
Flashboard stairs, large diameter PVC pipe and associated connections must also be purchased
and installed.
The BBN Initiative uses an ecological approach to reintroduce native aquatic species.
Approximately one-half of BBN projects are renewed on an annual basis, in keeping with the
vision of a watershed approach to stream restoration. Pre- and post-monitoring data are
available for certain projects. BBN encourages public involvement and outreach through
community-based environmental education at the local watershed level in addition to other forms
of outreach including interpretative signing brochures, watchable wildlife (aquatic species), and
published papers.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP
In April 1993, David Nolte, an active TU member and former Oregon Council Chairman
for TU, was hired as the TU/BBN Program Coordinator to link TU volunteer fisheries work
with efforts to improve federal land management policies, especially with respect to timber
harvest and mining practices and to facilitate close interaction with federal agency officials. In
July 1993, TU signed a cooperative agreement with the BLM to assist in the implementation of
specific restoration efforts under the I3BN Initiative. The authority for this cooperative
agreement is derived from the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (P.L. 94-579).
The primary objective of the cooperative agreement is to provide for restoration efforts
associated with the maintenance and improvement of fisheries and riparian habitat. Another
important objective of the agreement is to increase effective communications and assist in the
implementation of specific restoration efforts under this initiative between the BLM arid
interested groups.
According to the TU/BLM cooperative agreement, TU is required to:
• Establish a National Cooperative Project Specialist position with responsibility for
facilitating a more rapid implementation of BBN projects;
• Contribute matching funds and support for the three-year period of the agreement
to maintain the National Cooperative Project Specialist position in accordance
with 0MB Circular A-hO Attachment E;
• Produce, publish, and distribute a strategic program document outlining the
development and implementation of cooperative habitat enhancement projects
developed under the BBN Initiative; and
• Have the Project Specialist complete and submit an annual and financial
accountability report to BLM no later than February 29th of the following year.
15

-------
The BLM is required to:
• Cooperatively, as an equal partner, assist TU in the identification, selection, and
funding of appropriate projects;
• Provide clerical support at the Division of Wildlife and Fisheries, Washington
office, and other assistance on an as needed basis;
• Provide advance payments of reimbursements to TU in accordance with Section
VI of the agreement and applicable 0MB Treasury Circular No. 1075.
According to this agreement, BLM committed $18,000 to the BBN Initiative to support
the National Cooperative Project Specialist position. TU was required to match this amount.
This agreement also included provisions for an extension of two years. In April 1994, BLM
committed $53,000 for FY 1994 to support the increased workload of the aquatic restoration
program, the Wild Trout V Symposium, and the International Trout Stream Habitat Improvement
Workshop according to a modification to the cooperative agreement. The modification also
provided $53,000 in BLM funds for FY 1995. TU is required to match these funds. The key
to the fiscal arrangement between the BLM and TU is the raising of private sector funds to serve
as a match for BLM projects. Since April 1993, when David Nolte began as Program
Coordinator, he has raised $529,492 for BBN projects. Thus, a BLM commitment of $124,000
for the project specialist position has led to $529,492 of private sector cash donations to the
program. The cooperative agreement ends on September 30, 1995 and the amount of private
sector money is likely to be higher than this amount as funds continue to be raised.
In addition to the TU/BLM partnership, the FS and TU implemented a national
partnership in December 1987 to enhance the conservation and management of coldwater
fisheries and their ecosystems. This partnership was the first formal agreement ever designed
between a federal agency and a conservation group that bridged a shared commitment to the
resource through coordinated funding of a partnership position and on-the-ground projects, free
exchange of technical expertise, and enthusiastic encouragement to get the job done. The FS
provides technical information and education for fisheries management, while the TU builds
public involvement and concern for the resource. Currently, the FS and TU have formalized
agreements to work together for the benefit of fisheries resources on over 108 national forests
and more than 132,500 stream miles. These agreements cover 95 percent of all coldwater
stream miles on the National Forests, including those in Alaska.
NFWF serves as the umbrella organization for matching funds. The NFWF awards
Challenge grants using its federally appropriated funds to match private sector funds. Under the
Challenge Cost-Share Grant Program, the NFWF is required to raise $1.50 of direct non-federal
contributions for every $1.00 in federal matching funds this year for FY 1995. The requirement
was a 1:1 match in BBN’s first year while the requirement was a $1.40 to $1.00 match last year.
A clause in the grant agreement restricts the BLM and FS from raising funds for BBN directly,
since federal match money cannot be matched directly with federal money. However, in-kind
services can be contributed directly to the BLM and FS. The NFWF contributed a total
challenge grant of $850,000 in FY 1994 to BBN. Of this amount, $500,000 in Challenge Grant
funds were raised by the BLM and $350,000 were matching funds provided by the NFWF.
16

-------
ANALYSIS OF THE PARTNERSHIP
Partnerships under the BBN Initiative are constrained because the need for restoration
activities far exceeds the amount of grant funds available for leveraging. For example, in the
FY 1995 proposal cycle, the Coquille River Watershed project in Oregon, sponsored by the
BLM, requested $575,767 in NFWF matching funds. This meant that they had identified
enough partners and commitments equaling more than $860,000 in order to obtain the matching
funds for restoration activities. The entire grant budget that year is approximately $600,000,
so NFWF could not fully fund their request. However, the need exists and the partnerships are
in place. NFWF was only able to provide $45,000 in matching funds for the Coquille River
Watershed project this fiscal year. Clearly, restoration needs outstrip the amount of grant
monies available from NFWF. Any future appropriated funds that could increase this match
amount would be very effectively leveraged for on-the-ground projects through the BBN
Initiative.
In general, greater contact among cooperators at the regional level leads to better
communication and increases the effectiveness of the partnership. The most profound impact
of the partnership takes place at the local level, where people discover the resources they need
to solve resource management problems. In addition, people can develop an understanding and
an increased awareness of stewardship and ownership issues. The success of BBN depends on
the willingness of public partners to match TU’s commitment to no-nonsense, on-the-ground
habitat restoration efforts. From the results of a survey conducted by the BBN Program
Coordinator, TU’s participation has greatly improved on-the-ground recovery efforts.
One disadvantage cited by the BBN Program Coordinator is the difficulty in adjusting the
scheduling for starting field work and for obtaining grant funds. Nevertheless, there is certainly
a need for more federal agency and nonprofit organization partnerships for stream restoration.
At the annual meeting of Trout Unlimited on September 23, 1994, the FS Deputy Chief Gray
Reynolds commented on the benefits of the BBN Initiative, as well as the need for continued
expansion of the BBN Initiative.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Personal Communication with Mary Knapp, USDA Forest Service.
Personal Communication with David Nolte, Bring Back The Natives Program Coordinator,
Trout Unlimited.
Personal Communication with Kate Costenbader, Trout Unlimited.
Personal Communication with Gris Batchelder, Program Administrator, National Fish and
Wildlife Foundation.
Trout Unlimited Annual Report 1993.
17

-------
“Integrated Ecosystem Management into the FS/TU Partnership,” Remarks made at the Annual
Meeting of Trout Unlimited, Bozeman, Montana, September 23, 1994, by Deputy Chief Gray
Reynolds.
“Industry Wins with Bring Back the Natives Restoration Plan,” by Andrew Martin, ASA Bulletin,
No. 455, January/February 1995, p. 5.
Assistance Agreement, Cooperative Agreement No. 1422P852-A3-0012, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Bureau of Land Management, July 16, 1993.
Amendment of Request for Application/Modification of Assistance Agreement, No.
1422P852-A3-0012, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, April 11,
1994.
18

-------
RIPARIAN-WETLAND INITIATIVE FOR THE 1990’s
BACKGROUND
The Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990’s was developed as a blueprint to manage
and restore riparian-wetland areas on lands managed by the Bureau of Land Management
(BLM), U.S. Department of the Interior. The BLM manages approximately 23.7 million acres
and 182,000 miles of riparian-wetland areas, which represents 8.8 percent of the total lands
managed by BLM, including Alaska, and 0.7 percent of the total lands excluding Alaska. The
geographic location of this Initiative includes Alaska and the 11 contiguous western states, plus
small tracts in Minnesota, Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi. The
Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990’s was institutionalized by the signing of the Riparian
Area Management Policy in 1987 by the Director of the BLM. The Policy established objectives
to maintain, restore, and improve riparian values to achieve a healthy and productive ecological
condition for maximum long-term benefits. The Initiative recognizes that riparian-wetland areas
are biologically, economically, and environmentally valuable, and takes an interdisciplinary
approach to their management.
The Riparian-Wetland Initiative sets a series of goals and strategies to restore healthy
conditions on the riparian-wetland areas managed by the BLM, with an overall goal of restoring
75 percent to proper functioning condition by 1997. The Riparian Wetland-Initiative establishes
four general goals scheduled for implementation through 1995:
Goal 1: Restore and maintain riparian-wetland areas so that 75 percent or more are in
proper functioning condition by 1997. The overall objective is to achieve an advanced
ecological status, except where resource management objectives, including proper
functioning condition, would require an earlier successional stage.
Goal 2: Protect riparian-wetland areas and associated uplands through proper land
management and avoid or mitigate negative impacts. The objective is to protect, acquire,
and expand key areas to provide for their maximum public benefit, enhancement, and
efficient management.
Goal 3: Conduct an aggressive riparian-wetland information and outreach program,
which includes training, and research. The objective is to promote the value and
importance of healthy riparian-wetland areas.
Goal 4: Improve partnerships and cooperative restoration and management processes in
implementing the Riparian-Wetland Initiative. The objective is to provide funding
alternatives for high-priority projects.
This overall national strategy cuts across several BLM programs and complements other
BLM plans such as Waterfowl Habitat Management on Public Lands, A Strategy for the Future;
Fish and Wildlife 2000; and Recreation 2000 for an interdisciplinary, multi-program, and
cooperative effort.
19

-------
DESCRIPTION OF STREAM RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
The BLM continues to make progress in meeting the goals of the Riparian-Wetland
Initiative for the 1990’s. The following summary of accomplishments, based on data collected
through FY 1994, demonstrates how the BLM is creating a healthier riparian-wetland ecosystem
in the western United States. In FY 1994, the BLM:
• Completed 182 activity plans and prepared or revised an additional five resource
management plans that deal with riparian issues;
• Inventoried 183,600 acres (or 5,345 miles) of riparian-wetlands in the contiguous
western states and 20,000 acres of wetlands and 15 miles of riparian stream
systems in Alaska;
• Completed an assessment of the functioning condition status for riparian-wetland
areas on 4,109 miles (or 143,265 acres), which includes 4,094 miles (or 123,265
acres) in the contiguous western states;
• Developed 645 new riparian-wetland improvement projects;
• Maintained 698 existing riparian-wetland projects;
• Monitored 538 management plans with riparian-wetland objectives;
• Acquired 24,534 acres of riparian-wetland areas, primarily through land
exchanges and donation;
• Presented a Riparian Stewardship Award, which recognizes those who help the
BLM carry out its Riparian-Wetland Initiative, to the Trout Creek Mountain
Working Group for their efforts in improving habitat for threatened Lahontan
Cutthroat Trout;
• Conducted 143 in-stream flow assessments to detennine the water quantity needed
to support healthy riparian-wetland values;
• Managed 100 areas with riparian values through partnerships, primarily with state
and private cooperators; and
• Completed numerous training, public outreach and research efforts to promote
awareness of the importance of healthy riparian-wetland areas.
As an example of cooperative improvement projects, the BLM worked with volunteer
groups to improve stream stabilization on BLM land in Trapper Creek, Colorado. Several
hundred hours were spent over a few weekends planting willows, repairing in-stream structures
for watertables, and building and maintaining fences to improve livestock distribution. Trout
Unlimited provided labor and financial contributions. This project resulted in an improved
watershed condition and an increase in available cutthroat habitat.
20

-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP
As of FY 1994, 10 states in the western United States have riparian-wetland partnerships
with a nonprofit organization. The role of the BLM varies according to the needs of specific
projects. Typically, the BLM develops projects on publicly owned land and manages the
financial contributions. In other instances, the nonprofit organization assumes the lead role on
the project and the BLM provides staffing and logistics assistance.
As an example of the type of partnerships that the BLM has developed, the BLM
California State Office and The Nature Conservancy (TNC) California Field Office signed a
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) in June 1984, under the authority of Section 307 of the
Federal Land Policy and Management Act (P.L. 94-579). The purpose of the MOU is to define
areas of interest and cooperation in the administration of lands in the State of California that
support significant elements of biotic diversity. It also describes common objectives between
the California TNC and the BLM California State Office and provides for the establishment,
implementation, and review of Cooperative Management Agreements (CMAs) for specific
projects. According to the MOU, past experience has demonstrated that the establishment and
implementation of CMAs have provided protection to biotic resources in a more efficient and
effective manner than if either party acted independently.
By January 31st of each year, TNC and the BLM California State Office provides a list
of recommended projects that are appropriate for CMAs. TNC and BLM review these proposals
and pursue projects of mutual interest. TNC and BLM meet each year to discuss the progress
made on each CMA in effect within the state for the previous year. The CMAs:
• Are consistent with BLM and TNC overall land use and management plans for
the lands involved;
• Are considered an integral part of BLM’s ongoing multiple use program;
• Do not affect existing organizational authorities;
• Specify areas of public land on which cooperative management will be
implemented;
• Provide for plant, fish or wildlife habitat improvements and/or modifications and
other facilities as appropriate;
• Serve as the final documentation, except for environmental assessment work, for
site-specific projects proposed in the CMA;
• Detail management actions to be taken;
• Detail funding responsibilities between organizations;
• Detail management responsibilities between organizations; and
21

-------
Include a monitoring plan.
For example, TNC asked the BLM to join them in protecting rare oak wetland habitat
along the Cosumnes River Preserve in California. This project included public land adjacent
to the TNC’s Cosumnes River Preserve. The BLM assisted TNC with planting oak,
cottonwood, willow, and other riparian species. Other activities included maintenance of the
diversity of fish and wildlife species and establishment of an environmental education visitors
center.
It is BLM’s policy to consult with the public, private organizations, other government
agencies, academic institutions, and others on riparian-wetland matters to exchange knowledge,
experience, and technology. This includes consulting with other Federal, state, and local entities
on regulatory and permitting matters. Outreach activities have been expanded to encourage more
private individuals, groups, and government agencies to work jointly on riparian-wetland
enhancement projects. Cooperation and partnership efforts have been organized with the Public
Lands Restoration Task Force of the Izaak Walton League of America, Inc., Trout Unlimited,
The Nature Conservancy, and the Montana, Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, and Arizona Riparian
Councils, among others.
Organizations are working with the BLM’s Volunteer Program to encourage and facilitate
valuable volunteer assistance. Such volunteer assistance not only helps to complete projects and
perform required maintenance, but it also heightens public appreciation of the value of
riparian-wetland resources. A coordinated, cooperative effort was promoted with private
landowners, resource users, nonprofit organizations, government agencies, and the interested
public. As a result, many land users and groups volunteered time and labor to help the BLM
complete riparian-wetland projects.
The Federal Land Policy and Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-579)
authorizes the BLM to form cooperative agreements on public lands. According to provisions
of FLPMA, contributions or donations of money, services, and property for the management,
protection, acquisition of public lands may be accepted.
Under the 1988 appropriations act, BLM first received funding of $250,000 to accelerate
the Riparian-Wetland Initiative. During FY 1989, BLM spent approximately $6.3 million on
riparian area management, of which $1.5 million represented increased funding and $4.8 million
was from base funds diverted from other activities. Approximately $8.1 million was spent in
FY 1990, of which $1.9 million represented increased funding and $6.2 million was base
funding. In FY 1992, the BLM spent $11 million. Funding for FY 1993 was $12.1 million.
The FY 1994 appropriation was $18.8 million. An estimated 20 to 30 percent of funding is used
for on-the-ground riparian restoration and riparian protection (e.g., fencing to restrict livestock
access).
The approximate cost to achieve the riparian part of this initiative was estimated at $85
million from 1991 to 1995. A total of 300 additional riparian positions of various skills will be
required. The wetland management part of this initiative will require approximately $10 million
for inventory, coordination and partnerships, and planning habitat development over the next 10
years. Also, it is estimated that it will cost approximately $32 million to implement the planned
22

-------
riparian-wetland expansions and acquisitions over the next 20 years. In summary, the total cost
was estimated at $127 million, plus $2 million annually for wetland maintenance.
ANALYSIS OF THE PARTNERSHIP
Because riparian-wetland ecosystems do not begin or end at landownership boundaries,
a cooperative management effort is absolutely essential. To be successful, every
riparian-wetland management effort requires cooperation and coordination with all affected
parties. At the national and regional levels, the goals of the both the federal agency and the
nonprofit organization are met, especially regarding resource management. On the local level,
there is site-specific enhancement of resource values (i.e., threatened and endangered species,
and rare habitat) as well as improved water quality, improved flow regulation and floodplain
control, and an increase in the potential for public recreation along stream corridors.
Joint funding ventures, such as Challenge Cost-Share Funding Programs, permittee
contributions, and other private assistance are excellent approaches to financing high-priority
management projects. Such opportunities extend existing funding and confirm effective
partnerships. FLPMA allows for the BLM to accept funds from private nonprofit organizations
for these type of management projects.
The success of BLM’s restoration efforts hinges to a large degree on a spirit of
cooperation and partnership with public land users, private landowners, conservation groups, and
other agencies. The BLM estimates that contributions from private organizations increase
BLM’s management capability by a factor of at least three times, if not greater in some
instances.
Problems may arise in such partnerships when the BLM and the nonprofit organization
have different expectations on what should be done on a project. For example, a nonprofit
organization may envision additional activities on public land. Problems may also arise between
conservation organizations and user organizations. However, these issues can be resolved
through increased interaction. For example, a multi-agency group was formed between the
BLM, ranchers, and conservation organizations on Trout Creek in Oregon under a BLM
cooperative research management plan. Since there is a tendency for groups with different
agendas not to work together, the Trout Creek plan provided a structure for various groups to
reach a consensus on how to manage the Trout Creek allotment. Over a period of several years,
everyone agreed to a management policy, with the exception of one environmental group. That
environmental group filed a lawsuit against the BLM, but the judge ruled in BLM’s favor.
According to the BLM, there are unlimited opportunities for partnerships between Federal
agencies and nonprofit organizations for stream restoration, as well as other conservation efforts.
On public land, there is no activity where nonprofits are not involved in some capacity.
23

-------
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Personal Communication with Ron Huntsinger, BLM Chief Hydrologist.
Annual Report of Accomplishments, Riparian- Wetland Initiative for the 1900’s, Fiscal Year 1994,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Annual Report of Accomplishments FY 1992, Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1900’s, U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990’s, U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land
Management, September 1991.
Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976, 43 USC 1737.
Memorandum of Understanding between the Bureau of Land Management, California State
Office and The Nature Conservancy, California Field Office.
24

-------
RISE TO THE FUTURE FISHERIES PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
Fisheries management has been part of the National Forest program since 1897.
Recognizing the authority of state agencies to regulate and manage fish populations, the U.S.
Forest Service (FS) focuses on management of fish habitat and angling opportunities. To
improve the quality of fisheries habitat on National Forest System (NFS) lands, the Rise to the
Future (RTTF) Fisheries Program was initiated in 1987 by the FS. The RTTF program was
developed and implemented to work with partners to improve the quality of fisheries habitats on
the NFS, recover threatened and endangered species, and improve the quality of aquatic habitats.
It was also designed to provide for increased fishing opportunities for all anglers on the NFS.
An action plan was approved to carry the direction of the program to the field and to assist the
Regions, Forests, Districts, and Stations in its implementation. Its purpose was to:
• Enhance fisheries program identification by increasing the awareness of fish
habitat management;
• Use the best management practices for increasing habitat management efficiency;
• Increase public participation in, and awareness of, fisheries management within
the FS;
• Incorporate valid economic techniques in the decision making process; and
• Maintain a highly skilled workforce of fisheries biologists with a broad
understanding of aquatic ecosystems.
In early 1989, the FS developed the Recreational Fisheries Policy to further increase
emphasis on recreational fishing on the NFS. It was designed to form an internal partnership
between the RTTF and the National Recreational Strategy, where both programs serve the
recreational angler. In 1990, the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) joined the FS in signing
the Policy, which set in motion the strengthening of existing programs and partnerships in the
management of recreational fishing on almost one-half billion acres of federally administered
lands.
DESCRIPTION OF STREAM RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
The RTTF Fisheries Program action plan includes an increased emphasis on recreational
fishing as outlined in the new FS/BLM Recreational Fisheries Policy, coordinates management
direction for aquatic threatened and endangered species with the “Every Species Counts” action
plan, and addresses new emphasis areas that have surfaced through program growth. The action
plan is divided into five categories, which include Program Development, Technical Capabilities,
Cooperation and Public Information, Fish and Fishing Economics, and Fisheries Personnel.
25

-------
One major type of stream restoration activity involves land management due to road
building work. RTTF installs culverts, ladders, and removes barriers to restore the natural
gradient to the stream. Another major type of stream restoration activity conducted under R1’TF
is the fencing of riparian areas to prevent or repair damage from elk and cattle along the stream
bank. Other stream restoration activities include the stabilizing of stream banks to improve trout
waters, building rock and gravel reefs for spawning walleyes, and constructing fish ladders for
the passage of migrating salmon over barriers.
FS research on fish habitat is merged with the states’ information on fish populations to
ensure a resource base for maintaining and expanding fishing opportunities. Beyond biological
research, the FS works on improving fishing and boating access for forest anglers. Example
RTTF projects in three FS regions are described below.
Southwestern Region, Apache-Sitgraves National Forest. More than 100 volunteers
provided food, labor, and money to help build 38 fish structures on the West Fork of the Black
River, Thompson Creek, and Burro Creek on the Springerville Ranger District. Several partners
provided matching funds of $6,000 and labor for this RTTF project. The partners included the
Arizona Boys Club, the Arizona Fly Casters, the Arizona Game and Fish Department, the
Desert Fly Casters, the Tucson Fly Fishing Club, and the Tucson Old Pueblo Chapter of Trout
Unlimited. The project was implemented to stabilize eroding streambanks, provide hiding cover
and pools for fish, and eventually allow for the recovery of native Apache Trout. Log and rock
structures emplaced will stabilize eroding streambanks while structures known as “willow cribs”
will stop bank cutting as well as provide fish cover under overhanging willows.
Eastern Region, White Mountain National Forest. Fryeburg Academy students and
Saco Valley Anglers (Trout Unlimited) worked with the Saco Ranger District on a continuing
RTTF activity, the Slippery Brook Watershed Stabilization Project. Improvements were made
on 150 feet of stream, such as revegetation of native grasses and willows and placement of
stream channel log deflectors and streambank rock. In addition, brook trout habitat was
improved with the placement of cover logs and one “lunker” structure to provide hiding cover
and winter refuge for juvenile and adult trout.
Pacific Northwest Region, Williamette National Forest. A project was initiated to
provide passage to Sweetwater Creek for bull trout. A custom culvert excludes brook trout from
upstream passage into the creek while allowing for re-establishment of bull trout. Partners and
project contributions include the Eugene Water and Electric Board ($15,375), the Oregon
Council of the Fly Fishing Federation ($4,800), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
($17,375), and the Oregon Department of Transportation ($16,250). In addition, volunteer
scuba divers from local clubs helped conduct surveys. The partners are developing an
interpretive sign of bull trout habitat and life history for visitors, while the Oregon Department
of Fish and Wildlife is seeding the creek with spawners and eggs.
26

-------
DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP
The RTTF program is administered through the FS’ Division of Wildlife and Fisheries.
Funding is distributed from the Division at the national level to the regional level, then from the
regional level to the forest level, and finally from the forest level to the forest district level,
which ultimately initiates projects. Funds are used to pay for projects outright or supplement
challenge cost-share contributions. Typically, nonprofit organizations contribute labor, time,
technical ideas, and equipment, as well as enthusiasm and a unique site-specific knowledge.
Through RTTF, the FS has developed strong partnerships with major fisheries
conservation groups, government agencies, researchers, and the angling public to protect,
restore, and enhance aquatic habitats. Partnerships also support monitoring of river, stream, and
lake habitats and interpretive, educational, and recreational opportunities for forest visitors. In
1992, partners assisted the FS in completing 483 R1’TF projects. Formal agreements have been
made with many groups, such as the American Fisheries Society, The American Sport Fishing
Association (formerly known as the Sport Fishing Institute), Federation of Fly Fishers, Trout
Unlimited (TU), Bass Anglers Sportsman Society, and Amerifish Corporation.
The FS and TU formalized a partnership agreement in December 1987, which brought
over 70,000 fishing enthusiasts in over 400 TU chapters in the United States together with the
125 National Forests for the purpose of maintaining and enhancing the productivity of coldwater
habitats on NFS lands and to improve coldwater fisheries and their ecosystems. Moreover, a
National FS/TU Partnership Coordinator position was established to coordinate TU volunteer
efforts on National Forests. The establishment of a National Partnership Coordinator provided
an opportunity for a partner to share costs for the first time in a full-time position with the FS.
The FS has assigned employees work with the states and professional societies before, but this
was the first time a formal arrangement had been made with a volunteer group. This position
facilitates more effective communication and technology transfer between TU and FS. The FS
pays for the salary of the National Partnership Coordinator as specified in the Collection
Agreement. The Collection Agreement was signed by the FS and TU under the provisions of
the Granger-Thye Act of April 24, 1950 (16 U.S.C. 572).
According to a draft of the Forest Service Partnership Program between TU and FS for
FY 1994-1995, program objectives include the facilitation of TU participation in National Forest
planning, coordination of Habitat Conservation Assessments for sensitive cutthroat trout species,
and publication of technical documents on conducting cooperative fish habitat projects with the
FS under cooperative agreements.
A total of $45.5 million was spent on RTTF programs in 1992, with $18.5 million for
inland fish programs and $27 million for salmon and steelhead programs. In 1992, 928 miles
of streams were improved for the inland fish program and 487 miles of streams were improved
for the salmon and steelhead program. The 1993 appropriations for RTTF amounted to $53.9
million.
In 1986, the U.S. Congress established the Challenge Cost-Share Program, a unique
venture in which the state and private sectors share in both the management and cost of Federal
habitat improvement programs. The program is designed to encourage direct public involvement
27

-------
in managing wildlife and fish habitats on national forests and grasslands. Congressional funding
of FS Challenge Cost-Share projects is contingent upon receipt of matching contributions from
conservation groups, private enterprises, individuals, or other public agencies.
Through the Challenge Cost-Share Program, the FS contributed $1.8 million each to the
inland fish program and the salmon and steelhead program in 1992. This produced 462 miles
of stream improvement for the inland fish program and 265 miles of stream improvement for
the salmon and steelhead program.
The fisheries budget for the NFS has quadrupled since 1986, reaching $41 million in
1991. The fisheries research budget has increased to $4.2 million during the same period. Total
funds for the FS fisheries management program in FY 1994 total over $54 million.
ANALYSIS OF THE PARTNERSHiP
Since the TU-FS agreement took effect, local and regional partnerships were developed
in 22 states with 99 National Forests. TU has become an effective partner in lobbying Congress
for increased funding for the RTTF program. From a $5 million budget for fisheries in FY
1986, a sizeable increase to $33 million for FY 1990 and $41 million for FY 1991 has occurred.
The number of positions for fisheries biologists within the FS rose from 113 in 1986 to 230 in
1991 as a direct result of the RTTF program. TU has been a prime contributor in supporting
these increases in budget and personnel.
RTTF has been successful in establishing the FS as a fisheries habitat management
agency, as evidenced by the creation of a new FS position for Regions 1, 4, and 6 to coordinate
the management of the Columbia River Basin anadromous fisheries, and in accomplishing
significant on-the-ground work in cooperation with partners to improve aquatic habitats and
increase fishing opportunities. RTTF has also increased public awareness of the important role
that the FS has in fish habitat management along with awareness of the increased availability of
fishing opportunities.
TU has become more technically aware and educated in fisheries management, and the
FS has benefitted from more public involvement and concern for the resource. Public and
internal FS awareness of fisheries programs has greatly improved with the RTTF program. The
RTTF program has elevated the visibility of National Forest fisheries resources and has
identified high demand for their use. Increased fisheries staffing from RTTF has greatly
improved the quality of fisheries resource management on the NFS. RTTF has clearly focused
the FS’ emphasis on working with the public and meeting their needs through improvement of
the cooperative partnerships with TU and Bass Anglers Sportsmen Society, increased awareness
of the needs of disabled anglers, and greater emphasis on angling in general and in improving
the resource base for the serious angler.
The many internal and external partnerships have undoubtedly improved the process of
fulfilling program goals and objectives. Because of increased participation by partners, more
people are informed which creates a more open working atmosphere. It also improves the
accountability of the projects. However, regulations that oversee partnerships may become more
28

-------
complex with stricter interpretation of a federal law, the Federal Advisory Committee Act.
More opportunities for these types of partnerships definitely exist; the contacts need to be
initiated.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Personal communication with Mary Knapp, Assistant National Fisheries Program Leader, U.S.
Forest Service.
“Conservation Partnerships for Coidwater Fisheries Habitat,” Donald A. Duff, USDA Forest
Service,
Partnerships for Habitat Improvement: Challenge Cost-Share Program 1992 Report, United
States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, May 1993.
Rise to the Future: Action Plan for the ‘90s, USDA Forest Service, April 1991.
“Rise to the Future, The Fisheries Program of the U.S. Forest Service.”
Sharing the Commitment: Partnerships for Wildlife, Fish, & Rare Plants on the National Forests,
United States Department of Agriculture, Forest Service.
29

-------
RIVERS, TRAILS, AND CONSERVATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
The Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance (RTCA) Program within the Recreation
Resources Assistance Division of the National Park Service (NPS) helps state agencies,
communities, and nonprofit organizations plan for open space needs such as river corridors, trail
systems, greenways, long-distance trail connections, and statewide inventories of rivers and
trails. The Recreation Resources Assistance Division was fonned in 1981, with RTCA projects
starting in 1987. The mission of the RTCA program is to advocate and assist community-based
action on behalf of rivers, trails, and open space. RTCA’ s priorities and objectives are to:
• Help create systems of greenways, trails, and river corridors as tools for
protecting landscapes and providing recreation;
• Bring people opportunities for close-to-home outdoor recreation and connections
to nature;
• Strengthen grassroots conservation and recreation organizations and partnerships;
• Increase the numbers of rivers and landscapes protected and trails established;
• Expand NPS involvement with a diversity of cultural groups; and
• Protect the ecosystems and enhance the communities of which National Parks are
a part.
In general, the RTCA program can serve an important role by advocating agency and
organizational programs to local communities and linking the appropriate programs to interested
restoration planning initiatives. RTCA works to strengthen cooperative partnerships with
agencies and organizations that conduct restoration research, provide educational guidance,
coordinate implementation of conservation plans, and develop policies on watershed planning
and restoration.
Since the mission of the RTCA program is to assist local communities in protecting
resources they consider important, most of the projects occur on non-federal lands. In 1994,
RTCA began working on 40 new projects and provided hands-on assistance on over 150 projects
nationwide. RTCA relies on partnerships with state and local governments and private
organizations to accomplish its objectives.
DESCRIPTION OF STREAM RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
To date, the most significant contribution that RTCA has made in the restoration field
is the facilitation of community input in developing plans to improve degraded resources. The
RTCA program provides technical assistance with river, trail, and greenway planning, regional
30

-------
assessments, and conservation workshops and consultations. Specifically, the NPS lends
expertise in consensus-building, trail design, and river access; helps states or large metropolitan
regions inventory and evaluate their significant river and trail corridors; and provides training,
advice, and information on river and trail conservation techniques. Restoration project strategies
complement river protection management and recreation development actions initiated by RTCA.
Because NPS assistance is requested by the local communities or states, most of the
stream restoration programs are site- or watershed-specific. As such, the RTCA program is
committed to improving public awareness about comprehensive watershed planning and
identifying options for resource conservation and improvement. Since the focus of RTCA
projects is relatively short-term in nature, ranging from 12 to 30 months, the NPS is not directly
involved with stream monitoring. Stream monitoring is usually conducted by the local
community.
RTCA staff are located in each of the seven NPS area offices and at the NPS
headquarters offices in Washington, DC. Because the focus of restoration in each area varies
with the natural, cultural, and political influences of a particular area, each area RTCA office
is involved in different aspects of restoration planning. For example, the focus for the
Mid-Atlantic, the Mid-West, the Pacific Northwest, and the Rocky Mountains has been on
retrofitting existing structures, flood loss reduction, stream bed improvement for fish habitat,
and runoff reduction, respectively.
One example of a notable stream restoration project is Santa Rosa Creek, located in
California. The Santa Rosa Creek Master Plan outlined a community vision and strategy to
preserve, restore, and re-establish part of the creek as a place for human use and appreciation.
The plan addressed multiple objectives such as fish and wildlife habitat, flood control,
recreational opportunities, and transportation alternatives. RTCA staff helped to establish an
interjurisdictional public/private master planning team, developed the organizational strategy,
served as the information broker of both interdisciplinary experts and creek restoration
techniques, convened and facilitated workshops, and helped to write and edit the final report.
Another exemplary stream restoration project is the Grand Junction Colorado Riverfront
Plan. The local community sought redevelopment of the waterfront, which had been subject to
neglect. The urbanized riverfront was virtually inaccessible, lined with junkyards, chemical
storage facilities, and urban mill tailings. RTCA assisted the community of Grand Junction in
developing a vision and action plan that led to establishment of a community park that includes
bike trails, river access, and restored wetlands while removing mill tailings and incompatible
uses.
RTCA, in cooperation with the Association of State Wetland Managers and the
Association of State Floodplain Managers, developed a report entitled “A Casebook in Managing
Rivers for Multiple Uses.” It highlights seven projects that utilize a multi-objective river
corridor management approach. Key information about each project is described, including a
summary of important planning and implementation aspects, a description of innovative design
and technical solutions with illustrations, and a discussion of institutional arrangements and
successful partnerships.
31

-------
Following the devastating 1993 Midwest Flood, RTCA, in partnership with the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, began working in Iowa and Missouri on multi-objective
floodplain management planning. RTCA staff are helping communities with plans to mitigate
long-term flood losses and lower repeated disaster claims. These efforts have focused on
community planning for floodplain areas following buyout and relocation efforts. Plans for these
newly established open spaces include developing recreational trails, establishing river access,
and restoring wetlands and riparian areas.
DESCRWIION OF THE PARTNERSHIP
Based on the program’s mission and objectives, the most appropriate role for the RTCA
is to act as the catalyst that organizes and facilitates community-based river, trails, and greenway
restoration projects and links interested communities with technical experts to discuss the specific
resource issues facing that community and to develop restoration action plans. The NPS’s highly
skilled staff provide resource and planning expertise to help state and local partners:
• Inventory and assess their valuable wildlife, recreational, and historic resources;
• Promote citizen-based planning through workshops, surveys, and other innovative
public participation techniques;
• Develop compelling visions and realistic plans for resource protection and
recreation development;
• Promote partnerships among government agencies, private organizations, and
landowners; and
• Achieve results by defining strategies and finding resources.
Under the RTCA program, NPS planners assist where help has been requested. Over
350 project sponsors sought RTCA assistance in 1994. As such, the program is “client driven,”
where local project cooperators set goals and agendas with NPS aid, provide the funding, and
conduct the ground work. The NPS contributes staff time for technical assistance with river,
trail, and greenway planning to national and local cooperators as a form of cost sharing.
However, the RTCA program does not provide any grant funding.
Usually a memorandum of understanding (MOU) is drawn up at the local level, which
sets clearly defined goals. On occasion, informal agreements also take place. Components of
the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968 (P.L. 90-542), the National Trails System Act of 1968
(P.L. 90-543), and the Outdoor Recreation Act of 1963 (P.L. 88-29) provide the NPS with
legislative authority to work at the local level. Section 11 of P.L. 90-542 specifically authorizes
technical assistance to state and local governments.
Typically, the nonprofit organizations at the local level conduct most of the work and the
role of the NPS usually includes minimal support for the drafting of an agenda and assisting in
the production of a final publication. The nonprofit organizations that the NPS most often works
32

-------
with on stream restoration activities include the Association of State Wetland Managers, the
Association of State Floodplain Managers, American Rivers, America Outdoors, River
Federation, River Network, and the Coalition to Restore Urban Waterways.
Current staffing for the RTCA program is 90 people in some 20 field offices. The
RTCA program budget has been approximately $7 million for the past three fiscal years.
ANALYSIS OF THE PARTNERSHIP
According to the guiding principles of the RTCA program, all projects are conducted
cooperatively. Without partnerships, the RTCA program could not exist. Therefore, the
nonprofit organization element of these partnerships remains very important.
A modest federal investment in the form of NPS staff time returns many times its cost
in on-the-ground results. When the NPS gets involved in a project, the effort often snowballs
and attracts more and more cooperators, volunteers, staff, and funds from other federal, state,
local, and private sources. Bringing these additional resources to a project can significantly
leverage the federal investment in NPS staff time.
A significant advantage of the partnership arrangement between the NPS and nonprofit
organizations is that it allows the vision of local conservation efforts to take place in the
community with technical assistance from the NPS to aid in its development. Since local
communities or nonprofit organizations retain ownership of the land, they do not fear
unnecessary interference by federal agencies. Also, the NPS’s involvement can increase the
recognition and significance of local projects. The strong track record NPS brings to local
efforts creates credibility and helps communities attract financial support. Sometimes, simply
having the NPS appraise a resource can draw more visibility and caring to it.
There are no disadvantages with the partnership arrangement, other than problems that
may occur when groups do not fulfill their commitments. However, this should be minimized
through the use of MOUs. Since the NPS receives approximately three to four times the number
of applications than it can assist through the RTCA program, there is a significant need for more
partnerships with other federal agencies and additional nonprofit organizations to leverage the
federal funds authorized for the RTCA program.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Personal Communication with Wendy Malamut, National Park Service, Western Regional
Office.
Personal Communication with Charlie Stockman, Conservation Planner, National Park Service.
Land Conservation Through Public/Private Partnerships, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1993.
33

-------
“Planning Assistance For Ecological Restoration Through the National Park Service, Rivers
Trails and Conservation Assistance Program,” by Wendy Malamut, National Park Service, July
1994.
Rivers, Trails & Conservation Programs 1992 Annual Report, U.S. Department of Interior,
National Park Service.
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program 1993 Annual Report, National Park
Service, Western Regional Office.
Rivers, Trails, and Conservation Assistance 1994 Annual Report, National Park Service.
34

-------
SAVE OUR STREAMS PROGRAM
BACKGROUIJD
The Izaak Walton League of America (IWLA) has been dedicated to protecting and
restoring the water quality of the rivers and streams of America for over 70 years. The IWLA
is a national nonprofit organization formed in 1922 by 55 fishermen who banded together to save
the Mississippi River. Currently, the IWLA has more than 51,000 members nationwide and 400
local chapters. The Save Our Streams (SOS) Program was founded by the IWLA in 1969 as a
grassroots river protection and restoration program and has expanded to several thousand
projects in at least 37 states. The SOS Program encourages individuals or groups interested in
preserving water quality to do so by “adopting” a stream of their choice and agreeing to monitor
it for a year or longer. Moreover, the SOS Program serves as an umbrella program linking
government and nongovernmental organizations to assist in protecting water quality through
cooperative partnerships.
The goals of the SOS Program are twofold: to educate the public about water quality and
to collect vital data on the condition of rivers and streams. The goals of public education and
collection of water quality data are considered equally important. An educated and motivated
public is critical to protecting the health of rivers and streams while information on the status
of those waterways is needed to recognize and solve pollution problems.
DESCRIPTION OF STREAM RESTORATION ACTiVITIES
The goal of the SOS statewide programs conducted by the IWLA is to initiate and
develop volunteer monitoring efforts in a state over a period of several years. After this period,
states are likely to adopt this program because of the valuable information provided by the
monitoring data. West Virginia, for example, adopted the SOS monitoring program at the end
of FY 1994 and the Commonwealth of Virginia is expected to adopt the SOS program soon.
In Tennessee, however, the SOS program was discontinued because of insufficient funding. A
list of suggested stream restoration activities from the Virginia SOS Program includes, but is not
limited to the following:
• Holding a stream cleanup;
• Distributing brochures to local farmers and homeowners on conservation
practices;
• Preventing streambank erosion and restoring shade cover;
• Investigating local industries to check discharge permit compliance;
• Involving others in the SOS Program;
• Inspecting local construction sites; and
• Reviewing proposed development plans.
The IWLA has developed simple, cost-effective, and scientific methods of biological
water quality monitoring and watershed inventory. SOS methods have received extensive review
35

-------
and approval by the scientific community, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and state
governments, and have provided vital data to state water quality monitoring programs.

       The SOS program uses biological/and or chemical monitoring techniques to assess the
quality  of a stream or river.   SOS monitors  look for problems which  might lead to the
deterioration of the stream such as erosion, sewage leaking into the stream, abandoned storage
drums,  trash, or oil slicks. The SOS Program provides guidelines on how  to identify harmful
stream conditions, as well as methods to combat them.  Finally, SOS monitors are required to
provide support with efforts related  to stream habitat, land uses in the watershed, and other
germane information.

       Volunteers can  sign up to monitor a particular river or stream by completing a Stream
Doctor  database survey in their SOS kit in states which pay the IWLA for this service.  This
information is managed by the SOS database called Stream Doctor. When a volunteer signs up
to conduct a project, SOS  staff verify that the adopted river is not currently being monitored by
other volunteers.  If the  river is already adopted, SOS staff ask the volunteer to work in
cooperation with the other volunteers in order  to avoid a duplication of effort and to avoid
damage to the resource through excessive monitoring. For example, SOS monitoring stations
are usually spaced at least a quarter mile apart and are monitored only once every two months
to minimize disturbance of the river bottom.

       The key to the SOS Program's success is  that all materials have been written to be easily
understood by a lay audience; scientific issues and  terms are clearly explained.  All materials
in the program  receive extensive field testing and review before they are printed. A 28-minute
VHS training video takes volunteers step-by-step  through the monitoring procedure and explains
the volunteer's  role in monitoring and protecting rivers and streams.

       SOS monitoring results have  led to improved stream protection at  the local and state
level. In Charlottesville, Virginia, for example,  a group of children taught a developer how to
monitor water quality in the local area, which made  him more aware of the consequences of his
activities.   Priority clean-up stream sites in northern Virginia were changed based on nonpoint
source SOS monitoring information.  Also,  the state of West Virginia  implemented stricter
management practices for forestry operations because SOS monitoring information detected soil
erosion  impacts from forestry activities.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP

       A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was made and entered into by the IWLA and
the Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in March 1993.
The  purpose of this MOU is to encourage and support volunteer water quality  activities  to
accomplish the common  objectives, goals, and missions of the  IWLA and the NRCS.  The
IWLA and the NRCS share the common objective of improving  public awareness of the need
to conserve and protect resources.  The NRCS will request assistance from the SOS national
office and local chapters of the IWLA for volunteers, public education, and monitoring efforts.
                                          36

-------
The NRCS has a nationwide network of 3,000 local offices that provide communities with
technical advice, training, and demonstration of best management practices to protect water
quality. The IWLA provides the NRCS with a unique communication link to a community,
which includes water quality monitoring, restoration needs, and volunteer assistance through its
400 local chapters and computer database of 5,000 sos contacts. The NRCS helps volunteers
become active in supporting the conservation programs of the NRCS, conservation districts, and
local communities through its Earth Team volunteer program. The Earth Team program was
established by the 1985 Farm Bill (P.L. 102-142) and USDA Departmental Regulation 4230-1.
These authorities provide a method for citizens to contribute to the NRCS for the protection of
natural resources and authorize payment for incidental expenses incurred by volunteers, such as
tort coverage for liability and travel expenses.
According to the MOU, the IWLA will provide the NRCS with literature, equipment,
and technical advice for implementing water quality improvement programs. NRCS will
promote the use of IWLA information and techniques in its field offices and encourage
participation by Earth Team volunteers in conducting monitoring and restoration of rivers and
streams. More specifically, the NRCS has agreed to perform the following tasks under the
MOU:
• Promote in the field offices, the use of NRCS’ “Water Quality Indicator’s Guide”
and course in Water Quality Resource Assessment, which incorporates SOS
procedures.
• Provide leadership in the development of individual state MOUs with state NRCS
offices.
• Provide oversight of the volunteer program to ensure that activities reflect
program objectives when volunteers are signed up under the Earth Team banner.
• Provide supervision, direction, administration, and training, as needed.
• Encourage others to become Earth Team volunteers to accomplish mutual goals.
In turn, the IWLA is expected to:
• Promote the Earth Team Volunteer Program of NRCS in a manner that enhances
its credibility, importance, and goals; and
• Provide appropriate literature, equipment, and technical advice for implementing
biological water quality monitoring programs in rivers and streams.
Technical assistance is the most common type of resource that is shared between the
NRCS and the IWLA under the MOU. The NRCS provides advice on hydrology and
appropriate plant species for stream habitat restoration projects, as well as information on
erosion control measures. The IWLA is responsible for promoting community organization and
environmental education while conducting stream habitat restoration and water quality
37

-------
monitoring.  There is no transfer of funds involved in this MOU.  Any transfer of funds for the
purposes of this MOU is authorized by separate agreements from the MOU.

       Staffing for the SOS Program in the IWLA consists of a full-time Program Director, a
full-time  Biologist/Engineer,   a  full-time   Outreach  Coordinator,   and   a   part-time
Salesperson/Administrative Assistant. A typical annual budget is $250,000, but it can vary from
$100,000 to $600,000 in grant funding, depending on the type of activities that may occur in a
given year, such as organizing conferences and distributing publications. In addition, 95 percent
of the grants are dedicated for very specific purposes.  The  sources of funding for individual
grants are varied, which include private foundations,  industry and their associated foundations,
and federal, state, and local governments. A small amount of funding also comes from personal
donations and from the sale of IWLA publications. Funds from sales publications are dedicated
to pay for the salary of the part-time Salesperson/Administrative Assistant.
ANALYSIS OF THE PARTNERSHIP

       The MOU serves as a formal agreement between the IWLA and the NRCS that helps
each entity meet their mutual goals and objectives.  In general, each entity provides technical
knowledge and  materials that the other entity would like to acquire. This facilitates a better
working relationship  at the local level, which makes the work easier for everyone involved.
More specifically, the SOS program provides the NRCS with access to water quality monitoring
expertise, along with direct citizen involvement.  The SOS program provides the NRCS with the
link  to the citizens and the issues of local concern.  The IWLA  provides the  NRCS with
technical expertise  in soil science and botany, as well as donations of materials.

       There are no disadvantages to speak of with this partnership arrangement. However,
mutual respect and credibility between the two organizations is essential.

       Opportunities  for partnerships between the IWLA and another federal agency may exist
in the western United  States for stream restoration efforts with the Bureau of Land Management.
SOURCES OF INFORMATION

Personal  communication  with  Jay West, Technical Coordinator, Izaak Walton  League of
America.

Karen Firehock, "The Save Our Streams (SOS) Program," in Proceedings Watershed  '93, A
National Conference on Watershed Management, March 21-24, 1993, Alexandria, Virginia, pp.
447-450.

Memorandum of Understanding Between The Izaak Walton League of America and the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, MOU A-3A75-3-114, March 31, 1993.
                                          38

-------
SECTION 319 NONPOINT SOURCE PROGRAM
BACKGROUND
Section 319(h)(1) of the Clean Water Act authorizes the basic Federal grant program for
the management of nonpoint sources of water pollution. Congress added Section 319 to the
Clean Water Act in 1987, to establish a national program to control nonpoint sources of water
pollution. Under Section 319, states address nonpoint pollution by developing nonpoint source
assessment reports, adopting management programs to control nonpoint source pollution, and
implementing the management programs. Section 319(h) authorizes the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to award grants to states to assist them in implementing those
management programs or portions of management programs that have been approved by the
EPA. The states finalized their assessment reports and management plans over a 18-24 month
period.
The EPA has four broad objectives in awarding grants to states under Section 319 of the
Clean Water Act. These are to:
• Support state activities for abating or preventing nonpoint source pollution that
have the greatest likelihood of producing early, demonstrable water quality
results, and reducing ecological and health risks in areas of greatest concern;
• Award and manage nonpoint source grants in a manner that encourages and
rewards effective performance by the states;
• Institutionalize state and local nonpoint source programs; and
• Encourage strong relationships among federal, state, and local nonpoint source
and nonpoint source related programs and activities to create long-term program
effectiveness.
Section 3 19(h)(1) authorizes grants only for the purpose of assisting states in
implementing nonpoint source management programs. Eligible types of program implementation
activities listed in Section 3 19(b)(2)(B) include nonregulatory or regulatory programs for
enforcement, technical assistance, financial assistance, education, training, technology transfer,
and demonstration projects.
The EPA issued guidance in December 1987 entitled Nonpoint Source Guidance, which
established the process for state submissions and EPA approval of state nonpoint source
assessment reports and management programs. Although funding was authorized in 1987,
Congress appropriated the first Section 319 grant funds in FY 1990. All states now have
EPA-approved assessment reports. In addition, as of April 1993, EPA has fully approved 51
state (including territories) management programs and has approved portions of another six state
management programs. Two Indian tribes have approved assessment reports and management
programs.
39

-------
DESCRWI’ION OF STREAM RESTORATION ACTIVITIES
A watershed-based approach is recognized by EPA headquarters and the regions as
important for effectively addressing problems caused by nonpoint source pollution. One of the
national priorities for setting preliminary and final Section 3 19(h) grant award amounts and
awarding Section 3 19(h) grants is to promote comprehensive watershed management, including
the establishment and maintenance of protective corridors such as greenways, filter strips, and
wetlands along streams, lakes, and estuaries, and the use of conservation easements and other
land conservancy measures.
Other stream restoration activities include riparian area revegetation, fencing to prevent
livestock from grazing along the shorelines, and the installation of in-stream structures.
In-stream/near-stream restoration activities are an important component of an overall watershed
restoration strategy, but should not be used without consideration of physical and biological
processes. According to the EPA guidance, each watershed project should include some form
of monitoring to evaluate effectiveness.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PARTNERSHIP
The U.S. EPA has overall program management and grant administration responsibility
for the Section 319 program. EPA also provides technical assistance and expertise with water
quality monitoring, stream restoration activities, and aquatic resource and fisheries management.
The recipients of the Section 319 grants, the state water quality agencies, are responsible for the
development and implementation of projects.
The state water quality agencies may initiate sub-agreements with other units of state
governments, such as the state Fish and Game Departments, or with local conservation districts
as well as nonprofit organizations. Nonprofit organizations involved with the Section 319
program, such as the Pacific Rivers Council and Trout Unlimited (TU), provide technical
expertise, as well as public outreach and volunteers.
Section 319 of the Clean Water Act serves as the formal grant agreement between the
U.S. EPA and the state water quality agencies. Sub-agreements between the state water quality
agencies and nonprofit organizations are not required as a condition within the grant agreement,
but are very much encouraged.
The Eightmile Creek Restoration project in Nevada is an example of such a partnership.
This project involved numerous partners, including the Nevada Department of Environmental
Protection, U.S. Forest Service Humboldt County, Foundation for North American Sheep,
Nevada Division of Forestry, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Trout Unlimited, and
private organizations. Eightmile Creek is an ecologically sensitive area because it provides
habitat for a Federally listed threatened species, the Quinn River strain of the Lahontan Cutthroat
Trout. The lower reaches of the Eightmile Creek drainage are degraded due to heavy livestock
use, wildfires, and a 100-year flood event which occurred in 1983 and took the channel down
to the bedrock in some reaches and denuded the riparian zone. The degraded area continues to
be exposed to some livestock use due to the lack of allotment boundary fence separating the
40

-------
drainage from the adjacent grazing allotment. The project will restore the perennial creek by
excluding cattle through fencing, protecting stream banks, planting upland areas affected by
wildfire, and monitoring for effectiveness of these best management practices.
The Duck Creek restoration effort is a good example of integrating social and
environmental needs. Duck Creek is a three-mile stream in Juneau, Alaska. Urban development
has caused severe degradation of salmon habitat and water quality. Section 319 funds, along
with other funding sources, are supporting a holistic watershed restoration effort in the Duck
Creek watershed. Federal, state, and local agencies are coordinating activities for this effort.
Several schools and nonprofit groups are actively involved with the agencies through Section 319
funding. For example, Miller House, a residential center for adolescent youth-at-risk, has
collected in-stream water quality data for several years and annually assists in information
distribution for the stream clean-up and Earth Day events. The Southeast Alaska Guidance
Association, a community service and jobs training organization for young adults, is a key group
for implementing on-the-ground restoration projects, such as fencing and revegetation.
The first Section 3 19(h) grants totalling $40 million were appropriated in FY 1990.
Subsequent funding for Section 319(h) grants was $50 million in FY 1993, $80 million in FY
1994, and $100 million for FY 1995.
A nationwide summary of Section 319 project descriptions for each EPA region is
presented in: U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Section 319 Success Stories (EPA #841-S-94-004),
November 1994.
ANALYSIS OF THE PARTNERSHIP
Sub-agreement arrangements allow for state government units to work with nonprofit
organizations, who bring a unique and focused perspective to each partnership. By nature,
government units should have a broad perspective of natural resources management issues. In
contrast, nonprofit organizations view specific issues, such as water quality, fisheries habitat,
and other related impacts in a local context. Therefore, nonprofit organizations usually provide
solid technical and scientific advice from an advocacy perspective.
Partnership arrangements with more cooperators and people involved sometimes present
a greater challenge to focus on accomplishing specific goals. More time is required to
coordinate with everyone, which may lengthen the time period for project implementation. This
could be viewed as a short-term disadvantage, which may be develop into an advantage over the
long-term. Nevertheless, more opportunities for similar partnerships exist.
41

-------
SOURCES OF INFORMATION
Personal Communication with Elbert Moore, Chief, Watershed Section, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Region 10.
Personal Communication with Dov Weitman, Chief, Nonpoint Source Control Branch, Office
of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Summaiy of Section 319(h) Wetlands and Riparian Projects, Fiscal Years 1990 and 1991, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, March 1992.
42

-------
3. CONCLUSIONS
The seven case studies in this report describe partnerships among federal agencies and
nonprofit organizations for stream restoration activities and illustrate the types of opportunities
that currently exist for similar cooperative efforts. In some cases, such as the NPS’ Rivers,
Trails, and Conservation Assistance Program, partnerships serve as the primary focus of the
program. For other programs, such as the Bring Back the Natives Initiative conducted under
an agreement between BLM and Trout Unlimited, cooperative agreements serve as a mechanism
to increase the effectiveness of both partners in meeting their stream restoration goals. This
section summarizes the advantages and disadvantages of these cooperative efforts and evaluates
opportunities for future cooperation between federal agencies and the private, nonprofit sector
to support stream restoration activities.
Advantages
Partnerships between federal agencies and private, nonprofit organizations offer a wide
range of advantages. These advantages are summarized below.
Leveraging Resources. Partnerships between federal agencies and nonprofit
organizations for stream restoration activities are very effective mechanisms for
leveraging the resources available for stream restoration. Budget shortfalls have
limited the ability of some federal agencies to respond to stream restoration
needs. Contribution of funds or in-kind services from nonprofit organizations can
increase the amount and type (e.g., dollars, hours of staff or volunteer time) of
resources for conducting stream restoration. Additional resources provided by
nonprofit organizations may also allow implementation of larger, and perhaps
more ecologically significant, restoration projects. Larger restoration projects can
result in greater ecological protection than numerous, small parcel restoration
efforts.
• Increased Expertise. A successful partnership brings together the different
strengths in technical expertise of all parties. Sharing technical expertise in
restoration project planning, design, and implementation can help ensure more
successful restoration projects.
• Improved Goal Development. A shared vision that all partners can agree to
contributes to more successful and ecologically beneficial restoration projects
through better prioritization of restoration needs and the use of longer range
planning in project implementation. The expertise of nonprofit organizations
active in stream restoration efforts can help agencies develop realistic restoration
goals and objectives.
43

-------
 Public Education.    The  efforts  of nonprofit organizations  to work with
 volunteers,  local businesses,  and community  leaders can  lead to heightened
 awareness of stream issues in a local community.  Nonprofits can provide access
 to the  local community  and  volunteers that federal agencies may  lack.   In
 addition,  nonprofits may be in a better position to work with landowners to
 encourage better riparian zone management because landowners would not have
 concerns about a possible regulatory role as with federal agencies.

 Increased Political Support.  Through working with the public and community
 leaders, and using their established network of contacts, nonprofit organizations
 can  help  build  political support for  restoration projects.   Increased political
 support, in turn, helps to raise the funds necessary to  implement restoration
 projects and for long-term management of restored streams to ensure the sustained
 success of federal investments in stream restoration.

 Increased Accountability for all Partners.   Clearly assigned responsibility for
 monitoring and  reporting on restoration projects can provide  a mechanism for
 assuring accountability for successful completion of restoration plans and projects.
 By becoming active  in evaluating the effectiveness of federal  agency  efforts to
 protect and restore streams, nonprofits can help make mid-course adjustments and
 focus attention on important ecosystem health issues.

 Documentation of Benefits. Nonprofit organizations can coordinate and provide
 support for monitoring efforts that might be difficult for  a federal agency to
 conduct given current fiscal constraints.  Monitoring data collected by volunteers
 can  provide valuable  information on  water  quality and the  health of stream
 ecosystems.

 Ability to Respond Quickly.  Ad-hoc cooperative efforts can respond quickly to
 protect and restore  streams  threatened with further degradation.   Nonprofit
 organizations such as The Nature Conservancy may have the skills and resources
 necessary to take quick action where a federal  agency may not be able to respond
 as rapidly.

 Flexibility.  Nonprofit organizations may be able to use innovative techniques
 where a federal  agency may be prohibited from doing so by law or regulation.
 In such cases,  nonprofits can contribute by testing new approaches that may later
 become accepted and disseminated by the government.

Advocacy. Nonprofit organizations can use federal agency involvement in stream
 restoration projects to validate their restoration goals in a community.  In turn,
nonprofits can serve as  advocates for federal  stream restoration  programs  to
support restoration at specific sites or increased funding to implement a program's
restoration goals.
                             44

-------
Disadvantages
Several possible disadvantages that should be given consideration in establishing
partnerships are listed below.
• Differing Goals and Expectations. Because the program activities of a federal
agency are often restricted by legislation or agency mission, a nonprofit
organization may not be able to accomplish all of its goals through cooperative
efforts. In addition, differing restoration goals for a specific site can lead to
conflict without an effective mechanism for reaching a consensus.
• Timing and Coordination Issues. There may be difficulties in the scheduling
of on-the-ground work if uncertainties exist regarding the timing and amount of
federal funds that will be made available for a restoration project. For example,
funding schedules may not coincide with field seasons. Additionally, a greater
number of partners requires more coordination and may lengthen schedules for
project completion.
• Turf Consciousness. It may be difficult to reach a clear consensus in
circumstances where turf consciousness, both interagency and between federal
agencies and nonprofit organizations, is an issue. In addition, agency officials
may have concerns if it appears that nonprofits are setting the agency agenda.
• Federal Advisory Committee Act. The Federal Advisory Committee Act
(FACA) of 1972 (P.L. 92-463) regulates the formation and operation of advisory
committees by federal agencies in the Executive Branch. Under FACA, any
decision making that occurs under partnerships formed between federal agencies
and nonprofit organizations must involve all parties. Otherwise, the decisions
could be considered legislatively invalid under FACA. Federal agencies and
nonprofit organizations should clearly state the purpose of each meeting to avoid
any misinterpretation of intentions.
Opportunities for Future Cooperation
Through partnerships, federal agencies and nonprofit organizations can leverage
resources, authority, and expertise for stream restoration activities. The states and local
governments also have important roles in many of these partnerships. The greatest opportunity
for future cooperation among government and nongovernmental organizations is the ability of
partnerships to support a watershed approach to making decisions for the protection and
management of streams and other aquatic ecosystems within a watershed. Implementation of
the Watershed Protection Approach is currently a priority for EPA’s water program and it
emphasizes the involvement of all stakeholders in a watershed. Partnerships that assist in
developing a common understanding of the roles, priorities, and responsibilities of all parties
concerned about a watershed can allow these parties to identify priority areas for stream
restoration. Partnerships may also allow interested parties to plan larger restoration projects
instead of piecemeal, small parcel restoration efforts. Larger, contiguous restoration projects
can result in greater ecological protection than numerous, fragmented individual projects. A
45

-------
truly comprehensive watershed approach can only succeed with cooperation of all of the
interested parties with jurisdiction over, and interest in, the aquatic ecosystem.
Most nonprofit organizations involved with stream restoration currently use a holistic,
ecosystem approach where possible. Nonprofit organizations, such as Trout Unlimited, also
have an interest in watershed and river basin management that dovetails with recent federal
agency focus on ecosystems and watersheds. Trout Unlimited’s involvement in the Bring Back
the Natives Initiative has been instrumental in this program’s continued emphasis on restoration
of entire river ecosystems to benefit native fish species. The BLM’s Riparian-Wetland Initiative
focuses on improving the status of riparian-wetland ecosystems and works with numerous
nonprofit organizations to execute riparian-wetland enhancement projects.
Many states are currently involved in stream restoration and their participation is critical
to the success of future cooperative efforts. State programs that involve project prioritization
and site selection activities may be linked with federal/nonprofit organization partnerships.
Because of the tendency of such state programs to use statewide or regional planning in their
project implementation, especially if established prioritization criteria account for regional or
other aquatic resource values, they could assist in directing funds to the highest priority stream
restoration needs on non-federal lands. Including these state programs in partnerships could
move stream restoration toward a more coordinated strategy where restoration efforts would
respond to broader regional goals and advance planning, or even regional ecosystem restoration.
Longer range planning for entire river corridors, for example, can assist in identifying priority
areas and identifying which agency or organization is best positioned to assume the different
roles necessary to restore individual sites within those larger areas.
Greater use of formal understandings that set forth the roles of different partners should
be established to facilitate communication and consensus building. Written documentation of
the consensus, division of responsibilities, costs, and funding can help avoid conflict and
encourage coordination among partners. Memorandums of Understanding and cooperative
agreements serve as the foundation for stream restoration activities between federal agencies and
nonprofit organizations. These agreements outline the objectives, roles, and responsibilities of
each participant. The objectives within such agreements usually describe specific stream
restoration and habitat preservation goals, which often include an effort to increase
communication among participants. Roles and responsibilities typically cover the establishment
of new job positions (e.g., a coordinator between the participants), selection of projects,
provision of labor and equipment, technical assistance, publication of reports, administrative
tasks, and the funding of job positions and projects. Such agreements provide the basis for the
sharing of resources and knowledge.
New legislative authority for formal cooperative agreements could assist in developing
additional partnerships for stream restoration. Most of the agreements discussed in this report
have been derived from legislative authority. For example, the BLM has formed cooperative
agreements and memorandums of understanding for the Bring Back the Natives Initiative and
the Riparian-Wetland Initiative for the 1990’s under the authority of the Federal Land Policy and
Management Act (FLPMA) of 1976 (P.L. 94-579). FLPMA authorizes BLM to form
cooperative agreements for work on public lands and allows for the contribution of funds and
services for BLM projects.
46

-------