Watershed 96 Plenary Proceedings


Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed '96
Plenary Proceedings
Table of Contents
Watershed 96 - A Brief Overview
Welcome to Watershed '96 - Paul L. Freedman
Establishing a Common Goal: Sustainability
Monday, June 10, 1996
Opening Remarks - Richard D. Kuchenrither, Ph.D., P.E.
Opening Remarks - Robert Perciasepe
Keynote Address - Jonathan Lash
Welcoming Remarks - The Honorable Kurt L. Schmoke
Welcoming Remarks - The Honorable Parris N. Glendening
Getting Down to Business: Frameworks for action
Tuesday, June 11, 1997

-------
KeynoteAddress - Ralph Grossi
Opening Remarks - Larry Selzer
Response to Watershed Challenges Panel Discussion
Special Excercise-Gathering Responses From Large Groups - Edward Dickey
Wednesday, June 12, 1996
Special Guest - The Honorable Bruce Babbit
Luncheon Address
Telling the Story: Communicating Complex Environmental Issues to the Public - Judith
Gradwohl
Acheiving Results Community by Community: A National Sattelite
Videoconference
Remarks - The Honorable Carol M.Browner
Remarks - The Honorable Sherwood Boehlert
Remarks - Katherine Baril
The Greenwich Bay Initiative - A Watershed-Based Restoration Effort
Working Together to Renew the Milwaukee River Basin
The Henry's Fork Watershed
The Seco Creek Watershed

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed 96: A Brief Overview
Held June 8-12,1996
Baltimore - Maryland
Watershed '96, held June 8-12, 1996, in Baltimore, Maryland, was a resounding success, fully
exemplifying its theme of "Moving Ahead Together." Approximately 2000 people participated in the
conference. They came from a variety of backgrounds, including public education, government, state and
local groups, public and privately-owned utilities, environmental groups, researchers, public policy
experts, and many others. Also, teleconference downlinks involved thousands of other participants at
another 156 remote sites. The theme, "Moving Ahead Together" was realized not just through the
number and diversity of participants, but also the range of conference activities and the manner in which
conference participants worked together.
The conference opened with eight technical workshops on the first two days to educate watershed
professionals. This was complemented by a watershed festival and an education symposium targeting the
interests of both the professional and the public. The festival, called "Walking Through the Watershed,"
was co-sponsored by WEF and the Groundwater Foundation. It highlighted 30 activities that might be
adapted for local festivals. A Watershed Education Action-Plan Symposium for Environmental
Educators was hosted by WEF and funded by a grant from the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. It
generated a road map for future watershed education to be presented at the annual meeting of the North
American Association for Environmental Educators.
Continuing on the conference theme, a series of interactive stakeholder workshops were held daily over
breakfast to give hands-on experience with consensus building through watershed planning. Participants
took on roles that gave them insights into the dynamics and challenges of stakeholder involvement. A
watershed model was developed for these workshops and was used by participants to help identify,
prioritize, negotiate, and resolve a range of issues related to watershed management.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
The conference Technical Program was central to Watershed '96. Eighty technical sessions were held
during the conference. Over 340 speakers provided comprehensive technical information. The major

-------
tracks of the sessions included the following:
• Overview of the Watershed Approach
• Institutions, Relationships and Outreach
• Economic and Social Considerations
• Decision Making and Management Regimes
• Analytical Tools
• Watershed Enhancement Tools
A Conference Proceedings, including every paper that was presented, was distributed at the conference,
and is still now available from the Water Environment Federation and on the Internet at
www.epa.gov/owow/watershed/Proceed
The program also included two plenary sessions, luncheon speakers, and a satellite broadcast
videoconference. The opening conference plenary, "Establishing a Common Goal: Sustainability" was
moderated by Paul Freedman, President of Limno-Tech, Inc. and WEF conference co-chair. The session
included remarks from officials and dignitaries. The keynote speech was given by Jonathan Lash,
President of the World Resources Institute and Co-chair of the President's Council on Sustainable
Development. The plenary also included a multi-media presentation using images from many of the
technical presentations that would occur later in the sessions.
The second plenary session, "Getting Down to Business - Frameworks for Action", was moderated by
Lawrence Selzer, Vice President of the Conservation Fund and Director of the National Forum on
Nonpoint Source Pollution. Ralph Grossi, President of the American Farmland Trust and a member of
the National Forum on Nonpoint Source Pollution, gave a keynote address. Mr. Selzer moderated a panel
of innovative environmental managers who described the approaches their organizations are taking to get
involved in watershed management. The panelists included views from corporations, states, Native
American tribes, and local groups. The plenary session concluded with a large group response exercise
that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers designed to explore watershed views from the large and diverse
group of conference attendees.
Participants were treated to an unexpected luncheon speaker, The Honorable Bruce Babbitt, the Secretary
of the Interior, who gave a stirring speech on his experiences with people and groups doing watershed
management. He had earlier heard some feedback about the conference while it was ongoing and decided
it was such a landmark event that he changed his schedule specifically to come and express his ideas and
encouragement to the conference attendees.
The conference closed with a plenary videoconference, "Watershed '96 On The Air: Achieving Results
Community by Community". The videoconference was produced by Cornell University, through a grant
from the USDA Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service. It was viewed by the live
audience at the Baltimore Convention Center and at 156 downlink sites from around the continent. Forty
states had sites, as did Canada and Mexico. Participants heard remarks from the Honorable Sherwood

-------
Boehlert, U.S. Representative from New York, and Carol Browner, Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, gave the keynote address. Katherine Baril, from the Washington State
University Extension Service, moderated the broadcast. The remainder of the broadcast examined four
case studies of watershed management and restoration. Participants from downlink sites called and faxed
questions that were discussed on the air. Many of the downlink sites had local programming surrounding
the broadcast that featured discussions and speakers from their locality. The videos are available for
purchase from Cornell University. Call 607.255-2090 or fax 607.255.9946 or e-mail
Dist_Center@cce.cornell.edu.
The technical program included other elements that echoed the diversity and themes from the plenaries
and other sessions, such as table topics, posters, and technology demonstrations. The table topic
presentations were extremely popular. Fifty-three tables were filled with interested participants who took
advantage of the unique opportunity to hear a presentation and have an informal discussion with the
presenter and other attendees. Poster sessions were included for two days of the conference to
accommodate the total of 68 posters. A technology demonstration area was also set up involving 16
organizations demonstrating the latest in computer technologies, including Internet access, GIS,
modeling decision support and analysis, BMP evaluations, screening, and other interesting software. The
conference also included an exposition of 57 exhibiting organizations (commercial, agency and
nonprofit) utilizing 5,800 square feet of space.
Last, hands-on field trips were offered to examine many local watershed efforts up-close. Tours included
a Patuxent River Watershed, demonstration cruises on EPA's Ocean Survey Vessel the peter W.
Anderson, Druid Hill Park and Herring Run Park, Quail Creek, Chesapeake Farms Sustainable
Agricultural Project, Kenilworth March Restoration, and Alexandria, Virginia's Delaware Sand Filter,
Underground Sand Filter, and Bio-Retention Filters.
Watershed '96 was thorough in its content and participation, an exciting demonstration of its theme,
"Moving Ahead Together". It brought ideas, information, and people together to further promote the use
of watershed management as a better means to restore and protect our water environment. Watershed '96
was a success by all measures.

-------
The Great Lakes was a major emphasis for my early work and progress there exemplifies our success.
For example, in my former hometown of Cleveland, Ohio, the Cuyahoga River no longer burns and is
now a showcase for restaurants and nightclubs. Likewise, Lake Erie is now a major recreational resource
for boating and fishing.
But with this progress began debate and division of this unified team. In the late 80's, we began to argue
over methods and priorities. During this time, I felt we lost the unity of purpose and commitment I felt as
a new graduate.
In the 70's, we focused on wastewater as the major culprit. But recently, environmental protection issues
have become more complex involving nonpoint, landuse, habitat and complex socioeconomic issues. In
fact, today in the Great Lakes the biggest and newest issues are habitat protection, agricultural runoff,
and exotic species, a far cry from the wastewater controls we promoted in 70's & 80's.
This conference, however gives me a sense of new excitement. A sense of direction and reunification of
effort. Here today, jointly promoting watershed approaches are those same adversaries who fought
divisively about environmental priorities in the late 80's and early 90's.
I believe we, as a society, are coming to a new realization that water quality and environmental
protection needs to be managed -not piecemeal but holistically by watersheds.
The watershed approach does this by examining all elements and factors in a watershed and
incorporating all stakeholders in developing workable solutions that address true priorities. I truly believe
the concept of watershed management represents a new paradigm for environmental protection.
Here today, we have a phenomenal conference, not just because of its comprehensive content and
attendees, but because it is sponsored by 14 Federal agencies and dozens of cooperating organizations. In
this modern era of government and politics, what other topic have you ever seen 14 Federal agencies
actually agree on let alone embrace and promote?
Watershed protection provides the mechanism for us to move the next step forward in environmental
restoration and protection, not by force of law but by consensus. Working together to establish common
goals and common priorities.
This unified view is exemplified by the diversity of people and organizations at this conference all
promoting the watershed approach. It is for this reason that I am excited.
Hence I view this as a reunion of the team that started a job two and a half decades ago and now has a
new vision on how to complete it.
So again, welcome to Watershed 96.

-------
everyone has a watershed." That's one way to get the word out.
The Water Environment Federation (WEF) is also very involved in getting the word out. WEF is a very
active part of Water Quality 2000, the goal of which is to "develop and implement an integrated policy
for the nation to protect and enhance water quality that supports society living in harmony with healthy
natural systems." We know that the Clean Water Act has brought substantial improvements in the quality
of our nation's waters. Our members recognize that further progress in enhancing water quality and
protecting drinking water sources will depend on our ability to address many pollutant sources and
adverse environmental conditions which fall outside the traditional water quality regulatory framework.
This has led to a renewed interest in water quality planning and management on a watershed basis. The
watershed approach represents a comprehensive and integrated strategy for protecting all water
resources, including uplands, drainage basins, wetlands, and surface and ground waters. This approach
has diverse support from water quality professionals, including the Water Environment Federation.
I would like to personally thank the program committee chairs, Paul Freedman and Louise Wise, the
program committee, the WEF staff, and others for their tremendous efforts in putting together an exciting
program for this conference. We have three action-packed, educational days planned for you.
Enjoy your conference.

-------
revitalization. Every year, over 20 million people visit this waterfront and the attractions there. The water
still needs to be further improved, but it is making progress. This progress has enabled the kind of
revitalization that has taken place, and a certain civic pride has developed from that.
Our vital drinking water supplies depend on clean water. Many economic sectors rely on clean water,
including recreation and tourism, agriculture, commercial fishing, and manufacturing, which depend on
clean water to deliver their products and services. Collectively, these sectors create jobs and generate
billions and billions of dollars for our economy.
Our resources are at risk:
While we recognize the benefits that depend on clean water, we also recognize that our nation's waters
are a resource at risk. Despite the benefits that we all accrue from clean waters, they continue to be
degraded. The reality is that our waters are being stressed by multiple pollutants and activities from
multiple sources.
Working with our partners, the states, EPA routinely does assessments of water quality on a national
scale. The latest data from the states show that nearly 40 percent of the waters surveyed are still not safe
for the basic goals that we have set for water quality not safe for fishing or swimming.
In fact, today, EPA is releasing this year's listing of fish consumption advisories around the country. The
results show us that fish consumption advisories or bans are in effect in far too many water bodies around
the country. In fact, the more we look, the more we find. This is a trend that must be reversed. It can only
be reversed by looking at things holistically.
Importance of watershed approach:
This brings me to why the watershed approach and this conference is so important. Rather than focusing
piecemeal on individual problems, the watershed approach involves looking across a watershed at all
stressors. It involves looking at the harvesting of fish in the context of the sustainability of a particular
watershed area; it means looking at all the sources of pollution, not just one source; it means greater
public involvement in the making of tough decisions: All these things are embodied in the watershed
approach, which provides a framework for managing our resources more efficiently and effectively.
Part of what makes this approach work is that it cuts across political jurisdictions. It cuts across levels of
government federal, state, and local, and even sub-local to watershed associations and districts. All of
that multi-level participation is required if we are going to look at things more holistically. Not only does
the watershed approach cut across jurisdictions, but it continually changes the roles of all the players to
deal with the long-term sustainability issues that are involved in managing watersheds. It challenges all
of us to work together in different ways than we did in the 1970s and 80s. It emphasizes environmental
results, not prescriptive measures.

-------
Let me say at this particular juncture that one of the things that is extremely important to keep in mind
when we are discussing watershed management and water quality and pollution control issues in the
United States is that we have a responsibility to deliver a basic minimum level of protection across the
country. It is upon that base that we build watershed management. It is not an excuse to do less, or to
move more slowly. Watershed management is an imperative to build upon that base, that level playing
field of pollution control in the country. That is a responsibility that EPA takes extremely seriously to
make sure that this pollution control base is delivered efficiently. EPA's responsibility includes definition
and ensured compliance with basic water programs, development of national standards and tools,
funding, and national assessment of status and progress. Watershed management can complement these
basic regulatory functions to help us achieve our basic water quality goals more efficiently and
effectively.
Not a new idea, but the time is right:
As Dick Kuchenrither pointed out, the watershed approach is not a new idea by any means. We are not
the first generation to recognize the value of managing our waters in a way that is consistent with an
area's natural hydrology. Previous generations have used watershed management for a variety of reasons
for example, water-supply planning; some of these past efforts have been successful, and some of them
not so successful.
However, we are the best equipped to make the idea a reality. Today, we have technology that provides
capabilities our predecessors could hardly imagine. We can sit at our computers and learn a great deal
about what is happening in a watershed by evaluating and integrating all kinds of data. Technology
continues to help us improve our capacity to deliver this kind of holistic approach.
For example, EPA is working together with the U.S. Geological Survey and other partners on an Internet-
based Geographic Information System (GIS) called "Surf Your Watershed." You can see a demonstration
of it here at the conference. The system is still evolving, but it is a good start towards making watershed
information more widely accessible to a much broader audience of interested individuals not just the
scientists and engineers although it contains plenty of information for scientists and engineers. It will
allow folks in watersheds to find out the status of their watershed situation anywhere in the country. This
is the kind of technology that did not exist 20 years ago.
There is no doubt that these new technical tools, whether in modeling or in the dissemination of
information on the Internet, are important and are enabling us to get to the next level of watershed
management in the United States. We must continue to invest in developing technical tools. But there is
something even more important than technology, and that is the people in the watersheds. By harnessing
the commitment of the people in a watershed, we get beyond the impersonality of some of our basic
programs, such as the NPDES permit program, or effluent guidelines. These things are vitally important
we can't build on them if they don't exist but they don't excite the public the way a watershed does.
People can identify with their community, with their watershed.

-------
When you are in Baltimore and you mention the Chesapeake Bay, I don't think you will find many
people who don't know what you are talking about and why it is important. Notice the license tags that
say, "Treasure the Chesapeake." People pay extra for those tags, and they appear all over in Baltimore
and all over Maryland. This is just one indication of the kind of "people power" that can be brought to
bear in watershed management and will be so necessary in making the tough decisions over the next 20
to 30 years. In watershed management, we need to have the kind of buy-in and recognition that comes
with public participation. It's a different kind of power from technology, but one that is just as important.
Indications that progress is being made:
There are many indications that watershed management activities are escalating around the country. This
has been especially true in the last three years, since Watershed 93. Let me mention just a few:
• More and more watershed associations and groups are coming together and taking action.
Watershed issues are striking a chord not just with folks like you and me, but with all kinds of
people from Chief Executive Officers of major U.S. corporations to farmers to school children to
retired senior volunteers. There are very few things that attract that kind of diversity of people
together at different levels, and we think this kind of diversity is a very important part of what
watersheds are all about.
The national "Know Your Watershed" campaign, which serves as a clearinghouse on watershed
information, organizations, and events, tells us that the number of watershed groups registered
with them has increased to roughly 700 right now.
The coalition called "River Network" is dedicated to building citizen groups to speak out for
rivers in every watershed across the country. They have a strategic plan called "Watershed 2000,"
and under it they are working to have 400 Citizen Watershed Councils in place by the year 2000,
and 2,000 Citizen Councils in place by 2020.
• Watersheds are bringing about unexpected alliances between groups that do not necessarily have a
history of working together. There are alliances between industry and environmental groups,
between state and local governments, between a watershed council and a church. These unique
alliances are going to be needed to solve some of the tough problems facing us in the future. That
is why we need to keep building this watershed management foundation.
• Governments are learning and practicing the art of reinvention a notion that has been driving
private sector productivity for some time and in so doing, helping to facilitate and advance
watershed management on many levels. This kind of coordinated change is being called a
paradigm shift.
At EPA, the paradigm shift has revolutionized a whole range of water quality programs. For example,
our NPDES program the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System, which is the permit system
for controlling point-source pollution is working to coordinate permits, monitoring, and enforcement on a

-------
watershed-by-watershed basis, as opposed to a source-by-source basis. The drinking water program,
which for too long has been disconnected from the surface water program, is now finding ways to
connect with source-protection efforts that focus on watershed and aquifer-recharge areas. It is helping
thousands of communities take watershed approaches to protecting both ground- and surface-water
sources of drinking water. Our wetlands program supports holistic watershed approaches to wetland
preservation and management. Our standards program is beginning to explore, through a national
dialogue, how the standards program can be tailored to deal with watershed imperatives. I could go on.
We are reconstituting the state revolving fund so that it looks at watershed priorities. The nonpoint
source program uses watershed approaches in dealing with nonpoint sources.
Everything I've just mentioned has to do with the federal water program. There is also a great deal of
innovation going on at the state level. In many cases, state water quality agencies are leading the way,
trying out new ways of doing business, whether it be effluent trading such as that being practiced in
North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico watershed, or tributary strategies here in Maryland for the Chesapeake
Bay, or other watershed work. So far, it looks to us like 36 states are in the process of developing some
pretty strong watershed approaches.
Closing remarks:
We can see a lot of progress being made. Increasingly, watershed management is moving beyond an
idealized concept to a reality of working on a day-to-day basis in how we implement our programs and
excite the public about the possibility of clean water in their communities.
This commitment must remain strong. You have to leave here as advocates of watershed management.
You have to carry forward the message that by building on the base that we have developed over the last
20 years, we can achieve clean water in this country; we can achieve more than we've imagined if we all
work together and concentrate on the task at hand. I trust that all of you will do that; otherwise you
wouldn't be here. In addition to the conference attendance here in Baltimore, we are reaching out to
communities with 150 downlink sites across the country for Wednesday's plenary session. It's exciting
because these connections further the concept of community involvement in watershed management.
Thank you, and I too wish all of you a good conference.

-------
years ago, but then I don't think you would have invited me 10 years ago" and Frank Popoff, Dow's
chairman, leaned over and said, "not even five."
Dave and I found ourselves in some ways joined at the hip as co-chairs of this council. We've learned a
lot from each other. Our partnership is indicative of the membership of the Council and the way that we
all learned to work together. The Council membership was diverse and distinguished: nine corporate
chief executives from Fortune 500 companies, the leaders of several major environmental groups,
representatives of Native Americans, civil rights, labor, and five members of the President's Cabinet.
The task the President gave us was to come up with a sustainable development strategy for the United
States and also to identify examples of sustainable development in action around the country. I suspect
that we could just have interviewed many of you in this room to get stories of sustainable development.
It's important to think about the context within which this Council was working. It's not much of a
surprise to say that the politics of the issues included in the broad context of sustainability have been
confrontational. They've been confrontational for two decades.
The legacy of confrontation has made it enormously difficult to find experimental and compromise
solutions because generally the ground being discussed has been so hard-won. A second difficulty is that,
in the past, we have tended to discuss issues in separate boxes. According to this kind of
compartmentalized thinking, EPA's water office would not be expected to talk about air pollution issues
or community issues or endangered species issues or economic growth. But how can you possibly
address the kinds of issues that you all are here for watershed issues without understanding that you need
to integrate issues that, historically, have been discussed separately.
Still a third difficulty has to do with the fact that since the beginning of our country, the genius of our
political system has been its protection of individual rights and liberties. The basis of our economic
system has been the satisfaction of individual wants and needs. And the core of our culture has been the
recognition of individual achievement and performance whether Michael Jordan or the Marlborough
Man. But the problems we're running up against now are problems of the community. That, above all, is
what the President's Council on Sustainable Development sought to confront.
Three years ago, the members of the Council did not come to this task with a great deal of trust or shared
experience. We finally began to overcome our differences when we began a search for some broad,
shared values that we articulated as a set of principles that we could use as a basis for continuing with our
debate. For example, the first on our list of 16 principles, or beliefs, that underlie all of our subsequent
agreements is the following:
To achieve our vision of sustainable development, some things must grow jobs, productivity, wages,
capital and savings, profits, information, knowledge, and education and others pollution, waste, and
poverty must not.

-------
Of course, the Council was talking about sustainability at the same time that Congress was talking about
changing the environmental laws. Some members of the Council saw the proposed legislative changes as
rollbacks and were deeply angered by that to the point of being reluctant to proceed with talking about
sustainability while the foundation stones of everything they believed in were being tugged away. In the
end, the Council as a whole reached an agreement that sustainability cannot proceed without that level
playing field that is made up of the environmental laws and regulations of the last 20 years. It is
important to acknowledge, we agreed, that the country has made enormous progress on the basis of those
laws and regulations, and we continue to need that set of entry rules in order to build further progress.
We also agreed that, for the future, we need to build upon that foundation, to invent a different system.
That agreement in principle between corporate leaders and environmental leaders was enormously
difficult and enormously important and it freed us to begin a discussion of longer term goals in the
country. That was a key juncture for us.
You know the section in Alice in Wonderland, where Alice meets the Mad Hatter and yells at him,
"Which way should I go?" And he says, "That very much depends on where you want to end up, my
dear." Much of our policy debate in this country, in the past, has involved a discussion of means before
we decided on the ends. The Council tried to approach its task by looking at the ends, by starting with a
25-year vision of the United States on the path to sustainability. We developed a set of 10 goals for
sustainability. The notion for each goal was to make a broad statement of direction for the country. For
each goal, we also put together a set of indicators to show more explicitly what we mean and how we
would measure when we got there. The first goal focused on environmental issues.
The next goal deals with what was one of the toughest issues for us the issue of economic growth. In
general, it was a difficult task for our group to understand and begin to address the need to integrate
economic, environmental, and social goals; it was difficult to recognize that, although we talk about all
those things separately, they are really for people in their everyday lives separate strands in a single
dream of a better life. Sustainability requires that we address those strands in an integrated way and
develop not only a set of goals, but a set of policies that support the full set of goals rather than treating
each of the goals as antagonistic alternatives.
Achieving sustainable communities is another goal that the Council articulated. Something we found
whenever we left Washington and held meetings outside of the Capitol: There were enormous energy and
activity and focus on integrated goals and integrated policies at the community level. We began to
understand that it was at the community level that people still had some faith in their capacity to address
issues through policy. It was at the community level where they could see the results of their experiments
immediately, and where they could understand the connection between engagement, collective action,
and better lives.
There were ten goals, as I said. We used the goals as a basis for developing a set of policy
recommendations, which are essentially experiments with means of achieving the goals. There are 59
policy recommendations in the report; with them are 107 specific action items covering everything from
environmental education to consumption to population to international leadership.

-------
For example, one of the Council's recommendations is to create a new, alternative performance-based
environmental management system. Back when I started working in the environmental field 20 years
ago, as an advocate for the Natural Resources Defense Council, it was really impossible to track
environmental performance. All you could do was send out a lab truck, take a sample and take it to the
lab, and then you would know what was happening a week ago for one particular period of an hour or 24
hours which was no way to measure ongoing performance. Now, of course, all of that has changed. It is
possible to measure and track hundreds and hundreds of substances at a parts-per-billion level on a
continuous basis, to feed the information back into a computer, and to manage the system in real time.
But our existing regulatory system, understandably, was built around the old problems. First of all, it isn't
a performance-based system; it was built as an engineering system because we could enforce engineering
standards back then. Second, the existing regulatory system reflects the fact that 20 years ago we were
essentially in a confrontational period, in which we were seeking compliance by reluctant industrial
entities.
Since then, there's been technological change and also political change. Some of the most important
environmental progress now being made is coming not through command-and-control regulations, but
from a whole set of other factors. The Council's recommendation to develop a new performance-based
system represents the recognition by all parties that, in view of these changes, there is now a huge new
opportunity to create a performance-based system that moves the regulator back outside the plant
boundaries. This is an opportunity to put the focus back on what's most important, which is performance,
to reduce transaction costs, and to get much more protection for the money. We also discussed the reality
that it is ineffective to look at one piece of the manufacturing process and imagine that you can deal with
a whole set of issues of concern to society.
The Council searched for ways to look at manufacturing processes from beginning to end or, as many
people put it, from cradle to cradle (from cradle to grave and back to cradle again). The corporate leaders
on the Council were increasingly excited about addressing that issue as an inherent part of their value
system and their recognition of what they will need to provide to society in the 21st century: services and
products that meet broad societal needs. This is one of the recommendations that the council expects to
begin to implement in the next several months.
Another of the Council's recommendations concerns market-based incentives. This recommendation
reflects the premise that we ought to put our incentives where our objectives are. We ought to make it
profitable to be green. We ought to adjust our system so that there is a constant financial pressure for
better performance so that zero release becomes a goal toward which we are always progressing even if it
is never reached.
When dealing with market incentives, of course, it's useful to look at the tax system. This year the U.S.
Treasury will collect something like $1.4 trillion dollars in federal taxes. About $1.2 trillion will be taxes
on labor and investment, on wages and profits. We tax cigarettes because we want to discourage
smoking. And we collect $1.2 trillion in taxes on labor and investment because so it seems we don't want

-------
people to work and invest. It occurred to members of the Council that by moving that tax burden around
a little bit, you could put your incentives where your objectives are pretty effectively. After all, $1.2
trillion gets people's attention. The Council discussed the idea of a revenue-neutral shift in tax burden to
things we would like to discourage, such as waste.
Still another recommendation concerns ecosystem integrity, which is what this conference is about. The
Council came to see that it is critically important to recognize the link between ecosystems and
communities. The most effective examples of ecosystem management that we saw were examples of
communities choosing to get engaged in the management process, along with all of the stakeholder
groups. These were examples of community involvement in addressing the whole set of needs that fit
within the questions how and why are we going to manage and protect an ecosystem? Many of us came
to the Council with long-term experience with and commitment to national policy and came away from
the process with deep respect for what can happen at the community level.
We also came away with a recognition that the process and the result are not separate that it is the
collaborative process that makes results possible.
In making policy recommendations, we are essentially experimenting with policy. We don't really know
how ecosystems work. We don't really know what the results of policy will be. That's no reason to stop in
place. We want change. The nation recognizes that things can't go on the way they are. We would be
much freer to address the need for change if we could be confident that if an experiment didn't achieve
the goals that we had set forth, we could move on and try something else. Of course, that's extremely
difficult in a confrontational setting, in which the parties withhold information from one another and are
full of mistrust. It turns out to be easy in a cooperative setting. So the cooperative process and the ability
to experiment and try new ideas go together.
Our report is a fundamentally optimistic document. We all concluded that we have not begun to exhaust
the one type of resource which compounds so that the more we use it, the more we have of it. That is
knowledge and intelligence.
We ended up a group of profound optimists, convinced that it is perfectly possible to achieve the mission
of sustainability. That may be why, when we handed in our report to the President, expecting it to meet
our requirement, he said, "That's good. Keep going." He asked us to continue working through the end of
the year, beginning an implementation process. That is now underway, and we have gained some new
members representing, in particular, state and local interests, and small businesses. We've launched
efforts with state and local governments. We're launching a stewardship initiative and a regional council
initiative. And we're beginning to take up ideas for specific, on-the-ground things that we might be able
to do.
So please, those of you who have stories to tell, tell us what's useful to do. The Council will not be
meaningful because we published this nice report the first printing of which sold out in three days. It will
be meaningful if it has something to do with what actually happens in the world.

-------
Let me take this opportunity to say that we are up on the World Wide Web at
http://www.whitehouse.gov/pcsd. In the six months that we have left, we particularly want to connect
with state and local programs. We'd like to be deluged with suggestions concerning sustainable
development and stories of initiatives that are working successfully.
Note: A joint presentation by both co-chairs of the President's Council, Jonathan Lash and David T.
Buzzelli, was planned for the Watershed '96 conference. However, Mr. Buzzelli's plane was grounded in
Minnesota due to dense fog, and Mr. Lash covered material that would have been presented by his fellow
co-chair.

-------
mobilize public support, and solve common problems.
I believe strongly that we must reclaim our cities and communities block by block, and neighborhood by
neighborhood, and that citizens must be empowered to revitalize their own communities. But it's also
essential for regional leaders and national experts like yourselves to share information and strategies on
the pressing problems of our day, and to keep us all focused on long-term planning and solutions.
Like the international conference on cities that I just attended, this watershed conference deals with
environmental and developmental issues that will have major consequences in our lives and our
communities into the next century. We can plan now to preserve and protect the nation's most precious
natural resources, as well as the quality of life that they sustain. Or we can abdicate our responsibilities
to the planet, and reap untold disaster and misery down the road. I think it's pretty clear which mission
this Watershed 96 conference and all of you have chosen to undertake.
I'd like to talk briefly about some of the ways that Baltimore city has promoted progress in this area.
Baltimore and Maryland, for example, depend heavily on the Chesapeake Bay as a source of both income
and recreation (and, I might add, an inspirational source of natural beauty). With thousands of Maryland
families depending on the Chesapeake for their livelihood, we know we must protect our wetlands and
the wildlife that they nurture. And it's imperative that we also encourage the development of industries
that don't pollute our environment.
These are the kinds of challenges in which cooperation and collaboration are essential for success.
Streams, lakes, and coastal areas know no formal boundaries. So we need to work together regionally,
across city, county, and state lines, if we are to effectively protect the air we breathe and the water we
drink.
One of those regional efforts in which the city is taking an active role is the multi-state effort to protect
the Chesapeake Bay. As a signatory to a pact to be a key partner in this effort, the city has contributed to
the Chesapeake Bay tributory strategies in a number of ways. Our efforts include reducing toxic waste in
the Baltimore Harbor, enhancing storm drain management, and improving our waste treatment plants.
We continue to work toward reducing the pollutants in our streams and rivers that flow into the
Chesapeake.
A related regional effort, which we celebrated just a few weeks ago, is a federal, state, and local effort
that will study how to improve the Gwynns Falls watershed, which runs through Baltimore county and
Baltimore city, and empties into the Patapsco River's middle branch. The city is sharing the cost of the
study with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. This effort could eventually restore 150 acres of land,
many miles of streams, and up to 25 acres of wetlands.
Many of you will make a site visit to one of our urban projects that involves reclaiming some of the city's
abandoned open spaces. Baltimore's Druid Hill Park and Herring Run Park are among our urban
resources initiatives (URI's), aimed at helping neighborhoods take back the city's open areas. These

-------
efforts include community forestry, park planning and management, job training, and environmental
education for our inner-city youth. Also included is a natural resource management training course for
the employees of Baltimore's Department of Recreation and Parks.
The city is also developing the Gwynns Falls greenway, which would establish a walking and biking trail
system across the city, linking neighborhoods together by following the stream. Community support is
growing for this "greening" of Baltimore.
To me, one of the most important aspects of these urban projects is to gain the interest and commitment
of the young people in our cities to get involved in protecting our natural resources. It's particularly
important, I believe, for the younger generation to see the connections between cleaning up the storm
drains or streams in their communities, or planting a tree, and a cleaner, healthier, safer environment for
everyone in the future.
By the year 2025, almost 5 billion people, or 62 percent of the global population, will live in urban
areas. If this planet is to survive, there is an urgent need to educate urban residents about conserving
and protecting the world around them, and mobilize them to be active partners in cleaning up the
environment.
We are fortunate here in Baltimore to have world-renowned educational institutions like Baltimore's
National Aquarium and the Maryland Science Center, which have been magnets for young people and
families to explore the wonders and excitement of nature, and which also underscore the theme of
conservation and environmental protection.
A final example of Baltimore city's commitment to the environment stands a few blocks from here on the
Inner Harbor the Christopher Columbus Center which I hope you will visit. Created through a
public/private partnership, it will be the nation's leading research facility studying marine biotechnology.
That is, learning how to use aquatic life to develop new drugs, foods, and materials. It will also offer
educational opportunities for scientists and inner-city children alike to further explore their underwater
universe. The center will make a strong case that investing in the environment is good both for business
and for maintaining a higher quality of life.
I wish all of you a highly successful and productive conference. Your work here in Baltimore will be
critical to this region's and this nation's ability to protect and preserve our most precious resources. To
quote from Psalm 24: "The Earth is the Lord's." That is true. And we must protect the only Earth the
Lord has given us.
Thank you.

-------
things here that people come from elsewhere to see.
Let me just put things in perspective very quickly. Maryland's population is expected to grow by 20
percent during the next 25 years: from 5 million to 6 million people. If the growth patterns that have been
in place over the past 25 years do not change, consider what will happen during these next 25 years:
• We will virtually abandon our great and historic urban centers, such as Baltimore city.
• We will consume more than one-half million acres of farmland.
• We will consume nearly one-quarter million acres of forests, which are absolutely critically
important to the water quality of our rivers and bays.
• And we may well see the future that Judge Otto Kerner warned America about 25 years ago.
Regarding race in America, he talked about the potential for two separate societies, a prospect we
might very well face if we do not do something about the direction of growth: one wealthy and
prospering in growing suburbs and outer suburbs, and one poor and declining; one with jobs and
hopes for families, and the other increasingly jobless; one having huge new homes on large
estates, and the other having large collections of homeless.
None of us wants that scenario. From the perspective of what our society will look like and from the
perspective of what our environment will be, we must make commitments to change. Fortunately, we in
Maryland have recognized that we must change the way we grow and we must work harder to safeguard
our environment. Our approach is not based on a series of governmental orders or top-down mandates,
but rather in large part on the recognition that citizens must be involved in what must be done.
Let me mention some of the reasons why we are taking that approach. Consider that virtually every
Maryland citizen and business lies within one-quarter mile a 5-minute walk of a stream, or creek, or
river, which flows directly into the Chesapeake Bay. Every Maryland citizen and business impacts the
bay. Every Maryland citizen and business has a direct interest in protecting the bay, not only for aesthetic
or environmental reasons, but also for the well-being of our economy.
Consider that recreational boating in Maryland employs over 18,000 people and is worth $1 billion a
year, that recreational fishing adds another $1 billion a year to our economy, that the crab harvest alone
in Maryland is almost $100 million annually, and that tourism adds billions to our economy. When you
consider these facts, it is clear that protecting and preserving our natural resources is in fact vital for our
economic success.
But we must recognize as well that this is not just about the economy. We must protect the environment
for its own sake. We are all of us stewards of this land, and we have a serious responsibility for the air
our children breathe, for the water they drink, for the quality of life that they will enjoy in the future. Part
of our approach therefore is to involve people, and that's why we appointed the state's 10 tributary teams
312 Maryland citizens who volunteered to help implement the state's tributary strategies of reducing
nutrients in the bay; coordinating and encouraging the participation of citizens, businesses, and the
agricultural community; and promoting a sense of stewardship among our citizens. Our tributary teams

-------
are the local stakeholders, people who will inspire and educate their fellow citizens about what we must
do to preserve our great resources. The members of these teams share with me the understanding that
success can only come with a cooperative effort between government, business, and people.
Our tributary teams are unique in the nation in that we were the first state to adopt the large-scale, state-
wide, watershed-wide approach to coordinating nutrient reduction efforts. It is a bottom-up, community-
up effort, and we are having an impact. One quick example of the success we are having in fostering a
sense of partnership: Farmers in Maryland have voluntarily put over 700,000 acres of their land under
nutrient management programs. To put this in perspective, Maryland has more land under nutrient
management than any other state in the country. That is a record of which Maryland farmers can be
proud, and it is an outstanding example of how, if you involve people from the community level up, you
can indeed have great success.
We are rethinking, right now, how to deal with the most fundamental issue of water quality protection,
and that is land use and land-use management. We all know the advantages of pursuing a forward-
thinking strategy of growth management for revitalizing existing communities. This is true whether you
are talking about big communities such as Baltimore city or small communities such as Cumberland,
Maryland. The key issues here include preserving our open space and having viable centers where
economic growth can take place.
If we can pursue more aggressively a strategy of well-managed growth, there are obvious environmental
benefits, such as protecting farmland, preserving forests, and conserving wetlands. There are also
obvious economic advantages when you think of the hundreds of millions of dollars that we spend on
new roads, new sidewalks, new water and sewer lines, and new schools to accommodate growth always
moving outward. There is also something less obvious, but I hope we will all be paying more attention to
it, and that is the need to foster a spirit of community, to bring back a sense of community. One of the
things that is very clear all across this country is that as suburbs sprawl out, there is less and less sense of
community. The suburbs are a place where we go to sleep and to house our family and to reside for a
while. But without neighbors who know neighbors, without a sense of heritage a sense that "we belong
here" we have lost something important.
We also know that planning is not enough; tributary teams are not enough; community involvement is
not enough. If we are going to be successful, we must use the resources of government to create a series
of major incentives and disincentives to direct growth back to existing urbanized areas. In Maryland, we
are making the necessary changes to move in that direction. For example, Maryland participates in a
significant way in the school construction formula. In this administration, we have made a major change
so that the first priority for school construction is for modernizing and expanding existing schools in
existing communities. We want the best schools to be in our existing urbanized areas and not, as has been
the practice in the past, for the newest and best schools to be built to accommodate growth which moves
outward. In the past, only 40 percent of school construction funding went to renovate and modernize
older schools in our older communities; now 80 percent will go to our older schools.

-------
We have created a major Neighborhood Business Development Program to bring jobs into existing
communities. We have just adopted, as part of our economic development program, a jobs-creation tax
credit. You get twice the tax credit, however, if those jobs are brought to targeted neighborhood
revitalization areas. And we just changed our Department of Transportation budget, so that for the first
time the state Department of Transportation works with smaller communities, when state roads run
through those communities, on matters such as sidewalks, curbs, and gutters, so that these communities
will be active partners in revitalization efforts.
All of this, we believe, will still not be enough. We will be working with legislative leaders next year on
a whole series of additional incentives and disincentives to make the economy so strong that private
investors will find better investment deals to build, to bring jobs, to renovate houses, whatever the
endeavor in already existing communities than is available by buying farmland and developing it. I
believe we can do this using means ranging from Brownfields to tax credits to a variety of additional
incentives. We are very excited about the input we are getting from the public on these incentives and the
positive changes we see coming.
Let me note, lastly, that while you are here in Maryland I hope you will take some of the tours that have
been arranged for you, and that you will consider some of the experiments that are going on here. For
example, you might take a look at the impact of sand and gravel mining on the stream enhancement
project at White Marsh. You might drop in on the Chesapeake Farms Sustainable Agricultural Project on
Maryland's historic Eastern Shore. You will have a chance to see social revitalization through ecological
restoration at the Druid Hill/Herring Run Park tour. You can inspect the storm water management work
going on in Wheaton Branch; you can see first-hand how levels of government can make a difference
with the world-class Kenilworth marsh restoration.
These are exciting projects, and they are on the cutting edge. We are experimenting; we know there is no
one answer. We invite you to share in the process and also to share ideas with us on ways to make it
better. That is truly what this conference is all about sharing with one other and that is why we have our
entire team here today. It is about sharing so that we can all prosper, so that we can all have the
environment we want, and so that our children and our grandchildren will be able to know the health and
environmental benefits that we have had. We owe it to them to pass on an environment that is as good as
or better than what we inherited. I believe this conference will contribute to that outcome.
Thank you very much.

-------
example, some basic statistics from a study done by the Northern Illinois Planning Council, which
presents a 20-year snapshot from 1970 to 1990 of the Chicago Metropolitan area. During those
two decades the metropolitan area population grew by just four percent. During that same period,
however, land use for residential purposes grew by 46 percent. And virtually all of that land was
in a watershed!
¦ The changing values of that population: As America has become more suburban, its values have
changed as well. The use of land for traditional economic pursuits seems less important to many
than the more difficult to quantify amenities associated with land. I am speaking of things like
open space, wildlife habitat, wetlands and, of course, watersheds. For example, the Grossi family
farm happens to be in Marin County, 30 miles north of San Francisco on the urban edge . From
our dairy barn, I can see homes that sell for $1.5 million on quarter-acre lots. Conversely,
suburbanites sipping Chardonnay on their decks can look up the valley into the watershed. What
they see and perceive is not the production of milk and beef but open space, not my farm or my
neighbor's or my uncle's farm, but their open space. They expect that open area to provide
amenities like wildlife habitat, wetlands, and high quality water, all things that are increasing in
value in public perception.
These changing expectations of our society are further complicated by the fact that most of this
competition for the use or allocation of land is played out on privately owned land the largest portion of
which is agricultural. The benefits of protecting these values often accrue not to the landowner but
disproportionately to the community at large. It is no wonder then that this competition erupts into
outright conflict.
Sociologists describe this kind of change as a paradigm shift. The land use paradigm is shifting, but the
frameworks by which we adjust to those shifts are not evolving fast enough to keep up. Traditionally,
broad societal natural resource goals have been achieved by increasing regulation or using public funds
to protect land outright by acquiring it for parks, open space, and other public uses. The limitations on
these techniques are increasingly evident fiscal austerity is already limiting the ability of government
agencies at all levels to acquire land. And the property rights movement in all its manifestations is further
limiting the political will to use regulatory powers.
Additionally, our political system often increases the conflict by providing incentives to favor one
behavior over another, then failing to adjust those incentives over time as societal values change leaving
those affected with very abrupt adjustments to make (example: draining wet farmland to promote food
production).
For watershed management, the inconsistency in government policies is particularly problematic. A wide
range of federal and state subsidies, from infrastructure improvements and tax free financing to the
mortgage interest deduction, promote urban sprawl making public and private conservation efforts far
more expensive than they otherwise would be. Or, in the case of farm programs, payments that get
capitalized into land values effectively cause the taxpayer to pay twice once to inflate the land value and
a second time to provide incentives for conservation.

-------
But even when we can come to agreement over resource allocation priorities, we continue to struggle
over how to share the cost especially when those who benefit include the larger community and unborn
future generations. The greatest liability we leave our grandchildren is not the national debt but the state
of the land sprawling subdivisions that will have to be supported with future tax dollars, shifting food
production onto marginal lands and the loss of biological diversity.
To correct for this developing tragedy we awkwardly apply the traditional tools of regulation and
acquisition. But when regulation is used it tends to shift the cost to the land owner. Compensation
transfers the cost to the taxpayer.
Clearly, both have responsibility and generally are willing to shoulder a fair share. What is the proper
balance?
What is fair for both the individual landowner and the broader community?
The new paradigm of land use needs a new framework for action. Buried in the contentious debate over
land use and property rights are some evolving answers. As in the early stages of any major conflict, the
solutions are not yet well refined. Many of you are involved in these new experiments which are rooted
in an understanding of four simple principles:
¦	The future of land conservation in this country will largely focus on private lands.
¦	The ability of government to intervene will be limited.
¦	Mechanisms for sharing the cost of stewardship of our natural resources between the private land
owner and the public at large must be developed.
¦	Private landowners have an inherent interest in land stewardship.
The National Nonpoint Source Forum report identified these themes and the conservation provisions of
the recently signed farm bill (the Federal Agricultural Improvement and Reform Act of 1996) included
them. Assuming Congress follows through with its commitments, as commodity programs are phased out
over the next six years, a comprehensive, well-balanced set of conservation programs built on the
principle of shared responsibility will be phased in. They include:
¦	Farmland Protection Program The 1996 Farm Bill establishes a farmland protection program, $35
million in funding from the Commodity Credit Corporation. The program authorizes the
agriculture secretary to purchase conservation easements to protect farmland by matching state
funding. Although a modest program, it represents the first significant step in providing federal
assistance to local communities for farmland protection.
¦	National Natural Resources Conservation Foundation The farm bill authorizes the establishment
of a nonprofit private foundation to sponsor and advance innovative solutions for conservation
and environmental problems through effective partnerships with state, local, and private
organizations.
¦	Conservation Reserve Program The CRP pays farmers to take highly erodible land out of
production. The 1996 Farm Bill reauthorizes CRP with a cap of 36.4 million acres. New

-------
enrollments, emphasizing broader environmental benefits, will be accepted in the program as long
as they do not exceed the established cap. This provision should allow CRP to become a more
effective conservation program by enrolling the most environmentally sensitive land wherever it
is located and by encouraging some of the highly productive land now in CRP back into
production.
¦	Wetlands Reserve Program The WRP pays farmers to restore wetland areas on farm acreage. It is
reauthorized through 2002 with a cap of 975,000 acres. The program is divided into three parts
with one third of the land enrolled in permanent easements, one third in 30-year or less easements,
and one third in cost share agreements.
¦	Environmental Quality Incentives Program The 1996 Farm Bill creates an Environmental Quality
Incentives Program (EQIP) to provide financial, technical, and educational assistance to producers
struggling with the most serious soil, water, and other resource-related problems. The program
will be funded at $200 million annually through 2002 except for 1996, when $130 million is
authorized. The program is structured so that half of available funds will be targeted to correct
problems associated with livestock operations. The program is designed to tackle issues such as
nonpoint source pollution, including fertilizer, manure, and soil runoffs into watersheds and
waterways. EQIP will help farmers adopt and install conservation practices through a cost-sharing
mechanism that will specifically target environmentally sensitive lands.
¦	State Technical Committees The 1996 Farm Bill authorizes the broadening of state technical
committees to include representatives from nonprofit groups, agricultural producers, and
agribusiness. The role of the state technical committees has been further expanded to oversee
EQIP administration.
¦	Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program The 1996 Farm Bill reserves $50 million of Conservation
Reserve Program funding for a Wildlife Habitat Incentives Program. This program is designed to
help farmers adopt wildlife habitat protection techniques and management practices to help
preserve and improve wildlife habitat on farmland.
¦	Floodplain Easements Related to the WRP, the 1996 Farm Bill authorizes floodplain easements to
be purchased under the Emergency Watershed Protection Program.
These programs are not the final answer to the natural resource challenges facing us, but they represent a
very good beginning and an opportunity to test our ability as a nation to come to deal with the task. They
represent an important step in the evolution of the next generation of public policies that meet the needs
of both landowners and taxpayers. Ten years from now farm programs could very well reflect a new
contract with the American public a contract whereby public support for farmers is based not on the
crops they produce but on the environmental products produced on the farm. Each of you should be
working on the local and regional policy counterparts to these programs to position your community to
make the most efficient use of precious public support.
It is well past time for the hyperbole and extremist rhetoric to give way to reasoned discussion over the
legacy we leave our children. As a landowner, I am ready to begin the discussion and I know that many
of my fellow farmers are as well. As a taxpayer, I want to end the needless subsidy of land abuse and to
improve efficiency of conservation programs. We have the ability and the institutional processes to turn
the competition for land into a consensus for stewardship.

-------
the language of sustainability.
With these things in mind, I see two great challenges before us. First, how can we build the capacity of
local organizations and local people to effectively deal with the complex environmental issues we all
face? Second, how can we merge environmentalism with the free-enterprise system to achieve our goals?
For the past 25 years, we've seen two powerful forces in America. Like two streams flowing across the
land, the free-enterprise system and the environmental movement have followed different courses. It is
now time to blend them together into one mighty river of action. This is more difficult than saying it up
here at the podium. To accomplish this, we must develop new skills; we must develop new tools; and we
must learn a new language. I suggest that watersheds are the place to start. Our rivers and streams
define them clearly by geography. Perhaps they will be the common ground on which we build this new
framework for conservation.
What will the new framework look like? Let me give you five ideas as a start. First, this framework will
be based on collaboration, not confrontation. Second, it will fully integrate economic reality into
environmental protection. Third, I believe it will be led by the private sector and the nonprofit
community, not by government. Fourth, it will be technology-driven. And lastly, I believe it will be
community-based.
How will we get there? This gathering over the next several days is a start. We are all here at Watershed
96 to discover to discover new ideas and new people, to develop new relationships. I believe this
discovery process is the key.
In 1994, the Conservation Fund and the National Georgraphic Society began their own process of
discovery, which led to the National Forum on Nonpoint-Source Pollution. The Forum was an
unprecedented collaboration of industy, government, and nonprofits. It was chaired by Governor Engler
of Michigan and Governor Dean of Vermont. Serving with them were seven corporate CEOs,five
environmental CEOs, the Mayor of Baltimore, the Secretary of Resources for the state of California, and
three Cabinet members of the federal government as ex officio. The goal of the forum was to identify and
implement innovative nonregulatory solutions to nonpoint-source pollution based on three primary
strategies: economic incentives, voluntary initiatives, and education. We specifically carved out the
nonregulatory side of the ledger in order to complement the regulatory framework and to bring people to
the table. I believe we had enormous success.
Out of the forum emerged 25 key demonstration projects now operating across the land that represent a
menu of activities and organizations and communities, some of which we'll hear about during the panel.
We raised nearly $12 million in public and private capital to back these projects and get them going. In
addition to the 25 projects, we've launched four major new initiatives. First, in partnership with the
Council of Great Lakes governors, and with the leadership of Governor Engler and his peers, we have
launched a major new watershed initiative in the Great Lakes Basin, focusing on urban and urbanizing
areas, those lands in transition as development approaches. Second, in partnership with EPA and the

-------
U.S. Geological Survey, we have developed a watershed address system on the Internet. Soon, anyone
with access to the World Wide Web will be able to type in their zip code and pull down a nested series of
graphics representing the watersheds in which they live. This will be a very powerful tool for educating
all Americans. Third, in partnership with EPA and the state of Pennsylvania, a state-wide nonpoint
source forum focusing on watersheds will be launched in Pennsylvania. I believe this is the first state-
wide forum in the country and represents true leadership at the state level. And lastly, in partnership
with CF Industries, one of the members of the Nonpoint-Source Forum, we have launched the nation's
first national watershed awards. These awards will recognize corporate and community excellence in
watershed protection.
What we're really talking about is conservation leadership. What is it, how do we foster it, how do we
encourage it ? Conservation leadership today is no longer a matter of merely alerting the populace of
the problems that we create through insensitive management of resources. It's now about good science,
careful formulation ofpolicy, realignment of economics and ethics. National polls tell us repeatedly that
people are ready for leadership in conservation, and that conservationists are found in all sectors of
society. I think you'll agree after hearing today's speakers.

-------
advice and counsel of local officials, watershed organizations and businesses what the "real"
environmental obstacles to cleaning up the watershed were.
Hundreds of meetings helped produce a HOT SPOT map red blocks signify where serious pollution
problems exist; yellow blocks are areas in danger.
Stream Teams were trained to do shoreline surveys. And people were mobilized to go out on foot and by
canoe to gather first-hand information about the river.
A group calling themselves Smelt Stewards involving 200 volunteers a month began to read stream
gauges and do water-quality monitoring, and teachers and students were enlisted to focus their science
studies on the Neponset making science in their classrooms real because it involved real issues.
There was an outpouring of help.
The increased level of understanding of the river laid the groundwork for a tremendous amount of action
in a very short period of time.
Let me give you six successes:
Success Story #1: A 15-year simmering debate over the cleanup of a hazardous waste site resulted in a
legal agreement for the site to be cleaned up. The owners of this site are so enthusiastic about the
watershed project that they have set aside for protection Willet Pond, which they donated to the Neponset
River Watershed Association (NRWA).
Success Story #2: Norwood, Massachusetts, officials voluntarily agreed to fix an illegal sewage
connection to a stormline. Before their action, fecal coliform levels were in the 150,000-240,000
colonies/ml range. After the repair, the levels are down to 40,000. And there's continuing repair work
occurring to get that number even lower.
Success Story #3: The owners of the most popular racetrack in the state located at the head of the
Neponset have embarked upon an aggressive effort to control horse manure runoff into the river.
Success Story #4: And shad from the Connecticut River have been transplanted to the Neponset with a
commitment from the state to put a fishway at Baker's Dam to restore anadromous fish runs.
Success Story #5: At Mill Brook, a stormwater management plan has been developed to collect and treat
stormwater overflows.
And, finally, Success Story #6: The lower portion of the Neponset has been designated an area of critical
environmental concern (ACEC). It is the first urban ACEC in the state's history, and its designation as an
ACEC means that it will receive a higher level of scrutiny when development decisions are being made.

-------
We've learned a lot from our Neponset experiment.
We've learned that people know a lot about their neighborhoods, and if called upon can be great assets to
providing an even better knowledge of the water we're trying to protect.
Based on the progress made in the Neponset, we have in consultation with a large number of watershed
associations, business leaders, and regular people decided to take the Neponset statewide.
This decision has required all who are involved in the watershed approach to change their thinking.
Two challenges stand out most prominently:
Obstacle 1: How to structure the expertise embodied in state government in such a way that every penny
of taxpayers' dollars goes towards improved water quality, better land management, and better
neighborhoods.
There are five departments in my Secretariat. I have to confess that they don 7 always work together as
well as they could So, by executive fiat, we've established cross-agency basin teams for each one of the 27
basins. Each team is made up of one person from the five departments.
Remember, our motto is that government's job is to serve the watershed.
The teams are developing with help from locals action plans; they're meeting regularly; and, I hope,
they're finding that their colleagues in other agencies aren't so bad, after all.
Obstacle 2: If government chooses to empower local watershed associations to a greater degree, are
these associations prepared to pitch in with a lot of energy?
Massachusetts is blessed with a tradition of strong environmental protection. There are more than 100
well-established watershed groups, most of them run by volunteers.
To jumpstart the ability of these groups to do the education, outreach, and problem solving that they're so
good at, we convinced the legislature to include $2.5 million in a recently passed $400M Open Space
Bond Bill. The $2.5M is specifically for grants to non-profits for capacity building and technical
assistance. The first round of grants will be awarded this fall.
My five minutes offame are up. There's much more to share. But I hope this gives you an idea of how our
Neponset pilot has helped us define watershed management for the entire state of Massachusetts.
Charlene Poste
Environmental Policy Representative,

-------
Squaxin Island Tribe and Member,
Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission
The Native American Tribes in Washington state have created a watershed protection strategy called the
Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program. Through this program, we are working with state and local
governments and building partnerships for protecting our watersheds. These efforts reflect a holistic
approach that has many roots in our Tribal history and culture.
In 1492, America was discovered or so they say. In 1642, a Narragansett Indian man named
Miantunnomoh spoke of the degradation of watersheds and water quality. He said, "You know our fathers
had plenty of deer and skins and our plains were full of game and turkeys, and our coves and rivers were
full of fish. But brothers, since these Englishmen have seized our country, they have cut down the grass
with scythes, and the trees with axes. Their cows and horses eat up the grass, and their hogs spoil our bed
of clams...."
In 1683, under a tree by the Delaware River, William Penn signed his famous peace treaty with the
Indians. Significantly, in this peace treaty, it was stipulated that for every five acres that are logged, one
acre would remain forested. This kept peace between Indians and white men for 50 years.
As time went by, the Indians were continually forced inland. For example, if you look at a sequence of
U.S. maps at 30- or 40-year intervals between 1790 to 1890, you can see the drastic shrinkage of Tribal
lands so that only widely scattered reservations remain by 1890.
In 1854, the United States entered into treaty negotiations to secure property for the westward
immigration stampede that was then occurring. The result was the Medicine Creek Treaty of1854; many
other treaties followed in the northwest. Tribes including my Tribal ancestors in Washington state ceded
vast amounts of land, but did reserve the right of Tribal existence and retained so far as possible a
traditional way of life based on hunting and gathering.
The tribes of the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program are water people. Historically, salmon has
been very vital to Tribal existence. For our ancestors, salmon was breakfast and probably lunch and
dinner. Clams and oysters were also very important. We depended on the natural resources for
everything we used in our daily living. We gathered grass from wetlands and used it in building portable
mat houses and in making basketry. We stored fish, berries, and medicinal herbs in baskets. In addition to
salmon, my people used water fowl as part of their subsistence diet; we also used the feathers of water
fowl in our garments. Our tribes have an ancestral history of inter-tribal trade; we had inter-tribal trade
routes spanning from Washington state into the Midwest.
Salmon are still very important to our people. We have salmon ceremonies honoring the coming of the
salmon. When the salmon first show up in our streams and rivers, we have a ceremony to show our
thankfulness. In Tribal legend, we have stories of salmon being part of us, the salmon being our brother.
Tribal people view wildlife as though they are other nations of people.

-------
In the Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program, when we are getting down to business and
frameworks for action to protect our watersheds, we try to instill a holistic view in the foundations of our
work. The holistic approach is tied to traditional Tribal teachings concerning body, mind, and spirit.
Body:
We believe that we come from the Earth, that we are of the Earth, that everything we need comes from the
Earth. If we should die, we turn into dust. In Tribal ceremonies, red ochre is traditionally used to signify
that we are people that respect the Earth. Similarly, in the Judeo-Christian tradition, in the story of Adam
and Eve, Adam translates to mean "red Earth." Of course, water is also of vital importance; it makes up
65 percent in our bodies. Some of us have an old Tribal custom of taking a drink of water, as an
acknowledgment of life flow, before passing a particular stream.
Mind:
The Earth is our teacher. Our Tribal people believe that wildlife are important teachers too. From them
we have learned what kind ofplants to eat and what kind ofplants were important for medicinal
purposes. They have taught us their trails and about weather changes. They are still teaching us; they are
teaching us about the importance of watershed protection. What happens to the wildlife will eventually
happen to humans.
Spirit:
When I was a child, my mother would hold me, and I remember the rhythm of her breathing and the
beating of her heart. The land is very much alive. To Tribal people, it is our Mother Earth. We see the
rhythm of her life flow in the water, and in the salmon, birds, and deer. Everything in this land has a
rhythm. We believe that we must always respect the sustaining life flow and rhythm of our natural
resources. We believe in a strong ethic, of knowing what is right and wrong in our use of the abundant
resources within our watersheds. We believe we need to consider how our choices will affect future
generations. It is important to always keep in mind that how we use resources today will impact the
generations of tomorrow. Many tribes believe in sacred circles connecting past, present, andfuture, each
of which is seen as equally important: The future is connected to and no more or less important than the
present or the past.
Through our Coordinated Tribal Water Quality Program, we are implementing strategies to protect the
resources of our watersheds. We work in a government-to-government relationship with the State of
Washington. The tribes also do legislative work to help protect watersheds and salmon resources.
Important components of our coordinated efforts include public education and joint data gathering that is
coordinated with the State Department of Ecology, Health, Fish, and Wildlife. Commitment is also very
important to our work. Volunteers are a strong source of energy, and many of our volunteers have a keen
sense of commitment to watershed protection.

-------
In conclusion, when we work with other groups of people, it is very important to establish common
ground. There is common ground in the protection of human health. Seen holistically, human health
encompasses body, mind, and spirit. The knowledge that everything is connected past, present, andfuture
can also provide common ground. Thank you.
Charles A. Hunsicker
Ecosystems Administrator,
Manatee County Planning Department
Bradenton, Florida
I would like to tell you a little about my county, Manatee County, Florida, and the watershed management
tools we use there. I would also like to share, in this context, some observations of mine about the process
of watershed management.
The population of Florida and Manatee County is strong and growing. That growth has placed a lot of
pressure on our natural resources and our demand for water. Pressures and demands for clean water,
wastewater treatment, landfill space: these are the kinds of pressures we are experiencing, the kind of
pressures I am sure you have all experienced in differing degrees.
Our economy is based on tourism, agriculture, and light manufacturing (not the heavy stuff). Our
geography is primarily flat. We have coastal plains and very low relief, and consequently we have short
rivers. There are four major rivers in Manatee County, two of which support drinking water reservoirs.
Our coastal zone falls within three of EPA's National Estuary Program areas: Tampa Bay, Sarasota Bay,
and Charlotte Harbor.
There are probably 3 million people within an 80-mile radius of where I live. Our county is very diverse.
The center point of our residential area is approximately eight miles upstream on the Manatee River. Our
urban area is low-profile and low-density. A large percentage of our population does identify with water,
having either a riverine or a coastal perspective.
Twenty-eight miles up the river we have a reservoir, a drinking water supply, for our county and the
county to our south. Augmented by ground water, it provides about 45 million gallons per day for our
population. Another 10 miles up the river (about 38 miles from our coastline) there is farming; we have a
year-round growing season. Nearly all of it requires supplemental crop irrigation, despite nearly 50
inches of rainfall each year. We have lots of vegetable farming, cattle on the open range, and a lot of
citrus oranges and grapefruit.
Interspersed in the interior of our county are large natural areas forests and wetlands, hardwood
hammocks. These are the kinds of special areas that the State of Florida and our regional and local
government are working hard to acquire for conservation purposes and low-impact recreation. The
population crush in Florida has moved the state to adopt a multi-million dollar land-acquisition program
called Preservation 2000. In the 1980s, our county residents voted to tax themselves approximately $38

-------
million to acquire 23,000 acres in our drinking water watershed, to preserve the quality of our drinking
water supply.
Our watershed management tools are tools that I am sure many ofyou are familiar with. The point I want
to make is that effective watershed management ties these tools together in a thoroughly integrated way.
It can be useful to visualize this integration in horizontal and vertical terms. It is important to achieve a
horizontal integration offunctions between and among land planners, regulators, restoration specialists,
acquisition planners, and attorneys, among other people. It is also important for these tools and functions
to be integrated vertically by common threads of science and information, a regulatory focus on
ecosystems and watersheds not just individual activities and land planning activities. Vertical integration
also means coordinated efforts among regional watershed management districts and local, state, and
federal levels of government.
In my county, and in my part of the state, the Southwest Florida Water Management District is overseeing
a new frontier in water use. Florida observes eastern water law, that water is for public beneficial use
and is a public right. We are experiencing withdrawals that are overtaxing our aquifer's ability to
replenish itself. Salt water intrusion is one result. So our state agency is wrestling with the concept of
clamping down on new uses of water forcing the counties and local governments to seek out alternatives
to those traditional sources of water. These might be reclaimed water use, stormwater diversions, even
desalinization.
Let me close with three observations on how this kind of integrated approach can work in nearly all
locations around the country. First, I believe that multi-dimensional problems are best solved with multi-
disciplinary teams something that we've learned first hand in the Tampa Bay and Sarasota Bay national
estuary programs. The national estuary teams are made up of talented program directors who are
facilitators and communicators. They are backed up by program managers, who address the details of
contracts and the endless agreements required in forming partnerships. Staff scientists direct the work of
hundreds of experts. Educators and multi-media relations specialists play significant parts as well. This
multi-disciplined team has made things work.
My second observation is really a request for help. To put the information from this conference to work
back home, folks like myself need to work with different groups in our communities. This is going to
require the assistance of social policy planners sociologists if you will to gauge the public opinion, to
increase and measure community change, both positive and negative. Policy makers need to know how
successful they are being and where adjustments need to be made to tailor a message to the public.
Factors such as differences in socio-economic status, employment differences, age, and education any
number of variables cause each of us to hear a given message just a little differently from some one else. I
seek your help in the matter of communicating to our different audiences.
My third and last observation is really a challenge. As Charlene mentioned, a short-term mindset is
sometimes counterproductive for dealing with certain problems and solutions that may reach across time
time measured in generations. In our culture, we seem to insist on plans and programs with measurable
results and closure in 5-, 10-, or 15-year increments. We know our representative form of government

-------
often demands even shorter increments of time. And yet I believe we have to get comfortable with some
solutions and goals which will not be achieved in our lifetime, and possibly not even in our children's
lifetime, but achieved nonetheless with deliberate and measurable progress. The restoration of the
Everglades and Florida Bay, the Chesapeake Bay, the Columbia River, to name a few, may require this
kind of long, long-term view. Other countries and cultures including, in many respects, our Native
Americans' hold just such a generational view of time and results. I believe we must adopt this view in
some instances if we are to achieve lasting environmental protection and sustainability for our efforts.
Thank you very much.
Suzanne C. Wilkins
Executive Director
Mississippi River Basin Alliance
Good Morning. Thank you for the invitation to speak at Watershed '96 on behalf of the more than 60
organizations that comprise the Mississippi River Basin Alliance. Founded in 1992, the Alliance links
traditional conservation groups with environmental justice organizations interested in the well-being of
the Mississippi River, its resources, and its people. We link citizens from the upper basin with those from
the lower.
Alliance citizens view the river from very different perspectives, and we believe that this diverse viewpoint
is critical in the watershed management process. We took three years to establish trust and to get our
organization launched with the able guidance of the Maryland-based Institute for Conservation
Leadership. Their role as facilitator was critical to bringing our diverse group together.
The Mississippi Watershed encompasses 1.2 million square miles all or part of 33 states and two
Canadian provinces.
The Mississippi is blessed with a wide array of fish and wildlife species. It supports 5 million acres of
forested wetlands, and 40 percent of the nation's migratory birds use it as a byway. The Mississippi
provides the Gulf of Mexico with 90 percent of its fresh water.
As we have settled this continent, we have gravitated to our coasts and to our rivers. Eighteen million
persons rely on the Mississippi for their water supply, and even more persons for waste assimilation.
In cities and elsewhere, many of our urban poor and indigenous people rely on the Mississippi River for a
major source of their food. Unfortunately, fish in some of those areas contain unhealthy levels of
contaminants.
While some areas are posted, advisories and permitting vary from state to state. Citizen organizations,
such as the Mid-South Peace and Justice Center, have gotten Tennessee to ban commercial fishing on the
Mississippi and are working for consistency across the river in Arkansas.

-------
The lock and dam system on the Upper Mississippi is vital to the transportation of bulk commodities.
Indeed some 380-400 million tons move down the river each year. Unfortunately, this system has resulted
in a series ofpools, which causes sediment accumulation and the filling in of backwater areas so critical
to the survival offish and wildlife. In 1993, top fish and wildlife scientists in the region developed a
report indicating the potential collapse of the ecosystem on the upper river, which in part supports a $1.2
billion recreation resource. Currently, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has a $50 million study
underway to expand the lock and dam system at an estimated cost of $5 to 6 billion much of which will
come from taxpayers.
A variety of citizens, including the Alliance, are working with state and federal agencies in a consensus-
building process called the Summit to improve understanding of the river's system and diverse uses and
needs.
The levee system began when flood events caused damage to human settlements and agricultural
investments. Taxpayers continue to pay for poor land use decisions every time it floods.
Despite our best efforts, we cannot control the mighty Mississippi. The Flood of 1993 caused $12 to $16
billion in damage. The recommendations of the Galloway report, undertaken after the '93 flood, have to
date been by and large ignored. The Corps' own report, also undertaken after the '93 flood, called for a
variety of structural and nonstructural methods to minimize flooding. This study, too, has been ignored.
While agricultural practices have improved with technology, we still have too much erosion, which
results in phosphates and nitrates finding their way into receiving waters.
Indeed, nutrient over-enrichment has resulted in a 7,000 square mile "Dead Zone" in the Gulf of Mexico.
This area the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island combined has impacted the commercial fishing in the
area. The Gulfprovides 20 percent of the nation's domestic commercial fisheries. Citizen organizations,
such as the Alliance and the Gulf Restoration Network, have recently been working with EPA to address
this problem.
Another result from agricultural runoff has been the introduction of triazines in our water. Last summer,
the Alliance, in conjunction with the Environmental Working Group and others, brought public attention
to spring- and summer-time atrazine and cyanazine spikes in our drinking water. Water quality standards
are set for healthy adults, and we are just beginning to understand the impact on humans by endocrine
disrupters, as described in the new book Our Stolen Future.
Citizens in the watershed may come from diverse groups. Whoever they are, and whether they play an
advocacy role or are involved in a consensus-building watershed management process (such as Trudy
Coxe described for Massachusetts), it's critical to recognize the needs of all citizens in the basin.
People are the key to future watershed management. Whether they actively participate or whether they do
not, all citizens' rights must be included in our decision-making process.

-------
No matter how large or small our watershed may be, we all have a role in its future.
Thank you!
Parker W. Keen
Land Manager, Cargill Fertilizer Inc.
Good morning. I appreciate the opportunity to share some thoughts with you at the beginning of this
panel discussion. I would like to give a very quick overview of some of the kinds of things going on not
only within our company but also within private industry: some of the opportunities that we have really
just begun to tap.
I will give a short overview of Cargill's specific programs that relate to watershed management. It may
appear to be a PR piece, but it really isn't. It's intended to be an introduction to how we in private
industry can touch on issues that are of concern to this conference. Then I will talk about a specific issue
for the state of Florida in which we have been involved in our mining operations, so that you can
understand how we approach the concept of watershed management in an extractive industry such as
phosphate mining.
As a corporate employer, Cargill has the opportunity to touch many thousands of people through
programs that it initiates as a corporation with commitment from top management. We have the
opportunity to communicate values and other things to our employees in such a way that we can really
touch on issues that are very important to sustainability in this country and even around the world.
Cargill can reach over 75,000 homes with concepts such as our Water Matters program.
In February 1995 Cargill initiated a program called Water Matters. This program has strong
commitment from the CEO and the Chairman of the Board of Directors all the way down through the
Cargill corporation. It was implemented in the corporation not only in this country but in offices
throughout the world. It's been done in coordination with the Conservation Fund, and Larry Selzer has
been very involved. We have also coordinated with National Geographic and used some of their
materials. We have been communicating the importance of this type ofprogram in many different ways
and throughout the communities where we operate. We highlighted the Water Matters campaign in the
Cargill employee magazine, at employee picnics, and at customer appreciation days and events.
The core objective of this program is employee education and awareness. We are trying to link volunteers
and resources in the community to look at grass-roots ways of conserving water and making water
conservation a priority in the homes of all of our employees. And, of course, as we do this, related
opportunities open up through the school system and civic activities, so we can spread the Water Matters
message even further.
We have sponsored field trips for school children of all ages, involving them in the Water Matters
program. We have also had "Adopt-a-River" science projects, where we've had cleanup campaigns within

-------
river systems all across the country. We have sponsored a wetlands habitat studies program at the
Sunflower School in Canada, which is just one example of the way we work with different educational
outreach efforts. This particular program dealt with Kindergarten through third grade.
We want to show employees that our water conservation message is not just something for them to take
home, but something that the corporation is very committed to. To demonstrate our company's
commitment, we are also embarking on programs within our facilities and our operations. We've had
facility tours so that people can see how this commitment is being put forward.
Cargill has had science fairs and other cleanup programs in the state of Florida. This effort is a
component of the larger Cargill Cares program, which has been fully implemented throughout the
corporation.
Let me touch briefly on watershed issues that Cargill is dealing with in Florida. Our mining lands in
central Florida lie on both sides of the Peace River. We are very much involved in the Peace River
watershed. The river flows for over 100 miles from the Charlotte Harbor all the way up to Polk County,
Florida, right up through the center of the state. We have initiated a process of looking at pre-mining
land uses, looking at the watersheds and how they have been fragmented, looking at the Peace River and
how the tributaries to the river have been abused in some cases.
We are working through our mining plans and reclamation designs to establish what we would call
habitat networks. This is really ecosystem-based watershed management, keying the preservation areas
where there will be no mining to the reclamation areas after the planned mining is completed. The
objective is that when we are finished, we will have actually restored the water basin to be more of a
functioning system than it is today. Some 60,000 acres of our private land are going to be involved in this
ecosystem-based stewardship program. This program is not only being accomplished by our company,
but by the entire industry.
That's just a brief overview of how Cargill is using the watershed approach in Florida, and where Cargill
has committed significant resources as a corporation worldwide.
DISCUSSION
Larry: I have some questions that I will address to individual panel members, but I hope that other panel
members will feel free to respond also. My first question relates to something that Trudy Coxe said early
on in our panel discussion something that struck me because it touches a concern of mine: That is, as
everything moves aggressively to the local level, how can we ensure that local people and organizations
are prepared to deal with the responsibilities they will inherit? Trudy, could you comment further on how
the state of Massachusetts is approaching capacity building at the local level.
Trudy: First of all, let me say that Massachusetts' idea to commit $2.5 million in grants for technical
assistance and capacity building really came as a result of lots of discussions with many watershed

-------
leaders in the commonwealth. Some of them are here today; all of them recognize both their strengths and
their weaknesses. In general, watershed groups are very good at education and outreach. Everyone
knows that advocacy is one of their special strengths. In Massachusetts, the quality of watershed
associations varies. Some have strong staffs and executive directors. Other groups are just beginning to
get off the block. Our grant program is going to be competitive in ways that I hope will encourage
capacity building. Watershed groups and other nonprofits are invited to submit proposals to the state on
how they want to attack a particular problem in their watershed. We are inviting them to work with each
other and to propose grants that involve local officials or local planning agencies or others. The program
is designed to take some of the burden off of the state and put it into the hands of the locals, who we
believe can really advance the vision of watershed protection.
Parker: Let me addjust a quick comment. Charlie mentioned earlier the Charlotte Harbor National
Estuary Program in Florida, which is just being formed with some funding help from EPA. I serve on the
citizens' advisory committee for this NEP, along with many, many other citizens. From the perspective of
that committee, I can see how logical it is, and how productive it can be, to involve the local citizens.
Larry: To a large extent, I see the environmental crisis as a crisis of creativity. By soliciting a bare
minimum ofpublic input, national decision makers have failed to tap the well of human ingenuity on this
and many other issues. Suzie, I know that in the Mississippi watershed, you are interested in where, how,
and at what point we engage citizens in the process of watershed management. Could you expand a little
on how that happens in the Mississippi basin?
Suzie: There are, I believe, over 54 local, state, regional, and national agencies that have some
regulatory authority over the Mississippi River. Even setting aside the 33-state watershed and looking at
the 10 main-stem states, all but two of those states have borders defined by the river, so the Mississippi
tends to be forgotten at the border line. We need to look at it as a whole system and make sure that indeed
citizens are involved in the process.
I haven 7 any greater insight than to stress how important it is to bring all citizens to the table. I would
urge any government people who may be here to think through how you are approaching citizens. Bring
them on board early in the process. Make sure the invitation is extended to all; don't assume you know
who ought to be there. Use organizations such as River Network based in Portland to find other people
who are interested in rivers and watersheds. Consider basic questions such as, Do you know the group of
citizens you are working with represents the basin diversity in terms of the issues you are trying to solve?
Simple things like meeting locations, and how you set up a room so that is accessible to citizens, can also
be important.
Make sure that the leadership in the ongoing process is selected by the group. And as Trudy just
mentioned, make sure that there is money and support so that the collaborative effort can move ahead, so
that the citizens don 7 have to pay for the process out of their own pockets. Listen to and incorporate what
citizens are saying into any subsequent government action.
Larry: I've often thought that technology is a good avenue for involving citizens. I have found that to be

-------
so in my own experience, when working with GIS mapping capabilities. GIS is a great way to graphically
involve citizens in decision making. I'm interested, Parker, how at Cargill and in some of your previous
work in the phosphate industry, you have used some of these new technologies to develop some very
innovative solutions, including the Life-of-Mine planning. How does that work?
Parker: At Cargill, we've used several different GIS systems to characterize existing land forms and
ecosystem functions and to determine what the overall condition of the environment is before we begin a
particular mining operation. In doing this, we work with local government as well as the state and federal
regulatory agencies. Later on, when we have concluded the mining operation, this GIS-assisted
information can serve as a tool for restoring ecosystems and the environment to the condition that existed
when we started. That is the goal of Life-of-Mine planning. In my earlier experience with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, this kind of holistic planning is something that the Corps tried to develop years ago
to move beyond looking at pieces of a basin one at a time to taking an entire watershed basin into account
but was not successful then because we lacked the GIS tools we have today.
Larry: Charlie, you are on the other side of that issue on the local government level. Do you have
comments to add?
Charlie: I agree that GIS systems are very valuable tools. They can help us fix images in time. We all
have a penchant for trying to see snapshots in our own lives and in public matters. It is really impossible
for us to perceive geologic time. It is also often difficult for us to keep biological time in perspective to
watch that tree in the backyard grow, for instance. Environmental change is also difficult to see, and GIS
systems can help us see it. They can help us measure changes that are incremental in achieving a vision
for our watershed. A GIS system can help policy makers capture a vision and communicate it to the
public, and it can help measure our incremental successes along the way to achieving that vision. It's a
good interpretive tool.
Larry: The issue of time is very interesting and very critical. A key question in my mind is how do we
reconcile the powerful tension between our short-term American society and the inherently long-term
perspective needed for decision making with respect to natural resources and watershed planning. We
have governments that think in terms of two-, four-, and six-year elections. We have corporations that
think in one- to three-year planning increments. Wall Street thinks in terms of three-month financial
reporting increments. Charlene, I'm interested in the tribes' notion of historical perspective and context,
and the circles that you mentioned. How can we begin to reconcile the multi-year aspect of watershed
planning with the short-term time frames that most of us face in our decision-making?
Charlene: One thing that we need to agree upon is that we have a common goal. To achieve that goal, we
need to have indicators. Some of these can be natural resource indicators such as salmon and shellfish.
Another indicator is human health. We need to have the common goal of protecting human health, but
also realize that human health itself is connected to the watershed. Within the watershed, we have wildlife
and a diversity of natural resources. I think the most important thing is that we have a foundation, which
links us to the past. From that foundation, we can determine how far we have come, and possibly
determine the mistakes that we have made. For future generations, I think one of the indicators is the

-------
ethic of each individual. We need to be aware of what impacts our actions will have on future
generations.
Trudy: I would like to tie a few thoughts together, on the theme of time. When taking a watershed
approach one really shouldn't think about how long a particular governor will be around or in terms of
immediate political issues. That is why, in creating a vision for the future of a watershed, the larger the
base of people who participate in creating that vision, the better the results. We were talking about
technology: I was really struck when one of the classrooms doing work on the Neponset River watershed
gave me a lesson on how they were using global-positioning technology and equipment to be exactly
precise in locating every single stormdrain that drains to the Neponset. The goal is for those kids to come
back 20 years from now to see if those stormdrains are still around.
If we don 7 reach out to the whole variety ofpeople who live in a watershed, if we don 7 elicit their ideas
on what the watershed should look and feel like for their children, then I think we miss the point. That
process of vision creation involving as large a group ofpeople as possible is very important to the
watershed approach. And reaching out to school kids, who are going to be around much longer than we
are, is even more important.
Charlie: I would like to add an observation. As we set a vision for a watershed, a leader's role is to keep
the vision alive, and to keep it moving ahead. Perhaps as scientists and policy advisors, we can highlight
measurable results that fit the vision so that everyone can see these incremental results as they happen.
So we need not always ask, when will the park all 10,000 acres of it be finished? We can ask, for example,
when will the first trail be opened? In saying this, I am thinking of questions that I am often asked, and
I'm not always comfortable saying, well, that it won't be finished in our lifetime.
Larry: Rita Mae Brown, a very smart lady, once said that a good definition of insanity is doing the same
old things in the same old ways and expecting different results. Trudy, I was reminded of Rita Mae Brown
when you were talking about restructuring government. In your position as Secretary, you have executive
fiat in some cases, but very often, it is difficult to get existing fiefdoms in government to suddenly broaden
their way of doing things andfocus on a cross-jurisdictional issue like watershed management. Can you
tell us a little more about how that is working in Massachusetts?
Trudy: I came into the job of Secretary of Environmental Affairs three years ago and thought it would be
an easy thing to get people to work together, given that all five state agencies I work with have
environmental protection as their mission, and all of the professionals in all five departments are
dedicated to making the environment of Massachusetts better. I have great regardfor every one of them.
Little did I know that it was going to be so hard to get the Fish and Wildlife people to join forces with
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), and the DEP people to join forces with the Department
of Environmental Management. It has been an ongoing challenge to move that process forward.
Fortunately, many of the agencies are planted with people who think in terms of better and newer ways of
doing things, and I have relied a great deal on those people. These are people who demonstrate with
sheer will and enthusiasm the needfor all of us in state government to come together to protect the
watershed. We cannot do the job working independently from one another.

-------
One of the points I try to hammer home is that if we can't overcome differences between sister state
agencies to develop a better rapport among people who share a basic mission, how can we possibly hope
to develop rapport with people who have missions that are different from ours? It does take time to
change institutional culture, and this is an ongoing process. One of the forces that have helped bring state
agency people together is the watershed associations; these people push us to coordinate our efforts. The
bottom line, I think, is trust. Who are our friends on watershed issues inside and outside of state
government? Is watershed management a lasting project? Is the governor really committed to it? The
process is one of building trust, and it doesn't happen overnight.
Parker: I appreciate all of Trudy's comments because in Florida we have embarked on a system of
ecosystem management. This approach has allowed us to do some things that would not otherwise have
been possible. In our Life-of-Mine permitting system, this means going beyond just water quality issues to
preserving an entire ecosystem base. This might include, for example, saving wildlife habitat in second-
order stream systems. As part of our permitting plans, we are preserving key component areas, which can
include not just wetlands, but associated uplands and native range systems, which can be very important
in Florida. We have seen the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the water management
districts, and the Corps of Engineers all working in unison, and it's been very refreshing.
Trudy: I think there is another issue. That is that all of us in state governments whether in Massachusetts
or California or any other state are under the gun more than every before to be accountable to the
taxpayer. People expect us to spend their money well. One thing that state officials can do is build
budgets around watershed areas. We can use budget issues to pull people on board.
Suzie: As we are trying both to protect our resources and conserve our tax dollars while working
collaboratively with the people who need to be involved in the decision making process let's also try to
coordinate our efforts in terms of technology and data. We were talking earlier about GIS mapping
systems. Let's try to make sure that the various levels of government are all working with the same maps
and the same data sets, so that everyone is making decisions on the same playing field.
Larry: I would like to close the panel by invoking Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said, "To live fully is to be
engaged in the passions of one's time." I can say without reservation that our panelists are a group of
men and women who have lived life fully. They have been truly engaged in making a difference in the one
really new issue of our generation: environmental quality.

-------
related to the purpose or theme of the meeting. Typically, three questions are used for an exercise. It is
important that these questions be carefully framed before the exercise.
Other pre-exercise activities include preparing a response sheet for recording answers (with a designated
answer block for each question), preparing a moderator's script and visual aids for exercise presentation,
and visiting the meeting site.
Two set-up tasks are required on the day of the exercise. First, banks of flip charts on stands are set up,
with one bank of charts dedicated to each of the selected questions. Each bank is usually three or more
charts wide and forms a "wall" of paper. The "walls" are put in separate locations in the meeting room or
in a nearby room. Several marking pens and a collection box (for completed response sheets) are placed
at each "wall." Second, if prepared in advance, response sheets are distributed to exercise participants. It
may also be necessary to provide pens or pencils and a writing surface (book, pad of paper, etc.).
Exercise Step 1 Questions and Responses. A moderator introduces the exercise, explaining its purpose
and the procedure to be followed. The moderator explains the first question and then allows participants
three minutes to write all of their responses in the first block of the response sheet. This question-and-
response format will be repeated for the remaining questions.
Exercise Step 2 Most Important Responses. The moderator provides participants with a final three
minutes to individually review their responses and to select and mark (by circling or checking) their
"most important" response to each question.
Exercise Step 3 Wall Walk. Participants visit each of the flip chart "walls" of paper to display their "most
important" responses. Each "wall" should be attended by an assistant to help participants, to move
completed sheets of paper to nearby walls, and to summarize responses. When all of the participants have
displayed their "most important" responses, the moderator visits each "wall," reviews the responses with
the assistant, and notes a few key points that summarize the results.
Exercise Step 4 Summary. When the participants have reassembled, the moderator presents the summary
of the responses to each of the questions. Participants may wish to discuss the results.
Post-Exercise Analysis. Further analysis after the exercise can range from simply reading the response
sheets to be fully informed about participants' ideas, to key word and content analyses of the responses.
(The summary responses from the Watershed '96 exercise have been put to use by several organizations
that helped sponsor the conference.)
Time:
The four exercise steps that are conducted during the meeting can be completed in about 45 to 90
minutes.

-------
Materials and Room:
Materials needed to conduct a large group response exercise usually include: flip charts (pads of paper
and stands), markers, tape (or pins), response sheets, pens or pencils, and signs. Other materials can be
used to fit special exercise needs. The exercise meeting room should have writing surfaces (tables, or
participants' pads, books, etc.), wall space suitable for the display of completed flip chart pages, and
adequate space for circulation during the wall walk.
Benefits:
The large group response technique is:
¦	Quick. Full participation by a large group can be completed and results are known in about one
hour.
¦	Inexpensive. Costs can be limited to flip charts and work sheets; expenses for separate break-out
rooms and small group facilitators and recorders are minimized or eliminated.
¦	Easy. The steps are straightforward; equipment and materials are familiar, readily available, and
not readily flawed.
¦	Documented. Results are immediately self-recorded on response sheets, flip chart pages, and
summary notes.
Need more information?
For more detailed information, please contact:
Ken Orth
Institute for Water Resources
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
7701 Telegraph Road
Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3868
Phone: 703-428-6054; Fax: 703-428-8171
kenneth. orth@inet.hq.usace. army .mil

-------
Cuyahoga River to the bridge trestle where the river had burned. What I saw before my eyes was really
extraordinary. I saw a river reborn. I saw businesses, restaurants, walks along the river. I saw fishing
boats coming up the river, and as we came to this spot where the river had burned, a blue heron flew
down out of the sky, looking for its breakfast in that river. And I subsequently went out to Lake Erie, and
I saw a lake pronounced dead in the 1960s reborn. I began listening to the people in that community
explaining how it had happened. And then I began to see something that I really had not understood or
appreciated at all. I began to see that as the waters were restored, the waters were restoring the
community, that Cleveland was again moving back to the waterfront that it had abandoned at the
beginning of the Industrial Revolution, that the public places were being re-created, and that the
community was being drawn together as the waters were restored. As I progressed up the Cuyahoga
River, I met citizen groups who explained to me, it's not enough just to clean up Lake Erie, and it's not
enough to have an effort at the mouth of the Cuyahoga River. This is a watershed.
And I began progressing, in subsequent visits, up the Cuyahoga River and out on the land, where I heard
citizens saying to me: This is not just about Lake Erie; it's not just the Cuyahoga River. It's about all of
the waters and all of the land; it's about how we as citizens live on that landscape and how it is we relate
to the watershed. Well, with that in mind, I began looking, as I traveled down the Jersey shore, as I made
my way through the communities of the Hudson River Troy, Peekskill, Poughkeepsie everywhere I
turned, what I saw was not federal or state officials, but communities who were taking and integrating
federal and local resources and using these laws to their own ends to restore their watershed and their
communities.
Now, I'll admit to you I also had some light-hearted moments on the way. By the purest of coincidences,
I decided to spend a day on the Chatahoochee River, which coincidentally runs through the district,
outside Atlanta, of the Speaker of the House of Representatives. We got out there one summer day with a
flotilla of canoes, and a whole lot of citizens and every media outlet in greater Atlanta. It turns out that
the Chatahoochee in that area is a national recreation area. And we posed the question: Is there anyone
who believes we ought to gut the Clean Water Act? And is there anyone who believes that in the United
States of America we have too many national parks. Well, I have to tell you, by the time that day was
over, a powerful message had been sent to Washington. The Speaker of the House stepped forward and
pulled the Park Closure Bill from the calendar of the House. It's not been seen since.
Now that's the point at which I started to see the connection; I started to understand that this grass roots
revolution that's taking place hadn't quite been heard in Washington. I came away from that summer
confident that things are now moving in the right direction because once the voice of your community
makes its way back, there isn't any question about the outcome of this process. Now, I've seen this
happening in a lot of other places. Is there somebody here from Columbus, Ohio? We spent an
extraordinary day out on the Little Darby Watershed watching a community taking charge of that
watershed. I was in Seattle last fall in a place called Piper Creek, where a community in this case a
neighborhood had gone out and looked at Piper Creek, and a couple of schoolteachers had gotten a bunch
of school kids out there, and they said: We're going to clean this creek up, and we're going to get salmon
back spawning in this river. They went out, and first of all found out that the water treatment plant was
leaking and that they had to go after the city to clean up the water treatment plant, and then did habitat

-------
restoration along the creek. Then, in a profound act of optimism, the high school kids planted some
salmon. And I was there three years later as the first salmon out of that creek had made their journey out
to tide water circulating through the Pacific and coming back home. You all know the examples.
What I want to say to you in conclusion is this: The next chapter in conservation history is going to be
written in watersheds by communities for a couple of important reasons. The first one is, as you all
understand, there is no other way to relate to the land we live on. The water that we drink and that is in
our communities is an exact reflection of what is happening on every square acre of land in the entire
watershed, from the mouth of that river to the reaches of every single tributary. Every other program,
every other approach is, by definition, piecemeal. The one integrating possibility that we now come to is
relating to the whole, and we need to understand and, when I say we I mean us in Washington that that
brings forth a profoundly different set of relationships because watersheds in their complexity, in their
diversity, their incredible balance, cannot be managed from 3,000 miles away by any organization, no
matter how well-intentioned. We also have to understand that the environmental laws passed one at a
time over the last 20 years have been effective. We've won a lot of the big victories, but what we find
with single-track administration of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act, the Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Land Management
Act, is a simple reality and that is that the easy victories, that can be done by remote control, have in
large measure been addressed. Now we're talking about complexity; we're talking about how those laws
interrelate to each other. We're talking about how we change attitudes. We're talking about a culture
being changed in a way that will permit thoughtful land management, that will move communities to see
the entire landscape and understand that it can't all be done from Washington. It can't all be done by
administrators with a different set of laws; ultimately, some one has to bring them together and transform
them from statute books into attitudes in the hearts and minds of communities. That is the next
generation as surely as John Muir set off one generation of land protection, as surely as Rachel Carson
set off another generation that led to the EPA's [charter] set of issues.
This time we've come full circle, right back where we started to communities on the land who see it
whole and who are willing to take the initiative, take these laws and say to all of us: You're not the
solution in Washington; you have potential to empower us and help us. I believe that feeling is now out
there across this landscape, ready to take off. That's why I'm here: because I believe we are ready to take
off, that you are present at the creation and that you together can revolutionize the landscape and the
communities that must and always will be on the landscape.
Thank you very much.

-------
The process is very collaborative. I started "Ocean Planet" with a large conference and then a series of
workshops to try to frame the issues. We then move from a list of issues to space allocation. For
example, we take a room this size and say, OK, how much of this space do we want to devote to science
underlying ocean conservation? How much to anthropological issues? How much to environmental
issues?
Once we come up with a space allocation, then comes the fun part, which is working with designers, lots
of different kinds of contractors, lots of creative thinkers to decide on the best medium for conveying
each type of message. We develop a model and we walk tiny model people through it to see what it's
going to be like. We conduct a global scavenger hunt for information, for objects, and for photos to
illustrate all the issues we're trying to present.
In the rainforest exhibition, for example, we wanted to explore all of the difficult issues that are causing
deforestation and spent a long time deciding how to get people to want to spend their leisure time looking
at the ways forests are destroyed. We ended up with something that looks like a pop art gallery of lots of
different types of sculptures. The Brahma bull symbolizes cattle ranching, which is a huge problem for
forests throughout the New World tropics. We decided we wanted a life-size model of a Brahma bull. I
delegated this task to my assistant, Elliot, who was brand new on the job. So Elliot consulted the yellow
pages we've accumulated all the yellow pages for all the major U.S. metropolitan areas for just this sort
of work and first called the American Cattleman's Association, which referred him to the Brahma
Growers' Association of Texas. Maybe it was Elliot's beginner's luck, but the guy who picked up the
phone at the Brahma Growers' Association of Texas had just ordered five Brahma bull models the day
before from a guy who lives outside of Paris, Texas, and makes life-sized Brahma bulls for a living. His
name is Burt Holster, and he was very happy to make a special order Brahma for us, which is very
beautifully painted. This is a case where the scavenger hunt went very well.
Sometimes the hunt goes awry. In this same rain forest exhibition, we wanted to have an army-ant swarm
to illustrate the interactions between animals in a forest the intricacy of those interactions. My own
research background happens to be on ant birds that associate near ant swarms. What happens is this: The
ants, as they move along the forest floor in wide columns, flush out all the insects, and birds hang out
above them, making a living by following the ants around and eating the insects that are flushed. So we
planned this great diorama with a taxidermic bird and with ants. We rounded up some hundred of ants
from Harvard, where they had spent 35 years in formalin. The formalin had caused them all to seize up
so that they looked like little balls of legs. The problem was how to unfold these ants and get their legs
glued to the bottom of the diorama. We tried several "relaxing solutions" recommended by our
taxidermist, and none of them worked. At that point, we were beginning to panic because we already had
a lot invested and this particular exhibit had a space allocation. There was no choice; the ants had to be
pinned by hand. It takes 13 pins to pin one ant. You need two pins crosswise on each of their six legs and
then one through the body. We tried enlisting the help of volunteers for this highly specialized task, but
that didn't work out. It turned out that I was the only one who could pin an ant in under a minute, and I
ended up pinning all 300 ants, which I hope you'll see if you go to the exhibition. I pinned each of their
six legs and then used superglue to put them on. (This falls in the "other duties as assigned" category.) I

-------
learned a lesson on that one not to get too tied to a concept before you work through the logistic details
of actualizing it. As I said earlier, every object in an exhibition has its own story.
In fact, any exhibition and any mode of public education is really a form of storytelling. One of the
hardest parts of exhibition work is figuring out how to boil down, let's say, 10 years of research into
something that people can read about in seconds or minutes. We know that people do not spend much
time on any single label, so we try to limit label narratives to about 50 words. Basically, exhibit labels
tell extremely short stories about a piece of research or a particular fact. One key is figuring out how to
space the labels. You can't ever expect anybody to read everything in an exhibition, but you want enough
stories to jump out so that there's something for everyone.
We also use lots of different types of media in order to attract interest. Basically, we do anything we can
do to slow people down as they go through an exhibition. One of the ways that we communicate is
through photographs. We also create interactive exhibits. One of my favorite interactive exhibits was in
"Ocean Planet." It consists of a case with products from a grocery store in it; people were invited to scan
the bar codes on the products, and the computer screen on the top would show what products inside these
packaged foods were from the oceans. My favorite example is the alginates in beer that help keep the
foam from collapsing on contact with lipstick or detergent. In fact, almost anything you can find on a
grocery store shelf has some form of alginate, carrageenan, or beta carotene, and this particular exhibit
makes that point.
One of our goals in the "Ocean Planet" exhibit was to educate people about watershed preservation. To
evaluate the impact made by the exhibition, we did surveys before people entered, and when they exited.
We also followed people around with stopwatches to see what they did when they were in the exhibition,
so that we could get a feel for how much time they were spending where, what caused them to go from
one exhibit to another, and which exhibits they paid the most attention to. We also checked to see if time
spent at an exhibit had any correlation to what people remembered at the end of the show. Significantly,
the exhibition reduced by a third the number of people who thought oceans didn't affect their lives. Most
of the people we talked to as they entered felt that oceans affected their lives in one way or another. But
the exhibition made a huge difference among those who did not go in feeling that way; many of them
walked out feeling, yes, oceans do affect my life after all.
I was also greatly heartened in that the exhibition more than doubled the percentage of visitors who felt
that ocean problems are the consequence of human actions. On entrance, many people would say, oh, the
problem is mainly oil spills; it's other types of huge pollution problems. After the exhibition, they were
saying, well, the problem has a lot to do with human activities; it has to do with the way things are
regulated. They left looking at oceans from a more holistic viewpoint looking at a number of different
issues feeding into ocean problems, not just pollution incidents or just overfishing. We nearly doubled
the percentage of the audience who felt that they could help the oceans by changing their own
consumption patterns. People came up with their own wording on this, but they really did target their
consumption patterns and what they do at home. I think that bodes well for at least the household
hazardous waste component of polluted runoff and for people's relating their personal lives to
watersheds.

-------
The basis of all our public outreach work on environmental issues is as I said at the beginning strong
research and good information, the advice and review that experts like yourselves provide. This
conference is looking at how to get different sectors to work together more effectively and come up with
a more holistic view of watersheds. That process is definitely going to require public participation. I
think that exhibits like "Ocean Planet" and the various kinds of outreach efforts that you are involved
with are showing that we can make a difference in public attitudes. Two million people came through the
"Ocean Plant" show, and 33 percent walked out thinking that they could change their consumption
patterns and help the oceans. That's a huge number of people. There are lots of ways to get the word out.
I hope you'll all consider working with local museums and zoos and aquariums and nature centers and
any other outlet you have because the information that they give out to the public is only as good as the
information that they get.
Thank You.

-------
The Clinton Administration is making sure that states and communities have the resources they need to
keep raw sewage out of rivers and off beaches. For the first time ever, President Clinton has proposed a
revolving loan fund to help communities protect and upgrade their drinking water supplies. And, we are
enforcing tough standards to keep toxic pollution out of our waters.
With the President's leadership, we expanded the public's right to know about toxic chemicals in their
communities. We have nearly doubled the number of chemicals that industry must report to the public.
This week, EPA released to the public a National Listing of Fish Consumption Advisories showing that
in too many communities, contamination means that people are still advised not to eat the fish from their
local river, their local lake.
This week, EPA is also releasing a comprehensive report that, for the first time, gives us a set of
environmental measures a baseline showing that we are making progress in improving water quality but
we still face many challenges.
Across this country watershed by watershed communities are coming together to meet those challenges.
At today's conference, we are hearing the good news about what can happen when people come together
to protect their watershed to protect their health, the places where they work and play and live industry,
government, citizens joining together to find the solutions that make sense for their watershed, their
community.
There is no doubt in my mind that an informed, involved local community can do a better job of
environmental protection than some distant bureaucracy. You here at this conference are the advocates,
the leaders, in protecting water quality in communities across this country. And community by
community, we are seeing results.
In the San Francisco Bay Delta, we ended 30 years of water wars, by recognizing that the competing
demands for scarce resources had to be solved not through continued confrontation but by building
consensus. Farmers, families, and fishermen all have a right to water. People joined together, and now all
will have the water they need.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Initiative will restore the health and the economy of the Great Lakes, by
removing toxic chemicals from the lakes, protecting a drinking water supply that serves 23 million
people, protecting wildlife, fish, and people who eat fish, in accordance with the latest and soundest
scientific findings. All because the people of the Great Lakes region some of whom are with us today
joined together, with the help of the federal government, to protect their health, their environment, their
economy.
The Clinton Administration's Everglades Restoration Plan aims to ensure that future development in
South Florida will be integrated with the preservation of natural areas. Through this plan, we can meet
the needs of farmers, the needs of urban areas, the needs of the natural system and we can save the heart

-------
of the Everglades the heart will once again pulse with water.
All of this environmental progress has been achieved, by all of us working together, despite the fact that
during the past two years we have experienced the most severe Congressional assault on environmental
protection in decades.
In the battle over the budget, in the battle over the Clean Water Act and other environmental laws,
President Clinton stood firm for public health and environmental protection. As a result of the President's
leadership, vital protections are in place and will remain in place.
But the price of a clean, safe environment is that we must always be vigilant. The responsibility will
always be ours to protect our health, our natural resources, our children's future. The job is not done.
• One American in three still lives in an area where the air is too polluted to meet federal health
standards.
• One American in four still lives near a toxic waste dump.
• Forty percent of rivers, lakes, and streams surveyed by the states are still not suitable for fishing
or swimming.
President Clinton has called on all Americans to come together, to restore the bipartisan commitment to
the environment that served this nation so well for the past generation.
I ask you to take what you learn at this conference back to your communities. Use it to strengthen your
efforts as advocates and as leaders, to achieve for your community what every community deserves safe,
clean water for all.
Let us join together community by community, watershed by watershed to protect our health, our
economy, and our communities so all of us and our children and our grandchildren can enjoy a healthy
and a prosperous life.
Thank you.

-------
most reasonable protection of our nation's waters. I have been privileged to serve in a leadership capacity
to make the New York City Watershed Program a model for the nation. I'm well aware of the challenges
that watershed management poses to all involved, but with thoughtful dialogue with people talking to
each other and a commitment to improving water quality and the assignment of appropriate resources, we
can make watershed management work across the country.
What is the future of national water quality protection legislation? Clean water legislation will have an
increasing focus on watershed management no question about it and on the use of incentives to address
nonpoint source pollution. Many in the agriculture community have been leery of legislative efforts to
control nonpoint-source pollution. However, as we've seen in the New York City watershed, when we
work with farmers on a partnership basis, we can make enormous progress. The use of incentive-based
approaches is already taking shape in the 1996 Farm Bill. During consideration of this legislation, I
offered an amendment providing $2.7 billion for conservation programs whose primary focus is water
quality improvement programs such as the Wetlands Reserve Program, the Conservation Reserve
Program, and the Livestock and Environmental Assistance Program, which have an enormous impact on
improving of our nation's lakes and rivers.
Passage of Clean Water Act legislation in the closing days of the 104th Congress seems unlikely. As you
may recall, we had a big battle last year. The House passed a bill; I didn't think it was a good bill. I didn't
vote for it, and 185 of my colleagues also rejected it. As a result, in the Senate, Senator Chafee and others
have been very wary of moving forward with a bill that did not start out as a good bill. I'd like to think
that between now and the end of this session we can get something passed in the name of clean water,
but I'm afraid that looks highly unlikely right now. However, it's going to have a high priority in the next
session.
Would you comment on regulatory versus voluntary approaches to water quality protection and how
those approaches are impacted or supported by the federal government?
Much of the remaining work needed to make our waters fishable and swimmable will involve individual
landowners, and the top-down, command-and-control approaches used in the past will not work in this
setting. Instead, farmers and other stewards of the land should be provided with technical assistance and
the resources needed to meet our water quality objectives.
Would you comment on balancing the rights of communities and states with the need to work across
political boundaries for water quality protection?
A good question. The original Clean Water Act was drafted largely in response to the degradation of our
lakes and streams by upstream polluters, often from other states. The reality is: We all live downstream,
and federal standards are critical to protecting all of our interests. Better coordination of water protection
efforts across political boundaries is important. Again, watershed management approaches provide the
best vehicle to coordinate clean water protection efforts.

-------
Would you comment on the two large watersheds in New York seeking filtration avoidance specifically
on the issue of how to protect water supplies in one region that are delivered to consumers in another
region? The New York City drinking water system consists of reservoirs and delivery systems on both
the east and west sides of the Hudson River. I happen to have the distinction of representing the largest
portion of the 2,000-square-mile watershed. The key to protecting water in one region for consumption in
another is to educate interests in both regions on the issues and concerns surrounding overall water
protection efforts. In other words, people have to know that they're all in it together.
In New York state, there are long-standing suspicions between upstate and New York City. It's like two
different worlds or at least it was until we got together and starting talking things through. Only through
exhaustive meetings and many of them exhausted me were the representatives of New York City and the
upstate watershed area able to reach consensus on how to most effectively protect water quality.
Innovative approaches to water quality protection, such as whole farm planning, were developed through
discussions between scientists, planners, and farmers and affected residents. Large metropolitan interests
such as New York City must be willing to put real resources into watershed management. The equation
for New York City was simple: Either spend $6 to 8 billion to construct to construct drinking water
filtration facilities and another $300 million a year on operation and maintenance, or spend a few
hundred million dollars in upstate New York to assist farmers and small communities in controlling
water pollution. Now that was not a tough choice to make. New York City made the obvious choice, and
all parties are better off because of it. The upstate people are happy; the city people are happy; and
everybody gets a bargain in the process. Not a bad deal.
We've got something very special in America. There are very few places in the world where you can just
go and get a glass of water from the tap when you're thirsty and drink it and know it's safe for human
consumption. You can do that just about everywhere in the United States. We've got magnificent lakes,
magnificent shorelines, rivers, and streams. We've got an obligation to protect them. We didn't inherit the
Earth from our ancestors; we're borrowing it from our children. We have an atonement to make of our
stewardship. But by working together, we can leave our children something that we can all be proud of.
Thank you very much.

-------
solving problems? Healthy ecosystems?
Watershed planning helps us do resource management. But I'd suggest that it is also developing new
skills and new forums to use civic dialogue and to develop informed public judgment as we create our
common future.
We are a watershed-based people. Always have been. Early people gathered at rivers, streams, and
shorelines. Water was food, navigation, commerce, and culture. Families, clans, and tribes came together
to build nations.
African tribes took river names. Chinese settled in drainages. In Europe, watersheds and bioregions
evolved into nation-states. In China over 1,000 years ago a rice paddy farmer could veto upland logging,
not because he owned the land, but because society understood sediment could destroy downstream
farms and food. Individual rights were limited for larger community well being. In medieval Spain, a
family could live only as far from the central community well as a woman could carry a jug of the day's
water from the well on her head. This may have been the first boundary of an urban growth area. In my
watershed in the Northwest, coastal tribes have a saying that "every River has its People."
We all live in a geographic place, a landscape, a watershed, the place where we are really home. Each
watershed is a unique life place, a bioregion. The soils are nowhere else on Earth. A unique
hydrogeology, the landscape, the history, the customs, worldview, relationships, and connections. Not
just mountains but Mt. Rainier. Not just a river but the Hudson or the Sacramento River. Not just an inlet
but our bay. Each watershed has a unique sense of place and community.
In the 1880s, John Wesley Powell saw the power of watersheds and recommended to the President that
the West should be governed by watershed. In the 1920s and 30s, water was important to commerce as
streams were channeled and dredged and mountain tops were leveled to make room for railroads. Water
rights were issued to farmers to ensure food for a country hungry with growing immigration. In the 1940s
and 50s, large engineering projects dammed and channeled rivers. Water was the "solution to pollution,"
the solvent, the unlimited cheap resource. Voluntary landowner action was stressed.
In the 1960s and 70s, society began to get feedback that we should no longer take water for granted.
Rivers in the East caught fire; shellfish beds in the West were closed; swimming holes across the country
were at risk. As Sputnik reawakened our interest in science, citizens across the country came together
and turned to agencies, then filled with scientists and lawyers, and demanded "Clean Water Now."
In the 1970s, the early days of the environmental efforts, it was easy to identify, monitor, and regulate
smoke stack industry or pollution that came from pipes, using centralized regulations and top-down
authority. Scientific based agencies developed massive regulatory approaches committed to continuing
technological and industrial innovation and stressed best management practices.
Now, we face much more complex, interwoven problems. Nonpoint pollution and watershed planning

-------
are different. Nonpoint pollution comes from people in our everyday activities: gardening, boating,
expanding the family summer cottage, changing oil, removing vegetation, expanding cities, wasting
water.
In early watershed-estuary programs in the 1980s, such as Puget Sound or Chesapeake, we modeled new
demonstrations for on-farm research. People who shared a landscape but had never met or worked
together were convened to inventory and prioritize watersheds. All affected parties were invited to come
together. People have the right to be involved in issues that affect their lives. Indeed, this is a central
tenet of democratic governance. Consensus was encouraged, certainly not because it saved time, but to
ensure that diverse voices were heard, to comfort rural landowners that they would not be outvoted by
urban majorities, and to validate real concerns and force the parties to work together to develop new
creative, win-win solutions that addressed everyone's legitimate needs.
Watersheds have taught us a lot in the last decade.
We all live downstream. At a time when Americans are pulled apart by the centrifugal force of the
economy, globalization, isolation, and individual rights, watersheds restore balance by reminding us that
we are all connected to place, to community, to our common future.
Water makes us neighbors. People understand quickly that we live in and share a natural system of air,
lands, and water. Too often at a national or global level, our mind boggles and we feel hopeless. At a
watershed level we can connect, put on our boots, and make a difference, and feel empowered.
Water is not a science issue; it is socio-political. Yes, we all want and need good science, but it is not
enough. The challenge is to reconnect people who hold different values and restore civility. To
depersonalize our conflicts, to create options for mutual gain, to each be a keeper of the other's dignity, to
have open, conflicting discussions about experiences and values including pride, self-reliance,
intergenerational equity, and yes, even fear.
Water issues are more complex than we thought and perhaps more complex than we can think. Future
solutions will require innovation and experimentation. The oscillation of the public process will be less
extreme, less polarized, and more moderate if we focus on communication and adaptive management
rather than rights and litigation. It will require and is demonstrating a grassroots revolution.
Today, watershed planning may be as much about strengthening local communities and democracy as it
is about resource management. The central idea of community politics is that in public life ordinary
people can learn new skills, develop the power to take leadership, and solve local priority problems.
Watershed planning:
•	Creates common space where adversaries can become neighbors.
•	Frames issues in public terms where we can all find ourselves.

-------
• Encourages deliberations and hard choices rather than polarization and sound bites.
• Creates commitment and support for action.
It is clear that issues that affect everyone can no longer be left to the few. We now know that complex
issues require diverse input. We understand that we are moving to adaptive management; we know it is
dysfunctional to continue isolated agency programs that separate wetlands from groundwater, toxics
from lakes, and air from water. These approaches need to be integrated, and the community holds the
silver thread that can quilt and weave them together.
We must stop convening negotiation tables that stereotype stakeholders by labeling three farmers, two
elected officials, one environmentalist, and a business leader. Rather, we need new forums and processes
that challenge people to synthesize their interests, see holistic views of local issues, and represent the
larger community well being.
Watershed planning is pioneering new models of civic entrepreneurship and new ways to engage
adversaries in intentional dialog. It is much more than consensus and no less than democracy.
Water may be the one last, best chance we have to bring our American communities back together again.
As the writer Gary Snyder observed: "Of all the memberships by which we identify ourselves sex, race,
ethnic, national origin, class, age, or occupation the one that is most forgotten and that has the greatest
potential for healing is place. People who care for and commit to a landscape, even if otherwise locked in
struggle, have at least this deep thing to share."
If you live in a high crime area, you try to move away. If we have bad schools, we start private or home
schools. If we have bad air, we crank up the air-conditioning. Water the only thing we can not survive
without makes us all neighbors. We know we all live downstream.
Oh, yes, there are still challenges. Can we reduce consumption, resource use, our ecological footprint,
which is multiples of any other country? Can we accommodate growing urban and rural tensions? Can
agencies federal and state get beyond cutting staff and block granting funds to really "reinventing" their
approach? The federal government has a definite role in forging a national consensus on performance
standards so that a child has clean water no matter where she lives. The state should provide technical
assistance, data bases, neutral, third-party monitoring, and enforcement. But it is the locals who bring
their hearts and their energy, and deliver action and stewardship.
We need more poets and musicians and fewer scientists and lawyers. We need more potlucks, parties,
and dances and fewer environmental impacts statements. At times institutional barriers and bureaucratic
inertia seem far more difficult and impenetrable than forging local plans of action.
If we want dramatic changes, dramatic new action, then we must also be willing to pioneer and
experiment with new processes, structures, and governance forums congruent with our dreams.

-------
In conclusion, like previous watershed residents, we gather at rivers, streams, and shorelines. We
recognize that economy, ecology, and community well being are intrinsically linked, parts of the whole,
and can not be separated. We recognize that as we restore our streams, we restore our neighborhoods and
our faith in ourselves and each other. We can stop blaming, pointing fingers, and criticizing government
and start rolling up our sleeves and turning off the water faucet. We recognize that these are "talking"
issues, not a "taking."
Today, we gather at Watershed 96. We see diversity not as a problem but as our strength. We work
together in a multiplicity of partnerships. We affirm that every river has its people; that we are all
watershed-based people; that we all live downstream. We recognize that we no longer have the luxury of
seeing in terms of "us vs.them," but that it is only us, as watershed neighbors, working together, like
water gentle and strong. That is the promise that we bring together into the 21st century.
Thank you very much.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Achieving Results Community by Community: A National Satellite Video Conference
Wednesday, June 12, 1996
The Greenwich Bay Initiative:
A Watershed-Based Restoration Effort
Susan C. Adamowicz
Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management
Jonathan Stevens, Margaret Pilaro and Paula Jewell
Department of Planning, Warwick, Rhode Island
Greenwich Bay, an embayment of Narragansett Bay, encompasses roughly 1.3 square kilometers of the
most productive shellfish areas on the East Coast; this embayment has a history of being the state's most
active winter shellfish area, with an estimated annual economic worth of $4 to 6 million. Greenwich Bay
is home port to more than 2,500 recreational boats. Perhaps the most important aspect of Greenwich Bay
is the bond that residents have with it, whether through swimming, shellfishing, boating, or just enjoying
its aesthetic beauty. However, all of these benefits have attracted an increased density of year-round
homes, and pressures from this density have resulted in wetland destruction and wastewater management
concerns.
The Closure:
In December 1992, a severe Nor'Easter triggered an extended closure of Greenwich Bay due to
prolonged and elevated fecal coliform bacteria levels. The closure and related re-evaluation concerning
public health issues lasted 18 months, precipitating stunning economic losses to many of the state's full-
time shellfishermen.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Seeing a need to pool funds and use professional expertise with the utmost efficiency in response to the
crisis, a number of organizations came together in an informal coalition. Coalition members include both
private and public entities and represent federal, state, and local levels of government: the City of

-------
Warwick, the Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management (DEM)/Narragansett Bay
Estuary Program (NBEP), Save The Bay, the Natural Resource Conservation Service, and Rhode Island's
Shellfisherman's Association and Coastal Resource Management Council. Gradually, over a period of
months, the coalition shaped itself into the Greenwich Bay Initiative, a watershed-based effort which
crosses political boundaries and is administered by no single governmental body. The Greenwich Bay
Initiative has proven to be an innovative and successful watershed management program.
Attacking the Problem:
The City of Warwick helped establish the overall goals of the Greenwich Bay Initiative by drafting a
strategic plan (Stevens et al., 1994), which was reviewed and supported by all the primary stakeholders.
The plan identified restoring the bay's water quality as a primary goal and set a three-year timeline to
make major gains toward that goal. Other concerns highlighted in the plan included evaluating the bay's
nutrient enrichment status, restoring high-quality habitats, and amending zoning regulations to further
protect sensitive waters. From the beginning, it was clear that a cooperative, multi-agency effort would
be necessary to accomplish all these goals, and specific tasks were allocated to those groups that brought
the greatest expertise to the task.
A Watershed Detective Story:
The first comprehensive assessment of the bay came from a wet-weather/dry-weather study conducted
jointly by the state DEM's Division of Water Resources and the federal Food and Drug Administration.
This assessment identified streams and stormdrains with significant fecal bacterial loadings. However, all
measurements were taken at end-of-pipe locations or at stream mouths (U.S. Public Health Service,
1994). As a result, the Greenwich Bay Initiative knew which areas to focus on, but did not know exact
sources. Hardig Brook, for example, was found to contribute between 50 to 90 percent of all the fecal
coliform loadings, but the origins of those loadings were not known and finding them took significant
detective work.
The state DEM/Narragansett Bay Estuary Program targeted Hardig Brook for action and then co-wrote a
federal grant proposal with Dr. Ray Wright of the University of Rhode Island (URI) for performing a
highly focused study of the Hardig Brook watershed. The proposal was accepted by the U.S. EPA, and
the City of Warwick used the DEM agreement with the university to piggyback funds of $100,000 for
additional investigation in streams along the northern shore of Greenwich Bay.
As a result of an intensive wet-weather/dry-weather study, Dr. Wright's team was able to identify two
major sources of fecal coliform bacteria in Hardig Brook. A mill site had direct discharges from a
number of rest rooms that resulted in significant bacterial counts during dry weather. During storms,
however, even these figures were dwarfed by fecal inputs further up in the Hardig Brook watershed.
More extensive sampling revealed that runoff from a manure storage pile was making its way into a
feeder stream and ultimately into Hardig Brook. Dr. Wright's process of isolating potential sources
provided a rapid way of accounting for the most significant bacterial pollution entering Hardig Brook on
its way to Greenwich Bay. Unfortunately, Dr. Wright's work in the small streams along the north shore
was not as conclusive. Those streams had high fecal coliform counts throughout their length as they
flowed through high-density residential developments with septic system problems.

-------
Other Technical Assistance:
Most of the endeavors under the Greenwich Bay Initiative rely on a solid technical/scientific basis. For
example, the Natural Resource Conservation Service and the Southern Rhode Island Conservation
District are providing engineering and communications assistance for the farm runoff problem. For
advanced septic system needs, the URI's On-site Wastewater Training Center is evaluating and
promoting alternative septic system technologies for pathogen and nutrient removal. URI Sea Grant has
also provided oceanographic expertise to address remaining concerns about the bay's nutrient status,
bacterial input from a series of storm water discharges, the bay's currents and circulation as well as
management needs. The DEM/Narragansett Bay NEP carried out pilot eelgrass habitat restoration efforts
in Greenwich Bay coves as well as providing funding for the development of a shellfish management
plan.
Outreach:
Public outreach and education are key components of the Greenwich Bay Initiative. The Natural
Resource Conservation Service has focused on youth living in the watershed by providing teacher
training for a middle school watershed curriculum. At least two schools are making plans to expand the
curriculum across several grade levels. For older students, the DEM/ Narragansett Bay NEP funded a
classroom and shoreside program conducted by Save The Bay. Save The Bay also has a very active
volunteer habitat and water-quality monitoring program. URI's Coastal Resource Center is reaching out
to adults by providing a highly popular intensive training program for municipal board members and
other local decision makers.
Finances:
Securing funding for a wide range of protection and abatement activities has been very challenging. To
help with funding, the City of Warwick sponsored a $5 million local bond referendum geared toward bay
restoration. The R.I. DEM/Narragansett Bay NEP and Save The Bay sponsored a family-oriented "Bring
Back the Bay Day" to help get the word out to local residents. Save The Bay also ran a phone bank,
which proved critical in making voters aware of the bond. At the final count, voter turnout was twice as
large as expected, and nearly 70 percent were in favor of the bay bond.
One million dollars from the bond went to fund the Warwick Sewer Authority's On-site Rehabilitation
Program, which provides up to $4,000 to homeowners in a 40:60 grant/loan combination. An additional
$1.5 million was set aside for stormwater studies and remediation, and $2.5 million was earmarked for
extending sewers through a shoreline area with nearly 1,000 apartment and condominium units all of
which currently rely on inadequate septic systems.
The bond funds proved doubly helpful. Not only were they used to expand Dr. Wright's work, but they
have also been used as match for a variety of federal funds obtained through different coalition members
such as the DEM/Narragansett Bay Estuary Program, the DEM's Nonpoint Source Program, and URI/Sea
Grant.

-------
Watershed Benefits:
This case study has shown that a wide range of inter-related issues such as water quality, land use, habitat
protection, stormwater management and institutional concerns can be addressed using a watershed
approach. As an operational model, it can be used in other states or sub-watersheds.
The cooperative spirit of the Greenwich Bay Initiative has opened up opportunities for public/private
partnerships with a corresponding diversity of funding sources. By working together, stakeholders are
able to produce hard numbers to support and direct remediation actions with a greater degree of
efficiency and effectiveness.
References:
Stevens, Jonathan, William DePasquale, Jr., Michael Brusseau, Kristin Saccoccio (1994). City of
Warwick Strategic Plan for the Reclamation of Greenwich Bay. U.S. Public Health Service, Food and
Drug Administration (1994). Greenwich Bay, RI Shellfish Growing Area Survey and Classification
Considerations, April and June, 1993.

-------
In the spring of 1993, Milwaukee made headlines when heavy rains and excessively high spring runoff
contributed to a catastrophic outbreak of cryptosporidiosis from bacteria contamination of the city water
supply. More than 400,000 persons became ill; an estimated 100 died. In response to the 1993 crisis, the
Milwaukee Water Works Plant adopted new water quality standards far more stringent than state and
federal regulations. The utility put into place new operational methods and monitoring equipment, none
of which are required by law. Since then, indicators of water quality have surpassed state and federal
standards on a daily basis. There has not been a recurrence of waterborne disease in Milwaukee.
Ultimately, the best protection against water contamination crises such as the 1993 outbreak of
cryptosporidiosis is comprehensive watershed protection. In the Milwaukee River Basin, through a multi-
faceted watershed program, we are making exemplary progress in controlling runoff pollution; at the
same time, we are upgrading control of point-source pollution. In Wisconsin, the beginnings of a priority
watersheds program date back to 1978, when the concept of identifying and targeting major sources of
polluted runoff was introduced by the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) water
resources management program. At present, the priority watersheds program is going strong, working in
cooperation with many local units of government.
Citizen Involvement and Public Education:
Since 1985, citizen advisory groups have served as partners with the DNR in preparing plans and
implementing programs which stress cost-effective means for improving water quality. The DNR has
relied upon more than 350 people to play active roles on the ten committees formed to develop
management plans for the basin's six watersheds. The University of Wisconsin-Extension played a key
role in the early phases of the project. Today, their assistance in developing and implementing rural and
especially urban information and educational programs is indispensable.
A highlight of the basinwide education effort has been the ongoing Testing the Waters program. Since
1990, more than 15,000 students from 37 high schools have collected water quality information at 40
locations. Officials from many communities participate in an annual spring meeting where solutions to
pollution problems are discussed with the students.
Point Source Pollution Control:
All of the basin's sewage treatment plants either have been or are in the process of being upgraded to
meet at least secondary levels of treatment. In October 1994, the City of Milwaukee became the first
community in the Great Lakes area to be permitted under the municipal stormwater provisions of the
Clean Water Act. The city's management program under the permit includes following pollution
prevention measures, upgrading urban housekeeping practices, conducting monitoring, constructing best
management practices, and implementing a stormwater management education campaign.
The Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewerage District (MMSD) provides wastewater treatment for most of the
Milwaukee area. The highlight of the MMSD water pollution abatement program is the 17 miles of deep

-------
tunnel lying 300 feet beneath the Milwaukee, Menomonee, and Kinnickinnic Rivers. The tunnel can
store up to 400 million gallons of combined sewer overflow until it can be pumped to treatment plants.
Since early 1994, the tunnel system has kept 17 billion gallons of combined sewer overflow from
reaching the rivers and Lake Michigan.
Nonpoint Source Pollution Control:
The six watersheds in the Milwaukee River basin were designated as priority areas in 1984, under the
Wisconsin DNR's nonpoint source pollution abatement program. The planning process resulted in a
comprehensive evaluation of all rural and urban nonpoint pollution sources. More than 1,200 farms were
identified as contributing significant amounts of pollution to the wetlands, streams, lakes, and
groundwater. Runoff from about 150 square miles of existing and planned urban land uses was also
identified as a critical source of pollution in 30 of the basin's 37 communities.
A decade later, we have achieved unparalleled cooperation in controlling runoff pollution. Rural
nonpoint source pollution has been greatly reduced on nearly half of the problem areas identified at the
beginning of the project. This reduction has been achieved by preparing and following nutrient
management plans, constructing barnyard and manure management systems, and improving farming
practices. The DNR has contributed more than $6 million to provide local staff, technical assistance, and
cost sharing for design and installation of practices. Landowners have contributed about $2 million in
matching funds or in-kind contributions.
Participation in efforts to curtail urban runoff pollution has been equally strong. Twenty-seven of the
basin's 30 communities with land uses contributing significant runoff pollution problems are
participating. Nearly $10 million dollars has been invested by the DNR, and local government entities
have contributed an additional $3 million in matching funds.
Urban runoff controls have emphasized three areas: adopting and enforcing construction site erosion
control ordinances, conducting information and education programs, and implementing improvements in
urban housekeeping activities such as street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, and vehicle maintenance. In
developing areas, we are focusing on stormwater management planning and adoption of ordinances to
regulate water quality and quantity.
Stormwater management plans have been prepared for about one third of the urban area. An estimated
3,000 feet of streambank have been stabilized. Two dozen structural best management practices
including detention ponds, infiltration devices, multi-treatment tank systems, and artificial wetlands have
been constructed.
Habitat Restoration:
Aquatic habitat restoration efforts have focused on portions of streams impounded by the more than 50
dams in the basin. The DNR has worked with local units of government to identify opportunities for

-------
removing dams. Currently we have assisted in the removal of three dams. More than three river miles of
impounded water is now flowing free once again. Nearly 200 acres of new upland and wetland habitat
have been created. Water quality has improved dramatically, and native fish populations are returning.
Wetland and upland habitat restoration efforts have focused on integrating the priority watershed project
with federal conservation reserve and wetland restoration programs. In addition, we are cooperating with
a number of nonprofit organizations to provide grant funds to purchase land or conservation easements
along tributaries and in upland areas.
In-Place Pollutant Management:
Contaminated sediment has been a significant pollution source throughout the basin. In 1994, the DNR,
the City of Cedarburg, and an industry cooperated to remove approximately 9,000 cubic yards of
sediment highly contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from Cedar Creek. This major
tributary of the Milwaukee River was suspected of carrying PCBs downstream.
A PCB mass balance study and sediment mapping project are underway for the Milwaukee River.
Sediment contamination in downstream areas is being characterized and measured through development
of a geographic information system. This will be an important tool in selecting and implementing cost-
effective remediation solutions.
A Clean Water Future:
Efforts to restore the Milwaukee River Basin are continuing. The water quality in the basin is improving,
and this improvement is being recognized. Last year, the City of Milwaukee committed $10 million
dollars for further development of the downtown riverwalk along the Milwaukee River.
As mentioned earlier, the city of Milwaukee has been under a storm water permit since 1994. The newest
challenge facing managers in the basin will be the start of stormwater permitting in the greater
Milwaukee metropolitan area. Because of interconnecting municipal separate storm sewer systems and
upstream discharges into the greater Milwaukee River basin, we are concerned that some southeast
Wisconsin municipalities may be significant contributors to stormwater discharges. During August 1996,
the Wisconsin DNR, through a partnership process, began designating 21 southeastern Wisconsin
communities to participate in the municipal stormwater discharge permit program. Letters have been sent
to the mayors of these communities advising them of next steps toward implementing the program.

-------
hydroprojects were prohibited on 195 miles of the Henry's Fork and its tributaries. Recommendations in
the plan dealt with water quality, fish and wildlife protection, and irrigation water conservation.
As a means of implementing the recommendations and achieving long-term goals in the basin, an
innovative, consensus-building process was developed so that all parties with interests in the watershed
could be included in decision making. At least 25 federal, state, and local agencies were found to have
management or regulatory jurisdiction in the Henry's Fork Basin a situation that contributed to
fragmented planning and decision making. Lack of agency coordination was hindering progress in
addressing soil erosion, water delivery, and water quality problems, thereby worsening rather than
solving problems arising from the sector divisions in the basin. To turn this situation around, citizens and
agency representatives began, in 1993, to craft a new, nonadversarial approach to reconciling watershed
issues in the Henry's Fork Basin.
Over the winter of 1993-94, the Henry's Fork Watershed Council was organized and chartered by the
1994 Idaho legislature. The charter identifies four major duties for the Henry's Fork Watershed Council:
¦	Cooperate in resource studies and planning that transcend jurisdictional boundaries, still respecting
the mission, roles, and water and other rights of each entity.
¦	Review and critique proposed watershed projects and Basin Plan recommendations, suggesting
priorities for their implementation by appropriate agencies.
¦	Identify and coordinate funding sources for research, planning, and implementation, and long-term
monitoring programs, with financing derived from both public and private sectors.
¦	Serve as an educational resource to the state legislature and the general public, communicating the
council's progress through regular reports, media forums, and other presentations.
The council's mission statement was fashioned by consensus and reads as follows:
The Henry's Fork Watershed Council is a grassroots, community forum which uses a nonadversarial,
consensus-based approach to problem solving and conflict resolution among citizens, scientists, and
agencies with varied perspectives. The Council is taking the initiative to better appreciate the complex
watershed relationships in the Henry's Fork Basin, to restore and enhance watershed resources where
needed, and to maintain a sustainable watershed resource base for future generations. In addressing
social, economic, and environmental concerns in the basin, Council members will respectfully cooperate
and coordinate with one another and abide by federal, state, and local laws and regulations.
The Henry's Fork Watershed Council is comprised of citizens, scientists, and agency representatives who
reside, recreate, make a living, and/or have legal responsibilities in the basin, thus ensuring a
collaborative approach to resource decision making. The number of participants in the council is not
limited. Participating members are organized into three component groups:
¦	Citizens' Group: Members of the public with commodity, conservation, and/or community
development interests have an integral role in council affairs by being on equal footing with other

-------
participants. The citizens' group reviews agency proposals and plans for their relevance to local
needs and whether all interests are treated equitably.
¦ Technical Team: The team is composed of scientists and technicians from government, academia,
and the private sector. The team's role is to serve as resource specialists for the council,
coordinating and monitoring research projects, launching needed studies and reviewing any
ongoing work in the basin. Duplication of research is minimized through technical team guidance;
the results of research is to be integrated into council discussions.
¦ Agency Roundtable: The roundtable has representatives of all local, state, and federal entities with
rights or responsibilities in the basin, including the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes. The agencies are
working to align their policies and management to watershed resource concerns and needs.
Discussions seek to ensure close coordination and problem solving among agencies, as well as to
clarify legal mandates of each entity.
Two representative citizen organizations from the basin have been selected to co-facilitate the council
meetings: the Fremont-Madison Irrigation District and the Henry's Fork Foundation. This Facilitation
Team is chartered to attend to administrative and logistical needs of the council, coordinate its public
information activities, and submit an annual report of its progress to the legislature. The Henry's Fork
Watershed Fund has been established by the State of Idaho to help fund projects in the basin and to defray
administrative expenses of the council.
Information sharing is key to the work of the council. A Watershed Resource Center is being established
in a local community, in the heart of the basin, to provide a central library, database repository, and
working place for all those participating in the collaborative watershed program. The center will also
support the public's need for watershed information and serve as a focal point for council business. In the
meantime, information concerning the council and its progress may be obtained from either of the two co-
facilitating organizations:
Henry's Fork Foundation
Janice Brown, Executive Director
P.O. Box 61
Island Park, Idaho 83429
Phone: 288 558-9041
Fax: 288 558-9842
Fremont-Madison Irrigation District
Dale Swensen, Manager
P.O.Box 15
St. Anthony, Idaho 83445
Phone: 288 624-3381
Fax: 288 624-3998

-------
All of the land in the Seco Creek Project is privately owned. Landowners have voluntarily installed over
450 examples of about 60 BMPs. At least one conservation BMP is being applied in 76 percent of the
project area. In some cases, landowners are receiving cost-share assistance from cooperating agencies;
in other cases, only technical assistance is being provided.
Cropland practices now in place include nutrient management, integrated crop management, and crop
residue management. In addition, filter strips and crop residue management have increased water
infiltration and decreased runoff carrying sediments, pesticides, and nutrients. Filter strip areas with
good vegetative cover have reduced sediment production to less than 3 percent of that in adjacent fields
with a 30-percent residue cover. To help improve nutrient management, more than 500 soil analyses
have been conductedfree of charge. Soil moisture is being monitored; to ensure timely irrigation with
minimum waste of water, existing systems are being converted to more efficient, fine-tuned irrigation
technology such as surge flow and low-energy precision application. Nitrogen applications have
decreased by approximately 500,000 pounds in the project area. Runoff-related losses of nutrients and
pesticides from cropland have decreased by 27 percent, and leaching losses have decreased by an
estimated 40 percent.
Rangeland makes up about 83 percent of the land in the Seco Creek WQPD. For this reason, many of
our project activities are directly related to improving water quality in rangeland streams and promoting
aquifer recharge on rangelands. On roughly 80 percent of this rangeland, BMPs are being employed,
including grazing management, riparian management, brush management, spring enhancement, water
development, cross fencing, and wildlife habitat management.
As an alternative to herbicide use, brush management techniques including mechanical methods and
prescribed fire are being evaluated in terms of their efficacy in controlling woody species, enhancing
herbaceous production, increasing infiltration, and decreasing runoff and erosion. Other BMPs are in
place to benefit wildlife, including food plots and water sites, which can reduce the time wildlife species
spend in riparian zones. One ongoing project is demonstrating the comparative impact of different
grazing and management strategies on vegetative production, carrying capacity, water infiltration, and
soil moisture. Another project is evaluating different types of grasses as options in scenarios for optimum
rangeland management.
Planned and recently implemented demonstrations for grazing land include: employing new livestock
watering technology to improve riparian area management; testing the effects of woody plant density on
soil moisture and herbaceous production; and using individual plant herbicide treatments (as opposed to
broadcast application) to control the density and distribution of woody plant species and shape the plant
community to benefit hydrologic functions in the watershed and also better support wildlife.
New demonstrations planned for the coming year for cropland feature minimum-till and no-till farming
to reduce erosion and sediment production, and plant tissue analysis as a tool for nutrient management.
To demonstrate how urban water users can conserve water and decrease chemical runoff from lawns

-------
and residential landscapes, a project demonstrating differences in water and chemical use between
native buffalo grass and St. Augustine grass lawns was initiated last year. This project included several
conventionally landscaped yards and four buffalo grass lawns. Results indicate that, for many
homeowners who want a low-maintenance lawn with low water requirements, buffalo grass can be a
wise choice. More volunteers are being recruited so that potential benefits and appropriate uses of this
species can be more fully assessed.
Two separate projects have evaluated ways to increase water yield from rangeland watersheds through
vegetation management. The first part of a research study conducted by Bill Dugas, Texas Agriculture
Experiment Station, calculated water use of woody species. Data show that a lO-foot-tall Ashe Juniper
uses an average of 10.5 liters of water per day. The second part of the study compared the
evapotranspiration from a site where Juniper was removed to a control site with Juniper left in place.
Data collected over three years show an average increase in water yield for potential aquifer recharge of
approximately 40,000 gallons per acre annually after Ashe Juniper were removed. At a similar
demonstration site, annual spring flows increased by about 30,000 gallons per acre of watershed
following removal of approximately 80 percent of the Juniper.
Two projects will begin this year in cooperation with the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station. One
will measure changes in water yield over time as a result of increased generation of Juniper seedlings,
improved herbaceous cover, and the compensatory responses of other woody vegetation following
Juniper control. The other study, which is part of an international research effort, will determine how
certain physical characteristics ofplants vary in response to different grazing pressures.
Ten water and sediment control structures have been installed in the Seco Creek Project area. One of
these sites is increasing aquifer recharge by .09 acre-feet per inch of rain that falls on its 40-acre
watershed. Currently, four underground water conservation districts in the region are considering
installing similar structures to improve water quality and quantity.
Surface and ground water quality and quantity are being monitored by the U.S. Geological Survey
through a cooperative agreement with the Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board. Eleven
precipitation stations, nine stream gauges, four automatic stream samplers, and one independently
sampled surface water site provide data on water quantity and quality. Ground-water samples have also
been collected from 25 shallow wells in the Leona and Escondido formations and from eight deeper
Edwards aquifer wells. In addition to measuring for the impacts of BMP s, the samples are intended to
describe the interactions between surface water and ground water in the area. To date, sample analyses
have shown no surface water quality problems and no contaminants in excess of EPA drinking water
standards. The diversity of nonvertebrate benthic organisms in the stream channel has also been
monitored as an indicator of water quality. To date, no water quality degradation has been found.
The Seco Creek WQDP sponsors a great many information outreach and educational activities including
news articles, videos, field days, tours, program presentations, exhibits, and youth education camps.
More than 300 tours, programs, and exhibits have reached over 100,000 people. Four youth education

-------
programs have involved 75 area youth in resource conservation. This year, project personnel are
working on an educational exhibit and materials to be presented at the next San Antonio Livestock
Exposition. In addition, they are cooperating with the Edwards Underground Water District, the Texas
Natural Resources Conservation Commission, and Kelly Air Force Base in the Groundwater Guardians
Program, an educational program to increase awareness of ground-water conservation issues. They are
also working with the Medina Ground Water Conservation District and Medina Electric Cooperative to
educate fourth-grade students on what they can do to conserve water at home.
The Seco Creek WQPD is a working example of how an integrated, cooperative approach can promote
voluntary adoption of best management practices that protect water quality, improve water yield, and
conserve water resources. For their efforts and dedication, project personnel earned the 1994 State of
Texas Governor's Award for Environmental Excellence in Agriculture. In 1995, they received the USDA
Group Honor Award for Excellence, and in 1995 and 1996, they earned a Certificate of Environmental
Achievement from the National Awards Council for Environmental Sustainability. Several factors
contribute to the project's success including: respect for landowner property rights on the part ofproject
personnel; an enthusiastic and cooperative attitude on the part of property owners; excellent
cooperation between the primary agencies; and an excellent information and education program.
As a practical matter, Texas Agricultural Extension Service and Natural Resources Conservation Service
personnel are housed in the same office, which facilitates assistance to landowners as well as good
communication and coordination between representatives of each agency. By providing an example of
effective resource management, project personnel and landowners hope to help other residents of the
state to protect and conserve soil and water resources for future generations of Texans.

-------
	T	f —r
f jTW J ! |
~ rf
JC.--K ' \
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed '96
Contents - Sessions 1-20
[Forwardl \Session ll fSession 21 fSession 31 \Session 41
[Session 51 \Session 61 fSession 71 fSession 81 \Session 91
[Session 101 \ Session 121 fSession 131 fSession 141 \ Session 151
[Session 161 \Session 171 fSession 181 fSession 191 \Session 201
Forward	xxxv
SESSION 1
Addressing Barriers to Watershed Management	1
Robert W. Adler
Statewide Watershed Management: More Than Just a Promising Approach	5
Trevor Clements, Clayton Creager, Kimberly Brewer
Approaching Messy Problems: Strategies for Environmental Analysis	9
Leslie M. Reid, Robert R. Ziemer, Thomas E. Lisle
Clean Water Act Problems and Watershed Solutions	13
Katherine A. O'Connor

-------
SESSION 2
Water Quality Goals and Indicators—Draft February 15,1996	17
Elizabeth Fellows, Mary Belefski, Sarah Lehmann, Andy Robertson
Monitoring Consortiums: A Key Tool In The Watershed Approach	21
Kimberly A. Brewer, Trevor Clements
Biological Monitoring Program Design to Address Questions at Multiple Geographic
Scales: A Case Study
Sharon Meigs, James B. Stribling, Jeroen Gerritsen
Developing an Applied System of Ecological Indicators for Measuring Restoration ^
Progress in an Urban Watershed
Andrew Warner
SESSION 3
Citizen-Directed Watershed Management: The Oregon Experience	32
Robert L. Horton, David J. Duncan, Marc Prevost
Water Quality 2000—Watershed Program Criteria	35
Carolyn Hardy Olsen, Margot W. Garcia
Lake Roosevelt: Successes and Failures in Building Partnerships	39
Ed Adams, Kelsey Gray
SESSION 4
Implementing Environmental Justice in Water Quality Programs	41
Deborah Alex-Saunders
Private Property Rights...Principles, Perceptions, and Proposals	44
LaJuana S. Wilcher, D. Randall Benn
Economic Considerations of the Restoration of a Tidal Salt Marsh: The Case of the
West River	^
Lynne Lewis Bennet, Matthew Kirk Udziela
Planning Ahead with Regional Storm Water Management Facilities in Florida	51
WalidM. Hatoum, Moris Cabezas
SESSION 5

-------
When The Dam Came Down- The Cold Creek Restoration Project
55
Joseph W. Thompson
Erosion and Sediment Control: Preventing Additional Disasters after the Southern
		 59
California Fires
Carol L. Forrest, Michael V. Harding
Watershed Planning Study for Urban and Rural Pollution Sources	63
John Ricketts, Thomas R. "Buddy"Morgan, William Kreutzberger
SESSION 6
Summary of Proposed Stormwater Management Techniques for The Village of ^
Woodsong as of January 31, 1996
Buddy Milliken
The Economics of Open Space	69
Elizabeth Brabec
SESSION 7
Moving the Watershed Planning Process from Quagmire to Success	70
B. Fritts Golden, John W. Rogers
Facilitating Natural Resource Dialogues on a Watershed Basis	73
Staci Pratt
Describing the Elephant: Multiple Perspectives in New York City's Watershed	^
Protection Conflict
KrystynaA. Stave
SESSION 8
A Multiple-Watershed-Wide Modeling Approach of Dissolved Oxygen in New York
Harbor	80
John P. St. John, Charles L. Dujardin, Warren Kurtz, Robert Gaffoglio
Watershed Nonpoint Assessment and Nutrient Loading Using the Geographic
Information System-Based MANAGE Method
Lorraine Joubert, Dorothy Q. Kellogg, Arthur Gold

-------
Indianapolis Uses New Radar Technology to Refine Hyetographs for CSO Model
and SSES Studies
Timothy George, Patrick L. Stevens
SESSION 9
Making the Most of State and Tribal Water Quality Assessment Data: New Tools ^
and Approaches
William Cooter, Julie Fountain, Peter Iliev, William Wheaton, Randall Dodd
Impacts of Upland Land Use on Runoff. MA Global Perspective."	93
Gregory W. Eggers, Robert M. Bartels
An Assessment of Aquatic Resources in the Southern Appalachians	97
Jim Harrison, Jack Holcomb, Lloyd W. Swift Jr., Patricia A. Flebbe, Gary Kappesser,
Richard Burns, Jeanne Riley, Bill Melville, DavidMelgaard, Morris Flexner, John Greis,
Cindy Williams, Dennis Yankee, Jim Wang, Neil Burns
SESSION 10
Water Quality and Farming Practices in an Agricultural Watershed	101
J.L. Hatfield, D.B. Jaynes, M.R. Burkart, M.A. Smith
Watershed Scale Water Quality Impacts of Alternative Farming Systems	105
Lynn King, Yan Zhou, Tony Prato
Watershed Modeling of Pollutant Contributions and Water Quality in the Le Sueur
Basin of Southern Minnesota
Anthony J. Donigian, Jr., Avinash S. Patwardhan, RonaldM. Jacobson
The Cross-Media Models of the Chesapeake Bay: Defining the Boundaries of the
Problem
109
112
Lewis C. Linker, Robert V. Thomann
Implementing a Rural Watershed Management Plan—Chewlah Creek	115
Charles L. Kessler, Gordon Dugan
Model Alliance for Watershed Protection of How to Make a Cart Without
Reinventing the Wheel
Geoff Brosseau
118
SESSION 12

-------
Integrated Resource Management—Achieving Multiple Benefits for the Same Dollar 121
Timothy G. Rust, Ginger V. Strong, Allen S. Garcia
Diverse Partners with One Vision: The Bear Creek Watershed Restoration Plan 125
Carol C. Chandler, L. Michelle Beasley
Using Formative Evaluation Strategies to Involve Landowners in Watershed
Protection Planning
Garrett J. O'Keefe
SESSION 13
One Size Does Not Fit All: Storm Water Is a Bigger Issue since Local Communities
	 	 130
have No Regulatory Requirements through SCO Controls
James Ridgway, Robert Tolpa, Ellen Lindquist, Roy Schrameck
The C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study: Interagency Planning Team
Integration
Stuart J. Appelbaum
EPA Reaches Out to Local Governments
Mindy Lemoine
University Contribution to Lake and Watershed Management: Case Studies From
the Western United States— Lake Tahoe and Pyramid Lake
J.E. Reuter, C.R. Goldman, M.E. Lebo, A.D. Jassby, R.C. Richards, S.H. Hackley, D.A.
hunter, P.A. King, M. Palmer, E. de Amezaga, B.C. Allen, G.J. Malyj, S. Fife, A.C.
Heyvaert
SESSION 14
Market-based Approaches and Trading — Conditions and Examples	145
Waldon R. Kerns, Kurt Stephenson
Market Incentives: Effluent Trading in Watershed	148
Mahesh K. Podar, RichardM. Kashmanian, Donald J. Brady, H. Dhol Herzi, Theresa
Tuano
The Tar-Pamlico Experience: Innovative Approaches to Water Quality
Management
John C. Hall, CiannatM. Howet
134
137
140

-------
Cost-Effectiveness and Targeting of Agricultural BMPs for the Tar-Pamlico
Nutrient Trading Program
Michael McCarthy, Randall Dodd, John P. Tippett, David Harding
SESSION 15
Nonstructural Management Practices for Watershed Protection
Rod Frederick, Robert Goo
A Watershed Approach to Flood Hazard Mitigation and Resource Protection: The
President's Floodplain Management Action Plan
John H. McShane
An Approach for Planning and Managing Monitoring Activities for Major Flood
Events
Mary L. Belefski, Joanne Kurklin, Richard Urban, Jim Yahnke, Jim Cook
Managing Watersheds to Reduce Flood Losses
Scott Faber
SESSION 16
Kagman Watershed, Saipan, CNMI
Dudley Kubo
Agricultural and Environmental Sustainability: A Watershed Study of Virginia's
Eastern Shore
R. Warren Flint, Susan B. Sterrett, William G. Reay, George F. Oertel, William M.
Dunstan
Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst: Tools for Addressing Watershed Pollution
Prevention Needs
Gary W. Jackson, Richard Castelnuovo, Doug Knox, Liz Nevers
SESSION 17
The Impact of Uncertainty on Risk Assessment with the AGNPS Model	180
Shane Parson, James Hamlett, Michael Foster, Paul Robillard
Modification of the WERF Methodology for Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment
for Assessing Watershed-Scale Aquatic Risks
157
160
164
167
169
172
176

-------
Benjamin R. Parkhurst, William Warren-Hicks, Clayton Creager
Application of Aquatic Ecological Risk Methodology to Support Site-Specific Water _r
Quality-Based Permitting
Cynthia Paulson, Ben Parkhurst
The Use of Risk Analysis in Watershed Planning Activities	190
David F. Mitchell, Don Galya, Betsy Ruffle, John A. Bleiler
SESSION 18
Developing Cost Effective Geographic Targets for Nitrogen Reductions in the Long
Island Sound Watershed
SESSION 19
197
Mark A. Tedesco, Paul E. Stacey
Models of Nonpoint Source Water Quality for Watershed Assessment and
Management
Anthony S. Donigian, Jr., Wayne C. Huber, Thomas O. Barnwell, Jr.
A Compilation of Digital Geospatial Data Sets for the Mississippi River Basin	201
Alan Rea, Joel R. Cederstrand
A Time-Scale Perspective Applied to Toxicity Assessments Performed in Watershed
Management Programs and Performance Assessments
Edwin E. Herricks, Robert Brent, Laurence Burle, Ian Johnson, Ian Milne
Landscape Characterization For Watershed Management	206
Carolyn T. Hunsaker, Paul M. Schwartz, Barbara L. Jackson
Watershed Analysis and Management: The Importance of Geology	209
Craig Goodwin
Development and Application of Watershed Analysis to Washington State's Forest
Lands	213
David Roberts
SESSION 20
Structural Best Management Practices for Storm Water Pollution Control at
Industrial Facilities

-------
John Botts, Lisa Allard, James Wheeler
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Concentrations Observed in Runoff From Discrete,
Urbanized Automotive-Intensive Land Uses
David L. Shepp
Environmentally Sensitive Low-Impact Development	224
Larry S. Coffman, Jennifer Smith, MohammedLahlou

-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Addressing Barriers to Watershed Management
Robert W. Adler, Associate Professor
University of Utah College of Law, Salt Lake City, UT
Introduction
H istorically, proposals for comprehensive water resource programs have shared a common theme:
holistic analysis of whole watersheds or river basins. But they shared a common fate as well. They were
ignored, adopted in name but not reality, or not implemented. Renewed proposals for watershed
programs come from diverse sources. All propose to restore and protect aquatic resources on a holistic
basis, taking into account all causes of impairment to, and the connected land and water resources of,
target watersheds. Moreover, the quiescence of national watershed programs has not deterred the
development of watershed programs at local, state and regional levels.
Definitions of "watershed management" or "watershed protection" vary, reflecting differing
governmental and interest groups perspectives. Even the desired outcome of watershed programs varies
significantly. As a result, some question whether the term "watershed protection" is too vague or
rhetorical to be of significant use. Yet the watershed revival is too broad-based, and its underlying
rationales too compelling, to dismiss so readily. The question is whether the watershed movement of the
1990s can produce adequate results to ensure its longevity. This paper seeks to identify, and to propose
ways to overcome, the core barriers to watershed protection programs.
Imperatives for Watershed-Based Restoration and Protection
Ecological Imperatives for Watershed Programs
The need for watershed-based remedies is suggested by a synthesis of three ecological factors: (1) the

-------
nature of aquatic ecosystems, including interactions between land and water, water quantity and quality,
groundwater and surface water; and the heterogeneity (variability) of aquatic ecosystems; (2) the ongoing
decline of aquatic species and ecosystems despite the implementation of point source pollution control
programs and other "engineered" solutions; and (3) the nature of the major remaining sources of
impairment, including habitat loss and alteration, polluted runoff, and declining instream flows, none of
which are addressed well by existing source-specific programs.
Institutional Imperatives for Watershed Programs
It is difficult to imagine a political system as complicated and as fragmented as that used for protecting
and managing water resources in the United States. Several institutional imperatives support the need for
watershed-based approaches: (1) political fragmentation—the overlapping and conflicting division of
responsibilities among multiple levels of government; (2) issue fragmentation—the artificial division of
related water issues into separate programs (water quality and quantity, land and water use, surface and
ground water); and (3) gaps in program design and implementation.
Economic Imperatives for Watershed Programs
While water resource protection deserves increased funding, political realities suggest that more must be
done with less. Point source programs are challenged on grounds that they impose "treatment for
treatment's sake," and that point sources have borne most of the water pollution control burden, while
other significant causes of impairment escape with few if any requirements. This suggests two economic
imperatives for watershed programs: (1) equity between sources of harm; and (2) efficiency in the use of
scarce public and private resources.
Sociological Imperatives for Watershed Programs (Bioregionalism)
People are more willing to take actions and to make sacrifices to protect and restore a special place—like
the Chesapeake Bay or the Great Salt Lake—than to promote the abstract idea of environmental quality.
"Place-based" water resource programs can be explained by the concept of bioregionalism, increased
allegiance to place. Bioregionalism can be harnessed to overcome the parochial tendency to resist
regional cooperation, to bolster public support for funding and strengthened water resource protection
and restoration programs, and to enlist volunteers for watershed restoration. Perhaps most important,
bioregionalism could help to transform Aldo Leopold's theoretical but unrealized conservation ethic into
changes in the behavior of individuals within their own watersheds.
U.S. Watershed Legislation Past and Present
Watershed management has a long history in the United States. Integrated watershed management was
proposed by the 1908 Inland Waterways Commission, the 1909 National Conservation Commission, the
1912 National Waterways Commission, and the authorized but never formed 1917 Newlands
Commission. Unfortunately, these proposals were subverted to promote massive federal spending on

-------
structural water projects to optimize and "manage" the use and value of water for human benefits, in laws
such as the Reclamation Act of 1902, the Federal Power Act of 1920, and the Flood Control Act of 1936.
Broader New Deal-era proposals were rejected by Congress, largely due to opposition to central
planning. River basin planning finally attracted Congress' attention with the Water Resources Planning
Act of 1965 (WRPA). The WRPA was never formally repealed, but failed to accomplish its mission of
basin planning on a national scale. Instead, all of the basin commissions were disbanded by President
Reagan in 1981. Nevertheless, much federal statutory authority for watershed-based restoration and
protection remains. Existing federal authority includes the Clean Water Act, other environmental
protection statutes, federal land management statutes, and a large number of regional watershed
protection or management programs. But while individual success stories abound, and other new
programs show some promise, given empirical data on the state of our aquatic ecosystems it is hard to
argue that these programs are succeeding on an overall basis. The design and implementation of future
watershed programs must be improved if we are to meet aquatic ecosystem restoration goals.
Paradoxes in Watershed Program Design and Implementation
Scale
Hydrologic and ecological interactions over large geographic areas suggests that watershed programs
should proceed at the scale of whole river basins or other large hydrologic regions. Watershed programs
of broad regional scale, however, face significant political and institutional problems. Large watersheds
cross many political boundaries, complicating intergovernmental coordination. Large watersheds also
face technical challenges such as inconsistent water quality standards. At a smaller watershed scale, cost-
effective goals, methods and solutions can be designed and implemented by those closest to the problem,
taking into account the conditions of the particular area. But small watershed programs by definition lack
the scope necessary to address hydrological and ecological linkages over space and time. Small programs
might solve local problems while ignoring, or in some cases exacerbating, conditions in other areas,
resulting in geographic externalities. Dividing watersheds into smaller units could subject water body
protection to the very political pressures and competition that led to the enactment of a national clean
water program.
The solution to the paradox of scale is "all of the above." Watershed programs should be planned and
implemented at multiple, nested scales. Large (basinwide) watershed units should be used to establish
and monitor broad regional goals and objectives. Small watershed units should focus more on design and
implementation. However, nested scales of watershed organization must operate in cooperation rather
than in competition. To avoid the "top down" versus "bottom up" paradox, information and decisions
should flow in both directions. The goals of accountability, equity and consistency are served if overall
goals are determined at the regional or national level, with participation by those who must implement
the goals. Flexibility, cost-effectiveness and practicality may best be accomplished locally, but
participation by regional officials can avoid inconsistent implementation or the sacrifice of regional goals
to local economic interests.

-------
Boundary
No agreement has been reached on a framework for environmental boundaries. Some advocate programs
based on watershed boundaries, and others based on watershed ecosystems, but many different aquatic
ecosystem boundaries could be identified--"salmonsheds" versus "ducksheds," for example. When
terrestrial ecosystems are added, the situation becomes even more complex. Should programs be based
on aquatic ecosystems (watersheds, ducksheds or salmonsheds), plant ecosystems (forestsheds) or on key
terrestrial species (bearsheds)? There is probably no "correct" answer to this paradox; no single
ecosystem delineation is more "correct" than others. However, unless agreement is reached on some
consistent framework for watershed and other ecosystem programs, management anarchy may result.
Control
Watershed approaches can be used to coordinate the efforts of multiple levels of government as they
affect an ecologically-defined region. Watershed approaches also provide flexibility to account for
regional variables, so long as legitimate regional and national goals are met. Historically, however,
opposition to regional watershed programs comes from lower levels of government who fear that they
might sacrifice control over water use, land use, economic and environmental policies. Moreover,
hydrologic units lack independent political power. Thus, a paradox exists between state and local rule
versus the need to coordinate efforts within watershed or ecological boundaries. This tension may be
exacerbated by watershed programs controlled too tightly out of Washington, D.C. History provides
equally clear lessons, however, that leaving water policy decisions entirely to states and localities results
in geographic externalities, economic inequities, and programs often too weak to make a real difference.
A reasonable compromise should incorporate the following principles: First, activities amenable to
uniform controls, and for which variations produce economic and environmental externalities, should
remain subject to national source controls. Second, overall goals should continue to be established at a
national level, to avoid competition for economic growth at the expense of the environment. Variations
that account for legitimate differences in environmental variables are appropriate, but equity is
undermined if standards are allowed to differ in degree of protection. Moreover, for ecosystems that
cross political borders, consistent if not uniform environmental goals and standards are essential. Third,
especially for land use, runoff pollution and other sources of impairment that vary regionally, states and
localities should retain some flexibility. However, this approach is viable and fair only if such standards
provide comparable levels of control, using objective performance criteria, and achieve equivalent levels
of compliance.
Mission
To some, the purpose of watershed programs is simply to ensure that the correct players from diverse
locations and interests interact, express their views, and reach consensus on watershed goals and actions
to meet those goals. This reflects an overly optimistic view that process alone will be sufficient to resolve
intractable conflicts within and among watersheds. Where federal watershed programs have included

-------
substantive mandates, however, in many cases they have done more harm than good to watershed health.
Watershed "planning and management," a euphemism for water resource use and development, must
give way to watershed restoration and protection. To achieve this change, watershed programs should be
driven by clear, enforceable substantive mandates to restore and protect aquatic ecosystems. Moreover,
federal and state laws and programs that do more to degrade than to protect aquatic ecosystem integrity
should be modified or repealed in concert with restoration efforts. Otherwise, efforts to stabilize the
patient will fail because the sources of illness will remain. Finally, the mission of watershed programs
must be defined broadly. Some proposals continue to focus on single issues or sets of issues, such as
water quality. Watershed programs should be designed to address, in concert, all activities that affect the
integrity of the aquatic ecosystem within a watershed. Programs must encompass all aspects of the
hydrologic cycle, including links between land and water, water quality and quantity, and groundwater
and surface water.
Consistency
Previous efforts to establish nationwide watershed management were rejected in part due to resistance to
mandatory federal programs affecting land and water use. Moreover, the resurgence of watershed
programs around the country in the absence of a national mandate suggests that people and institutions
may oppose when required what they may be willing to do when asked. However flexible a national
program is intended, some believe that it will become encased in rules that stifle innovation. A voluntary,
ad hoc system of watershed programs, however, will result in wide disparities between watershed
protection and restoration around the country. Areas with political clout and funding may benefit, while
others remain polluted. Some standardization would avoid the very confusion, gaps and conflicts that
watershed programs are designed to address.
This paradox may be resolved by distinguishing between the components of watershed management that
profit from consistency, and those that benefit from flexibility. Watershed programs may bemost
effective if based on a uniform general method to delineate program boundaries with nested scales.
Programs should be established for all major watersheds around the country. However, there is no need
to reinvent watershed programs that already exist, and regions should be free to determine the
appropriate system of smaller nested watershed programs.
An Evolving Standard Model for Watershed Programs
A standard but flexible model for watershed protection is evolving out of diverse sources of
experimentation around the country. Gleaned from successful ongoing programs, new proposals, lessons
from past and existing federal statutes and programs, and other sources, successful watershed programs
share the following common characteristics:
1. Comprehensive watershed-wide resource inventories and evaluations form the basis for program
design. The status of the resource, its potential health, existing sources of impairment, and
potential solutions are catalogued and evaluated before final decisions are made or resources are

-------
committed.
2. Specific goals and objectives are established, wherever possible using numeric or other objective
performance standards. The standards can change over time, but specificity is critical to ensure
program accountability and appropriate revisions. Goals and objectives should be established in
environmental rather than bureaucratic terms.
3. Solutions should be selected and resources allocated based on careful targeting. In a world with
unlimited resources, all solutions would be implemented. In the real world, and one of
increasingly scarce public means, this is not possible. As the highest priority projects are
completed, others are implemented until goals are met.
4. Decisions are made collectively, but ultimate program goals and objectives remain paramount,
and binding, enforceable commitments to implementation are essential. All affected interest
groups should be involved, using consensus decision-making aided by alternative dispute
resolution methods where needed. Accountability to national, regional and local goals requires
that some process be available to resolve impasses, and to mandate decisions and implementation.
5. The process must be iterative rather than static. Watershed programs must be dynamic to account
for changing environmental and artificial factors, including shifting goals and values and to
modify programs as needed. This process requires ongoing evaluation of program implementation
and results, so that programs and strategies can be modified or retained as needed.
Conclusion
Persistent and skilful efforts to implement watershed programs around the country slowly appear to be
eroding prejudices against cooperative, comprehensive planning for watershed protection and restoration.
Difficult legal, political, social and technical barriers remain to nationwide implementation of watershed
protection, but with persistence, those barriers can be overcome.
NOTE: This article is summarized from Robert W. Adler, Addressing Barriers to Watershed Protection,
25 Environmental Law 973-1106 (1995). References are included in the full article.

-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Statewide Watershed Management: More Than Just
A Promising Approach
Trevor Clements, Senior Associate
Clayton Creager, Vice President
Kimberly Brewer, Associate
Cadmus Group, Inc., Waltham, MA
Introduction
A representative from North Carolina reported on a promising new framework for watershed
management at the Watershed '93 Conference held in Alexandria, VA. North Carolina's Division of
Environmental Management switched to a statewide watershed management approach, dividing the state
into seventeen major river basins for focusing and coordinating a significant portion of their daily water
quality management efforts. For each basin, key management activities are scheduled over a 5-year
cycle: strategic monitoring, assessment, prioritization, management strategy development, plan
documentation, and implementation. Basins are combined into five groups, and activities are sequenced
such that approximately 20 percent of the state's basins are involved in the same activity simultaneously.
This rotation provides geographic focus while balancing agency program workloads over time.
At the time of Watershed '93, South Carolina had implemented a similar statewide watershed
management approach, and the States of Washington and Delaware were developing their own statewide
frameworks. Now, three years later, Nebraska, Massachusetts, Georgia, Minnesota, and Utah all have
implemented statewide watershed management frameworks. Several other states are in various stages of
framework development, including Texas, Idaho, Oregon, California, Arizona, Alaska, and Tennessee.
Additionally, New Jersey, Montana, and Florida are currently investigating the approach, and several
other states have expressed interest in it.

-------
Statewide watershed management is more than a promising approach for these states. The question is,
"Why are these states making the significant effort to convert their water management programs to this
approach?" After all, there is no federal mandate to do so! What are the incentives? This paper draws on
the authors' extensive experience with statewide framework development to examine why these
frameworks are being developed and why other states are likely to follow suit.
Incentives for Statewide Frameworks
The Need for Integrated Solutions
Billions of dollars have been spent to develop and implement tools and programs for protecting surface
and ground water. Yet, problems remain, particularly nonpoint source pollution and habitat degradation.
Because environmental problems often cut across media (land, water, and air), program purviews, and
political jurisdictions, individual agencies often lack the authority and means to address problems fully.
We now understand that critical environmental issues are so intertwined that mitigation and protection
require a comprehensive approach that incorporates ecological principles and collaboration among
agencies. Statewide watershed frameworks fill this need through geographic focus and a cycle of
integrated activities.
Utah used its newly implemented framework to develop integrated solutions with two neighboring states
for managing the Bear River Basin. First, a watershed team was formed as an informal partnership
between local citizens and the state's water quality agency to promote stakeholder outreach. The team's
structure and mission were clarified and empowered by the emerging statewide framework. Also, agency
representatives from Idaho and Wyoming became members of the watershed team, allowing for
evaluation of the river as a complete integrated system. The watershed team is developing an integrated
management strategy that features physical habitat restoration for river channel and riparian corridor,
upland BMPs to reduce extreme hydrological events and reduce nutrient runoff, and point source
management options to reduce nutrients.
Cost Effectiveness
A common motivation for statewide watershed management frameworks is increased cost effectiveness.
In a climate of decreasing budgets and increasing demands, public and private entities are searching for
ways to make the best use of limited funds. Statewide frameworks often contain several cost-effective
features, including
¦ Targeting staff and funds to address highest priority concerns.
¦ Pooling expertise and funds to solve common concerns among partners.
¦ Consolidating planning and implementation efforts by geographic region (e.g., permit public
notices and hearings, monitoring, and modeling studies).

-------
Although other approaches often include one or more of these features, statewide watershed management
frameworks readily support all of them. Watersheds provide a natural unit for organizing stakeholders:
partnerships for monitoring and assessment make cost-effective sense because stakeholders share
waterways and drainage basins; jointly assessing watershed conditions leads to identification of shared
priorities; targeting and consolidating efforts often result from the partnerships forged during the early
stages of the management cycle.
Although information on cost effectiveness of statewide watershed management efforts is largely
anecdotal, some documented figures demonstrate substantial cost effectiveness. For instance, South
Carolina estimates that framework implementation yielded an additional 40-50 percent in collected water
quality data and analysis for the same capital investment (personal communication with D. Chesnut,
SCDHEC, June 26, 1995). In another case, North Carolina's returns from added investment in point
source nutrient loading controls were diminishing in the Tar-Pamlico Basin. A nutrient pollutant trading
program was established that allows a group of municipal and industrial stakeholders to fund more cost-
effective nonpoint source controls within the basin in lieu of additional point source treatment (Tippett
andDodd 1995).
The Need to Demonstrate Environmental Effectiveness
The public and private sectors are more frequently demanding proof that their efforts are improving the
environment. Stakeholders are not satisfied simply by knowing that permits are issued on time and that
regulatory compliance is routinely assessed. The link between regulatory requirements and relative risk
to the environment from regulated activities is of vital interest. Statewide watershed management
frameworks are often suited to comparative risk assessments because they bring stakeholders together to
identify priorities and corresponding risk indicators; produce better risk assessment information through
leveraged resources; and focus management strategy development to solve problems that pose the
greatest risk.
The State of Delaware, for example, is using its statewide framework as the basis for reaching a
performance partnership agreement with EPA (personal communication with J. Schnieder, Delaware
DNREC, September 6, 1995). Incorporating environmental indicators, watershed assessment, and
priority-driven program implementation within their statewide framework has given the state a
mechanism for demonstrating that block grants can be used to target environmental priorities effectively.
The Need to Grow Beyond a Top-Down Approach
Many traditional water resource management programs use a top-down approach driven by federal or
state mandates, and they prescribe regulatory actions to solve specific problems. Although this approach
is often justified, many of today's problems require innovative solutions tailored to take advantage of
diverse stakeholder capabilities. Prescriptive approaches often impede progress in this regard,
particularly when voluntary actions are needed. Stakeholders are less likely to support a solution unless
they have a voice in how their time and funds are spent. Participants are demanding flexibility.

-------
Statewide watershed management frameworks designed to link local, state, and federal public and private
efforts recognize the benefits of integrating efforts from the grass roots level to top government levels.
Participants develop a greater understanding of their roles, and the roles of their partners, when
management moves toward restoration or protection goals. Statewide frameworks provide a forum that
encourages integrated, innovative solutions that make effective use of stakeholder capabilities and are
tailored to work under prevailing circumstances (e.g., block grants, phased TMDLs, pollutant trading,
and site-specific standards).
In Georgia, use of basin advisory committees, stakeholder forums, and basin technical planning teams
throughout a cycle of management activities ensures that priorities and management solutions reflect
stakeholder input and participation. Specific problems are identified for each basin, and management
strategies are tailored to meet the specific needs of the area. Pooling technical expertise and information
and drawing from a large toolbox of stakeholder capabilities for implementing tailored management
strategies are mainstays for their approach.
A Framework for Managing Multiple Objectives
Because many environmental programs are set up under specific, narrowly defined mandates, program
managers often make decisions without regard to considerations outside of their mandate. Such an
approach is neither practical nor possible for many local government and private sector managers that
must make decisions regarding a host of objectives that reach beyond environmental goals. For example,
in addition to worrying about municipal wastewater services and water supply protection, a local city
manager will also be concerned about maintaining sanitation services, addressing transportation issues,
and increasing local tax bases. A statewide framework can be designed to provide a basis for identifying
management solutions that address multiple management objectives, distinguishing between basin-level
and watershed-scale goals. Frameworks bring together stakeholders with different objectives such that
agreed-upon solutions must often go beyond individual concerns and must place environmental
protection in the context of other objectives.
In Alaska, the statewide watershed framework development work group includes a broad range of
stakeholders with diverse objectives:
¦ Native corporations and federal resource management agencies that own and manage significant
portions of the watersheds.
¦ Industry and environmental interest groups.
¦ Burroughs and large municipalities.
¦ Several state agencies and programs.
¦ Citizens from existing community-based watershed restoration projects.
Alaska's mission statement is directed to multiple-objective resource protection and management, and its
framework allows for negotiated solutions. Watershed teams will plan and implement through common

-------
steps designed to meet needs of participating partners.
An Improved Basis for Decision-Making
Both environmental and economic stakeholders want to know that management decisions are based on
sufficient, accurate information. Statewide frameworks help build a stronger base of information by
placing monitoring and assessment at the forefront of the management cycle and providing a forum for
sharing information. Additionally, by focusing on goals to be achieved over several management cycles,
a statewide approach reduces the tendency to operate in a reactive, or crisis, mode. Successive updates of
management strategies can build on efforts in preceding iterations, adding continuity that may have been
lacking prior to implementation of a statewide framework. Also, by bringing stakeholders' capabilities
and concerns into the process, environmental management staff will more often create cost-effective
recommendations and recommendations that decision makers will be willing to adopt.
Washington State's watershed framework is designed to improve the basis of decision-making for their
regulatory and non-regulatory programs. Monitoring studies are sequenced for consistency with the
statewide watershed cycle for all twenty-two water quality management areas. Watershed teams
comprised of participating programs and agencies meet with stakeholders to identify all information
needs for comprehensive assessment and to develop a strategic monitoring/information collection plan.
Implementation of the information collection plan results in a common database for all participants that
enables stakeholders to target their efforts to the sources that can be most effectively reduced. The
database is updated and improved with each iteration of the cycle.
Lessons Learned Along the Way
Establishing statewide watershed management frameworks is not without challenge. Much can be
learned by the experiences of states that have already pioneered such approaches.
Statewide Watershed Management Is Not a Panacea
We do not want to leave the mistaken impression that this approach will solve all the complex problems
associated with water resource management. Participants should recognize from the beginning that not
all activities, programs, and resources belong within a statewide framework. The idea is not to force all
management activities into a rigid framework, rather to provide a support structure for communicating
and coordinating activities where integration is possible and beneficial. Framework development can be
considerably smoother when participants tailor the approach to meet agreed-upon needs.
A Common Vision Should Be Defined Early
Partners will be in a better position to build a framework if they first achieve a common vision of what
will constitute the statewide approach. Early efforts should involve identifying complementary and

-------
supporting objectives, corresponding components and activities, key roles, and benefits for programs and
organizations participating in the approach. Allowing partners to define their own levels of commitment
and involvement greatly enhances this envisioning process.
Effective Leadership Is Essential
Statewide watershed management is unusual because it is not a program, nor is it developed in response
to federal mandates or other requirements. In the absence of program-based incentives and until the
statewide coordinating framework is established, effective collaboration among participants during the
development process will be difficult without clear leadership. Therefore, a leader with strong
communication skills should be appointed to facilitate open discussion and networking, and encourage
commitment among participants.
Establish a Resource Base for Framework Development
Many statewide frameworks to date have been adopted on the basis of no net change to overall agency
and program budgets after implementation. Initial planning efforts, however, require staff time for
workshops, administrative support, framework development, and other preparation tasks. Partners should
identify program resources that will be made available from the outset to support framework
development. Such an allocation is a clear signal to participants that the statewide framework
development process is important and worthy of their best effort. In many cases, this means reallocating
resources from other tasks to framework development.
Phased Implementation Allows Time for the Approach to Mature
Partners should account for a transition period when moving to a statewide framework. For many, the
change from a program-centered approach to a resource-based approach will require time for buy-in and
refinement of operations. Partners should collectively decide on the scope and magnitude of initial
activities to coordinate under the framework, and individually determine and communicate what they are
willing to perform to maintain the support structure. Be visionary, but not too ambitious. Willing partners
should take practical, first steps together in build a watershed framework while keeping the larger
framework potential in mind.
Other Lessons Learned
Ground rules for the framework development process improve partner interaction. Work plans for
framework development provide focus and milestones for measuring progress toward implementation.
Holding educational forums on statewide watershed management early in the process provides
participants with the fundamental understanding necessary to participate effectively, and documentation
describing the consensus approach to statewide watershed management is essential to stakeholder
understanding and implementation.

-------
More information on developing and implementing statewide management frameworks is available from
the authors. Additionally, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency offers training and facilitation
services for statewide watershed management.
References
Tippett, J.P., and R.C. Dodd. (1995) Cost-effectiveness of agricultural BMPs for nutrient
reduction in the Tar-Pamlico Basin.

-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Approaching Messy Problems: Strategies for
Environmental Analysis
Leslie M. Reid, Research Geomorphologist
Robert R. Ziemer, Research Hydrologist
Thomas E. Lisle, Research Hydrologist
USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station
Redwood Sciences Laboratory, Areata, CA
Environmental problems are never neatly defined. Instead, each is a tangle of interacting processes
whose manifestation and interpretation are warped by the vagaries of time, weather, expectation, and
economics. Each problem involves livelihoods, values, and numerous specialized disciplines.
Nevertheless, federal agencies in the Pacific Northwest have been given the task of evaluating
environmental issues quickly over large areas (USDA and USDI 1994a, REO 1995). Similarly, the
Washington State Forest Practices Board promotes watershed analysis as a way to develop long-term
land-use plans for large watersheds (Washington Forest Practices Board 1993), and California now gives
blanket approval of Timber Harvest Plans for large areas of private land once a sustained yield plan is
approved. All of these procedures require large-scale analyses of the causes and effects of past and future
environmental changes. Similar efforts in other areas have labels like "watershed plans" and "ecosystem
management plans."
In each case, analysis requires the description of past and present environmental changes, evaluation of
their causes, identification of the issues and resources that are potentially influenced by the changes, and
prediction of how conditions might change in the future. The areas subject to evaluation usually range
between several tens to thousands of square kilometers, and the time allotted for analysis is generally on
the order of several months to a year. Results are used to guide land-use planning, design restoration
work, and interpret future changes. Fulfilling such a task requires new ways of approaching problems.

-------
In the past, each aspect of environmental change usually was examined independently. Most problems
were first simplified to make them tractable and then were assigned to a single discipline. Detailed
information was then gathered and integrated from the point of view of the discipline involved to yield a
picture of the problem, its causes, and its solution. For example, if salmon were scarce in a Pacific
Northwest watershed, fisheries biologists would improve habitat by building structures in channel
reaches shown by stream inventories to have little woody debris. Whether woody debris was naturally
lacking, whether those structures disrupted other river uses, whether they could withstand high winter
flows, whether that aspect of the environment was important for sustaining fish populations, and whether
the structures actually worked to produce more salmon were usually not addressed to any significant
degree.
As a mandate grew for evaluating more complicated issues, different methods began to be used. Most
depended on reducing the complexity of the problem to a readily tractable level, usually by simply
refining existing strategies. Approaches to complex problems thus continued to follow largely mono-
disciplinary, data-oriented strategies that could be abstracted into well-defined protocols, or
"cookbooks." Environmental indices or surrogate measurements became popular for assessing everything
from regulatory compliance (e.g. the "Total Maximum Daily Loads" used by the EPA) to the potential
for cumulative watershed effects (e.g. the "Equivalent Roaded Acres" used by Forest Service Region 5).
Inventory became an important tool in support of this strategy since a map of the distribution of index
values provided all of the information necessary for planning. Serious efforts were made to identify the
seven indices that would allow the "health" of a channel to be "measured" in the Pacific Northwestern
United States (USDA and USDI 1994b), and a parallel effort to identify the indices needed to describe
watershed health throughout the United States was also initiated. The sufficiency of an analysis was
conveniently evaluated on the basis of whether the analysis procedure was followed, not on the basis of
whether the results were valid and useful for a particular application. Although the index approach
fulfilled institutional requirements for consistency and simplicity, its shortcomings were increasingly
recognized: it was not valid for the types of problems it was being applied to.
Now the scale and complexity of the required analyses has grown yet again, and approaches that rest on
measuring site-specific indices or on accumulating details until a general picture appears are no longer
feasible: even channels cannot be inventoried over a 500-km2 watershed in a 2-month period. In
addition, each watershed provides a different suite of conditions, problems, and expectations, so no
single set of procedures can be used to evaluate every watershed. It thus becomes necessary to develop
efficient strategies for figuring out what physical, biological, and socio-economic interactions are
important in a large area, and for figuring out how best to evaluate those interactions in that particular
area.
As regulatory and land-management agencies wrestled with the institutional requirements for broad-scale
environmental analysis, other methods were being developed for ad-hoc applications on much smaller
scales. In some cases, people needed to know what had caused a particular impact. In others, people
needed to know what impacts a proposed activity might have. At this scale, evaluations could be tailored
to the particular needs of the specific application. Thus there were no institutional requirements for
consistency or simplicity, but instead, an over-riding requirement for validity of the results. Two

-------
complementary strategies for evaluating environmental problems were developed: the "bottom-up" and
the "top-down" approaches.
The bottom-up approach proceeds from the point of view of a damaged resource or issue of concern,
which is usually located near the bottom of the watershed. First, the types of existing or potential damage
to the resource are identified. Next, the mechanisms that could produce those impacts are described.
Finally, the historical changes in watershed characteristics (i.e. soils, vegetation, etc.; usually at upslope
or upstream locations) that might have influenced these mechanisms are identified. Each step requires
information from an increasing number of disciplines. This approach has often been used in "forensic"
environmental studies: an impact has occurred, and an investigation is carried out to identify its cause.
In contrast, the top-down approach identifies land-use changes that have occurred in the watershed (often
primarily in the uplands) and compares them to the natural disturbance regime. Changes in land-surface
characteristics are documented, and the likely effects of these changes on hydrological, biological, social,
and geomorphological processes are inferred. Each of these changes, in turn, is then examined to identify
those influencing the focal problem (e.g. declining fish stocks or water quality downstream). Because
each chain of causality involves influences that cross disciplinary boundaries (e.g. a change in vegetation
influences runoff volume, and thus the utilization of water resources), this approach is also inherently
interdisciplinary. The top-down approach has often been applied to "prophylactic" environmental studies:
a project is proposed, and an investigation is carried out to identify its potential impacts.
The top-down approach is particularly useful for assessing impacts that occur away from the site of the
triggering land-use activity. Most activities directly affect only a few land-surface characteristics, such as
vegetation, topography, or soils. Most off-site impacts arise downstream of the triggering activity, and
they can only occur because of changes in the production, transport, and storage of watershed products
such as water, sediment, organic material, and chemicals. Changes in the primary characteristics can be
evaluated to determine their influence on the watershed products and thus on the impacts of concern.
The top-down and bottom-up approaches work well for specific problems, but they require expertise and
professional judgment instead of fixed protocols because the problems encountered are different
everywhere. Both provide a means for understanding what is important in an area, and this is the primary
objective for the new generation of environmental analyses. For these new applications, however, work
must be carried out at a very different scale. Instead of being able to focus on a particular activity or
impact, analysts must now evaluate the full variety of impacts that have occurred or might occur from
many different activities. If the top-down or bottom-up strategies are to be applied to these broader
problems, the strategies must be modified to make them workable.
Blind adherence to either of these approaches, of course, produces a rapidly broadening tree of potential
causes and effects. The art of the analysis thus lies in discovering, as efficiently as possible, which
branches can be lopped off and ignored. This can be accomplished in part by combining the two
approaches. The first steps of each approach are the easiest, so carrying out the two in parallel provides
an efficient way to evaluate the causes of a particular problem in a particular area, and can also be used

-------
to survey and prioritize the full range of issues and changes that may occur in an area (Table 1). The
conceptual structure provided by the combined approach also gives a framework for gathering and
interpreting reconnaissance-level information. This organization shows what types of information can
most efficiently focus the analysis, and it allows easier ranking of the importance of the various branches.
Table 1. A procedure for evaluating environmental changes in a watershed.
Objectives are to answer the question:
What changes are important, where, and for how long?
What caused those changes?
What changes are likely in the future, and where?
What can be done to improve conditions?
How can the condition of the watershed be best monitored?
^Procedure:
Before beginning:Identify the types and location of information available for the area
4. Use results of first steps to prioritize the significance of impacts and impact mechanisms
5. Subdivide watershed according to factors controlling the most important impact
mechanisms
6. Identify information and precision level needed to evaluate significance of mechanisms
in each subarea
7. Carry out field work and office analysis needed to obtain the necessary information
8. Evaluate the potential significance of missing information (qualitatively, or worst-case
estimates, or inferences using information from similar areas)
1A. Identify the issues of concern
IB. Describe the history of land-use
2B. Identify effects of activities on driving
variables
(e.g. vegetation, chemistry, soils, etc.)
3B Determine effects of altered variables on
possible on-site and off-site impact
mechanisms
2A. Identify existing or potential impacts to
resources or values of concern
3A. Identify possible mechanisms for
impacts

-------
9. Use results (italicized) in combination with a basic understanding of process to answer
the questions:
What changes are importan, where, and for how long? 1 A, 7, 2B, 3B
What caused them? IB, 7
What changes are likely in the future, and where? 1A, 7, 2B, 3B
What can be done to improve conditions? To reverse causes, identify the steps at which the
chain of causality can be broken most efficiently; to remediate effects, identify the
conditions that are trending toward recovery so that these trends can be accelerated.
How can the state of the watershed be best monitored? Identify the locations most sensitive
to the important changes, the time-scales over which response is likely, and the precision
needed to detect meaningful changes.
*Bottom-up (steps 1A-3A) and top-down (steps 1B-3B) approaches are carried out
simultaneously.
The method outlined in Table 1 for combining the bottom-up and top-down strategies has been applied to
problems as diverse as prioritizing watershed restoration needs in northern Tanzania (Reid 1990) and
identifying flood hazards on Kauai (Reid and Smith 1992). In each case, the approaches were carried out
in parallel (steps 1A-3A and 1B-3B), allowing the studies to increasingly focus on the most important
topics. Identification of those topics then allowed the field- and office-work to concentrate on the most
critical unknowns at a level of precision no greater than that needed to address the objectives. Each study
area was divided into subareas likely to respond uniformly to the types of changes of concern (step 5),
and the types of information needed to understand the problems were identified (step 6). Field-work and
office-work were then carried out to provide the necessary information in each subarea. This framework
for problem solving encourages progressive focusing on the most significant aspects of the problem, and
it provides a structure that allows the relevance of particular pieces of information to be evaluated.
Although there is much discussion and concern about what is an appropriate analysis scale, adoption of
these approaches essentially makes scale irrelevant. Instead, information is used from whatever scales are
most useful for understanding the fundamental principles for each aspect of the problem. Regional
information on a species' range may be combined with site-specific habitat sampling to evaluate the
relative importance of different habitat types within a particular watershed. The same application may
also require information from scales as disparate as those of DNA analysis and global climatic modeling.
Also important to the application of these strategies is acknowledgment that some essential information
will always be unknowable. As long as these information gaps are identified, they can be evaluated for
their significance and then worked around. In practice, however, more effort often goes into completing
GIS coverage than is directed toward unraveling the fundamental unknowns that actually affect the
understanding of an area. For the present levels of inquiry, complete data coverage is not necessary, and
variations in data standards are irrelevant as long as the standards are understood.
Despite their history of application, these understanding-based strategies are met with discomfort by
federal and state agency personnel who are in a position to use them. In the agency context, the aspects

-------
of these approaches that are new, and therefore uncomfortable, are: 1) that the particular methods used
depend on the setting and so cannot be codified into a cookbook, 2) that analysis requires very little site-
specific data, and 3) that the strategies require an overtly open-minded, interdisciplinary approach.
The perceived necessity for a cookbook stems in part from agency culture and in part from
environmental regulations that judge compliance on the basis of procedure. In the past, both oversight
and quality control rested on procedural consistency. Only when results are routinely given peer review
for validity can quality assurance needs be met in the absence of a consistent procedural protocol. The
reverence for data and the devaluation of qualitative understanding also stem from agency culture and
regulations. Numbers are assumed to be capable of proving things, while qualitative information is
perceived to be subject to interpretation.
Much of the apparent complexity of environmental problems arises from their interdisciplinary nature.
No one person has the professional background required to understand fully the nuances of any one
problem. A problem might thus be no more complicated inherently than one that falls completely within
one discipline, but it will seem to be more complicated because of the arbitrary boundaries that western
science has drawn around disciplines. In this sense, part of the difficulty of problem solving arises not
from the problem itself but from the socio-cultural impediments to people from different disciplines
working together, just as management of a river on the boundary between two nations is more
complicated than management of a river located within a single country. These problems will become
easier as representatives of different disciplines develop the skills needed to work with one another and
as examples of successful interdisciplinary analyses are recognized.
References
REO. (1995) Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale, version 2.2. Regional Ecosystem Office,
Portland, OR. US Government Printing Office: 1995 - 689-120/21215 Region 10. 26 p.
Reid, L.M. (1990) Construction of sediment budgets to assess erosion in Shinyanga Region,
Tanzania. Pp. 105-114 in: Research Needs and Applications to Reduce Erosion and
Sedimentation in Tropical Steeplands. International Association of Hydrological Sciences
Publication 192. 396 pp.
Reid, L.M., and Smith, C.W. (1992) The effects of hurricane Iniki on flood hazard on Kauai.
Report to the Hawaii Division of Land Management, USDA Forest Service, and USDA Soil
Conservation Service.
USDA and USDI. (1994a) Record of Decision for amendments to Forest Service and Bureau of
Land Management planning documents within the range of the northern spotted owl; Standards
and Guidelines for management of habitat for late-successional and old-growth forest related
species within the range of the northern spotted owl. US Government Printing Office: 1994-589-
111/00001 Region 10.

-------
USDA and USDI. (1994b) Environmental Assessment for the implementation of interim
strategies for managing anadromous fish-producing watersheds in eastern Oregon and
Washington, Idaho, and portions of California. USDA Forest Service and USDI Bureau of Land
Management, Washington, D.C.
Washington Forest Practices Board. (1993) Standard methodology for conducting watershed
analysis under Chapter 222-22 WAC. Version 2.0. Department of Natural Resources Forest
Practices Division, Olympia, WA.

-------
Note: This information is provided lor reference purposes only. Although the information
provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Clean Water Act Problems and Watershed Solutions
Katherine A. O'Connor, A.I.C.P., Health and Regulatory Specialist
Orange County Water District, Fountain Valley, CA
The Clean Water Act established comprehensive national policies for water quality management. However, this policy was stated over
20 years ago, and some of the original water quality problems still exist today. Only now, there are a multitude of federal, state and
local government agencies with responsibility for implementing water quality control programs. This paper outlines the shortcomings of
the existing national approach to water quality management. It explores reasons for the apparent failure of the water quality programs,
and presents nine major obstacles to the successful implementation of the policies of the Clean Water Act.
Restoration and maintenance of the integrity of the nation's waters is the overall objective of the Clean Water Act, but the current policy
suffers from ineffective management of disparate issues involving environmental, social, economic, political, legal, and regulatory
challenges to water quality management. The failure to meet the national goals for water quality can be attributed to the following
reasons: (1) lack of coordination between agencies and their programs; (2) fragmented authority and responsibility; (3) lack of
accountability; (4) fragmented approach to water quality problems; (5) conflicting goals and objectives of agency programs; (6) failure
to address problems of individual watersheds; (7) overlapping boundaries and jurisdictional disputes; (8) strict regulatory mandates with
little or no funding provided to local governments; and (9) societal impacts such as increasingly strict regulations which interfere with
private property rights, and a lack of public participation in water quality planning process.
The diverse water quality issues confronting the nation include major types of pollution that remain unregulated or uncontrolled, the so
called "unfinished business" of the water quality programs. Most of these water quality problems are diffuse pollutants from
unregulated nonpoint source discharges, resulting from various activities that take place in a watershed such as agriculture, animal
production, airborne pollutants, boating and marinas, development and urbanization, flood control activities, mining activities, urban
runoff, wastewater treatment and on-site septic systems. The general constituents of the water quality pollutants include: eroded soils,
sediments, toxics such as heavy metals and synthetic organic chemicals, conventional pollutants such as biochemical oxygen demand,
oil and grease, nutrients, and pathogens which include bacteria and viruses. Nonpoint sources of pollution remain the "unfinished
business" because they result from such a variety of human activities, and are not as easy to regulate with individual permits as with the
point source discharges.
There are numerous federal, state, and local government agencies, with specific programs related to water quality management, but
there is no comprehensive system to coordinate their actions. For the most part, these agencies implement the programs independently,
without interagency cooperation. Bogged down in this mire of legislation, agencies are forced to muddle through a regulatory maze and
are prevented from effectively using the tools available to them to meet their statutory requirements for water quality. This myriad of
statutes and agencies forms a patchwork of conflicting goals and objectives. Many times government agencies work at cross-purposes to
each other, which eventually results in intergovernmental conflict, and the canceling out of agency action, or actions which are
inconsistent with water quality values.
Fragmented authority and responsibility for programs with different and sometimes conflicting goals, result in a piecemeal approach to
water quality management. Because the responsibility and authority is divided, there is often no clear linkage to enable these agencies to
work together, resulting in overlap and duplication of effort. In some situations, there is a lack of accountability for where the pollution
came from, as is the case with nonpoint sources of pollution. When responsibility for pollution control is not clearly delineated, program
implementation is often inconsistent, and there are gaps in enforcement. Disputes occur among agencies when their mandated

-------
responsibilities overlap with those of another agency, or when the geographic boundaries of watersheds overlap with the political
jurisdictions of another agency. Unfortunately for water quality management purposes, water pollution does not respect political
boundaries.
Many programs fail to eliminate pollution because their approach fails to recognize the interrelated processes and important linkages in
the ecological systems of watersheds. Short-term solutions to water quality problems are implemented based on the political
jurisdictions of states and counties, instead of being based on ecological time frames and watershed boundaries. The programs also fail
to comprehensively address the unique problems of individual watersheds and instead impose national "one-size-fits-all" regulations
that are inappropriate or inadequate for the local conditions. Strict national mandates with lofty goals are imposed, placing the financial
burden of implementation on the state and local governments. These policies also fail to consider their social impacts, or involve the
affected stakeholders in the decision-making process. The nation's water quality is nearing a condition where a new approach is needed
for effective water pollution control.
Watershed management planning is an alternative approach to water pollution control which addresses the major problems of the
current system identified above. The approach addresses not only the administrative problems challenging the programs, but the
existing water quality problems as well. Watershed management planning is an integrated and holistic approach to water pollution
control that considers all possible impacts to water quality in a watershed and can successfully address water pollution that presently
remains uncontrolled. The watershed approach more effectively implements the regulatory tools for water quality management to
achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act.
The fundamental elements of watershed management planning include: (1) Definition of the watershed, or planning unit; (2)
Assessment of water quality problems in the watershed; (3) Planning activities within the watershed basin, including ranking priority
concerns; identifying stakeholders; and developing overall goals for the watershed; (4) Development of the watershed plan, including
resource management strategies for the specific water quality goals and objectives; identification of the various stakeholders' roles and
responsibilities; and establishment of a time frame for implementation of the programs; (5) Implementation of the watershed plan; and
(6) Monitoring and evaluating the watershed plan's effectiveness. The watershed approach does not replace or compete with any
ongoing programs for water pollution control; it improves their effectiveness, enabling the watersheds to meet the water quality
objectives of the Clean Water Act.
Watershed management planning can be implemented by existing federal, state, and local agencies already authorized to implement
water quality programs under the Clean Water Act. The Clean Water Act established the foundation of required actions for water
quality management including agencies and programs for pollution control, national water quality standards, regulations, discharge
permits, and effluent limits. Watershed management planning fits into the context of the Clean Water Act, without needing changes in
the law, or the adoption of any new laws (EPA 1994, 1-8).
Watershed management focuses on redirecting the efforts of the myriad of agencies and programs with responsibilities for water
resources and pollution control to meet the overall objective of the Clean Water Act. One of the intentions of watershed management is
to integrate the many national programs for water quality and resource management that are currently operating independently.
Watershed management planning can reshape the implementation of these individual programs of federal, state and regional agencies,
to focus on comprehensive watershed management goals. This can be accomplished by the existing infrastructure established by the
Clean Water Act (EPA 1993, 1-8).
The tools for water quality control are already in place in the watershed; the watershed management approach entails developing new
policies to use the tools more effectively. One of the integral concepts of the watershed management approach is the recognition of the
ecological complexities of the natural systems in the watershed, and the interconnectedness of these various components. These
linkages may not always be readily apparent, but they must be accounted for in the watershed planning process. The watershed
management planning process incorporates a holistic approach which acknowledges the linkage between all the elements of the
watershed.
In addition, the watershed planning approach works within the political and economic realities of the watershed. The watershed
planning approach incorporates risk-based strategies for water quality control programs, and decision making that coordinates the
private sector, government agencies, and public interest groups as a team. The approach refrains from employing unfunded mandates,
and instead promotes multi-agency cooperation in the planning process that includes those who will implement, enforce and pay for
water quality control programs. The watershed planning approach protects private property rights and works to avoid "takings," thus
promoting natural resource stewardship.

-------
The watershed planning approach establishes management priorities based on the quality and uses of the waters, the health of the
ecosystem, and the sources of water quality pollutants. The approach advocates use-attainability analyses to provide better scientific
data and more relevant information to the decision makers and regulators. Furthermore, the watershed management approach supports
the use of site-specific water quality standards which are based on the local conditions of each particular watershed. The local
governments are empowered to make water quality decisions for the watershed, replacing federal command-and-control regulations
with national leadership. This "bottoms-up" approach to water quality management in a watershed encourages partnerships among local
interests, state, and federal government agencies. In addition, the general public has the opportunity to participate in the planning for the
water quality programs in their community.
The watershed approach seeks to coordinate the efforts of the various agencies implementing water quality management programs in
the watershed. This shared responsibility, combined with a holistic viewpoint, should prevent overlaps and promote consistency among
the different programs within a watershed. The fragmented, piecemeal approach to water quality management can be averted through
the watershed approach, which reconciles the differences between the numerous programs to avoid interagency conflicts. By
establishing links between the differing goals of the management programs, the watershed approach should encourage cooperation
between agencies, and turn conflicts into compromises.
The watershed management approach determines accountability for previously unregulated and uncontrolled pollutants. The approach
employs nontraditional methods to reach timely and cost-effective solutions to water quality problems. Pollution is prevented or
controlled at the source, instead of resorting to end-of-the-pipe treatment. In addition, watershed management assumes a multimedia
approach, and addresses pollutants as they exist in all forms, not just in water.
There are many components of water resource management that make up a successful water quality management program. A watershed
approach combines these components, which include: (1) wastewater treatment in a manner that causes the least environmental impact
and prevents cross-media contamination throughout the watershed, (2) water reclamation to provide a continuous, non-interruptible
supply of water, reducing the dependence on water imported from outside the watershed, (3) ground water recharge of water supplies,
including the injection of reclaimed water into the ground water aquifers of the watershed, (4) source control and pretreatment of toxic
pollutants by industries that discharge into the sewer systems of the watershed, (5) the control of nonpoint source pollutants and
contaminated runoff from industrial, commercial, and residential sites, including nutrients and synthetic organic chemicals from forests,
agriculture, and landscaping, (6) environmentally sensitive flood control management facilities which can divert and store storm water
for later use, and the (7) maintenance and protection of wetlands and similar areas so that they retain their important functions such as
coastal marine and inland freshwater wetland habitats for fish and wildlife, natural flood control basins, and filtering systems for
pollutants.
Watershed management planning is not another layer of government. It is an approach that involves a new way of developing programs
that can be successfully implemented at the watershed level. The water quality control programs are consistent with, and fully integrated
into, the existing local, state and federal regulatory structure of the watershed. The approach is analogous to the frame of a puzzle,
shown in Figure 1. Watershed management planning forms the framework that brings all the different pieces of the water quality puzzle
together: the various levels of government, the assorted laws that regulate water quality, the individual agencies that enforce these laws,
and the programs that they implement. All this takes place on the backdrop of the individual watershed, with its distinctive
characteristics: climate, ecosystems, topography, soils, water types, habitats and wildlife, and the activities of the human habitats of this
watershed.

-------

Species
^Ranching
Emiimnnettt
X
2
Water
Qutli®
xy

.A--
" i Forestty
} J3
n.
Commercial
_r^i

r
Agricvktm C^Jtea&wW^ TOwt™r
"W
fwcwif
U
WATERSHED MANAGEMENT
PLANNING:
BRINGING THE PIECES
TOGETHER
Public
m<&h
5^^
—"U
7~T ) / ^Nf?:
f3 ^Ss^aw r3

7	rXT"
V Regithtfoty i—.
Agencies —
Treatment
Lattdnse \	
Manning
Landfills ~~)
J^L
Mining n
"X.r-1
V Government
XJ>
StoniBKger
References
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. The Watershed Protection
Approach: A Project Focus. Draft (October 1993). Office of Water (WH-553). Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office,
1993.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds. The Watershed Protection
Approach: Statewide Basin Management. Draft (March 1994). Office of Water (WH-553). Washington, D.C.: Government
Printing Office, 1994.

-------
—f —•# —
,!/v . J i
- JX. I'«
v.^:r:T
z --+ - <(
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although
the information provided here was accurate and current when first
created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent
official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Water Quality Goals and lndicators_Draft February 15,
1996
Elizabeth Fellows, Mary Belefski, Sarah Lehmann
US EPA, Washington, D.C.
Andy Robertson
NOAA, Washington, D.C.
This paper details the importance of using goals and indicators to present water quality information and measure
progress toward clearly identified goals, discusses the first National Water Indicators Report published by the
Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Office of Water and its public and private partners, and provides
criteria developed by the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) for designing
indicators at the national, watershed, or local scale.
Why are Goals and Indicators Important?
All organizations direct their activities toward achieving specific goals and objectives. Indicators provide a means
for organizations to measure progress toward achieving those goals and objectives, as well as to evaluate the
effectiveness of programs and express information clearly. Indicators have been used for years in the economic
arena an example is the Gross National Product. The nation needs an equivalent set of environmental indicators.
Framework for Organizing Indicators
A common way of organizing different types of indicators, especially environmental indicators, is the
Pressure/State/Response framework. In this framework, used nationally and internationally (WRI, 1995),
indicators are categorized into three groups:
¦	Pressure the human activities that impact environmental conditions.
¦	State the actual condition of the environment.

-------
¦ Responsethe societal actions undertaken to improve and protect the environment.
All three types are necessary to completely understand changes occurring in the environment, causes for those
changes, and the effectiveness of specific programs in encouraging positive trends.
Water Environmental Indicators
Using environmental indicators is an effective way for organizations operating within a watershed to measure
achievement toward water quality goals. Indicators are also vital for presenting information to policy makers,
program managers, and the public. The Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM),
made up of representatives from federal agencies, states and tribes with advice from municipalities, academics,
and industry, established a task group to specifically address the issue of water quality indicators. In a 1994
report, the ITFM defined an environmental indicator as a ". . . measurable feature which singly or in combination
provide managerially and scientifically useful evidence of environmental and ecosystem quality, or reliable
evidence of trends in quality." This means that an indicator must be suitable for: (1) measuring established goals
with available technology, (2) determining the effectiveness of programs, and (3) presenting trends in quality in a
simple, understandable fashion. By shedding light on changes in water quality and seeking to identify causal
relationships, water quality management decisions can be made more easily.
Story of National Application
In the United States, a number of efforts are underway that make use of or promote the use of environmental
indicators at various geographic scales. When indicators are carefully designed, site specific information pertinent
to watersheds can be aggregated up and presented so that it is useful at broader scales as well. The following
sections discuss efforts underway on goals and indicators.
EPA's National Goals Project
At the federal level, EPA has initiated an agency-wide project implementing goals and indicators, known as the
National Goals Project. This project is responsible for setting long-range national environmental goals, selecting
indicators to measure progress towards these goals, and specifying milestones that mark predicted improvements
in environmental conditions by the year 2005. The information conveyed within the report will improve
managers' ability to relate plans, budgets, and program evaluations to outcomes. The National Goals Report sets
forth two goals for our waters:
¦ Safe Drinking Water Goal Every public water system will consistently provide water that is safe to drink.
¦ Clean Water Goal All waters will be safe for people to use and will support healthy communities of fish,
plants, and other aquatic life. Surface waters will be safe for fishing and swimming, and providing
drinking water sources. Ground waters will be safe for intended uses. Remaining wetlands will be
protected, and many that have been lost will be restored, helping to support fisheries and to prevent
devastating floods and drought.

-------
Office of Water Indicators
The EPA's Office of Water (OW) spearheaded a national process to define indicators of water quality. OW and its
partners have agreed on five objectives for meeting the two goals listed above:
¦	Conserve and Enhance Public Health.
¦	Conserve and Enhance Ecosystems.
¦	Support Uses Designated by States and Tribes.
¦	Conserve and Improve Ambient Conditions.
¦	Reduce or Prevent Pollutant Loadings.
Indicators designed to measure progress toward meeting the overall objectives were selected in a series of public
meetings attended by representatives from EPA, other federal agencies, states, tribes, community groups and
private organizations. A number of these indicators are also incorporated in the National Goals Report. These
objectives and indicators will assist EPA and its partners to communicate vital national water quality information
to policy makers, water quality managers and the American public.
Figure 1 depicts the relationship between water objectives and the indicators selected to measure progress toward
those objectives and goals.

-------
Dmikiiig wafer systems \djokting health standards
Unfiltered comrrurdty water system; vulnerable to
micndb idbgical pdUutbn
Diinlang wafer systems exceeding lead action levels
Source water protection
Fish corraiitfrtion advisories
Shellfishbed conditions
Water Quality Objectives
and Related Indicators
Figure 1. Relationship between water objectives and the indicators selected to measure progress toward
those objectives and goals.
Development and Application of Indicators Within the Watershed
Indicators are not only useful at the national level. Developing and using indicators is important for
communicating information about water quality at all geographic and political scales. The Intergovernmental
Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality (ITFM) developed a system for selecting indicators with applicability at
a variety of scales. In particular, ITFM emphasized the need to establish both a spatial framework for organizing
data and indicator selection criteria. The ITFM in a workshop recommended that these indicators also be
considered at state and watershed scales.
Watershed and Ecoregion Frameworks
One important method for improving environmental information is determining a logical spatial framework
within the watershed to collect information. For example, this method was recommended by ITFM for the
development of a biological integrity indicator. The ITFM notes that selecting a framework to organize

-------
environmental information based on geographic patterns can assist in accomplishing the:
¦ Establishment of common monitoring goals and objectives.
¦ Development of indicators that are meaningful on a site specific basis and have broader scale significance.
¦ Cooperative development of monitoring methods.
¦ Interstate usage of reference sites.
¦ Use of common reporting goals.
The ITFM recommends using a combination of the ecoregion and watershed concepts as one national spatial
framework for organizing environmental information. The ecoregion framework (Omernik 1987, 1995) was
developed and is being refined using multiple environmental characteristics such as climate, vegetation type,
hydrologic drainage areas, etc. It has several advantages for improving the data collected throughout the country
including that it provides an ecologically relevant system for classifying landscapes and drainage areas for
monitoring; is independent of political boundaries which allows for shared resources, data and criteria (translates
into potential cost efficiencies); and provides a logical classification of sites for the establishment of reference
conditions. By using the ecoregion concept, it is possible to categorize information by region, or further refine the
information into subregions and watersheds.
To help groups select indicators that will provide useful information, the ITFM developed selection criteria. The
indicators must be scientifically valid, meet practical considerations such as cost effectiveness, and take into
consideration specific programmatic needs. Figure 2 provides ITFM's detailed guidelines for selecting indicators.
Selection Criteria
Indicator Selection Criteria
Scientifically Valid:
Measurable/quantifiable;
Sensitive to a broad range of conditions-
- and geographic scales;
Valid and accurate;
Reproducible;
Resolution/discriminatory power;
Integrate effects/exposure;
Representative;
Scope/applicability;
Reference value;
Data comparability; and
Anticipatory
Program Consideration:
Relevance;
Program Coverage; and
Understandability for the target audience
Practical Considerations:
Cost/Cost effectiveness;
Level of difficulty; and
Minimal environmental impact

-------
Figure 2. Indicator Selection Criteria
Conclusion
Goals and indicators provide watershed professionals with the framework for measuring the outcomes of their
programs. Strong monitoring and data management programs are also needed to provide the valid information to
measure indicators. Data will come from a variety of agencies and organizations. Strong monitoring and data
sharing partnerships are essential to support indicators, which must include: (1) strong monitoring programs, (2)
improved national data systems to store, retrieve, and share data, (3) good analysis techniques, and (4) better
reporting of information.
References
EPA. (1996) Draft Environmental Indicators of Water Quality in the United States. Washington, D.C.
EPA. (1995) Water Environmental Indicators Workshop Proceedings. Washington, D.C.
ITFM. (1994) Draft The Nationwide Strategy for Improving Water-Quality Monitoring in the United
States: Final Report of the Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality, Technical
Appendixes. Washington, D.C.
Omernik, J.M. (1987) Ecoregions of the Conterminous United States. Annals of the Association of
American Geographers. v.77,no.l,p. 118-25.
Omernik, J.M. (1995) Ecoregions: A Spatial Framework for Environmental Management. Pages 49-62 in
W.S. Davis and T.P. Simon (editors). Biological Assessment and Criteria: Tools for Water Resource
Planning and Decision Making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Rota, Florida.
World Resources Institute. (1995) Environmental Indicators: A Systematic Approach to Measuring and
Reporting on Environmental Policy Performance on the Context of Sustainable Development.

-------
Control Board (the Board), whose Basin Plan and NPDES permits govern water quality and discharge of
chemical pollutants to the San Francisco Estuary, initiated the Regional Monitoring Program (RMP). To
implement this Program, the Board required strategic monitoring of permittees in the region, encouraged
a cooperative approach, provided flexibility in permitting, and involved the whole group early in the
program design and decision-making process. During the early discussions, the region's Bay Area
Dischargers Authority identified concrete potential benefits for each permit group. The first formal step
in forming the consortium was creating a strategic monitoring plan that specified the responsibilities of
the participants and the standard operating procedures.
The Board has responsibility for the regulatory structure that drives the RMP, for selecting permittees
that must participate in the program and notifying them of their responsibility, and for organizing the
program's financial structure. Sixty-two local financial sponsors, or permittees, are members of the
consortium. Permittees participating in the consortium pay for the monitoring and analysis, based on the
proportion of pollutants discharged into the Bay. Those who do not participate in the consortium are
required individually to conduct strategic monitoring and reporting. In addition to these partners, two
federal partners operate through cooperative agreements: the US Geologic Survey and the US Army
Corps of Engineers. Finally, many federal, state, and local agencies coordinate monitoring with the
Regional Monitoring Program. Through a Memorandum of Understanding with the Board, the San
Francisco Estuarine Institute is responsible for implementing the monitoring program and for cost-
effective expenditure of its funds.
Program Cost and Cost Savings. When first implemented in 1993, the program budget was $1.15 million.
Since that time, the Program's current annual budget has approximately doubled to $2 million. Initially,
QA and data interpretation were the most underestimated program costs. Finding ways to meet the
growing budget demands while holding down monitoring costs for local participants has become a
significant challenge for the program. The program currently has a local resource leveraging factor of
1.17 (i.e., the program budget divided by the local permittee contributions). The program budget includes
the federal cost match but excludes the university research funds. Hence the leveraging factor is a
conservative estimate. The prorated annual contribution charged to the smaller permittees is less than
their previous individual monitoring costs.
Program Benefits. The consortium identified four key benefits to cooperative monitoring: higher quality,
more useful data; better assessment and understanding of the estuary; cost-effectiveness; and cooperative
decision-making.
Program Challenges.
¦ Ensuring the monitoring program helps to meet regulatory objectives.
¦ Distributing program cost equitably.
¦ Effectively communicating the value and findings of the project to decision-makers.

-------
¦ Using the program findings in making decisions (such as permit requirements).
¦ Staying cost-effective.
¦ Making sure the data collection and interpretation is technically sound.
The Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project
How Was The Consortium Formed and Who Participates? The Triangle J Council of Governments' 1987
World Class Region Conference, with about 500 local elected officials, business leaders,
environmentalists, and other citizens in the region attending, called for the Triangle Area Water Supply
Monitoring Project. Providing a neutral forum, Triangle J formed a task force comprising city managers
and public utility directors and drawing resources from universities, the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management, and the US Geological Survey. The Task Force designed the project,
drafted by-laws for project governance, and negotiated a draft interlocal agreement.
Eleven city and county governments entered into a three-year, Phase I monitoring agreement with the
understanding that 1) the project's objectives would require many additional years of monitoring, and that
2) three- to four-year phases were appropriate for major data interpretation studies and for program
evaluation. The participating local governments appointed staff representatives to the project steering
committee that makes technical, financial, and administrative recommendations to the participating local
entities. Non-voting resource advisors from NCDEM, US Geological Survey, and local universities also
participate on the steering committee. The Steering Committee has a cooperative agreement with USGS
for sampling, lab analysis, and data interpretation and a contract with Triangle J COG for overall project
management.
Program Cost and Cost Savings. The Monitoring Project's proposed Phase III annual budget is
$443,0000. Local governments and the USGS each pay one-half of the monitoring costs. Adding the
value of the NCDEM data contributions, the project's estimated cost/value is $543,000. Since the total
cost for the local participants is only $231,733, the project has a local leveraging factor of 2.34. The
project has held constant or decreased the program's cost to local governments. However, since this is a
supplementary monitoring program in a period of increased federal monitoring requirements, several
members decided not to participate in Phase III of the project.
Program Benefits. Because multiple local governments, the State, and the USGS share interests in
individual sites, the regional monitoring program cost is much lower than multiple programs. For
example, the Orange Water and Sewer Authority has a direct interest in nine of the thirty water quality
monitoring stations and four of the thirteen gaging sites. The monitoring, analysis, and management cost
of these sites is approximately $164,000/year, while the Authority is only assessed $23,000_a leveraging
factor of 7. The resource leveraging factor per jurisdiction varies depending on the size of the jurisdiction
as well as on the number of sites of direct interest. Also, the project allows participants to collect,

-------
analyze, and interpret data that they would not be able to do on their own, e.g., the spatial and temporal
trend analyses and pollutant loading studies. The data have been used in specialized watershed protection
studies across the region. By providing flexibility in the project's annual budget, the monitoring program
is responding to emerging issues such as Cryptosporidium.
Program Challenges.
¦ Coordinating with the monitoring conducted by the state, using a performance-based monitoring
approach, poses logistical and procedural challenges.
¦ The Project asked the state to allow its local governments to use the raw water sampling data from
the intake area in lieu of the same treated drinking water requirements; this request was denied.
¦ Additional Safe Drinking Water Act Requirements reduce local funds available for supplementary
monitoring and participation in the program.
¦ The local share formulae that reflect each participant's % of water production, although devised
by participating local governments, at times is a challenge for program governance, since it does
not reflect the % of benefits derived from the program (i.e., number of sites of interest being
monitored).
The Lower Neuse Association
How Was The Consortium Formed and Who Participates? In 1992, the state DEM targeted the Neuse
Basin as its first basin-wide water quality management study area. During the basin planning and
assessment stages, DEM reviewed the NPDES permittees' data and the state's ambient monitoring data
and concluded that through a more flexible, basin-oriented monitoring design, all parties could generate
more useful, cost-effective, higher-quality data. DEM initiated talks with some of the larger wastewater
dischargers in the region about a coordinated, strategic monitoring program that would replace the
routine NPDES compliance monitoring. The largest discharger, the City of Raleigh, assumed the lead
role in recruiting and organizing others. The state DEM designed the Association's monitoring Program.
Twenty-three municipal and industrial dischargers constitute the Association that signed a Memorandum
of Understanding with the state DEM to implement the strategic monitoring program. The Association,
managed by the City of Raleigh, contracts with a private lab for the field sampling and lab analysis.
Program Cost and Cost Savings. The Association's annual budget is $132,000. To allocate cost, each
member is charged a % of the project's annual budget based on its % of the Association's total permitted
flow. Comparing the former compliance monitoring costs to the Association's monitoring cost shows an
annual net savings for local participants of $165,000 and an overall monitoring cost-savings factor of 2.0
(estimated preassociation monitoring cost of $297,000 compared to association monitoring cost of
$132,000).

-------
Program Benefits. The cost savings for smaller dischargers, while smaller in absolute numbers, have a
large budgetary impact. For example, the smallest dischargers have a current, average annual monitoring
budget of $246 and an average annual savings attributable to the Association of $1 l,707_a cost-savings
factor of almost 50. Although the mid-sized dischargers have a greater annual savings, their current
average annual monitoring budget is $51,064, yielding a cost-savings factor of 1.33. Also, the
Association yields more reliable, useful data and studies deemed important to all parties.
Program Challenges.
¦ Who should champion the cause and organize members?
¦ Who should initially design the monitoring program the permittees or the state?
Conclusion
In the last decade, groups have successfully used monitoring partnerships to address different problems
and monitoring objectives as well as water bodies/ecosystems of differing scales and have saved money
in the process. The purpose of the monitoring programs has varied from water supply protection to
coordinated, whole basin wastewater discharge management to ecosystem assessment. While case
studies highlighted different approaches to setting up and maintaining a consortium, strong, common
themes on program pitfalls and successes also emerged ( see Table 2).
Watershed management is a continuing cycle of identifying, prioritizing, and working on key watershed
issues. Well-defined watershed priorities depend on solid assessment of good information; good
information depends on well-designed monitoring. Public and private agencies should incorporate
strategic, coordinated monitoring into the continuing cycle.
References
Conversations with Tom Mumley and Mike Carlin, SFRWQCB staff.
Conversation with Dale Crisp, LNBA Project Manager.
Authors' experience in designing and managing the TAWSMP & LNBA.
The San Francisco Estuary Regional Monitoring Program (RMP) was implemented in 1993 to support
strategic basinwide water quality planning by coordinating NPDES permit compliance monitoring with
comprehensive water column monitoring. The study area crosses 12 counties and covers 1,600 sq.mi. on
the Pacific Coast of California. RMP conducts biological, chemical, physical, and sediment sampling at
25 stations throughout the region, with the objective of establishing a high-quality regional database that

-------
can be used to determine use support; to conduct trend analysis and special studies; to better understand
ecological structures and functions; and to identify problem priorities.
The Triangle Area Water Supply Monitoring Project began in 1988 as a supplemental, voluntary,
monitoring program for drinking water source protection. The Triangle Region includes six counties and
encompasses 3,320 sq.mi. within the upper Neuse and Cape Fear Basins in the Piedmont Province of
North Carolina. The project conducts chemical, physical, and sediment sampling at 34 stations, both at
water supply intake areas and their tributaries throughout the region. Its primary objectives are to conduct
spatial and temporal water quality trend analysis and pollutant loading studies; to better understand the
role of sediments in trapping and transporting SOCs; and to evaluate the condition of the source water.
As a component of North Carolina's basinwide management approach, the Lower Neuse Basin
Association coordinates instream monitoring of 23 NPDES permittees at 42 stations along the 185-mile
stretch of the mainstem river. The study area drains 4,807 sq.mi. in 15 counties of the state's Piedmont
and Coastal Provinces. The Association conducts chemical monitoring with the primary objectives of
determining the effectiveness of state-established total maximum daily loads and of better understanding
the CBOD/DO relationship in the river and the relative contributions and impacts of nutrient loading.
¦ Establish watershed-wide consensus on the need for a coordinated monitoring program.
¦ Take advantage of existing organizations (particularly key leaders), as well as current and
historical monitoring programs, to establish a strong foundation.
¦ Design a coordinated monitoring program that meets the collective and individual needs of the
participants. For example, to the extent possible, ensure that the monitoring helps the regulated
partners meet or offset permit monitoring requirements.
¦ Bring potential partners into the design and decision-making process early, and spread leadership.
¦ Design the monitoring program for continuity (to measure long-term trends) and flexibility (to
adequately address emerging issues and priority concerns).
¦ Using a performance-based approach, design field sampling, lab analysis, or data management
with flexibility and compatibility as your guiding principles.
¦ Adequately plan and budget for data collection, management, and interpretation. Quality
assurance and quality control is essential for long-term program credibility.
¦ Clearly and regularly communicate the program's benefits for each partner and for the region.
¦ Regularly evaluate the monitoring program to make sure you are meeting the project's goals and
objectives cost effectively and that you are adequately addressing emerging issues.

-------
Value the project's unquantifiable asset: the good working relationship you are building with
consortium partners.

-------
stream condition.
Prince George's County currently uses a combination of chemical sampling, stream inspections, and a
limited amount of biological sampling to assist in its environmental decisionmaking process. The
development of the more comprehensive biological monitoring program is a significant contribution to
the needs of Prince George's County to evaluate and manage streams in the County. The County is
among the first in Maryland to establish a comprehensive biomonitoring program to assess the ecological
condition of its water resources.
A multiple metric approach analogous to the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) (Karr etal.1986, Barbour
etal.1995) and advocated by the U.S. EPA (Gibson 1994), will be used to analyze the biological data
generated by this program. Potential metrics include richness measures (e.g., number of stoneflies,
mayflies, and caddisflies), composition metrics (e.g., percent dominant taxon), and functional metrics
(e.g., percent gatherers). Data generated by sampling reference sites will be used to determine which
potential metrics are most suitable for use in evaluating the condition of streams in the County.
The monitoring program will coordinate with other ongoing monitoring programs in the region so that
there will be increased benefits derived from data sharing, the use of joint reference sites and reference
conditions, the ability to produce ecological assessments that are more regional in scope, and the
potential for increased cost and time efficiencies. Comparability of methods and results will provide a
stronger link to monitoring activities in adjacent counties (or other agencies), the District of Columbia,
state monitoring and reporting activities, and national monitoring efforts. Two of these ongoing programs
which Prince George's County will be most closely linked are: Montgomery County , MD, and the State
of Maryland's Department of Natural Resources.
Program Goals
The purposes of the biological monitoring program are to assess the status and trends of biological
stream resources (including the benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage and physical habitat quality) of
Prince George's County. Additional purposes of the program (Table 1) are to relate the status and trends
of the stream ecological condition to specific programmatic activities, such as BMP installation,
stormwater permits, and guidelines for low impact development.
Table 1. The overall goal of the biological monitoring and assessment program
and the secondary purposes/goals of that program.
Overall Goal: Develop and maintain a county-wide biological monitoring and assessment
program
Purposes/Goals of Program

-------
1.	Document and monitor the biological status and trends of County streams
2.	Integrate data from biological, chemical, and physical monitoring programs to make
comprehensive assessment of the County's stream resources
3.	Use biological monitoring data to identify and characterize impairment to the
ecological system
4.	Further public education in environmental problems through a component of the
biological monitoring program tailored for lay-person involvement
5.	Evaluate the effectiveness of environmental management and mitigation activities
6.	Aid in development and support of comprehensive watershed management programs
Data generated by biological monitoring will allow the County to address questions regarding the quality
of its streams on a county wide basis, in specific watersheds, and on a stream by stream basis. To meet
the goals of the program, five categories of questions have been developed. This enables questions on all
scales to be answered by incorporating targeted site-specific sampling sites as well as probalistic sites.
These data will allow the County to document and monitor the biological status of the County's streams
and determine trends in their condition. The County will be able to integrate the biological data with
physical and chemical data to create a more comprehensive assessment of the County's streams and aid
the development and support of comprehensive watershed management practices. As part of the larger
biological program, the volunteer monitoring program will enhance public education and stewardship,
increase public awareness of water resource issues, and foster greater public support for water resource
management.
Types of Sampling Sites
Non-volunteer Program
Three major types of sites have been selected in the County. These are targeted sites, probability sites,
and reference sites. Targeted sites include sites selected by volunteers based on volunteer interest (with
County assistance to preclude overlap with County nonvolunteer sites), volunteer confirmation sites, and
known problem sites. Probability sites have been selected in each of the County's 41 watersheds. At least
two probability sites of each stream order will be sampled in each watershed. The minimum number was
set according to a power analysis performed on data from the coastal plain streams in the state of
Delaware. A total of 254 probability sites have been selected and will be sampled on a 6 year rotation (40
to 50 sites per period) during two index periods (early fall and early spring). A visual based habitat
assessment will be performed at each site concurrent with sampling.
Targeted Sites
Targeted sites, selected to document the condition of an individual stream, are sampled by both the
volunteer program and the nonvolunteer program. Known problem sites are selected for specific reasons:

-------
to monitor effects of known problems such as discharges or habitat disruption, effects of remediation
efforts, recovery, or in anticipation of future disturbance. Volunteer sites are selected by the County with
the volunteer monitors based on specific interests in a stream such as its location in the volunteer's
neighborhood, or to monitor suspected impairments. A subset of the volunteer sites, the confirmation
sites, are monitored to confirm potential problems identified by the volunteer monitors. Approximately
20 known problem sites will be sampled for each index period.
Targeted sites are sampled semiannually during the program's two index periods. Trends are detected by
comparing results to a previously established baseline and to decision thresholds. Determination of
whether changes in condition (relative to a baseline) are real changes as opposed to natural variation,
depends on how well the natural variability is understood (year to year and site to site). Data from
targeted sites can document the decline or recovery of streams subject to specific stresses, and will allow
assessment of restoration and mitigation efforts.
Reference Sites
Biological assessment relies on the comparison of data from assessment of test sites to a reference
condition; the reference condition is based on a set of reference sites and serves as an objective standard
of comparison (Gibson et al. 1994). Reference sites represent least disturbed conditions in the region.
Criteria used to select reference sites include an abundance of natural vegetation in the watershed,
especially riparian vegetation near the stream channel, the absence of known pollution discharges, stream
alterations, and a minimum of roads, residential areas, and other human alterations (Hughes et al. 1986,
1994). A set of 15 to 20 reference sites will be sampled annually. The data will allow estimation of
annual variation and trends in the biological characteristics of the reference sites.
Probability Sites
Neither individual targeted sites nor individual reference sites yield information that can be used to
estimate status of stream resources in the county, nor in single watersheds. Conclusions such as "20
percent of stream segments in the County are impaired" require a representative sample of stream
segments, which is best selected with a probability-based design. A probability based design usually
includes some form of random sampling of sites, such that all sites have an equal probability of being
sampled. This ensures the representativeness of the sample, in that a concerted effort is made to eliminate
bias in site selection. The approach used to select these sites for Prince George's County was not simple
random, but, rather stratified random.
Prince George's County was divided (stratified) into northern and southern watersheds, so that in any
given year, an equal number of watersheds would be selected in the more urban north and in the more
rural south. To allow the data analysis to detect upstream-downstream effects, and to avoid confounding
headwater and larger streams in the analysis, streams were stratified by Strahler order. An equal
proportion of stream segments of each order are selected in each watershed.

-------
Site selection is basically in two stages: in the first stage, a set of watersheds are selected randomly, and
in the second stage, stream segments within the selected watersheds are chosen at random for sampling.
In each year of the monitoring program, a set of six to ten watersheds are selected (depending on size),
and approximately 45 to 50 stream segments of those watersheds are sampled. After five years, all
watersheds in Prince George's County will have been sampled, and in the sixth year the program will
return to the watersheds sampled in the first year.
Volunteer Program
Volunteer monitoring is part of Stream Teams, an Adopt-A-Stream Program sponsored by the County.
The program is divided into two (2) tiers. Tiers 1 and 2 are designed primarily to help develop
community/citizen appreciation for local natural resources. Tier 2 also serves as a screening level
assessment to help increase the density of sites that the County can use in annual status reports. Tier 1 is
targeted for elementary to middle school age students and anyone else who has little or no experience in
monitoring. Tier 2 is targeted for high school age to retirees. These latter groups generally have more
experience in doing the fieldwork required for the assessments. The methods used by the Stream Teams
are the same as those used for non-volunteer monitoring with some modifications.
Sampling Method
Since most of the County's streams lie within the Coastal Plain ecoregion, the main technique used to
collect the macroinvertebrates will the "20-jab" method developed by the Mid-Atlantic Coastal Stream
Workgroup (MACS 1993[draft]). A dip-net will be used to sample suitable habitats (e.g., snags and other
woody debris, rooted vegetation) in the stream. For the transitional Piedmont, the double composite
square meter kicknet sample (Plafkin et al. 1989) will be used.
References
Barbour, M. T., J. B. Stribling, and J. R. Karr. 1995. Multimetric approach for establishing
biocriteria and measuring biological condition. Pages 63-77 in W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon
(editors). Biological assessment and criteria. Tools for water resource planning and decision
making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, Florida.
Gibson, G. R. (editor). 1994. Biological criteria: technical guidance for streams and small rivers.
U. S. EPA, Office of Science and Technology, Washington, DC. EPA-822-B-94-001.
Hughes, R. M., D. P. Larsen, and J. M. Omernik. 1986. Regional reference sites: a method for
assessing stream pollution. Environmental Management 10: 629-635.
Hughes, R. M. 1995. Defining acceptable biological status by comparing with reference
conditions. Pages 31-47 in W. S. Davis and T. P. Simon (editors). Biological assessment and

-------
criteria. Tools for water resource planning and decision making. Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton,
FL.
Karr, J. R., K. D. Fausch, P. L. Angermeier, P. R. Yant, and I. J. Schlosser. 1986. Assessment of
biological integrity in running waters: A method and its rationale. Illinois Natural History Survey,
Champaign, Illinois. Special Publication 5.
MACS (Mid-Atlantic Coastal Streams Workgroup). 1993 (draft). Standard operating procedures
and technical basis. Macroinvertebrate collection and habitat assessment for low gradient,
nontidal streams (for further information, contact John Maxted, Delaware DNREC, 302-739-
4590).
Plafkin, J. L., M. T. Barbour, K. D. Porter, S. K. Gross, and R. M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid
bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers. Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U. S.
EPA, Office of Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC. EPA-440-4-89-001.

-------
This study is more localized than the efforts mentioned above, focusing on the 176-square mile
Anacostia watershed. The motivation and process behind developing a system of indicators for an
individual, highly degraded urban watershed are discussed.
Background
The Anacostia Watershed
Located in Maryland and the District of Columbia, the Anacostia watershed is an ecologically diverse
system that extends into two physiographic provinces (Piedmont and Coastal Plain) and contains free-
flowing and tidal segments (Figure 1). Historically, the watershed was covered by temperate forest and
contained extensive areas of tidal and nontidal wetlands. The river supported a rich fishery of both
resident and anadromous species.
Figure 1. Anacostia watershed, Maryland and the District of Columbia.

-------
The history of ecological degradation in the Anacostia watershed is long and varied, although for much
of this century the problems have been a result of an expanding human population and the associated
changes in land use and land cover. The loss of important forest and wetland habitat, alterations of
streamflow, increases in nonpoint source pollution, and discharges of combined sewer overflow and
industrial waste have all contributed to the decline in the ecological health of the watershed.
Summary of the Restoration Effort
Efforts to restore the Anacostia watershed began nearly two decades ago. Since that time, local, state, and
federal government agencies, as well as environmental organizations and dedicated private citizens have
contributed significant resources toward re-establishing as much of the original ecosystem as possible.
Formal cooperation between government agencies came with the 1987, signing of the Anacostia
Watershed Agreement and the formation of the Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC).
Members of the AWRC include Montgomery and Prince George's counties, Maryland, the State of
Maryland, the District of Columbia, and the Army Corps of Engineers as the federal representative.
During the initial years of the AWRC, the Committee coordinated implementation of projects throughout
the watershed; the problems were abundant and many demanded immediate attention. The AWRC
members concurrently recognized the need to establish a framework to guide a more lasting restoration
effort. The vision was for an ecologically-based restoration of the watershed which, by 1991, took shape
in the form of the Six-Point Action Plan (MWCOG, 1991). The Plan, which has become the guidance
document of the restoration effort, identifies six goals that address the primary problem areas in the
watershed (Table 1).
Table 1. Goals of the Six-Point Action Plan (MWCOG, 1991).
Goal 1: Dramatically reduce pollutant loads to the tidal river to improve water quality
conditions by the turn of the century.
Goal 2: Protect and restore the ecological integrity of urban Anacostia streams to enhance
aquatic diversity and provide for a quality urban fishery.
Goal 3: Restore the spawning range of anadromous fish to historical limits.
Goal 4: Increase the natural filtering capacity of the watershed by sharply increasing the
acreage and quality of tidal and nontidal wetlands.
Goal 5: Expand forest cover throughout the watershed and create a contiguous corridor of
forest along the margins of its streams and rivers.

-------
Goal 6: Make the public aware of its key role in the cleanup of the river, and increase
volunteer participation in watershed restoration activities.
Framework for Restoration
In December 1992, a series of work sessions was held to assess the status of the restoration effort in the
Anacostia watershed and to identify program areas for future concentration*. During these work
sessions, a consensus was reached that the goals of the Six-Point Action Plan needed to be refined in
order to make them:
¦ specific, to individual subwatersheds and the tidal river;
¦ achievable, given a realistic assessment of the limits of our environmental restoration technology
and existing conditions;
¦ measurable, using effective water quality, physical, and biological indicators of improvement;
¦ understandable, in terms that the public can readily and intuitively assimilate;
¦ flexible, so that they can be adjusted in response to new developments in technology, watershed
research, or funding.
This effort to develop a system of indicators for the Anacostia is in response to the AWRC request that
the goals of the Six-Point Action Plan be refined using the above criteria.
Developing a System of Indicators
Selecting Indicators
The difficulty in developing a system of indicators is faced when trying to select those indicators that
most effectively represent the ecosystem in all its complexity. This problem can be minimized in two
ways. First, a manageable advisory group (at least in terms of size) is created consisting of individuals
with diverse areas of expertise. For the Anacostia effort, a technical oversight subcommittee (TOS)
comprised of staff from the AWRC members was convened. Second, having a framework that identifies
areas of concern provides a useful structure for establishing a system of indicators. The system of
indicators for the Anacostia watershed is being developed within the context of the Six-Point Action
Plan; that is, each of the indicators can be placed under one of the six goals in Table 1. An ecologically-
based vision statement can provide the same type of structure.

-------
The primary focus of the Anacostia indicators has been on direct assessment of the ecosystem, although
some administrative indicators are being included. Further, the system for the Anacostia includes only
indicators that are supported by existing data. The intent is to expand the system as monitoring changes
(e.g., biomonitoring in the watershed is increasing). The method used in developing ecological indicators
for the Anacostia watershed involved three general steps that are discussed below. Although in practice
the process has been much more convoluted than this writeup suggests, moving through these stages
produces a system designed to use currently available data to convey fundamental information on a
watershed's condition.
Step 1. The first step in developing a system of indicators involves creating a comprehensive list of
possible indicators through a series of brainstorm sessions. This list should be as extensive as possible,
recognizing that a near-limitless number of indicators can be conceived. This is not a difficult process for
a diverse group of experts, although knowing when to quit can be a bit more tricky. As a sampling,
potential indicators identified in the Anacostia included water quality parameters (e.g., temperature,
dissolved oxygen, total suspended solids, fecal coliform), pollutant loads, fish kills, trash, noncompliance
of NPDES permits, sediment control violations, percent imperviousness, metrics from biomonitoring
(e.g., relating to fish and macroinvertebrate populations or habitat condition), toxic concentrations in fish
tissue, fish and wildlife utilization, bird counts, miles of modified stream channels, accessible range of
anadromous fish species, wetland acreage (total and by type), forested acreage (total and by type), size
and condition of riparian forest cover, the number of individuals receiving environmental newsletters,
participating in stream cleanups, or volunteer monitoring, and dollars spent on restoration projects.
Step 2. The second step, which is a reality check in the process of developing indicators, involves
determining data availability. Based on the familiarity of TOS members with and research into
monitoring efforts, many of the indicators on the comprehensive list were eliminated as they are not
supported by existing data. Those supported by data were placed onto a reduced list for further
consideration. It should be noted that a tangential benefit of creating a comprehensive list is that it acts as
a "wish list" for future monitoring efforts in addition to serving as a menu for possible indicators.
Step 3. The final step involved selecting indicators from the reduced list of data-supported parameters.
This stage relies heavily on professional judgement and discussion of which indicators, individually and
together, will best represent the overall condition of the ecosystem. In addition to professional
judgement, four points were identified as needing consideration in the Anacostia:
¦ Tidal and Tributary Issues. Significantly different problems exist in the tidal and tributary
portions of the watershed. Although the individual tributaries also have unique problems, these
differences do not warrant creating separate indicator systems for each subwatershed.
¦ Administrative and Environmental Aspects. The system should include indicators that measure
administrative as well as environmental progress.
¦ Short- and Long-Term Concerns. The time required to solve different problems varies widely, and

-------
the system of indicators should address concerns that are both short-term (turn of the century) and
longer term in nature.
¦ Improving and Static/Deteriorating Conditions. The system of indicators needs to be able to
identify areas of improvement as well as continuing areas of concern.
There is the temptation to develop an indicator simply because data have been collected for a given
parameter. The major pitfall of this approach is that funds are allocated to develop and track indicators
that are either not be the most effective in describing the condition of the ecosystem or may have a very
limited audience.
Presenting Indicators
In addition to offering the means to track restoration progress, indicators are used for education and
outreach efforts, typically to the general public and elected officials. The basic purpose of presenting an
environmental indicator is to communicate the condition of an important component of the ecosystem in
a summarized form to a given audience.
While there are a number of ways to present indicators to an audience, the basic layout chosen for
Anacostia indicators is very similar to that used by the Bay Program. This consists of a graphic such as a
bar or pie chart accompanied by a few bulleted text items that are relevant to the indicator. For example,
a bar chart showing an annual increase in submerged aquatic vegetation acreage could be supported by a
bullet discussing an increase in secchi depth readings over the same time period.
Finally, while all of the indicators selected for the Anacostia are supported by existing data, some are not
supported by historical data; that is, only one year of data are available resulting in a presentation of a
status rather than a trend over time (Figures 2 and 3). These types of indicators, such as total and riparian
forest cover presented in Figure 2, were retained in the system as it is expected that these types of data
will be collected in the future.

-------
Figure 2. 1190 forest ewer in select
Sill5U Hi.cr -lled< of 111 e Anv\co-4 ia

-------
20
Slfe>C»ek Indian CKsfc BewftnfamGk
Figure J. Historical counts of lis!)
species in select subwatet'sheds of the
Atuit-Osiia (Cummins, 1989).
References
U.S. EPA. 1995. Proposed Environmental Goals for America with Benchmarks for the Year 2005.
Draft. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation,
Washington, DC. February.
Cummins, J.D. 1989. 1988 Survey and Inventory of the Fishes in the Anacostia River Basin,
Maryland. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Rockville, Maryland.
MWCOG. 1991. A Commitment to Restore Our Home River: A Six-Point Action Plan to Restore
the Anacostia River. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. Washington, DC.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Citizen-Directed Watershed Management: The
Oregon Experience
Robert L. Horton, Ph.D.
Southern Oregon State College, Ashland, OR
David J. Duncan, Ph.D.
Bureau of Reclamation, Pacific Northwest Region, Boise, ID
Marc Prevost
Rogue Valley Council of Governments, Central Point, OR
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
In the early 1990's, Oregon natural resource managers took a new look at how its watersheds were
managed. Watershed and public lands management in Oregon was often conducted in a convoluted
fashion, managed by distant authorities and embedded policies, and conducted separate from local
institutions. Project actions were implemented largely by agency funding schedules, rather than
environmental urgency and need.
Watershed managers were often frustrated that management actions were largely confined to agency
ownership boundaries, and generally not extended to neighboring private lands. Project actions were
typically not coordinated across agency boundaries. The effectiveness of watershed restoration actions
was considerably limited by the construction of legalistic, rather than natural watershed boundaries. The
alternative was to integrate agency efforts and to incorporate neighboring (private) landowners into
holistic watershed management.
To do this however, would require shifting some responsibility for watershed management outside the
agencies. A series of state-wide water resources planning forums were held to discuss future policy, and
a general consensus emerged that was encapsulated into the 1992 Watershed Management Strategy for

-------
Oregon. The strategy was later codified as HB 2215 in 1993, which promoted the concept that (1) local
governments should form voluntary local watershed councils, and (2) the councils would be cooperative
partnerships of individual, local, state, and federal interests.
The Development of Citizen-Based Councils
Several different models and concepts for organization of watershed management groups evolved: (1) a
basin-level "Model Watershed Area" in the Grande Ronde Basin, (2) a basin federation of local
watershed councils in the Rogue, and (3) separate subbasin councils in other basins.
The state of Oregon's early attempts to assist councils involved staff being directed by state agencies
from the Capitol. Recent efforts have focused more on local autonomy where staff are assigned to work
for the local councils instead of state or federal agency programs. Both state agencies and environmental
interests were initially fearful of fostering local control of watershed administration. However, most
administrators now would say that all the Oregon councils reviewed have turned into responsible
stewards focusing on what they could make work in their particular situation once they worked though
the conflicts in the birthing process.
The Grande Ronde effort was largely driven by Endangered Species Act concerns, which threatened the
traditional economic base for the region and unified agencies and private landowners in restoration
efforts. Administration and planning was initiated at the basin level, then broken down to separate
subbasin efforts for project implementation. In the John Day Basin, efforts to maintain a basin wide
council have been put on hold and council efforts have focused on one subbasin, centered around
salmonid habitat restoration activities.
In southwest Oregon, councils began as independent sub-basin groups, formed variously to address water
quality issues (Bear Creek), forest management decisions (Applegate), economic development (Little
Butte Creek), or fisheries management (South Coast). The state sponsored Watershed Health Program
fostered two more councils (Evans Creek and Lower Rogue) to cover fire restoration areas and support
local employment of displaced fishermen. The eight councils were linked through a Steering Committee
supported by the Rogue Valley Council of Governments (RVCOG, representing three county
governments) which provided the locus for regional oversight and coordination of natural resource
restoration activities within the basin. Most of the councils also linked to Soil and Water Conservation
Districts in their locale to include elected interests.
The basin-level unit of planning is appropriate if a superordinate problem is present throughout the basin
(such as ESA or water quality requirements). However, where attempted, watershed planning and project
actions among the Oregon councils have rapidly evolved to the sub-basin unit, while perhaps keeping
basin priorities in reference. This trend suggests that ideally, watershed planning should be done on a
multi-level basis, while implementation is more likely to be done at the sub-basin level. In each case, the
local councils resisted administration and direction from state and federal agencies and sought to
establish their own autonomy and authority. Although agency managers and many environmental

-------
interests were skeptical that local boards would be efficacious in their management, most would now say
that the local watershed boards and coordinators have proven to be conscientious stewards of their
resources and responsibility.
The Process of Forming Councils
Early in the process, competing interest groups may jump to the opportunity to institutionalize their
agenda into the council organization by attempting to influence the organizational structure formed. The
most frequent interest group conflicts revolve around commodity vs. preservationist values, special
species protection vs. multiple uses of resources, and agency administration vs. citizen directed councils.
Sponsorship is a key decision which establishes a long-standing precedent, on which the acceptance and
survival of the local council may be dependent. Potential sponsors may include environmental
organizations, commodity interests, federal or state natural resource agencies, or a division of County
government. Sponsorship strongly influences staff structure and activities, public participation, the focus
of environmental assessment, and the selection of projects.
Time and effort spent to formalize an administrative Board is an important part of the birthing process.
Each of the councils reviewed suffered one or more re-organizations. It is important for local participants
to go through a process of defining and developing consensus on the common interests the council is to
address, align and balance special interests, and acquire agreement on policy and objectives. Resolution
of differences that arise in this phase of the organization enlarges the base of consensus and legitimacy of
the council, and allows the groups to 'work through' differences that would emerge later in the process.
This phase can consume a calendar year of time or more.
Time will provide an excellent test of the importance of baseline funding for watershed council viability.
The Grande Ronde was funded for program development by federal and state agencies/programs to
create a professionally managed program. Most other basins have received only start-up funding from the
State. A collection of councils were started with State assistance in the Rogue/South Coast, and given a
considerable amount of money for project implementation, long before the councils had developed the
organizational capacity to effectively implement programs. Now that the councils are organized, state
support has shifted to other programs, with only sparse funding for new councils and projects throughout
the state. A result of this practice is that councils with lay administrators must expend a major portion of
their energy simply to provide funding for day-to-day existence, rather than building a viable program
and organization. Interest in, and support for these marginal operations can rapidly dwindle, right at the
time that they are developing potential for effective project action. The state has recognized this problem,
and is seeking to develop alternative funding mechanisms, but most councils are underfunded.
Incorporating Stakeholders
Council viability hinges on obtaining participation from most of the key players (agencies, organizations,
individuals). Getting agencies involved in an integrated watershed process is time consuming and

-------
complex. Agency and tribal programs are frequently so institutionalized that it is difficult to break their
traditional pattern to include them in a cooperative effort. If it's not clear to them how their agenda can be
clearly forwarded by participation, they often do not make a strong commitment. However, projects seem
to assist in breaking down inter-organizational barriers, refocusing energies, and developing a sense of
local ownership and control.
Having at least modest implementation funds greatly enhances getting private landowners involved.
Programs that have focused on extensive planning without linking the process to project implementation
have not been successful.
Tasks for Watershed Management Councils
Watershed Assessment and Action Plan
The authors believe that one of the first activities a watershed council should undertake is to prepare a
roadmap~a watershed assessment and action plan to identify, justify, and guide future activities. The
Oregon Watershed Health Program required local councils to complete an assessment and action plan.
Under Oregon's new watershed program, those councils who have completed them will use them to
garner additional federal and state funding.
Ideally, the action plan should be a dynamic working document, intended to be updated, revised, and
expanded as progress is made in implementation. The plan is a means to an end, however, and should not
be allowed to become an end in itself. It is extremely important that key stakeholders (agencies,
individuals) develop a sense of ownership in the plan as it is being created and modified so that
implementing it is important to them.
The Oregon experience so far does not bode well for the future of action plans. If not required by funding
agencies, they are difficult and costly to develop and maintain. It is often difficult to convince natural
resource agencies to integrate and merge their formally mandated plans into the citizens directed
planning effort, and inevitably, some dualism has remained in planning efforts.
Forming a Technical Advisory Committee
Technical committees not only provide critical knowledge and insight from multiple agencies and
interest groups, they also broaden the potential representation base among stakeholders. Most councils
formed a technical advisory committee as one of their first activities, to incorporate local and agency
technical expertise into the evaluation and study process. Most councils have kept technical functions
(residing in a technical committee) and policy functions (residing in a board of directors) separate.
Project Implementation

-------
Oregon has yet to hit a "happy medium" in determining the scale of watershed restoration efforts. Most
council watershed efforts have been funded for rather short terms, with only promises for long-term
support. The short-lived Watershed Health Program focused on two areas of the state with far more
money than could be efficiently spent in the two year period allotted. Watershed restoration is a long-
term proposition. What is needed in most basins is long-term operations and technical support along with
a modest annual amount of cost-share implementation funding. Continued communication and
cooperation across agencies can lead to strengthening and expanding partnerships allowing many
projects to be pursued collectively that can't be accomplished individually, especially in an era of
shrinking budgets.
Clearing House Function
There is a mountain of environmental information in every watershed, but most of it unorganized,
incomplete, or not amenable to easy retrieval. Interagency cooperation can be fostered by the council
serving as a 'clearing house' to collate and disseminate information about basin wide environmental
actions. The council gains legitimacy when it can serve as an information source to agency technicians.
This effort can be relatively inexpensive, performed only periodically, and simple in design and
presentation, but immensely valuable to other resource managers. Sharing information on concurrent
actions also helps to frame the context for basin watershed management, eliminate duplication, and can
be used to provide justification for project actions.
Sensible as a clearinghouse sounds, not one has yet been established in Oregon. Again, a major problem
seems to be breaking agency inertia, and funding staff time for the effort.
Monitoring, Evaluation, and Environmental Assessment
There are typically two types of monitoring focus: (1) baseline conditions, to enable the measurement of
future change; (2) measurement of the effects of project actions.
Most project implementation funding in Oregon has required some degree of project effectiveness
monitoring. However, monitoring and dissemination of information has been spotty at best. An even
more difficult problem is baseline monitoring , which requires years of technical data collection and staff
effort. Extended baseline monitoring within a watershed seems possible only with integrated interagency
efforts. Even then, it's sustainability in an era of declining budgets may often depend upon agency
willingness to cooperate with volunteer efforts.
One of the most effective monitoring programs in Oregon is in the Bear Creek Watershed in the Rogue
basin where the council has been measuring and gathering water quality data for the past decade. Such
data has been used to justify funding for non-point source control and restoration actions and stream
structure modifications that could never have been justified without supportive data. This program has
probably been successful largely because of the RVCOG's many cross-agency ties and stability of
leadership which has provided an extensive institutional memory and sense of direction.

-------
Conclusions:
¦	There is a need to refocus watershed management around local councils that can integrate agency
and organization programs and more effectively involve private landowners.
¦	Once organized, local citizen-driven councils have demonstrated that they can become
responsible stewards, and address resource agency goals and interests as well as stakeholder
interests.
¦	Councils either directly, or through a federation, should keep a basinwide perspective in planning,
while focusing program implementation efforts at the subbasin or watershed level.
¦	Key stakeholders, both organizations and individuals, must be incorporated into council
leadership and programs, and a common sense of ownership developed.
¦	Action plans, including resource assessments, must be developed and maintained at the watershed
level. Landowners need to participate in their development, and agencies need to commit to
assisting in their development and updating, and to using them to guide activities.
¦	All stakeholders need to cooperate in data acquisition and management. Volunteers should be
professionally trained and used in monitoring efforts. A basin clearinghouse should be established
for collection and dissemination of information.
¦	Councils should be provided with long-term funding for operations and cost-shared
projects_preferably from a variety of sources. This serves to increase ownership by multiple
stakeholders in the outcome.

-------
Council has achieved a set of "on paper" outcomes, but only after a lot of pain and dissension. The
stakeholders were the same. The issues addressed were almost identical. The reason for this difference
lies in the organizational development—especially groundrule development—of the two efforts.
The Forum was organized around a vision—dialog will lead to common understanding and trust which
allows progress. Roles, responsibilities, and decision making were all decided by the stakeholders and
embodied in a set of groundrules for how the Forum would operate. The groundrules provided the basis
for development of the agreed upon outcomes of the Forum. Participation in Forum meetings and events
has been a positive experience for citizens and professional managers alike. The Forum's committees
have been active in involving many stakeholders and implementing decisions. The Emergency Services
Committee has developed working agreements among all of the emergency service providers (fire,
police, medical, etc.) to provide coordinated services across jurisdictional lines. The Fisheries Committee
has developed a net pen fish rearing project and reviews power supply system proposals for Bonneville
Power Administration. The Washington Governor's Council on Environmental Education is piloting a
watershed education program on Lake Roosevelt in cooperation with the Forum. Forum members
garnered $1 million in federal support to study the pollution sources and affects in Lake Roosevelt. This
last effort led to the formation of the Council under the auspices of EPA and DOE.
The Water Quality Council is a study in contrasts. The Council was organized around a specific outcome,
that is, directing a water quality study of Lake Roosevelt with a budget of $1 million over three years.
The organizational structure was articulated by DOE and presented to the Council. A management
committee made policy decisions, a technical advisory committee focused on the specific study elements,
and a citizens committee coordinated community involvement. Although the titles were given, the
development of groundrules, defining the roles, responsibilities, and decision making functions was left
undone. Power struggles among citizens and agency representatives erupted almost immediately.
Citizens demanded a role in the decision making process. It was nearly a year before the stakeholder
members were able to take their seats on the management committee. Decisions were challenged at every
step: Who has a right to participate? Who has a right to vote? Who can veto? Who is a stakeholder? Who
makes final decisions? These questions caused conflict because there was no avenue to involve
stakeholders equally in the process.
Equal involvement by all stakeholders is fundamental to the success of partnerships for watershed
management. Involvement requires an individual's or organization's presence and visible interaction with
others in the decision-making process. Many citizens seek to participate without their direct personal
involvement. They want decision makers to hear their views and to recognize their influence without
them having to confront those with other points of view. An individual can participate without being
present—they can write letters or have an interest group represent them. In any case, it is important to
recognize that citizen involvement in the development of public decisions is needed to ensure fairness
and an acceptable collective decision about shared problems and solutions that can be implemented.
Citizen concerns, views, hopes, and perceptions are critical to the development of a workable decision. A
workable decision has three components: (1) The process of the decision making is seen as fair, (2) the
stakeholders all have a say, and (3) implementation will not be impeded.

-------
Fundamental to a good decision is the development of a process for fair and open involvement.
Equalizing the power base for involvement requires that everyone know, understand, and share in the
development of the groundrules. "If you don't know the rules, you can't play the game."
Groundrules are a set of agreements developed by participants in a collective decision making process.
Groundrules identify what contracts, agreements, or expectations the group has for the proper conduct
and behavior that will occur during their negotiations or problem solving efforts. Groundrules specify the
group's procedural agreements of how they will conduct work and what minimum behavior standards and
agreements are necessary for them to begin mutual risk taking and problem solving. The content of the
groundrules is also of great importance as these decisions set the "rules of the game." These decisions
include how decisions will be made, who will be participating, how data will be collected, how problem
solving will be handled, and how conflicts will be managed.
The groundrules can be viewed as an essential first step as the participants begin to build the level of
relationships and trust necessary to accomplish their tasks and to ensure implementation of their
agreements. The very act of developing and agreeing on the groundrules provides an opportunity for the
stakeholders to practice their problem solving skills before the "real" decisions must be made.
In the final analysis, because the perception of the Forum's process is fair and open, stakeholders
continue to participate even though they may not always "get their way." The Forum is growing in
influence—taking on new projects. The Council has faded as the $1 million was spent. The Council has
now become a Water Quality Committee that meets as a part of the Forum's regular business meetings.
The difference in perceptions toward the two organizations occurred because there was a difference in
the equality of involvement by all stakeholders and in the development and use of groundrules. For
success, development of a structure that is inclusive of all interested stakeholders, as well as the joint
creation of groundrules must be planned for during the very first organizational steps of watershed action
groups.

-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Implementing Environmental Justice in Water
Quality Programs
Deborah Alex-Saunders, Executive Director
Minority Environmental Association, Sandusky, OH
Although poison runoff, and more generally environmental degradation, in one way or another affects
every Clevelander, not every community in Greater Cleveland is affected in the same way. In particular,
the information and economic needs of the African-American community are overarching concerns that
shape the community's experience of water pollution problems. The three areas of concern regarding
water pollution from an African-American perspective are: (1) access to information; (2) communication
and outreach efforts; and (3) advocacy. We describe each of these needs and concerns briefly below.
Information Needs and Economic Linkages
There is a definite need for water pollution information tailored to the conditions of inner-city
communities. Nationwide, a few dozen studies in the Environmental Justice field have examined the
relationship between environmental issues, in particular toxic waste dumping, and race and/or income
levels of the surrounding communities, but none of these studies have made water pollution their primary
focus. The relationship between ethnic and income group distribution and poison runoff and impaired
waterways is little understood.
Since economic development and reinvestment issues are central to inner-city communities, there is a
critical need to link information on water pollution and waterway restoration to the economics of
community development in urban areas. In our talks with the late Omar Ali-Bey of the Denise McNair
New Life Center on Woodland Road, the need for jobs was central: "Water pollution education has no
meaning unless jobs are tied into it." Harllel Jones, also of the Denise McNair Center, further stated that
jobs, and not job training, are needed by Cleveland's unemployed people. "We don't need training," said
Mr. Jones, "we just need to get hired."

-------
Government investment in "Brownfields" strategies for reindustrialization was also highlighted by
Harllel Jones, who particularly emphasized the need for investment in "black-owned firms."
East Cleveland School Board member Emma Whatley linked water pollution work with the creation of
new careers: "Our children need to be given the understanding that problems like water pollution may be
an opportunity for a career. We need more environmental programs in the school." Thus, further research
into jobs and career development for youth in environmental professions, is of critical importance to the
success of environmental cleanup programs in Greater Cleveland.
Communication
There is a need for much broader contact between urban watershed restoration and pollution control
professionals and people of color and disadvantaged communities throughout Greater Cleveland.
Traditional communication modes that work well for highly-educated, already-involved activists,
consisting of newsletters and the occasional public hearing or meeting, do not work well as
communication modes for residents of lower-income and minority communities. Perhaps most disturbing
from a public involvement perspective, there are few opportunities for water quality officials to interact
routinely, and directly, with the diverse community leaders of Greater Cleveland. In the Mill Creek
Watershed, there has been more interaction between community leaders and water quality officials from
the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District (NEORSD); there remains a need to bring in other
neighborhoods that do not have a direct agenda for watershed development at this time, but who
nonetheless need to know about sewerage issues affecting them. This is a communication challenge not
only for NEORSD, but for all water quality officials and activists. Indeed, all major players in water
quality issues need to expand and improve outreach and communication with communities of color and
lower-income neighborhoods, and to involve them in environmental policymaking and planning projects
within Greater Cleveland.
The form and content of public hearings, the setting of environmental priorities, and the process of
consultation with "local stakeholders" can and should be opened up farther to non-traditional, diverse
voices. These voices and views must be incorporated into watershed restoration and cleanup decisions.
Issues including development and pollution permits, impairment of Cleveland's waters by combined
sewer overflows (CSOs), fish contamination, sewer line installation, watershed restoration planning,
landfill leachate, and point source pollution from factories and sewage plants all directly profoundly
affect communities of color. Public officials charged with addressing these issues need to work harder to
tailor their communications and public input processes to the viewpoints and concerns of these diverse
communities.
Through its work with the Cleveland: Heal the Waters Project, the Minority Environmental Association
(MEA) took some initial steps to begin to fill this communication gap concerning water quality issues.
Through public speaking and one-on-one meetings with leaders, MEA established a basic awareness of
urban water pollution problems, including CSOs; landfill leachate; and broken sewer lines, among

-------
neighborhood and city wide groups in Garfield Heights, East Cleveland, and other communities. This
work needs to be expanded and continued in a myriad of ways and through a variety of outreach groups
in Greater Cleveland. An example of an ongoing program that establishes broader "watershed awareness"
is the GREEN project that teaches high school students to conduct water quality monitoring studies and
to communicate their results to the public.
On the Need for Watershed Advocacy and Environmental Jobs in
Minority Communities
There is a great need to broaden the spectrum of people involved in addressing urban water issues. The
lack of diversity among citizen advocates active in the Cuyahoga River Remedial Action Plan and other
regional watershed restoration efforts results in frequent "preaching to the choir" and insufficient
building of an informed citizen leadership. The two concerns outlined above (the need for information-
gathering and better communications that are tailored to minority and disadvantaged communities) have
in turn led to this dearth of diverse water quality advocates.
A clear, well-defined linkage to jobs and career development is an added motivation for neighborhood
and youth leaders to take interest in Greater Cleveland's water pollution problems and solutions. As
watershed awareness grows, so does awareness of job opportunities linked to watershed restoration. In
the words of one environmental educator, Sandi Crawford of Zuyahoga Community College (Tri-C), "an
environmentally informed community can find ways to share in the economic benefits of restoring some
of the problem areas." Tri-C has established a Center for Environmental Education and Training, and an
Environmental Equity Institute, to help make the jobs-environment linkage through environmental career
development programs.
In the vision of one Cleveland watershed activist, Mary Beth Binns of the Cuyahoga River Community
Planning Organization, Tri-C's Center for Environmental Education and Training holds the potential to
catalyze or provide watershed jobs for youth in recycling, streambank stabilization, and other
environmental cleanup and restoration work. These youth jobs could be housed in the Neighborhood
Opportunity Centers of the Council for Economic Opportunities.
The only way that knowledge can make a change in people's lives is if it leads to action. The motivation
for action stems from a greater awareness that all Clevelanders, including African-Americans, depend
upon clean and safe water in everyday life. One example is people who fish in Cleveland's waters. We
were particularly impressed with the love of some Clevelanders for fishing in Lake Erie, off of the 55th
Street pier. The "55th Street Anglers" illustrate the importance of clean water to Clevelanders, and the
concern that many have over the everyday pollution caused by poison runoff and other discharges. The
anglers talked with us about fishing and water pollution, and expressed a strong personal connection with
local water quality through their fishing experiences.
Recommendations

-------
Growth Management for Watershed Restoration Must Be the First
Priority
The more Cuyahoga County and surrounding communities allow uncontrolled growth to occur, with its
endless roads, rooftops, and parking lots, the tougher will be the job of healing the waters. If strong
environmental planning concepts are not applied in Greater Cleveland, the poison runoff loadings from
newly-developing sites could eventually dwarf the current runoff loadings estimates, and dead and dying
urban streams will have no chance of revival. Growth management, and particularly water-sensitive site
design and master planning requirements, must be the first priority.
Water Quality and Watershed Restoration Strategies Should
Emphasize Jobs and Economic Development
Inner-urban watersheds are often zones where joblessness tends to be high. In order to maximize local
community support, energy, and enthusiasm for restoration projects, local and state environmental
officials need to link restoration strategies to job creation and economic development. Such jobs could be
as diverse as tree-planting, catch-basin cleaning, sewer-system monitoring, and land-cover mapping.
Local Civilian Conservation Corps crews could be deployed for some of these projects. Organizations
like Build Up Greater Cleveland and programs like Tri-C's Center for Environmental Education and
Training, could help to fundraise and strategize among business and industry leaders. In addition, any
"Brownfields" reindustrialization strategy for Greater Cleveland needs to include watershed restoration
objectives.
Local Environmental Programs Must Give Greater Emphasis to
Runoff Prevention
We strongly recommend that tried-and-true stormwater prevention measures be implemented in
Cuyahoga County and Greater Cleveland immediately. These include zoning code changes to require
water-sensitive site design for new development. Other less-mature measures, such as parking lot runoff
storage, should begin to be implemented on a phased-in basis throughout the region. Runoff capture
measures in the urban core, combined with water-sensitive site design and infilling strategies for new
development, can slow down increases in poison runoff loadings from new development in the region.
Stormwater Solutions Must Be Integrated With Other Programs and
Coordinated Across Whole Watersheds
Poison runoff solutions must be integrated with other planning policies in Greater Cleveland, including
growth management, air quality, and transportation plans. Civic leaders have begun to shape whole-
watershed strategies for the lower Cuyahoga River, Doan Brook, Mill Creek and other local waters.
Suburban and inner-city developers and officials must work together for strategies that combine

-------
preservation and restoration in these projects. In addition, one single agency needs to be responsible for
coordinating zoning code changes for storrnwater prevention site design throughout major watersheds in
the region.
NEORSD Should Include Storrnwater Management Measures in its
CSO Permit, Slated for Renewal This Year
NEORSD should be willing to be accountable for creating and implementing measurable performance
and implementation objectives for both CSO and storrnwater control and reduction measures in its CSO
permit, even where EPA policy and guidance stops short of establishing such objectives.
For example, some of the more "mature" storrnwater solutions, such as roof drain disconnecting should
be explicitly integrated into the "Nine Minimum Controls" listed in NEORSD's forthcoming CSO permit,
attached to objective, verifiable application standards.
Citizens in Greater Cleveland Can Participate in Poison Runoff
Prevention in Many Ways
Citizens seeking to stem the flow of poison runoff and raw sewage in Greater Cleveland have an
opportunity through the issuance by Ohio EPA of a renewed CSO permit to NEORSD. Citizens can
begin by exercising their right to comment on the draft permit, especially regarding which waters are
local priorities for CSO elimination or reduction.
The citizens of Greater Cleveland, and all of Cuyahoga County, need to become involved in existing
small watershed efforts, such as the Doan Brook and Mill Creek projects, and to give input into the Clean
Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits issued to Cleveland-area factories,
sewage plants, and CSO systems by Ohio-EPA. The best way to do this is through joining an existing
citizen group, such as the Earth Day Coalition and the Lake Erie Alliance, and becoming active in a
committee of the Lower Cuyahoga Remedial Action Plan.
Beyond participating in community and regulatory programs, citizens can take individual action to
reduce runoff by landscaping their yards to hold and infiltrate more rainwater, recycling motor oil,
driving less and supporting mass transit to reduce the need for parking lots and roads, and supporting the
development of compact, energy- and land-efficient communities.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Private Property Rights...Principles, Perceptions,
and Proposals*
LaJuana S. Wilcher, Environmental Partner
D. Randall Benn, Environmental Associate
Winston & Strawn, Washington, DC
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Over the past few years, protecting constitutionally guaranteed private property rights hasbeen a rallying
cry among many people who are concerned about increasing environmental regulation. Perhaps no single
issue has propelled this debate as has the protection of wetlands. Using wetlands regulation as a focal
point, this paper will examine the historical bases of constitutionally guaranteed private property rights,
the federal courts' interpretations of when a compensable taking has occurred (and when it has not), and
the most recent legislative actions that address private property owners' rights under federal
environmental regulations.
Wetlands are caught in the crosshairs of the inherent conflicts found
within the bundle of rights that we expect in this country. People expect
both the unfettered right to use their land, as well as the right to use and
enjoy unpolluted waters.
One of the reasons that the wetlands debate is so contentious is that it
affects directly individuals, not just corporate America. Two decades
ago, the "regulated community" generally included only corporations
and municipalities. In contrast, federal and state laws that prevent the destruction of wetlands impinge on
the traditional notions of land ownership and use, and as such affect the millions of people in this country
who own the approximately 75 million acres of wetlands in private ownership in the contiguous U.S. In a
country where property ownership is a fundamental, constitutional right, use of that property, unrestricted
by federal regulatory requirements, is what some landowners are demanding. Alternatively, they argue
that the Takings Clause, described below, entitles them to compensation for any more than a minimal
"... the passions created by
property are keenest and
most tenacious..."
—Alexis de Tocqueville,
Democracy in America,
(1835)

-------
reduction in the value of their property should federal regulations prevent them from engaging in certain
activity on their property.
The Takings Clause, the Commerce Clause, and Wetlands
The Takings Clause
In 1791, the Bill of Rights, consisting of the first 10 Amendments to the U.S. Constitution, was ratified.
The Bill of Rights, Article V, provides that "no person shall, among other things, be deprived of certain
rights . . . nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private
property shall be taken for public use without just compensation." U.S. Const, amend. V. The
interpretation of this clause, commonly referred to as the "Takings Clause," determines private property
owners' constitutional rights to compensation when the government "takes" their property.
Three years before the Bill of Rights, the Constitution was ratified, providing, among other things, that
the federal judiciary should interpret the Constitution, as well as the laws enacted by the U.S. Congress.
From the date of the writing of the Constitution until the 1920s, the U.S. Supreme Court generally
interpreted the Constitution to address a physical taking or permanent occupation of the land in the
Takings Clause. In Pennsylvania Coal v. Mahon, 260 U.S. 393 (1922), however, the Supreme Court
recognized that regulation could be tantamount to a physical taking and justify compensation under the
Constitution. Nevertheless, in writing the opinion for that case, Chief Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes
stated, "Government hardly could go on if to some extent value incident to property could not be
diminished without paying for every such change in the general law." So the Court held that regulation
require compensation under the Takings Clause, but only in certain circumstances.
The Supreme Court ratified and reaffirmed those circumstances seventy years later when Justice Antonin
Scalia, known as a strong conservative, noted and quoted Chief Justice Holmes in Lucas v. South
Carolina Coastal Commission, 505 U.S. 1003 (1992). In Lucas, the Court revisited the regulatory takings
issue and held what the Court had for seven decades: that the regulation of private property must be
justified as a legitimate exercise of government action, and that justifiable regulation that "takes" all
economically beneficial uses of the property entitles an aggrieved landowner to compensation. The Court
stated, "We think, in short, that there are good reasons for our frequently expressed belief that when the
owner of real property has been called upon to sacrifice all economically beneficial uses in the name of
the common good, that is, to leave his property economically idle, he has suffered a taking." It is this
interpretation that property rights advocates generally seek to expand.
The Commerce Clause
While the Constitution gives the courts the responsibility to interpret laws and constitutional issues, the
Constitution gave Congress the authority to regulate a prescribed list of activities, including, "commerce
with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes." U.S. Const. Art. 1, section

-------
8. The Commerce Clause of the Constitution has been interpreted to give
the Congress authority to regulate activities affecting interstate
commerce, which the courts have interpreted to include the regulation of
waters used by interstate travelers for public recreation, waters used to
irrigate crops and sold in interstate commerce, and waters on the flyways
of migratory waterfowl.
Just last year, the U.S. Supreme Court refused to review and therefore let
stand a Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that held that the use of
seasonally dry, isolated wetlands (prairie potholes) by migratory birds
provided a sufficient connection to interstate commerce to justify
Congress' exercise of regulatory authority over those areas. (Cargill Inc.
v. U.S., 116 S. Ct. 407 (1995). The federal courts also have determined
that the Clean Water Act (CWA) should be given the broadest
constitutional interpretation possible when considering its jurisdiction. It
is these interpretations of the CWA and the Constitution itself that have
given the federal government the authority to regulate wetlands under the
CWA.
Wetlands
/No]person shall, among
other things be deprived of
certain rights... nor be
deprived of life, liberty, or
property, without due
process of law; nor shall
private property shall be
taken for public use
without just
compensation."
--The Bill of Rights,
Article V

"[WJhen the owner of real
property has been called
upon to sacrifice all
economically beneficial
uses in the name of the
common good, that is, to
leave his property
When the basis for the wetlands regulation, section 404 of the Federal economically idle, he has
Water Pollution Control Act, was enacted in 1972, the authority to	sujjere a a ing.
regulate wetlands was imprecise at best, and muddled at worst. Congress —Lucas v. South Carolina
chose to require a permit for the discharge of dredged or fill materials	Coastal Council, 505 U.S.
into "navigable waters," and then defined "navigable waters" to include	1003 (1992)
"all waters of the U.S." Relying on this language, in part, the federal
courts in the mid-1970s interpreted "navigable waters" to include wetlands. The courts' interpretations,
however, were not well received in all quarters. As a result, when the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act was reauthorized in 1977 (and given the short title "Clean Water Act") the debate raged over the
extent to which the CWA should regulate wetlands. The word wetlands was incorporated into the Act.
Anyone who believes that the controversy surrounding wetlands is new need only look to the legislative
history to see that the issues and conflicts are not new, only more visible.
Clash of the Clauses
Clearly, if the Commerce Clause of the Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, or the Fifth
Amendment to the Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, were read without regard for each other or
for the other provisions of the Constitution, we would have an irreconcilable conflict. In over 200 years,
and under many, many changing circumstances, however, the courts have struck a balance. That balance
has weighed the rights of private property owners with the responsibility of the government to protect
public health, safety and welfare. This responsibility has included environmental protection.

-------
Numerous cases have awarded compensation to landowners when they have been denied permits under
section 404 to undertake activities of their choice. Nevertheless, many people and many Members of
Congress believe that the judicial process is often too expensive and lengthy, or that the traditional
constitutional protections, as interpreted by the courts, simply do not go far enough. These opinions are
the genesis of private property rights proposals now before Congress.
The 104th Congress
The election of the 104th Congress, led by a core of conservative Republicans, has brought to a head the
conflict between unrestricted property use, compensation and wetlands protection regulatory activities.
The central principles of their agenda are outlined in the "Contract With America." The Contract states
that "a private property owner would be entitled to receive compensation for any reduction in the value
of property that is a consequence of a limitation on the use of such property imposed by the federal
government" (emphasis added). The Contract provides specifically for "compensation for private
property takings."
On the first day of the new Congress, four bills were introduced addressing private property rights, with
more to follow. In hearings before congressional committees addressing these bills, proponents of the
legislation argued the following:
¦	Property rights are under siege by government regulations, and courts have not gone far enough to
protect private property.
¦	Obtaining compensation through the courts when a regulatory taking has occurred is cost
prohibitive for most people, and takes too long.
¦	Expanding traditional private property rights protections will ensure that the government will
fairly weigh the costs and benefits of its action, and only regulate those things really worth the
price.
On the other hand, those who oppose the expansion of traditional private property rights by legislation
make the following arguments:
¦	The Takings Clause does not prohibit the reasonable regulation of property rights to protect the
public health, safety or welfare.
¦	The legislation would create a windfall if someone purchased property (i.e, wetlands) and then
failed to get permits because of the environmental requirements. The costs of paying for every
reduction in value resulting from government regulation will effectively stop federal programs to
protect the environment.

-------
¦ Changes that are needed to the wetlands or other environmental programs should be made to those
programs, not in overarching legislation that could affect every conceivable government action.
In the House, the key legislative vehicle for property rights issues has been H.R. 9, the Job Creation and
Wage Enhancement Act. H.R. 9 provides that a private property owner is entitled to receive
compensation for a reduction in the value of property if the reduction is 10 percent or greater and is a
consequence of "a limitation on an otherwise lawful use of the property imposed by a final agency
action." The Act also establishes an administrative procedure for compensation whereby a private
property owner may submit a request for compensation to the head of an agency that took the action.
Within 180 days after the receipt of a request for compensation, the head of the agency "shall" stay the
agency action and offer the property owner compensation. The private property owner has 60 days to
accept or reject the offer, and may submit the resolution to arbitration if he or she rejects the offer.
Payment for the diminution in value is to be made by the head of an agency to the private property owner
based upon his or her acceptance of the agency head's offer, or a decision of the arbiter, within 60 days.
H.R. 9 (as amended by H.R. 925, the Private Property Act of 1995) passed the House on March 3, 1995
by a vote of 277-148.
Several other property rights bills were introduced in the House last year, but, except as noted, they have
languished in Committee and will not be taken up this year. H.R. 489 would expand the jurisdiction of
certain federal courts to hear takings cases. It was considered in the course of hearings on H.R. 9/925 and
was partially incorporated into that bill, as was H.R. 790, which would provide compensation if federal
wetlands or endangered species determinations reduce property values by 50 percent or more. H.R. 971
would generally allow homeowners to seek compensation for the decrease in property values caused by
others, such as developers and industry. Of greater significance, H.R. 961 strikes section 404 and creates
a new program that allows anyone whose land is classified as a wetland of "critical significance" to seek
compensation from the U.S. for any diminution in value. Other "non-critical" wetlands are generally
opened for development. The bill passed the House by a vote of 240-185 on May 16, 1995 and was
referred to the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, which is expected to consider
wetlands reform in late winter/early spring 1995.
In the Senate, Majority Leader Robert Dole (R-KS) sponsored S. 605, the "Omnibus Property Rights Act
of 1995," which would require the federal government to compensate property owners if federal
regulations deny them the use of their property or diminish its value by 33 percent. The bill was
approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee by a 10-7 vote on December 21, 1995 and is expected to
reach the Senate floor in late February or early March of 1996. S. 605 would allow landowners to receive
the difference between the fair market value of the property before and after the government action. The
bill also clarifies the legal standard for a "takings," encourages arbitration of claims, requires government
agencies to consider whether their proposed action may lead to a taking and streamlines the
administrative appeal and compensation process for claims arising under the Endangered Species Act.
Other bills which have been considered but not acted on in the Senate include S. 22, which would require
that all federal agencies complete a private property taking impact analysis before implementing any
action that is likely to result in a taking, S. 135, which would set out new judicial procedures for

-------
compensation of private property owners if state or federal agency actions diminish the value of property
by 20 percent or $10,000, and S. 145, which would provide compensation for reductions of 25 percent or
$10,000 or more in the fair market value of private property caused by governmental action.
Conclusion
The current private property rights conflict is part of the larger national debate in which we are engaged.
That debate includes issues such as where to draw the line between individual rights and responsibilities,
and what the role of the federal government should be. How should we balance the rights of the majority,
the minority and future generations? Rarely is there a clear or bright line on these issues. As we shift
through the reasoning and rhetoric of the environmental pieces of this debate and try to craft rational
policies that are fair to all, we must make some accommodation for the future and for our neighbors,
without trampling on the rights of individuals who are here now. That very delicate balance has and ever
will be shifting, as the

-------
As with any proposed restoration, there are winners and losers. In order for an objective analysis to be
completed, as many players as possible must be included in the study. Affected parties of the salt marsh
restoration include riparian land owners and developers, recreational users and wildlife. Much of the
difficulty associated with evaluating a salt marsh restoration stems from those impacts that do not have a
market price. In other words, value is not determined or set by the market. For example, the valuation of
wildlife habitat in the West River watershed is a difficult, but crucial component to this analysis.
Although they have a significant value to the public, they risk being excluded entirely from economic
analysis and the decision-making process. This is due to their non-market nature, which, on the surface,
gives them the appearance of having no economic value. Such a conclusion could result in distorted and
environmentally unfriendly policy decisions, in the words of one economist,"... the systematic
relocation of the most environmentally risky activities to the most pristine environments." (Hutchinson et
al., 1995). For this reason, we have chosen to focus the study on the monmarket benefits and costs of
restoration. In particular we focus on habitat preservation for the endangered least tern. This paper
presents the survey design for a valuation of wildlife habitat in the West River watershed. We find the
potential for significant nonmarket benefits from the proposed restoration.
The Contingent Valuation Method and Wildlife Resources
Estimating the benefits of nonmarket goods and services, such as the preservation of endangered or
threatened species, has proven to be difficult and controversial. Since Krutilla, 1967, first defined
existence value, economists have debated valuation techniques. Under the assumption of weak
separability of preferences (nonmarket from market goods), a "pure existence value" can be determined
(McConnell, 1983 and Madariaga and McConnell, 1987). The most widely recognized method for the
valuation of nonmarket goods and services (including those with existence value) is the contingent
valuation method (CVM). The contingent valuation method is a technique which uses surveys to elicit
"willingness to pay" (WTP) for nonmarket environmental amenities or proposed programs. (See Portney,
1994, Cummings et al., 1986 and Mitchell and Carson, 1989 among others, for a thorough examination
of the methodology).
Using CVM to value wildlife is not a new phenomenon. CVM has been used in several studies on
endangered species (see for example, Stevens, et al. 1991, Boyle and Bishop 1987, Samples, et. al., 1986,
Hageman, 1985, Stoll and Johnson, 1984 and Brookshire et. al, 1983). Other studies have focused more
generally on wildlife preservation (Stevens et al., 1994 and Desvousges, et al., 1993 , for example).
However, the results of these earlier studies are not without controversy and some are seriously flawed
due to poor survey design. The studies are similar in that they attempt to elicit WTP for wildlife
(endangered or not) preservation, but the actual object to be valued (e.g. a species, a number of animals
or a change in the probability of extinction or habitat) varies. These earlier studies also all dealt with
species that are relatively well known such as grizzly bears, whooping cranes, humpback whales and
bald eagles. This has significance for this study, since we, in part, attempt to value a lesser known
species, the least tern.

-------
CVM has been under intense scrutiny as of late and has been the subject of debate among economists and
others for the last decade. The CVM literature is extensive and although much progress has been made,
CVM has been under attack for failing to come up with reliable and accurate measures of value
(Diamond and Hausman, 1994, McFadden and Leonard, 1993, and Diamond et al., 1993 are some of the
most recent critics). Stevens, et al., 1991, suggest that since wildlife benefits are difficult to quantify,
CVM results are sensitive and values are likely to be volatile, benefit-cost analysis should not be used to
make decisions. This study helps to alleviate some concern. We argue that a careful survey design can
eliminate many of the biases that have caused the controversy.
Survey Design
The survey instrument is currently being pretested using focus groups and one-on-one practice
interviews. The survey has been designed following many of the guidelines set by a 1993 panel convened
by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), as well as guidelines from Portney
(1994), Mitchell and Carson (1989), Hanemann (1994), and Freeman (1993). The only deviation from
these guidelines is the WTP question as discussed below. The survey instrument is a personal interview
that consists of four key components.
1. A description of the watershed and the species to be valued:
An important factor in the effectiveness of a contingent valuation survey is that the survey
respondent must have a clear and accurate idea of the specific good that is being valued. In the
case of wildlife, this is often a difficult concept to convey, because there are countless ways of
viewing the resource. The respondent could as a result be considering their willingness to pay for
a good that is different from the one being asked about in the survey. If restoration of the West
River improves habitat for the least tern, a survey question that asks about the value of the least
tern will be ambiguous. Is it referring to the bird itself, reduced chance of extinction for the bird,
increased probability of viewing a least tern during a visit to the West River, or the habitat it lives
in?
Related to this is an issue known as "part-whole bias" or the "embedding effect," in which
respondents produce equal values of willingness to pay for two goods, one of which is a
subcomponent of the other. The model of the effect is described as follows (Brown et al., 1995).
A good of interest, known as a, is valued by one set of subjects. Then, a larger good, S, that
includes is valued by another set of subjects. Since studies of this type have obtained results that a
= S, the conclusion is that either S is not valued at all (which is unlikely), or that respondents
value a as a component of S. In terms of wildlife, a small population of birds may be valued as a
component of a larger population of birds. [Footnote 1] Another example, people express a desire
to preserve wildlife because they value the habitat it lives in. Thus, the species is embedded
within its habitat.
We have addressed both of these problems by structuring our survey so that respondents are asked

-------
about wildlife habitat. The resource being valued is a specific number of acres of wildlife habitat.
Thus the detailed description of the watershed includes maps and photographs. We also have
information on numbers of known breeding pairs currently in the watershed, probability of
extinction (or some measure of vulnerability), pictures of the watershed, and a description of the
proposed solution. The objective here is to provide a clear picture of the species being valued.
[Footnote 2]
Information on the least tern is available from USFWS, Connecticut Department of
Environmental Protection, and the World Wildlife Federation. Respondents will also be asked
some introductory informational questions to get them thinking about the issues. Likely questions
could be: How often do you visit the River (for the local subsample)? What activities do you
participate in? Have you ever seen a least tern? Do you feel the continued existence of this species
is very important? Somewhat important? Not important? Respondents will also be asked to
characterize why they think continued existence is important. Respondents could be given a range
of optional answers, that include use-values, bequest values or an intrinsic value. [Footnote 3] If
the situation is properly framed any hypothetical bias and information bias will be drastically
reduced, at least for the local sample. This will be ensured by the use of photographs and maps, a
verbal description of the watershed and a detailed description of the proposed preservation
program.
2. The Willingness to Pay question:
The valuation question takes the form of a WTP question. A WTP response is an estimate of
compensating surplus and it implies the respondent has no property right in the species being
valued. A willingness to accept compensation for loss of a species question, on the other hand,
would suggest that the respondent has a property right to the species. [Footnote 4] We do not feel
this would be a relevant question.
WTP questions are in the form of an open-ended payment question. The WTP literature (in
particular that on dichotomous choice) is extensive. The NOAA panel recommended the use of a
dichotomous choice question in CV surveys so that the respondent is asked to make a familiar
decision. An open-ended question, the panel argued, places the respondents in the unfamiliar
situation of determining a value as opposed to voting or deciding whether or not to buy
something. However, recent comparative studies of open-ended vs. dichotomous choice questions
have revealed WTP bids that are much higher than those from open-ended questions (see for
example, McFadden et al., 1993). The results from these more recent studies support the use of
open-ended questions. This type of question should also eliminate any starting point bias that
arises from a referendum type of payment question. The payment vehicle is in the form of a one-
time private donation.
Respondents are being asked to value the restoration of a particular number of acres, rather than a
number of birds (or a percentage of birds). Highlighted maps show representation of the areas.

-------
Respondents are also reminded that any amount offered will reduce the amount of income
available for the purchase of other goods and services. For example, the WTP question might be
prefaced with a reminder to think about current income, the amount of money currently spent on
other goods and services and other possible uses of income.
3. Socioeconomic questions:
Respondents are then asked questions to determine socioeconomic characteristics, environmental
attitudes and behavior. These include characteristics such as age, education, income, affiliation
with environmental organizations or bird watching groups, etc. This allows the construction of
willingness to pay as a function of the various socioeconomic characteristics. Respondents are
also asked about their attitudes toward animal preservation and about their general knowledge of
the bird species.
4. Follow-up questions:
A series of follow-up questions are then asked to ensure that the respondent understood the
scenario and the payment format and believed the information presented. Respondents are asked,
for example, if they feel they will have to pay the amount specified if the policy is implemented or
whether they believed the scenarios presented to be true. Respondents are also asked to give
reasons for answers of "$0" to the WTP question. These questions also aid in the elimination of
any protest bids. For example, respondents who respond with a "$0" to the willingness to pay
question will be asked why they would not pay. Possible reasons will be outlined from which the
respondent can choose. Some of these will be economic reasons (e.g. "cannot afford it"), others
will be protest reasons (e.g. "taxes are already too high"), which, if chosen, can be eliminated.
Statistical and econometric analysis of the survey data will determine whether or not this is indeed
an improved survey design and whether or not any of the above hypotheses are to be rejected.
Discussion
An issue that is potentially problematic to our results is what has been called the "warm glow effect." In
this situation, survey respondents state a price they would pay, but they may not be purchasing the
environmental good being offered. Instead, they may be purchasing the price of moral satisfaction, of
feeling good for donating to a worthy cause. Wildlife is particularly prone to this effect, because people
value wildlife for several reasons which are not related to economic utility. Social, moral, ethical, legal,
and even emotional considerations all contribute to a person's value of wildlife and desire to protect it.
Such values are crucial, for they give support to protection and restoration of wildlife habitat such as the
West River salt marsh. However, they can confound CVM surveys because these values do not easily
translate into a willingness to pay figure, and in some cases, such as moral considerations, may actually
create in the respondent hostility to the idea of placing any sort of price on the wildlife resource.
Furthermore, people can value wildlife both for the ways in which they can use it (fishing, viewing) and

-------
for its mere existence, even if they never will see it (such as people's concerns about species in the
tropical rain forest they never will visit). Ideally, a CVM survey will be able to measure the sum total of
both use and existence values. By focusing on the ecosystem of the restored salt marsh, we have hoped to
capture the entire bundle of wildlife values for the West River.
A final issue to consider is uncertainty. Restoring the West River tidal marsh, for example, does not
guarantee 100% chance of survival for the least tern. No species on the planet has a 0% chance of
extinction. Acknowledging uncertainty in a CVM survey will obtain a more accurate measure of people's
willingness to pay for wildlife resources; ignoring it will result in biased responses. We have
incorporated the uncertainty factor into our survey by providing information about the vulnerability and
probability of extinction of the least tern.
Results (Pending)
The survey described above is currently being pretested by focus groups at the Yale School of Forestry
and Environmental Studies. Full data collection will be conducted during February and March.
Compilation and analysis of survey data will be presented at Watershed '96. We expect to find significant
quantifiable benefits to wildlife from restoring the salt marsh. Although our study has focused on one
particular benefit of salt marsh restoration we will also present a categorization of the additional parties
impacted including effects on property values, flood control and recreation.
References
Boyle, Kevin and Richard Bishop, 1987, "Valuing Wildlife in Benefit-Cost Analysis: A Case
Study Involving Endangered Species," Water Resources Research, 23 (5) 943-950.
Brown, Thomas C., Susan C. Barro, Michael J. Manfredo and George L. Peterson, 1995, "Does
Better Information About the Good Avoid the Embedding Effect," Journal of Environmental
Management, 44 1-10.
Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, 1993, J.A. Hausman (Ed.), North Holland
Publishers.
Cummings, R.C., D.S. Brookshire, and W. D. Schulze, 1986, Valuing Environmental Goods: An
Assessment of the Contingent Valuation Method, Rowman and Allenheld Publishers.
Desvousges, W.H., F.R. Johnson, R.W. Dunford, S.P. Hudson, K. N. Wilson and K. Boyle, 1993,
"Measuring Natural Resource Damages with Contingent Valuation: Tests of Validity and
Reliability," in Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment, J.A. Hausman (Ed.), North Holland,
91-164.
Diamond P.A. and J.A. Hausman, 1994, "Contingent Valuation: Is Some Number Better than No
Number?," Journal of Economic Perspectives, 8(4): 1-20.
Diamond, P.A., J.A. Hausman, G. K. Leonard and M.A. Denning, 1993, "Does Contingent
Valuation Measure Preferences? Experimental Evidence," in Contingent Valuation: A Critical
Assessment, J.A. Hausman (Ed.), North Holland, 41-89.
Freeman, M.A., III, 1993, The Measurement of Environmental and Resource Values, Resources

-------
for the Future.
Hanemann, W.M., 1994, "Contingent Valuation and Economics," California Agricultural
Experiment Station Working Paper No. 697.
Hutchinson, W. George, Susan M. Chilton and John Davis, 1995, "Measuring Non-Use Value of
Environmental Goods Using the Contingent Valuation Method," Journal of Agricultural
Economics, 46 (1) 97-112.
Krutilla, J.V., 1967, "Conservation Reconsidered," American Economic Review, 57: 777-786.
Madariaga B., and K.E. McConnell, 1987, "Exploring Existence Value," Water Resources
Research, 23: 936-42.
McConnell, K.E., 1983, "Existence and Bequest Value," in Managing Air Quality and Scenic
Resources at National Parks and Wilderness Areas, R.D. Rowe and L.G. Chestnut (Eds.),
Boulder: Westview Press.
McFadden, D. and G.K. Leonard, 1993," Issues in the Contingent Valuation of Environmental
Goods: Methodologies for Data Collection and Analysis," In Contingent Valuation: A Critical
Assessment, J.A. Hausman (Ed.)165-215.
Mitchell, R.C. and R. Carson, 1989, Using Surveys to Value Public Goods: The Contingent
Valuation Method, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
Portney, P.R., 1994, "The Contingent Valuation Debate: Why Economists Should Care," Journal
of Economic Perspectives, 8 (4): 3-17, Fall.
Samples, K.C., J.A. Dixon and M.M. Gowen, 1986, "Information Disclosure and Endangered
Species Valuation," Land Economics, 62(3): 306-12.
Schulze, W., G. McClelland, M.Doane, E. Balistreri, R. Boyce, B. Hurd and R. Simeneauer, 1994
working paper, "An Analysis of Stated Preferences for Superfund Site Cleanup."
Stevens, T.H., T.A. More and R.J. Glass, 1994, "Interpretation and Temporal Stability of CV Bids
for Wildlife Existence: A Panel Study," Land Economics, 70 (3): 355-64.
Stevens, T.H., R.J. Glass, T. More and J. Echeverria, 1991," Wildlife Recovery: Is Benefit-Cost
Analysis Appropriate?," Journal of Environmental Management, 33: 327-334.
Walsh, R., J. Loomis, and R. Gilman, 1984, "Valuing Option, Existence and Bequest Demands
for Wilderness," Land Economics, 60: 14-29.
Footnotes
1.	The Desvousges, et al., 1993, CV study of migratory waterfowl is commonly cited as an example
of the severity of the embedding problem as respondents failed to distinguish between 2,000,
20,000 and 200,000 birds. However, the description of the situation was termed in percentages
(e.g. "less than 1%") and no investigation was done to determine whether respondents perceived
this to be a large or small difference.
2.	For example, the respondent may be given the following information: "The Least Tern is a small,
gull-like bird about nine inches long. It is the smallest of the terns. In the East, they nest from
southern Maine to Mexico. They are known to inhabit both coastal and interior river systems."3
Stevens, et al., 1991, asked these types of questions in a survey on bald eagles in New England.
3.	See Freeman, 1993 for a discussion of WTP and WTA with regard to property rights.

-------
A / \ Location Map
The extent of existing land uses in the basin was determined from land use/land cover maps based on the Florida Land Use And
Cover Classification System (FLUCCS) and show 30 land use categories in the study area. The 30 land use categories were
aggregated into six general categories. About 54 percent of the area is categorized as open land and 22 percent as wetlands. The
remaining 24 percent is developed and consists mainly of low and medium density residential with pockets of commercial land
uses. The future land use map represents build-out conditions. Over 70 percent of the basin area is expected to be developed
with primarily low and medium density residential development.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the extent by which flood protection and water quality Levels of Service (LOS) are
being met in the basin and identify potential solutions and funding mechanisms to finance the proposed improvements.
Level of Service
A storm water management system that performs well is one that meets the flood protection and water quality LOS intended for
it. LOS analysis for flood protection indicated that no emergency shelters, essential services, or employment/service centers
would experience flooding during a 100-year storm event. However, numerous buildings, all residential, would be flooded
during this flood event. In an apparent contradiction, practically all roads meet the established LOS. This is because houses in
older developments are often built at elevations below those of the adjacent roads.
In terms of water quality, existing conditions in the basin are being threatened by development pressures. Erosion problems
exist throughout the basin. In addition, available water quality data available indicated excessive concentrations of nutrients and
coliform bacteria.
Flood Protection. The LOS criteria for flood protection are shown in Figure 2. The objective of this study was to insure that
improvements are identified to meet the adopted LOS criteria under both existing and future land use conditions.

-------
Levels of Service
Acceptable Flooding Criteria for the
100-Year Storm

Homes
Normal ™
Water Surface
Elevation
Street"
Street*
Route
Neighborhood arid collector streets should be passable for the 10 and 25-year storm flood, respectively.
Water Quality. For this study, a methodology to determine water quality LOS deficiencies and objectives was developed
herein based on both data analysis and Best Management Practices (BMP) coverages. The data analysis encompassed the
evaluation of a non-point pollution source assessment as well as the calculation of the stream's water quality index (WQI). The
WQI is based on the quality of water as measured by six water quality categories: water clarity, dissolved oxygen, oxygen
demand, coliform bacteria, nutrients, and biological diversity. The WQI is the arithmetic average of the six water quality
categories. The range of values for the WQI are as follows: 0 to less than 45 represents good quality, 45 to less than 60
represents fair quality, and 60 to 99 represents poor quality. The water quality LOS recommended for this basin is to achieve a
minimum WQI of 53 throughout the length of the stream. The existing WQI in the stream ranged from 29 to 59.
The creek has four major conveyance systems, a main branch and three secondary branches, which contain a large number of
culverts, bridges, and on-line and off-line detention facilities. The information on existing structures was stored as GIS files that
combine graphical output and database capabilities.
For watershed modeling purposes, the basin was divided into three major subbasins and 31 smaller modeled subbasins with a
median basin size of 115 acres. The subbasins were digitized in ArcCAD format and superimposed on the basin base map
containing information such as land use and soil data.
The hydraulic analysis was conducted using the Extended Transport (EXTRAN) block of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Approach

-------
Agency (EPA) Stormwater Management Model (SWMM). The input files were developed to conform with the input
requirements for that model. Calibration and verification was conducted to ensure that the model was able to replicate natural
conditions and to provide a degree of certainty to the predicted flood peak flows, volumes and elevations. Through the
hydrologic analysis, it was determined that the SCS runoff curve number method with a shape factor of 150 and the Clark unit
hydrograph method were the most appropriate for calibrating the hydrologic model.
Proposed Solutions
Various individual projects were identified in this study to improve flood control and water quality conditions within each
problem area. The identification of those projects was based on the evaluation of alternatives in terms of costs, environmental
impacts, regulatory and permitting issues, and community acceptance.
Proposed alternatives included varied levels of construction costs and complexity of design. For example, Alternative 1
($240,000) for the Englewood Lateral addresses flood relief but does not address water quality LOS. Alternative 2 ($750,000)
addresses flood relief and erosion control, which would result in reduction of the TSS concentrations in the main branch of the
creek. Alternative 3 ($1,200,000) addresses flood relief and water quality LOS.
Due to the configuration of development in the basin, the main projects recommended for implementation were Regional
Stormwater Management Facilities (RSMF's). RSMF's are storm water retention/detention ponds designed to provide
attenuation and/or treatment of surface water discharge on a regional basis or for an entire basin. A RSMF may also be utilized
for aquifer recharge, storage for water supply, wetland creation and mitigation banking, and for mitigation of flood plain
impacts. Two RSMF's were recommended, one focusing on water quality control and the other on flood control. The proposed
RSMF's would be designed with flow-through culverts such that they would be inundated during large storms, while existing
hydroperiods in the upstream wetlands would be maintained.
The RSMF's construction would require an initial investment to be repaid by those benefitting from the facility's operation.
Initial expenses will be financed by dedicated ad valorem taxes. The investment would be recovered in the future by one of
various finance alternatives. Mitigation banking was also considered as a potential source of revenue. Future developments
upstream of the RSMF would purchase the right to discharge a volume of runoff depending on specifics and individual
characteristics. Benefits associated with the development of RSMF's include:
¦ Solutions to Regional Problems. Optimal results are achieved when drainage planning and design are integrated at the
regional level. This approach provides local governments with adequate control of the physical components of the storm
water management facility within a basin. RSMF's also allow for better coordination early in the planning stages.
¦ Solutions to Problems Associated with Volume and Peak Flow of Stormwater Runoff. Urbanization disrupts the natural
equilibrium of streams. It tends to reduce the natural flood storage capabilities, increase both the peak rate and volume of
runoff, and reduce the runoff travel time. By constructing RSMF's, adequate provisions can be made to mitigate the loss
of storage capacity.
¦ Multipurpose Uses. In addition to solving typical problems associated with storm water runoff, RSMF's can provide
drainage management strategies that meet a number of objectives, including water quality enhancement, groundwater
recharge, wildlife habitat and wetland creation, control of erosion and sediment deposition, and creation of open space
for recreational purposes.
¦ Enhancement of Natural Features and Drainageways. The design of urban storm water facilities generally require that a
significant amount of land be devoted to the construction of storm water facilities. In many cases, this results in the
elimination of natural features and the creation of unsightly structures designed to meet minimum regulatory
requirements. Natural features can be planned, preserved and enhanced and made part of the design of RSMF's. Good
designs that incorporate the use of natural features will maximize the economic and environmental benefits, particularly
in combination with open space and recreational uses. These natural features include drainageways, depressions,
wetlands, floodplains, groundwater recharge zones, and vegetation.

-------
¦	Reduced Maintenance Costs. Rather than multiple associations and developments being responsible for the maintenance
of several storm water facilities, it is simpler and more cost effective to establish scheduled maintenance of a single
regional facility.
¦	Maximum Utilization of Developable Land. Through RSMFs, developers would be able to maximize the utilization of
the proposed development for the purpose intended by minimizing the land normally set aside for the construction of
storm water management facilities (an average of 20% of total land area is utilized for detention/retention ponds).
Conclusions
The construction of storm water management facilities to meet regulatory requirements has, in most cases, improved water
quality and reduced flooding. However, These storm water management improvements have carried with them a steep price tag.
A solution to the increased cost of construction of storm water management facilities is the development and construction of
RSMFs. These RSMFs can be cost effective in areas experiencing development pressures such as the case with the Gottfried
Creek basin and can offer long-term solutions at a low cost. In addition, most are designed and built as multi-use facilities
where multiple benefits are achieved by serving a larger regional area.

-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
When The Dam Came Down-The Cold Creek
Restoration Project
Joseph W. Thompson, District Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service, South Lake Tahoe, CA
History and Background of the Lake Tahoe Basin
IVIany mountain meadow ecosystems in the west ern United States have been hydrologically al- tered
by the activities of European man. This paper will discuss the restoration of one such system, Cold
Creek, a Sierra Nevada mountain meadow ecosystem located in the Lake Tahoe watershed.
Lake Tahoe, located on the California-Nevada border in the eastern Sierra Nevada mountains, is the tenth
deepest lake in the world, with a mean depth of 1,027 feet and a maximum depth of 1,645 feet. The Lake
surface is approximately 22 miles long and 12 miles wide and holds enough water to cover California to
a depth of 14.5 inches. The characteristic which sets Lake Tahoe apart from most water bodies is its
unique clarity. This clarity was documented in the 1960's with Secchi Disc readings of over 120 feet. The
aesthetics of these pristine waters along with unique ecological qualities have resulted in the federal
designation of Lake Tahoe as an "Outstanding National Resource Water".
Development of commercial and residential structures and road systems has resulted in disruption of the
watershed. Loss of vegetative cover, construction of extensive impervious coverage, channelization of
streams, and filling of wetlands, have generated exaggerated peaks and valleys in the hydrologic cycle
and accelerated erosion rates. These landscape alterations have increased the flow of suspended
sediments to the Lake with their associated load of phosphorous, nitrogen, iron, and other nutrients. The
results of these impacts are established in long term studies which have shown a tripling of
phytoplankton productivity since 1968, resulting in a reduction of over 40 feet in Secchi Disc
measurements.

-------
Background of Project Site
Cold Creek is a subwatershed to Trout Creek, one of 63 streams that transport surface flows to Lake
Tahoe. The majority of the Cold Creek watershed is composed of steep, moderately forested, granitic
soils with mountains peaks over 10,000 feet in elevation. The lower 5% of the watershed is composed of
alluvium soils, with rolling hills and a gently sloping meadow adjacent to the last mile of stream reach.
The meadow is well vegetated with rushes, sedges, grasses, forbs, deciduous trees and shrubs, and
scattered lodge pole pine stands. The vegetation is supported by soils composed of a six inch peat layer
over a sandy loam.
The Cold Creek watershed reflects the landscape evolution that has taken place throughout the Basin.
The steep upper slopes have recovered from the logging at the turn of the century, while the gentler
topography of the lower watershed has had 50% of its surfaced severely altered by construction of
subdivisions, schools, highways, and an earthen dam.
The earthen dam, 400 feet long and 10 feet high, with an associated 1,500 foot long dike and 3,000 foot
long diversion channel, was constructed by a local rancher at the terminus of this watershed, during the
1950's, to intercept and retain surface flows for agricultural purposes. The structure spanned the entire
width of the meadow, inundating the original channel. Excess flows by-passed around the dam in a
constructed earthen conveyance ditch along the periphery of the meadow. The new lake formed as a
result of these structures was called Lake Christopher.
Subsequently the meadow, Lake Christopher, and adjacent uplands were sold to a developer for
subdivision. Upon completion of the subdivision the developer deeded Lake Christopher and the adjacent
meadow to the City of South Lake Tahoe. The City soon learned that they had a faulty dam and were
required by the State of California to breech the condemned structure.
A city project in 1989 had targeted breaching the condemned dam and improving waterfowl habitat. The
project was successful in establishing two 0.75 acre shallow ponds for loafing and feeding activities for
waterfowl. Also, construction of a secondary feeder channel which conveyed water to the ponds and
breached the dam was completed. The remainder of the dam was left intact as was the by-pass channel.
Project Initiation
The dam and a deeply entrenched linear by-pass channel had eliminated the filtering function of the soils
and vegetation of the adjacent 40 acre meadow system. This loss, combined with the high runoff peaks
from adjacent subdivisions, was a recognized nonpoint source problem affecting the water clarity of
Lake Tahoe.
In 1992, the City of South Lake Tahoe, the owner of the site, requested funding from the California
Tahoe Conservancy (CTC) to remove the existing dam and associated earth works and construct a new

-------
channel. Funding was granted and the City sought out the assistance of the Tahoe Resource Conservation
District (TRCD) and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil
Conservation Service, for design and construction oversight.
NRCS was given the lead in the design process and initiated the development of alternatives through
close coordination with the City, CTC, Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, CA. Fish and Game and the
CA. Water Quality Control Board-Lahontan Region. The initial planning meetings with this group
identified areas of concern which were; emulating original channel configuration, low impact
construction techniques, and maximizing salvage of native vegetation on site.
Community meetings were also held at a local school adjacent to the project site. These surfaced several
areas of concern. Residents adjacent to the meadow questioned the ability of the designers to construct a
channel that would be stable and not require extensive future maintenance. There was also a concern for
the well being of a local beaver population. Those individuals whose properties were adjoining the man
made conveyance ditch, were upset over losing this amenity (water frontage), if it was filled and a new
channel constructed in the meadow.
NRCS provided responses to these concerns over a series of 3 meeting/workshops. The need for restoring
the role and function of wetlands in protecting the water quality of Lake Tahoe was explained in the
context of the existing condition of the Lake Christopher area. Using local stable stream reaches as
models for development of the new channel was supported by the group as a logical means to potentially
obtain long term stability. A committee of citizens and agency representatives was formed to develop a
beaver management plan. This plan addressed the need to temporarily disperse beaver from the project
site in order to dewater the meadow for construction. The committee chose to remove beaver dams with
hand labor during the summer prior to construction. This allowed time for the meadow to dry out and the
beaver to relocate before winter.
Project Development
The intent of the Cold Creek Restoration Project was to reestablish the historical functions of this
mountain meadow/stream ecosystem, through the removal of the man made structures, implementation
of a geomorphic channel design, and restoration of the associated hydrophytic vegetation.
Design Approach
Designing a dynamically stable channel which would restore the hydrologic characteristics of this alpine
meadow as part of a self sustaining ecosystem, presented an interesting challenge to the NRCS staff.
Historically NRCS provided engineering designs which were static and carried specific life expectancies.
The approach needed to meet these new design criteria required a willingness on the part of NRCS
design team engineers, at both the local field office and California state office, to reinvent their
traditional design process.

-------
This was done by first accepting the fact that self sustaining ecosystems fluctuate in form and function
over time. Using this premise, existing examples of healthy stream/meadow ecosystems with similar
hydrology, topography and soils would provide models to work from. Combining this geomorphologic
approach with traditional hydraulic analysis, would provide data that both traditional engineers and
restoration specialists could work with together.
Using this new planning approach, it became apparent that both the sponsor of the project (the City), the
funding entity (CTC), and the regulatory agencies had to be willing to accept the concept of a
dynamically stable channel. Again, rather than NRCS assuring a specific project life, it was disclosed
that the channel would in fact fluctuate over time. These fluctuations would be in concert with the soils,
flora, and fauna, of the meadow ecosystem in such a way that it would not only be non- degradating, but
produce beneficial results both on and off site. This approach was adopted by the NRCS on this project
and accepted by all participants in this effort.
Channel Design Analysis
Hydrology
Discharge was determined from a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) stream gauge station located 3,500
feet downstream from the juncture of Trout Creek and Cold Creek, which has recorded peak daily
discharges since October 1960. This data was extrapolated to the Cold Creek drainage by a ratio of the
associated land areas for the two watersheds. This produced a 35:65 theoretical ratio of discharge, Cold
Cr. to Trout Cr.. Flow data collected with a pygmy flow meter in Trout and Cold Creek, substantiated
this ratio of flows. Using the 35:65 ratio, a predicted 2 year recurrence interval discharge of 50 cfs. was
determined. This data would be used to design channel capacity to facilitate over bank flows during 2
year (or greater) flow events.
Channel Geometry and Hydraulics
Geomorphic design requires factoring the interaction of: stream velocity and discharge, valley slope, land
form, soil properties, rooting depth and density of vegetation, sediment size and load, channel slope,
width, depth, energy grade line and flow resistance, to design a dynamically stable channel.
These factors were addressed through the use of the analytical programs; NRCS "Hydra" program for
open channel hydraulics, NRCS "Reaches" for geomorphic geometry, US Army Corps of Engineers
"HEC 6-Scour and Deposition in Rivers and Channels", and "Agricultural Nonpoint Source Model"
(AGNPS) for sediment yield from the watershed.
A stream classification system that identifies various geomorphic stable stream types based on the
previously identified factors was developed by Dave Rosgen of Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs,
Colorado. This classification system was used to determine the most appropriate geomorphologic stream
model for this project. This was an "E" type channel in Rosgen's classification system. Mr. Rosgen also

-------
provided consultation in the form of the " Stream Restoration Design Recommendations, Cold Creek,
Tahoe Basin, California", 12/3/92, document, along with a site visit during initial field fitting of the
design.
In order to determine an appropriate stream type and geometry, on the ground measurements were taken
on stable reaches of Trout Creek. This data was scaled back to Cold Creek using the ratio of the bankfull
discharges. The NRCS also measured channel meander geometry of the original Cold Creek channel
from a 1940 aerial photo. This process produced a channel model with a sinuosity of 2.0, channel
gradient of .0025, a meander length of 115 feet, radius of curvature of 25 feet, channel width of 5.5 feet,
and channel depth of 2 feet.
Project Implementation
Contractor Training
The construction process called for minimizing impacts while implementing new and unique structural
and vegetative applications. These needs were initially addressed by requiring all contract bidders to
participate in a site tour in order to be eligible to bid. At the site tour the sensitivity of the site was
emphasized and the unique applications were discussed. The successful bidder was then required to have
their machine operators and project managers attend a half day workshop on site . NRCS staff and CTC
consultants from Interfluve of Hood River, OR. used clay models to explain placement of boulders and
root wad/stumps in revetment applications. Additional information was given on machine techniques for
vegetation salvage and minimal impact operation. The benefits of this training were noted in quality
work throughout the project. Quality control was also assured by the continual presence of two contract
inspectors during construction.
Haul and Access Systems
Site access for dam removal, channel construction and fill placement was addressed through the use of
two temporary road systems. Main haul roads were constructed by first placing geotextile fabric on the
meadow surface and then covering it with coarse material excavated from the dam and dike. Short term
access routes associated with new channel construction and revegetation were protected through the use
of portable military landing mats. All road materials were removed at the end of construction activities.
Vegetative recovery was 100% along these travel routes after one full growing season.
Revegetation
Salvage and transplant of native sod and willows and seeding of grasses and forbs with mulch were the
primary revegetation techniques. Thirty-two hundred square yards of sod were mowed to a 3-4 inch
height then excavated in 4 foot by 8 foot by 8 inch sections from the path of the new channel using sod
knives and a rubber tired, front end bucket loader. Two hundred and seventy willows were trimmed to 8
inches of top growth then excavated with a rubber tired backhoe. Placement was done within 30 minutes

-------
of excavation for both willows and sod. Two seeding mixes were applied to address the hydrologic
conditions of the soils. A "wet meadow mix " for 61,000 sq. ft. of meadow and a "dry meadow mix" for
127,000 sq. ft. uplands. Seeded areas were mulched with straw and tackifier. Salvaged top soil from the
dam and dike excavation provided an additional source of plant materials with its inherent mixture of
rhizomes, roots, corms and seeds. This material was disced into the surface of the diversion channel fill.
All revegetated areas were sprinkler irrigated.
Channel Construction
Three stream "types" were selected for construction. First, the majority of the channel (4,000+ ft.) was an
"E" type, which is highly sinuous, low gradient with a low width to depth ratio. A second and third
channel types, "B" and "C", were needed for grade transition, due to steeper valley slopes both at the
upper end of the project where a road culvert existed and through the old dam foot print. The "B" type is
a riffle dominated, pool/riffle, moderately entrenched channel. The "C" type is a slightly entrenched
pool/riffle, meandering channel.
Channel location was delineated by the sod removal which occurred prior to channel excavation for all
channel types. The "E" type channel was constructed with a tracked excavator, which straddled the
channel as it progressed. The channel cross section was a 1.5-2 foot deep, 5-6 foot wide rectangular
form, which allowed the machine operator to progress at a smooth pace. Constant thalweg grade
alignment and channel dimension checks were provided by the construction inspector. This "E" type
channel is dependent on a strong healthy vegetative cover with adequate root depth and density, to
maintain bank integrity. Fortunately the majority of the channel path already supported a healthy stand of
rushes, sedges, grasses and forbs. However, deeper rooting plants such as willows were lacking in some
areas of the channel. In these areas, salvaged willow root wads were transplanted on the outside of the
meander curves to provide their deep rooting stability.
The "B" type channel at the dam foot print and the upper end of the project required the installation of
rock vortex weirs to provide grade control, and placement of salvaged sod to establish appropriate bank
heights.
The "C" type channel was used to transition the "B" type into the "E" type at both the upper end of the
project and at the dam foot print. The "C" type included rock vortex weirs for grade control,
biomechanical bank revetment, salvaged sod and willows, and placed coarse bed load material.
The biomechanical bank revetment consisted of 12-18 inch diameter footer logs placed parallel to stream
flow and at an elevation excavated to be flush with the thalweg. A 7 foot long stump of similar diameter
is then placed diagonally on the footer log, with the face of the roots oriented from 45 degrees to parallel
with the stream flow and the bole extended into the bank. Then, 18-24 inch diameter rocks were installed
between the log structures to anchor them in place. These structures are backfilled with soil and sod and
willows are planted. This type of revetment provides structural stability, a natural looking appearance,
and excellent fish habitat.

-------
A sod lined, 10 cfs feeder channel and head gate structure was also constructed to provide flows to the
existing waterfowl ponds.
Results
The project was completed in October of 1994. The following winter of 1995 brought 300% of normal
precipitation, including a major rain on snow event in March. The flows associated with this event and
subsequent spring snow melt in June and July, produced out of bank flows for over two months.
The project was highly successful in its primary goal of reestablishing the historical hydrologic functions
of this mountain meadow/stream ecosystem. The transplanted vegetation withstood the inundating
surface flows and up to 2 feet of sediments which were trapped on the flood plain. Runoff from adjacent
subdivisions which formerly discharged directly into surface water, was now filtered through 300 feet of
meadow vegetation before reaching Cold Creek. Some deposition of bed load sands did occur in the Cold
Creek channel, but the majority of this material cleared as the flows receded. The few areas of the
channel that did not flush were cleaned out by City hand crews.
This project was monitored during the summer of 1995 for discharge; water temperature, vegetative
success, and channel morphology. This information has been compiled in a report for the project sponsor
and funding agency. The data obtained from both this monitoring effort along with experience of
designing and constructing this project, will provide a strong base for future stream restoration efforts
within the Tahoe Basin and throughout the Sierras.
References
Rosgen, D. L. 1993 A Classification of Natural Rivers, In Review: Catena, Vol. 22 #4.
Rosgen, D.L. 1992, Stream Restoration Design Recommendations, Cold Creek, Tahoe Basin,
California, Wildland Hydrology, Pagosa Springs Colorado.
USDA Soil Conservation Service, 1974, Soil Survey Tahoe Basin Area, California and Nevada..
USDA Soil Conservation Service, June 1994, Lake Christopher Erosion Control and Stream
Restoration Design Report, Ken Christensen, Pete Sletten, and Joseph Thompson, for Tahoe
Resource Conservation District and City of South Lake Tahoe.

-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Erosion and Sediment Control: Preventing
Additional Disasters after the Southern California
Fires
Carol L. Forrest, P.E., C.P.E.S.C., Vice President
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, San Diego, CA
Michael V. Harding, C.P.E.S.C., Technical Services Manager
Weyerhaeuser Company, San Diego, CA
Introduction
W ildfires are a common occurrence in Southern California and much of the State's biologic and
geologic character is a direct result of a cycle of fire, flood, and regeneration of plant communities, many
of which have adapted to this disturbance. However, while the impact of fires might be considered a
natural phenomenon in wild lands and left largely unattended, where human population and resources are
affected by the fire cycle, mitigation activities designed to reduce the potential for flooding and mud
flows must be included as part of that cycle.
In the fall of 1993, 20 separate fires burned over 186,000 acres of Southern California, extending from
northern Los Angeles County to southern San Diego County and the Mexican border. Nearly 1,200
homes were destroyed and four people lost their lives. Unlike the 1991 East Bay Firestorm in Oakland,
California where 3,100 structures were destroyed in an 1,800 acre densely populated urban area, the
majority of acreage on which the 1993 fires occurred was in wild lands, or away from urban centers.
However, at the urban interface where wild lands and development meet, the hazard from post-fire
flooding, erosion, sedimentation, and mud flows can directly impact human populations. In the crucible
that constitutes post-fire disaster planning and implementation, it is the potential occurrence of this

-------
second disaster which challenges federal, state, and local government entities to allocate human and
financial resources and focus them into immediate and effective actions.
This article presents information on the post-fire hazard assessment and mitigation planning conducted
by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) for the California Office of Emergency Services (OES) and its
implementation in the communities of Malibu, Thousand Oaks, Laguna Beach, and Orange County.
The Post-Fire Hazard
Considerable information is available on post-fire sediment production rates and debris flows in
California, particularly in Southern California, including studies by Wells, the Handbook of Applied
Hydrology by Ven Te Chow, and the Los Angeles County Hydrology Manual. These studies show that
fire accelerates erosion rates in California chaparral to such an extent that it must be considered the major
factor which drives sediment production on these lands. The surface processes of dry ravel and rill
network formation are major contributors to this accelerated erosion, and debris flows are a common
occurrence. These flows move most of the sediment produced after a fire, and can occur following very
little rainfall.
The incidence of fire temporarily reduces the beneficial effects that plants provide in reducing soil
erosion. Plants provide cover that intercepts and reduces rainfall impact, the primary mechanism for soil
erosion. Vegetation also increases the infiltration of water into the soil, reduces runoff velocities, filters
out sediment, and provides plant roots to hold the soil together. Without vegetation and its benefits,
sediment production and runoff in fire-affected areas and more important, its delivery down slope
increases.
Burned watersheds erode in different ways, depending on soil type, climate, vegetation, burrowing and
grazing animals, topography, and human activity. Dry creep, or dry ravel, is the downhill movement of
soil and debris during dry periods, and is caused by gravitational forces. Where fire burns the vegetative
cover, the mechanical resistance to gravitational forces decreases, and the soils become more susceptible
to this type of erosion. Dry ravel is a major erosional force in post-fire conditions. Soil and debris
accumulates at the base of slopes and remains stored until mobilized by intense runoff. This is known as
channel loading. Intense runoff often occurs after a fire and can be the result of the development of soil
hydrophobicity.
Hydrophobic, or water-repellent soils can develop from substances in the soil which are vaporized during
the burning of surface litter, particularly on sandy soils. Hydrophobic soils are created as the fire breaks
down organic matter and chemicals in the soils, releasing a gas which coats soil particles and reduces
water penetration. This condition reduces water infiltration rates and moisture storage capacity resulting
in increased runoff and erosion rates. After fire, soils are no longer protected by vegetative cover from
turbulent air. Wind is an erosive force in these conditions, blowing slopes clean of loose soil particles.
The windblown soils are usually deposited down slope and in stream channels for later movement during
storms.

-------
The development of rill networks and gully erosion increases post-fire loss during the rainy season when
soils are wet or saturated. Infiltration rates are decreased on bare slopes, and therefore, runoff, or
overland flow increases and the sediment carrying capacity increases. The result of this type of erosion is
the movement of sediment and debris into stream channels, causing clogged drainage ways, mud flows,
and debris flows. Since the rate of runoff is higher and the sediment and debris load is higher, the
potential for flooding is also increased. Soil slippage can occur during heavy rains when the amount of
water entering the soil layer exceeds the capacity of the parent rock to transport water. This leads to
supersaturated soils, and soon the stress on the soil exceeds its strength, resulting in sloughs and slumps.
After fires, even moderately heavy rainfall can supersaturate soils denuded of vegetation.
There is generally a higher flooding risk as a result of a fire. This increased risk may arise from increased
watershed runoff due to changes in the surficial soil and vegetation characteristics as previously
described; diversion and/or overflow of conveyance facilities due to increased sediment loads from the
barren watersheds, and the possibility of additional flooding from ineffective sediment basins. Post-fire
conditions can also result in reduced-stability landslides and other geologic hazards. Examples include:
erosion of supporting rocks or soil at the toe of a pre-existing slump or landslide; damage to a landslide
stabilization measure (such as a drainage or dewatering system); and damage to earth retaining structures
or other slope stabilization measures.
Issues and Concerns
Erosion, flooding mud flows, and debris flows following fires are considered by some geologists and
geomorphologists as naturally occurring phenomena that don't require man's intervention. Government
officials and the people in their jurisdictions who are directly impacted from post-fire hazards tend to
think of them as anything but natural, and demand effective and immediate mitigation measures. Three
of the questions that arise after a fire are: "Should we do anything at all?," "What should we do?," and
"How much is enough?." Although the technical answers associated with appropriate response following
fires may be years away from resolution, i.e., whether to mitigate, revegetate, or evacuate, the realities of
the hazards and impacts on human populations require some type of action.
It might be instructional to consider the agricultural concept of "T," or tolerable soil loss. Tolerable soil
loss is considered to be that amount of soil which can be lost on an annual basis without affecting a site's
productivity, or its ability to support a multitude of uses. A certain amount of erosion might be
permissible in an agricultural setting, with losses offset by adjusting management inputs, and erosion of
outlying wild land areas is offset by natural soil formation over time. But, when the effects of accelerated
erosion from fires affect people's lives, property, and community infrastructure, there is no tolerable soil
loss. If 99 percent reduction in erosion still results in 1 percent of the sediment filling up someone's
living room to the ceiling, then there is no soil loss which is tolerable in the urban environment.
In the case of the Southern California, logic dictated that remediation could not be pursued on all of the
areas affected by the fires. Not only were the costs prohibitive, but natural regeneration in the extensive

-------
area of affected wild lands occurs at a rate much more rapid than man's effort to augment it. Limited
economic and human resources were then directed, as they should have been, towards the affected
communities of Laguna Beach, Malibu, Altadena, Thousand Oaks, and parts of Orange County.
Hazard Assessment
The planning and implementation of post-fire hazard mitigation measures require a documentable
process wherein the effort is phased to allow the highest hazard areas to be identified and addressed first,
followed by the next most urgent hazard areas. During and immediately following the fires, available
information was gathered and reviewed for identification of potential hazards. This information included
storm drain maps, topographic maps, geologic maps, hydrologic information, and aerial photographs.
Both aerial and ground site reconnaissances were performed with two-person field teams to assess the
damage and gather information on the potential hazards caused by the fire, including mud flows, debris
flows, and high sediment loads; flooding; rockfalls; retaining structure damage; and landslides.
Based on the gathered information, the potential for post-fire hazards was evaluated and tabulated for
various sites within the burned areas, Next, the impacts of those potential hazards were evaluated.
Impacts of the post-fire hazards included public health and safety; public and private property damage;
damage to infrastructure (such as the storm drain system); transportation route damage (such as key
artery loss); or damage to receiving waters. Based on an assessment of the likelihood of the hazard
together with the severity of its impact, an overall judgment was made as to which sites, if any, should
have the highest priority for mitigation. This evaluation was a particularly valuable tool for allocating
resources. An example of a hazard assessment matrix is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Assessment of burn area hazards

Hazard



Impacts



Overall
Fire/site
L
M
F
R
S
H
P
I
T
W
Rating
Fire 1











Sitel
L
H

M
N
H
H
M
H
L
H
Site 2
M
H
H
H
M
H
H
M
L
L
H
Site 3
L
M
H
L
M
L
H
L
M
L
M
Legend: H=High	M=Medium L=Low N=None
L=landslides; M=mudflows/debris flows/high sediment loads; F=flooding; R=rockfalls; S=retaining
structure damage; H=public health and safety; P=public and private property damage; I=damage to
infrastructure; Transportation route damage (artery loss); W=damage to receiving waters.
In both the Oakland and Southern California Fires, this technique was used, and resulted in mitigation
efforts being focused on those hazards that would have a high impact on public health and safety, public
and private property damage, infrastructure damage, transportation route damage, and damage to

-------
receiving waters. In all cases, these hazards occurred at the urban interface areas. Where there were
potential hazards with a medium or high likelihood of occurring, but the potential impacts were low, then
no mitigation of the hazards was recommended or implemented. Typically, this occurred in the more
open, undeveloped areas.
Development of Plans
The first step in mitigating the identified high priority post-fire hazards was to develop Early Action
Plans that provided for immediate sediment control to reduce the impact of flooding and mudflows on
developed areas. Early action measures should be identified to implement immediately if rains are
imminent. Both the Oakland and Southern California fires occurred in late October at the start of the
rainy season, and in both cases Early Action Plans were prepared and being implemented within a week
of the fires being put out. These early action measures were intended to provide as much preliminary
protection as is practical in critical areas while the more comprehensive Phase I Mitigation Plans were
being prepared.
Early action measures were usually those measures that could be implemented using available work force
crews (manual labor primarily), and focused on sediment and debris control. They included removal of
debris from drainages; cleaning out storm drains; protection of storm drain inlets; construction of
temporary velocity reduction measures, check dams, and sediment traps; and construction of sand bag
diversions.
The project authority had at least four sources of labor for immediate action and response: the California
Conservation Corps (CCC), work release program crews, local maintenance crews, and volunteer
organizations. The project authority needed to develop a program of orientation, training, and oversight.
This resulted in the timely and safe implementation of early action measures. These early action
measures typically were not intended to eliminate, only reduce, damage from rainfall-induced flooding
and mud, rock, and debris flows. It was recognized that the first significant rainfall after the fire would
result in unexpected problems with increased flooding and mud and debris flows, so trained personnel
were in the field to help citizens and assess needed repairs and improvements in the early action
measures.
The next step in the process was to develop Phase I Hazard Mitigation Plans, which are comprehensive
plans for a given area designed to address the short-term mitigation of geologic, erosion, and flood
hazards caused by or exacerbated by the fire. These short-term mitigation measures were designed to
address immediate threats to public health and safety, including ash, debris, sediment, and flood damage
to public and private property. The measures provided for both erosion and sediment control. The Phase I
Plans included provisions for operating and maintaining the installed systems throughout the rainy
season.
The essential steps taken in developing the mitigation plans were: (1) Identify the Issues and Concerns;
(2) Develop Goals and Objectives; (3) Perform Post-Fire Hazard Evaluation; (4) Develop Best

-------
Management Practice (BMP) Selection Criteria; (5) Nominate and Evaluate Alternatives; (6) Screen and
Select Alternatives; (7) Design the Hazard Mitigation Plan; (8) Implement the Plan; and (9) Operations
and Maintenance. Since the fires occurred during the rainy season, Steps 1 through 8 had to be
implemented as quickly as possible. Typically, this took a week to ten days. Based on the knowledge and
local experience of the project authority's hazard mitigation team, some analyses and screening detail
could be reduced. For example, clearly, areas where flooding and other geologic problems were present
before the fire were likely to be worsened. However, a rational, well-documented decision process was
essential to help with local, state and federal disaster funding.
The third step in the plan development process was to prepare Phase II Hazard Mitigation Plans that were
designed to address the longer term mitigation of fire impacts relative to geologic, erosion, and flood
hazards. These were optional plans, but where deemed necessary, included the next level priority areas
after the Phase I Plans were implemented, site disturbance from debris removal and the reconstruction
process, and/or semi-permanent drainage design modifications necessitated by changed post-burn
conditions.
Mitigation Measures
The wide range of conditions encountered following a fire in an urban or urban-wild land interface area
require a variety of Best Practical and Available Technology (BPAT) solutions designed to address
hazards under site-specific circumstances. These solutions are commonly referred to as Best
Management Practices (BMPs). The BMPs selected for implementation in potential hazard areas were
evaluated utilizing the following selection criteria: effectiveness; implementation cost; long-term
(maintenance) cost; environmental impacts; regulatory acceptability; public acceptability; risk/liability;
aesthetics; suitability for site; feasibility; and durability or longevity.
No numerical equation presently exists whereby an emergency mitigation planner can establish the most
appropriate solution to a post-fire problem. In almost all cases, successful erosion and sediment control
involves a variety of techniques and materials which are pulled together to form a complementary and
composite system of BMPs. Above all, post-fire hazard mitigation must been done quickly... and be
effective.
Twenty BMPs were selected for implementation in the urban-interface areas of Laguna Beach, Orange
County, Malibu and Thousand Oaks. Not all of the BMPs were used on sites, and in some areas, specific
practices were relied on more than others. With all revegetation BMPs, the seed mixtures were specified
by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) as part of their technical assistance provided to affected
communities through the Emergency Watershed Program. These seed mixtures were composed primarily
of native plant materials selected to complement indigenous plant re-establishment. SCS field engineers
also worked with contractors hired by the communities, assisting in the coordination of work activities
and inspecting applications.
It is important to note that neither re-establishment of native plant materials (from root or seed which

-------
survived the fire) nor introduced vegetation (through hydraulic or broadcast seeding) appears to provide
enough soil protection in the first year following a fire to prevent erosion. For this reason, a two-pronged
strategy was employed which included: first, sediment control, detention and diversion; and second,
temporary cover practices to hold the soil in place until vegetation is established.
The sediment control practices were used in the immediate response to reduce the down-slope impact of
sediment until soil stabilization measures could be implemented. These aggressive, source control
practices provided an immediate, temporary cover that reduced the erodibility of soils until permanent,
soil-stabilizing vegetation was re-established. Although all of these revegetation practices were used on
the fire-affected areas to some degree, primary emphasis was placed on the use of hydraulic practices due
to cost, timeliness, topographic, environmental compatibility, and safety concerns.
Conclusions
It should be recognized that of the 186,000 acres affected by the fires of 1993, less than 1 percent of the
area (<1,800 acres) received the comprehensive erosion and sediment control treatments described in this
paper. These were the urban and urban-interface areas of highest priority identified in the Hazard
Assessment provided to the California Office of Emergency Services. Orange County, Laguna Beach,
Thousand Oaks, and the Big Rock area of Malibu received individual plans prepared for each community
by Woodward-Clyde, and to a large degree, when implemented, these plans were effective in mitigating
the erosion and sedimentation impacts from winter storms.
Much needs to be learned about post-fire emergency erosion and sediment control in the urban interface
and not just from a technical standpoint about which practices should be used to mitigate impacts. We
should accept the fact that the cycle of wildfires and the resulting erosion and sedimentation is a natural
phenomena in Southern California and other western states as well. But to the people who are affected by
these processes, those living at the urban-wildland interface, questions on whether or not to use any
mitigation practices at all are moot: Do-nothing alternatives are not politically, technically, economically,
or socially acceptable. People and their activities are as much a part of the post-fire environment as are
native plants and animals, and any approach that does not incorporate human resources and values as part
of a mitigation strategy fails to appreciate the practical interface between humans and their environment.

-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Planning Study for Urban and Rural
Pollution Sources
John Ricketts, Project Manager
CH2M HILL, Montgomery, AL
Thomas R. "Buddy" Morgan, General Manager
The Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board of the City of Montgomery,
Montgomery, AL
William Kreutzberger, Senior Water Resources Specialist
CH2M HILL, Charlotte, NC
Typically, when problems with water quality occur, the focus is quickly directed to local permitted
dischargers with the requirement that they improve their effluent. However, the causes for poor water
quality cannot always be ascribed to the permitted dischargers, and misdirected "clean-up" initiatives can
be a significant waste of both public and private time and money.
The watershed management approach is a fair and cost-effective method that communities nationwide
are using to efficiently and effectively improve water quality. Point and nonpoint pollutant sources are
inventoried, and the most cost-effective improvement plan is developed based on the relevant pollutant
sources. A range of hydrologic, land use, and water quality data is gathered from available sources or
collected to determine the relative pollutant loadings.
A case in point is a creek within the service area of the Water Works and Sanitary Sewer Board (Board)
of the City of Montgomery, Alabama. The Board faced spending more than $50 million for capital
improvements to the "separate" sanitary sewer system for the next several years to eliminate sanitary

-------
sewer overflows (SSOs) that were occurring during wet weather events. The SSOs allegedly were
affecting creek water quality. Instead of immediately designing sewer improvements, the Board
requested and was granted permission by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(ADEM) to conduct a water quality study to assess the effects of its overflows on the receiving creek's
water quality.
The study showed that the pollutant loading from the SSOs was only a small percentage of the total
pollutant loading to the creek. Therefore, the Board requested that a watershed management approach be
used to help improve the creek's water quality. This initial assessment has led to a cooperative watershed
management study endorsed by key "stakeholders" from regulatory and management agencies, as well as
by contributors of pollutants. The potential benefits of this approach are water quality improvements in a
shorter time period for less capital expenditure.
Catoma Creek Watershed Characteristics
N
Marii-qnrTiL r-i
County Lint
ri^nn-ii-ry
City LirTii«x
Catoma Creek has a watershed of approximately 347 square
miles, with the majority of the watershed located within
Montgomery County (Figure 1). The creek drainage area is
predominantly rural, but includes urban/suburban drainage
from the southern half of the City of Montgomery before this
drainage enters the Alabama River. Table 1 provides a general
breakdown of land use within the Catoma Creek watershed.
Figure 1. Catoma Creek Watershed
There are only a couple hundred acres of cotton,
sorghum, and corn. Most of the agricultural
activities consist of small animal operations with
several dairy farms and cattle feed lots in the
watershed. There are approximately 63,000 cattle
within the watershed, in addition to an estimated
100,000 dogs and cats.
Catoma Creek is formed by several smaller creeks
that drain rural areas as well as portions of the City.
The urban portion of the creek is characterized by a
vast floodplain that encompasses the nearly 30
Table 1. Catoma Creek Basin Land Use.
Land Use Category
Cover
(acres)
<>/
/o
Cover
Forest
81,000
36.5
Open Area
(Primarily Floodplain)
65,070
29.3
Pasture
35,980
16.2
Low-Density Res.
15,990
7.2
Rural Residential
8,880
4.0

-------
percent of the watershed that is classified as Open
Area in Table 1. Although substantial portions of
the Catoma Creek watershed have been developed,
the major portion of the stream habitat has not been
modified, primarily as a result of the protection
provided for the extensive floodplain.
Commercial
6,220
2.8
High-Density Res.
5,110
2.3
Industrial
3,780
1.7
The entire Catoma Creek watershed has a use classification for Fish and Wildlife in the Alabama Water
Quality Standards. This classification "recognizes that the waters may be used for incidental water
contact and recreation during June through September." Although this means that the stream has a water
quality standard for fecal coliform related to swimming use, there is limited access to the creek.
Pollution Sources
Three major sources are recognized in the watershed as having the potential to introduce pollutants into
the creek: the Catoma Water Pollution Control Facilities (WPCF) collection system, storm water runoff
from the City of Montgomery and adjacent developing areas, and farming operations.
Catoma WPCF
The Catoma WPCF includes a treatment plant at the mouth of Catoma Creek that discharges outside the
watershed, and a collection system that has overflows up in the watershed. The collection system serves
southern Montgomery and contains about 479 miles of sewer pipe.
Some portions of the collection system have infiltration/inflow (I/I) problems, which probably result
from the installation practices used on older sections of the collection system. In addition, the flat slopes
in some sections limit hydraulic capacity. The Board has conducted source detection studies to help
identify excessive I/I areas, and currently is expanding the Catoma WPCF's treatment capacity in
addition to aggressively rehabilitating the collection system.
Storm Water Runoff
The City of Montgomery has been required to submit a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit application for storm water discharges as a municipality with a population in the range
of 100,000 to 250,000. This NPDES permit application is still under review by ADEM. In addition,
storm water discharges from industrial activities including construction activities are required to be
covered under appropriate general NPDES permits specific to the activity.
Farming Operations
ADEM has a nonpoint source program that addresses agricultural activities. Currently, farming

-------
operations within the Catoma Creek watershed are not regulated, and there has been no specific targeting
of voluntary programs in the watershed.
Watershed Management Plan
The Board is active in developing a comprehensive watershed management planning effort. This project
focuses on further definition of pollutant contribution from specific sources within the watershed, and the
formulation of alternative strategies to address these sources. This effort is being coordinated with a
broad range of stakeholder groups to address required actions and achievable water quality
improvements. The following sections outline the scope of this effort.
Issue Identification and Communications
Representatives from key stakeholders are participating in a Steering Committee (SC). The SC is charged
with developing the study goals and objectives into a project scope. The SC selected technical personnel
from the stakeholders group to form a Technical Committee (TC). The TC's purpose is to determine how
the goals and objectives will be addressed and to resolve the technical issues identified. An Educational
Committee (EC) also was developed to help educate the citizens at large about the environment and how
they can help to improve the water quality. The following organizations and agencies are participating in
the watershed management plan:
¦ The Montgomery Water & Sewer Board
¦ EPA, Region IV
¦ U.S. Geological Survey
¦ Montgomery County and State Health Dept.
¦ Alabama Water Watch
¦ Alabama Society of Civil Engineers
¦ Montgomery County Commission
¦ Geological Survey of Alabama
¦ Auburn University at Montgomery
Alabama Cattleman's Association

-------
Alabama Forestry Commission
¦ Alabama Dept. of Environmental Management
¦ Natural Resource Conservation Service
¦ City of Montgomery
¦ Homebuilders Association of Alabama
¦ Alabama Environmental Council
¦ National Society of Professional Engineers
. CH2M HILL
¦ Montgomery County Extension Service
¦ Army Corps of Engineers
¦ Alabama Dept. of Transportation
Pollutant Source Identification
The pollutants to be targeted are being determined by the SC and TC and will include parameters such as
fecal coliform, sediment, nutrients, and metals. For each identified target pollutant, potential sources will
be identified and mapped using the Board's Geographic Information System (GIS). Urban, agricultural,
and other point and nonpoint pollutant sources identified by the committees will be investigated. Target
pollutant loadings from each source for each target pollutant will be estimated using existing data
summaries and documentation, areal yield rates, and modeling.
The existing water quality of Catoma Creek also will be evaluated. Existing data, especially from the
previous water quality study and the local Water Watch Organization (voluntary organization conducting
sampling along Catoma Creek), will be combined with biological sampling data and habitat assessment
to perform the evaluation.
Potential for Control of Pollutant Sources
Control Technology Assessment. Control technologies will be identified for each target pollutant and
source. Examples of the controls that may be identified are as follows:

-------
¦	SSO Controls-Storage
¦	Treatment
¦	Infiltration/Inflow Removal
¦	Public Education
¦	Private Property Lateral Rehab
¦	On-site Waste Disposal Controls
¦	Sewer Extension
¦	Rehabilitation
¦	Development Control and Conditions
¦	Storm Water Controls
¦	Source Controls
¦	Structural Controls
¦	Landfill Controls
¦	Runoff Management
¦	Debris Control
¦	Agricultural Controls
¦	Cropland/Erosion Control
¦	Animal Waste Management
The control technologies identified above will be evaluated for pollutant removal effectiveness, cost, and
implementation issues for each target pollutant. A relationship between pollutant removal effectiveness
and cost will be developed for each pollutant. In addition, implementation concerns such as regulations,
training requirements, communications, and monitoring/long-term evaluation will be considered.

-------
Water Quality Assessment. After target pollutant sources and controls have been identified, the
anticipated water quality improvement will be predicted based on implementation of each control
technology. Issues to be considered include whether the analysis time frame is by single storm events or
over a continuous basis, and the measure of the relationship between pollutant removal and water quality
improvement. Water quality modeling may be conducted to perform some elements of this task.
A major goal is to improve the water quality at the lowest cost. To do this, a combination of control
scenarios will be developed. The effectiveness of each scenario will be projected and related to the water
quality improvements expected for Catoma Creek. A cost for each scenario will be determined so that a
cost versus water quality improvement relationship for each pollutant can be developed. The cost
analysis can also be used within the context of a "pollutant trading" concept to meet water quality
objectives while minimizing costs.
Alternatives Formulation and Decision Analysis
Following completion of the analysis of various control technologies, combinations of these technologies
will be used to define alternative management strategies. These strategies will be reviewed with the TC
and revised appropriately. Information regarding implementation costs and projected water quality
improvement will be developed for each alternative management strategy. Final evaluation of
alternatives will be done jointly with the TC and SC to reflect the insight of all stakeholders in the
decision-making process.
Regulatory Framework for Watershed Plan
Existing state water quality standards will be evaluated and compared to the projected water quality
improvements under the various control scenarios. An attainable water quality target will be determined
based on technically feasible projected water quality improvements.
Recommended Watershed Plan
Scheduled workshops will be held with the SC and TC throughout the study to develop concepts and to
reach concurrence on control approaches. These workshops will be used to evaluate controls and the
corresponding issues that will be required to obtain the desired attainable water quality. Issues such as
costs, training and implementation requirements, and the need for long-term monitoring and evaluation
also will be considered.

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Summary of Proposed Stormwater Management
Techniques for The Village of Woodsong as of
January 31,1996
Buddy Milliken
1 he intent of the stormwater management design is to resolve the challenge of creating a compact,
higher density neighborhood based on New Urbanism principles, near a wetland forest area, while
maintaining high water quality consistent with Sustainability principles. We are attempting to mitigate
stormwater runoff at its source to the greatest extent possible and then conveying the excess through a
hierarchy of incremental treatment, rather than relying solely on a centralized "end of the pipe" approach.
In order to receive credit from regulators for these incremental techniques as a substitution for end-of-the-
pipe detention pond capacity, we have to quantify their effects. This is a real challenge for some of the
more subjective components, but we are working through this as well. One thing that we don't want are
environmental novelties that sound good, but don't work in the real world and/or are to expensive or
complicated to have any wider application. Some of our first "epiphanies" haven't survived the final cut
after more patient consideration, but at least we know why they weren't used. The distillation process has
caused changes to some of our original methods, but the final techniques have to make environmental,
social and financial sense. The design is about finished and application for a stormwater permit will be
submitted the first part of February 1996. We will continue to monitor the function of system designed
and modify it if needed for future phases. Two subsurface wells are in place in the wetlands and water
samples have been taken from the creek at the property boundary. This will give us some baseline data to
evaluate the effect on water quality of developing the site. Criticism or advice from the reader is
welcome. For more technical information you may call our environmental designer, Mike Ortosky,
ASLA at 919-571-1189 or our civil engineer, Jay R. Houston, P.E. at 910-754-6324.
Intent

-------
Private Lot
Each lot owner will have to submit a plan outlining his particular stormwater approach as part of the
landscape review process. An impervious square foot limit for each lot will be set as required by state
regulations. All detention components will be sized based on these limits. The limits on typical lots for
detached houses will be in the 60-70% range of total lot square footage. For those owners who wish to
create more impervious surface, they will have the option to do by using on-lot detention methods such as
"cookie sheets"(described below in #1), cisterns, etc. These lots are compact and the impervious limits
are not overly generous, so we have to make sure the lots are functional and that we provide flexibility
for the homeowners.
Ideally, homeowners would limit impervious surface to the prescribed limits plus use the on-lot detention
methods mentioned. This would help get more of the water into the soil where it fell. As a developer, I
am exploring ways to encourage the use of the techniques via a proposed demonstration house and
possibly donating all or part of the cost of cisterns to residents. The degree of encouragement versus
mandate for use of these techniques is still being refined and discussed with regulatory officials.
On-Lot Detention Methods
1. "Cookie Sheets" retain as much water as possible on the site up to the "nuisance ponding"
threshold by creating shallow infiltration basins (similar in profile to a cookie sheet) out of the
unimproved rectilinear portions of the lot with overflow directed through weirs to the front of the
lot for dispersed sheet flow onto the grassed street margin. The infiltration basins could be
bordered by low soil berms, bricks or wooden timbers. Because of a high water table we have
little opportunity for deeper infiltration sand/peat bed storage. Each lot though, can be evaluated
for suitability for a particular technique. For homeowners who may perceive a ponding problem,
the benefits of this technique are; less water needed for irrigation because of groundwater recharge
and the possibility for use of the water in courtyard gardens as a design element.
2. Use of cisterns with overflow capabilities in high flows and valving to provide the option of using
stored water for drip irrigation to serve planted areas and gardens in dry times. The cistern is also
being explored as an architectural element to help define "outdoor rooms" of the lot. Manufacture
of cisterns in other areas has evolved into a local cottage industry and we would encourage that as
well.
3. Use plants at the roof drip-lines which have a high capacity for vertical water storage and "leaf
architecture" that intercepts a small percentage of runoff and traps it for eventual evaporation. A
series of these tiers cascading to the ground could contribute to the whole "stormwater ensemble".
However, this component is probably the most problematical, least quantifiable and practically
most difficult to predict efficacy for. Regardless, it is worth being aware of as one more tool in the
box.
4. The lot configuration and rear yard setback requirements for separation between the
garage/apartment and the primary dwelling incentivize multi-story houses which require less

-------
impervious roof surface for the same amount of square footage as compared with a single story
house.
Street
1. At the street, we explored in depth an approach that called for slightly warping the grass margins
to nudge the majority of excess residential runoff into shallow aggregate filled pits near the trees.
The trees are spaced ev ery 30 feet on both sides of the road and were thought to have a significant
cumulative storage capacity. However, this method has been deleted because of the following: a)
concerns about the long term health of the trees and the potential migration of roots into the pits
over time, b) a high overall water table means that the pits would have to be very shallow. This
would be compounded because the land will be sloped slightly as you move from the front of the
lots toward the grass margins and street travel surface. Any grade cut required, would diminish the
storage potential of the pits even further, c) maintenance and vulnerability to mischievous
disturbance of the surface aggregate were also thought to be potential problems, d) Lastly, it was
more difficult to quantify its detention contribution to regulators.
Having said all that, I still think it could be a good technique where the water table is lower,
tolerant trees are selected and there is some mitigation for the risk of root migration into the
storage pit areas. In a condition where the planting strip is not being used for parking, the storage
pits could be located farther away from the trees in the grass margins and incorporated into
swales. A minimum approach would be to utilize the technique wherever the natural topography
around the tree suggests it.
2. The street is presently designed to be slightly inverted (reverse crown) with catch basins and
underground pipe located in the center of the street. The inverted street allows for a seamless
transition for a pedestrian on the street walking to the front porch and provides an almost level
grassed slope that serves as on-street visitor parking, but when not parked on, looks like a planted
strip instead of vacant asphalt. This approach eliminated the need for 16 feet of paved parking
surface (8' on each side) and 10 feet of sidewalk (5' feet on each side). The drawbacks are that
grass swales can't be used for street runoff because the slopes would impair the use of the street
margin for parking or walking. It does seem however, that increasing the impervious surface from
an 18 foot wide travel surface to a total impervious surface of 44 feet wide in order to utilize grass
swales is not productive. A more insidious problem is that the social distance of engagement
between pedestrians and porch sitters would have been compromised as well as the "human scale"
and spatial intimacy of the street as an outdoor room.
While an inverted street utilizes existing asphalt for a non-erosive conveyance channel, it makes it
difficult to get any treatment of the street runoff before it is piped down to the detention pond and
the inverted profile probably makes porous asphalt paving infeasible because of sediment
migration onto the paved surface. The main virtue of this design is that it simply results in less
impervious surface. We are exploring the use of a trial area of porous concrete pavers in the first
phase. I am waiting on regulators to provide me with some guidance on a test of this approach for

-------
reducing runoff volumes otherwise required to be collected in a detention component. The streets
will be part of the city system and there are some constraints on the use of unconventional paving
materials because of that. In summary, if used at all, we will have to transition into the use of
porous paving methods by phased tests in order to obtain regulatory credit for the technique and
provide a level of comfort to the city.
Biofilter
Along the northwestern boundary there is continuous wooded land that will remain undeveloped except
for a portion which will be a children's park. In the children's park we plan to change from subsurface
solid-pipe conveyance of storm water to overland flow through the "biofilter". We are proposing to
convey the surface runoff collected from the nearby street and direct it along a fairly linear, but twisting,
shallow conveyance channel that will essentially be a constructed wetland with mic- ropools on either
end. The channel will provide some infiltration along the way, but will mainly be for conveyance. We
don't want to end up with a park that is more of a utility than a social environment. The water will be
slowed down so it can be filtered as it spreads slowly over soil and plants during moderate flows. In high
flows, the channel will provide a durable conveyance. This linear wetland will be integrated into the park
as a shallow creek for children to play near and will replace some wildlife habitat being eliminated by the
developed areas.
Level Spreader
Collected surface water was examined for dispersion by using a level spreader approach. Around the
perimeter of the vegetative buffer forward of the primary pond, a level spreader was explored in the form
of a semicircular curb, possibly of concrete, which would have a progression of smaller to larger
openings as you move away from the concentrated surface flow . Because surface flow coming into this
area is not that great, this approach is not being used. At minimum, we can evaluate the effects of the
channelized flow into this area after construction and retrofit specifically as needed. A subsurface
aggregate-filled trench was examined, but discarded because of the water table, a lack of soil porosity and
also a lack of distance between the pond and street to allow for adequate filtering through slow
subsurface migration.
Subsurface Detention Pipe
In areas where a pond might become a safety hazard or contribute very little aesthetically to the
neighborhood, we are using subsurface pipe as storage to achieve the required detention. We are looking
at doing this in one of the small parks which has a high degree of imperviousness bordering it, and under
a parking lot that would receive runoff from the "Biofilter Conveyance". I would rather use a more
natural detention method but nothing else appears feasible. It does provide us with the ability to phase in
detention as needed by simply adding more pipe as needed. Our detention pond on the other hand has to
built all at once, even though it will be underutilized in the first and second phases.

-------
Detention Pond
There will be a conventional detention pond of approximately 1/2 acre in size. The pond excavation will
include about .06 acres of wetlands. The pond will have a vegetated forebay and littoral bench that to
some degree will be a substitution of another form of wetland for the portion of the existing wetland
being excavated. The pond will provide a primary aesthetic purpose too by serving as a prominent
neighborhood gathering spot. An in-stream location for detention was discus sed, but rejected because of
concerns about changing the hydrology for adjacent landowners.
Wetlands Gabions
A previous owner of the land had dug a fairly straight, steep ditch through the middle of the wetlands.
We plan to use gabions to dam up the ditches in strategic areas and to some degree recreate the wetlands
hydrology and function in place before the ditch was dug. The stormwater detention pond outflow will
travel into the shallow pools created by the gabions, where it will take a more serpentine path through a
variety of vegetation before leaving the site. We are also exploring the transplanting of excavated
biomass and wetlands vegetation from the Detention Pond to use as fill material in the ditches between
the gabions. We have to have somewhere to put the material anyhow. Ideally, each construction by-
product should be "food" for another process. Recovery and recycling of living materials will need to be
done quickly and properly though, if the desired effect is to be achieved. The gabions themselves are
envisioned to be constructed of stones or rocks near the ditch bottoms to wit hstand high velocities and
comprised of more natural materials such as soil, stumps, etc. woven together the closer to grade you get,
so that eventually it will be impossible to detect the gabions have been inserted. We think that there will
be a net increase in wetlands after installation, because the ditch is on the perimeter of the current
delineated wetland. It should also enhance the functional capability of the wetland. Of course, as a result
of development, we are certainly asking it to do more. The ga bion technique is a kind of landscape
archaeology and probably comes closest to the ideal of development as an act of repair. It may have some
quantifiable regulatory detention credit as well, but this remains uncertain at this point.
New Urbanism Pattern of Development
All previous descriptions have been about on-site measures. The greatest potential benefit of all the
techniques though, is the clustered form of development. On a regional scale it has the potential to
dramatical ly reduce future construction of impervious highway infrastructure as well as reduce the
automobile-deposited pollution on roads by providing alternative transportation choices. Even though
imperviousness is concentrated at the site, this pattern if implemented, will preserve abundant open space
and consume far less land than low-density patterns. Coupled with the application of Sustainability
principles, New Urbanism can be a great tool for improving regional water quality in addition to its social
and cultural benefits.

-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Economics of Open Space
Elizabeth Brabec
Land Ethics, Inc.
Open Space is often seen as a cost to the community the cost of acquisition, the cost of facility
construction, and the cost of maintenance. However, open space also has a benefit to the community, a
tangible, economic benefit. Trees and open space, whether public parkland or privately owned farmland
and recreation areas, are our communities' most precious resources. As with all natural and scenic
resources, it is important to conserve them since once gone, they are often lost forever.
Within the world of business and development, the organizing force is the bottom line how profitable
will this business or development be for its inventors? The economic bottom line is often used as the
reason for opposing conservation regulations, and maximizing the development of land. But there is a
growing body of evidence that shows that resource conservation, particularly trees and open space, are
both economically and socially beneficial for the community and that conservation is important to the
bottom line of business and development. This session will explore the balance of the costs and benefits
of open space, providing an economic bottom line to the issue of providing public and private open space
in a community.

-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Moving the Watershed Planning Process from
Quagmire to Success
B. Fritts Golden, Vice President & Senior Environmental Planner
CH2M HILL, Oakland, CA
John W. Rogers, Senior Vice President & Senior Environmental Planner
CH2M HILL, Philadelphia, PA
In developing watershed management strategies, scientific observation and engineering analysis are
balanced by social values and goals. Resource management planning often takes place in a hot house
climate of conflicting views that are strongly held and passionately argued. These are based on a mixture
of science, romanticism, personal philosophy, and economic need. The result can be paralysis in the
decision making process. The size of a region, the diversity and complexity of its environment, the
breadth of interests, and the difficulty of having sufficient good data for supporting decisions are also
major contributors to programmatic inertia.
It is fruitless to hope that we will discover simple, elegant, and universal answers to resource
management questions. There are two reasons for this. First, complexity, variability, and diversity are
hallmarks of the natural environment we seek to manage. At the same time, a wide spectrum of human
interests extends across and intertwines with this far-from-simple environment. Therefore, management
will be a perpetual and open-ended process of discovery and compromise, of substantial successes and
occasional backsliding. A sound management approach is one that can address ambiguity and
uncertainty. Ambiguity comes from conflicting values and directives; uncertainty comes from the failure
of a program to be definitive.
Ecosystem management programs have been implemented in all parts of the country. Two well
established programs in the East are in the New Jersey Pinelands and the Chesapeake Bay. These are

-------
among the most informative models because of their relatively long histories. In the Northwest, issues of
forestry, fisheries, and species protection are energizing moves to develop integrated resource plans that
achieve multiple objectives. The Pinelands and Chesapeake Bay experiences demonstrate the value of
some guiding principles that any program would be well advised to adopt. These basic rules, which will
help a watershed management program avoid the quagmire that is always near at hand, are:
¦ Clearly expressed needs.
¦ Clearly expressed goals.
¦ Good research.
¦ An open climate for discussion of issues.
¦ Genuine partnerships among stakeholders.
Those involved in establishing and nurturing a watershed management program must address a number
of subjects. If left unattended, these can slow a program or derail it altogether. Keeping out of the
quagmire and on the road to success requires appropriate attention to these:
¦ Trust. A major hurdle to moving a program forward to implementation is trust in leaders and trust
that the process will empower people to work together to define and achieve common goals.
¦ Discovering Leaders. Traditional elected and appointed leaders may have less well-defined roles
and authority than in the past.
¦ Definition of Roles. Responsibility and authority may be unclear when there are conflicting
mandates and unforeseen gaps in authority or responsibility.
¦ Changing Roles. The identity and roles of various stakeholders are difficult to determine and may
change as a program evolves.
¦ Lack of Clarity. It is difficult to establish a clear vision or image of what a complex ecosystem is
and how it directly affects or benefits people.
¦ Problem Definition. Failure to define the correct problem due to a lack of a systematic process or
wrong stakeholders can waste a lot of time and resources.
Persistence. Long-term planning horizons are difficult to reconcile with the short attention span of
political bodies and the public.

-------
Abstraction and Size of Effort. Large scale programs with multiple objectives and intricate
interrelationships are too abstract to sustain attention.
¦ Good Data from Good Science. Good science is important to defining systems and their critical
control factors, and to framing management options.
¦ Separation of Science and Policy. Distinctions between science and policy are often confused or
obscured when developing alternatives and making decisions.
¦ Urgency. Management programs are difficult to implement without a crisis.
¦ Measures of Success. Success is exceedingly difficult to measure in the time frame that most
people expect to see results.
Successful management program leaders:
¦ Establish and reinforce credibility.
¦ Have a clear vision and a set of specific and comprehensive goals.
¦ Empower stakeholders and ensure an open climate for debate.
¦ Work to ensure that funding and resources are available.
¦ Identify the limits of a problem.
¦ Insist on a systematic decision process.
¦ Repeatedly demonstrate their commitment to the process and to the solutions selected.
In the Chesapeake, for example, twelve public officials, elected politicians, academics, lawyers, and
developers were appointed by their respective governors to a panel of experts to address population
growth and its impacts. All were leaders in their own right, but worked together to achieve a consensus,
and then returned to their leadership roles in their own communities. The group was able to take
advantage of the leadership qualities of each person. Each person was able to contribute based on his or
her leadership qualities, but did not seek to dominate.
In ecosystem management programs, leadership can come from any quarter. In both the Chesapeake and
the Pinelands leaders are fishermen, businessmen, developers, farmers, environmentalists and citizens, as
well as public officials. They listen well. They ensure an open climate for transfer of insights and
opinions and are not overly directive of the process. They are patient in the definition of problems and in

-------
the selection and use of data. They are open to the opinions of others. They are willing to deal with
uncertainty and look at alternative outcomes. Successful leaders also have the authority and ability to
bring the necessary resources to bear when they are needed. Once momentum has developed in a
program, leaders provide the resources needed to maintain it.
In programs that cross jurisdictions and responsibilities, there are ill-defined lines of authority. As
agencies work cooperatively and jointly, their roles are based more on a "natural" authority and are less
defined by agency traditions. Setting goals and objectives that are broader than their mandate will be
difficult for individual agencies; they will need to rely on the good offices and efforts of others to achieve
their aims. Leaders within these agencies will need to find new ways to empower groups to work
together.
Successful program managers:
¦ Understand the functioning and critical control points of their ecosystems.
¦ Maintain state-of-the-art research efforts.
¦ Make policy decisions based on the best science available at the moment.
¦ Monitor and reassess policy decisions.
¦ Demonstrate expertise.
Ecosystem management must build on observational, analytical, and experimental science. Policy
decisions have little chance of being sustained without a good foundation in science. Scientific study is
needed to define system boundaries and describe a system's functions. These findings lead to the
identification of critical elements for management and control. One risk is that becoming enmeshed in
the complexity of ecosystem analysis can become an end in itself, a refuge from confronting tough
management choices.
There is often a flow of personnel between the scientific and policy communities. The difference
between the role of science and the role of policy can get blurred and confused. Because science is so
important in understanding a system and the consequences of different actions, scientific arguments often
appear to take the place of public policy. Policy must be based upon the best scientific information, but
must be clearly separated from scientific judgment. Policy weighs scientific information along with
social objectives and the ethical and philosophical concepts abroad at the time. Programs must be willing
to reexamine earlier policy decisions in light of new information.
Successful programs:
¦ Have goals that are embraced by leaders at all levels of government, the community, and

-------
business.
¦	Ensure that diverse participants are brought into the process early, have a generous opportunity to
participate, and are afforded a productive long-term role.
¦	Maintain continual public and institutional education programs.
Leaders and managers cannot develop, monitor, revise, and implement a program alone. No single
landowner, organization, or community can implement a broad-based program alone. Everyone shares
responsibility for getting extraordinary things done through ordinary means.
The Pinelands program, the Chesapeake Bay program, and similar programs everywhere, undergo
continual examination as a normal part of political processes. Some interests, generally those not
extensively involved in building a program, are continually pressing for their particular objective or
view. Because of their broad support and extensive public involvement, both the Chesapeake and the
Pinelands have withstood these challenges with good success. However, their battle is never-ending.
Unfortunately, it is difficult energize a program without a crisis. A major challenge in watershed
management will be to continually educate people about why certain practices and activities are
necessary, especially those that affect people's livelihoods, their recreation, or their use of the land. Both
the Pinelands and the Chesapeake Bay Programs have found ways to get ecosystem management
accepted into the social and institutional fabric of their respective areas. While there is no set formula,
successful programs appear to have several common characteristics. These include patience to allow the
programs to mature and the constant involvement of people at all levels of planning and implementation.
The public should be involved in the process of developing a program from the start, and its role should
be maintained throughout the decision process. This is a key element in successful programs. It is
difficult to include all interests and a diversity of viewpoints, but this is necessary for a program to be
credible and to become an accepted and adopted way of behaving and thinking about the managed
resources. The quality and openness of a decision process are nearly as important as the quality of the
results. Even with a host of decision tools and a stack of scientific reports, decision making remains
fundamentally a human process subject to human error, bias, and plain folly.
Few people are trained in decision making. Most rely heavily on old habits or simplifications. These
often lead to the adoption of advocacy or adversarial processes, rather than genuine problem solving and
decision processes. Success is highly unlikely in the absence of a systematic decision processes that
frames problems well and identifies a comprehensive set of alternative actions. In both the Pinelands and
the Chesapeake Bay, framing problems correctly was difficult. It required more time and effort than
people anticipated.
A good decision process:

-------
¦ Details goals, objectives, and values.
¦ Distinguishes the roles of science and policy making.
¦ Emphasizes which data are important to problem solving and decision making.
¦ Establishes a traceable and open record.
¦ Achieves credible results.
Measuring success is difficult in natural resource management, since there is no end point to a program.
Both the Pinelands and Chesapeake Bay Programs have been working on research to show progress
because most objectives are long-term, with results off in the future. Rapid, dramatic results are
infrequent. Efforts to develop and publicize environmental "score cards" are helpful in maintaining the
public's attention and interest. It is important to have a mix of both short-term and long-term goals to
allow for early demonstration of progress.
In fact, most "programs" are not single programs at all, but clusters of strategies and independent
programs and plans. These are worked out over time among a host of groups, within a generally accepted
policy and goal framework. Funding for these individual efforts ebbs and flows. At the same time, the
voluntary efforts of many individuals and groups play a significant role both in developing a public
consciousness and in dealing directly with problems that are amenable to volunteer action.
The watershed restoration and forest management planning being undertaken in the Northwest illustrates
many of these points. Concern and energy to undertake programs reaches to the grassroots in
communities hard hit by the collapse of local resource-based economies. There is a need for partnerships
among landowners and regulators to develop long-term strategies for land use and land protection.
Incentives are needed, too, for private land managers to protect publicly-valued goods in the land. Jobs
increasingly include working on restoration projects and other management programs as well as
traditional resource-based employment.
This type of thinking goes beyond "interagency coordination". Resource agencies are themselves
members of a larger resource team and must begin to bring their special knowledge to bear as members
of the team. For instance, EPA is organizing to regulate impacts of concern to it on a watershed basis.
Rather than segregating various pollutants by the medium the pollute, they are looking at integrated land-
water-air solutions. Neighboring land owners, environmental groups, county agencies, and state and
federal resource agencies are seeking voluntary collaborations to create plans for watersheds. This is
happening in rural and urban areas alike.
A clear example of bringing diverse parties together to review and explore options was the Northwest
Watershed Restoration Conference sponsored by Congressman Norm Dicks in Tacoma, Washington in
1994. Central messages coming from the conference are applicable elsewhere:

-------
Watershed restoration will not be controlled by a central authority; it will be the result of a
number of public/private programs.
¦	Local political and opinion leaders must be involved.
¦	Public agencies must abandon some of their traditional management focus and share resources,
experience, and data.
¦	Agencies have an opportunity to develop new project delivery systems to ensure that work is
accomplished in a timely manner and that local skills are developed and used in practical
management solutions.
Resource decisions are shaped by both technical considerations and individual or collective values. The
concept of balancing technical and social inputs is central to resource management. For instance,
knowledge of technical issues, such as development cost, risk, environmental impact, quality, and
reliability, is essential to development of, say, a well-informed water supply plan. But, this technical
knowledge alone does not determine the plan's final shape. The most viable alternatives are those that
have successfully balanced technical and economic criteria with local, regional, and national values.

-------
Administrator for EPA Region X, observes,
[t]he widespread problem of nonpoint source pollution-runoff and deposition of air pollution to land and
water . . . underscores the limits of effective enforcement. Our society does not have the resources to
police each citizen's behavior and lifestyle in order to prevent or punish our polluting habits.3
New Approaches
Watershed Management and Stakeholder Participation
The Environmental Protection Agency recognizes the need for new frameworks capable of addressing
land use management issues over vast areas. In order to handle remaining pollution issues and build upon
progress achieved thus far, EPA has promoted a watershed approach for water quality management. EPA
has articulated its evolving vision in Watershed Approach Framework-1996: "people working together to
achieve clean and safe water and healthy aquatic ecosystems through comprehensive management
approaches tailored to the needs within watersheds."4 The involvement of people, then, constitutes a
crucial element in any watershed approach. As the Framework emphasizes,
Broad involvement is critical; the watershed approach relies on community-based environmental
protection. In many cases, the solutions to water resource problems depend on voluntary actions on the
part of many people. Besides improving coordination among their own agencies, the watershed approach
calls upon states ... to fully engage local government and other affected parties in the watershed
management process to help them better understand the problems, identify goals, select priorities, and
choose and implement solutions.5
For these reasons, EPA encourages the formation of watershed management teams and partnerships.
Only through watershed teams may the new frontier of nonpoint sources receive adequate treatment.
Using Lessons from Coordinated Resource Management (CRM)
Facilitating dialogues among diverse members of the watershed community requires a viable framework
for encouraging cooperation. CRM offers a number of important lessons for this process. CRM is a
concept used to resolve specific conflicts involving natural resource management. CRM establishes a
level playing field for a variety of landowners, in a specific watershed, to discuss and reach consensus on
the best method for framing a watershed plan to reduce pollution loadings. The Bureau of Land
Management, Forest Service and the Cooperative Extension Service have used CRM in the management
of public land for many years. "The process . . . has been used successfully to resolve specific resource-
use conflicts, such as depredation of agricultural crops by wintering geese near waterfowl refuges and
water contamination from dairy farm lagoons and livestock feedlots."6
Initiating a CRM effort begins at the local level. "Preferably, a coordinated plan is initiated at the local

-------
level by a request from a . . . organization . . . that perceives the need for a group-action approach to
resolving or averting a local resource problem. A conservation district, for example, might process a
request for a coordinated plan because these districts are legal subdivisions of state government with
responsibility for land and water conservation."? Thus, local soil and water conservation districts can
trigger the utilization of CRM style initiatives in order to formulate watershed plans.
Local soil and water conservation districts (LCDs) may then call together a broad range of participants,
incorporating representatives of those agencies, organizations, and associations having a direct interest in
the resource management issue at hand. CRM recognizes that "the whole community should work
together as a team from the beginning to the end of any planning effort. This assures the greatest number
of ideas, the widest range of options and the very best courses of action in the interest of the community
as a whole."8 In addition, embracing the full range of actors in a watershed increases the likelihood that
planning decisions will be implemented effectively.
Watershed participants meet in a group called the Steering Committee (SC), consisting of approximately
20 management level representatives. They are decision makers who can speak for their organizations on
matters dealing with watershed planning. When technical issues arise, the SC seeks out the assistance of
Technical Review Teams (TRT). "TRTs usually function at the ranch unit, allotment, small watershed,
wildlife, wilderness, or similarly sized area. They are composed of interdisciplinary technical experts,
landowners, permittee, agencies and interest groups as appropriate for the subjects and issues at hand."9
A field trip of the local area by watershed participants begins the process of introducing stakeholders to
each other and breaking down barriers.
CRM forums, such as the steering committee, allow all involved parties to vent frustration and be heard.
Land use and property rights issues generate a very strong emotional response among watershed
stakeholders. Within a proper framework, however, this group can yield diverse options for resolving
conflict. A facilitator plays a crucial role in this process. A facilitator is a neutral person that provides
structure to the meeting and keeps everyone involved. Lessons from formal mediation principles and
CRM establish the framework for guiding a productive discussion. The guiding principles for such a
meeting, include: 10
1. Involve only the real players in the conflict. All interested parties must be included in the planning
group to insure productive discussion and implementation of decisions. "To leave some caring
interest out is to invite attack." 11
2. Identify the problem. All parties must agree on the real problems and issues. Over time, this will
allow hidden agendas to be brought to the surface.
3. State Expectations and Objectives. Each member of the meeting should state what they want from
the meeting. Many times members have shared goals, such as preserving the resource. This
establishes common ground and a means for moving forward. Where desires differ, the areas of
concern are clear.
4. Analyze the problem. All aspects of the issue should be discussed. This is the point where
solutions can be examined and options generated.
5. Make decisions by Consensus. The committee takes all decisions, recommendations, and actions

-------
by unanimous agreement. "Any issue not receiving unanimous resolution would be sent back to a
working committee for further study or would be tabled." 12 Many find the consensus rule
generates trust and responsibility among watershed participants. In working on a CRM project
dealing with grazing on public lands, John Weber observed "The consensus rule has been
extremely important to our success story. It has developed confidence and trust." 13
6. Agreement. All parties must agree on the best management of the resource. This results in the
formulation of the watershed plan.
Applying These Concepts, Planned Intervention
The Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research (TIAER) has developed an approach
which harnesses evolving priorities; it avoids the narrow confines of command and control
regulation and feeds into the concept of watershed teams and partnerships. It is entitled planned
intervention. 14 It emphasizes a deliberate, well-planned combination of voluntary measures,
against a regulatory backdrop. Voluntary programs, alone, have failed to produce significant
reductions in agricultural nonpoint source pollution. 15 EPA observes that, "[t]he trend in nonpoint
source control is towards voluntary approaches as the primary means for best management
practice (BMP) implementation and regulatory and quasi-regulatory approaches as a backup
means." 16 Under planned intervention, individual agricultural producers adopt best management
practices, guided by recommendations made through advisory bodies consisting of local
stakeholders. The Texas State and Soil Water Conservation Board (TSSWCB) cooperates with
producers to develop corrective action plans should pollution complaints occur. 17 Where "bad
actors" refuse to cooperate, they are referred to the environmental regulatory agency for
enforcement action. 18 Thus, planned intervention envisions close cooperation between
environmental regulators, LCDs, individual producers and other local citizens. Properly linking
the pollution abatement efforts of natural resource agencies developed during the "New Deal"
with regulatory programs allows policy makers to exploit the strengths of both. Planned
intervention became the law in Texas in 1993.19
Citizen participation provides an integral element in the planned intervention/micro-watershed
approach. TIAER has convened a "constituency committee" consisting of local stakeholders in
order to facilitate a dialogue on the Lake Waco/Bosque River watershed and water quality issues.
This committee includes representatives of all true stakeholder groups, e.g., dairies,
municipalities, riparian landowners and local environmental interest groups. The committee is
chaired by several elected representatives, whose districts overlay the watershed. It is important to
include such vital decision makers in the process; one wants to involve leaders interested in
environmental quality in the watershed and perceived as capable of promoting constructive policy
change. A number of groups have committed to playing an important role in this committee:
TIAER, TSSWCB, Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC), Brazos River
Authority (BRA), Extension Service, United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource
Conservation Service (USDA/NRCS), and local conservation districts.

-------
At the local level, LCDs will take the lead in facilitating the implementation of the "planned
intervention/micro-watershed" strategy. In those micro-watersheds producing excessive pollution
loadings, LCDs organize stakeholders into consortia where members collectively discuss
pollution problems and assist in the development of solutions for reducing pollution loads.
Consortia will include no more stakeholders than can meet face to face for collective deliberation.
Periodic meetings over the course of the project will allow consortia members to develop rapport.
The goal of consortia meetings is to inform the development of a micro-watershed plan that will
reduce pollution loadings to target levels. Each of these forums will benefit by utilizing the
lessons from CRM and mediation techniques.
Endnotes
1. See Peter Rogers, America's Water Federal Roles and Responsibilities 4 (1993).
2. EPA Fact Sheet, National Water Quality Inventory 1992 Report to Congress-EPA841-F-
94-002 (April 1994) at 2.
3. Dana A. Rasmussen, Enforcement in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency:
Balancing the Carrots and the Sticks, 22 Envtl. L. 333, 336 (1991).
4. The Clean Water Act: New Directions, ABA Satellite Seminar-Jan. 18, 1996, Watershed
Approach Framework at 57.
5. Id. at 61.
6. E. William Anderson, How to do Coordinated Resource Management Planning, J. of
Soil and Water Conservation, Vol. 43 No. 3, May-June 1988, reprinted in Coordinated
Resource Management Guidelines 7-5 (Society for Range Managment, June 1993).
7. Id.
8. C. Rex Cleary and Dennis Phillippi, Society for Range Management, Coordinated
Resource Management Guidelines 4-9 (Society for Range Management Guidelines, June
1993).
9. Id. at 5-1.
10. Bill Ross, a policy intern at TIAER, aided in the formulation of these guiding
principles.
11. C. Rex Cleary and Dennis Phillippi, supra note 8, at 7-3.

-------
12.	C. Rex Cleary, Experimental Stewardship-What's happening?, Rangelands, Vol. 6 No.
4, Aug 1984 at 167, reprinted in Coordinated Resource Management Guidelines 4-16
(Society for Range Managment, June 1993).
13.	Guy Webster, Old Foes working together to help manage public lands, Reno Gazette-
Journal, June 3, 1984, reprinted in Coordinated Resource Management Guidelines 4-14
(Society for Range Managment, June 1993).
14.	See Larry Frarey and Ron Jones, Dimensions of Planned Intervention: Rethinking
Environmental Policy, Institutions & Compliance Strategies, Stephenville, TX: Tarleton
State University, Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research (undated).
15.	Logan, Agricultural Best Management Practices: Implications for Groundwater
Protection, 5 Groundwater and Public Policy 6 (1991).
16.	EPA Office of Wetlands, Oceans and Watersheds, Nonpoint Source Strategy Concept
Paper (1993) at 4.
17.	Id.
18.	Id.
19.	V.T.C.A., Agriculture Code § 201.026 (1996) et. seq.
Acronyms
BMP Best Management Practice
BRA Brazos River Authority
CRM Coordinated Resource Management
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
LCDs Local Soil and Water Conservation Districts
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimin ation System
SC Steering Committee

-------
TIAER Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research
TNRCC Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
TRT Technical Review Teams
TSSWCB Texas State Soil and Water Conservation District
USDA/NRCS United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation
Service

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Describing the Elephant: Multiple Perspectives in
New York City's Watershed Protection Conflict
Krystyna A. Stave
Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, New Haven, CT
Introduction
New York City's efforts to avoid filtration mandated by the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments and the 1989 Surface Water Treatment Rule have generated considerable controversy.
Since the conflict began in 1990, a spectrum of stakeholder groups has emerged, representing land
owners, sport fishermen, businesses, environmental groups, developers, and watershed communities.
What was originally defined by New York City water supply managers as a scientific problem-
identifying sources of water quality degradation and preventing contaminants from entering the water
supply system—now has broadened to include a diverse set of social and economic issues as well.
The debate itself has been polarized by heated rhetoric, hyperbole, and simplistic characterizations of the
issues and actors. Stakeholders have created caricatures of good guys and bad guys, painting each other
variously as "greedy developers who just want to retain their right to pollute", "rich and elitist
environmentalists telling other people how to live", "obstructionist", "arrogant", "hick farmers", and "city
slickers". Downstate proponents of watershed protection portray upstate watershed residents as
unconcerned about the health of the millions served by the water system, wantonly destroying the
environment to pursue selfish ends. Albert Appleton, former Commissioner of the New York City
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), set the stage early in the debate when he said: "I'm
trying to protect water quality for nine million people, and if you're going to build in the Catskills in the
future, you'll have to build in an environmentally responsible way." (Shaman, 1991) The rhetoric
escalated when then-Mayor David Dinkins added: "It is absolutely asinine to let people pollute the water
we're going to drink and we're not going to have it."(Wald, 1993) He was followed by City-based
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V

-------
environmental groups blaming upstate development interests for weakening watershed protection efforts,
and raising the specter of watershed wastes ending up at New York City taps from 128,000 septic
systems and more than 100 sewage treatment plants that. . dump into the reservoirs." (Golway, 1994)
Such images effectively agitate water consumers like the one who jumped up at an informational meeting
in the City and said: "These people are pooping in our water and we have to stop them!"
Upstate residents portray watershed protection proponents as aggressive conquerors insensitive to local
lives. At a public hearing, one Catskills town supervisor likened the DEP to an occupying army. In a
more moderate vein, another said: "We worked for this land. We paid for this land. We are the ones who
pay taxes on this land, but then New York City comes in and calls it their watershed." At a different
public hearing, another resident expressed the fears of some that the City's efforts are part of a larger
conspiracy: "We believe that land-use regulations,. . . among numerous other things, are being woven
tightly around us by government at all levels. And we believe . . . that at some point, when some
bureaucrat somewhere far from these hills decides the time is right, this complicated fabric will be
dropped over our heads, drawn tight around our ankles, and we will be toppled in a heap and dragged
from our homes."
By emphasizing differences between stakeholder claims to watershed resources, the debate has obscured
underlying differences in stakeholder perspectives. It also focused early efforts on trying to resolve
conflicting claims rather than on seeking opportunities for mutually satisfactory solutions. Most of the
five years of this conflict has been spent at the point of conflict, arguing over whose claim is more
legitimate. It has only been in the last year, when the discussions have moved beyond the issues of claims
to the views and values on which those claims are based, that there has been real movement toward a
solution. Although it is easy to dismiss obviously exaggerated sentiments as mere battle tactics for one
side or the other, I suggest that these be viewed instead as indicators of more fundamental and important
differences in stakeholder perspectives.
In my observation of this conflict, I have come to see the parable of the blind men and the elephant as a
metaphor for stakeholder differences. In this story, several blind men were asked to describe an elephant.
One, standing by the elephant's leg, said the animal was as tall and straight as a tree; another, standing at
the elephant's side said it was broad, flat and immovable, like a wall; another at its tail said the elephant
was thin and flexible, like a rope. Their descriptions were extremely different, although they were
describing the same thing. They saw it so differently because they were each looking at a different piece
of it. I propose that this is similar to what happens in many environmental management disputes, and that
exploring not just how, but why perceptions differ, can lead to a better basis for resolving disagreements
about watershed management. This paper sets the context of New York City's watershed protection
conflict, then briefly discusses some implications of the underlying differences in stakeholder
perspectives.
Background
This discussion is derived from a four-year study of the New York City watershed protection conflict,

-------
focused on the Catskill region watersheds. The study included over 130 interviews with watershed
stakeholders, observation of more than 100 stakeholder meetings and public hearings, and a GIS-based
study of hydrologically sensitive areas.
New York City's Water Supply System
The New York City DEP supplies an average of 1.5 billion gallons of water per day to approximately
nine million consumers in New York City and neighboring communities. The water is drawn from 1,969
square miles of watershed lands (NYCDEP, n.d.), all located outside the city boundaries. Ten percent of
the water comes from the Croton watershed system, approximately 50 miles north of the City. Ninety
percent comes from watersheds in the Catskill Mountain region, roughly 100 miles north of Manhattan.
The Catskill Mountain region, includes two watershed systems, the Catskill system and the Delaware
system, and covers a total of 1,584 square miles (NYCDEP, 1995). Approximately 170,000 people live
full-time in the Croton watersheds; 50,000 in the Catskill and Delaware watersheds (NYCDEP, 1993).
The City owns just under seven percent of the watershed land, about half of which lies beneath its 18
reservoirs. Most of the City's watershed holdings are located around the reservoirs, protecting a narrow
buffer at the water's edge. Approximately 25 percent of the remaining land, mostly in the Catskill and
Delaware systems, is owned by New York State; the rest is privately held.
The water generally requires only minimal treatment before distribution. Its high quality has been
attributed to its sources in the sparsely populated and largely forested Catskill Mountain watersheds. The
DEP has the legal authority based on a 1905 New York State Public Health Law to regulate watershed
land use to protect water quality. Before 1990, however, it had only used this authority to issue a very
general set of guidelines in 1953.
Incentive for Watershed Protection
Federal law requires that all municipal surface water supplies be filtered unless the water meets federal
drinking water standards and the water supplier shows it can prevent water quality degradation through
watershed protection. Filtration of Catskill and Delaware system water would cost an estimated $5 to $8
billion, plus another $300 million per year in operating expenses. Hoping to obtain a filtration waiver, the
DEP drafted land use regulations in 1990 as the foundation of a watershed protection plan. The 1990
discussion draft established buffers around reservoirs and along streams restricting activities such as the
siting of septic systems. Buffers up to 1000 feet wide were originally proposed around reservoirs and up
to 500 feet from stream channels (NYCDEP, 1990). Dairy farmers were required to prevent barnyard
runoff from discharging to surface water and were prohibited from spreading manure within 100 feet of a
watercourse. The regulations restricted the use of de-icing compounds on roads, limited impervious
surfaces such as roofs and parking lots, and upgraded the technology and level of treatment required for
wastewater treatment plants.
Stakeholder Groups

-------
Stakeholder groups, (where a stakeholder is broadly defined as anyone who is either directly affected by
or has expressed an interest in the watershed issues), started to form or take positions following the
release of the 1990 draft regulations. Initially, the controversy seemed a straightforward clash of interests
between the watershed and the City, but it quickly became more complicated. Neither watershed nor City
interests are homogenous, and the DEP's watershed protection program expanded over time to include
issues beyond land use regulation, including land acquisition, watershed planning, and a farm planning
program. Stakeholder groups formed throughout the last five years as new issues emerged or were
articulated. Stakeholders include: City water consumers; the DEP; government and public agency
officials at village, town, county, City, state and federal levels; environmental organizations in the City
and in the watersheds; City-based public health and low-income housing advocates; builder's
associations; business associations; educational organizations; long-term watershed residents; farmers;
tourism service providers; second-home owners; and recreational users of watershed land and streams.
These diverse stakeholders are allied on some issues and at odds on others. The situation is further
complicated because individuals may be part of more than one stakeholder group.
Over the last five years, stakeholder groups have disrupted watershed protection efforts through legal
challenges and by mobilizing public opinion, and helped bring diverse issues to the discussion. In March
1995, when discussions between the DEP and the Coalition of Watershed Towns, a quasi-governmental
organization representing the 35 towns in the Catskill/Delaware watersheds, seemed to have reached an
impasse, New York State's Governor George Pataki convened a closed-door negotiation process to bring
stakeholders together. The talks lasted seven months and concluded in early November with an
"Agreement in Principle". While the Agreement is being praised for addressing the range of stakeholder
concerns, all parties agree that its true test will be in designing and implementing its details.
Discussion
Looking at underlying differences in perspective rather than rhetorical statements contributes to conflict
resolution in several ways. First, fostering cooperation in watershed protection efforts requires
understanding stakeholder interests and values, and DEP's incentive to encourage cooperation is high. Its
ability to police the innumerable individual actions that aggregate to large-scale water quality problems
at the end of the pipe is limited. As one resident put it at a public hearing: "We all know, as does NYC,
that it will be impossible to enforce these regulations without the help and consent of local officials,
government agencies and village centers. We can't all be watched all the time. If the regulations pass as
is, the battle will have been lost, but the war will have just begun." Second, the way watershed
stakeholders view and value different characteristics of the watershed determines their uses of the
watershed. Understanding the basis for different views and values helps anticipate the effect of human
activity on watershed resources, and develop strategies to promote or prevent different activities. Third,
the way different groups perceive a problem determines the way the validity they assign to tools, or
inputs, for developing solutions to the problem (Dietz et al., 1989). The designation of scientific
expertise, money, or public opinion as legitimate inputs then determines who participates in the
development of solutions to a problem and, ultimately, whether those solutions are accepted. For
example, if a conflict is defined as "political", public support may be considered a crucial resource, while

-------
scientific expertise, data, and simulation models are more acceptable in a conflict defined as "scientific".
The New York City DEP began by defining the problem as a scientific one and addressed it with
scientifically based land use regulations. Some watershed farmers and planners rejected the DEP's
scientific definition, claiming the DEP did not have enough scientific justification for its regulations or
land acquisition program. One county planner noted that until parties in the conflict trust each other,
science is used more as a courtroom weapon by "duelling scientific experts" rather than a tool used
cooperatively to find a good solution. Some local government officials see the conflict as a political
challenge to local autonomy; others as an economic problem of unequally distributed costs and benefits.
Some City-based stakeholders see land acquisition and regulation as an economic issue that can be
resolved with adequate payment to landowners. Some landowners, however, have no interest in selling.
Stories of the communities displaced as recently as 1965 to build New York City reservoirs in the
Catskills support their fear that their land will be taken by condemnation. They see the issue as political,
in which financial compensation is irrelevant. Farmers and other Catskill residents resent the implication
that they care only about money and are not good stewards of the land. As one farmer explained simply
to DEP officials on a watershed farm tour: "This farm is all I've got. Those of us who chose agriculture as
a career, we're just as good stewards as the Greens; we take care of the land. I'm sure I could be selling
cars or refrigerators and making more money—I'd be good at it, I like people—but I don't know as it
would be so rewarding. I'd rather be producing meat and milk. The land owns us. Those of us foolish
enough to work so many hours for so little money, the land owns us."
Rather than trying to recognize and resolve multiple points of view, some stakeholders still see the
problem as convincing others to see their point of view. One City resident at a meeting to discuss how to
increase the participation of City residents in watershed discussions said: "I have many friends upstate
who are 'enlightened' but they just don't know [our issues]. The information isn't there and we have to get
it there ... it's so obvious! We ought to hit the media. Let's picket them and create some news." He sees
the problem then, not as trying to find common ground in the way stakeholders see the world, but to
convince other stakeholders to see it his way.
Conclusion
What has become clear in the last five years, as the controversy has evolved and unfolded, is that
stakeholders view and value watershed resources differently. Like the blind men asked to describe the
elephant based on what they "saw" with their hands, these different views come from the different
contexts within which stakeholders interact with the watershed. None of the perspectives is so much
wrong as it is incomplete. It emphasizes the part of the issues with which each stakeholder has the most
experience and interest. Differences in stakeholder perceptions affect the positions stakeholders take and
claims they make regarding watershed resource management. What has also become clear is that any
lasting watershed management solution, especially in the case where non-point source pollution
prevention cannot be controlled by force, has to account for different perspectives. Expecting,
recognizing and seeking to understand the basis for differing views is the first step toward sustainable
watershed management.

-------
Acknowledgements
I thank all those who participated in this study for generously sharing their time and thoughts. The study
was funded by the U.S. Man and the Biosphere Program under the Temperate Ecosystems Directorate.
This paper draws on background material published in Stave (1995) and Stave (1996, forthcoming).
References
Dietz, T., P.C. Stern, and R.W. Rycroft, 1989. Definitions of Conflict and the Legitimation of
Resources: The Case of Environmental Risk. Sociological Forum 4(l):47-70.
Golway, T. 1994. "Rudy's Diluted Watershed Plan May Endanger City Water Supply." The New
York Observer, 26 September 1994, p.l
New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), n.d. New York City Water
Supply System Fact Sheet.
New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), 1990. Proposed
Regulations for the Protection from Contamination, Degradation and Pollution of the New York
City Water Supply and Its Sources, Discussion Draft.
New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), 1993. Final Generic
Environmental Impact Statement for the Proposed Watershed Regulations for the Protection from
Contamination, Degradation, and Pollution of the New York City Water Supply and its Sources.
Volume I. November 1993.
New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP), 1995. Geographic
Information and Modeling System Group. Personal communication, September 20, 1995.
Shaman, D. 1991. "Upstate Developers Irked at City's Plans." New York Times, 20 September
1991.
Stave, K.A., 1995. Resource Use Conflict in New York City's Catskill Watersheds: A Case for
Expanding the Scope of Water Resource Management, p. 61-68 in: Austin, L.H. (editor), 1995.
Water in the 21st Century: Conservation, Demand, and Supply. Proceedings of the AWRA
Annual Spring Symposium. American Water Resources Association, Herndon, Virginia, TPS-95-
1, 740 pages.
Stave, K.A., 1996 (forthcoming). "Turning the Tanker": New York City's Evolving Approach to
Water Resource Management. In: Burch, W.R., J. Aley, E. Conover, and D. Field., eds. Survival
of the Organizationally Fit: Ecosystem Management as an Adaptive Strategy for Natural Resource
Organizations in the 21st Century. New York: Taylor and Francis.
Wald, M. 1993. "A New 10-Year Plan to Prevent Water Pollution." New York Times, 12
September 1993. p.56.

-------
dissolved oxygen levels.
In natural systems, which receive little or no anthropogenic inputs, hypoxia may occur in the summer months if strong density-
induced stratification occurs in the water column. The stratification reduces mixing between surface and bottom waters and
restricts the transfer of oxygenated surface waters to the oxygen-deficient bottom waters. However, the additional input of
anthropogenic nutrients into Long Island Sound exacerbates the condition of hypoxia. This occurs because the addition of
nitrogen and phosphorus to the system stimulates phytoplankton growth (eutrophication), which results in a greater sink of
dissolved oxygen in the lower layers of the water column.
Nature of the Mathematical Water Quality Model
The mathematical model of water quality in the study area is a representation of the principal components of the environment
that influence the dissolved oxygen balance. The eutrophication-based model incorporates the input of point and nonpoint
sources, estuarine circulation and mixing, the principal mechanisms of phytoplankton interactions with light, water temperature,
and nutrients, and the behavior of the various nutrient forms themselves. The model also incorporates the effects of atmospheric
reaeration, photosynthetic oxygen production, algal respiration, the oxidation of organic carbon and sediment oxygen demand
(SOD).
The water quality model is linked to a hydrodynamic model of the system (HydroQual, 1995). The hydrodynamic model feeds
the water quality model cell depths, velocities and mixing coefficients averaged over one hour intervals. Both the hydrodynamic
and water quality models are implemented on a shoreline fitted, orthogonal, curvilinear coordinate system.
Model Development

The planning process is proceeding in two phases: construction of a New
York Harbor Eutrophication Model (HEM) for screening of planning
alternatives, and development of a System-Wide Eutrophication Model
(SWEM) for detailed evaluation of management options. Schematics of the
HEM and SWEM model segmentation are shown on Figures 1 and 2,
respectively. Each model has ten vertical layers for a total of 7400 grid
elements in HEM and 10,000 grid elements in SWEM. The HEM model
encompasses the tidal portions of the Hudson, Hackensack, Passaic, and
Raritan rivers. In SWEM there are additionally seven Connecticut
tributaries for a total of eleven watersheds. A major reason for the SWEM
model development is to move the boundaries of the model far enough
away from internal pollutant loadings so that they do not have an effect on
model projections. Each model is comprised of two components:
hydrodynamic and water quality submodels. All models are state-of-the-art,
three dimensional time-varying computational tools. The water quality
submodel computes more than 25 water quality variables at 15 minute
intervals for 12 month long simulations. The models are executed on a mini-
supercomputer. The models are being calibrated with existing year long data from the 1988/89 period and are being validated
with data collected from more than 100 sampling stations in the tri-state region during 1995.

HewYoA
Bi£*
Figure 1. HEM Model Domain.

-------

i
1 1 ( 1 |J J I 1 1 . 1 ¦ 4. . S i I _ I 1 1 1

41,30

TWt CfliwecBcnt - X

m
41,00

'1,^5

m,
3T«r ''J!

Jm** jl •'

«xao

jrn
-

3-3,50

39,00

38,50

HVDRO0UM. „

t i i
-7530 -75.00 -74,50 -74,OT -7150 -73, W -72.50 -7LOT -71,50 -71,DO -70,90 -7Q.QQ -69,50 -68.00
Figure 2. SWEM Model Domain.
Loading information is generally developed from Discharge Monitoring Records and specific field measurements collected for
these projects. There are twenty-five state variables and for some of these variables, the form of the variable (dissolved and
particulate) must be specified. Runoff loadings (CSO and stormwater) are generally generated from SWMM models developed
for other DEP planning projects and from rainfall-runoff models developed as part of other area-wide planning studies.
A summary of the 1988/89 total nitrogen, total phosphorus, and total organic carbon loads to the HEM domain are presented on
Figure 3. The figure presents six loading categories; these include sewage treatment plants (STPs), industry, combined sewer
overflows (CSO), stormwater (SW), tributaries, and atmospheric loadings. The total load is also shown. Each bar graph is
further segregated by regional discharges. These regions include New York City, other New York State (without NYC), New
Jersey, and Connecticut. The NYC STP discharges account for about one-third of the total load. The NJ STP discharges are also
a significant component of the total load as are tributary inputs, most of which are from the Hudson River.

-------
U*MI'-Y. 1 V '-Ay H-r i -j.: iwwr
Figure 3. Summary of 1988/89 Loadings.
The loads calculated for the 1988/89 calibration period and the 1994/95 verification period are inputs to the HEM/SWEM water
quality models. Model output is then compared with observed water quality data. An example of model output comparisons to
the observed data is shown on Figure 4. The figure shows dissolved oxygen responses at six location in New York Harbor. The
top dashed line is the saturation value for dissolved oxygen. The other two lines are the calculated responses in the surface and
bottom layers of the model. The 1988/89 observed data are represented by triangles while other historical data are represented
by circles. The model-data comparisons are on a temporal basis with the model results showing monthly mean concentrations.
The model-data comparisons are in good agreement with the model reproducing a wide variety of physical, chemical and
biological conditions throughout the harbor. For example, at station 3 (Upper East River - LIS), both the model and data
indicate a strong vertical stratification with respect to dissolved oxygen. In contrast, at station 4 (East River - 42nd Street) both
the model and data are well mixed between the surface and bottom layers.
II 1 1 - H J	- - j
1.H • - JCOri 3'..
O/W I'lH'ri. - I rlrti* t
jbJr is-w	rinVHii*.
------	'+-•-> " :~nr inr r- •* 5r.»Hr
	tmKfPr
¦.fr.T.*r. Csjc-. ¦S-i-.t-T- - LEc-

-------
Figure 4. HEM 1988/89 Calibration.
Model Application
The calibrated HEM model will first be used to develop component responses for the dissolved oxygen distribution. A baseline
case has been developed based on 1993/94 loadings as a representation of existing conditions. The component responses will
demonstrate the effects of various categories of pollutant inputs (treatment plants, CSOs, stormwater, tributaries, etc.) on water
quality and dissolved oxygen conditions at various locations in New York Harbor. These component analyses will guide the
development of approximately twenty engineering alternatives. In a broad sense, these alternatives will include treatment,
outfall re-location, and artificial aeration. The HEM model will be used to screen these alternatives.
The calibrated/verified SWEM model will be used for final evaluation of alternatives. As mentioned above, the boundaries of
the SWEM model are sufficiently distant from the primary study area so that they will not be a factor in the analyses of
alternatives, particularly those alternatives that involve outfall re-location or tidal circulation modification by tide gates.
In summary, state-of-the-art hydrodynamic and water quality models are being developed to evaluate engineering alternatives
that may have water quality impacts on an area-wide basis. In this study, the engineering alternatives being considered is
focused on East River discharges. However, the impacts from other entities, (i.e., other New York discharges, Connecticut
discharges, New Jersey discharges) will also be quantified. The HEM model, with a limited domain, is used only to screen
alternatives. The SWEM model, with an extensive spatial domain, will be used for final evaluation of East River alternatives
and can also be used by managers for area-wide planning and/or wasteload allocation on a multiple-watershed basis.
References
HydroQual, Inc. (1991) Water Quality Modeling Analysis of Hypoxia in Long Island Sound.
HydroQual, Inc. (1995) Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Project, East River Water Quality Plan, Task 9.0
Harbor Eutrophication (HEM), Subtask 9.1 Construct HEM.
HydroQual, Inc. (1995), Newtown Creek Water Pollution Control Project, East River Water Quality Plan, Task 9.0
Harbor Eutrophi cation (HEM), Subtask 9.3 Calibrate HEM for Hydrodynamics.

-------
which discourages communities from setting control priorities.
¦ The level of control needed is difficult to identify. Local officials must be convinced that nonpoint
inputs are affecting or have the potential to seriously impair valuable water resources before
adopting more stringent controls. The effectiveness of nonpoint management practices is not well
understood. Local officials need information on the relative benefits of management options to
select appropriate controls, to generate public support for adoption of controls, and to establish
defensible land use regulations.
¦ Tight budgets limit local capability to adopt, monitor and maintain nonpoint management
practices. When the price tag for sewers or storm water improvements is high, municipalities are
likely to gain public support for new pollution control projects only when the cost of inaction
exceeds the control cost.
MANAGE: A Method for Assessment, Nutrient-loading, And
Geographic Evaluation of Nonpoint Pollution
The University of Rhode Island Cooperative Extension, with support from the Cooperative State
Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES), is developing a practical method that
municipalities and state resource managers can use to manage nonpoint pollution in watersheds of
freshwater lakes, coastal embayments, and groundwater aquifers. The MANAGE method is a GIS-based
watershed management tool that will (1) spatially identify nonpoint source pollutant "hot spots" and (2)
estimate the loading of phosphorus and nitrogen to surface water and the loading of nitrogen to
groundwater reservoirs. Both components take advantage of the extensive Rhode Island Geographic
Information System (RIGIS) database one of the most comprehensive compiled for a large area.
MANAGE is intended to be used by land use planners and resource managers as one of many tools
available to aid in the process of water resources protection. It has been developed specifically for use in
Rhode Island and the New England region to assess the effects of current land use, future development
alternatives, and pollution management practices on valuable water resources. Because variables and
assumptions are easily modified, MANAGE can be used to study the effects of many different scenarios.
By evaluating both land use and nonpoint control options, the MANAGE method can support adoption of
land use policies and nonpoint controls needed to effectively reduce nonpoint inputs to sensitive water
resources. Our objective in developing this model is to provide local decision makers with a watershed
management tool that can be used to accomplish the following:
¦ Spatially identify pollution "hot spots" having a high potential to generate nonpoint sources of
pollution within a watershed.
¦ Calculate nitrogen and phosphorus loading to surface waters, and nitrogen loading to groundwater
under present land use.

-------
¦ Compare the change in pollution potential and nutrient loading with build-out under present
zoning or other development scenario.
¦ Compare nutrient inputs with critical freshwater eutrophication levels and drinking water quality
standards.
¦ Estimate the reduction in nutrient loading with implementation of stormwater and wastewater
management practices.
¦ Increase public awareness of nonpoint pollution sources and management solutions through use of
model output products.
Nutrient Loading Component of MANAGE
The date required to run the nutrient-loading model is easily obtained from the Rhode Island Geographic
Information Systems (RIGIS), maintained on the ARC/INFO GIS software. The LAND USE, SOILS,
SEWER, and HYDRO coverages provide the minimum data necessary as input for the model. The model
identifies areas with a high potential to contribute nonpoint pollutants using: 1) watershed land use; 2)
soil suitability for on-site wastewater disposal based on soil hydrologic group; and 3) riparian land use.
Field monitoring data is not required to conduct the nutrient loading analysis. Like other mass balance
models that are not calibrated with watershed-specific data, the nutrient concentrations calculated for the
groundwater recharge percolate and the inland surface waters should not be expected to correspond
directly with groundwater or surface water quality samples. Water reaching municipal wells represents a
mix of various travel times and sources. Rather, the nutrient concentrations calculated by the model
should be viewed as one of many indicators of watershed health. They are most useful in determining
relative pollutant loadings under various land uses and management options.
Method
Our approach in developing the MANAGE method has been to review nutrient loading methods
successfully applied in other areas and compare commonly accepted pollutant loading factors with
results of current research conducted by URI researchers and others. Many other models currently in use
were examined to determine the best combination of features appropriate to local conditions The
processes being modeled are complex and time-dependent, and this model attempts to simplify these
processes while maintaining integrity and user-friendliness.
The nutrient loading component of MANAGE differs significantly from other mass balance models
currently used in the Northeast (Schuler, 1987; US EPA, 1990; Weiskel and Howes, 1991). Unlike
existing models, the MANAGE nutrient loading method is applicable to both surface waters and
groundwaters; it calculates both nitrogen and phosphorus inputs; it examines surface runoff and

-------
infiltration; and it addresses the influence of soil type and riparian areas on pollution movement and
attenuation. It addition, it factors in the effect of stormwater and wastewater management improvements
and takes advantage of GIS to spatially identify and illustrate pollution problem areas.
Nutrient Loading Features
Some of the unique features in this model are summarized below:
• The Rhode Island Geographic Information Systems (RIGIS) data base is used to obtain land use types
and development density, soils, sewering and public utilities data. The RIGIS data base was developed
from many sources including (1:24,000) USGS Topographic maps and (1:15,840) USDA Rhode Island
Soil Survey maps.
¦ Surface runoff and groundwater infiltration rates are calculated based on both land use and
hydrologic soil group. The hydrologic soil group is an indicator of the potential for rainwater to
infiltrate the soil surface rather than generating surface runoff.
¦ Pollutant loading factors for surface runoff and infiltration are based on results of research
conducted in Rhode Island and an extensive literature review.
¦ Soils with restrictive layers are identified and highlighted as causes of septic system malfunction,
estimated based on the development density, and on the potential for these systems to The nutrient
load contribution from malfunctioning septic systems to surface waters is discharge inadequately
treated effluent as a function of soil features.
¦ The effect of riparian areas (land area within 100 ft. of surface water shorelines) is factored in the
estimation of septic system effluent contributions to surface waters.
Anaiyticai Functions
The model is divided into two main analytical functions, where the receiving water is:
¦ surface water a surface watershed can be studied as a whole, or by subwatershed, running the
model for each subwatershed.
¦ groundwater a groundwater contributing area can be a groundwater drainage area, groundwater
reservoir, or well head protection area (WHPA).
Surface waters and groundwater are treated independently of one another since a surface watershed can
be different from the area contributing to groundwater. If a surface watershed is being studied, the area
for groundwater data entry can be left blank, and vice-versa. We are currently developing the portion of

-------
the model which will estimate nutrient loading to a coastal embayment by using the results of both the
surface and groundwater analyses.
Existing Features
To evaluate the status of either a surface watershed or groundwater contributing area, the nutrient loading
component of the MANAGE method has been developed in spreadsheet format. Existing functions are
summarized below:
¦ Estimates the average annual nitrogen and phosphorus loading to surface waters (reservoir or
lake) in lb P/yr and lb N/yr, and the average annual volume of surface runoff contributing to the
receiving water. An additional subcomponent of the model will be added to estimate the response
of a freshwater pond or lake to the phosphorus loading in the form of an average annual
phosphorus concentration (ug/1) and a likely trophic state. This is not attempted for coastal
embayments because a reasonable and accurate method has not yet been developed. Loading
estimates provided by the model could be used to evaluate eutrophication in coastal embayments
when a method is available.
¦ Estimates the average annual nitrogen loading (lb N/yr) and average annual recharge (Mgal/yr) to
a groundwater reservoir.
¦ Estimates the average annual concentration of nitrogen in the percolating recharge water (mg/1).
This has been used as an indicator of the well-water quality derived from the aquifer.
¦ Allows the user to easily modify land use to evaluate the relative change in nutrient loading with
various land development alternatives.
Features Currently in Development
m Estimates the total average annual nitrogen loading (lb N/yr) to a coastal embayment from both
surface and groundwater inputs, if requested.
¦ Produces a summary of the status of the watershed or groundwater contributing area, identifying
high-risk land uses, management practices, and other watershed characteristics which can degrade
water quality.
¦ Identifies best-management practices and land uses which help protect the receiving water from
pollutant loading. Loading results are interpreted, and suggestions are made regarding
development and management issues.
Identifies locations within the watershed or groundwater contributing area with a high potential

-------
for pollution.
The average annual loads are reported in lb/yr and the concentrations are reported in mg/1 for nitrogen
and ug/1 for phosphorus. The calculated average annual concentrations are indicators of the effects of
land use on water quality, and cannot be compared to any single sampling data point. Rather, the strength
of the model is in comparing and assessing the effects of various land use and management scenarios
under consideration.
Future Direction
The MANAGE method is currently being tested in the Hunt-Potowomut coastal watershed and Hunt
River aquifer, North Kingstown, Rhode Island. Following completion of the draft method, scheduled for
1996, a user-friendly interface using the ArvView GIS software is planned. URI Cooperative Extension
will train local officials in use of the model and provide technical assistance in GIS database
development to promote use of the method in priority watersheds. User manuals and workshops will be
developed and conducted through existing URI Cooperative Extension outreach programs to
municipalities.
References
Kellogg, D.Q., L. Joubert, and A. Gold. 1995. MANAGE: a Method for Assessment, Nutrient-
loading, and Geographic Evaluation of nonpoint pollution. Draft Nutrient Loading Component.
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
Schuler, T.R. 1987. The Simple Method in Controlling Urban Runoff: A practical manual for
planning and designed urban BMPs. Washington, D.C. Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Water Resources Planning Board.
US EPA. 1990. Buzzards Bay Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Buzzards Bay
Project.
Weiskel, P.K., and B.L. Howes. 1991. The Use of Loading Models to Predict Nitrogen Inputs to
Coastal Waters. Proceedings, NWWA Eastern Focus Conference.

-------
The Lick Creek SSES project was used as the first test of CALAMAR's accuracy and effectiveness. The
Lick Creek study area is around 12 mi2. in area and is located on the City's south side. Five (5)
temporary gauges were installed both to provide rain gauge information for the SSES study and for
calibrating the CALAMAR images. The study period was from September through November 1994.
Methodology
CALAMAR uses three sets of data: NEXRAD radar images of reflectivity, 5-minute rain gauge data and
a geographic database of the catchment areas. CALAMAR performs three separate transformations of
these data to obtain geographically correct absolute rainfall rates.
Step 1-Selecting the Proper Tilt
NEXRAD uses up to 14 radar tilts (angles of inclination) to develop an entire radar "picture" during
periods of precipitation. The lowest tilt is 0.5 degrees of elevation and the highest tilt is around 18
degrees. The NEXRAD computer combines all tilts to characterize an entire "volume" around a radar
site. Unless the terrain is unusual or there are other types of obstruction in the area, CALAMAR usually
uses only the lowest tilt because it most closely represents precipitation reaching the ground. The
NEXRAD site is near the Indianapolis International Airport approximately eight (8) miles southwest of
the city and the radar at the lowest tilt intercepts the tallest buildings in the downtown. As it turns out,
there is significant ground clutter throughout the Indianapolis area and the second radar tilt (1.5 degrees)
is used within a 20-mile radius of the radar. Beyond 20 miles, the first tilt is used, except for the area
masked by the tall downtown buildings.
Step 2-Advection
Advection is a weather term referring to the transport of atmospheric properties by the wind. Radar
images, on their own, produce a series of 10 images per hour. These images alone cannot be used to
measure rainfall during fast moving storms, because of the gaps between images. CALAMAR uses
pattern recognition to determine that a rain cell moved from one point to the second point at a certain
velocity and at a certain intensity. These advected or vectored images are then calibrated with rain
gauges.
Step 3-Calibration
The advected radar reflectivity images provide relative rainfall intensity values for each km2 and the rain
gauges provide ground truthing as the rain cell passes overhead. Although NEXRAD provides excellent
geographic location for each rain cell, the estimated rainfall intensities based on reflectivity can be off by
as much as two to eight times. The NEXRAD operators try to adjust the reflectivity-to-intensity
relationship, but the relationship varies with the type of storm, the size of the rain drops, wind speed etc.
Because the relationship is so variable, CALAMAR uses the ground truth from the 25 rain gauges to

-------
calibrate each storm. As a general rule, NEXRAD comes closer to accurately measuring rainfall during
wide spread, steady, low intensity rains and is most inaccurate during intense localized storms.
Results
Intense frontal storms typically are responsible for the rain events that are of greatest interest to
municipal hydrologists. They usually produce the highest rainfall rates and have the greatest variation in
rainfall distribution. An example of such a frontal storm occurred on the evening of 27 November. Figure
1 shows the storm accumulation on the Lick Creek study area. The pixel size is 1 Km. x 1 Km.
The rain cells during this storm were around 2 to 4 kilometers in diameter. The heaviest rainfall
accumulation shown in Figure 1 (Approximately 37 mm.) varies from 2 to 6 kilometers in width. It is
easy to see that rain gauge spacing of 9 to 16 km. (5 to 10 miles) could allow these major cells to "sneak"
through and cause the greatest amount of rainfall to be undetected. These observations lead to the
conclusion that rain gauge networks ought to be no more than 3 km. apart. In fact, this technology has
allowed French users to observe that approximately 80% of rain from significant storms come from cells
6 km. or less in width
0
<
0.4
1
¦!<
1.3
2
<
2.7
3
<
4.9
4
<
8.7
5
<
13.3
6
<
17.8
7
<
23.7
8
<
31.6
9
<
36.5
10
<
48.6
11
<
64.6
12
<
74. S
13
<
100.0
14

154.0
15
<
999.0
Figure 1. Accumulated Rainfall on Lick Creek Area (22 Km x 22 Km).

-------
The Product
CALAMAR integrates the calibrated rainfall over each catchment area that has been digitized. Outputs
include a hyetograph for each catchment area and a rainfall total for each catchment. Table 1 lists the
accumulated rainfall for each catchment in the Lick Creek Study Area for the 27-28 November 1994
storm.
Conclusions
1.	CALAMAR offers rainfall resolution superior to traditionally-spaced rain gauge network by a
factor of 20 to 30.
2.	CALAMAR can provide this superior knowledge at a fraction of the cost of a rain gauge network
with similar resolution.
3.	CALAMAR's ability to generate hyetographs for individual catchments can allow for more
accurate calibration of hydraulic models.
4.	Indianapolis will incorporate CALAMAR as a key feature in its wet weather programs, including
CSO compliance, I/I removal and storm water management.

-------
waterbodiesa hybrid approach.
Once a waterbody is delineated, WBS can manage a wide range of assessment information for that
waterbody. The main data elements focus on attainment of designated uses and on causes and sources of
impairment (U.S. EPA, 1994). Designated uses typically include aquatic life support (fishing), body
contact recreation (swimming), and drinking water supply. Causes include physical, chemical, and
biological stressors ranging from nutrients to toxicants to habitat modification. Sources include point
source discharges and nonpoint source runoff from many urban or rural land use activities. For example,
a WBS user could access the following data about a particular waterbody:
Waterbody ST-001, Jones Creek, is 5.1 miles long and located in USGS Cataloging Unit (CU) 01010102
and the Big River Basin. Jones Creek fully supports drinking water and swimming uses; 4.5 miles do not
support aquatic life use. Causes of impairment include metals (1.5 miles) and sediment and habitat
modification (4.5 miles). Sources include row-crop agriculture and urban runoff (4.5 miles). This
assessment is based on chemical monitoring for conventional pollutants and toxicants and biological
monitoring for macroinvertebrates and fish.
Availability of Waterbody- and Watershed-level Data
During 1995, EPA and RTI assembled all available State WBS files, validated the data, and created a
database for as much of the country as possible. A primary objective was to ensure that most or all
waterbodies were georeferenced to their appropriate USGS Cataloging Units (CUs). By the end of 1995,
WBS files containing information from the 1994 305(b) reporting cycle were available for 51 states,
territories, and interstate river basin commissions. More than half of these entities use WBS and the
remainder use in-house systems that are compatible with WBS. The national WBS files contain
approximately 50,000 waterbodies in nearly 2,000 CUs. The 1996 305(b) cycle should result in a similar
high level of availability of assessment data.
Georeferencing Waterbodies to the EPA Reach File
As noted, WBS contains data elements to identify each waterbody's basin or watershed, such as standard
USGS CUs, USDA small basins, and State-defined small watersheds. To further pinpoint the location of
waterbodies, EPA encourages States to georeference their waterbodies to unique hydrologic segments
contained in the national EPA Reach File Version 3 (RF3; U.S. EPA, 1995). RF3 is based on line traces
from the USGS 1:100,000-scale Digital Line Graphs used to produce printed topographic maps and
contains a consistent hydrological network organized according to the USGS 8-digit CUs. EPA provides
software tools and technical support for this georeferencing, or reach indexing, process. Reach indexing
makes possible detailed map displays of WBS information and the overlay of WBS data with other
coverages. Figure 1 shows the status of reach indexing efforts as of February 1996.

-------
Fiugress lit indexing Wateitio dies with. Ki'3
F 'M?
/"- - ¦' r--M'
1 *^ ¦*;<£ i :¦ I."'"'
r U'^M - -*M :..../ - •%
- - ^ , V„ - - - v-r -/
— - , • -¦¦•,•'
^2/4 (v^4i -••• - '• _!
"*..._ _[^Lv>->i'' '., ; i .. =,_ -i
UGEHD \ J. J V4"'"'"" v-
— iKtoircru-^JardFr- IWt '"••••'' ¦ - *
I r*fai rem Prefer s Fr" IW6 \ ¦p
Figure 1. Status of indexing waterbodies with RF3 (February 1996).
WBS information can be used to identify the geographic distribution of certain causes or sources. For
instance, NOAA and EPA have used WBS data to identify pollution causes and sources in estuarine and
coastal waterbodies and in river waterbodies in coastal counties as part of the process of enhancing State
coastal zone nonpoint control programs under the 1990 Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments.
WBS data have also been used to estimate the frequency of pollution stressors related to habitat loss as
compared to the more traditional types of chemical-specific pollutants. Increasingly, however,
applications of WBS information will involve processing the data to create watershed-level indicators.
And where waterbodies are indexed to RF3, fine-scale GIS spatial analysis is possible.
Applications for WBS Data Summarized by Cataloging Unit
EPA is coordinating with the USDA to enhance the water quality-oriented components of the 1997
USDA National Resource Inventory report. As part of this cooperative effort, RTI and Tetra Tech are
processing WBS information to support EPA in developing indicators of the extent of agricultural
pollutant impacts within CUs. The USDA is making use of USGS CUs as the framework for
summarizing the effectiveness of Farm Bill programs in reducing soil erosion and related agricultural
pollution stressors. For instance, for each CU, the ratio of the number of waterbodies with agricultural
impacts divided by the total number of assessed waterbodies is easily calculated. Where agricultural
impacts are widespread, this ratio may be close to 100 percent.
Where agricultural problems are less prevalent or constitute limited hotspots, the ratio will be much
lower. A draft prototype example is shown for Ohio in Figure 2, in which ratio indicators at the CU level
are grouped into high, medium, and low categories. Similar indicators could then be developed for the
entire country.

-------
TAfeitershedlm pact Indicators From WB S Data
Figure 2. Prototype example of developing watershed-level indicators from WBS data.
GIS Applications for RF3-lndexed Assessment Data
For those states that index their waterbodies with RF3, GIS technology makes it easy to develop detailed
maps of WBS assessment information. Figure 3 shows an example of these new tools for producing
interactive visualizations tied to a water quality data base. This graphic is based on indexed waterbodies
in a CU on the James River in Virginia. WBS data are queried to display a small watershed area showing
impacts from point sources of pollution. Steady improvements in GIS software for both workstation and
PC platforms will eventually put these new spatial data base tools in the hands of all State water quality
agencies. RF3 indexing provides a strong foundation for water resource-oriented GIS work. As
illustrated in Figure 1, by the end of 1996, waterbodies in at least half the country should be RF3-
indexed.
ijfi Ai* r>H Lilr
HI IS CU| H x.i?. |¥
.

'
*
-V.'wf -'.v.--,11
>¦¦¦¦>=

JU. ;
j.

:
::»n-

Ltl
' nlii

hi :
• "i
¥

—
r ..
II

^ :

+_
h Hk .

FlFF
m'jkr.

+
*' Lt

FlFF
:Jc

jrt 4i

FlFF
¦Cm- !

I-'
,,B-

> * «
+

Li
-------
Once a waterbody coverage is available, assessment information can be combined with other coverages
to perform spatial analyses for watershed or basin management plans and for evaluating the progress in
active watershed projects. Our work for North Carolina's Tar-Pamlico Basin has shown the value of
overlay analysis using indexed waterbody assessment data and land cover information. The State
requested a series of GIS maps of small watersheds in the Piedmont portion of the basin to distribute to
field staff. These maps suggest that most extensive designated use impairments cluster in the headwater
reaches where agricultural land uses and habitat modifications within stream buffer zones are prevalent.
References
U.S. EPA (1987). Surface water monitoring: A framework for change. Office of Water and Office
of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA 1994. National water quality inventory: 1992 report to Congress. EPA 841-R-94-001.
Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
U.S. EPA 1995. Indexing waterbodies using the EPA Reach File: EPA WBS NEWS FLASH
Special Edition. Office of Water, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Impacts of Upland Land Use on Runoff. "A Global
Perspective."
Gregory W. Eggers, Hydraulic Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, St. Paul District
Robert M. Bartels, Senior Associate
CTE Engineers, Chicago, IL
Introduction
The 1993 flood on the Upper Mississippi and Missouri River Basins and the economic and social
consequences in its aftermath have focussed considerable attention on existing policies and programs that
have led to current land use in both the uplands and floodplains of these watersheds. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE) was tasked by Congress to conduct a comprehensive, system-wide evaluation
of the basin to assess flood control and floodplain management in the flooded areas along with a
multitude of other objectives including reviewing current land use and its effects on runoff. "The
Floodplain Management Assessment of the Upper Mississippi and Missouri Rivers and Tributaries"
(FPMA) summarizes the evaluation process, sources of information available for use and general
conclusions or concerns reached by the authors on the effect of upland land use on the flood prone land
located along the Mississippi and Missouri Rivers that were damaged by the 1993 flood.
The conclusions contained in the FPMA report that the existing federal reservoirs stored more than 25
million acre feet (ac-ft) of runoff and United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) assisted ponds,
reservoirs and erosion control practices stored over 2 million ac-ft of runoff during the 1993 flood event.
Other non-structural measures that exist in part due to USDA and other federal, state or local initiatives
along with existing natural storage stored significantly more water than the structural measures
mentioned above due to the vast areas involved. However, the non-structural measures and natural
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
storage in the basin which are effected by current land use were less effective during the 1993 flood at
reducing mainstem flooding due to the saturated antecedent conditions that existed when the intense rains
fell on the basins hardest hit in 1993.
Land Use Impacts on Runoff
The impacts land use has on runoff is the subject of countless studies. At times the results of these studies
have been mis-interpreted or extrapolated, leading to erroneous or distorted views on how changes in
land use policies can change damages associated with flooding. Land use can directly effect the amount
of runoff from the land and sometimes the peak rate of runoff. Several USDA programs encourage land
treatments that increase the soil infiltration rates and the soil moisture retention capacity thus reducing
the amount of runoff. Other programs encourage wetland protection and restoration and reducing the
acres of intensively tilled land. The installation of other land conservation measures like terraces,
waterways, farm ponds, and sediment basins also store water while reducing erosion and sediment
damage. Storing more water in the upland areas either above ground or in the soil profile will normally
result in less runoff to contribute to flooding downstream. Other land uses like urbanization, intensive
agricultural practices, removal of natural vegetation, and ditching of natural depressional areas alter the
natural ability of the landscape to retain and store water thus increasing the volume of runoff.
The agricultural programs that have the largest potential for impacting flooding are the Food Security
Act of 1985 (FSA) and the Food, Agriculture, Conservation, and Trade Act of 1990 (FACTA). These
acts impose restrictions on persons who participate in certain USDA programs and who plant agricultural
commodities on highly erodible lands or converted wetlands. The erosion provisions of the FSA and
FACTA farm bills relate directly to surface water runoff. Practices such as residue management and
reduced tillage increase infiltration of water into the soil and reduce the amount of surface water runoff.
While conservation programs like Conservation Reserve Program (CRP) and the Wetlands Reserve
Program (WRP) are increasing in popularity, the funding of these programs is limited reducing their
effectiveness in addressing runoff issues because of the limited acres involved. It appears the funding of
these programs will decline as the political atmosphere tends toward a self sustaining agricultural
economy. Preservation of wetlands could be impacted by these program changes.
Wetlands of the Upper Mississippi River Basin
Wetlands in the upland areas of the basin are recognized for biodiversity, for water quality, and to their
potential use for flood redirection in the basin. The amount of presettlement wetlands in the basin is
estimated at 58 million acres (Kusler, 1993). Presently there are about 23 million acres of wetlands
remaining in the basin. In many areas of the pothole region such as the DesMoines and Minnesota River
basins, over 90 percent of the hydric soils are drained or used for agricultural purposes. The drainage of
these wetlands has altered runoff patterns from these pothole regions and in most cases it can be argued
that this practice has increased flooding downstream. Table 1 displays an estimate of current wetlands
status in the study area by state.
-------
Table 1
Percentage of wetlands in States circa 1780 and present (after
Dahlll990).
State
Percentage of
Wetlands 1780
Percentage of
Wetlands Present
Illinois
22.8
3.5
Iowa
11.1
1.2
Minnesota
28.0
16.2
Missouri
10.9
1.4
iNorth Dakota
10.9
5.5
South Dakota
5.5
3.6
Wisconsin
27.3
14.8
Sources of Information
The volume adjustments used in the FPMA for the sensitivity analysis of runoff reduction measures were
adopted based on results from case studies conducted for the "Preliminary Report of the Scientific
Assessment and Strategy Team" (SAST) and on the judgement of engineers and scientists with intimate
knowledge of the land resources of the Upper Mississippi River Basin. Table 2 summarizes the SAST
case study analysis. Knowledge of the land resources was acquired through the 1992 Natural Resource
Inventory (NRI) and the cooperation of the Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Midwest
National Technical Center, Lincoln, Nebraska. The NRI defines land use by major use categories and
provides this information for each major tributary of the Mississippi and Missouri River basins. The data
base provides reasonable landuse statistics for unit areas down to about 500,000 sq. mi., which was
adequate resolution for the landuse analysis for the area being assessed for the 1993 flood. This NRI data
can be used to estimate the upland land use and soils characteristics and how changes in land use may
effect runoff.
Table 2
SAST Watershed Analysis Results
Percent (%) Flood Peak and Volume Reduction by Watershed and Treatment
-------
Return Period
Flood Plain
Wetlands
1
5
25
100
Upland Wetlands
or Potholes
1
5
25
100
Conservation
Reserve Program
(CRP)
1
5
25
100
Maximum
Infiltration (FSA)
Includes CRP
Reductions
1
5
25
100
Detention
Structures
1
5
25
(Revised)
Boone River Cedar ^hitebreast Creek Redwood River
River
Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Volume Peak Volume
5
3
2
2
0
0
0
0
1
1
2
0
6
5
3
3
1
1
1
0
9 7
8 4
7 1
5 0
23 2
15 3
11 4
10 2
3
2
7
6
4
1
1
5
4
4
1
1
4
3
4
1
1
3
3
4
6
4
15
14
21
3
3
11
10
15
2
2
8
8
18
2
2
7
7
20
8 26 4
15 16 4
27 12 5
-------
100 28 11 3
Total of All
Applicable
Treatments
1
18
12
15
14
29
27
11
5
14
8
11
18
21
21
12
25
12
4
8
8
37
17
12
100
9
2
7
7
40
16
11
The NRCS uses hydrologic runoff curve numbers (CN's) to indicate surface runoff potential from various
soil-cover complexes. Change in land treatment affects curve number. An increase in soil surface cover
resulting from FSA-FACTA measures reduce CN's resulting in higher infiltration and lower runoff. This
method will facilitate the analysis of flood volume reductions as a result of land treatment and its relative
impacts when related to flooding in the lower mainstem floodplains for a range of flood frequencies.
The SAST case studies evaluated the effects of combinations of land use changes on four selected
watersheds which represent four distinct landforms in the Upper Mississippi River Basin. These study
areas are rather small tributaries (500,000 acres or less) in relation to the drainage areas contributing to
the downstream floodplains being assessed. The study areas include four landforms: 1) a steep basin, 2) a
low relief pothole basin, 3) a low relief basin with well defined drainage and 4) a relatively high relief
basin that has been drained for agriculture. The studies were not conducted using the same hydrologic
model, but general trends were identifiable and relative differences could be noted from the studies.
These studies indicated that reductions in flood peaks from upland land treatments can be influenced by
many factors. The floodplain geomorphology, hydrologic characteristics, antecedent conditions and
precipitation distributions are some of the factors. The studies also indicate a trend toward decreasing
influence on flood magnitudes as precipitation or flood recurrence interval increases. Where land use
changes may reduce flood peaks by between 25-50 percent and flood volumes by 10-20 percent for a
flood with a return period of 2-5 years, the same changes may only reduce peaks by 10 percent or less
and volumes by 5 percent or less for floods with return periods of 100 years or greater. However, further
modeling is needed to determine actual peak reductions in the upper tributaries where timing of runoff
the basin shape are more important.
FPMA Assumptions and Limitations
The schedule and funding allocated to the FPMA did not permit a detailed analysis of current land use
and how it affected flooding over the entire area impacted in 1993. Models exist which represent small
portions of the basin, but not to the extent that they would provide appropriate coverage to perform
detailed, comprehensive analysis on this very diverse landscape. However, existing data does provide a
some level of understanding of these physical features and processes. Estimates on how land use changes
will affect volume relationships could be developed for the mainstem rivers to the level of detail
-------
commensurate with the assessment's objective.
Since the measures were to be weighed against 1993 flood conditions, the volume reductions and
measures assumed had to account for the extreme antecedent conditions that existed in these watersheds
during the critical months of June through July. Reductions of 5 and 10 percent were adopted as a
representative range for adjustments in volume for conditions present during the 1993 flood. They are not
intended to represent the influence watershed changes could have under normal antecedent conditions.
The 10 percent reduction is considered an upper bound on what may be achievable for the basin under
1993 conditions. In some tributaries where flooding was most severe, reducing volumes by 10 percent
would require significant structural measures.
These reductions were used to test the sensitivity of the floodplain water surface profiles to changes in
tributary hydrograph volumes based on the 1993 flood hydrographs. The reductions were intended to
represent changes in watershed management practices as current agricultural programs and policies are
changed to achieve best management practices. The measures would be in addition to the measures
currently in place in the respective watersheds. The non-structural measures or land treatments
considered would include measures such as increasing wetland storage, changes in depressional hydric
soils drainage patterns, maximizing infiltration through use of conservation practices and cropland
conversion. Structural measures would include measures such as road retention structures, the traditional
SCS small (P.L. 566) watershed structures, and larger flood storage structures such as those operated by
the COE where necessary.
Conclusions
Restoration of upland wetlands and aggressive use of other structural and non-structural measures would
have produced some localized flood reduction benefits, but would have had little effect on mainstem
flooding caused by the 1993 event. Case studies conducted by the COE using the 1993 tributary
hydrographs and upland land treatments indicate that the effects of volume reductions diminish as the
size of the drainage area increases. The case studies indicated that 10 percent uniform volume reductions
of all upland hydrographs resulted in peak flow reductions of 5 percent or less in the lower floodplains .
The studies demonstrate that flood peaks in the lower floodplains of the Mississippi and Missouri River
mainstems are more sensitive to timing than to individual tributary hydrograph volumes or peaks.
Hydraulic modeling of the upland watershed volume reductions predicted average stage decreases of
about 0.7 foot and 1.6 feet, respectively, on the upper and middle Mississippi River and about 0.4 foot
and 0.9 foot, respectively, on the lower Missouri River. Non-structural flood control measures alone
would not have achieved this level of runoff reduction for the 1993 event because of the extremely wet
antecedent conditions. Studies have demonstrated that wetlands may reduce local flooding in the uplands
by up to 25 percent where contributing areas are small. However, restoration of these wetlands combined
with other non-structural measures had only minor effects on flooding in the lower floodplain reaches for
the 1993 flood.
-------
Changes in upland land use and the potential to reduce flooding in upland floodprone areas varies. The
potential for flood damage reduction through changes in upland land use policies and programs is
universally debated. The political, social and economic issues surrounding this debate are very complex.
The FPMA has addressed some of these issues within the context of the 1993 flood. However, further
study of these complex upland land use issues is required such that more reliable information is available
for policy makers to reshape floodplain policies and programs for the future.
References
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, June 1995. The Floodplain Management Assessment of the Upper
Mississippi River and Lower Missouri Rivers and Tributaries.
Administration Floodplain Management Task Force, Washington, D.C., June 1994. A Blueprint
for Change, Part V, Science for Floodplain Management into the 21 St Century, Preliminary
Report of the Scientific Assessment and Strategy Team.
Kusler, J. and Larson, L., 1993, Beyond the ark, A New Approach to U.S. floodplain
management: Environ., v. 35, p. 6-15.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
An Assessment of Aquatic Resources in the
Southern Appalachians
Jim Harrison, Team Co-leader
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Region 4
Jack Holcomb, Team Co-leader
USDA Forest Service, Region 8
Lloyd W. Swift Jr, Patricia A. Flebbe
USDA Forest Service, Southern Research Station
Gary Kappesser
Jefferson and George Washington National Forests
Richard Burns, Jeanne Riley
National Forests of North Carolina
Bill Melville, David Melgaard, Morris Flexner
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region 4
John Greis, Cindy Williams
USDA Forest Service, Region 8
—f——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) graphics and database development:
Dennis Yankee (TVA), Jim Wang (EPA) & Neil Burns (EPA)
-------
1 he Southern Appalachian Assessment (SAA) presents current conditions, trends, and impacts on the
environment to assist those involved with resource planning for ecosystem management. Four SAA
Technical Reports address terrestrial resources, aquatic resources, air quality, and
social/cultural/economic aspects in the Southern Appalachian Mountains. The SAA is a cooperative
effort of the USDA Forest Service, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Tennessee Valley
Authority (TVA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), U.S. National Biological Survey, and the
National Park Service.
The SAA Aquatic Resource Technical Report compiles existing region wide information on aquatic
resource status and trends, riparian condition, impacts of various land management or human activities,
water laws, and aquatic resource improvement programs and water uses. The report discusses the
distribution of aquatic species and has identified impacts on aquatic resources and water quality. Some
problems include numerous degraded streams (greater than 20 percent of stream miles impacted in 13
basins), eutrophication of lakes (approximately 38 percent), habitat stress such as loss of up to 75 percent
of riparian forest in some watersheds, loss of aquatic species, and the impacts of increasing human
population and development. The report further identifies cooperative opportunities for citizens,
businesses, and government agencies and recognizes future data needs for aquatic resources.
Biological diversity of aquatic species is high, with a rich fauna of fish, molluscs, crayfish, and aquatic
insects. Although some human activities that impair aquatic habitat have decreased, population growth
and concomitant land development have the potential to increase pressure on aquatic resources. The
heritage program files indicate there are 190 aquatic species that are endangered, threatened, or of special
concern within the SAA area. These include 26 endangered mussels and 7 endangered fish. Mussel
populations may experience additional declines over the next 30 years in the Tennessee River Basin.
Impoundments of rivers and degradation of water quality have been implicated in the loss of these
mussel species. Approximately 39 percent of the SAA area is in the range for wild trout, consisting of
33,088 miles of potential wild trout streams. The three trout species within the SAA area are vulnerable
to stream acidification, which is increasing, particularly in higher-elevation streams.
While the percentage of degraded streams in the study area cannot be estimated accurately with available
information, evidence documented in this aquatic resources report is instructive.
First, states' assessments of designated use support for aquatic life, drinking water, recreation, and other
water uses show that approximately three-quarters of all drainages in the SAA area have at least 6
percent of their streams not fully supporting uses (see Chapter 2.2). Many drainages have greater than 20
percent of stream miles that do not fully support uses. Because most states' monitoring programs cover
only a small fraction of waters and their monitoring network locations are not chosen to represent all
streams in the SAA area, we can consider the range of 6-20 percent degraded streams to be a lower
bound estimate, primarily for larger streams. Second, studies of selected portions of the SAA area, using
-------
fish community biological samples of smaller drainages in several basins (see Chapter 2.7) suggest that
over 70 percent of locations sampled show moderate or severe fish community degradation. Third, a
statistical sample of stream habitat condition overlapping the portions of the study area in Virginia and
West Virginia suggests that about 50 percent of stream miles in the area studied show habitat impairment
compared to relatively unimpacted reference conditions (see Chapter 3.1). Because these estimates are
inadequate to represent the entire SAA area, a comprehensive statistical sample of streams in the SAA
study area is necessary to determine the extent of degraded streams with known confidence. Repeating
such a sample would help document improvement (or decline) of water quality over time. Impacts
associated with both urban and rural development in the SAA area are likely to continue until watershed
management and planning are implemented across the region as a whole.
Water quality laws and regulations have been effective in controlling most point sources of pollution. In
addition, widespread application of effective Best Management Practices (BMPs) to nonpoint sources of
pollution can potentially be effective in protecting and maintaining water quality.
Finally, this Aquatic Resources Assessment outlines information and data gaps which should be filled to
allow evaluation of changes in aquatic conditions over time and more reliable evaluation of the
effectiveness of water quality protection efforts. These data gaps point to ready opportunities for federal
and state agencies with water quality interests to jointly refine, calibrate, and use sensitive biological,
physical habitat, and chemical indicators of aquatic ecosystem condition and to collaboratively monitor
the resource (Intergovernmental Task Force on Monitoring Water Quality 1994) to ensure that aquatic
resources are improving over time.
Questions and Key Findings
The Aquatic Resource Technical Report addresses five questions raised during public outreach of the
proposed SAA. Government agency scientists from various levels, forest planners, and concerned
citizens identified the five questions as necessary to the understanding of the unique Southern
Appalachian ecosystem being studied. The following example key findings highlight results of the
assessment addressing each question.
Question 1/Chapter 2.0 What is known about the current status and apparent trends in
water quality, aquatic habitat, and aquatic species within the Southern Appalachian
study area?
m Water is a significant part of the SAA area landscape. The mean density of stream and river
channels is 12 feet per acre and would be greater if all small mountain streams could be measured.
¦ The trophic status of lakes in the SAA area varies widely. Overall, for lakes greater than 500 acres
assessed by the states, 38.0 percent of lake acres were assessed as eutrophic, 46.0 percent
mesotrophic, and 16.0 percent oligtrophic.
¦ There are 15 large watersheds where greater than 20 percent of stream miles have impaired water
quality.
-------
¦ Within the SAA area, 54 percent of stream miles have high sensitivity to acid deposition, 18
percent have medium sensitivity, and 27 percent have low sensitivity.
¦ Projections for the future suggest that additional streams could become more acidic in the decades
to come. The northern part of the Assessment area is more vulnerable because of climate and
proximity to sources of acid deposition. Headwater mountain streams in rugged terrain are
typically most sensitive to acid deposition.
¦ The heritage program lists include 190 aquatic and semiaquatic TE&SC species in the SAA area;
of these, 62 are fish and 57 are molluscs.
¦ Of the 34 endangered species on the state heritage program lists, 26 are molluscs and 7 are fish.
¦ Of the 58,477 square miles in the SAA area, 22,785 square miles are in the range of wild trout.
Trout also live in some areas of the Southeast that are outside the SAA area.
¦ Approximately 59 percent of wild trout streams are in areas that are highly vulnerable to
acidification and 27 percent are in areas that are moderately vulnerable to acidification. Most of
the highly vulnerable areas are in the northern parts of the SAA area, where brook trout is more
common than rainbow and brown trout.
¦ A total of 260 other aquatic Species at risk exist in the SAA area: 97 fish, 25 mussels, 1 snail, 2
crayfish, 111 insects, 17 salamanders, and 7 turtles.
¦ Fish that are categorized as TE&SC species or as other aquatic species at risk (table 2.6.1)
comprise about 45 percent of the total number of fish species in the SAA area.
¦ Mussels that are categorized as TE&SC or as other aquatic species at risk comprise about 50
percent of the total mussels found in the SAA area.
¦ Detrimental impacts on fish community integrity are evident from fish community samples
conducted by state and federal agencies covering selected subsets of the SAA area. Of 300
subjectively selected sites in both the Ridge and Valley and Blue Ridge ecological regions, about
69 percent of streams sampled show moderate to severe degradation.
¦ A statistical sample or a much larger and more widely distributed selection of sites would be
needed to completely describe fish community condition in the study area.
¦ About 60 percent of the reference streams on the George Washington National Forest that have
low EPT (see glossary) scores were acidified (acid neutralizing capacity [ANC] < 100).
Question 2/Chapter 3.0 What Management Factors are Important in Maintaining Aquatic
Habitat andWater Quality? What is the Extent of Riparian Area and Composition?
m A number of streams in the SAA area are likely to evidence habitat degradation based on studies
of subsets of the SAA area. Qualitative visual habitat assessments of 235 sites in the Holston and
Hiwassee drainages show 15 percent of the sites sampled were severely impaired, 62 percent
slightly to moderately impaired, and 23 percent not impaired. Qualitative visual habitat
assessments of 178 statistically selected sites in the Mid-Atlantic Highlands Assessment (MAHA)
study area (this includes the SAA study area in Virginia and West Virginia and also some areas
outside the SAA) estimates that 50 percent of stream miles have impaired physical habitat.
Approximately 37 percent of stream miles in the Blue Ridge ecological regions of the MAHA
area and 60 percent of stream miles in the Ridge and Valley ecological region of the MAHA are
impaired, due to habitat factors.
-------
¦ Land cover classes thought to strongly influence water resource integrity are distributed in the
study area as follows: forest--70.7 percent, pasture/herbaceous~21.8 percent, cropland~3.5
percent, developed/barren~3.8 percent, and wetlands--.02 percent.
¦ Intensive human influence on landscapes in the study area ranges from 0.0 percent to 74.6
percent. Intensive human uses include the developed/barren, cropland and pasture/herbaceous
classes. (Note: Developed/barren includes rock outcrops, and herbaceous includes mountain balds
which may receive little or no human use.)
¦ Aggregated land cover classes for the riparian zone of the entire SAA area are distributed as
follows: forest--69.9 percent, pasture/herbaceous~22 percent, cropland~3.1 percent,
developed/barren~4.3 percent, and wetlands~0.7 percent.
¦ Federal holdings, including National Forest System and National Park land, have 90 percent forest
cover in the riparian zone. Private lands in the SAA area have 60 percent forest cover in the
riparian zone.
¦ Forest cover in the riparian zones of the study area ranges from less than 25 percent to 100
percent.
Question 3/Chapter 4.0 What Laws and Policies for the Protection of Water Quality,
Streams, Wetlands and riparian Areas are in Place and How Do They Affect Aquatic
Resources, Other Resources and Human Uses Within the SAA?
m A number of federally funded programs do exist to protect, restore, or improve the aquatic
resources within the SAA. The programs are sponsored by a number of agencies including the
USDA Forest Service, NRCS, NPS, FSA, EPA, TVA and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. To
cite a few examples, the programs provide for cost-share technical assistance to private
landowners for erosion control, the purchase of easements on private wetlands, restoration, and
assistance to private landowners for riparian management.
Question 4/Chapter 5.0 What are the Current and Potential Effects on Aquatic Resources
From Various Activities? What Species and Habitat Types are at Most Risk?
m Two-thirds of the reported water quality impacts are due to nonpoint sources, such as agricultural
runoff, stormwater discharges, and landfill and mining leachate.
¦ In the majority of counties in the SAA area, less than 30 percent of the land base is devoted to
agriculture. Those counties with more land in agriculture do not necessarily have greater
estimated erosion potential, but often do have grater estimated nitrogen loading from fertilizer and
animal manure.
¦ Population in the SAA increased 19 percent from 1970 to 1980. Growth increased 7 percent more
in the next 10 years. Development of housing, service facilities, and roads to serve the growing
population generally increases impacts on water quality.
¦ Mining, urban/suburban development, and dams have made the largest alteration in hydrology in
the SAA region.
¦ Forest comprises the primary land cover of the region. Unlike agriculture, forestry activities that
disturb soil are dispersed in both space and time. Thus, forestry has a lower potential impact on
-------
aquatic resources.
¦ Urban areas and paper mills are a large source of biological oxygen demand (BOD). Waters with
estimated high BOD loading are often in watersheds that have more miles of stream that do not
support designated uses.
¦ A total of 17 fish consumption advisories have been issued in the SAA area, each state having at
least one of these advisories. Eleven of the warnings are for PCB contamination, one is due to
PCB/chlordane contamination, three are due to mercury contamination, and two are due to dioxin
contamination. Of the 17 advisories, 10 are located on 4 rivers and a lake that cross state lines.
Question 5/Chapter 6.0 What is the Status and Apparent Trends in Water Usage and
Supplies Within the SAA, Including Water Rights and Uses on National Forest System
Land?
m In 1990, approximately two-thirds of the water use within the study area was industrial, with the
remainder divided between commercial, domestic, and agricultural.
¦ Overall, water usage in the domestic, industrial, and agricultural categories decreased 19.6 percent
between 1985 and 1990, primarily due to a 26.6-percent decline in industrial use. Agricultural and
domestic use also decreased, whereas commercial use increased.
¦ Water usage on National Forest land is minuscule in comparison to county usage.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Water Quality and Farming Practices in an
Agricultural Watershed
J.L. Hatfield, Laboratory Director
D.B. Jaynes, Soil Scientist
M.R. Burkart, Hydrologist
National Soil Tilth Laboratory, USDAAgricultural Research Service, Ames, IA
M.A. Smith, Extension Specialist
Iowa State University, Ames, IA
Introduction
Modern agricultural practices rely heavily on the use of agricultural chemicals for weed control and
commercial fertilizers to supply plant nutrients. Nonpoint source pollution has been linked to agricultural
practices because the inputs used in farming have been detected in both surface and ground-water surveys
across the United States. Herbicide use is the most intensive in the Midwest and there is concern over the
fate of these chemicals (Gianessi and Puffer, 1990). Goolsby and Battaglin (1993) analyzed data from
surface water samples from the Midwest and found that concentrations and mass transport of herbicides
follow an annual cycle. In their reconnaissance study, several of the drainage basins in the Mississippi
River watershed were sampled beginning in 1989. They found that less than 3 percent of the herbicide
mass applied to cropland was transported into streams; however, this mass was sufficient to cause atrazine
concentrations to exceed the 3 'g/L drinking water standard in the Mississippi River for short periods of
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
-------
time. The peak herbicide concentrations were found in storm runoff in May, June, and July with some
detections throughout the year. Concentrations were related to the amount applied. Nitrate-nitrogen
concentrations throughout the year exhibited a different pattern than herbicides with the highest
concentrations in the winter and spring and the lowest during the summer. Kolpin et al. (1993) found
detectable herbicides or atrazine metabolites in 28.4 percent of the 303 midwestern wells sampled in 1991.
None of the wells sampled had herbicide concentrations that exceeded standards for drinking water.
Nitrate has been found in shallow ground water samples in the Midwest. Burkart and Kolpin (1993) found
nitrate-nitrogen above the 10 ppm MCL in 6 percent of their samples. Detections above 10 ppm vary
among the states of the Midwest.
Management practices within fields influence the occurrence and movement of herbicides and nitrate-
nitrogen in soil and water resources, yet the processes controlling offsite movement are not clearly
understood. A regional scale effort began in 1990 to evaluate the effect of farming practices on water
quality. As detailed by Onstad et al. (1991) the Management Systems Evaluation Area (MSEA) program
has two main goals: 1) to evaluate the distribution of agricultural chemicals in water resources and identify
the processes and factors that affect distribution, and 2) to develop alternative and innovative agricultural
management systems that enhance and protect water quality. Quantitative approaches based on
environmental quality standards have not been used in the development of improved management
practices. The MSEA program is a regional effort and covers 10 sites in the Midwest with research centers
in Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Ohio. Walnut Creek watershed in central Iowa on the Des
Moines Lobe landform region was chosen as a site for evaluation of the integrated effect of farming
practices on surface, tile drainage, and shallow ground-water quality.
Experimental Setting
Details on Walnut Creek watershed have been presented in Sauer and Hatfield (1994). Walnut Creek is an
intensively cultivated watershed with almost 90 percent of the cultivated area in a corn-soybean rotation.
The remainder of the land is divided among oats, alfalfa, grass, and trees. Topography of the watershed is
rolling with no defined surface runoff patterns in the western portion of the watershed due to the presence
of the prairie pothole landform. Soils within the watershed are poor to moderately drained with the soils in
the potholes a poorly drained Okoboji soil. These poorly drained areas are connected with a series of tile
drain lines that course through the landscape and empty into streams along the field edge. The pattern of
the tile drains in the watershed resembles an underground stream network. The soils within the watershed
are predominantly from the Clarion-Nicollet-Webster soil association and are highly productive soils with
a large water holding capacity. In the lower portion of the watershed with a more sloping landscape,
surface runoff is more dominant. Walnut Creek discharges into the Skunk River, and the alluvium area
along the river serves as a water resource for communities located along the river. Water for drinking is
removed through wells placed in the alluvium material.
Transport of agricultural chemicals is the major focus of the research conducted within Walnut Creek.
Atrazine, alachlor, metribuzin, metolachlor, and nitrate-nitrogen are monitored in shallow and deep ground
water, surface water runoff, tile drainage water, stream discharge, and precipitation. The interactions
between farming practices and water quality are evaluated in different parts of the hydrologic system.
-------
Monitoring has been conducted since 1990 within selected stream sites and since 1991 on components of
the hydrologic system. Stream monitoring is conducted with a combination of a weir and water depth
gauge, PS-2 (Parascientific Inc.)l, to measure discharge and an ISCO water sampler model 37001 to
collect water samples. These units are connected through a Campbell Scientific Instrumentation CR-101
data acquisition system that was programmed to collect a sample at the onset of an event and to sample
during an event both on the rise and fall of the stream level. In the absence of any change in discharge, the
unit collects a weekly sample. Nested piezometers are installed around the edge of selected fields in a
series of depths to sample different portions of the shallow ground water. Water use rates are measured in
selected fields with a Bowen Ratio system that provides an estimate of crop water use.
Tillage practices, herbicide rates and formulations, and fertilizer use records are collected for every field
within the watershed through farmer surveys. There are over 70 operators within the watershed and these
are surveyed each year. Data collected for each field are placed in a ARC/INFO data base in order to
provide a Geographical Information System (GIS) coverage of the watershed. Field records are combined
with the water and soil observations to relate farming practices to environmental quality. Intensive studies
are conducted in specific fields to evaluate the movement of herbicides and nitrate-nitrogen in the soil, the
movement of water within the landscape around potholes, and the spatial variation of soil properties and
responses to different tillage practices within a field. Observations are collected with a Global Positioning
System (GPS) in order to provide georeferenced coordinates to relate the sampling site to specific soil map
units and field locations.
Results
Surface and Tile Drainage Water Quality
Tile drainage within Walnut creek is the primary conduit for water movement. Approximately 45 percent
of the precipitation is returned to the atmosphere through evaporation either from soil or plants, 45 percent
is drained from the soil profile through the tile drains, and the remaining 10 percent is available for
movement to the shallow ground water. These amounts vary among years depending upon the
precipitation pattern. Tile drainage is the primary pathway of herbicide and nitrate-nitrogen movement
from fields to the stream. There are different patterns of nitrate-nitrogen and atrazine movement in the tile
drains. As the flow increased, the nitrate-nitrogen concentrations decreased and the atrazine increased
(Figure 1). There is a responsiveness of individual tile drains to precipitation events.
-------
LU
a,
20
15 fe
r in
a
1:,

kl
¦J\ A
¦ d simrgH

-q.uk
OOTO
¦0«B 3
E
'I'M*. ?
¦d.«i
¦OjOiJ
I 'H'lll |I'>|| I III II
& iwi
dxvol^uDi - ltf3E
I J I l|i7l'"Tlk -OftTi
a'3 asii mj >4'
E.D

I
arae rdrn^!CH|ih
-------
Year
Appl.
Load
Appl.
Load
Appl.
Load
Appl.
Load
Appl.
Load
1991
237300
98200
740
17.89
665
3.65
65
0.15
2549
31.93
1992
284860
143200
850
5.68
363
0.04
16
0.01
2369
8.47
1993
227040
337100
526
38.99
391
0.88
105
0.13
1648
34.52
1994

19800

1.25

0.01

1.10
Shallow Ground-Water Quality
A series of piezometers have been placed around fields to collect information on the depth of the water
table and to collect water quality samples. Shallow ground-water quality shows little nitrate-N moving
below 3 m, and concentrations observed in the wells deeper than 4.6 m average 2.1 mg/L. Samples
exceeding the 10 mg/L MCL for nitrate-N in drinking water decrease with depth from 75 percent at 0 - 0.9
m to only 4 percent at greater than 4.6 m, and the percentage of samples exceeding the 1 mg/L limit
decreased from 100 percent at 0 - 0.9 m to 67 percent at greater than 4.6 m. Little herbicide is found at any
depth. Mean concentrations are below 0.1 asg/L. Most samples did not contain herbicides above the
quantitation limit of 0.2 asg/L. One observation of atrazine above 3 asg/L was made in a well 1.5 - 3 m
deep. Unlike nitrate, no trend was found for herbicides except atrazine in either mean concentrations or
frequency of detection. Atrazine was detected more frequently at depths of 0.9 to 1.5 m and at 1.5 to 3 m
increments. Only two, one for atrazine and one for metolachlor, of more than 1,700 water samples
exceeded the level of 3 asg/L. Overall, despite the frequent use of nitrogen fertilizers and herbicides
(atrazine and metolachlor in particular), fertilizers and chemicals are not found in concentrations above the
quantitation limit in the shallow groundwater system.
Conclusions
Walnut Creek has proven to be a valuable study site to integrate farming practices with observations of
water quality in various parts of the hydrologic system. The tile drainage network across the landscape
provides a sample of the herbicide and nitrate-nitrogen moving through the root zone. Concentrations of
herbicides are typically less than 1 asg/L and are often near the 0.2 asg/L quantitation limit. Nitrate-
nitrogen concentrations range from 15 to 20 mg/L in the tile drainage water. Tile drains are responsive to
precipitation events and during events, herbicide concentrations increase and nitrate-nitrogen
concentrations decrease. Surface runoff from fields is not a major source of herbicide movement to the
stream. Less than 1 percent of the herbicides are lost from Walnut Creek in stream discharge; however,
nitrate-nitrogen losses may average 40 percent of the applied nitrogen fertilizer. There were no areas of the
watershed that provided a larger source of herbicide or nitrate-nitrogen than another. To positively impact
water quality will require that management practices be implemented across the watershed. This will
require a widespread educational effort among all of the land owners and farmers within Walnut Creek.
Management changes that would impact nitrate-nitrogen losses would potentially have a positive effect on
nitrogen use efficiency and profitability of crop production.
-------
References
Burkart, M.R. and D.W. Kolpin. (1993) Hydrologic and land-use factors associated with herbicides
and nitrate in near-surface aquifers. J. Environ. Qual. 22:646-656.
Gianessi, L.P. and C. Puffer. (1990) Herbicide use in the United States: National Summary Report.
Resources for the Future. Washington, D.C. 128 p.
Goolsby, D.A. and W.A. Battaglin. (1993) Occurrence, distribution, and transport of agricultural
chemicals in surface waters of the Midwestern United States. In Goolsby, D.A., l.L. Boyer, and
G.E. Mallard (eds.), Selected papers on agricultural chemicals in water resources of the
Midcontinental United States. U.S. Geological Survey, Open File Report 93-418. Department of
the Interior, Washington, D.C. p. 1-25.
Kolpin, D.W., D.A. Goolsby, D.S. Aga, J.L. Iverson, and E.M. Thurman. (1993) Pesticides in near-
surface aquifers: Results of the Midcontinental United States Ground-Water Reconnaissance, 1991-
92. In: Selected Papers on Agricultural Chemicals in Water Resources of the Midcontinental United
States. U.S. Geological Survey Open File Report 93-418. Denver, CO. pp. 64-74.
Onstad, C.A., M.R. Burkart, and G.D. Bubenzer. (1991) Agricultural research to improve water
quality. J. Soil and Water Conserv. 46:184-188.
Sauer, P.J. and J.L. Hatfield. (1994) Walnut Creek Watershed: Research Protocol Report. National
Soil Tilth Laboratory Bulletin 94-1. USDA-ARS, Ames, IA. 418 p.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Scale Water Quality Impacts of
Alternative Farming Systems
Lynn King Heidenreich, Research Associate
Yan Zhou, Research Associate
Tony Prato, Director
Center for Agricultural, Resource and Environmental Systems (CARES)
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Introduction
Concerns about the impacts of farming on water quality prompted the establishment of the President's
Initiative on Enhancing Water Quality in 1989. Five study sites were selected by the United States
Department of Agriculture (USDA) to address the water quality issues. These five study sites are known
as Management Systems Evaluation Areas (MSEA). A major objective of the MSEA project is to
evaluate the impact of alternative farming strategies on surface and ground water quality and to promote
best management practices that enhance overall water quality.
Goodwater Creek watershed is the site of Missouri MSEA, located in Audrain and Boone counties in
north central Missouri (Figure 1). The watershed covers 77.43 square kilometers and is predominated by
claypan soils. Agricultural acreage makes up more than 78 percent of Goodwater Creek Watershed. The
dominant crops include corn, soybeans, sorghum and wheat. Mean annual precipitation is 94 cm.
-------
Atrazine concentration in surface water is the major non-point pollutant in the watershed. Goodwater
Creek is not a drinking water source, however it feeds indirectly into Mark Twain Reservoir which is a
drinking water source for communities in northeastern Missouri. Treated water samples from Mark
Twain Reservoir have shown that the annual average atrazine concentrations exceed 3 ppb, the maximum
contaminant level (MCL) set by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for drinking water
(MDNR, 1994). Surface water samples collected from Goodwater Creek show atrazine concentrations
ranging from less than 0.2 ppb to over 300 ppb, well over the 3 ppb MCL (MSEA, 1994).
The objective of this project is to develop methods and data for evaluating environmental consequences
of alternative land management practices at the watershed scale. In particular, the Soil and Water
Assessment Tool (SWAT) model is coupled with a geographic information system (GIS) to evaluate the
water quality effects of current (baseline) and alternative farming systems in Goodwater Creek watershed
with respect to sediment, nitrates, and pesticide concentrations.
The SWAT Model
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is a simulation model developed by the USDA
Agricultural Research Services (ARS) to predict long-term nonpoint source pollution impacts on water
quality such as sediment, nutrient and pesticide loads at watershed and sub-watershed levels (Arnold et
al., 1994). SWAT is a process-based continuous daily time-step model, and is capable of simulating long
periods of output for computing the effects of land management changes.
Model inputs include management inputs such as crop rotations, tillage operations, planting and harvest
dates, irrigation, fertilizer use, and pesticide application rates, as well as the physical characteristics of
the watershed and its subbasins such as precipitation, temperature, soil type, land slope and slope length,
hydraulic conductivity of soils and stream channel alluvium, channel length, width and slope, Manning's
-------
n values and USLE K factors. SWAT simulates water balance (i.e. surface runoff, return flow,
percolation, evapotranspiration, and transmission losses), crop growth, nutrient cycling, and pesticide
movement. Model outputs include watershed and subbasin values for each component.
Methods
The goal in applying SWAT to Goodwater Creek watershed was to approximate the actual land use
patterns in the watershed as closely as possible. The modeling procedure used in this study attempts to
ensure that the nutrient and pesticide uses are well represented in each of the 20-year simulations.
The watershed was divided into 58 natural subbasins based on a digital elevation model of the watershed.
Each subbasin was further subdivided into land-use based virtual subbasins. Thus, each virtual subbasin
contains a specific land use and soil type. As a result, a total of 259 virtual subbasins constitute the
Goodwater Creek watershed. Simulated virtual subbasin outputs were averaged to obtain subbasin level
values for the water quality components.
The same land use activity was assumed for each virtual subbasin across farming systems. Crop
management input files for each virtual subbasin represent current (baseline) or alternative farming
systems for the given land use. Each file includes management data such as planting and harvest dates,
tillage operations, and pesticide and nutrient application. Respective crop management input files were
generated for crops including corn, soybeans, sorghum and wheat for each baseline and alternative
farming system. Management practices for other land uses including forest, hay, pasture, and urban are
treated as constant from one farming system to another.
The majority of the remaining input parameters was determined using a geographic information system
(GIS). Others were derived from measured field data. Daily rainfall data from Goodwater Creek
watershed for 1973-1993 was obtained from the USDA-ARS for use in the model.
Atrazine is the pesticide of focus in this study. All of the major corn and sorghum herbicides contain
some amount of atrazine, while soybean and wheat herbicides contain none. The baseline crop
management inputs were derived based on typical management and the most prevalent pesticides for this
region (Becker et al., 1993). Several different herbicide uses were considered typical for corn, sorghum
and soybeans, therefore three baseline management alternatives were derived for SWAT simulation. The
three baseline alternatives utilize decreasing amounts of atrazine (Table 1). Results for the alternative
farming systems were compared to the average of the baselines (B).
Table 1. Management practices of alternative farming systems.

|
jAtrazine input (kg/ha)
|Nitrogen(kg/ha)
Farming system
[Tillage
J corn J Sorghum
JCorn Sorghum
-------
Baseline 1 (Bl)
Minimum
1.66
1.57
147
109
Baseline 2 (B2)
Minimum
1.55
1.32
147
109
Baseline 3 (B3)
Minimum
1.22
1.16
147
109
Alternative 1 (Al)
Minimum
2.24
1.16
190
109
Alternative 2 (A2)
Minimum
1.66
1.79
147
100
Alternatvie 3 (A3)
Minimum
(banded Application)
1.12
0.91
117
112
Alternative 4 (A4)
No-till
2.24
2.24
166
109
Alternative 5 (A5)
Minimum
2.24
1.68
146
95.2
The alternative farming systems were styled after Missouri MSEA farming systems which represent a
range of crop yield goals and management inputs, including nitrogen and pesticide application rates and
tillage operations (Table 1). The management alternatives used in this model include high atrazine,
minimum tillage (A1 and A5), a medium atrazine, minimum tillage (A2), a low atrazine, minimum
tillage (A3), and a no-till option reflecting high atrazine input (A4). In this study minimum tillage is
defined as tillage leaving greater than 30% crop residue on the field surface at planting.
Results
Model validation was accomplished by comparing measured crop yields and stream flow against the
average of the baseline values calculated by SWAT. Calculated corn and sorghum yields matched
measured data closely. Soybean and wheat yields were overpredicted by 28% and 36%, respectively. A
statistical comparison of measured versus calculated stream flows indicated a reasonably good fit.
Water quality results analyzed in the study include sediment yield, nitrate concentration in surface and
ground water, and peak atrazine concentration in surface runoff.
Sediment Yield
The amount of soil that can be lost each year and still maintain soil productivity is called the soil
tolerance (T). T for soils in Goodwater Creek watershed is 11.2 tons/hectare/year as determined by the
Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS). NRCS data show that all of the crop management
alternatives used in this analysis should produce erosion rates well below T. The erosion rates calculated
by SWAT do in fact show erosion rates in the expected range.
The largest reduction in sediment yield for the watershed is produced by A4, the no-till farming
alternative. At subbasin level, nine of the 58 subbasins exceed T using B although the overall average
watershed sediment yield is less than 9 tons/hectare/year. Three subbasins exceed T using A4, the no-till
option, and the average sediment yield for the watershed is reduced to less than 7 tons/hectare/year.
-------
Nitrates in Surface Water
SWAT calculations for average surface water N03 concentrations for the watershed are approximately
half of the 10 ppm EPA MCL for each farming system. These values compare well with samples
collected from Goodwater Creek, which show that N03 concentrations in the surface water are generally
well below the MCL (Alberts et al., 1993). All of the alternative farming systems show calculated ground
water N03 concentrations lower than the 10 ppm MCL on a watershed average. Ground water for this
calculation includes water percolated past the root zone, subsurface flow, and flow lost to the deep
aquifer. Subsurface flow is either retained in the shallow aquifer, or is lost to the stream through return
flow.
A3, which utilizes side-dressed application of nitrogen fertilizer, gives the largest reduction in calculated
ground water N03 compared to B. Seventeen of the 58 subbasins in B showed ground water N03 greater
than 10 ppm. This compares well with analyses from ground water samples collected from monitor wells
around the watershed between 1991 and 1994, which showed that 25% had N03 concentrations over the
MCL (Kitchen et al., 1995). In spite of the overall reduction in ground water N03 produced by A3, 16 of
the 58 subbasins still show a calculated N03 concentration of over the MCL.
Atrazine in Surface Runoff
Herbicides containing atrazine, which are used for weed control in corn and sorghum, are generally
applied in April and May. The highest atrazine concentrations in surface water occur between April and
June as a result of runoff from the short, intense Spring storms typical of the region. Peak atrazine in
surface runoff were calculated on a basis of weighted average atrazine concentration in the surface runoff
for April, May and June, which is the peak runoff period. The three month averages ranged from 58 ppb
for A3 to 134 ppb for A4, which is within the same range as the highest measured surface water
concentrations in Goodwater Creek in 1992 (Alberts et al., 1993).
Management alternative A3, which utilizes banded herbicide applications at about 1/2 the average
application rate is the only alternative that shows a decrease in average peak surface water atrazine
concentrations relative to B. A4 shows the greatest increase in average peak atrazine concentration
relative to B due to the high application rate necessary for early weed control in a no-till system. A5 also
produces a high atrazine concentration due to a high application rate relative to B. Only 10 of the 58
subbasins show average peak atrazine concentrations of less than 3 ppb, all due to lack of corn and/or
sorghum in the crop history for those subbasins. The banded atrazine application used in A3 also resulted
in average peak surface water atrazine concentrations of less than 3 ppb in 10 subbasins.
Discussion and Conclusion
Water quality effects of management alternatives were evaluated by ranking sediment yield, ground
-------
water nitrates, surface water nitrates, and atrazine concentrations. Overall water quality rankings of the
farming systems from best to worst are: (1) A3, (2) A2 and A4, (4) B, (5) A1 and (6) A5.
It is important to note that the level of water quality improvement between B and A3 may not be enough
to remove the threat of atrazine contamination in surface water. Peak atrazine concentrations in stream
samples collected from the watershed outlet between 1992 and 1994 ranged from around 27 ppb to 112
ppb (MSEA, 1994). The average peak stream concentration for A3 was about half the average peak
atrazine concentration produced by B. This is not enough of a reduction to prevent average annual
atrazine concentrations in the stream from exceeding the 3 ppb MCL. Additional changes in management
practices need to be identified that will further reduce atrazine concentrations in the stream.
The SWAT model provided good results on the watershed scale with respect to stream flow simulation
and water quality parameters such as sediment yield, N03 in surface water and ground water, and
atrazine concentrations. It is useful for determining which subbasins within a watershed may be
particularly vulnerable to specific water quality contaminants.
Crop yields calculated by SWAT for each management alternative indicate that the yield is not as
sensitive to changes in nutrient inputs as would be expected from a crop growth model. Overall the
model is not an adequate tool for assessing impacts of agricultural non-point sources of P. Further
modifications of the model could make it a more powerful tool in future watershed-scale analyses.
References
Alberts, E.E., A.T. Hjelmfelt, W.W. Donald, N.R. Kitchen, 1993. Impact of Prevailing Farming
Systems on Surface Water Quality of a Claypan Soil. In Agricultural Research to Protect Water
Quality: Proceedings of the Conference in Minneapolis, MN, February 21-24, 1993, pp. 439-444.
Arnold, J.G., J.R. Williams, R. Srinivasan, K.W. King, andR.H. Griggs, 1994. SWAT Soil and
Water Assessment Tool, USDA-ARS, Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, revised
10/25/94.
Becker, S. Anastasia, Maureen H. O'Day, and George S. Smith, 1993. Grain Crop Pesticide Use,
Missouri, 1992, Integrated Pesticide Management Unit, Pesticide Impact Assessment Program
report, USDA ES 92-EPIX-l 0069 6/93.
Kitchen, N.R., P.E. Blanchard, D.F. Hughes, R.N. Lerch, 1995. Impact of Four Years of MSEA
Farming Systems on Ground Water Nitrates. In Proceedings of the 5th Annual Water Quality
Conference in Columbia, MO, Feb. 2-3, 1995. Columbia, MO: Missouri Agricultural Experiment
Station, pp. 27-31.
MSEA surface water quality, Goodwater Creek Watershed, unpublished database, 1994.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Modeling of Pollutant Contributions and
Water Quality in the LeSueur Basin of Southern
Minnesota
Anthony S. Donigian, Jr., President & Principal Engineer, Radha V.
Chinnaswamy, Project Engineer
AQUA TERRA Consultants, Mountain View, CA
Avinash S. Patwardhan, Senior Hydrologist
Ronald M. Jacobson, Senior Engineer
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
As part of the Minnesota River Project, the LeSueur Watershed is being modeled with the U.S. EPA
Hydrologic Simulation Program - FORTRAN (HSPF) to identify and quantify the relative pollutant
contributions from both point and nonpoint sources, and to help evaluate the effects of alternative
agricultural BMPs on water quality and pollutant loadings to the main stem of the Minnesota River (see
Patwardhan et al, this conference). The Minnesota River is considered the State's most polluted river,
with 533 km of main stem and 44,000 km2 of drainage area. Water quality problems are typical of many
agriculturally dominated Midwestern states, with low dissolved oxygen, high turbidity, elevated
ammonia, and fecal coliform standards violations common during the summer low flow conditions. The
HSPF model is being applied to the LeSueur Watershed as an example, or template, for subsequent
extension to rest of the entire Minnesota Basin within the State boundaries. This paper briefly describes
the model application procedures, watershed representation and preliminary calibration results, along
with indications of future modeling directions.
U.S. EPA Hydrologic Simulation Program - FORTRAN (HSPF)
-------
HSPF (Bicknell et al. 1993) is a comprehensive package for simulation of watershed hydrology and
water quality for both conventional and toxic organic pollutants. It is the only comprehensive model of
watershed hydrology and water quality that allows the integrated simulation of land and soil contaminant
runoff processes with instream hydraulic, water temperature, sediment transport, nutrient, and sediment-
chemical interactions.
The application of HSPF to the LeSueur Watershed follows the standard model application procedures as
described in the HSPF Application Guide (Donigian et al, 1984). The major steps in the modeling study
include: simulation plan development, database development, watershed segmentation, parameter
estimation and input preparation, hydrologic and sediment calibration, NPS loading and water quality
calibration, and simulation of alternative watershed scenarios. All HSPF model applications require the
development of a simulation plan which documents the overall approach to representing the watershed
using HSPF and modeling the hydrology and water quality constituents that are important to satisfying
the objectives of the modeling study. It is essentially a planning guide to the modeling effort.
Database Development
Staff of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency (MPCA) developed the complete
database meteorologic, flow, water quality, pollutant sources needed for the modeling effort. Flow,
BOD5, and TSS datasets were developed by MPCA for all significant sewage treatment plants and
stabilization ponds within the watershed. Detailed nutrient and fecal coliform concentrations were not
available, and were estimated from tabulations of effluent data for secondary and advanced secondary
treatment plants. Nutrient loadings from stabilization ponds were implemented as the product of the
estimated monthly discharge and concentration time series for each nutrient form and fecal coliforms,
using separate spring and fall discharge concentrations. Atmospheric deposition data were available as
dry and wet deposition for the Lamberton, MN site, located about 80 miles west of the LeSueur. Wet
deposition is reported in mg/liter on a monthly basis, whereas dry deposition is reported seasonally in
grams/square meter. HSPF includes capabilities to handle both types of deposition for all nutrient forms.
Watershed Segmentation
The purpose of segmenting the watershed is to divide the study area into individual land segments that
are assumed to produce an homogeneous hydrologic and water quality response. Where the weather
patterns vary across a watershed it is necessary to also divide the land segments by meteorology to
accurately reflect spatial meteorologic variability and its effect on the hydrology and water quality of the
watershed. Four precipitation gages and three temperature gages were used to represent the variability in
the primary meteorologic conditions on the watershed, and a Thiesen analysis was performed to calculate
the weights associated with each gage/segment combination.
The reach segmentation was designed to represent each of the major tributaries LeSueur, Cobb/Little
Cobb, and Maple_plus one additional for the Lower LeSueur which receives the outflow from all three
tributaries prior to discharging into the Blue Earth at Rapidan. The segmentation resulted in 10 stream
-------
segments, ranging in length from 9.7 to 102.6 km, with an average length of 52.5 km and an average
drainage area of 285 km2. Lakes were added as additional segments where they controlled significant
drainage area. The goal of the lake simulation was to represent the impacts of the large number of
individual lakes within the LeSueur Watershed model segments, without the need to model each lake
individually. We developed an approach to represent the net impact by including one lake (for each
RCHRES segment with significant lake area) that mimics the aggregate effect of the individual ones.
This effort required identifying lakeshed areas within each model segment, developing a hydraulic
representation for the 'aggregate' lake, and then implementing and evaluating the lake simulation results.
Within each model segment, up to seven different pervious land use (PLS) categories, and one
impervious urban/residential category (ILS), were simulated. The categories included Forest, High Till
Cropland (Conventional Tillage), Low Till Cropland (Conservation Tillage), Pasture, Urban,
Marsh/Wetland, Animal Waste Application area, and Impervious Urban/Residential. Total cropland was
divided into the two tillage categories based on data that showed only 3% of total cropland was in a Low
Tillage category. The impervious urban (ILS) area was estimated as 30% of the urban/residential
category, with the remaining 70% added to the Urban pervious (PLS) area. The Probable Application
Area for animal waste applications was derived from an analysis of animal populations, unit animal N
and P generation rates, expected losses for storage and application, and an assumption that only 25% of
the recommended (or allowable) application area actually received applications.
Model Calibration
Hydrology calibration was performed using the expert system, HSPEXP (Lumb et al., 1994) and
following the general guidelines described in the HSPF Application Guide (Donigian et al., 1984).
Calibration focusses on developing a reasonable overall water balance among the precipitation, runoff,
soil storage, and evapotranspiration components, while comparing observed and simulated flow and
snow depths. The calibration achieved reasonable success, with the HSPEXP criteria being mostly
satisfied, indicating a good to very good calibration. Volumes are simulated well, the daily flow
timeseries generally shows good agreement, and the frequency curves match well. The 'aggregate' lake
water balances, depths, and outflows were reviewed and analyzed, and appeared to be reasonable, but
further confirmation of the results is needed.
Sediment loading rates were calibrated based on calculated erosion targets and reduced for the expected
delivery ratios in the range of 20% to 30%. We first calibrated the loading rates to be in the range of the
20% to 30% delivered load, and then further reduced the rates, especially for the cropland categories
since this is usually the major source, in order to get instream concentrations in the proper range. The
sediment simulation needs further investigation, as the available data were limited and simulated
instream concentration peaks are up to five times higher than the limited observed data, even though the
loading rates are much lower than expected.
Results for the Total N and Total P simulations for the LeSueur River at Rapidan are available
(Patwardhan et al, 1996). In general, the water quality calibration results are quite promising. Both the
-------
water temperature and DO simulations are quite good, and track the limited observed data well. The
BOD simulations are reasonable as the peaks are in the general range of the limited observed data, and
appear to be associated with runoff events. BOD is used as an indicator for Organic N and Organic P
loads.
The Total N simulation, comprised of N03-N, NH3-N, and Organic N, is very good. The majority of the
Total N is N03-N, and both the N03 and Organic N simulations are quite good, and the NH3-N is fair.
Also, the loadings for these constituents are in the expected ranges. The Total P simulations, comprised
of P04-P and Organic P, are clearly not as good as the nitrogen, but the data are more limited and are
missing during a number of high flow events. The majority of the Total P peaks are primarily Organic P
concentrations when observed values were missing. For P04, the concentrations are all in the proper
range except for the August '89 to March '90 period which was during a drought and extreme low flow
period.
Closure
The current water quality simulation in the LeSueur Watershed provides a sound basis for extending the
modeling to the other Minnesota River subbasins and establishing a comprehensive basis for evaluating
alternative management practices to improve water quality in the Minnesota River.
Further water quality calibration is warranted to investigate the problems noted above, especially with
regard to sediment and P simulations. At the same time, water quality simulations are proceeding for the
other subbasins, and experience gained from those applications will help to further improve the LeSueur
water quality calibration.
In this initial effort, issues related to tile drainage, wetlands, lakes, and animal waste applications have
been identified and targeted for more detailed modeling in future efforts. In addition, software
capabilities are being developed to facilitate the evaluation of alternative conditions and management
practices in terms of their expected impacts on pollutant loadings and resulting water quality.
References
Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle, A.S. Donigian Jr., and R.C. Johanson. 1993. Hydrological
Simulation Program FORTRAN (HSPF): User's Manual for Release 10. EPA-600/R-93/174. U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
Donigian, A.S., J.C. Imhoff, B.R. Bicknell, and J.L. Kittle. 1984. Application Guide for
Hydrological Simulation Program - FORTRAN (HSPF). EPA-600/3-84-065. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency. Athens, GA.
Lumb, A.M., R.B. McCammon, and J.L. Kittle, Jr. 1994. Users Manual for an Expert System
-------
(HSPEXP) for Calibration of the Hydrological Simulation Program - Fortran. Water-Resources
Investigations Report 94-4168, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA. 102 p.
Patwardhan, A.S., R.M. Jacobson, A.S. Donigian, Jr., and R.V. Chinnaswamy. 1996. HSPF
Model Application to the LeSueur Watershed—Preliminary Findings and Recommendations. (In
Preparation). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. St. Paul, MN.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Cross-Media Models of the Chesapeake Bay:
Defining the Boundaries of the Problem
Lewis C. Linker, Modeling Subcommittee Coordinator
U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD
Robert V. Thomann, Modeling Subcommittee Senior Advisor
Manhattan College, Riverdale, NY
Introduction
The boundaries of a watershed are easy to distinguish. Pollutant loads from sources inside the
watershed should be accounted for within a watershed management context, but areas outside the
watershed are generally not considered. Analyses of the integrated Chesapeake Bay models of the
airshed, watershed, and estuary explore the total nutrient loads to the Chesapeake and assist in
developing least cost nutrient load reductions necessary for the restoration of the Chesapeake.
Increasingly, we are finding that the area affecting a body of water can stretch beyond the boundaries of
the watershed. The scale required for attainment of the least cost solution determines the boundary of this
larger area. The Chesapeake Bay airshed is estimated to be 910,000 km2, an area more than five times
that of the watershed. Emission sources in the airshed contribute about 75% of the atmospheric nitrate
deposited on the Chesapeake watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay, like other east coast estuaries, is eutrophic. Excess nutrient loads have reduced
water quality and stocks of living resources far below their historic levels. Of the 170.8 million kilograms
of nitrogen delivered to the Chesapeake in an average year, 23% are point source loads, 68% are
nonpoint source loads, and 9% are air deposition loads directly to tidal Bay surface.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
Atmospheric deposition is unique in its ubiquitous nature. Atmospheric deposition is a direct nutrient
load when deposited on tidal waters. Atmospheric deposition is also an indirect source, either through
deposition on the watershed and subsequent transport to the Chesapeake, or through deposition to
adjacent coastal waters and subsequent transport to the Bay. Twenty seven percent of the watershed
nonpoint source load delivered to the Bay arises from atmospheric deposition. Work is underway to
determine the atmospheric deposition portion of the coastal water nutrient load transported to the
Chesapeake.
The Chesapeake Bay Agreement
To reduce nutrient loads to the Bay, the Chesapeake Bay Agreement was forged among the states of
Maryland, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, the District of Columbia, and the EPA, which represents the
federal government. The Bay Agreement calls for a 40% reduction of the 1985 controllable nutrient loads
by the year 2000. In order to track the nutrient sources, the portions of the load that are controllable, and
the load reductions possible, an integrated series of linked eutrophication models were developed.
The Simulation Framework
The Chesapeake Bay Program has developed models of the airshed, watershed, and estuary, and is
currently expanding the simulation to include selected living resource elements, and adjacent ocean
waters. Direct coupling among these models is sometimes necessary, as in the case of the water quality
and living resource models which are run simultaneously at each time step and within each model grid.
Less rigorous linkage is allowed among the airshed, watershed, and estuarine models, which can be run
independently with the output from one model used as input to another.
The airshed model has a three dimensional grid 20 km on each side. The 86 watershed model segments
generally follow hydrologic boundaries of river subbasins and the estuarine model has a three
dimensional grid of more than 6,000 cells covering the Chesapeake and adjacent coastal waters.
Model History
Watershed Model
The first version of the watershed model was completed in 1982 and the model has been in continuous
use since then. The findings of the initial watershed model were the inventory of point source and
nonpoint source loads for each basin, and the importance of nonpoint source loads. Subsequent versions
of the model came out in 1987 and 1992. The 1987 version demonstrated the importance of animal waste
loads in the Chesapeake Bay nutrient budget, and the 1992 version confirmed the importance of
atmospheric deposition loads. The Phase III version of the Watershed Model is calibrated and fully
operational on the National Environmental Supercomputer Center (NESC). The latest version of the
Watershed Model (Phase IV) is due to be completed in the spring of 1996. The U.S. EPA Chesapeake
-------
Bay Program Office is the lead agency for the Watershed Model.
Estuarine Model
The estuarine model began development in 1987 and was completed in 1992 as a linked model with the
watershed model. The estuarine model confirmed the water quality benefits of the 40% nutrient reduction
goal. The predecessor of the estuarine model was the steady state model completed in 1987. The steady
state model simulated steady state summer water quality only , but helped establish the 40% reduction
goal and the importance of combined controls of both phosphorus and nitrogen in the Chesapeake. The
latest version of the estuarine model will include simulation of major living resource components and is
due for completion in early 1997. The U.S. Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station is the lead
agency for the estuarine model.
Airshed Model
Work on the airshed model began in 1983 and was completed in 1989. The airshed model has provided
predictions of nitrogen deposition to the Chesapeake Bay and watershed under different stationary and
mobile source management conditions. The airshed model is calibrated and fully operational at the
NESC. The US. EPA National Exposure Research Laboratory is the lead agency for this model.
Linking the Three Models
The first stage of cross-media model development was in 1992, when the watershed model and the
estuarine model were linked, and the watershed became internalized in the calculation of Chesapeake
water quality. Linkage of the airshed model and Phase III watershed model was completed in 1995. The
next stage, will link of the watershed, estuary, living resource, and airshed models, and is scheduled for
completion in early 1997. In the second stage of linked model development, all key inputs will be
internalized in the cross-media model.
Model Findings
Several key scenarios were used to develop the basic inventory of loads under specific management
conditions. Among these scenarios were the 1985 loads, chosen to represent the base case average year.
The Bay Agreement scenario represents the reduced nitrogen loads brought about by the Bay Agreement
by the year 2000. The Bay Agreement + CAA scenario represents additional reductions in the loads
delivered to the Bay under implementation of the Clean Air Act nitrate emission reductions. The limit of
technology scenario represents all cropland in conservation tillage and nutrient management, the
Conservation Reserve Program fully implemented, animal waste containment and pasture stabilization
systems implemented where needed, improved forestry management practices, a 20% reduction in urban
loads, and all point source effluent controlled to a concentration of 3.0 mg/1. The no action scenario
represents the growth in population and the projected changes in land use by the year 2000. Levels of
control in place in 1985 were applied to the year 2000 point source flows and land use.
-------
The linked models predict that in basins where atmospheric deposition of nitrate is highest, such as the
Susquehanna and Potomac basins, reductions in nitrogen delivered to the Bay is greatest. In the case of
the Susquehanna, nitrogen load reductions under implementation of the Clean Air Act are greater than
the current limits of technology for point source and nonpoint source controls. Greater reductions in the
delivered nitrogen loads are predicted under implementation of the Ozone Transport Commission (OTC)
plan for reducing nitrate emissions. Although the primary objective of the OTC is to reduce harmful
levels of ozone in the mid-Atlantic and New England states, the nitrate emission controls called for under
the OTC plan will also reduce nitrate loads delivered to the Bay by a further 9 million kilograms over an
above the Bay Agreement reduction.
A portion of all nonpoint source loads are due to atmospheric deposition. Cropland nitrogen inputs from
fertilizer, manure, and air deposition result in a relatively small proportion of the nonpoint source load
(10%) due to air deposition. Hay land receives relatively less manure and fertilizer inputs, so atmospheric
deposition is a greater portion of the input, and consequently the output load (23%). Pasture receives no
fertilizer input, but does receive manure inputs from pastured animals. Air deposition accounts for 35%
of the nonpoint source load from pasture. Forest inputs of nitrogen are solely from atmospheric sources.
Thirty seven percent of the forest nonpoint source load is due to atmospheric deposition. Urban inputs of
nitrogen include fertilizers, septic systems, and atmospheric deposition. Essentially no attenuation of
atmospherically deposited nitrogen on impervious urban surfaces results in a relatively high portion of
the nonpoint source urban load to be due to atmospheric deposition (37%). Finally, direct deposition of
atmospheric deposition to nontidal water surfaces are accounted for within the watershed.
Conclusion
Quantification of the total loads to the Chesapeake has changed the view that the watershed is the
definitive source of nutrient loads. The watershed boundary is no longer the limit which distinguishes
precisely the area of concern in coastal eutrophication problems. Added to our lexicon is the term
airshed, which is larger than the watershed, and which contributes cross-media nitrogen loads to
eutrophic coastal waters.
References
Appleton, E. A. (1995) "A Cross-Media Approach to Saving the Chesapeake Bay" Environmental
Science and Technology Vol. 29, No. 12.
Cerco, C.F. and T.M. Cole. (1994) Three-Dimensional Eutrophication Model of Chesapeake Bay
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicksburg, MS.
Linker, L. C., G. E. Stigall, C. H. Chang, and A. S. Donigian (1996) "Aquatic Accounting" Water
Environment and Technology Vol. xx, No. xx.
Thornann, R. V., J. R. Collier, A. Butt, E. Casman and L. C. Linker (1994) Technical Analysis of
Response of Chesapeake Bay Water Quality Model to Loading Scenarios. U.S. EPA Chesapeake
Bay Program Office, Annapolis, MD.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Implementing a Rural Watershed Management Plan-
Chewelah Creek
Charles L. Kessler, Water Quality Coordinator
Stevens County Conservation District, Colville, WA
Gordon Dugan, Professor (retired)
Civil Engineering, University of Hawaii, Honolulu, HI
The Chewelah Creek Watershed Management Plan was developed in 1993-1994 as the second phase of
the Colville River Watershed Ranking and Planning Project. The watershed ranking and planning process
provides an avenue for developing strong local support for watershed related projects. Watershed
residents, the people who will ultimately be asked to implement any recommendations proposed by a
watershed management plan, are involved in all phases of such a project. The process also provides an
orderly method for determining where and when money should be spent through the selection of a
number one priority watershed. The Chewelah Creek watershed was selected from among 19 designated
subwatersheds in the 650.000 acre Colville River basin to qualify for the development of a watershed
management plan. The Colville River is a tributary of the Columbia River in northeastern Washington.
The plan, developed by a watershed management committee comprised of watershed residents and
representatives of organizations owning or administering land in the watershed, provides 66
recommendations for activities that will enhance, maintain or protect the water quality in Chewelah
Creek and its tributaries and in Paye Creek and Thomason Creek. The efforts of the public, businesses,
and government entities are incorporated in the implementation of the plan. The Stevens County
Conservation District received a Centennial Clean Water Fund (tobacco tax) Grant from the Washington
Department of Ecology to begin implementing some of these recommendations in July 1995. The
District hopes to be able to take advantage of the local interest in water quality and watershed related
issues, created while the plan was being developed, during the implementation project.
-------
Background
The Chewelah Creek watershed encompasses approximately 66,500 acres (26,800 hectares) in Stevens
County, Washington, approximately 50 miles north of Spokane. The watershed has its headwaters area in
forested mountains managed by the U.S. Forest Service, Washington Department of Natural Resources,
and private industrial and nonindustrial timberland owners. From this point, the two forks of Chewelah
Creek and its tributaries flow through agricultural land and rural residential areas. The forks combine to
form the mainstem of Chewelah Creek which flows through Chewelah, a city with a population of
approximately 2000.
The rural residential areas of the watershed are becoming more populated as more people are willing to
have a longer commute to Spokane or are able to fulfill the desire to relocate to a rural setting. The most
desirable parcels are those that have surface water in addition to 10 to 20 acres. Much of the land that
previously had been owned by a single person will now have numerous owners as forested and
agricultural land is sold for rural residences.
Chewelah Creek is an integral part of the city. The creek flows through the city park which is the site of
much activity during the summer. Activities include many special events as well as wading, fishing,
picnicking and camping. From the park, the creek flows through the business district and through a
residential area on its way to the Colville River.
Two creeks, not tributaries of Chewelah Creek, were mapped as part of the watershed because of their
location and the fact that they flow through parts of Chewelah. Paye Creek flows through the western
part of the city and enters the Colville River adjacent to the city's sewage lagoons. Thomason Creek
originates in the forested region east of Chewelah and flows through the southeast corner of the city.
These creeks have the potential to be affected by development, existing residences, the city's sewage
system and local businesses.
The Chewelah Creek watershed was selected as the number one watershed in the basin based upon the
results of one year of basinwide water quality monitoring and a watershed characterization that provided
information on the physical and human environment in each of the designated sub water sheds. The
reasons behind this selection included:
¦ It is the third largest of the nineteen designated watersheds;
¦ The City of Chewelah lies at the mouth of the watershed and the creek is an important feature of
the city;
¦ The creek receives recreational pressure along much of its length;
¦ The watershed encompasses forest land, agricultural land, rural residential areas and a municipal
area;
¦ The City of Chewelah and the surrounding area have received a great deal of national publicity as
being a wonderful place to live;
-------
¦ A 200 home development has been started along Paye Creek (a significant development for
Stevens County);
¦ More homes are being built on 10 to 20 acre parcels that used to be open or agricultural land; and
¦ Sediment deposition is evident throughout the entire watershed.
Watershed Management Plan Development
Once the Chewelah Creek Watershed was selected as the number one watershed by the Colville River
Watershed Ranking Committee, a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) and a Watershed Management
Committee (WMC) were developed. The TAC aided in data gathering and analysis efforts and was
involved in developing a list of plan recommendations. This committee was comprised of technical staff
members from local, state and federal agencies as well as local representatives of industry and special
interest groups.
The WMC was comprised of watershed landowners, business representatives and elected officials. The
committee was responsible for the development of the plan. The Stevens County Conservation District,
as lead agency on the project, provided the committee with the necessary information to complete this
task and was responsible for producing and delivering all reports on the project.
One of the first tasks of the WMC was to increase their knowledge of the watershed and the watershed
management planning process. The committee became informed about the watershed's characteristics,
water quality within the watershed, the role of different federal, state and local agencies, and what is
involved in developing a watershed management plan. Tours helped committee members obtain a visual
picture of the current condition of the watershed and provided a forum for discussion of the various
viewpoints held by the different committee members.
The WMC used the water quality and watershed characterization information to identify potential threats
to water quality within the watershed. The TAC and the WMC then worked together to develop methods
for addressing the identified threats. The TAC suggested a series of alternatives for each potential threat.
The WMC discussed each threat by looking at the individual sources of the threat and the alternatives
suggested by the TAC. During these discussions, economic, environmental and social impacts were taken
into consideration. The WMC was very clear in stating that their objective was to propose voluntary
actions by watershed residents as opposed to demanding that certain action be taken through regulatory
means.
The recommendations for action proposed in the Chewelah Creek Watershed Management Plan fell
under the following headings:
¦ Camping and recreation - considered the potential for the introduction of bacteria and nutrients
into the water as well as degradation of streamside vegetation and streambanks;
¦ Chemicals - recommendations covered household, commercial, highway/road/railroad, and
agricultural chemical uses;
-------
¦ Contamination sites - recommendations addressed the potential of illegal dumping to contaminate
surface water and included making recycling more attractive to watershed residents;
¦ Excessive aquatic vegetation - Thomason Creek was found to have a very dense mat of aquatic
vegetation that blocked fish passage and reduced the level of dissolved oxygen;
¦ Forest practices - WMC agreed that the Washington Forest Practices Act provides adequate
guidelines for all aspects of forest land management;
¦ Municipal sewage - recommendations addressed the City of Chewelah's 30 year old sewage
system;
¦ Sediment - recommendations addressed sediment sources such as roads, degraded stream
channels, livestock grazing, agricultural cultivation practices, and natural erosion processes;
¦ Septic tanks - acknowledged that the septic systems that provide on-site sewage disposal to
numerous watershed residents have the potential to severely impact water quality and that illegal
dumping by local septic tank pumping services can have catastrophic consequences; and
¦ Storm drains - Recommendations were included that would reduce the energy of runoff reaching
the creek as well as ways to pre-treat runoff prior to it reaching the creek.
¦ The WMC acknowledged that there are numerous rules and regulations currently in effect
designed to protect or improve water quality and that in some cases the required action is to
simply apply what is already in existence.
Plan Implementation
The Chewelah Creek Watershed Management Plan was submitted to the Washington State Department
of Ecology in June 1994. The plan was developed with the idea that implementation would occur
gradually over the next decade. The committee realized that new technologies and concerns will arise
during the time and therefore certain elements of the plan may change.
In 1995, the Conservation District received funding to implement portions of the plan pertaining to
sediment and excessive aquatic vegetation in Thomason Creek. The sediment issue is being addressed in
part by the development of conservation plans and the use of sediment settling basins. The excess aquatic
vegetation is being addressed by upstream source control and mechanical removal of vegetation form the
channel.
With an increase in rural residential development has come an increase in the number of "hobby" farms
in the watershed. These farms generally have horses but may have a mixture of livestock including cattle,
sheep, and goats. Many of these are located on streams and present potential sources of sediment and
nutrients due to improper pasture management or the location of animal holding areas. Many of the
owners of these parcels have little or no agricultural experience. Conservation plan development will be
offered to 30 agricultural operations within the watershed. Large commercial and small "hobby" farms
will have the same opportunity for having a plan developed by the local office of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service. Farms closer to surface water, with a greater potential to cause immediate impacts
on water quality, will be approached first to determine their willingness to participate in this portion of
the watershed plan.
-------
Sediment settling basins are proposed for both forks of Chewelah Creek upstream of the city. These
basins will reduce the sediment load, no matter what the source, being transported through the city and
deposited in the slower moving Colville River. The basins will also provide habitat for waterfowl and
each structure will be designed for fish passage. The City of Chewelah, Stevens County, and the
Washington Departments of Transportation and Fish and Wildlife will be cooperating with the
Conservation District on the design and construction of these structures since all see their benefit to the
watershed. The basins are not considered a cure to the sediment problems within the watershed, but when
used in conjunction with best management practices, form an integral part of the solution to sediment
loading in Chewelah Creek.
Excessive aquatic vegetation was removed by hand from a quarter mile reach of Thomason Creek near
its mouth in the fall of 1995. It was determined at that time that further work should involve more
aggressive forms of vegetation removal and restoration of the channel through bioengineering
techniques. These activities would be combined with upstream measures to address the problems
presented by failing septic systems.
Plan Evaluation
The plan proposed a means of evaluating whether the recommendations are actually working as intended.
There may be a need to refine certain plan elements and perhaps even change direction in some areas.
The evaluation should consider the results and the expenditure of funds. It is possible that funds may be
limited in the future, so the evaluation should have the ability to provide direction concerning changes in
how funds will be expended.
A water quality monitoring program initiated in 1993 will be expanded to include additional sites within
the watershed. The sampling frequency will be reduced to quarterly sampling periods, but a wide range
of parameters will be analyzed to obtain an accurate picture of conditions in the watershed. The program
will include biological monitoring in the fall and spring and a one time sediment characterization.
Students at the local high school are being incorporated into the monitoring program to help determine
sediment loads prior to and after construction of the sediment settling basins. Students will also be
involved in the biological monitoring in both the fall and spring.
Other indicators used in an evaluation of the plan would include:
¦ The quality and quantity of fish habitat throughout the watershed;
¦ The effectiveness and maintenance of sediment containment structures;
¦ The success of education programs in reaching the desired audience;
¦ Evidence of improved maintenance of on-site septic systems; and
¦ The implementation of Best Management Practices throughout the watershed.
-------
Members of the WMC were asked to continue to serve as an annual review board for the plan. This
committee will review water quality monitoring data and other indicators to determine how well the plan
is working. An annual report of the results and progress of the plan will be prepared by the committee
and the Stevens County Conservation District, the proposed lead agency, for dissemination to the public
and funding agencies. The report will summarize the committee's review and status reports from agencies
responsible for implementing plan recommendations as well as providing direction for possible revisions
to the plan.
Conclusion
The key to successfully implementing the plan has been the ability to work with watershed residents and
landowners. Relationships developed during the planning phase have been continued and strengthened.
The fact that watershed management planning is based on physical features and not political boundaries
has been stressed. People are being informed that their actions may affect people living downstream. The
Conservation District is attempting to increase the awareness of Chewelah Creek watershed residents of
the potential effects, both positive and negative, of various activities on water quality.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Model Alliance for Watershed Protection or How to
Make a Cart Without Reinventing the Wheel
Geoff Brosseau, Executive Director
BASMAA (Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association), Oakland,
CA
Prelude
In 1990, local governments across the country were told by the federal government to make a wheel (i.e.,
storm water management program). The federal government specified what the parts of the wheel should
be made of (e.g., legal authority, public participation), when and how to make it (i.e., Part I and II
application deadlines and requirements), and why it was needed (i.e., diffuse sources of water pollution
were major causes of water quality problems). In response, each local government started to make its
wheel. But local governments found that making a wheel was not a simple process and that it was going
to take much longer and require more materials than they had anticipated. It might even require materials
from places and sources that they were not aware of or did not have access to normally.
In the San Francisco Bay Area, as each local government got started on its wheel, it noticed that other
local governments were also making wheels. First two, then three, and now seven local governments
decided that while each was making its wheel, wouldn't it be more cost-effective to make a cart, rather
than reinvent the wheel (Figure 1). Hence, the idea for a regional alliance was born.
What is BASMAA?
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
The Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA), is a consortium of the
following seven San Francisco Bay Area municipal storm water programs:
-------
¦ Alameda Countywide Clean Water Program.
¦ Contra Costa Clean Water Program.
¦ Fairfield-Suisun Urban Runoff Management Program.
¦ Marin County Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program.
¦ San Mateo Countywide Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program.
¦ Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
¦ Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District.
In addition to the members listed above, other agencies, such as the California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) and the City and County of San Francisco (combined sewer system),
participate in some BASMAA activities. Together, these agencies represent more than 90 agencies,
including 79 cities and 6 counties, and the bulk of the watershed immediately surrounding San Francisco
Bay.
Why a BASMAA?
BASMAA was started by local governments in response to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permitting program for storm water in an effort to promote regional consistency and to
facilitate efficient use of public resources. The organization grew from the bottom (local) up to focus on
regional challenges and opportunities to improving the quality of storm water runoff to the San Francisco
Bay and Delta. The association is designed to encourage information sharing and cooperation, and to
develop products and programs that would be more cost-effective done regionally than could be
accomplished locally. In addition, BASMAA provides a forum for representing and advocating the
common interests of member programs at the regional and state level. Over its brief history BASMAA
has evolved from an organization that promotes talking to each other, to one that shares information and
resources, to one that does things together, and finally to an organization that does things with agencies
and organizations outside of BASMAA itself.
How is BASMAA Organized?
BASMAA is structured similarly to any local storm water program with committees covering everything
from new development to monitoring to public information/participation. BASMAAs organization chart
consists of a Board representing the seven municipal programs and the following four committees that
report to the Board:
-------
¦ Monitoring Committee.
¦ New Development Committee.
¦ Public Information/Participation Committee.
¦ Operational Permits Committee.
The Executive Director is staff to BASMAA. He reports to the Board and acts as liaison between the
BASMAA committees and the Board, between the committees themselves, and between BASMAA and
other organizations and agencies (Figure 2).
How Does BASMAA Work?
The seven member programs of BASMAA have all agreed to the terms of a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) that sets policy on member's roles and responsibilities, and describes the purpose
and basic operations (e.g., voting, dues) of the organization. Each year BASMAA collects dues from its
members for a "baseline" program. The baseline program provides for staff (Executive Director) and
finances baseline projects (i.e., projects endorsed by all member storm water programs). In addition, the
BASMAA MOU provides a means for two or more of the member programs, or other organizations, to
agree to contribute additional funds to do "tasks of regional benefit." This option allows regional or
subregional projects to go forward absent a unanimous endorsement by the seven member programs.
Typically, the BASMAA Board and four committees meet monthly on a regular schedule to share
information, discuss issues, and manage projects and programs. BASMAA does some projects and
programs in-house using BASMAA staff and volunteer time from staff of the member storm water
programs. In other cases, BASMAA hires consultants to carry out new projects and programs.
Along with its member programs, BASMAA has been grappling with how to implement the storm water
regulations, which cut across typical departmental boundaries, programs, and lines of communication. To
do so, these programs have used essentially a watershed approach involving as many stakeholders as
possible and building consensus. Now BASMAA and some of its more mature NPDES permitted
programs are expanding the envelope to deal with agencies, issues, and programs that are one step
removed from those that they initially focused on. This model alliance that initially focused on urban
storm water is now:
¦ working with the regional air quality district in linking air quality to water quality.
¦ working to strengthen the integration of storm water and wastewater.
¦ working with trade associations to develop practical industrial/commercial water quality
-------
programs.
¦ working with rural-focused agencies and programs in the upper watersheds.
BASMAA does these things not because it or its member storm water programs want to expand their
purview and influence but because the linkages to these other areas of our environment and the
agencies/organizations that deal with them make for more cost-effective urban storm water programs, let
alone more cost-effective environmental programs in general.
BASMAA also works closely with the regional regulator the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality
Control Board and the regional estuary research groupSFEI (San Francisco Estuary Institute). In
addition, BASMAA works with other regions in the state and with the next level of government up by
participating in the California Storm Water Quality Task Force. At the national level, BASMAA
members participate in nationwide associations like the Water Environment Federation and National
Association of Flood and Stormwater Management Agencies.
Why Does BASMAA Work?
In this day of less government and more local control, why does a new regional organization like
BASMAA work? BASMAA works because it is the right kind of regional alliance.
¦ It is voluntarily designed, developed, funded, and staffed by local governments. It is made from
the bottom-up, not the top-down.
¦ It is only as strong as the local governments decide it should be and as their participation will
make it.
¦ It supplements the local government programs, it does not duplicate them.
¦ Its existence depends on the local governments.
BASMAA also works because its design and way of operating are attractive to local governments.
¦ Membership is based on voluntary participation in a MOU rather than a permit.
¦ Local governments can achieve regional power by participating in the alliance and proposing
good ideas, rather than by having a large population base or a healthy budget.
¦ The vast majority of decisions are made by consensus rather than by voting.
¦ By being inclusive in its membership and by providing a full range of options for participation, it
-------
allows local governments to pool their resources, to produce higher quality products, and in some
cases, to do things they can not do separately.
BASMAA as a Model
As part of California's efforts to fulfill the requirements of the 1990 Coastal Zone Management Act
amendments, the State convened 10 multi-interest technical advisory committees (TACs) organized by a
range of issues related to water quality management including urban runoff, irrigated agriculture,
pesticide management, rangelands, abandoned mines, and confined animal facilities. Each of the TACs
produced a report including recommendations for the State to use in developing its coastal nonpoint
source pollution control plan. The common themes in those TAC reports were:
¦ Volunteer cooperation.
¦ Public education.
¦ Management on a watershed scale.
¦ Technical assistance.
¦ Agency coordination.
California in turn has made a commitment to using a watershed approach in managing and protecting the
State's water resources. A model alliance such as the Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies
Association is an example of how these themes can be implemented as part of watershed protection, and
how we can move ahead together.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Integrated Resource Management-Achieving
Multiple Benefits for the Same Dollar
Timothy G. Rust, Environmental Engineering Planner
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Walnut Creek, CA
Ginger V. Strong, Senior Scientist
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc, Visalia, CA
Allen S. Garcia, Agricultural/Communications Consultant
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Orland, CA
Introduction
Water is the priceless fuel that powers the California economy, and intense competition for water has
long been a part of California's colorful history. Dramatic early battles over water rights have even made
their way into popular film and legend. Zealous competition for water is still prevalent today, but its
emphasis has evolved from a standoff between clearly opposing factions to a complex struggle among
entities whose best interests are far more interrelated than at any time in the past.
Typically, three equally important interests vie for water in California: agriculture, urban entities and the
environment. Each has specific water needs, or demands, that are often divergent from one another, and
have made it difficult for these groups to mutually agree on water management solutions. (Figure 1).
-------
Other
1.5 -{2
Urban
6.8 - (11%)
A qr [culture
26.8 - (42%)
Environmental
28*4 - (45%)
California Water Demand in 1990
AttJEWHl #%¦»» An AvAFIIIIA VlSflf
tf*
| Millions of Acre-Feet |
Figure 1.
Today, pressures from increased population, changes in social values, and higher prioritization of
environmental needs are causing people to rethink the way California manages its water resources. Many
have perceived this shift as a threat to the state's world-renowned agricultural economy and its related
industries which are so dependent on access to its water supply. However, more and more, traditionally
competing interests are starting to understand and accept their social and economic interdependence on
common resources. The process of Integrated Resource Management helps bring to light the many ways
these relationships, once viewed as conflicting, can be seen as mutually supporting. Its goal is to see
everyone benefit.
Integrated Resource Management
Integrated Resource Management, or IRM, is disproving the long-held view that agriculture, wildlife
habitat, urban needs, and water management are incompatible with one another when tied to a single
project. The basis of the IRM project model is cooperative problem-solving coupled with strategic
optimization of regional resources. Essentially, it makes everything work smarter.
The process brings together representatives from diverse groups within each community or region
(agricultural, environmental, urban, and rural officials, federal, state and local agencies and technical
experts) to identify, discuss and resolve issues in a way that benefits all parties.
-------
During the IRM process, illustrated in Figure 2, each project area's specific resources and stakeholder
interests are considered as they relate to often seemingly divergent project goals. The focus is on
resolving multiple issues within a project area, not on simply solving a single problem. This is done by
fostering partnerships among traditionally competing interests to find opportunities for conjunctive use
solutions. Seeking such opportunities allows all interests to be considered equally and enables as many
goals to be met in one project area as possible. And it achieves these mutually beneficial solutions for the
same dollar.
IRM is an extremely versatile approach that can be applied to many types of situations-local and regional
projects, feasibility studies, selection of demonstration projects, and project priority plans. It is also a
highly effective project development tool for establishing what can be realistically accomplished. The
IRM process thoroughly considers the interests and priorities of the project area's diverse stakeholders,
evaluates technical, environmental, and social restraints, explores costs of various strategies, and
researches funding options. This information is used to make informed decisions and develop an action
plan and strategy based on those parameters that result in implementable projects.
Using IRM, local leadership can enhance agricultural and urban economics by developing solutions that
sustain and recover land and water resources for use by future generations. This paper describes how the
IRM approach has been used to successfully address technical, stakeholder and community issues in
various California projects.
IRM Projects
Towards The Year 2020: Sustaining Southern California's Water
Supply
\&W
Implementation Plan
Figure 2.
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) provides approximately 3.5-4.0 million
-------
acre-feet per year of potable water to 15 million people and is one of the world's largest agencies. The
agency's water needs are primarily met with imported water from Northern California and from the
Colorado River. Other sources include groundwater, water reclamation, impounded surface water and a
little desalinized water. By the year 2020, the projected population of the South Coast Region of the state
will be approximately 25 million people with an estimated water demand of 5.5-6.0 million acre-feet per
year. Using IRM, policy makers and professionals representing numerous water agencies joined with
environmental, business, and agricultural communities to coordinate an acceptable and affordable level of
water reliability for the region through the year 2020.
California's Central Valley: The Crossroads of Agriculture, Urban
Life, and Wildlife Habitat
Though predominately an agricultural area, California's Central Valley is also a key stopover point for
millions of migrating waterfowl along the Pacific Flyway. It is also home to a growing urban population
that was estimated at 5 million in 1990 and is projected to be 10.8 million by the year 2020.
Historically, the Central Valley was made up of nearly 4.9 million acres of wetland and riparian habitat.
Over time, with increasing agricultural and urban development, the available habitat declined to what it is
today-about 400,000 acres, an 82% drop from historic levels.
Urban development is also displacing farmland in the region at a rate of approximately 6,000 to 7,000
acres per year, and remaining farmers are facing stiff competition for available water from the increasing
population as well as greater environmental needs. Such conflicting demands are daily realities for the
Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District and the Colusa Basin Drainage District. To find workable
solutions for all concerned, both Districts turned to IRM.
Kaweah River Delta Corridor Enhancement Study. The Kaweah Delta Water Conservation District, the
County of Tulare and the City of Visalia, are jointly participating in a two-phase Kaweah River Delta
Corridor Enhancement Study. The purpose of the study is to select and developed a long-term solution
for groundwater recharge, flood control and native habitat conservation and restoration along the Kaweah
River Delta corridor.
The study area consists of approximately 23,000 acres and lies on the east side of the central San Joaquin
Valley, just downstream of Terminous Dam which impounds Lake Kaweah. It is located between the St.
Johns River on the north and Kaweah River (and associated distributaries) on the south, and extends west
to the City of Visalia Urban Area Boundary. The land use in the project area is agricultural. Significant
remnants of the Valley Oak Riparian forest-unique in the San Joaquin Valley-are found along the
waterways in the area. The forest is also an important wildlife habitat.
Phase I of the study is complete. It investigated the feasibility of suitable sites along the river corridor to
meet the multi-use objectives of groundwater recharge, flood protection, and habitat restoration. Phase I
was conducted in two parts: a reconnaissance level water resources investigation of the potential for
-------
groundwater recharge and stormwater protection, and estimated costs of facilities, and an environmental
habitat analysis. Twenty alternative sites were identified. Fourteen were determined to have potential
water resources benefits and all twenty had potential environmental habitat benefits. The final report
recommended further investigation on six sites.
Phase II, now in progress, consists of an in-depth evaluation of the hydrological and hydrogeological
issues regarding each of the six sites, as well as environmental concerns, with special emphasis on
meeting the requirements of the Endangered Species Act through the development of a "Safe Harbor"
program. The objective of this phase is to finalize the implementation plan to integrate groundwater
recharge, flood protection and habitat restoration into a series of facilities along the Kaweah River Delta.
Phase II will culminate with a demonstration project which will serve as a model for future facilities
along the river corridor. Completion of the demonstration project is scheduled for the fall of 1996.
Colusa Basin Drainage District: Watershed Priority Ranking Assessment Study. The Colusa Basin
Drainage District was initially formed to manage problems associated with flood control, drainage and
land subsidence within its 650,000 acres of valley land on the western side of the Sacramento Valley. The
study area lies west of the Sacramento River, south of the community of Orland, north of the City of
Woodland and east of the foothills of the Coast Range of Mountains.
The project objectives involved the priority ranking of 13 watersheds to define areas that are most
feasible to achieve the District's goals to: 1) preserve agricultural production; 2) capture surface or
stormwater for conservation, conjunctive use and increased water supplies; 3) provide flood and drainage
water protection for urban and agricultural interest; 4) assist in groundwater recharge efforts to alleviate
overdraft and land subsidence; 5) improve/enhance opportunities for wetland and riparian habitats; and 6)
improve water quality. To meet these goals, the District is exploring new ways to put water resources to
work that will benefit as many end users as possible
As part of this effort, the District developed an innovative water management program that will provide
opportunities for future conjunctive use of water resources to meet the diverse needs of agricultural,
urban, and wildlife interests in the Colusa Basin. To launch the program, the District completed in
November 1994 a reconnaissance level study entitled the "Watershed Priority Ranking Assessment
Study" to (1) determine if the goals could be feasibly met in a conjunctive use manner, and (2)
recommend and prioritize areas in which potential projects would provide the most benefit to residents in
the District. This study ranked the 13 watersheds based primarily on three criteria: 1) approximate water
resource management needs, such as flood control, agricultural irrigation, urban water supply, enhancing
wildlife habitat and water resources within each watershed; 2) approximate acreage of land where
existing data indicate that conditions are favorable for supporting each of the six principal goals; and 3)
willingness of landowners to participate in the project. Results of the ranking identified three watersheds
with high potential for implementing conjunctive use projects to meet the District's goals.
The District has identified demonstration project sites within these three watersheds, along with the
potential costs and benefits associated with their design and implementation. Implementation includes a
feasibility-level analysis of the hydrologic, hydrogeologic, geophysical, and natural resource elements,
-------
the facility options and operations, and a cost-benefit analysis.
As part of the project, a task force of project stakeholders participated in a series of interactive decision-
making workshops to identify and discuss primary issues to be resolved through the program related to
flooding, protection of agricultural land, urban needs, groundwater supplies, water quality, and wildlife
habitat. Public input and participation were also essential in developing the program.
Partnership for the San Pablo Baylands
The San Francisco Bay is the largest estuarine environment on the west coast of the United States and is
the primary drainage of California's vast Central Valley. This estuary is also home to nearly 7 million
people. The San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board is embarking on a two year study of
the San Pablo Baylands using IRM principals to restore, enhance, and manage agriculture lands and
wildlife habitat in the region. The San Pablo Baylands, which is located in the northern part of the
estuary, spans four counties and consists of approximately 37,000 acres of primarily agricultural land,
which is ringed by urban and industrial centers. The project is called, "Partnership for the San Pablo
Baylands," and includes a host of stakeholders representing private landowners (agriculture, wineries),
agencies (local, state, federal), public interests groups (Save San Francisco Bay, Sierra Club, Ducks
Unlimited, etc), various business organizations (Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Western States
Petroleum Association), and others.
The project has three main goals: 1) to galvanize grassroots support for Baylands protection by
undertaking an aggressive public education campaign; 2) to build a partnership among landowners,
citizens, and government agencies to create and adopt a collaborative plan to protect, enhance, and
restore the San Pablo Baylands; and 3) to establish the foundation for an ongoing program to ensure
implementation of the enhancement and restoration program.
To meet these goals, two major initiatives are being undertaken concurrently to build the program. The
first is The Partnership Campaign which is the public information, outreach, and education arm of the
program and consists of events and activities aimed at building public support for the Baylands.
Activities include video production, regional special events, festivals (harvest and flyway festivals),
regional tours, quarterly newsletters, and other opportunities for community involvement.
The second is development and implementation of the "Stewardship Plan," which will be a collaborative
effort of stakeholders in the project area. This Plan will identify potential sites for enhancing wildlife
habitat (wetlands and riparian ecosystems) and for integrating these habitats into existing agricultural and
urban land uses. It will also include a regional implementation strategy, developed by the stakeholders,
that allows them to implement projects that reflect their long-term vision for the resources in the San
Francisco Baylands.
The Plan will incorporate a reconnaissance-level analysis of various technical, cultural, social, biological,
and economic/cost-benefit issues associated with the development of wildlife habitats. Managing this
-------
information is a key component in aiding effective group decision-making and creating an workable Plan.
One of the selected wildlife habitat sites will be implemented as a demonstration project for the program.
Summary
The ongoing success of these types of projects depends on the active participation and creative input of
stakeholders and their desire to see tangible progress. The IRM approach of involving all stakeholders in
every phase of a plan's development will result in a plan that is mutually beneficial to all parties and
ensures the broadest possible support for the plan's eventual implementation.
References
State of California Department of Water Resources, "California Water Plan Update", Bulletin 160-
93, October 1994.
State of California Department of Conservation, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,
"Farmland Conversion Report 1990 to 1992", June 1994.
Pacific Institute for Studies in Development, Environment, and Security, "California Water 2020-
A Sustainable Vision", May 1995.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Diverse Partners with One Vision: The Bear Creek
Watershed Restoration Plan
Carol C. Chandler, Biologist
L. Michelle Beasley, Economist
USD A, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Gallatin, TN
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
If complicated environmental problems are to be successfully addressed, diverse partnerships must be
developed, which are flexible, aggressive, and unified in seeking solutions. Government down-sizing and
shrinking budgets require that we make the best use of available resources.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service in Tennessee is the coordinating agency for remediation
planning for an Appalachian watershed impacted by acidic mine drainage from abandoned coal mines.
Acid mine drainage affects the 14,900 acre watershed and surrounding area, and its effects ripple through
the region and nation. Poor water quality from the abandoned mine lands affects the:
¦ Health and safety of residents and visitors,
¦ Economic development,
¦ Recreational opportunities,
¦ Land use,
¦ Tourism,
¦ Educational opportunities,
¦ Cultural resources,
¦ Open space quality,
¦ Aquatic and terrestrial life,
¦ Biodiversity,
¦ Endangered species, and
¦ Soil quality.
-------
In addition, the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area (BSFNRRA), the South Fork
Cumberland River (a state scenic river), and unique geological and scenic areas are diminished in value
by the water's impairment.
Acidic drainage from 600 acres of abandoned surface mines and numerous deep mines in Tennessee
have rendered Bear Creek in Scott County, TN, and McCreary County, KY, lifeless. According to
residents, all fish in the creek died after the initial opening of deep mines in the early 1900s.
The drainage has devastating effects on the South Fork of the Cumberland River (its receiving water)
within the Big South Fork National River and Recreation Area. This stretch of the river is designated as a
Kentucky Wild and Scenic River. Three endangered and 19 other mussel species are found upstream of
Bear Creek in the Cumberland River. No mussels are found downstream although suitable habitat is
available.
Heavy metals found in the low pH water (pH 2-5) include iron, lead, aluminum, chromium, nickel, zinc,
manganese, arsenic, and copper. Sulfates, acidity, and conductivity are high while alkalinity is low.
Sediment and coal fines are found in all waterways.
The impacts from Bear Creek reach a far greater number of people than the 66 residents of the
watershed. This out-of-the way location lends its external beauty to the eye of many park visitors seeking
refuge from busy daily routines.
However, underneath the landscape canopy are the painful reminders of serious environmental problems.
A $ 1 million dollar horse camp facility was recently constructed by the National Park Service in the
lower watershed with trails leading along and crossing Bear Creek. This stream is not posted and visual
appearance does not reveal the threats to humans or horses. Livestock watering, swimming, and other
contact sports are often pursued along this seemingly "pristine" stream. However, appearances are
deceiving.
Health risks associated with concentrated consumption and water contact are increasing. With new
access roads appearing throughout the area, recreational activities in the Bear Creek watershed are
escalating.
As a result of the far-reaching impacts and diversified concerns, an initial partnership was formed
between the Scott County Soil Conservation District, City of Oneida, TN, Scott County Commission,
Natural Resources Conservation Service, and National Park Service.
The technical expertise, methodologies, and historical information needed to assess, fund, and remediate
acid mine drainage are not available within any one agency or group. Therefore, a cooperative network
was a necessity.
-------
The original partnership began to expand through active solicitation of other groups and individuals
directly, or indirectly, affected by the poor water quality. Agencies and individuals were recruited for
their leadership roles and most current technology in assessing and remediating acid mine drainage.
A holistic approach was used to unite partners to address their individual goals and concerns. All partners
agree that environmental, social, and economic opportunities will be stimulated if Bear Creek's waters
can be improved to support life.
The most influential, and necessary, partners are the watershed residents/landowners, local government,
and the BSFNRRA supporters. Public meetings and workshops were held in the community to fully
explore the concerns of landowners and interested stakeholders. An informational photo exhibit was
displayed in highly visible businesses and institutions to heighten public awareness. A companion
brochure generated understanding of the study while stressing far-reaching, and little known, impacts to
the community.
A delicate and complex web of factors greatly influence perceptions and local decision-making
processes. These include:
¦ Demography of the area,
¦ Social value system,
¦ Time/generation,
¦ Psychology,
¦ Political distribution,
¦ Economic status of the watershed,
¦ Community's willingness to pay, and
¦ Local objectives and goals.
Community pride and involvement are fostered through keeping the public informed, maintaining high
visibility, and showing respect for local culture. This is essential in gaining the confidence and
cooperation of local citizens!
An effort was made to visit 100 percent of the watershed residents and talk with as many other local
people as possible during our field work. Local people are extremely knowledgeable in locating problem
areas providing historical insight. Using local input, a degradation timeline can be constructed which will
help determine priority sites and those that contribute most degradation.
The Bear Creek partnership is made up of members from federal, state, and local governments,
watershed residents and landowners, conservation groups, and universities. Presently, we have 16 core
planning team members and over 30 active partners. Despite its large membership, unity prevails within
this group.
Each individual member brings a different perspective and expertise to the project. The partnership
-------
works because as individuals we:
¦ Share a common goal,
¦ Maintain individual objectives,
¦ Take informed professional risks,
¦ View goals from a broad perspective,
¦ Respect our similarities and differences, and
¦ Practice patience!
Positive team attributes are fostered by:
¦ Open and frequent communication,
¦ Informal team meetings,
¦ Close professional, and often after-hours, associations,
¦ Flexible team leadership, and
¦ A strong desire to learn from one another.
Already we are seeing the results of our work. The State of Tennessee has installed 3 anoxic drains and 9
constructed wetland cells to treat the acidic mine drainage. A county soil survey has been funded. Two
educational videos have been produced. A ground-water map of the portion of the watershed in the
BSFNRRA is being constructed that will fill in the remainder of the Recreational Area that presently
doesn't have mapping.
Bringing life back to Bear Creek binds our group. Good water quality will bring life back to the
landscape. Thoughtful resource management will ensure a constructive future for this valuable resource
and all who benefit from its return.
References
Cleland, C.L. (1994). The truncated pyriamid model in: The Social Sciences—Disciplines
Concerned with Human Behavior. 7pp.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Using Formative Evaluation Strategies to Involve
Landowners in Watershed Protection Planning
Garrett J. O'Keefe, Professor
University of Wisconsin-Madison
Local citizen involvement in water resources conservation strategies has become all but a given
requirement of successful program planning (see, for example, McMullin and Nielsen, 1991; Carroll and
Hendrix, 1992; Gericke and Sullivan, 1993). Citizen participation in policy decision making overall has
emerged as a major consideration in public life (cf. Langton, 1978). Some authors have suggested
increased use of survey research and other social science tools to accelerate and improve the public input
process (Wellman and Fahmy, 1985; Kathlene and Martin, 1991; Hale, 1993), and that the more
traditional process including public hearings narrow the range of opinion that impact eventual policy. A
more recent call has been for public involvement to begin as early as possible in the planning process,
potentially including such participation in the design of information and education strategies for
particular projects (Anderson and O'Keefe, 1993; White, Nair and Ascroft, 1994). Unfortunately,
following through on these recommendations has been slow to come, especially in watershed-related
conservation efforts. This case study demonstrates one strategy for more effectively using social science
research techniques to build public involvement in watershed programs.
The project attempted to more effectively bring landowners into the early stages of the planning process
for the Pensaukee and Honey and Sugar Creeks Priority Watershed Projects in Wisconsin. The
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources recognizes that the success of its Nonpoint Source Program
depends upon productive interaction and cooperation with the citizens who are most impacted by the
program. The farmers and other landowners who will most likely adopt remedial actions to protect
ground and surface waters are those who participate in:
¦ Identifying the water quality problems confronting them;
-------
¦ Creating appropriate and viable solutions consistent with local conditions and contexts; and
¦ Designing ways of adopting those solutions that are equitable to themselves and their
communities.
Specific objectives of this project include:
¦ Using survey and focus group techniques to bring landowners' perspectives to the watershed
planning table more quickly (i.e., earlier in the process), and with greater accuracy;
¦ Using those techniques as a communication medium to get word of the watershed program into
the community, and in a way that suggests and encourages citizen interaction, scrutiny and
participation;
¦ More traditionally, providing an assessment of landowners' knowledge, attitudes and behaviors
with respect to water quality issues in order to allow development of
¦ Effective information and education programs that aid landowners in identifying pollution
problems and adopting remedial solutions;
¦ A benchmark for later evaluation of the progress watershed programs.
This pilot project examines landowner assessments of water quality-related issues in the two watershed
projects. Survey and focus group research methods are used to determine landowners':
¦ Perceptions of area water quality problems
¦ Views on water pollution causes
¦ Sources of information about water quality issues
¦ Interest in water quality protection practices
¦ Attitudes toward potential protection practices
¦ Willingness to participate in such practices
Methods
This project used both survey and focus group research techniques. The goal of the surveys was to
provide a representative overview of watershed area landowner perceptions, attitudes and behaviors. The
-------
strength of the survey is in examining large-enough numbers of landowners to get a broad-based
overview of their views and activities. The goal of the focus groups was to interview in greater depth
small groups of landowners as to why they held certain views and acted as they did. The focus group
findings can't be generalized across landowners, but can allow more extensive expression of subtle and
perhaps emotional viewpoints.
The populations examined included all watershed landowners holding five acres or more, based upon
lists provided by the County Land Conservation Offices. The Honey and Sugar Creeks population totaled
616, and the Pensaukee 1027, including farmers and nonfarmers. The survey interview base was the
entire population of these landowners. Telephone interviews were conducted by UW Extension's
Wisconsin Survey Research Laboratory (WSRL) during May and early June 1995, yielding a 57%
cooperation rate for the Honey-Sugar and 46% for the Pensaukee. We regard these rates as highly
respectable, given the narrow population base available. Two focus group interviews were conducted by
WSRL in May and June 1995 for each watershed, examining farmers, nonfarmers, and lakefront property
owners in particular.
Findings
¦ Most landowners in the watersheds believed their wells to be free of serious pollution problems,
although a third called their wells at least slightly polluted. Nearly 3/4 had their wells tested over
the previous five years, primarily for bacteria. Nearly a third of the property owners called area
lakes and streams at least somewhat polluted, with another fifth saying they weren't sure how
polluted they were.
¦ Farm owners believed that whatever pollution does exist results from a range of farm and non-
farm related causes. They cited factors they can't control (e.g., heavy rain) as often as those they
can (e.g., pesticide use). This may make it less likely that they'll adopt farm-specific remedies to
pollution. Nonfarmers put more of the blame for pollution on both agricultural and non-farm
pollution causes.
¦ Farm magazines and newspapers were farmers' most frequently used source of information about
water quality and other conservation-related practices,followed by other farmers, family and
friends, broadcast farm media, and the County Land Conservation Office. Nonfarmers relied more
on general news media, family and friends, and the DNR.
¦ Interest in water quality protection practices ran high for farmers and nonfarmers alike. Most
farmers appeared aware of current conservation practices, although not always by their common
names. Just over half said they used conservation tillage, and about a quarter of them or fewer
used manure crediting, crop scouting, streambank buffers or pesticide mixing facilities.
¦ Farmers were split over allowing conservation easements on their land if compensated, although
river and streamside buffer zones were somewhat more popular.with 44% saying they would
-------
consider allowing them and 46% saying they would not. Only 11% of farmers were planning to
reduce their operations over the next five years, and nearly half said land development was a
factor in their decisions. A small minority of farmers said tax credits would influence their
decision to reduce in size.
¦ Over half of nonfarmers said they would be very likely to recycle used oil and limit lawn
chemicals use, but fewer were as enthusiastic about eliminating lawn chemical use, sweeping yard
waste from street sides, composting leaves and grass, or attending public meetings on water
quality protection.
¦ Almost half of those interviewed had heard of the Honey and Sugar Creeks Priority Watershed
Project, and nearly 2/3 said they would be willing to talk to someone from their County Land
Conservation Department about practices that reduce runoff pollution.
Recommendations
The following recommendations apply to many kinds of water quality conservation programs, but have
particular significance here given the above findings.
A. Look for general trends, but recognize differences
Surveys and focus groups tend to try to locate similarities and general trends within populations such as
this one. Priority Watershed Project planners would do well to use these data to look for differences
within the population as well. These landowners are in many ways telling us that they are not a
homogeneous mass, and that a "one size fits all" approach to protecting water quality will not work for
them. These findings should be assessed and integrated with planners' own experiences to develop
greater understanding of and interaction with the numerous groups existing within these areas.
B. Keep listening and interacting
Planning an information and education program should include continuous assessment of the needs and
capabilities of various constituent groups. This is particularly true given the relatively high priority
watershed landowners place on other people like themselves as information sources.
Working with citizens to determine their information needs is likely to be more successful than
"targeting" groups to get them to listen to what the information planners alone may believe relevant.
While formal surveys and focus groups may be too time consuming and expensive, consider a continuous
informal data-gathering or listening process that can include meeting with neighbors to discuss a
brochure idea, bouncing field day tactics off of farmers at a breakfast, or calling small numbers of
landowners at random to discuss what they think about the program so far. Generalizing too much from
such input is risky, but it does keep the program physically in touch with its constituents.
-------
C. Share the knowledge
Increased and continuing dialogue with area property owners may be well served by sharing with them
the results of this study. This "information brokering" activity is at the least likely to attract more
attention to the project, and serve the useful purpose of letting residents see where they stand with respect
to their neighbors. It should also promote media coverage and personal discussion of the topics covered,
and likely provide increased feedback to project planners. The surveys have already engaged half of the
large landowners in the counties in a discussion of key aspects of the watersheds. This should set the
stage for continuing communication at several levels.
D. Build on existing landowner interests
Build on the high interest in water protection to develop greater landowner knowledge of remedial
purposes and applications. Interest in water resource conservation appears higher than knowledge and
certainly use of specific remedial practices and technologies. Information and education approaches can
emphasize information about factors such as the expense of practices, their ease or difficulty of use,
practicality, risk, profitability and impact on water quality. Try to tie these factors to individual land or
farmstead situations to the extent possible. Openly present negatives as well as positives, and address
barriers that landowners might see to implementing certain practices. One goal is to act as an objective
information broker in helping landowners decide how appropriate a particular practice might be for their
situations.
E. Use multiple information channels
These landowners, like most, use a wide array of information channels. Designing an information and
education program around only one channel or medium is unlikely to accomplish increased awareness,
information gain, attitude formation and change, and taking of action.. Rather, regard these as different
stages that need to be advanced by differing media and message strategies. This study and others have
shown farm magazines and newspapers to be the most heavily used source by farmers for much if not
most technical information about farming operations. Previous research also suggests that in making
decisions about changing practices, farmers learn of new practices from farm media, but are often more
likely to consult more personal sources such as county or state agents, and especially other
farmers before actually trying out something new. Nonfarmers may benefit from a similar approach,
although in many instances the costs and risks these property owners incur in adopting practices is
considerably less than that for farmers. Use of news media, direct mail, and similar promotional activities
may have more of a direct payoff with these publics.
F. Keep it personal
Personal one-on-one communication will likely be the most successful avenue for promoting change.
-------
This includes to the extent possible individual and small group meetings with landowners, but also
suggests building good relationships with area farm and community leaders, and with key media
personnel.
G. Develop measurable goals
Delineate clear, specific and measurable information and education program goals at the outset. This
study may provide a baseline for later change in the components examined_problem definition, perceived
causes, information use, interest in practices, and actions taken. Rather than focusing only on the end
result of actions taken as a measure of success, consider all of the steps in progression. Evaluation should
not just be done at the end to determine whether the total effort succeeded, but along the way to allow for
changes and adjustments in course.
References
Anderson, S.A. and G.J. O'Keefe (1993). The applicability of social marketing principles to
agency efforts to protect natural resources. Paper presented to Fifth International Symposium on
Society and Resource Management. Fort Collins. CO.
Carroll, M.S. and W.G. Hendrix (1992). Federally protected rivers: The need for effective local
involvement. Journal of the American Planning Association 58:346-51.
Gericke, K.L. and J. Sullivan (1993). Public participation and appeals of Forest Service plans: An
empirical examination. Society and Natural Resources 7: 125-135.
Hale, H.O. (1993). Successful public involvement. Journal of Environmental Health 12: 17-19.
Kathlene, L. and J.A. Martin (1991). Enhancing citizen participation: Panel designs, perspectives
and policy formation. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 10:46-63.
Langton, S. (1978). Citizen Participation in America. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
McMullin. S.L. and L.A. Nielsen (1991). Resolution of natural resource allocation conflicts
through effective public involvement. Policy Studies Journal 19:553-559.
Wellman, J.D. and P.A. Fahmy (1985). Resolving resource conflict: The role of survey research
in public involvement programs. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 5:363-72.
White, S.A. with K. S. Nair and J. Ascroft (1994). Participatory Communication. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
One Size Does Not Fit All: Storm Water is a Bigger
Issue since Local Communities have No Regulatory
Requirements through CSO Controls
James Ridgway
Environmental Consulting & Technology, Inc.
Robert Tolpa
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 5
Ellen Lindquist
Wayne County Department of Environment
Roy Schrameck
Michigan Department of Environmental Quality
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Increased budgetary pressures coupled with new congressional guidance has caused the regulatory
agencies to re-evaluate the ways in which they manage water resources. Sheer necessity has lead to inter-
and intra-governmental coordination between federal and state agencies and local units of government;
public/private partnerships with the regulated community; and public outreach and education. The Rouge
River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project (Rouge Project) has recognized this shift in the
regulatory process and has stepped forward to work with the regulatory agencies to focus not only on
water quality management but also on other media such as contaminated sites, air deposition and
contaminated sediments. This paper summarizes the progress to date.
The Rouge Project began as a response to concerns over combined sewer overflows. However, Wayne
-------
County, Michigan quickly recognized that without the control at other pollutant inputs, the millions of
dollars that would be spent on combined sewer overflow control would not result in attainment of water
quality standards, that is restoration of impaired use. Therefore, the Rouge Project is addressing pollution
sources to the Rouge River from nonpoint sources as well as combined sewer overflows.
The Rouge Project is exploring ways to integrate the various federal, state, and local statutes and
regulations to improve water quality in the Rouge River. It also will attempt to identify the gaps and/or
barriers inherent in those regulatory frameworks and recommend strategies to overcome them. The goal
is to comprehensively protect a watershed that covers multiple political jurisdictions and is threatened by
a wide range of pollutant sources. To achieve this goal, the Rouge Project has undertaken efforts to:
¦ Assist in improving the capability of regional, state, and local agencies to address broad programs
that affect one of more traditional environmental problems.
¦ Identify programs that affect resource protection within the watershed.
¦ Demonstrate existing and proposed interrelationships among program areas.
¦ Identify difficulties and opportunities in integrating programs.
¦ Increase awareness of new regulations, enforcement authorities, technical guidance, and other
information affecting environmental management.
This paper will present examples of successful cooperation between programs and levels of government,
successful efforts to fill the gaps between environmental statutes and regulations, and highlight
institutional barriers that hinder efforts to manage a resource rather than manage specific pollution
sources.
The mood of the Country is usually reflected in the political system and this political system generally
drives the regulations which impact all of our lives. This was true in the late sixties when the public
demanded an improvement of the environment and it is true today. But to quote the 1960's poet laureate,
Bob Dylan, "The times they are a changin."
Many contend that these changes are bad and that water quality will certainly suffer. The authors of this
paper are more optimistic but recognize fully that the easy work has been completed and now the hard
work must be tackled. We also recognize that our jobs have changed forever and the longer we wring our
hands and wish for "the good old days", the longer we delay achieving the goals of the Clean Water Act.
We are after fishable and swimmable waters nothing more and nothing less. The ways to get there are
very different than first envisioned. Command and control took us through most of our journey but now
we realize the road to high quality water goes through the Council Chambers.
Background
-------
The Rouge River has exhibited extremely poor water quality for decades. The River drains 427 square
mile of Southeast Michigan including a major portion of the city of Detroit. The mouth of the Rouge is
both the birthplace of the Automotive industry and the roots of the arsenal of the free world. While many
of the factories which provided trucks and tanks and planes through two World Wars remain, many only
exist as abandoned reminders of past glories. Thus the stresses on the Rouge River go beyond the typical
water quality problems facing most urban rivers. These special problems aside, the river is unlikely to
obtain the goal of fishable and swimmable under existing regulation. The Rouge River National Wet
Weather Demonstration Project (Rouge Project) presents an alternative strategy to address the water
quality problems of the Rouge River which is less costly than the existing (and proposed) regulations and
is more likely to succeed.
Command and Control
The introduction of the Clean Water Act of 1972 (PL 92-500) and the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program did much to control point sources of pollution throughout the
watershed. Unfortunately many of the gains realized through point source control were offset by the
growing non point loads resulting from uncontrolled urban sprawl. As the downstream communities
wrestle with financing combined sewer overflow(CSO) control many are beginning to ask what level of
control is appropriate for a river which will see little or no change in use. This question of equity is
further shaded by the fact that the down stream communities are often older, generally less affluent, and
made up of a much higher minority constituency. Is it just to ask these communities to finance major
CSO control projects with little change in their ability to use the river while the more affluent suburban
communities are allowed to continue to transfer significant levels of pollution to their downstream
neighbors?
Command and control was extremely successful and we should all be proud of the accomplishments our
country has achieved over the past twenty-five years. Unfortunately, it became impractical to control the
multitude of nonpoint sources which contributed to degradation of our lakes and streams. Basically, there
could never be enough "environmental cops" to enforce the environmental regulations at each township,
subdivision or industrial site. Other pollutant sources which had no apparent owner remained on lists for
years but little or no action resulted. Abandoned dumps and contaminated sediments remain a vexing
problem in most urban watersheds. Thus, it seems that the strengths of the Clean Water Act should be
retained while we look to new ways of solving the problem we cannot seem to overcome.
This reasoning would suggest a continuance of the NPDES program for point sources while re-evaluating
the current approach for storm water control, abandoned dump remediation, and contaminated sediment
removal.
The Rouge Project is based on the premise that all pollution contributors are willing to address their own
pollution sources but are more likely to act if it is clear that their neighbors are acting. Our recent work
with the regulatory agencies, local communities, industries, environmental groups, small business
-------
persons, and the general public has demonstrated that all are willing to take the next step in water quality
management. The step beyond command and control.
We believe the flexibility provided through the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA) "Project XL" program is precisely the ingredient needed to allow all stakeholders to focus their
limited resources on projects that achieve real water quality improvement rather than mere regulatory
compliance.
Consensus Based Water Quality Improvements
Many in the regulatory agencies have verbally supported the end of command and control but have
missed an obvious extension of this premise: consensus based water quality programs are largely
voluntary. This is a very foreign concept to most regulators. Stated simply, command and control is
administratively seductive. Often programs which begin as consensus based projects degrade into the old
"comply or die" means of problem solving. It is precisely this tendency which often prevents local units
of governments (and most industries) from mitigating environmental problems on their own. Basically, it
appears that most local units of governments don't trust state and federal regulators. Oddly enough,
however, this is in direct conflict with the general public. Surveys of Rouge River residents confirm that
the residents place extremely high trust in the Michigan Department of Environmental Quality and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency and substantially less trust in their locally elected
officials.
Any consensus based water quality improvement program must recognize not only this incongruity but
also the forces driving those differences. The local units of government are under increasing pressure to
provide more services while lowering taxes. When faced with a decision between a fire truck or a water
quality program, the fire truck wins every time. In short, local officials are doing the best they can with
what they have available to them. Until they demand additional local programs, few are likely to be
initiated. The general public, on the other hand, has generally looked to the state and federal governments
to protect their environment. Much of this is driven by their belief that the problems are too large to be
handled on the local level. They continue to believe that big business and often their own local
governments must be held accountable for their discharges. The public, however, does not recognize that
this battle, for the most part, has been won. The battle now has shifted to a large number of smaller
problems which are best fought at the local level. The challenge, therefore is to get the local officials and
their constituencies to recognize their respective roles and encourage them to step forward.
The Rouge Project has struggled with the conflicts inherent in attempting to implement programs on a
watershed basis where the political boundaries do not match the watershed boundaries. To overcome this
problem a series of subwatersheds have been identified and individuals from within the local units of
governments were asked to lead small working groups which included officials from their neighboring
communities. While the Rouge Program Office provided a detailed menu of possible projects, it is these
officials who will determine the actual components of their storm water management program. This has
some inherent strengths and weaknesses. Obviously the local officials have the best understanding of the
-------
problems facing the local communities. It is equally obvious that each subwatershed will have different
programs to address the various problems. Thus the challenge will be to integrate these collective
programs in an equitable manner.
It is envisioned that there will be some baseline components which will be required for each local
community to participate in the strategy. These may include a storm water ordinance or a commitment
for funding and design standards for both new construction and reconstruction. The remedial efforts,
however, will be site specific. Each watershed and each community have different environmental
problems. Prioritizing these problems requires that technical information documenting the environmental
concern be presented to the local stakeholder in a manner in which they can evaluate the risk to
themselves and their downstream neighbor. This risk can be a human health concern, a loss of
recreational opportunity, or the risk of a regulatory response due to lack of action. When these risks are
well understood, the public is usually motivated to respond.
The Rouge Project is trying to gain consensus at a local level to change many of the standard practices in
an urban community. This will likely require changes to the master plan, building codes, the subdivision
ordinance, road maintenance practice, parks' practices, and a wide range of other small changes to the
existing local ordinances. These changes must be driven by a good understanding of the costs and
benefits to the general public. Only then will the general public and the local units of government
voluntarily move forward on storm water control and the required changes to their ordinances.
One Size Does Not Fit All
A voluntary water quality program will only proceed if the local officials and their constituencies agree
on the problem to be solved. These problems (both real and perceived) will vary from reach to reach. The
success of a voluntary, consensus based storm water program is easy to measure: is the public willing to
pay for the required practices. With this benchmark, the Rouge Project developed a "Strategy to Restore
the Rouge River." The goal of the strategy to restore the Rouge River is to cost-effectively manage storm
water to restore beneficial uses to the Rouge River through a cooperative effort of the affected
communities, state and federal regulators, and other stakeholders in the watershed under the auspices of
the Rouge Project.
The strategy is designed to develop a practical approach to reduce water quality impacts of storm water
discharges to the Rouge River through the application of watershed-wide management approaches. As
part of the strategy and prior to the preparation of the strategic plan, the following activities were
initiated:
¦ A watershed-wide storm water monitoring program was implemented that will efficiently use
limited resources to identify problem areas and impacts.
¦ Demonstration and pilot projects in selected subwatersheds were designed to evaluate the cost
effectiveness of alternative approaches to remediate storm water pollution sources and mitigate
-------
the impacts of excessive flows.
¦ Current legal options were analyzed for managing storm water on the basis of hydrologic or
watershed boundaries.
The strategic plan will include:
¦ Proposed changes in state regulatory and funding assistance programs to create incentives that
encourage participation by local communities and other interested stakeholders in cooperative
watershed-wide storm water management.
¦ An implementation schedule with specific target dates for watershed-wide actions to
systematically address storm water problems in each subwatershed.
¦ Estimated costs for implementing the storm water management strategic plan, alternative funding
mechanisms, and acceptable institutional arrangement(s) between communities to implement the
plan.
A Storm Water Advisory Group made up of local communities periodically convened to review draft
status reports on various elements of the strategy. A smaller working group made up of representatives
from the Wayne County Department of the Environment (and the Oakland County and Washtenaw
County Drain Commission offices depending on the subwatersheds), Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ), and local cities and townships directly involved in the selected
subwatersheds provided guidance to the Rouge Program Office (RPO) staff in preparing the draft
documents and reports that were used in development of the strategic plan.
Specific subwatersheds were identified with working group partners where specific intensive sampling,
investigation, and demonstration projects took place to determine who will do the work, sources of
funding, expected outcomes, and the target dates for completion of projects.
All subwatersheds in the Rouge system were classified, based on the analysis of information collected for
subwatersheds to systematically remediate storm water problems, on a priority basis. The benefits of
watershed approaches to storm water management were identified to both the local elected officials and
the general public. Specific changes in state policies, regulations, and statutes that would create positive
incentives for communities within the Rouge River and elsewhere in Michigan are being investigated. A
voluntary, cooperative effort to manage storm water to improve water quality through an integrated
watershed-wide approach will be proposed.
Progress in this type of voluntary approach often seems slow. One must be reminded that many of the
problems being addressed were first identified in the Clean Water Act Section 208 program. When first
challenged with nonpoint source control, the local units of government were justified in deferring their
attention until point sources were controlled upstream. Now local officials can readily see their cities
-------
impact on the river. As a result, they seem more willing to work with their local councils, planning
commissions and public to address the problems which were easy to ignore twenty years ago.
As different as this process might seem to some, the progress on the Rouge River suggests that this is not
only the best way to proceed but it may be the only way to proceed. It will be the hundreds of small
projects which will finally attain the original goals of the Clean Water Act.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study:
Interagency Planning Team Integration
Stuart J. Appelbaum, Chief, Ecosystem Restoration Section
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville, FL
Introduction
The Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project is a multi-purpose water resources project which was
built by the Corps of Engineers (Corps) to provide flood control; water supply for municipal, industrial,
and agricultural uses; prevention of saltwater intrusion; water supply for Everglades National Park;
protection of fish and wildlife resources; and other services to the south Florida area. While the project
has served its authorized purposes well, it has also had unintended adverse consequences on the unique
Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems. In 1992, Congress authorized the Corps to undertake a
comprehensive review of the C&SF Project to determine the feasibility of modifying the project to
restore the south Florida ecosystem while meeting other water-related needs. In June 1993, the Corps
began the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study. The first phase of the study, the reconnaissance
study, was completed in November 1994.
Given the complexity of this task, an interdisciplinary, interagency team was assembled to conduct the
study. This paper describes the approach and techniques used to build and develop the study team.
Study Background
The C&SF Project, which was first authorized by Congress in 1948, includes about 1,000 miles each of
levees and canals, 150 water control structures, and 16 major pump stations. The project area
encompasses approximately 18,000 square miles from Orlando to Florida Bay with at least 11 major
physiographic provinces: Everglades, Big Cypress, Lake Okeechobee, Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay,
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
Florida Reef Tract, nearshore coastal waters, Atlantic Coastal Ridge, Florida Keys, Immokalee Rise, and
the Kissimmee River Valley. The Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee and the Everglades are the
dominant watersheds that connect a mosaic of wetlands, uplands, coastal areas, and marine areas.
As a result of land use and water management practices during the past 100 years in southern Florida, the
defining characteristics of the regional wetlands of the south Florida ecosystem either have been lost or
have been substantially altered. In recent years, the decline of the Everglades and Florida Bay
ecosystems has received national attention. In 1993, the Clinton Administration declared that restoration
of the Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems was one of its highest priorities. A number of restoration
efforts are currently underway by federal, state, and local agencies. The purpose of the Review Study is
to determine the feasibility of making modifications to the Central and Southern Florida Project to
restore the Everglades and Florida Bay ecosystems while providing for other water-related needs.
In past years, gridlock, guarding of turf, and lack of cooperation among agencies was all too common. In
order to improve coordination and communication among agencies, an interagency South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force was established in 1993. The Task Force is chaired by the Assistant
Secretary of the Department of the Interior. In 1994, Florida Governor Lawton Chiles established the
Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida to recommend strategies for ensuring the long-
term compatibility of a strong south Florida economy and a healthy south Florida ecosystem, and to
improve the coordination of both public and private sector activities. As a result, there is an
unprecedented level of cooperation and support among the agencies involved in the restoration effort.
The Need for a Different Approach
The Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District, was given the responsibility for accomplishing the Review
Study. Because of the intense public, political, and media interest in the restoration of the South Florida
ecosystem, the process used to accomplish this study was carefully considered. It was important that the
study utilize a watershed approach to ensure that the water resources problems of the study area were
considered in a holistic fashion. Thus, at the inception of the study, it was recognized that a "not business
as usual" approach was needed to successfully manage and accomplish this study.
The study team consisted of an interdisciplinary professional staff from the technical disciplines
necessary to accomplish the study. These disciplines included civil engineers, hydraulic engineers, cost
engineers, biologists, ecologists, resource managers, community planners, economists, geographic
information system specialists, public involvement specialists, real estate specialists, and technicians.
Corps team members were drawn from the staff of the Jacksonville District, and were supplemented by
other Corps personnel on temporary duty assignments.
Given the complexity of the problems to be considered in this study and the desire to utilize the skills of
specialists in other agencies, a multi-agency approach was developed to complete the formation of the
study team. Multi-agency staffing was essential in order to facilitate the flow of needed information
among agencies, and, more importantly, to achieve buy-in and ownership by the key public agency
-------
stakeholders. This multi-agency approach also fit into the cooperative spirit fostered by the interagency
South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable
South Florida. The study team included personnel from other agencies such as the South Florida Water
Management District, the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Marine
Fisheries Service, and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission. Team members from these
agencies were full participants in the study effort. The participants from the other agencies were funded
by their respective agencies. The intent of this approach was to move beyond normal coordination among
agencies to interagency integration to enhance the quality of decision making.
How to Build an Interagency Team
The study team began work in July 1993. Study team members were assigned to the study on a dedicated
full-time basis under the supervision of the Corps study manager in order to avoid competing priorities
with other assignments. In addition, a new organization within the Jacksonville District was created for
the purpose of accomplishing the study. Office space for the team was obtained so that team members
could work together. Individual work spaces were made fairly small to provide room for a conference
area. The conference area included flip charts and marker boards and provided an area where team
members could spontaneously get together and brainstorm. As a result, the study benefitted from the
synergistic effect caused by this approach. The enhanced intra-team communication greatly supported
the technical activities on the study.
The proximity of team members of different disciplines fostered a better and more thorough
understanding of technical issues which improved problem solving. For example, over time, the
hydrologic engineers became more in tune with the needs of the biologists and the biologists better
understood hydrology. As a result, each team member's perspective was broadened. The net result was a
team better able to understand the problems they were analyzing and the possible solutions to these
problems.
For the first several months, the primary focus of the study effort was on teambuilding and developing
the overall "game plan" for the reconnaissance study. During this period, the team met every day. The
conference area became the focal point for the team as most of the day was spent in team discussion.
After a while, some team members began to feel that too much time was spent in meetings and not
enough time was spent individually doing "real" work. However, later on these team members realized
that the extensive team meetings were critical to the success of the study. The time spent in team
meetings, discussions, and decisions is "real" work too. Videotapes and personality profile instruments
were used stimulate self-awareness, improve communication among team members, and foster trust.
Humor was extensively used to break tension. The team socialized together. Computer generated banners
with slogans summarizing the team approach were used to decorate the office.
Throughout the reconnaissance study, extensive briefings with all team members present were held in the
conference area for senior management and other officials. These "around the table" discussions allowed
all team members to express their views and to interact closely with senior management. Most
-------
importantly, these meetings resulted in management decisions being communicated directly to the study
team rather than just being filtered through the study manager.
Decisions were made by the team as much as possible. This allowed the team to "own" their decisions
rather than having decisions and solutions imposed on them. This also greatly increased "buy-in" and
reduced the possibility of individuals taking actions on their own that were contrary to the team's. The
quality of decision making was enhanced by the synergistic nature inherent in the team approach. In this
context, the study manager is a facilitator and motivator. In other words, a leader, not just a manager.
Every Friday morning the team met for "weekly wrap-up." At these sessions team members summarized
their activities for the week and also discussed the positives and negatives of the week. A volunteer
recorded the discussion on a flipchart. The summaries usually involved review of team meetings,
briefings for management, and decisions reached by the team. Weekly wrap-up usually lasted about a
half-hour. Following the meeting, the flipchart notes were typed and kept on file by the study manager.
The purpose of weekly wrap-up was twofold. First, it provided an opportunity for the team to realize that
significant progress was being made each week. In a long study effort, it is sometimes difficult for team
members to realize that progress was being made. Weekly wrap-up allowed the team to see small
victories happening. Second, it provided an opportunity for the team to discuss how they were working
as a group. It also served as an outlet for frustrations that inevitably develop in such an intense effort.
An extensive public involvement program was undertaken as part of the reconnaissance study effort. The
first round of public workshops was held six months after the study began. During this time, the team
spent almost two weeks on the road together. This experience cemented the relationship that had been
building up over the preceding six months.
Current Efforts
The reconnaissance study was completed in November 1994. The Review Study has now moved into the
more detailed feasibility phase, which will take a number of years to complete. The interdisciplinary,
interagency nature of the study team has been expanded to include a number of additional federal and
state agencies. The number of people working on the study has increased greatly and team members are
geographically dispersed.
The feasibility phase of the study will require new efforts to integrate this larger dispersed team.
Electronic communications such e-mail and the Internet will be extensively used for team members to
communicate.
A teambuilding workshop was held in December 1995. A facilitator was brought in for the workshop.
Each participant took the Myers-Briggs personality profile which was used for self-awareness and for
discussions about how to improve team communication. As a result of the workshop, a partnering charter
was developed by the study team and signed by each member. The charter commits the team to maintain
a positive partnership/team approach at all levels, establish a general problem-solving process, establish
-------
effective means of communication with and between partner agencies as well as others, and facilitate
interagency information exchange.
Conclusions
In solving complex watershed problems such as Everglades restoration, coordination alone is not good
enough anymore. Instead, integrated interagency teams are needed. Problem solving benefits from the
synergistic approach that integrated teams offer. Initial efforts should focus on teambuilding, even at the
expense of "real" work to create an atmosphere of trust that allows individuals to take reasonable risks.
Process is important. How one decides to do something often dictates how well it will be done.
Early in the study, team members were constantly reminded that they should "leave their agency hat at
the door" and work as a team to develop the best solutions to problems. The message obviously took one
day we all came in to find that each one of us had a hat with the word "agency" embossed in the front. In
this way we were truly able to leave our agency hat at the door!
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
EPA Reaches Out to Local Governments
Mindy Lemoine, Geographer
EPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has long recognized the significance of land use decisions,
but has struggled to find ways to address the impacts of these local decisions. In programs like the
National Estuary Program, EPA has recognized new opportunities to influence land use planning, and is
beginning to focus on them. This paper describes some of those opportunities and the lessons learned
from working with local governments through the Delaware Estuary Program (DELEP).
The National Estuary Program (NEP) was established by the Water Quality Act of 1987, section 320.
The purpose of the NEP is to identify, protect, and restore estuaries of national significance. The DELEP
was nominated as an NEP by the governors of Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Delaware in 1988. The
study area includes the Delaware drainage areas of the three states (Figure 1). In 1989, the Management
Conference was convened to oversee development of a Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plan (CCMP), which documents the problems of the estuary, and proposes solutions. The Management
Conference includes representatives of federal, state, and local governments; citizen groups; businesses;
the scientific community; and resource users.
-------
DDE
m* fl j—¦
pr
fr ill\Jf
MODEL
m
DIGITAL
DATA
A
MODEL
[MIA W
GIS
\TlQN |
L !
* t
DATA
RACC
D #%i3p C
m n n i i i & r
I tf 1 L,/ U LJ L r\ li
MODEL
ILD
1: i— L-J*
MODULAR
LIBRARY
STATISTICS
GRAPHICS
f XTFNOP n
I— * I IL« *¦ ItaJ*
3 T R El A MF L OW
prediction
GIS
OPTIMZATION
SENSITIVITY
.MENT
Figure 1. Delaware Estuary Program Study Area.
One of the first tasks of an estuary program is to identify the problems specific to the system. The
DELEP went though a process of data analysis, research, and prioritization to identify key problems that
require development of action plans. The action plans in the CCMP address land use, toxics, habitat loss,
water supply, and environmental education.
The Management Conference members initially resisted identifying land use as a problem. They
recognized that water pollution, habitat loss, and air pollution were related to land use patterns, but were
reluctant to name the problem "land use," because of the political sensitivity of the issue. Through one
long torturous meeting, they debated defining the problem or need as coastal zone management, nonpoint
source pollution, or local government assistance; anything but land use. They finally settled on the
following problem statement:
The current pattern of land development consumes large amounts of natural habitat and agricultural land,
and results in nonpoint source pollution and fragmentation of habitat, with adverse impacts on living
resources and water quality.
The DELEP first explored the land use decision process in an inventory and assessment project
completed in December 1990. That study revealed that municipalities were the key land use decision
makers in the estuary area, and that in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, the counties were only advisory. In
New Jersey, counties are slightly more influential than those in Pennsylvania, in that county staff review
and approve subdivision plans that affect county roads, and regulate on-site septic systems. Counties in
-------
Pennsylvania and New Jersey do not regulate land use directly. Counties in Delaware have authority over
unincorporated areas. Few municipalities in any of the states have full or part-time planning staff. The
result is that local land use planning is primarily focused on local issues, and local planners do not have
the resources or perspective to consider regional environmental resources. Based on their experience and
this information, the Local Government Committee supported the selection of land use as a major issue,
even though the federal and state participants were initially reluctant.
Once land use was selected as a priority, a land use task force was established to further define the
problem and develop the action plan. The task force considered three approaches: (1) focusing on
reducing environmental impacts of land development; (2) providing tools for better land use decision
making, such as maps and model ordinances; and (3) improving the process by which land use decisions
are made. The draft CCMP includes a land use action plan that addresses all of these issues, and
promotes a regional perspective. It also proposes development of a long-range sustainable development
strategy.
EPA currently has no direct role in local land use decisions, and probably never will. However, EPA is
one of the key partners in the DELEP. To the degree that our mission and interests are embodied in the
land use actions that have been included in the DELEP CCMP through a consensus-based decision
process, we have an opportunity to participate in implementing them. This paper describes some of the
ways EPA can contribute to improving the process of land development and reducing impacts from
development.
Staff involvement in the Local Government Committee provided an education in land use planning and
decision making and local government issues. An EPA staff member was the lead writer of the land use
chapter, working through the long process of consensus building and research with a land use task force
and state staff. A temporary EPA staff assignment with the Montgomery County, Pennsylvania, Planning
Commission further helped to define opportunities for EPA to influence land use decisions. It also
clarified the limitations on the ability of any organization other than municipal governments to influence
local land use decisions. Based on this experience, three roles can be identified for EPA.
Training
A variety of excellent training and educational programs on land use and planning issues already are
provided by states, counties, nonprofit organizations, and colleges. However many of these programs fail
to consider environmental issues, or else they separate environmental issues from other issues important
to municipalities, such as transportation, maintenance practices, fiscal policies, and taxation. Also, local
officials are inundated with meetings and training opportunities. Rarely are they eager to attend another
evening or Saturday meeting. Finally, training needs to extend beyond the traditional audiences of
planning commission members to include developers, municipal engineers and solicitors, municipal
elected officials, and lenders.
Existing training programs can integrate environmental issues into programs that focus on other
-------
municipal concerns. They can expand their audiences, and they can use alternative delivery modes such
as cable programs, taped radio interviews, video programs, newsletters, fact sheets, hands-on design
studios, and portable displays. Whenever possible, training should be portable and convenient.
One of the DELEP action plans proposes to develop a regional calendar of ongoing training. This sort of
calendar would allow local government officials to take full advantage of existing training opportunities,
and allow gaps to be recognized and filled. EPA has committed to take the lead in this effort.
Information and Technical Assistance
The DELEP plan proposes a variety of technical assistance efforts, including access to geographic
information systems by local governments, development of self assessment techniques, and support of
watershed modelling. Municipalities need data for planning and decision purposes. Historically, the scale
of data available to EPA was not detailed enough to be of use to municipalities. With the availability of
remote sensing techniques and larger computers, some of our data is sufficiently detailed to be of use to
local governments if it is formatted properly. Local governments need to understand the significance of
the data and have it transformed into information to help them plan land use and review proposals.
The land use task force of DELEP suggested that habitat maps should indicate appropriate types of
development and best management practices. For instance, a map of large forest tracts should
recommend cluster development with limited clearing to protect forest canopy. Members of the task
force also cautioned that these types of maps would be politically sensitive, and should not delineate
zones for development or preservation.
Another area for EPA technical assistance is the link among land use, habitat, water quantity, and water
quality. We intuitively know there is such a link, but we need to document it and teach it. We need to
understand how much development can be accommodated before streams and wetlands deteriorate, and
the water supply runs out. What special measures should be required in sensitive areas? A better
understanding of these linkages can support municipal zoning decisions. Developers will challenge
municipal zoning decisions if the community does not have a strong scientific basis for the decisions.
EPA information can provide such a basis.
Other technical assistance could include research on the economics of cluster development, impacts of
open space on land value, and the use of fiscal impact analysis. An EPA staffer working on the DELEP
has researched market appreciation of cluster development compared to typical sprawl development.
Such information can help support a community's decision to try innovative development patterns.
Using Regulatory and Grant Programs
The DELEP plan proposes to use existing programs to support desired land use patterns in several ways.
For instance, state regulations for wastewater treatment systems could encourage alternative systems.
Where zoning allows two- or three-acre lots with on-site septic systems, streamlined permitting for small
-------
alternative systems could encourage compact development and preserve open space. EPA can help to
encourage these innovations.
Another role for EPA is helping states to develop consistent policies for redevelopment of idle or
abandoned industrial sites, known as "brownfields." Developers are reluctant to purchase such properties
because of concerns for environmental contamination. EPA is already working on a brownfields
initiative to counteract the trend toward development of farmland and abandonment of urban areas. This
effort needs to be coordinated with local land use plans.
Other existing EPA programs such as the state revolving funds, National Environmental Policy Act
(NEPA) reviews, wetlands, and solid waste affect local land use decisions, but are not integrated into the
land use process. As the lead federal agency in the DELEP, EPA can be a model for this kind of
integration, and can bring other federal agencies into the process.
Conclusions
EPA's experience in working with DELEP has provided three key lessons in working with local
governments on land use issues.
¦ We must accept that local governments are the key decision makers for land use issues, at least in
the Delaware Estuary watershed. Every day, municipalities make decisions to approve turning a
farm into a strip mall, or to expand a parking lot by an acre, or to divide one piece of land into
two. Most of these decisions are never reviewed at the state, federal, or even the county level. If
we want to influence where development goes, we must accept that local governments make those
decisions and work with them.
¦ Local governments will not take our advice just because we are the federal government, or
because we are the good guys, or because this is the right thing to do. We must identify where our
interests and those of local governments coincide, and work at that intersection. We must build
trust and respect local priorities. However, we cannot put relationship-building over our legitimate
interests.
¦ Information and services must be in a form that local governments can use. The decision makers
at the local level are usually not professional planners or environmentalists. They are intelligent,
committed, concerned volunteers. They need information, but the information needs to be
formatted and interpreted to be helpful, not overwhelming. They will use environmental
information that is related to their daily concerns. Does preservation of open space provide fiscal
benefits? Will compact development reduce traffic congestion? Can best management practices
for nonpoint pollution also reduce flooding?
The Delaware Estuary Program, with EPA as a partner, is just beginning this new excursion into land use
concerns and the workings of local governments in the Delaware Estuary watershed. Success will depend
-------
on our willingness to accept the lessons learned in the development of the CCMP, and on our
commitment to integrate concerns for land use into our programs.
Acronyms
CCMP Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
DELEP Delaware Estuary Program
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
NEP National Estuary Program
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
References
Greeley-Polhemus Group, Inc. 1990. Delaware Estuary Program Land Use Management
Inventory and Assessment.
Delaware Estuary Program. 1994. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan, Public
Review Draft.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
University Contribution to Lake and Watershed
Management: Case Studies From the Western
United States_Lake Tahoe and Pyramid Lake
J.E. Reuter, C.R. Goldman, M.E. Lebo, A.D. Jassby, R.C. Richards, S.H.
Hackley, D.A. Hunter, P.A. King, M. Palmer, E. de Amezaga, B.C. Allen,
G.J. Malyj, S. Fife and A.C. Heyvaert
Division of Environmental Studies, Tahoe Research Group, University of
California, Davis, CA
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Background
The role of universities in the evolving dialogue on watershed management is critical and it is more
important than ever that state and federal agencies take advantage of this opportunity. Even though the
history of academic involvement in research at the watershed level dates back many decades, it is our
belief that the contribution of university expertise in environmental protection is not fully utilized by
governmental agencies at all levels. Because universities do not have formal regulatory authority, they
often play only a peripheral role in decisions related to environmental policy, such as the management of
watersheds. However, research and monitoring efforts by these institutions often provide key information
which are cornerstones for (1) understanding ecosystem processes, (2) determining the impacts of
anthropogenic stress on environmental health, (3) formulating and evaluating watershed management
options, and (4) forecasting long-term consequences of policy decisions on resource sustainability. Too
often, scientists who are involved in day-to-day field research have no fixed part in decisions involving
-------
environmental policy, implementation strategies, long-term planning, etc. Especially in light of the
unfortunate juxtaposition of budgetary demands to downsize agency staff and expenditures; the increased
need to understand the effects of pollution (from the gene to the ecosystem level); and the continued
public demand for clean air, land and water, the nation's universities are particularly well positioned to
increase their contribution. A better, closer working partnership between university researchers, and
federal, state and local regulatory and planning authorities will allow for a much more effective
ecological and economical approach to environmental protection and watershed management.
One of the better documented examples of this type of cooperative effort comes from the Tahoe Basin,
where investigations by the Tahoe Research Group (TRG) at the University of California-Davis have
provided clear evidence for the onset of cultural eutrophication in ultra-oligotrophic Lake Tahoe. Tahoe is
world renowned for its clarity and water quality; however, our continuous, long-term evaluation of lake
chemistry and biology since the early 1960's has shown that algal production is increasing at a rate
greater than 5 percent per year with a concomitant decline of clarity at the alarming rate of 0.5 m per year
(Figure 1; Goldman, 1988). In the post-war years, but especially after 1960, the human population in the
Tahoe Basin rose significantly; this was accompanied by improvements to the road network and an
overall increase in urbanization. TRG investigations during the period 1962-1996 have shown that
multiple factors such as the stress of land disturbance, habitat destruction, air pollution, erosion in
disturbed watersheds, extensive road network, etc. have all interacted to degrade the Basin's airshed,
terrestrial landscape, and streams, as well as the lake itself.
Another example which underscores the importance of comprehensive scientific research and monitoring,
and the role to be played by universities in watershed management comes from Pyramid Lake, Nevada a
desert lake located at the terminus of the Truckee River. Both lakes are hydrologically linked by the
Truckee River, which is the sole outlet from Tahoe and the only permanent inflow to Pyramid. Pyramid
Lake is contained within the Pyramid Lake Paiute Reservation and is completely under the jurisdiction of
the tribe. Amendments to the Clean Water Act in 1987 authorized the EPA to treat federally recognized
tribes as states for certain provisions of the Act. This included establishment of water quality standards
for waterbodies on tribal land along with antidegradation and implementation policies. In 1989 we were
asked to assist the tribe in development of these standards and policies. Given that (1) the lake and river
are important economic and cultural resources to the tribe, (2) the lake is inhabited by threatened
(Lahontan cutthroat trout) and endangered (cui-ui sucker) fish species, (3) levels of total dissolved solids
(TDS) in the lake have increased to levels which potentially threaten cui-ui survival, and (4) point and
nonpoint loads of nutrients from watershed urbanization upstream of tribe lands may affect algal growth
and oxygen conditions in the river and lake, the tribe needed to dovetail its regulatory responsibility with
a comprehensive scientific program.
Watershed and Lake Descriptions
Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada lies in the crest of the Sierra Nevada at an elevation of 1,898 m. The
drainage area is 812 km2 with a lake surface of 501 km2, a ratio of only 1.6. Tahoe is located in a
subalpine watershed dominated by coniferous vegetation and nutrient-poor granitic and volcanic soils. A
-------
total of 63 streams flow into the lake. It is the world's tenth deepest lake at 505 m with a mean depth of
313 m. Its volume is 156 km3, with a residence time of about 700 years, and it is ice-free year around.
The depth of vertical mixing varies from 100 m to >450 m depending on winter storm intensity. The
extent of mixing is directly related to interannual differences in algal growth because of the introduction
of'nutrient-rich' aphotic waters (Goldman and Jassby, 1990). The mean annual concentration of nitrate-N
in the euphotic zone is only 4-5 (ig/L and total hydrolyzable-P is 2-4 (ig/L (Jassby et al., 1995). Secchi
depths are from 15 to >25 m depending on season and year, and chlorophyll ranges from 0.25-0.75 (ig/L.
Along its 192 km transit from Lake Tahoe, the Truckee River passes through the City of Reno and the
surrounding arid landscape in Nevada where its receives municipal effluent and nonpoint source
agricultural drainage. The Truckee River flows into Pyramid Lake, a slightly saline (ca. 5,700 mg/L
TDS), desert terminal lake, and is its only major tributary. Pyramid has a surface area of 446 km2 and a
volume of 26.4 km3, with a maximum depth of 103 m and a mean depth of 59 m. It lies in the high desert
(1160 m elevation) and is bounded by sparsely vegetated mountains. The lake usually mixes completely
during winter and is thermally stratified in the summer. It is phosphorus rich and nitrogen deficient with a
dissolved inorganic N:P ratio generally <2 (Reuter et al., 1993). Pyramid is considered oligotrophic with
chlorophyll typically <3 |ig/L (Lebo et al., 1994a); however, massive surface blooms of the N2-fixing
blue-green alga Nodularia spumigena often occur in mid-summer or early fall (Rhodes, 1995).
History of Research and Monitoring
The first scientific observations of Lake Tahoe were made as early as the 1880's by John LeConte.
Intensive studies began in 1959 by Charles R. Goldman, who founded the Tahoe Research Group (TRG)
with funds provided by the National Science Foundation. In 1967 the FWPCA (EPA) supplemented this
work. During that period we were able to make important discoveries concerning algal growth,
eutrophication, changes in water clarity, lake nitrogen and phosphorus chemistry, nutrient limitation, etc.
By the late 1970's, these federally funded programs were no longer of sufficient scope to provide the
extensive data base needed for land-use planning and watershed management. In 1979, the Lake Tahoe
Interagency Monitoring Program (LTIMP) was established as an expansion of our Tahoe Research Group
activities. LTIMP now consists of 13 federal, state and local agencies with the Directorship residing with
the TRG. Lake and stream water quality monitoring, and measures of atmospheric nutrient loading fall
under the realm of both LTIMP and the TRG. Sampling is done at two lake stations, multiple stations on
ten tributaries, and three atmospheric deposition locations including a mid-lake station. Each year
approximately 9,000 individual analyses are performed on the samples taken. Stream sampling efforts are
now coordinated by the USGS. Both the TRG and LTIMP are inexorably linked to each other as well as
to the University of California, Davis. Figure 2 conceptualizes this relationship and how we view the role
of research and monitoring in watershed management. As a principal partner in LTIMP, the University
has been able to combine its mission(s) of basic research, public service, and education to help
governmental agencies achieve water quality protection.
Until 1989, water quality studies at Pyramid Lake were characterized by discrete studies and did not
focus on long-term monitoring. Following the first limnological survey of the lake in 1933, work was
sporadic until the 1970's when a more intensive effort by researchers at Colorado State University (e.g.
-------
Galat et al., 1981) and the University of Nevada, Reno (e.g. Koch, 1976) defined the limnology and fish
ecology of the lake. Their contribution was invaluable as it set the focus for future activities. During the
period 1989-1994 we applied the model of combined research and monitoring, developed at Lake Tahoe,
to Pyramid Lake. In 1989 we set up a program which monitors parameters such as temperature, light, ion
concentration, nitrogen, phosphorus, chlorophyll, zooplankton, etc. Simultaneously, we worked with the
tribe so that they could assume the institutional responsibility for this program once our studies were
complete. This was achieved, and lake monitoring is being continued by the tribe through the Pyramid
Lake Fisheries, directed by Paul Wagner. The data base is an invaluable asset for both assessing changes
to the health of the lake as well as for fisheries management. This program, together with ongoing
research,and an extensive state and federal monitoring effort on the Truckee River, provides a powerful
tool for watershed management.
Examples of Current Research and Monitoring in Relation to
Watershed Management
Lake Tahoe
Measurements of algal productivity and water clarity by the Tahoe Research Group clearly show the
accelerated rate of eutrophication in Lake Tahoe since the late-1960's (ref. Figure 1). While there is
interannual variation in both parameters, the long-term trend is not only statistically significant, it is now
visually perceptive. Indeed, this data set is the underlying basis for nearly all major policy decisions
regarding water quality in the Tahoe Basin. Examples include exportation of sewage, strict control on
building, installation of major erosion control projects, establishment of water quality thresholds, and
control of nonpoint source pollution. Had our program been in operation for shorter periods, albeit up to
six years (i.e. 1975-1979, 1985-1990), the erroneous conclusion that clarity was improving would have
been made; the result of regional droughts at these times. Together with this steady rise in algal growth
and decline in transparency, was our finding of a fundamental shift from frequent N-stimulation to almost
exclusive P-stimulation (Goldman et al., 1993). The response of Lake Tahoe algae to nutrient addition
has been assayed using the sensitive 14C uptake method since the 1960's. Between 1967 and 1981 the
frequency of algal growth stimulation by N was 43 percent. From 1982-1992 the frequency of N-
stimulation dropped to only 6 percent. At the same time, 28 of 32 bioassay experiments (88 percent) since
1982 have shown significant P-stimulation. Since P is typically transported along with the suspended
solids load, these findings have highlighted the importance of sediment control and erosion mitigation.
In a follow-up study we used long-term monitoring data to examine the hypothesis that atmospheric
deposition of nutrients, especially nitrogen, was a significant factor contributing to the observed shift in
nutrient stimulation (Jassby et al., 1994). The results suggested that a major portion of the dissolved
inorganic-N (DIN), and perhaps total-N, loading to the lake comes from direct deposition of wet and dry
fallout to the lake surface. Comparing deposition to loading from watershed runoff for the years 1989-
1991, we found that wet + dry deposition of DIN was 19 times higher, and 4 times higher for soluble
reactive-P. Given that the N:P (molar) ratio in healthy algae is about 16:1 and that the ratio was 38:1 for
deposition and 9.4:1 for runoff, it was clear that atmospheric deposition of N was increasing N-
-------
availability in the lake and causing the observed shift from N- to P-stimulation. Because much of the P-
loading is still derived from the watershed, we concluded that sewage export, careful management of
development, and erosion control remained the most appropriate course of action. The focus of our
current research is erosion and transport of sediment and phosphorus to the lake. Examples of specific
projects include; relationship between interannual variability of sediment and nutrient loading with
natural and urbanized features of individual watersheds, modeling mechanisms of erosion from small
scales (30 x 30 m) to entire drainage basins, evaluation of BMP effectiveness, modeling of lake response
to nonpoint source loading, and paleolimnological studies of historic patterns of land disturbance and the
resulting sediment transport from the watershed.
Pyramid Lake
As previously mentioned, the salinity of Pyramid Lake has increased considerably during the 20th
Century due to decreasing lake volume caused by diversion of large quantities of Truckee River water for
agriculture. Bioassay data show that survival of larval cui-ui entering the lake from adult spawns in the
Truckee decreased dramatically between 5,839 and 8,500 mg/L TDS (Lockheed Ocean Sciences
Laboratory, 1982). This prompted the US Fish and Wildlife Service (1992) to recommend in its Cui-ui
Recovery Plan that TDS not exceed 5,900 mg/L. Given that current concentrations in the lake are within a
few hundred mg/L of this value, and that salts accumulate in terminal lakes, there was worry that
continued loading from the upstream watershed would eventually result in lake TDS exceeding the
recommended concentration. In response, we developed a TDS model which predicted lake salinity as a
function of lake level and Truckee River TDS load (Lebo et al., 1994b). This was then used to evaluate
the trade-off, between TDS removal and the increase in lake level, to maintain a lake TDS not harmful to
biota. We found that to achieve 5,900 mg/L (after 200 years) at a lake elevation of 3,794 feet (less than
current lake elevation, implying increased water diversion), 100 percent of all current TDS loading to the
river would need to be removed. However, if lake elevation were increased by six feet to 3,800 feet, no
TDS removal would be needed to maintain the same 5,900 mg/L (after 200 years) concentration. This
analysis is particularly useful to the tribe, as well as regional dischargers, water purveyors and regulatory
agencies when formulating positions on flow allocation and watershed management issues.
The nitrogen (N) concentration in Pyramid Lake is an important factor affecting the amount of algal
production (Reuter et al., 1993). Since one of the primary beneficial uses for Pyramid Lake is as a
coldwater sport fishery upon which the tribe depends for part of its economic base, a water quality
standard for nitrogen was needed which would provide both an adequate food supply to promote fish
growth and at the same time insure a well-oxygenated habitat for fish survival. A consequence of
eutrophication is that excessive nutrients stimulate large and frequent growths of algae which contribute
to the depletion of dissolved oxygen (DO) in bottom waters as organic matter settles and is decomposed
by bacteria. Using both research and monitoring data we were able to construct an empirically based
model (PL-EUTR) to determine allowable N-loading to the lake (Lebo et al., 1994b). Our approach was
first to quantify the relationship between within-lake and watershed N-loading, and algal growth. We then
numerically linked the production of organic matter to observed changes in DO, both with depth and over
an annual period. Coldwater fish generally require DO levels of at least 5-6 mg/L. Based on this, PL-
EUTR predicted that to achieve a DO of 6.0 mg/L at a control depth of 70 m (and a lake elevation of
-------
3,800 feet), dissolved inorganic-N (DIN) loading from all sources could not exceed 5,279 megagrams per
year. This resulted in an average whole-lake concentration of 95 (ig N/L as measured at overturn. PL-
EUTR further allowed us to partition the acceptable DIN between five sources and eventually calculate
total maximum daily loads (TMDL's) for the Truckee River.
Conclusion
The potential contribution of the nation's universities and other academic institutions to identification,
understanding, and remediation of environmental problems is enormous. This assistance also applies to
formulation of policy. We have been able to demonstrate, using examples from our limnological and
watershed research at Lake Tahoe and Pyramid Lake that universities can play a major role in
environmental protection efforts. Unfortunately, with current trends towards budgetary savings and
agency downsizing, there is a strong danger that the priority placed on university research might be
reduced in favor of within-agency alternatives. We strongly argue that this would not be in the interest of
long-term environmental management and that instead, universities and governmental agencies urgently
need to become stronger partners.
References
Galat, D.L., E.L. Lider, S. Vigg & S.R. Robinson. (1981) Limnology of a large, deep, North
American terminal lake, Pyramid Lake, Nevada, U.S.A. Hydrobiologia 82: 281-317.
Goldman, C.R. (1988) Primary productivity, nutrients, and transparency during the onset of
eutrophication in ultra-oligotrophic Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada. Limnol. Oceanogr. 33:1321-
1333.
Goldman, C.R. & A.D. Jassby. (1990) Spring mixing depth as a determinant of annual primary
production in lakes. In: Tilzer, M.M. & Serruya, C. (eds.) - Large Lakes: Ecological Structure and
Function, pp. 125-132. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Goldman, C.R., A.D. Jassby & S.H. Hackley. (1993) Decadal, interannual, and seasonal
variability in enrichment bioassays at Lake Tahoe, CA-NV, USA. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 50:
1489-1496.
Jassby, A.D., C.R. Goldman & J.E. Reuter. (1995) Long-term change in Lake Tahoe (California-
Nevada, U.S.A.) and its relation to atmospheric deposition of algal nutrients. Arch. Hydrobiol.
135:1-21.
Koch, D.L. (1976) Life history information on cui-ui lakesucker (Chasmistes cujus, Cope 1883) in
Pyramid Lake. Nevada Biol. Soc. Nev. Occas. Pap. 40: 1-12.
-------
Lebo, M.E., J.E. Reuter, C.R. Goldman & C.L. Rhodes. (1994a) Interannual variability of nitrogen
limitation in a desert lake: influence of regional climate. Can. J. Fish. Aquat. Sci. 51:862-872.
Lebo, M.E., J.E. Reuter & C.R. Goldman. (1994b) Pyramid Lake, Nevada, Water Quality Study
1989-1993. Vol. IV. Modeling Studies. Division of Environmental Studies, Univ. California,
Davis. 243 pp.
Lockheed Ocean Sciences Laboratories. (1982) Investigation on the Effect of Total Dissolved
Solids on the Principal Components of the Pyramid Lake Food Chain. U.S. Dept. of Interior,
Bureau of Indian Affairs.
Reuter, J.E., C.L. Rhodes, M.E. Lebo, M. Kotzman & C.R. Goldman. (1993) The importance of
nitrogen in Pyramid Lake (Nevada, USA), a saline, desert lake. Hydrobiologia 267: 179-189.
Rhodes, C.L. (1995) Plankton Ecology in a Desert Saline Lake With Emphasis on Diazotrophic
Cyanobacteria. Ph.D. dissertation. Univ. Calif. Davis. 190 p.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. (1992) Cui-ui (Chasmistes cujus) Recovery Plan. Second revision.
Portland, Oregon. 47 p.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Market-based Approaches and Trading-Conditions
and Examples
Waldon R. Kerns, Professor of Resource Economics
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
Kurt Stephenson, Assistant Professor of Resource Economics
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
Management of water quality on a watershed or tributary basis provides an excellent opportunity to
greatly increase application of market-based strategies including trading schemes. Discussion of market-
based strategies has appeared in the Resource Economics literature during the past three decades. And
administrators in the highest level of government have recently recognized the potential advantages of
these strategies. For instance, in 1991 then EPA Administrator, Bill Reilly, stated "to maintain progress
toward our environmental goals, we must move beyond a prescriptive approach by adding innovative
policy instruments such as economic incentives." In Spring 1995, the 104th Congress said agencies must
"employ market-based mechanisms that permit greatest flexibility in achieving benefits." In Spring 1995,
President Clinton said, "we must rely on free markets rather than regulations to decide where and how to
clean up the environment." Virginia's August 1995 Potomac Basin Tributary Strategy states, "A number
of approaches...could be used...to minimize the costs of nutrient reductions. A useful example...is a
system of nutrient trading." The main focus of this paper is to evaluate the potential for implementation
of trading schemes, a market-based strategy, to manage water quality.
Until recently water quality was managed primarily through federal and state programs. But, in some
states, significant emphasis for program responsibility has shifted to local level decision making. This
emphasis provides a new and significant dimension to implementation of these market-based strategies
Program activity in Virginia's portion of the Chesapeake Bay is used as a primary example of nutrient
trading and potential local level responsibility.
-------
Approximately two-thirds of Virginia's land area drains into the Bay. Nutrient loading targets for the
entire Bay and for each tributary represent a 40 percent reduction of the portion of the 1985 base load
that is controllable, defined as the difference between the 1985 base load and the load from a totally
forested undisturbed watershed. Original efforts to improve water quality over the past 15 years
concentrated on the main stem of the Bay. But, those efforts have now moved upstream into the
tributaries all the way to the headwaters. Headwater pollutants do get to the tidal waters. As stated in
Virginia's Potomac Basin Tributary Strategy, 69 percent to 91 percent of the nitrogen, and 80 percent to
91 percent of the phosphorus entering the Potomac above the fall line reaches the Lower (tidal) Potomac.
As with other areas, point sources in the Bay area have been under command and control for selected
pollutants. Therefore, each point source has had a legal commitment and responsibility for control of
these pollutants. As of now, discharge standards are not in place for nitrogen and phosphorus. Limited
experience with sharing of responsibility and trade agreements for the controlled pollutants have existed
for years among a few point sources especially in the Virginia/DC/Maryland suburbs the Washington
DC Area Council of Governments. Now, emphasis for water quality management is shifting to better
management of nonpoint sources both rural nonpoint and urban nonpoint sources. Yet, in most
circumstances a legal commitment and responsibility has not been assigned or accepted for these
pollutant sources.
In 1992 in the Chesapeake Bay, emphasis on nutrient control shifted from the main stem of the Bay to
upland areas. Virginia's tributary strategy states, "a voluntary, area specific approach to shared nutrient
reduction responsibility would allow each subarea of the basin to determine for itself how best to manage
the nutrients it generates. We encourage citizens, local governments, and others to seriously consider
watershed-based market incentive possibilities, which exhibit both equity and cost-effectiveness."
(Actions and Options for Virginia's Potomac Basin Tributary Nutrient Reduction Strategy, October 1994,
page 5-3.) This strategy, unlike the other few places which have trading schemes (Dillon Reservoir, Tar
Pamlico Watershed, Lake Okeechobee, etc.), is being designed to rely heavily on local level decisions on
load allocation and local decisions on implementation schemes.
The tributary strategy indicates that success in meeting nutrient levels will require added attention to
point sources as well as increased effort to nonpoint sources. For point sources, technology
improvements are occurring at a rapid rate in nutrient controls on treatment plants and costs are
dropping. As a result of these advances nutrient controls are becoming cost-effective at increasing
numbers of plants. Because most management practices to control nutrient loadings from nonpoint
sources deal with run-off to streams during storm events, or with loadings to the water table, they are
difficult to measure in terms of effectiveness. Of course, the effectiveness of nonpoint source nutrient
reduction efforts is more difficult to define and to calculate than is the case with point sources.
Virginia's tributary strategy allows for certain types of trading for nutrient reductions. There are three
primary types of trade between sources: point-point trades, point-nonpoint trades and nonpoint-nonpoint
trades. Trading among sources, as well as among rivers within a state will allow states to achieve the
greatest reductions at the lowest cost. For example, on a tributary where 40 percent reduction may be
-------
extremely costly to achieve, managers may opt to make up for the shortfall by upgrading a wastewater
treatment plant on another tributary to achieve the 40 percent reduction.
Virginia's tributary strategy indicates that currently available point sources and nonpoint source practices
and technologies can be used to meet the overall goal. At the same time, the tributary strategy identifies
some areas where the job will be more costly and difficult than other areas. This means there must be
flexibility to employ the most cost-effective solutions and to deal with inequities and unfair burdens
where natural or man-made conditions have created them.
In the Potomac Basin, significant nutrient-reduction measures have already been put in place for both
point and nonpoint sources. But, further restrictions on discharges from selected point sources may only
be met with extremely high marginal cost. It is recognized that nonpoint and other point sources might
achieve the same reduction in total nutrient loadings, but at a lower overall cost to the discharger and to
society. Trading schemes can be used to lower the cost of pollution control, and in addition the existence
of a trading scheme also establishes incentives to prevent the creation of waste in the first place.
Necessary Conditions for Trading
This discussion will concentrate primarily on trading schemes as a way to utilize market-based strategies.
The following are necessary conditions for a trading scheme to be successful:
¦ A binding constraint with definitive assignment of responsibility (either at the state or local level)
is needed on the amount of pollution discharge and the responsibility must be enforced. Some
entity must place a cap on nutrient loads and also impose some mechanism to account for future
growth in loads.
¦ The geographic area in which trades will be effective must be specified. Trades can be allowed
across the entire watershed or within small segments of a watershed. Trades will not be accepted
if the trading scheme results in localized water quality problems.
¦ Firms must find and adopt cost-effective methods of abating their pollution so that the least cost
method for the individual discharger and society can be found.
¦ A credit (a property right) such as an emission reduction credit or a nutrient credit must be
established to allow for buying and selling of credits.
¦ Transaction costs, whether faced by the government or individuals, must not be too expensive.
¦ For trades between different sources, each source must contribute a substantial share of the
nutrients.
-------
There must exist a sufficient number of relatively major dischargers. The potential is limited for
trading if traders are too small or too few in number. If that is the case, transaction costs are too
high or the opportunity to trade does not exist.
¦ A difference in the marginal cost of control (the additional cost of controlling an addition unit of
nutrient) must exist. The system is designed to minimize cost of meeting water quality objectives
The marginal cost, additional cost per unit to control nutrients, must be different for a sufficient
number of the dischargers (Table 1). In this way firms with high marginal cost of abatement can
compensate those with low cost to reduce a larger quantity of nutrients. As additional treatment
occurs for any individual discharger these marginal cost likely will increase for that individual.
Consequently, as marginal cost converge trading opportunities disappear.
Low cost measures must be sufficiently applicable
to achieve water quality objectives for any local
area. The existence of cost differences is a
necessary but not a sufficient condition for trading
to occur. If management practices have restricted
applicability in any geographic area, then the
opportunity for trading is also limited. For instance,
if 80 percent of farmers are now using conservation
tillage then little opportunity exist to expand that
practice. Likewise, forest buffers and grass buffer
strips are only effective on a limited number of
miles. Those constraints must be determined for
each area.
Decisions to be Made
Several issues must be resolved for a trading system
to work:
¦ Terms of trade must be established. The
trading ratio for a specific type of nutrient
allowance trade needs to be specified.
Another option is to set a fixed price per
pound of nutrient reduction.
¦ The product must be defined. The state or
local government or some other entity must
create the commodity to be bought and sold
in the trading scheme. In this case the
commodity is a nutrient discharge
Table 1. Example of cost difference in
Potomac Basin.
Management Practice
Removal Cost
Per Pound
Biological Nitrogen Removal
20-50
Urban Storm Water Retrofit
85
Urban Nutrient Management
1
Erosion and Sediment Control
254
Septic Pumpout
38
Animal Confinement Runoff
6
Livestock Waste Management
28
Ag. Nutrient Management
1
Stream Protection from Livestock
11
Grazing Land Protection
11
Conservation Tillage
19
Highly erodible Land
11
Cover Crops
3
Grass Buffers
20
Forest Harvesting
4
-------
allowance. The allowance must involve a ForestBuffirs 1 8
common pollutant. The entity must be able : : 1
to quantify the discharge of nutrients such as S ore me Erosion Protection [ 54
nitrogen and phosphorus. Monitoring must be available. Some form of enforcement and
compliance must exist. Without a binding and enforceable nutrient limit or cap on a source's
allowable nutrient load, a source has no incentive to seek out and trade with sources with lower
cost.
¦ A demand for pollution allowance must be created. In order to create a tradeable product, nutrient
allowances must be measured, quantified, and assigned to individual sources. A discharge limit
must exist. Without some enforceable limit, there is no financial incentive to trade or to invest in
innovative and cost saving nutrient reduction measures.
¦ The trading environment must be defined. In order for a trading system to operate effectively, the
legal and financial rights and responsibilities of sources involved in a nutrient trade must be
clearly specified and certain. In this case, strict discharge limits for the pollution in question, such
as nitrogen or phosphorus, must be established within the trading area. Some entity with power to
act must accept or assign responsibility for limiting nutrient loads for individual sources. Ultimate
responsibility for nutrient reduction must be clearly articulated and certainty of conditions must be
known about future rule changes.
A successful trading operation is complex and will require funding. Administrative activities such as
quantifying nutrient allowances, monitoring, and enforcement of trade agreements require staff time and
management effort. Some entity must provide these administrative functions for a trading system to be
successful.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Market Incentives: Effluent Trading in Watersheds
Mahesh K. Podar, Director
Policy and Budget Staff, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC
Richard M. Kashmanian, Senior Economist
Office of Policy, Planning and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC
Donald J. Brady, Chief
Watershed Branch, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
H. Dhol Herzi, Economist
Policy and Budget Staff, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC
Theresa Tuano, Aquatic Biologist
Watershed Branch, Office of Wetlands, Oceans, and Watersheds, Office of
Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
For over 15 years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has studied the feasibility and
applicability of different types of effluent trading to cost-effectively achieve water quality objectives
including water quality standards. By trading, a pollution source that can more cost-effectively achieve
greater pollutant reduction than is otherwise required can sell or barter the credits from its excess
-------
reduction to another source unable to reduce its pollutant load as cheaply. To ensure that water quality
objectives and standards are met throughout a watershed, an equivalent or better water pollutant
reduction would need to result from a trade.
Attention to effluent trading was elevated on March 16, 1995 when President Clinton and Vice President
Gore released Reinventing Environmental Regulation, a "strategy to reinvent environmental protection ...
to produce a new era of cleaner, cheaper, and smarter environmental management." Twenty-five high
priority actions were presented, one of which was to promote effluent trading in watersheds as a lower
cost tool to achieve water quality objectives and standards. EPA was committed to establish a framework
for different types of effluent trading, issue policy guidance for permit writers, and provide technical
assistance to those interested in developing trading programs.
EPA formed an intra-agency work group in July, 1995 to fulfill these commitments. On January 25,
1996, the Agency released a Policy Statement which communicates EPA's current policy on effluent
trading. In addition, EPA released for public comment a draft framework for trading in early Spring
1996. EPA is also planning to hold at least two public meetings during mid-1996 to obtain feedback on
the draft trading framework, provide a forum for exchanging information, identify opportunities for new
trading programs, and work to overcome barriers to developing and implementing trading programs.
Types of Trading
EPA has identified several forms of effluent trading and described them in detail in the Policy Statement
and draft framework. These include the types of trading that are currently better understood and
accepted. However, the two documents acknowledge that other forms of trading are or may also be
possible. 1 The forms of trading discussed in these documents were:
¦ Intra-Plant: A point source is allocated pollutant discharges among its outfalls in a cost-effective
manner, provided that the combined permitted discharge with trading is no greater than the
combined permitted discharge without trading in the watershed.
¦ Pretreatment: An indirect industrial point source(s) that discharges to a publicly owned treatment
works arranges, through the local control authority, for additional control by other indirect point
sources beyond the minimum requirements in lieu of upgrading its own treatment for an
equivalent level of reduction.
¦ Point/Point: A point source(s) arranges for other point source(s) in a watershed to undertake
greater than required control in lieu of upgrading its own treatment beyond the minimum
technology-based treatment requirements in order to more cost-effectively achieve water quality
standards.
¦ Point/Nonpoint: A point source(s) arranges for control of nonpoint source discharge(s) in a
watershed in lieu of upgrading its own treatment beyond the minimum technology-based
treatment requirements in order to more cost-effectively achieve water quality standards.
¦ Nonpoint/Nonpoint: A nonpoint source(s) arranges for more cost-effective control of other
nonpoint sources in a watershed in lieu of installing or upgrading its own control.
-------
Reasons to Trade
Trading is an innovative way for community stakeholders (e.g., regulated sources, non-regulated sources,
regulatory agencies, and the public) to develop more cost-effective solutions to address the water quality
problems in their watersheds or sewer districts. Trading does not replace the current regulatory approach;
instead, trading supplements it. Trading offers a number of potential economic, environmental, and social
benefits:
¦ Potential Economic Benefits:
o Reduces overall costs for sources contributing to water quality problems,
o Allows dischargers to take advantage of economies of scale and treatment efficiencies that
vary from source to source,
o Reduces overall cost of addressing water quality problems in a watershed,
o Provides a way to manage growth and still achieve environmental objectives.
¦ Potential Environmental Benefits:
o Achieves equal or greater reduction of pollution (and therefore greater than or equal
environmental improvement) for the same or less cost,
o Creates an economic incentive for dischargers to go beyond minimum pollution reduction
and also encourages pollution prevention or the use of other innovative technologies,
o Reduces cumulative pollutant loading, improves water quality, accommodates growth, and
avoids environmental degradation,
o Addresses the broader environmental goals within a trading area, e.g., ecosystem
protection, ecological restoration, improved wildlife habitat, and endangered species
protection.
¦ Potential Social Benefits:
o Encourages dialogue among stakeholders and fosters concerted and holistic solutions for
watersheds with multiple sources of water quality impairment.
Threshold Conditions for Trading
Experience to date has shown that there are numerous threshold criteria that need to be met in order for
trading to be feasible. These are summarized below:
¦ Trading programs are consistent with current regulations and enforcement mechanisms.
¦ At a minimum, applicable technology-based requirements are complied with.
¦ Where applicable, water quality standards are met and/or maintained.
¦ Pollutants included in trades are dependent on water quality problem.
¦ Boundaries and markets for trading are well defined and no larger than a watershed.
¦ Cost differences in pollutant load reductions exist across sources.
¦ Transactions costs are minimized.
¦ Terms of trades are defined and agreed upon, including trading ratios and local impacts.
-------
¦ Trading program is developed within an appropriate analytical and planning framework.
¦ There is access to adequate data on baseline, desired, proposed, and trading-induced pollutant
load and water quality levels.
¦ Monitoring to measure pollutant loads or water quality levels as appropriate.
¦ Development of trading program involves stakeholders and public participation.
¦ Accountability for all trading parties is established along with tracking mechanism for trades.
¦ Adequate measures are provided to safeguard achieving or maintaining water quality objectives
and re-examine trading programs and trades after they expire.
Experience to Date
Trading is being explored, developed, or implemented in a number of watersheds throughout the United
States. Some examples are listed in Table 1. Substantial cost savings have been estimated for some of the
trading programs in place. For example, at least 10 iron and steel facilities have used intra-plant trades,
with seven of these providing cost savings estimates. During the period 1983-1993, these facilities saved
an accumulated $123 million (1993$). A key component of these trades is that trades must result in net
reductions in the total quantity of total suspended solids and oil and grease discharged (approximately 15
percent) and all other pollutants, including heavy metals (approximately 10 percent).
Table 1. Trading programs implemented or under development or
consideration.
Project/Location
Focus
Type of Trading
Trading Programs Implemented:
Arkansas Nature Conservancy
wetlands
nonpoint/NPS
Boulder Creek, Colorado
ammonia
point/stream improvement
and
riparian restoration
Chatfield Basin, Colorado
phosphorus
point/NPS
Cherry Creek, Colorado
phosphorus
point/NPS; point/point
Dillon Reservoir, Colorado
phosphorus
nonpoint/NPS
Iron and steel industry
total suspended solids,
oil and grease, lead,
zinc
intra-plant
Maryland Nontidal Wetlands
pathogens, phosphorus
nonpoint/NPS
-------
New York City, New York
pathogens, phosphorus
drinking water/NPS and
point; point/NPS; point/point
Tar-Pamlico, North Carolina
nitrogen, phosphorus
point/NPS; point/point
Trading Programs Under Development or Considerations
Chehalis River Basin, Washington
biological oxygen
demand and fecal
coliform
point/NPS
Long Island Sound, New York
nitrogen
point/point; point/NPS
Providence, Rhode Island
metals
pretreatment
South San Francisco Bay, California
copper
point/point
Stamford, Connecticut
nitrogen
point/point; point/NPS
Tampa Bay, Florida
nitrogen, total
suspended solids
point/point; point/NPS;
nonpoint/NPS
Truckee River, Nevada
nutrients, dissolved
solids
point/NPS; water quantity
Boulder Creek, Colorado chose to improve stream flow, restore the riparian zone, and install some
nonpoint source control measures rather than upgrade its municipal treatment facility to remove more
ammonia. They have saved up to $3.4-$3.5 million (1994$/1995$) in capital costs and gained greater
improvements to the environment, such as through improved streambank stabilization, reduced
streambank erosion and improved filtration of runoff, improved fish habitat, more continuous protected
riparian zone for wildlife, and increased wetland area. In Tar-Pamlico, North Carolina, up to $20-$45
million (1994$/1995$) in capital cost savings in first phase of their nutrient reduction strategy has
occurred through use of point source trading. Cost savings of 65-80 percent are expected through use of
point/NPS trading during the second phase.
How EPA Will Encourage Trading
Rather than develop a detailed guidance, EPA has developed a draft framework for effluent trading. It
has also planned workshops to exchange information. Limited technical assistance for trading projects in
specific areas is also being contemplated. EPA will continue to encourage effluent trading on a voluntary
basis under existing Clean Water Act authorities. There has been a substantial public outreach effort to
obtain stakeholders' recommendations and insights on the draft framework.
Finally, while EPA believes that the potential of trading is largely untapped, the usefulness of trading
will depend on the site-specific water quality problems in any given situation. The framework describes
-------
situations which EPA believes are more widely accepted for effluent trading and those that are generally
inappropriate.
Conclusion
Given the mounting pressure to balance environmental improvement with economic constraints, market-
based economic incentives such as effluent trading, are gaining interest and support. As more trading
programs are developed, implemented, and evaluated, their successes should not only give birth to
similar programs elsewhere but also to additional ways to use the trading concept.
Disclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not to be taken as official
policy of the U.S. EPA nor any other public or private entity.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Tar-Pamlico Experience: Innovative
Approaches to Water Quality Management
John C. Hall
Hall & Associates, Washington, DC
Ciannat M. Howett
Kilpatrick & Cody, Atlanta, GA
Statement of the Problem: How to Address Nutrient Pollution From Nonpoint Sources?
I. Introduction
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates that runoff
from agricultural operations is the principal source of pollution in our nation's
waters, affecting 57 percent of lake acres and 60 percent of river and stream miles
in states reporting water quality impairment. Nutrients (usually nitrogen and
phosphorus) are the largest group of pollutants from these nonpoint sources and
are among the most common causes of degradation to lakes and estuaries.
The federal Clean Water Act, passed in 1972, addresses surface water pollution
control by focusing on point sources of water pollution, such as municipal sewage
treatment plants or industries. Under the Act, EPA or delegated states issue
permits to point sources to limit the level of pollutants these facilities can
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
discharge. Significant gains in water quality have resulted from this point source
permitting system, but as a result the relative significance of nonpoint source
pollution to water quality impairment has increased.
Currently the Clean Water Act contains no permit requirement or other
mandatory limitations on nonpoint sources of pollution. In most areas, control of
nonpoint sources depends on the voluntary implementation of best management
practices (BMPs). Funding of voluntary BMPs, usually through state agricultural
cost-share programs, is often inadequate to control nonpoint source pollution, and
enforcement and maintenance of voluntary BMPs is sporadic.
Nonpoint source pollution is difficult to regulate because it involves large areas of
land and generally only occurs with precipitation events, which are impossible to
predict accurately. In addition, unlike point source control, nonpoint source
pollution control requires the regulation of local land use, which is traditionally
within the jurisdiction of local governments rather than the federal government.
To reduce nutrient pollution from nonpoint sources in the Tar-Pamlico River
Basin of North Carolina, a nutrient reduction trading system has been established
between point and nonpoint sources of pollution in that watershed. Pollutant
trading programs can take many forms, but, in the Tar-Pamlico, the concept was
to allow regulated point sources to meet water quality-based effluent limits by the
most cost-effective means, including paying for reductions in nonpoint source
pollution within their watershed. By giving point sources credit for specified
nonpoint source controls, the trading program creates an economic incentive for
point sources to help reduce nonpoint source discharges.
II. History of the Project
The Tar-Pamlico River Basin is an approximately 5,400 square-mile watershed of
the Tar and Pamlico Rivers and their tributaries. Over the past three decades, the
Tar-Pamlico estuary has experienced increased algal levels due to excess
nutrients entering the estuary from the Tar-Pamlico River. Such increased algal
levels have led to fish kills, diseases in aquatic life, odors, wildlife habitat loss
-------
and generally diminished water quality.
In the Pamlico Estuary, nitrogen is generally considered to be the nutrient
limiting phytoplankton growth. According to the most recent water quality
studies in the watershed, approximately 90 percent of the nitrogen entering the
Tar-Pamlico River is from nonpoint sources. Most of this nonpoint source
nitrogen pollution is from agricultural sources.
In addition to agricultural operations, sources of nutrient pollution in the basin
include urban run-off, septic tanks, marine vehicles, and discharges from
municipal and industrial wastewater treatment plants. Municipal wastewater
discharges to the basin average about 33 MGD or approximately 10 percent of the
overall nitrogen load to the estuary. The largest point source in the basin is Texas
Gulfs industrial discharge of phosphorus from its mining operations.
III. Traditional Responses to Nutrient Pollution Concerns
In 1989, pursuant to a petition from the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation, the
Environmental Management Commission designated the Tar-Pamlico watershed
as "Nutrient Sensitive Waters" (NSW) and, in April 1989, the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM) issued a nutrient management strategy. The
management plan's goal was to have no long-term increase in nitrogen and
phosphorus inputs from point sources and a decrease in inputs from nonpoint
sources. The state prepared a nutrient budget for the watershed based on a 1988
study that indicated 85 percent of the nitrogen load came from nonpoint sources
of pollution, primarily agricultural sources, and only 15 percent came from point
sources.
The proposed management plan called for point source effluent limitations on
new and expanding facilities of 2 mg/1 year-round for total phosphorus and 4 mg/1
in the summer and 8 mg/1 in the winter for total nitrogen. This plan ensured that
as facilities grew to meet their design flows (28 MGD existing/45 MGD design),
improved treatment would offset the effect of flow increases. In all, a 30 percent
decrease in existing point source loadings would occur or a basinwide nitrogen
-------
load reduction of 4 percent.
In the 1989 nutrient management report, DEM acknowledged the high cost of
meeting the proposed nutrient limitations and major concerns regarding the cost-
effectiveness of point source nutrient removal. To meet the proposed point source
limitations, dischargers would have to build advanced treatment facilities to
control their nutrient loading. Capital costs for implementing the nutrient control
measures were estimated by the dischargers to be at least $50 million. Further
O&M costs were also projected. These high treatment costs were especially
troublesome given the relatively small effect of point source nitrogen removal on
the overall nutrient budget for the watershed.
IV. Development of An Alternative Watershed Planning Approach
In 1989, a group of twelve municipalities and one industry located in the Tar-
Pamlico watershed joined together to form the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association,
Inc. (the "Association"). The purpose of the Association was to present an
alternative strategy to the state based on a more holistic approach to water quality
management that addressed both point and nonpoint sources of pollution in the
entire Tar-Pamlico watershed on a cost-effectiveness basis. The alternative
strategy was intended to foster immediate point source reductions while
establishing a management framework for addressing nonpoint sources over a
multi-year period. Pollution prevention and a research program to address
technical uncertainties were the critical aspects of the alternative approach.
The two-phased alternative strategy developed by the Association, the
Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation, and the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management contained the following
elements:
1. immediate nutrient load reductions through optimization of treatment plant
performance;
2. development of a hydrodynamic estuary model to evaluate nutrient impacts,
alternative pollution control strategies, and set nutrient loading targets;
-------
3. establishment of a schedule of short term nutrient reduction goals to ensure
that point source loads decrease;
4. development of the management framework to target and track nonpoint
sources; and
5. initiation of a best management practices (BMPs) pilot program to
demonstrate the efficacy of point/NPS source trading.
In December 1989, after considerable discussion and debate, the North Carolina
Environmental Management Commission approved the alternative strategy, and
an agreement was signed by the Tar-Pamlico Basin Association, the State of
North Carolina's Division of Environmental Management, the Environmental
Defense Fund, and the Pamlico-Tar River Foundation.
V. Issues to Consider in Developing a Point/Nonpoint Source
Trading Program
How effective a trading program will be in reducing the costs of achieving
environmental objectives will, in many instances, be directed by:
¦ the relative contribution of pollution from various sources;
¦ the marginal cost of increased point source treatment; and
¦ the certainty to which various pollution sources may be abated.
In the Tar-Pamlico case, data were not available for all of these critical factors.
Therefore, a phased approach to implementing the trading program was
established. During Phase I of the Tar-Pamlico agreement (1990-1994), the focus
of the project was to develop information regarding nutrient loading to the
estuary, augment the state's agricultural nonpoint source control program, and
create an infrastructure for more refined nutrient management in the watershed.
During Phase II (1995-2004), the long-term nutrient reduction strategy will be
implemented based on the information and management tools developed in Phase
I.
VI. Management Tools Necessary for a Nutrient Trading Program
-------
To effectively implement a nutrient trading program, management tools must be
developed to accurately track and target point and nonpoint source nutrient
discharges:
¦ Models should be developed to assess the relative loadings from various
pollution sources and, if possible, the fate and transport of pollutants so that
objective pollution reduction targets may be set;
¦ Management systems should be developed to identify nonpoint sources and
select priorities for nonpoint source controls such as a GIS system;
¦ Demonstration projects should be developed where nutrient reductions from
nonpoint sources are unclear; and
¦ Personnel must be available to implement these programs and coordinate
among various regulatory programs.
The Tar-Pamlico agreement required development of these fundamental tools as
part of the trading program. In order to target nonpoint sources of nutrient
pollution, a water quality model of the estuary and a Geographic Information
System (GIS) of the watershed were developed. These models, once completed,
will allow the state to identify nonpoint sources of pollution, target
implementation of nonpoint source controls, and better determine load
relationships between point and nonpoint sources in the river basin.
VII. Elements of a Trading Program
There are a number of basic elements that need to be present to establish an
effluent trading program, or probably any other innovative watershed
management program. These elements include:
¦ analyses demonstrating the benefits of the innovative approach;
¦ development of a group agreement;
¦ funding commitments for the alternative strategy;
¦ regulatory acceptance;
¦ achievement of implementation schedules and enforcement of program
terms;
-------
¦ regulatory coordination and assistance; and
¦ development of a reporting and monitoring program.
Each of these elements is necessary for formation, acceptance and
implementation of a trading program.
VIII. Conclusion
The concepts of point/NPS source trading and watershed-based management have
become increasingly popular since the Tar-Pamlico project began. Despite some
initial skepticism, EPA is now pointing to the Tar-Pamlico project as a model for
cost-effective and innovative water quality control. Both House and Senate
versions of the Clean Water Act reauthorization bills for the last two years have
contained provisions for a watershed approach to water quality improvement. All
signs indicate, that watershed-based water quality control and cost-effective
alternatives such as point/NPS source trading are the wave of the future.
As nutrient trading becomes more widely implemented and its framework is
further refined, several key issues will need to be addressed through research and
policy decisions. Among these are whether the life of a BMP credit should be
limited and whether the value of a BMP credit should be discounted over its life;
whether all point source dischargers should continue to receive the same credit
for nutrient removal regardless of their location within the watershed; and how
spatial, temporal, or seasonal variations in nutrient impacts can best be addressed
through watershed management. Answers to these questions have not yet been
resolved through the Tar-Pamlico trading program experience. These and many
other issues are sources of future research and investigation in this growing area
of water quality control.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Cost-Effectiveness and Targeting of Agricultural
BMPs for the Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Trading Program
Michael McCarthy and Randall Dodd
Research Triangle Institute
John P. Tippett
Friends of the Rappahanock
David Harding
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management
The Tar-Pamlico Nutrient Trading Program is a pioneering effort to more
effectively manage nutrient inputs to an estuary. Much has been written about the
institutional arrangements behind the Program. This paper discusses some of the
technical work that supports Program implementation. In order to help the
Program participants set a reasonable cost for trading nitrogen or phosphorus
between point and nonpoint sources and understand how cost effective different
best management practices (BMPs) are, we developed cost-effectiveness
estimates (expressed as $/kilogram of nutrient load reduced) for cost-shared
agricultural BMPs in the Basin. Most prior work of this type has generated a
single cost-effectiveness value for each BMP. An interesting aspect of these
estimates for the Tar-Pamlico is that cost effectiveness values are based on
conditions prior to installation of a given BMP. Incorporating pre-existing
-------
conditions into the calculations accounts for the reality that the same BMP can
have widely varying cost effectiveness when applied to different sites, which has
implications for targeting cost-share dollars to farmers.
Sources of BMP Cost and Effectiveness Data
BMP unit costs were calculated for the major cost-shared practices in the Tar-
Pamlico basin. These values were based on NC Division of Soil and Water
Conservation records and were adjusted to include farmer contributions,
operation and maintenance costs, area benefitted, and BMP life expectancy. The
data represent BMPs that were implemented from 1985 to 1994. Costs for this
study were not corrected for inflation. The cost values given in the North Carolina
Agricultural Cost-Share summaries include only funds expended by state and
federal cost-share programs. Cost-share funds are generally limited to 75 percent
of the total cost of the practice, with the remaining funds being contributed by the
farmer. For the purposes of our calculations, we assume that the reported cost-
share figures represent 75 percent of the total cost of the practice.
A literature review was conducted to determine the most relevant studies on
which to base estimates of BMP effectiveness in the basin. Effectiveness data
specific to the Tar-Pamlico basin were available for animal waste management
practices and for water control structures. The effectiveness of conservation
tillage practices was estimated based on results of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed
model for the Southeastern Plains and Middle Atlantic Coastal Plains ecoregions.
The effectiveness of terracing practices was estimated based on the combined
results of two empirical studies in the Chesapeake basin. Vegetated filter strip
effectiveness was determined based on two other Chesapeake basin studies that
used filter strips of similar size to those cost-shared in the Tar-Pamlico basin. For
the remaining practices, only cost data are presented because effectiveness data
were not available.
For several practices, cost-effectiveness values show considerable ranges that
represent the variability in pre-BMP nutrient loading across different sites. The
ranges do not capture other sources of variability such as the site-specific
-------
variations in BMP cost or effectiveness. The cost data from this study represent
the direct cost of implementing BMPs. Other "less direct" costs such as (1)
opportunity costs from loss of productive land to BMPs and (2) costs of not
implementing BMPs (e.g., higher fertilizer costs, offsite costs resulting from
pollution impacts) are not addressed.
It is important to note that BMP effectiveness values for different practices are
not necessarily additive. For example, a practice installed on conventional tillage
may result in a 10 percent net nutrient load decrease. However, the same practice
installed on conservation tillage will not necessarily yield 10 percent further
reduction in the runoff nutrient load.
Results
Table 1. Some nutrient reduction cost-effectiveness estimates for cost-shared practices in the Tar-
Pamlico Basin

Cost-Effectiveness in
Reducing Nutrient Loads
to Surface Runoff and
Subsurface Drainage
(Relative to Preexisting
Practice) ($/kg of nutrient
reduced)
ost-shared
ractice
Pre-existing
practice
Portion of
Basin
Nutrient
Using 20-
year lagoon
life
Using 10-
year lagoon
life
Anerobic lagoons
Undersized lagoon
with land application
at 2x agronomic rate
Whole basin
Nitrogen
$5 to $21
$6 to $29
Phosphorus
$19 to $298
$26 to $395
Undersized lagoon
with land application
at 3x agronomic rate
Whole basin
Nitrogen
$2 to $11
$3 to $14
Phosphorus
$10 to $158
$13 to $209
Undersized lagoon
with land application
at 4x agronomic rate
Whole basin
Nitrogen
$2 to $7
$2 to $9
Phosphorus
$6 to $108
$9 to $142
Direct discharge of
Whole basin
Nitrogen
$0.02 to
$4.14
$0.02 to
$5.48
-------

animal wastes

Phosphorus
$0.03 to $0.02 to
$4.00 1 $5.30

Land application at
Whole Basin
Nitrogen
$0.59 to $4.81

2x agronomic rate
Phosphorous
$2.41 to $75.65

Land application at
Whole Basin
Nitrogen
$0.30 to $2.30

3x agronomic rate
Phosphorous
$1.20 to $37.86
Land application
Land application at
Whole Basin
Nitrogen
$0.20 to $1.56
4x agronomic rate
Phosphorous
$0.80 to $25.24

Direct discharge of
lagoon effluent and
sludge
Whole Basin
Nitrogen
$0.04 to $0.22

Phosphorous
$0.05 to $0.25

Direct discharge of
Whole Basin
Nitrogen
$0.01 to $0.06

animal wastes
Phosphorous
$0.01 to $0.09
Table 1 summarizes the cost-effectiveness estimates for only a few of the
practices for which both cost and effectiveness data were available. Space
limitations prohibit presenting complete results in this paper. These estimates
represent the direct cost of implementing BMPs. Other "less direct" costs such as
(1) opportunity costs from loss of productive land to BMPs and (2) costs of not
implementing BMPs (e.g., higher fertilizer costs, offsite costs resulting from
pollution impacts) are not addressed. Specific findings include:
¦ The cost-effectiveness of animal waste management practices is highly
dependent upon the preexisting waste management practice on a farm. The
range of the cost-effectiveness estimates for any given scenario can be quite
broad due to variability in (1) nutrient content of the waste and (2) the crop's
fertilization requirement.
¦ Water control structures are highly cost-effective for nitrogen control but
not for phosphorus control.
¦ Nutrient management is not cost-shared in the basin, yet it has been shown
to be highly cost-effective.
¦ Relative to other cropland BMPs, conservation tillage can be a cost-
effective practice for both nitrogen and phosphorus reduction, especially
when used in conjunction with nutrient management.
-------
¦ Relative to other practices, terracing is not cost-effective for either nitrogen
or phosphorus reduction.
¦ Cropland conversion could potentially be very cost-effective, but this
depends greatly on site-specific factors.
¦ Insufficient data exist to estimate the effectiveness (and therefore, cost-
effectiveness) of grassed waterways, diversions, and stripcropping.
¦ Although data are presented by BMP type, it is important to realize that
holistic farm management is more cost-effective than single-objective BMP
cost-sharing.
Based on our findings and literature review, we offer the following suggestions
for programmatic direction:
¦ The Agricultural Cost Share Program could place a higher priority on
nutrient (and particularly, nitrogen) management. Nutrient management has
been proven to be a cost-effective strategy for reducing both edge-of-field
and watershed loading from agricultural lands.
¦ Increasing the cost-effectiveness of cost-sharing will require an increased
commitment to education and technical assistance.
¦ The Nutrient Trading Program is in a position to take a proactive approach
to restoring and protecting land uses and land cover types that provide
positive water quality benefits. The cost-effectiveness of this approach
needs to be determined.
Phase II Trading Value
One outcome of this study was use of the results to develop an improved cost
value for point source-nonpoint source trading. Based on the cost-effectiveness
ranges presented in this report, the N.C. Division of Environmental Management
(NCDEM) selected the following scenario as the basis for estimating a trading
value for Phase II of the Nutrient Trading Program:
Practice:
anaerobic lagoons
-------
„ . . . undersized lagoon with land application at 2 times the
Preexisting practice: . ~
agronomic rate
Lagoon life span: 20 years
Nutrient: nitrogen
Our estimated cost-effectiveness range for the above scenario is from $5 to $21
per kilogram of nitrogen reduced (Table 1). To estimate a single trading value,
NCDEM multiplied the median of this range ($13/kg nitrogen) by a safety factor
of 2 and then added a 10 percent administrative cost. The resulting figure was
$28.60, which was rounded to $29/kg nitrogen.
The full study results are contained in Cost Effectiveness of Agricultural BMPs in
the Tar-Pamlico River Basin (Tippett and Dodd, 1995) prepared by RTI for
NCDEM.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Nonstructural Management Practices for
Watershed Protection
Rod Frederick, P.E., Supervisory Environmental Engineer
Robert Goo, Environmental Protection Specialist
Environmental Protection Agency, Nonpoint Source Control Branch,
Washington, DC
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Introduction
This paper contains a brief summary of nonstructural controls being implemented by state and local
governments to protect surface waters, sensitive areas, and groundwater from the harmful effects of
development. The nonstructural controls identified are those the authors consider noteworthy based on
examples found in the literature and experience from reviews of state coastal nonpoint source control
programs submitted to EPA and NOAA to meet requirements of Section 6217(g) of the Coastal Zone Act
Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (CZARA). Because EPA and NOAA are in the initial stages of
this review, most of the examples cited here were identified through literature reviews.
The Problem
When previously undeveloped land in a watershed is disturbed for any reason, impacts to surface waters
are almost always unavoidable. These impacts can occur due to sediment from eroded exposed soils and
increases in runoff volumes and peak flows which cause changes to hydrology in downstream channels,
wetlands, and riparian areas.
The increased sediment from areas disturbed during construction can clog small tributaries, alter habitat,
smother fish eggs and fill in wetlands that previously provided detention and retention of rainfall runoff.
After construction, erosion of poorly stabilized land can continue to cause similar problems.
-------
Increases in impervious surfaces such as roads, rooftops, and parking lots can increase the total amount
of runoff and peak flows that negatively impact local drainage systems. For example, the total runoff
volume from a one-acre parking lot is about 16 times that produced by an undeveloped meadow
(Techniques, 1994). Impacts from increasing imperviousness include lower base flows and channel
widening. Flooding may also result, especially in communities within the flood plain.
Daily activities also generate nonpoint source pollution. Oils, gas, engine coolants, and metals from
vehicles wash off roads and parking lots. Improperly applied fertilizers and pesticides from lawns and
parks/golf courses, pet wastes, and improperly disposed household wastes (such as engine oils and
coolants, paints, pesticides, and solvents) can also contribute to nonpoint source loadings.
The Challenge
The challenge for state and local governments to prevent and reduce nonpoint source related impacts due
to development in a watershed is daunting. Fortunately, many state, county, and municipal governments
have established regulations, policies, and procedures to implement management practices to minimize
the short and long-term effects of development on surface waters and ground waters. These management
practices, often referred to as Best Management Practices or BMP's, can be structural or nonstructural.
Structural management practices involve construction of an engineered facility to control runoff flow and
pollutants, such as sediment basins, detention ponds, and manmade wetlands. Nonstructural management
practices, which are the subject of this paper, are programmatic tools to prevent and mitigate NPS
pollution. They include policies, legislation, and procedures to: manage land use and protect important
natural areas such as wetlands; educate the public and practitioner, e.g., contractor certification
programs; and control the sources of NPS pollution, e.g., oil recycling programs. The emphasis of this
paper will be on those nonstructural controls that maintain the pre-development characteristics of the
watershed by preserving the natural hydrology and buffering capacity of land. Surface and groundwater
quality protection, flood control, erosion control and toxic substance reduction are among the goals of
nonstructural programs.
In most cases a combination of nonstructural and structural practices is necessary to implement a well
balanced nonpoint source control program. For example, empirical data from Hybernia, a 132 acre
residential development in Illinois, suggest that use of upland vegetated systems (nonstructural open
space) in combination with ponded areas (structural) has resulted in the rate and volume of discharge to
be essentially unchanged before and after development (EPA, 1995).
Nonstructural Management Practices
Conservation and Open/Green Space
In the Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, standardized tree protection measures to protect critical forest
-------
stands necessary to maintain water quality and biological integrity have been adopted. These measures
include: forest surveys, identification of high priority forests to protect during planning, development and
construction and long term provisions to ensure protection of the forests. (Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments Restoration Sourcebook).
Major cities such as Baltimore, Maryland, Portland, Oregon, and Seattle, Washington are developing
green space programs to protect and connect natural areas while proving recreational activities. Funds to
assist in this effort are available from FHWA under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act
of 1991 (Land and People, 1993). New York City is proposing to establish regulations to establish both
land use plans and watershed protection controls to protect and maintain water quality in its Catskill and
Delaware drinking water supplies. The cost of source control including the purchase of land is estimated
to be much less that the cost of adding filtration systems.
In Washington State, the Evergreen Agenda Project is building a fund for local communities to use to
purchase open land, thereby protecting land they believe should be conserved from development (Land
and People, 1994).
Cluster development is known to provide more open space, recreational areas, less impervious area, and
many other benefits when compared to traditional developments (Techniques, 1994).
Protection and Preservation
Florida's Everglades Protection Act defines an everglades protection area and mandates storm water
treatment areas in drainage to the everglades in which BMP's are to be constructed to reduce phosphorus.
Olympia, Washington requires downstream evaluation as a part of its storm water management program
to assure protection of downstream channel stability from maximum velocities. New Jersey and
Washington State storm water management programs contains similar requirements at the state level
(WMI, 1996).
The Southwest Florida Management District developed model ordinances for local governments as part
of Florida's Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) program. These models include
protection of environmentally sensitive habitats, protection and establishment of vegetative buffer zones,
and protection of stream banks and shorelines (EPA, 1995).
An eight-mile greenbelt was purchased to protect Barton Springs in Austin, Texas from pollution, but
increasing development still threatens the uses of this resource. Austinites have approved an ordinance
which sets stringent levels on new development. One requirement is that no more than 15% of any tract
can be covered with impervious surfaces (Freeh, 1994). Recently, judiciary and legislative processes may
reduce the effectiveness of this ordinance, but the Austin community is continuing to resist urban sprawl
that threatens Barton Springs (Nonpoint Source News-Notes, 1995).
-------
Buffer Establishment and Protection
The City of Lacey, Washington, using the Washington State Department of Ecology's model wetland
protection ordinance as a base, implemented an ordinance to protect wetlands and stream corridors. A
key feature requires buffers with sizes that vary depending on the value of the wetland and intensity of
the land use (Schueler, 1994). Baltimore County (MD) Code requires setbacks of buildings from buffers,
management to protect and preserve buffers, and buffers around stream corridors, with special
requirements to protect steep slopes and erodible soils (Schueler, 1994).
The New Jersey Pinelands Commission comprehensive management program for wetlands not only
prohibits development within wetlands but also requires an upland buffer of 300 feet in which no
development can occur (Terrene Institute, 1995).
The Massachusetts Wetland and Floodplain Protection Act requires permits for any work within a buffer
zone of 100 feet from wetlands and the 100 year flood level (Terrene Institute, 1995).
A detailed discussion of stream buffers can be found in Techniques, (Summer 1995), which the authors
recommend as an excellent resource.
Construction and Runoff
Olympia, Washington's storm water management program is integrated with local land use planning,
zoning, wetlands protection, floodplain protection, land acquisition, wellhead protection, and building
approval programs. Other agencies with similar integrated programs include Maricopa County, Arizona,
Snohomish County, Washington, and Somerset County, New Jersey (Watershed Management Institute,
1996).
For Chesapeake Bay Program Tidewater Areas, Virginia's storm water control programs establish more
stringent requirements for impervious areas, storm water controls and erosion and sediment controls.
Grand Traverse County, Michigan has enacted a soil erosion and storm water control ordinance which
contains many nonstructural as well as structural requirements. General standards include designs and
measures to provide for non-erosive velocities of runoff, preventing alterations to drainage which may
create downstream flooding or sedimentation, and consideration of affected wetlands and other sensitive
areas (Grand Traverse County, 1992).
Delaware requires training and state certification for inspectors and contractors. Certified Construction
Reviewers ensure the adequacy of construction pursuant to the approved sediment and storm water
management plan (Watershed Management Institute, 1994). Florida is implementing a similar program
(Watershed Management Institute, 1996).
-------
Community Based
Other nonstructural controls that have been established by many states, counties, regional areas, and
cities include storm drain stenciling, street sweeping (especially on bridges), certification of pesticide and
herbicide applicators for maintenance of public green space and roadsides, establishing public
education/outreach programs for fertilizer and pesticide use and disposal of household wastes, and
recycling programs for oil and anti-freeze (Watershed Management Institute, 1996).
Summary
Nonstructural practices are being promoted, required and used by all levels of government to reduce the
potential impacts of new development. Nonstructural practices are essential elements in all
comprehensive watershed protection programs. And as an added benefit, where structural controls are
required, nonstructural controls can help significantly reduce the costs of providing and maintaining
structural controls, enhance both the performance and longevity of these complex engineered practices,
and, even replace them in certain instances (Horner et. al., 1994).
References
Freeh, Marshall. (1994) Barton Springs Runs Deep in the Heart of Austin. Cover Story, Land and
People, Volume 6 Number 1. The Trust for Public Land.
Grand Traverse County, Michigan. Soil Erosion and Storm water Control Ordinance. January 1,
1992.
Horner, Skupien, Livingston, and Shaver. (August, 1994) Fundamentals of Urban Runoff
Management: Technical and Institutional Issues. Terrene Institute, Washington, D.C.
Land and People. (1993) Volume 5 Number 1; (1994) Volume 6 Number 1. The Trust for Public
Land.
Nonpoint Source News-Notes. (August/September, 1995) Number 42. Terrene Institute,
Washington, D.C.
Schueler, Tom. (1994) The Stream Protection Approach, for Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments. Reprinted by the Terrene Institute, Washington, D.C.
The Watershed Management Institute. (1996). Institutional Aspects of Urban Runoff
Management: A Guide for Program Development and Implementation. Prepublication copy.
Techniques. (Fall, 1994), and (Summer, 1995) Quarterly Bulletin by the Center for Watershed
-------
Protection, Silver Spring, Md.
Terrene Institute. (1995), Local Ordinances, A User's Guide.
USEPA. (1995) Seminar Publication, National Conference on Urban Runoff Management:
Enhancing Urban Watershed Management at the Local, County, and State Levels. March 30 to
April 2, 1993. EPA/625/R-95/003.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Watershed Approach to Flood Hazard Mitigation
and Resource Protection: The President's
Floodplain Management Action Plan
John H. McShane, Chair, Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task
Force
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Washington, DC
1

Figure 1. A naturally functioning riverine system, the Yellowstone River, Yellowstone National
Park.
-------
Introduction
The floodplains of the United States contain a wealth of natural and cultural resources that are of
immense value to the Nation. However, most floodplains have been adversely impacted by human
activities to the extent that their resources have been significantly degraded or destroyed. Despite
expenditures of billions of Federal dollars trying to keep floodwaters away from people, mostly with
structural measures such as dams and levees, flooding remains the greatest threat and most persistent
natural hazard facing over 20,000 communities in the United States. This century alone floods have
caused a greater loss of life and property, and disrupted more families and communities than all other
natural hazards combined. Until recently, it was the policy of the Federal government to encourage and
fund major flood-control projects and so, in no small way, contributed to the loss and degradation of our
floodplain resources. It has only been in recent years that floodplain lands and waters have come to be
recognized and appreciated as being some of the most ecologically productive, hydrologically important,
and environmentally sensitive areas within a watershed. It is therefore imperative that we protect and
restore these critical areas to ensure the integrity of natural systems, as well as the sustainability of our
communities.
Floodplain Management: A New Vision
A new way of thinking about reducing flood losses first emerged in 1942 when a graduate student by the
name of Gilbert White completed his doctoral dissertation, Human Adjustment to Floods: A Geographic
Approach to the Flood Problem in the United States, wherein he noted that "floods are an act of God,
flood damages result from the acts of men." He went on to advocate "adjusting human occupancy of the
floodplain environment so as to utilize most effectively the natural resources of the floodplain, and at the
same time, of applying feasible and practicable measures for minimizing the detrimental impacts of
floods." In the decades following Dr. White's new paradigm for floodplain management, some efforts
were made to implement other measures, besides structural flood control, to reduce flood losses without
destroying the natural resources and functions of floodplains. These efforts, however, were mostly
limited in scope and the focus continued to be large structural projects funded by the Congress. It is of
interest to note that, while working in the Executive Office of the President, Bureau of the Budget,
Gilbert White advised President Roosevelt to veto the 1936 Flood Control Act which provided full
federal funding for large civil works projects such as dams and levees.
During the 1960's the Congress recognized that flood losses and disaster relief expenditures were
continuing to escalate and in 1965 established a Task Force on Federal Flood Control Policy, naming
Gilbert White as chairman. In 1966 the Task Force completed its report, A Unified National Program for
Managing Flood Losses (House Document 465) which advocated a broader perspective on flood control
policy including the need for land use management of flood hazard areas. The President then assigned
the task of developing the framework to implement such a Unified National Program to the US Water
Resources Council.
A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management
-------
In 1975, the US Water Resources Council established the Federal Interagency Floodplain Management
Task Force to carry out the responsibility of the President to prepare for the Congress any further
proposals necessary to achieve the goals of floodplain management. The Task Force first issued a report
in 1976 which sets forth a conceptual framework for floodplain management to guide Federal, state, and
local decision-makers in carrying out a their responsibilities. The report, A Unified National Program for
Floodplain Management, was updated in 1979 and again in 1986 by the Task Force which by then was
chaired by FEMA after the Council was disbanded in 1982. The 1986 report built upon earlier reports,
directives, and legislation and addressed the increasing loss of life and property caused by floods and the
increasing interest in protecting the natural resources and functions of floodplains and wetlands. Because
of the rapidly occurring changes taking place in water resources management and policy, both
economically and environmentally, the Task Force commenced a revision of the Unified National
Program document in 1993 to reflect these changes and to propose new ideas to better achieve the goals
of floodplain management.
A Unified National Program for Floodplain Management 1994
The Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force was finalizing a new conceptual framework
and developing tangible goals to be achieved for the next 30 years just as the Mississippi, Missouri,
Illinois, and other rivers were reclaiming their floodplain during the Great Flood of 1993. Although
representing a diversity of Federal agencies with varying missions and goals, the members of the Task
Force agreed that the 1994 document needed to explicitly state that the purpose of floodplain
management encompasses two co-equal goals, 1) reducing the loss of life and property caused by floods,
and 2) protecting and restoring the natural resources and functions of floodplains. The Task Force
concluded that an effective means to achieve these goals was to promote a more comprehensive,
"watershed" approach to floodplain management. The President underscored the significance of this
approach in his March 1995, transmittal letter of the Unified National Program document to the Congress
by stating:
[The Unified National Program] urges the formulation of a more comprehensive, coordinated approach
to protecting and managing human and natural systems to ensure sustainable development relative to
long-term economic and ecological health. Effective implementation of the Unified National Program for
Floodplain Management will mitigate the tragic loss of life and property, and disruption of families and
communities, that are caused by floods every year in the United States. It will also mitigate the
unacceptable losses of natural resources and result in a reduction in the financial burdens placed upon
governments to compensate for flood damages caused by unwise land use decisions made by individuals,
as well as governments.
Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management Into the 21st Century
The Great Midwest Flood of 1993 focused the attention of the Nation on the human and environmental
costs associated with decades of efforts to control the natural phenomena of flooding with structural
-------
measures, unwise land-use decisions, and the loss and degradation of the natural resources and functions
of floodplains. In part, this disaster can also be attributed to the single purpose decision-making process
and fragmented planning at all levels of government, inconsistent statutory mandates, and conflicting
jurisdictional responsibilities. Due to the magnitude of this flood disaster, the Executive Office of the
President established a Floodplain Management Review Committee to determine the major causes and
consequences of the flood and to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of the performance of existing
floodplain management and related watershed programs. The Committee, comprised of staff from FEMA
and other Federal agencies, prepared a report, Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management Into the
21st Century, which contains over 100 recommendations to improve floodplain management policies and
programs at the national and state levels.
Coincidentally, the Federal Interagency Floodplain
Management Task Force was finalizing the 1994
document, A Unified National Program for
Floodplain Management at the same time. These
two reports complement and reinforce each other by
the commonality of their findings and
recommendations. For example, both reports urge
the formulation of a more comprehensive,
"watershed" approach to managing human activities
and natural systems to ensure the long term
viability of riparian ecosystems and the sustainable
development of riverine communities
Due to the high level of interest in implementing
many of the recommendations of the "Sharing the
Challenge" report and the stated goals and
objectives outlined in the 1994 "Unified National
Program" document, the Executive Office of the
President (specifically the Council on
Environmental Quality and the Office of
Management and Budget) determined that a
Floodplain Management Action Plan for the Nation,
based on these two reports, was needed.
The President's Floodplain
Management Action Plan
The need to engender fundamental changes in
Federal floodplain management policy to reduce
flood losses while protecting floodplain resources
has now been generally accepted. We must
Table 1. Natural resources and functions of
floodplains.
t Water Resources
• Provide flood storage and conveyance
• Protect water quality
• Filter nutrients and process organic wastes
• Reduce erosion and sedimentation
• Facilitate aquifer recharge
• Reduce frequency and duration of high and
low surface flows
Biological Resources
• Create a variety of habitats
• Privide breeding and feeding areas
• Support high primary productivity
• Preserve biodiversity and ecological
integrity
('ultural Resources
• Contain significant historic sites
• Provide opportunities for environmental
education
• Provide recreational and aesthetic
amenities
-------
recognize that flood hazard mitigation reduces the loss of life and property; prevents the loss of
irreplaceable family possessions; reduces the economic and social impacts caused by floods throughout
the impacted communities; maintains and improves floodplain resources and functions; and is cost
effective. Furthermore, it must be emphasized that we can no longer afford the costs of flood disasters,
and property owners must take greater responsibility for their actions and share the true costs associated
with floodplain occupancy.
The Federal government can provide the leadership and facilitate coordination to encourage the public
and private sectors to undertake actions to mitigate flood hazards, both routinely and in the recovery
phase following a disaster. With the resources available we must begin to reduce, in real terms, the loss
of life and property caused by the natural phenomena of flooding as well as prevent the continuing loss
and degradation of the natural and cultural resources of our floodplains.
Although the Executive Office of the President has not yet completed its review of the final draft, the
interagency committee developing the President's Floodplain Management Action Plan has made two
significant recommendations to advance the goals of floodplain management. The first is to update and
reissue Executive Order 11988 Floodplain Management (1977), to signify the Federal government's
interest in providing leadership relative to achieving the goals of floodplain management. Second, that an
interagency Water Resources Coordinating Committee be established to facilitate communication and
cooperation among water resources agencies, and include floodplain and watershed management not just
water supply and distribution issues. The structure and function of the committee will likely be similar to
that of the original Water Resources Council (but without the budget). It is anticipated that this
Floodplain Management Action Plan will be announced and released by the President in the Spring of
1996. When released, copies of the Plan can be obtained from the Executive Office of the President, The
White House, Washington, DC.
Conclusion
Protecting and restoring floodplain lands and waters is in the best interest of the nation,, economically,
socially, and environmentally. There is evidence that Americans, while still full of compassion and
readiness to assist in times of true catastrophe, are becoming less willing to subsidize the costs of unwise
floodplain occupancy as they become more knowledgeable about, and concerned for, the natural
environment and ecological processes. The President's Floodplain Management Action Plan provides a
vision for achieving the long-term goals of floodplain management which will help move the Nation
towards a quality of life for every American that is sustainable into the 21 st Century, and beyond.
References
Clinton, President William J. 1995. Letter transmitting the document, A Unified National
Program for Floodplain Management to the Congress.
Executive Office of the President. 1994. Sharing the Challenge: Floodplain Management Into the
-------
21st Century. US Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Federal Interagency Floodplain Management Task Force. 1994. A Unified National Program for
Floodplain Management. FEMA 248, Washington, DC.
House of Representatives. 1966. A Unified National Program for Managing Flood Losses. H.R.
465
White, Gilbert. 1942. Human Adjustment to Floods: A Geographic Approach to the Flood
Problem in the United States. University of Chicago, Department of Geography, Chicago, Illinois.
Dissertation.
White, Gilbert. December, 1995, Personal communication.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
An Approach for Planning and Managing
Monitoring Activities for Major Flood Events
Working Group on Flood Event Water Quality Monitoring, Subcommittee on
Water Quality:
Mary L. Belefski
U.S. EPA, Washington, DC
Joanne Kurklin
U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma City, OK
Richard Urban
Tennessee Valley Authority, Chattanooga, TN
Jim Yahnke
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, CO
Jim Cook
Bureau of Mines, Washington, DC
Introduction
In 1993, the Midwest floods highlighted, among other things, the need for water-quality monitoring
during major floods. Although some of the issues in the 1993 floods were specific to the affected area,
-------
some general conclusions can be drawn. Water-quality conditions related to major floods have the
potential to affect both human and environmental health. Public concerns over water quality that were
raised in the 1993 flood are tied to questions such as: "Is the water safe for human contact?"; "Is the
water safe to drink?"; and "How will the fish be affected?" Existing routine plans for water-quality
monitoring did not address such concerns adequately.
Human health as related to water quality can be directly affected by floods in several ways.
Contaminants from both point and non-point sources have the potential to affect public water supplies.
Contaminated water at a surface water supply intake can interrupt the function of a water supply system
with accompanying public health and related economic consequences. Flood flows outside the channel
have the potential to contaminate both public and private ground-water supplies. There are also concerns
related to body contact with potentially polluted water in flooded areas.
In addition to its effects on human health, water-borne contamination has the potential to produce
environmental damage that may affect endangered species, critical habitats, or agricultural activities.
Each of these affects has the potential to produce unforeseen economic impacts that may not be evident
to the casual observer.
The Mississippi River Flood of 1993 caused significant changes to the landscape throughout the Midwest
and ultimately to the Gulf of Mexico. The flood sent large volumes of fresh water down the Mississippi
River during a period of the year normally characterized by lower flows in the Mississippi, thus the
timing of the flooding was a critical factor in determining the impact on the marine environment. The
higher stream flow in the lower Mississippi River resulted in increased loadings of nutrients and
agricultural chemicals, higher-than-normal oceanic surface temperatures, lower-than-normal surface
salinities, changes in phytoplankton numbers and species composition, and increases in the area of low-
oxygen bottom waters on the Texas-Louisiana shelf. The effects of the fresh water inflow were detected
not only in the northern Gulf of Mexico but also at the Florida Keys and along the U.S. East Coast.
In order to respond to human and environmental health issues and concerns raised since the 1993
Midwest Flood, the Subcommittee on Water Quality, Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Data,
established the Working Group on Flood Event Water Quality Monitoring (FEWQM), to serve as the
principal mechanism for the development of a Federal plan for coordinating water-quality monitoring
among federal, state, tribal, and local agencies during major floods. The Working Group developed a
guidance document which addressed comments received on a draft document, especially those from
areas affected by the 1993 Midwest Flood.
Several significant conclusions were drawn from the 1993 experiences. One conclusion was that the lack
of an assured funding source for both Federal and State agencies impeded their abilities to sample during
the early periods of the flood. Funds made available after the declaration of the emergency or disaster
were too late to cover sampling during the early flood phases. As a result there was a concern that high
contaminant concentrations that often flushed out during the first stages of a flood were missed
completely. A second conclusion was that lack of a coordinated plan could result in duplicate sampling
-------
by different agencies, while other sampling opportunities were missed. A third conclusion was that the
turnaround time for analytical results, especially those that were related to public health, were too long.
A final conclusion was that a coordinated effort was needed for dissemination of water quality
information as soon as it became available.
Recommendations
As defined in the final guidance a major flood is one that is likely to prompt a Federal Disaster
Declaration and a Federal response. The emergency components of the Federal government respond only
after the President declares that an emergency or a major disaster has occurred and the Federal Response
Plan (FRP) is activated. A disaster is defined as an event that, in the determination of the President,
causes damage of sufficient severity and magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance by the Federal
Government to supplement the efforts and available resources of states, tribal agencies, local
governments, and disaster-relief organizations in alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering
caused by the event.
Floods, unlike tornados or earthquakes, can have a slow onslaught. The initial flood may not require
Federal assistance. However, the severity of the event may increase over time causing a major flood that
warrants a Presidential disaster declaration. The following are the recommendations for each of the four
flood periods identified in the final guidance:
¦ Before any flooding occurs (pre-flood), coordination among local, State, Tribal, and Federal
emergency planning and water quality decision makers is essential to determine the needs and
resources available for water quality monitoring activities during a flood.
¦ During a flood, existing resources at the local, State, and Tribal levels and Federal agencies at the
field level are the primary sources of funding for flood monitoring activities.
¦ During a major flood that requires a Presidential Disaster Declaration, and that activates the FRP
and the necessary Departments and agencies, coordination needs to occur between the local, State,
and Tribal agencies conducting water quality monitoring activities and those Federal Departments
and agencies that can assist with the effort.
¦ The post-flood period occurs after the flood waters recede and return to their normal seasonal
levels. A post flood analysis and critique is vital to the success of future response efforts.
Action Plan Development and Implementation
Activities related to a flood can occur during four different periods (pre-flood, flood, major flood, and
post-flood) that affect decisions made at the State, Tribal, local, and Federal levels for coordination,
resource availability, and assistance from FEMA. Activities at ALL flood periods or phases require
-------
collaboration at the community, state/tribal, regional, and federal levels.
Pre-Flood Activities
The pre-flood is defined as the time between the forecast and onset of the flood. During this period there
are several activities which need to be coordinated and addressed. These activities include:
¦ Identify potential flood areas.
¦ Identify Federal agencies having flood water quality monitoring concerns in the potential flood
areas and invite them to any flood emergency planning or implementation meetings or
discussions.
¦ Identify water quality programs of Federal (local offices), State, Tribal, and local agencies.
¦ Discuss the relation between water quality monitoring efforts to address public health questions
and long-term environmental health concerns.
¦ Prioritize sampling efforts that will provide the data required to answer as many public health and
environmental concerns as possible.
¦ Identify the need for or interest in forming a Command Team or Command Center for water
quality monitoring during a flood.
¦ Identify availability of resources; consider sharing of resources to the extent possible among
agencies.
Flood Activities
The flood is defined as the period when flooding is occurring. Activities which need to be addressed
during this time include the following:
¦ Decide on when to implement the monitoring plan in connection with any other emergency event
activities.
¦ Implement the monitoring plan, if necessary, which includes:
¦ Activating a command center;
¦ Collecting and analyzing samples; and
-------
¦ Evaluating and disseminating data and information.
¦ Consider advising the Governor to request Federal assistance for a disaster situation.
Major Flood Activities
A major flood is one that is likely to prompt a Federal Disaster Declaration and a Federal response.
During a major flood the following activities occur:
¦ The President declares an emergency.
¦ The Governor appoints a State Coordinating Officer (SCO).
¦ The President appoints a Federal Coordinating Officer (FCO).
¦ Implementation of the Federal Response Plan; Federal support agencies activated.
¦ Opening of operational disaster field office with federal support agencies present.
¦ Coordination and integration of water quality monitoring plan with emergency support function
activities.
Post-Flood Activities
The post-flood is defined as the period when waters recede to normal seasonal levels and flood related
water quality monitoring activities are no longer necessary. During this time the water quality monitoring
group does the following:
¦ Analyzes the data and considers further activities or studies.
¦ Critiques the pre-flood and flood activities.
¦ Modifies the water quality plan as needed.
¦ Assigns writing responsibilities for report on water quality as related to flood.
¦ Disseminates the report as related to the flood.
Resources
-------
The availability of funding for the period between the forecast of a flood emergency and a Presidential
disaster declaration is a major issue. Pre-flood activities are assumed to be funded within existing local,
state, tribal, and federal agency budgets. During a major flood, water quality activity funding can be
requested by States from FEMA following the declaration of an emergency by the President. The
planning group should determine what monitoring is needed within the watershed during each flood
period and request funding from the State and federal agencies as applicable.
In its final guidance, the working group also recommended two alternatives for obtaining funding for the
period between the flood forecast and a Presidential disaster declaration of emergency, which could be
considered at the federal level. These alternatives include:
1. Establishing a permanent revolving fund for flood-event water quality sampling within a
designated federal agency; or
2. Amending existing legislation such as the Stafford Act so the FEMA could reimburse federal,
state, tribal, or local agencies for pre-declaration flood water quality monitoring activities.
Sample Collection & Safety Issues
Several issues concerning sample collection and safety need to be addressed during flood water quality
monitoring planning and implementation. With respect to sampling, the number and types of constituents
for sampling need to be identified. To assist this process, the guidance provides an approach for
determining the major water quality monitoring constituents by land uses. Samples are obtained to
evaluate the chemical, physical, and biological quality of the water. Also, the sampling sites for both
surface and ground water need to be identified. During flood periods, ideal sites might not be accessible
and alternates need to be considered. For sampling, both the sampling techniques and types of equipment
need to be determined for both the surface water and ground water samples. Sediment sampling should
also be considered. To the extent possible, quality control practices should be followed. It is
recommended that a minimum of 10 percent of the samples analyzed be quality control samples. In
particular, any deviations from standard practices should be documented in field notes.
With respect to health and safety, the monitoring group needs to have all appropriate immunizations and
be trained on the use of boating equipment and first aid. When sampling from bridges and cableways a
minimum of three people are required at all times during floods. Because of the high flood velocities,
sampling will probably be done off the downstream side of the bridge; thus, while two people are
sampling or processing, the other person must be watching upstream, looking for debris and other objects
that might be a danger to personnel and equipment. If any hazardous materials or wastes are found by the
sampling team, certified personnel should be contacted.
All data collected must be reviewed and the results released as soon as possible because during the flood
period there is an intense interest in any data bearing on public health issues. Until the data can be
thoroughly checked, it should be released as "unpublished, subject to revision." For the release of flood-
related information, one spokesperson should be appointed by the command team leader. This will help
-------
to control the release of information in a coordinated manner to the media and general public.
Federal Implementation of the Final Guidance
For future major flood events, the working group plans on working with the primary agencies responsible
for the relevant Emergency Support Functions (ESFs) which could consider and recognize any water
quality monitoring activities. Of the 12 ESFs identified in The Federal Response Plan developed by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA, 1993), three functions relate to the monitoring
activities. The lead and other agencies assigned to work on ESF #3 - Public Works and Engineering, ESF
#8 - Health and Medical Services Annex, and ESF #10 - Hazardous Materials Annex would be
encouraged to incorporate water quality monitoring activities including appropriate sampling as
recognized activities within the scope of their functions.
References
Interagency Advisory Committee on Water Quality, Subcommittee on Water Quality. (1995)
Water Quality Monitoring Guidance for Major Floods.
FEMA. (1993) The Federal Response Plan. U.S. Government Printing Office: 1993-718-
749/61117.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Managing Watersheds To Reduce Flood Losses
Scott Faber, Director of Floodplain Programs
American Rivers, Washington, DC
By itself, the decision to drain and tile a farm field, fill a wetland or build a parking lot has little
measurable impact of flooding. But when combined with thousands of similar decisions over hundreds of
years, the impact can be devastating.
Across the nation, thousands of seemingly unrelated decisions have dramatically increased the rate at
which water moves off the surface of the land. Consequently, flood losses have more than doubled since
1951, when adjusted for inflation, to more than $3 billion annually despite massive federal investments
in levees, dams and other structural flood control solutions. Rather than address the causes of flooding,
our flood control policies continue to treat symptoms by building levees and dams that temporarily
protect some communities at the expense of other poorer floodplain communities. Rather than use the
natural flood control functions of floodplains and watersheds to store and slowly release floodwaters,
levees have increased flood losses by increasing and accelerating flood waters and by creating a false
sense of security that has encouraged floodplain development.
The nation's floodplains and watersheds have long been altered to drain as quickly as possible to reduce
property losses. As far back as the Swamp Land Acts of 1849, 1850, and 1860 which resulted in the
transfer of nearly 65 million acres of wetlands to expedite their drainage federal programs have created
powerful incentives to eliminate the natural flood control functions of wetlands and hydric soils. As
mainstem flooding inevitably increased, private and public funds were spent on levees and dams to
compensate for growing floodplain losses.
Ironically, images of volunteers placing sand bags on levees, presumably fighting Mother Nature, are
more accurately images of upstream and downstream communities at war with each other. In floodplain
communities, embattled public works agencies and private levee districts continue to fight losing battles
against past and present agricultural and urban land uses that increase overland flow. These communities
-------
have spent millions of dollars to build structures to temporarily protect vulnerable communities and,
more recently, have begun spending millions more to modify older structures to compensate for ongoing
changes of the landscape. In some years, they win the fight. But, as uplands continued to be drained for
urban and agricultural uses, inundated floodplain farmers and communities increasingly find they are
losing the war against their upstream neighbors.
At the same time that overland flow has increased, more and more people are moving into floodplains.
One reason is the language of risk terms like "floodplain" and "onehundred year flood" fails to portray
the real costs of floodplain development. Another reason is the National Flood Insurance Program,
created in 1968 to reduce spiraling disaster costs, has instead acted a financial safety net for risky
development. By the late 1970s, 3.5 million to 5.5 million acres of floodplain land had been developed
for urban use nationally, including more than 6,000 communities with populations of 2,500 or more.
Annual population growth in these floodplain areas was between 1.5% and 2.5%, roughly twice that of
the country as a whole.
The human costs of our failure to properly manage our floodplains and watersheds are compounded by
the environmental costs of short-sighted structural solutions. Linkages between the river and its
floodplain are critical to maintaining the long-term health of riverine systems. Most of the plants and
animals inhabiting river floodplain systems have adapted to the river's flood pulse: the annual advance
and retreat of floodwaters onto the floodplain. During periods of highwater, fish and wildlife migrate out
of the channel and onto the floodplain to use newly available habitat and resources. As floodwaters
recede, nutrients and organic matter from the floodplain are transported into the river. By occupying
large areas of bottomlands, rivers ensure that some portion of the floodplain would meet the habitat
requirements for a wide variety of species during high flow periods.
In addition to providing fish and wildlife access to seasonally inundated spawning and nursery habitat,
these river-floodplain interactions also trigger the biological and chemical transformations that make
food available higher up the food chain. Like all river systems, energy flows from primary producers
(plants) through an invertebrate consumer community to species consumed and enjoyed by humans (fish
and waterfowl). When floodwaters inundate floodplain habitats, energy stored in floodplain plants is
released to the aquatic environment. The construction of levees eliminates many of these natural
processes.
Dams constructed to reduce mainstem flood losses have also had a dramatic impact on the nation's river
systems. In addition to eliminating many of the fluvial processes by which rivers create and maintain
habitat, dams block the downstream flow patterns of water, sediment and nutrients, block the migrations
of aquatic organisms, and dramatically alter water quality. Just as the release of cold, deoxygenated water
adversely affects many native organisms, warm, murky reservoirs often favor introduced or predator
species, affecting the size and diversity of fish and wildlife populations. Flood control dams often have
dramatic affects on distant ecosystems. Sediment blocked behind the dams on the Missouri River, for
example, is no longer available to maintain the Mississippi River Delta, which is losing more than 50
miles of coastal wetlands to erosion each year. In combination, dams and levees designed to compensate
-------
for increased mainstem flooding have contributed to the decline of more than one third of America's fish
species, which are disappearing at a more rapid rate than land-based or avian species. Between 1979 and
1989, 10 species of freshwater fish became extinct, and an additional 139 species have become
endangered, threatened or listed as "of special concern."
Meeting the needs of floodplain communities is not inconsistent with protection of the natural
environment. Restoring watershed and floodplain functions would simultaneously reduce flood losses,
restore lost fish and wildlife habitat, and reduce erosion and non-point-source pollution. Although
communities have been managing floodplains and watersheds for more than two decades to address
concerns about water quality, few communities have managed watersheds to reduce flood losses. But the
Great Flood of 1993 a flood of supposedly biblical proportions shattered the nation's faith in structural
flood control. Rather than returning to the river's edge, thousands of flood victims voluntary relocated
more than 8,000 homes and businesses to higher ground, the largest relocation since Noah. More than
90,000 acres of flooded farmland were voluntarily converted to wetlands.
Rather than calling for higher levees, a task force of national flood control experts concluded that upland
watershed treatment and the restoration of upland and bottomland wetlands should be undertaken to
reduce flood stages. The Army Corps of Engineers, in the agency's Floodplain Management Assessment
of the Upper Mississippi River and Lower Missouri River and Tributaries, also found that "upland
retention and watershed measures directly influence the volume and peak runoff generated from rain fall
event" and concluded that higher levees would simply inundate downstream communities. In contrast to
structural flood control solutions which often have heavy, poorly calculated environmental costs
managing watersheds and floodplains to reduce flood losses is not only less expensive than levees and
dams but also provides important secondary benefits: improved water quality, habitat restoration, and
enhanced recreation, tourism and scenic values. Many of the techniques that can be used to reduce
overland flow maintaining trees, shrubbery, and vegetative cover, terracing, slope stabilization, using
grass waterways, and contour plowing and other tillage practices have already been used by landowners
to reduce non-point solution pollution and erosion. Several land treatment measures involve little
additional cost to the farmer, and some, such as no till or minimum tillage, actually reduce costs.
Congress has already taken steps to reform our outdated flood control policies by reforming flood and
crop insurance programs, and by using flood insurance funds to relocate vulnerable homes and
businesses. In 1994, Congress failed to reauthorize the Water Resources Development Act, the Corps'
authorizing legislation, for the first time in more than a decade due to significant philosophical
differences over structural flood control. And, recent flooding in the Northeast and Northwest has once
again forced the nation to question some underlying assumptions about the management of our nation's
rivers. Roles and responsibilities that have been established over decades suddenly seem out of date.
Practices designed to reduce flood losses are, in some cases, thought to have made things worse.
Whether Congress will give communities the tools and incentives they need to manage watersheds and
floodplains to restore natural flood control functions remains to be seen. Federal programs to reduce
erosion and non-point source pollution programs that might also be used to address changes in overland
flow are poorly coordinated and underfunded. In the Upper Mississippi River Basin, for example, the
-------
federal and state agencies that administer the easement, acquisition, and erosion and non-point source
pollution control programs rarely conduct regional or watershed-wide planning and even more rarely
consider the potential benefits of flood loss reduction while conducting their programs.
To successfully reduce flood losses, policymakers should take three steps: 1) link cost-sharing for federal
flood control projects to strong state and local floodplain and watershed management to reward good
behavior; 2) increase technical assistance by federal agencies to communities engaged in active
watershed-wide planning; and 3) require federal agencies like the Corps of Engineers to develop and
model watershed management alternatives during their decision-making processes.
Rather than build levees and drain wetlands in isolation, people living within a single drainage basin
must begin to share responsibility for their land-use decisions. The federal government can lead by
example, but state and local government must be given the tools and incentives they need to properly
manage their floodplains and watersheds.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now
outdated.
Y
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official
positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Dudley Kubo, Planning Engineer
Natural Resources Conservation Service, Honolulu, HI
Introduction
The planning and implementation of the Kagman Watershed project demonstrates the importance of using the watershed
approach to identify and address multiple problems, opportunities, and concerns and the advantages of using broad-based
partnerships to plan and implement watershed projects.
The Kagman watershed is a 3,750-acre peninsula on the eastern shore of the island of Saipan in the U.S.-affiliated
Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas Islands (CNMI). (Figure 1) Saipan is located approximately 120 miles north-
northeast of the island of Guam.
In the mid-1980s to the early 1990s, the rapid pace of economic development activity in the CNMI, spurred primarily by
Japanese investments, outstripped the checks for rational development of the economy and wise use of its natural
resources. The viability of commercial agriculture on Saipan suffered from escalating land values that fostered conversion
of farmland to other uses, plentiful employment opportunities in service industries, and increased competition for water
resources. Meanwhile, opportunities existed to expand the market for locally-grown produce, for increased capital
investment in more productive and efficient farming methods, and for the development and dissemination of
environmentally sound farming practices. The CNMI government professed a policy of expanded commercial agriculture
and self-sufficiency in those crops that can be economically grown in Saipan.
The Kagman watershed contains the largest and most important truck crop farming area on Saipan which produces
approximately one-half to three-quarters of crops, such as taro, beans, bell peppers, and melons, grown on the island. The
average size of the farms is 2.5 acres, although several are greater than ten acres in size. Despite their small size the farms
are viable commercial operations and provide an important contribution to economic activity in the commonwealth.
The resource problems that prompted the need for project action were agricultural flooding and inconsistent and
inadequate water supply affecting 340 acres of publicly and privately owned cropland. The two local organizations that
were seeking to resolve the resource problems were the CNMI Department of Natural Resources, which operates the 220-
acre Kagman Commercial Farm Plots, and the Saipan and Northern Islands Soil and Water Conservation District
(SWCD). The Kagman Commercial Farm Plots is the only government-owned farming area on Saipan. The SWCD
recognized the importance of maintaining commercial agricultural activity in the area and pursued actions to protect and
enhance farming opportunities in the Kagman watershed.
Kagman Watershed, Saipan, CNMI
-------
Planning and implementation assistance from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly the Soil
Conservation Service, under the authority of the Watershed Protection and Flood Prevention Act, Public Law 83-566, was
requested by the Department of Natural Resources and the SWCD in 1986. The watershed plan and supporting
Environmental Impact Statement were finalized in September 1993.
Watershed Plan
Through a coordinated planning effort, led by the SWCD and the NRCS's CNMI Field Office, a plan for agricultural
flood prevention and irrigation water supply was developed. The plan includes a system of grassed waterways to intercept
and safely convey floodwater through the crop area and an irrigation water storage and distribution system. (Figure 2)
The waterways were designed to safely accommodate the peak discharge for the 25-year, 24-hour storm. Maximum
discharge capacities in the waterways was 1,140 cubic feet per second. Two outlets for the storm runoff were planned_to
onsite storage for irrigation supply during the dry season and discharge of the excess to the ocean via a stream running to
Tank Beach.
Supplemental irrigation is needed during the January through June dry period to ensure successful crop production. Both
surface and groundwater sources of irrigation water supply were evaluated. An existing island-wide groundwater
investigation effort by U.S. Geological Survey and the CNMI government was expanded with NRCS funds to
characterize the aquifer in the Kagman Peninsula for agricultural use. The resulting USGS Water Resources Investigation
Report concluded that the sustainable yield of the underlying basal aquifer was insufficient to provide adequate irrigation
water at acceptable salinity levels. Transfer of water from outside of the watershed was not a viable option because water
supply was severely limited throughout the island.
Storage for runoff collected within the watershed was located at an infrequently-used limestone quarry within the farming
area. When shaped and lined with pneumatically-applied mortar, the quarry will yield a storage volume of 70 million
gallons. Two or more basal wells, to provide 70 gallons per minute, will be incorporated into the irrigation system to
augment runoff and to provide a limited emergency backup supply. The distribution system will consist of a pump at the
reservoir to transfer water via a 2,140-foot long transmission pipeline to a 100,000 gallon hill-top storage tank connected
to the distribution system. The agricultural water system will service 59 farms with a total of 263 acres at a 95 percent
reliability.
The project installation cost was estimated to be $4,753,000 in 1993. The average annual benefits of $647,500, due to
reduced flood damage and additional crop cycles during the dry season, exceeds the average annual cost of $512,300.
-------
Concerns
Three bird and one sea turtle species appearing on the U.S. Threatened or Endangered Species List are known to inhabit
the area in or near the project. Assistance from the CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service was invaluable in assessing impacts and developing mitigation strategies.
The design of the sediment basin leading to the reservoir could not avoid disturbance of a small wetland with an area of
0.07 acres. The Kagman South wetland was determined to provide a secondary quality habitat to the endangered Mariana
Common Moorhen, one of the principal species targeted for recovery in the CNMI. A mitigation alternative was
developed through coordinated efforts involving NRCS, DNR, CNMI Division of Fish and Wildlife, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. The Wetland Mitigation Plan set aside approximately 25 acres at the
north end of the government farming area to remain in forest as a buffer and for construction of two wetlands totalling
1.78 acres. The created wetlands will include an existing wetland of 0.11 acres. The constructed Kagman West wetlands
will be adjacent to and hydraulically connected to the existing Kagman North wetland which provides one of the most
important habitat sites for the moorhen on Saipan. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service provided guidance and assistance
with the constructed wetland design. Features, such as interpretive trails and observation blinds, have been incorporated
into the wetland design to help develop awareness, especially among children, of wetland and wildlife values.
-------
The Nightingale Reed Warbler, a listed endangered species, was identified in parts of the forested grazing area of the
Kagman Commercial Farm Plots to be converted to cropland. Retention of a contiguous forest band adjacent to other
forested property, as provided in the 25 acres for the wetland mitigation plan, will continue to provide Nightingale Reed
Warbler habitat within the project area.
Sediment runoff to the ocean from construction and farming activities could adversely affect the nearshore environment at
Tank Beach, an important foraging and nesting habitat of the endangered Green Sea Turtle. Sediment yield calculations,
using the Universal Soil Loss Equation and sediment routing procedures, demonstrated that the future sediment discharge
with the project, which will include soil conservation practices on the farmland and project sediment basins, was less than
without the project. Implementation of soil conservation and water quality improvement measures would improve Green
Sea Turtle habitat at Tank Beach.
Interaction with other projects was evaluated. Two projects located on the Kagman Peninsula were determined to have
significant interaction with the watershed project. A resort and golf course project to the south and west of the agricultural
area to be developed by the Shimizu Corporation would need irrigation and potable water resources. Access to the resort
and golf course would be through the resort area.
Through the efforts of the SWCD, a cooperative relationship was established with the Shimizu Corporation project,
despite the need by the two planning projects for the same water resources. Hydrologic data and analysis were freely
exchanged between NRCS technical planners and Shimizu Corporation consultants. Well testing data by the Shimizu
Corporation was used for the placement of the watershed project's wells. The SWCD received a grant from the Shimizu
Corporation to be used toward their costshare for project implementation. Recently the Shimizu Corporation provided
excavation and earthmoving assistance for construction of the mitigation wetland in return for the excavated material to
be used in their golf course construction.
The shortage of developable public lands on Saipan and the lack of effective land use controls, during the early years of
project planning, caused the Kagman farming area to be designated for a variety of uses by various CNMI agencies. Some
of the intended uses included solid waste disposal, a prison complex, and residential homesteads. Through the efforts of
the local sponsoring organizations and the influence that the federally-assisted project may have provided, the farming
land in the Kagman area was protected from being converted to other uses.
The residential homestead program awards one-quarter acre lots to Chamorro and Carolinian residents of CNMI. The
Unai Alaihai Subdivision will contain as many as 1,869 homestead residences, two schools, commercial areas, and public
facilities on approximately 450 acres surrounding the north and east borders of the project area.
A thorny issue associated with the development of the residential subdivision was the source of water supply. The farmers
feared that agricultural water would be appropriated by the Commonwealth Utilities Corporation (CUC) for domestic
supply to the subdivision. A Memorandum of Understanding was developed and executed between the project sponsors
and the CUC reaffirming that the water supply developed by the Kagman Watershed project will be used for agricultural
purposes.
An archeological and historic properties inventory was conducted in July 1993 which identified seven historic sites
related to pre-World War II Japanese sugar cane cultivation or post-war American military activity. For the most part, the
historic sites will be avoided through rerouting of the irrigation distribution pipeline. One site where the storage tank will
be located will be recovered through field documentation.
The pre-World War II Japanese occupation, wartime combat operations, and U.S. military control for nearly a decade
following the war has left the Kagman area scattered with ordnance and other wartime materiel. Project planners
coordinated activities with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Environmental Restoration Program to characterize a dump
-------
site within the project area and a Japanese fuel cache upstream of the project area. Remediation plans for the two sites
were prepared and will be implemented by the Corps of Engineers program.
Conclusion
The consultation and coordination activities for the Kagman Watershed Project were considerable. The issues addressed
and the planning environment were quite different from usual PL-566 project planning and illustrate the adaptability and
flexibility of the program. The planning process and sound principles as well as the vision and support of the local
sponsors remained the foundation upon which the Kagman Watershed plan was developed.
By enlisting the early support of partners such as the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Corps of Engineers, the
Kagman Watershed project will be able to enhance wetland, nearshore, and forest habitat for endangered species.
Through a private-public partnership the sponsors have been able to leverage their limited resources toward
implementation of the project and their vision of productive commercial agriculture in the Kagman watershed.
References
USDA Soil Conservation Service; Final Watershed Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Kagman
Watershed, Saipan, CNMI; Honolulu, HI; September 1993
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although
the information provided here was accurate and current when first created,
it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent
official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Agricultural and Environmental Sustainability: A
Watershed Study of Virginia's Eastern Shore
R. Warren Flint, Executive Director
The Eastern Shore Institute, Exmore, VA
Susan B. Sterrett
Eastern Shore Agriculture Research & Extension Center, Virginia Polytechnic Institute &
State University, Painter, VA
William G. Reay
Department of Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State University,
Blacksburg, VA
George F. Oertel and William M. Dunstan
Oceanography Department, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA
Introduction
Bounded by the Atlantic Ocean to the east and the Chesapeake Bay to the west, Virginia's Eastern Shore is a rural
region of the coastal plain that has long relied on agriculture, forestry, and fishing to support its economic base
(e.g., Ellis, 1986). The east side (seaside or oceanic side) of the Eastern Shore peninsula has a barrier island and
inner coastline separated by a coastal lagoon system. The upland areas are forested or in agriculture, and drain to
the seaside through numerous, small, first-, and second-order watersheds. These small watersheds are the
fundamental building blocks of the seaside ecosystems impacting adjacent barrier island lagoons on this coastline.
Agriculture is the predominant land use in this region and is thought to be a source of contaminants. There are
perceived conflicts between Eastern Shore communities that rely on fishing and those that farm the land.
Fishermen believe agricultural runoff has been largely responsible for degraded fisheries. Much of the nitrogen in
coastal estuaries associated with rural agricultural landscapes originates in the upland terrestrial systems from non-
-------
point sources (Office of Research & Development, 1974) and to a lesser extent precipitation inputs (Paerl, 1975).
The shallow unconfined aquifers of Virginia's coastal plain display characteristics that are conducive to
groundwater contamination and its subsequent transport into aquatic habitats, including shallow water table depths,
highly permeable sandy substrates, and low elevation and topographic relief. It has been estimated that
groundwater contributions to non-tidal streams account for up to 80% of the stream flow on the Delaware,
Maryland, and Virginia, Delmarva Peninsula (Bachman, et al., 1992). The consequences to coastal marine systems
include eutrophication and possibly reduction of seagrass beds and associated fauna (Valiela, et al., 1990).
Water quality issues, both surface and groundwater, in these seaside watersheds and coastal lagoons are of central
importance to both agricultural management and environmental quality, nationally as well as on Virginia's Eastern
Shore. It is necessary to understand the uptake capacity of agricultural crops and other watershed flora (e.g., for
nutrients), and the holding capacity of watershed sediments, as conceptually illustrated in Figure 1, in order to
determine how these watersheds function either as a buffer protecting water quality of adjacent lagoons, or as a
source for contaminants to the lagoon system, enhancing eutrophication.
:¦¦ >:V,£ jltffltfipberiG Sollrees
'Y't
Soil Application
sr: •
. „ _ , _ .-.V \ * ~ . t, ¦, , * " ,
Opm /
. K\ ifyJ:1;: J B:;¦.}: J: ¦ ?; • ¦ j;; ¦;. i ¦¦.,; ¦ • „
5i
lS . . , , .... v , ,
• • S
¦; ¦ ¦>>>

<:> • ¦ -t<.
I-." "I": I-"
• < ss ¦
&'t SSV^ SSS*. AS"iV " .»ASS ssTf V

S tt • Sh tt V S. '¦ S ¦
" :*:>:?:::: :¦?: : :"
5J::: » v
SKlitt?
> ¦ -.V4- • • -.s •

••• -.v ,,
„k. . .¦ ¦ ¦ • %¦.•..¦$..
• -: 5": ;iii" ":: 1 :»«>?::{: it ii i! "t;Ll;;
r; 1;: i -i-),':;; 11 i ¦ "i V, iiiSfiSSSS!'
S ^ n ¦;; ¦««!;• B i: Wil;;« ZUB !|« >f «ii
;; B; • B t: ii r4'^
^ i::;;;; r;; r- -- ^ " " "; •" i •=; ¦ •=?? •
::: >5-: <«» "<: >>" \ B: •;: i ;; r r ^ :'r---- ¦ ¦¦ >-<» «; =
j:;B;jB ;; i;r^ ^ •; <
:¦ -.'i f::::: ¦ ¦¦: ¦¦¦: ¦¦¦¦ ¦¦ ¦¦¦¦ ¦¦¦¦ • ¦ .
jisf<<} '.".ill-¦/.'l^r55:'*::?:• ¦ '•.<*"Z*.*.• ::• ;i"::: >>':
fL.y-
''ASV< »
J' • HVt IS . % . . ASS ^ J, .
SWMMS....S., v.. . . v.» • VS
w'%% % • ¦¦ ¦ ¦: ¦ ¦:
¦. .¦ •««•*« ** s-.
Chann«l to
Lagoon
<. >
¦ -........ ¦........y: ^ y-.¦ r:X'*
/. * i»>•.<»vi>tsv//v%Svw.

iii-' > •
' »
','1 >.¦
¦ • ¦ ¦ ¦ ¦ > • ¦••• ¦¦¦¦¦¦ ¦ • ¦ ¦:

r;|v
HaSViV SV.'/ '.V^ASS ttt,-, . V
it?;"
?i>:
— .. — . ass .¦.. . ,rr ^>>>.
¦ . , • \ . s • . .• ,v, ¦¦ . t ss .*< v- ss •<<¦¦*< >•% s>* ' ^ ' WJXss >^avv;/ ss tt ss tt 3>^ •>'••% > s* << s ,
Al ii ;i B < j 11; 5 > I!»i -ii u B iB?.l
t ss tt 3.S .. »
' ' >•> ss
: :• : :¦

> s- ¦

• SS .^ASS . < » . ¦> SS • >F S • ¦
«" >> « SW ¦ S
S SS ft SS t.
s. t >s j,s «<.•: :

!B;Sf
; y- <•; -is-: >t ¦.

¦ >ss * ¦ss •ss • ¦ >> * ¦ >«¦ ¦
-------
Figure 1. Conceptual diagram illustrating the sources, buffers and pathways of water and potential
pollutants in transit to a coastal barrier lagoon.
Study Approach
The research described here is taking a holistic approach to detect and quantify land-derived contaminants in
surface and groundwater, by combining the talents of experts from a number of different disciplines. The ultimate
goal is to develop management practices that will ameliorate production and adverse effects from agricultural
contaminants on coastal ecosystems. The research team, consisting of an agricultural scientist, a groundwater
biologist, a geologist, a coastal ecologist, and an ecosystem scientist, with participation from a local farmer, has
been brought together to achieve three primary purposes. First, to explain in an ecosystem fashion, the interactions
between surface and groundwater quality as related to agriculture, and other activities on the landscape. Our
approach integrates the dynamic biophysical factors that influence transport of water to the coastal lagoon system
(Figure 1). Second, to measure the impact of agricultural activities on the barrier island lagoon system with the
ultimate intent of being able to duplicate predictions for other similar coastal watersheds. Third, guided by our
results, to develop future research that will evaluate alternative agricultural management strategies for their
effectiveness in decreasing potential contaminant impacts on upland surface and groundwater and lagoonal water
quality.
This project distinguishes itself from previous watershed studies by examining agriculture-groundwater
interactions and the importance of groundwater and surface runoff inputs, in contrast to those dominated by surface
runoff alone. In addition, unlike other studies done on watersheds dominated by clay and silty loam substrates, this
study is concentrated on landscapes underlain by well-drained, fine- to coarse-grained, quartz sand. These sandy
landscapes are typical of the northern part of the Atlantic and Gulf Coastal Plain groundwater region defined by
Heath (1984). This study is also unique in that it couples an analysis of nutrient input, hydrologic and physical
processes influencing transfer of contaminants through the surface and groundwater, and discharge to coastal
waters, with eventual cultural alternations on the landscape to reduce contaminant transport.
Study Results
Specific research goals of this project included the following:
-------
¦ Quantify contaminant loading patterns for a seaside agricultural watershed that drains into a barrier island
lagoon on Virginia's Eastern Shore.
¦ Determine resulting changes in the quality of the groundwater, non-tidal/tidal creek, and the seaside lagoon
system from agriculture activity in this watershed.
¦ Define process dynamics influencing land-derived contaminant flows through the seaside watershed
ecosystem, including sources and sinks that contribute to system output.
¦ Measure ecological impacts on the lagoon system from surface and groundwater discharge.
The Greens Creek watershed, the focus of our study, is relatively typical of first-order watersheds bordering the
barrier island lagoon system along the Eastern Shore of Virginia. It possesses fluvial, estuarine, and lagoonal
components, which are partially influenced by groundwater interception, surface runoff, and tidal hydrology.
Between the upland recharge plain and the seaside barrier islands there is a stream valley, a scarp zone, a
hammock/wetland zone, a coastal lagoon zone and a tidal inlet. The Greens Creek watershed has agricultural
activities occurring in the upland, scarp, and hammock/wetland sections.
Drainage patterns on the upland sections of the watershed surface are dendritic and permeable allowing the
entrance of contaminants into the unconfined aquifer. Transfer through the hammock section is affected by the
balance between mass transport, diffusion, and tidal exchange, as influenced by oceanic processes. The lagoon of
this watershed, like many estuarine areas, is subject to dynamic changes and episodic shifts in ecological processes
(e.g., Fong, et al., 1993; Comin and Valiela, 1993). Only in recent years has the significance of this terrestrial input
to estuarine systems come to be appreciated (e.g., Valiela, et al. 1992). Greens Creek is the first site in our study
area where groundwater containing terrestrial inputs mixes with the lagoonal ecosystem.
During the last two years our interdisciplinary research team has made important contributions to the initial
understanding of Eastern Shore agricultural impacts on water quality. Between 1993-1994, a network of 78 surface
stations and wells were established in order to delineate the watershed with respect to groundwater flow patterns
and to obtain preliminary determinations on the quality of water contained in and leaving the system. Transects of
wells were established from the headwaters of Greens Creek to the spillway at the creek's tidal end. Discharge
measurements at creek transect sites have defined groundwater recharge and discharge areas of the watershed. The
main recharge area is in the extreme upland area, while discharge increases dramatically as one moves seaward.
Observations indicate that groundwater is the principal source of water for Greens Creek which maintains flow
throughout the year in its lower portions. Discharge is also received from deep sources, as well as from
precipitation.
The nutrients contained in rainfall represent a probable contribution to the overall nutrient budget of this system
with average concentrations of 62.6 umol/L of dissolved inorganic nitrogen and 0.83 umol/L of dissolved inorganic
phosphorus measured during 1994-95. Soil nitrate concentrations of agricultural fields in the upland component of
the watershed (Figure 2) have shown a pattern of build-up in shallow sediment layers during the fall, associated
with harvest of soybean, nitrogen-fixing crops. After the winter recharge cycle, soil nitrate concentrations at the
shallower soil levels were substantially lower, with movement of nitrate peaks down through the soil layers during
the spring. This migration was routinely observed to coincide with spring rains and associated leaching. Increased
nitrate in the shallow soils in April was related to fertilization of the wheat fields. The position of the highest
concentration of soil nitrate shifted from 15-30 cm depth in November, to 45 cm depth by March, and to 60 cm
depth by April, suggesting that there was significant residual of crop-applied fertilizer nitrogen occurring on this
-------
watershed from agriculture activities. The high nitrate levels in August further reflected leaching action while
increased levels in the top 25 cm were the result of wheat harvest with associated breakdown of crop residue, as
well as nitrogen fixation by the July planted soy bean crop. Both the soil nitrate concentration and the distribution
with depth after harvest are consistent with previous studies on silty clay loam soils (Brinsfield and Staver, 1991;
Varnel and Peterson, 1990). The soil nitrate pattern within the hammock was not consistent with observations in
the upland portion of the watershed (Figure 2). In fact, there seemed to be an indication that as measurements were
taken from November through April down through the soil depths, nitrate accumulation increased in shallow
depths over time, rather than the leaching pattern and downward movement observed in upland areas. These
observed dynamics could be related to the presence of a shallow water table in this region of the watershed during
wet months, trapping nitrogen in the shallower soils. In contrast, during August dry periods the water table is much
deeper and patterns of nitrogen leaching down through the soil were observed (Figure 2), similar to patterns in the
upland region.
UPLAND
u
o
w
ppim N05-N
Q
1%
¦v

35j
5s
Q.
__
Q
115'

/
/
<
\
\

* w
JL
/
/

n NOV + MAR ± APR h AUG
1
HAMMOCK
o
15

35
55

g 75
S 95}
r
V
x

H '$¦
X

-------
5 75
o
tA 95

X
\
"* *

115
I rn MQV ~ MAR APR . AUG |
Figure 2. Soil profiles for nitrate in upland and hammock sites over four seasonal sampling periods.
Groundwater quality measured at selected wells exhibited the pattern of nitrogen enrichment underlying the
agricultural portions of the watershed. For example, total dissolved inorganic nitrogen in the groundwater coming
from under agriculture fields showed an average of 228.0 umol/L while these same measures in groundwater
derived from areas of forest in the watershed showed an average of 5 umol/L. Stream discharge and nutrient flux
measurements indicated the quality of Greens Creek was impacted by surrounding land use as dissolved inorganic
nitrogen increased during its passage through agricultural dominated regions. Creek dissolved inorganic nitrogen
showed increases during passage through the watershed up to 5 times greater than background levels over the
extent of the creek.
Preliminary measures of nitrate and chlorophyll collected in the tidal creek and adjacent lagoon areas are indicative
of the dynamic nature of the groundwater flow of nutrients to the coastal lagoons, and impacts of these nutrients on
water quality. Nitrate was high near the terrestrial confluence and decreased readily as one moves away from this
influence, and as the creek waters are further diluted with tidal seawater. Chlorophyll levels ranged from 80-100
ug/L in March 1994, during low tide (time of greatest impact from groundwater), in contrast to only 40 ug/L at
high tide. Chlorophyll levels decreased drastically with distance from land, further emphasizing the potential
impact of terrestrial nitrogen. These data demonstrate the impact of groundwater on the lagoonal system, when it
dominates as a nitrogen source during low tide, and further indicate the dilution capacity of the estuary for nitrogen
from terrestrial sources as the tide flushes in, as well as when samples are taken further seaward in the estuary. The
seasonal influence of terrestrial sources was noted when comparing March (110 ug/L) and May (5 ug/L) data
collection results in which chlorophyll levels fell over time. The March sampling was conducted just after
agricultural fertilization and a heavy rain event unlike the May sampling which was not associated with any
particular agricultural activity.
Conclusion
The results of this initial research suggest that Greens Creek represents a constant but widely variable nitrogen
source to the seaside lagoon system and serves as a good site for more detailed evaluation. The construction of a
geographically explicit data base of the hydrological and geological framework from the results of this research
program, is providing a foundation for nutrient management studies that assist in understanding the buffering
capacities within this watershed and provide insight needed to develop more effective cultural practices to reduce
nitrate loading and associated impacts on water quality of the seaside ecosystem. Identifying a contaminant source,
such as nitrogen, its release history, and the evolution of its transport through ground and surface water, is a
mandatory first step toward preventing additional contamination, enacting remedial activities where possible,
-------
designing alternative management practices for ultimate implementation, and demonstrating economically viable
cropping procedures for farms within a watershed, such as the one we are studying on Virginia's Eastern Shore.
The eventual demonstration of sustainable agricultural techniques by this project will also allow for expansion of
effective agricultural contaminant management practices on a broader scale, regionally, nationally, and
internationally.
References
Bachman, R.B., P.J. Phillips, and L.D. Zynjunk. 1992. The Significance of Hydraulic Landscapes in
Estimating Nitrogen Loads in Base Flow to Estuarine Tributaries of the Chesapeake Bay. Amer. Geophys.
Union, Spring 1992 Meeting.
Brinsfield, R.B. and K.W. Staver. 1991. Use of cereal grain cover crops for reducing groundwater nitrate
contamination in the Chesapeake Bay region. In W. L. Hargrove (ed.) Cover Crops for Clean Water. Soil
and Water Conservation Soc., Ankeny, IA. p 79-82.
Comin, F.A. and I. Valiela. 1993. On the controls of phytoplankton abundance and production in coastal
lagoons. J. Coastal Res. 9(4): 895-906.
Ellis, C. 1986. Fisher Folk: Two Communities on Chesapeake Bay. The Univ. Press of Kentucky,
Lexington, KY.
Fong, P., J.B. Zedler, and R.M. Donohoe. 1993. Nitrogen vs. phosphorus limitation of algal biomass in
shallow coastal lagoons. Limnol. Oceanogr. 38(5): 906-923.
Heath, R.C. 1984. Groundwater regions of the United States. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper
#2242. 78 pp.
Office of Research and Development. 1974. Estimating Nutrient Loadings of Lakes from Non-point
Sources. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. 47pp.
Paerl, H.W. 1985. Enhancement of marine primary production by acid-enriched rain. Nature 315: 747-749.
Valiela, I., J. Costa, K. Foreman, J.M. Teal, B. Howes, and D. Aubrey. 1990. Transport of groundwater-
borne nutrients from watersheds and their effects on coastal waters. Biogeochemistry 10: 177-197.
Valiela, I., K. Foreman, M. LaMontagne, D. Hersh, J. Costa, P. Peckol, B. DeMeo-Anderson, C. D'Avanzo,
M. Babione, C.H. Sham, J. Brawley, and K. Lajtha. 1992. Couplings of watersheds and coastal waters:
Sources and consequences of nutrient enrichment in Waquoit Bay, MA. Estuaries 15(4): 443-457.
Varvel, G.E. and T.A. Peterson. 1990. Residual Soil Nitrogen as Affected by Continuous, Two-Year, and
Four-Year Crop Rotation Systems. Agron. J. 82:958-962.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst: Tools for
Addressing Watershed Pollution Prevention Needs
Gary W. Jackson, Farm*A*Syst Director and Cooperative State Research
Education Extension Service Coordinator
Richard Castelnuovo, Farm*A*Syst Legal Advisor
Doug Knox, Farm*A*Syst Natural Resources Conservation Service
Coordinator
Liz Nevers, Farm*A*Syst Outreach Specialist
University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, WI
State and local programs are overlooking a significant opportunity to start pollution prevention programs
that protect watersheds and source water. Rural residents increasingly recognize the impact of pollution
on their lives and are ready to take voluntary action. Generally watershed projects are selected to tackle
the worst cases first. Instead of working with motivated volunteers, they contend with bad actors. This
intervention is crisis management that focuses on cleanups and not prevention.
Mounting a successful watershed project faces many obstacles. There must be some mechanism to
coordinate government agencies that have responsibility for managing rural pollution. This mechanism
should also incorporate private sector initiatives. On the front lines, farmers and rural residents need
comprehensive and practical assistance that identifies pollution risks and results in voluntary action.
The Farm Assessment System (Farm*A*Syst) and Home Assessment System (Home*A*Syst) Programs
responds to each of these concerns. These programs provide unique pollution risk assessment tools and a
-------
flexible framework that has successfully built interagency and private sector partnerships. Easy-to-use
assessment worksheets identify pollution risks from a wide range of farm, ranch and home structures and
management practices. Fact sheets and technical referrals guide rural residents toward responsible
actions to prevent pollution.
In August 1991, the Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CSREES), Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) jointly funded
the National Farmstead Assessment Program Coordination Office. The original goal was to create a
focused, systematic interagency program to enable farmers and rural residents to identify and reduce
drinking water and groundwater contamination from agricultural and household nonpoint and point
sources of pollution on their properties. The program has grown significantly because it is meeting the
needs of public officials, the private sector and landowners. The program's name has changed to
Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst to reflect its growth, but the basic goals remain the same: to link agencies
to better serve farmers and ranchers, to provide information that can be applied by landowners to identify
pollution risks on their property, to point landowners toward actions that will reduce risks, to facilitate
local support to encourages voluntarily action. Through public and private partnerships, these programs
are establishing the broad-based commitment necessary for effective voluntary rural pollution
prevention.
Growth of the Program
The Farm* A* Syst/Home* A* Syst program and its flexible pollution risk assessments are being well-
received. This positive reception has resulted in expansion to include surface water pollution risk
assessment, pilot testing as a model of whole farm conservation planning and adaption for use in home
environmental assessments (Home*A*Syst). In Ontario, Canada, the program has been expanded into a
comprehensive Environmental Farm Planning System. These risk assessments now cover an extensive
range:
¦ Farmstead Assessments
. Water Well
¦ Pesticide Storage
¦ Fertilizer Storage
¦ Petroleum Storage
¦ Hazardous Waste
¦ Wastewater
¦ Livestock Waste Storage
¦ Poultry Waste Management
¦ Livestock Yards
¦ Silage Storage
¦ Milking Center Wastes
¦ Site Characteristics
¦ Cropland Assessments
-------
¦ Nutrient Management
¦ Pest Management
¦ Irrigation Wellhead
¦ Irrigation Water
¦ Livestock Waste Application
¦ In development:
¦ Pastureland/Rangeland
¦ Woodlands
¦ Wetlands
¦ Home Assessments
. Water Well
¦ Wastewater
¦ Liquid Fuels
¦ Hazardous Waste
¦ Indoor Air Quality
¦ Lead
¦ Solid Waste
¦ Yard and Garden
¦ Storm Water
¦ Energy Conservation
¦ Site Characteristics
To assess Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst progress, the national office surveys state Farm*A*Syst
coordinators each year to determine the status of program development, extent of integration into other
programs, sources of funding, types of new materials developed, extent of staff training provided,
number of risk assessment conducted, and results of pilot implementation project evaluations. From these
surveys, the national office has documented progress in accomplishing the overall goal.
Since 1991, more than 22,000 Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst assessments have been conducted. More
than 10,000 assessments were conducted during 1995. Early results from cost/benefits analysis are
documenting that the program is returning 3-9 dollars of benefits for every program dollar invested.
Participants have voluntarily invested over $15,000,000 to reduce pollution risks on their property.
Program evaluations document that participants consistently rank Farm*A*Syst as useful or extremely
useful, and would recommend the program to their neighbors. Nearly all participants take at least one
action to reduce a pollution risk they have identified. By creating a presence on the Internet, the program
is reaching more people. This year the program has received a Renew America Award for Environmental
Sustainability in category of pollution prevention.
Evaluation results indicate that:
¦ 50 states have identified Farm*A*Syst and/or Home*A*Syst program coordinators.
-------
¦ 27 states have completed development of assessment materials.
¦ 17 states are in the process of assessment material development.
¦ 3 states indicate they intend to develop assessment materials.
¦ 12 states have developed Home* A* Syst programs.
¦ 27 states have immediate plans to use National Home*A* Syst materials.
Continued Impacts
Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst evaluations document that farm assessments result in immediate actions to
prevent pollution and increase knowledge of factors that influence pollution risks. This results in future
decisions that reduce pollution risks. The most common high risks identified in farm assessments are
petroleum handling and storage; pesticide handling and storage; household wastewater disposal; and well
design and management. Table 1 identifies the percent of participants who identify high risks in these
areas and the range of costs avoided because of voluntary pollution prevention actions taken. When
results of farm assessment cost-benefits studies are applied to the total national program, it is estimated
that participants have voluntarily invested more than $15,000,000 to prevent pollution.
Table 1. Cost-Benefits
Petroleum
Pesticides
Household Wastewater
Wells
% of sites
with high risks
26 - 63%
17 - 62%
17 - 37%
15-35%
Estimated cost if
pollution occurs
$1000 - 100,000
$1000 - 100,000
$1000 - 15,000
$1000 -20,000
Typical
remediation costs
$70,000
$70,000
$10,000
$12,000
The challenge that remains is to find mechanisms to build upon this successful partnership framework to
increase pollution prevention within watershed projects.
Pollution Prevention in Watersheds
The flexibility of Farm* A* Syst and Home* A* Syst is illustrated by the extent to which they have been
integrated into other programs. Farm*A*Syst and/or Home*A*Syst have been incorporated into
watershed projects in twenty-eight states. Table 2 illustrates the number and type of watershed activities
-------
where coordination has occurred.
Table 2. Number of watersheds using
Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst.
Type of Watershed
Farm*A*Syst Home*A*Syst
New York and Minnesota have or are in
the process of expanding the
Farm*A*Syst framework into a whole
farm assessment system. The expanded
assessment systems will be used in
watershed protection initiatives. In New
York, Responsible Environmental
Agricultural Planning (REAP) for use in
efforts to prevent pollution in watersheds
that supply drinking water for the cities
of New York and Syracuse. In
Minnesota, the Whitewater watershed is
a pilot site for the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) whole
farm conservation planning initiative.
Both of these programs have been designed to provide farmers with "one step shopping" to develop and
implement environmental farm plans. They are intended to be :
US DA Hydologic Units
20
8
USDA Demonstration
Projects
9
1
State Watershed Projects
15
23
Community Wellhead or
Source
Water Protection
17
15
¦ voluntary.
¦ farm specific.
¦ locally administered.
¦ focused on economically realistic actions.
The Minnesota Whitewater Watershed is pilot testing whole farm risk assessment materials using a
promising advance in assessment technology, the Farm*A*Syst Computer Decision Support System
(DSS), a computerized version of the assessment worksheets. For this project an expanded version of the
DSS is being developed. Field use of DSS shows that computerized delivery shortens and simplifies the
assessment process. The software automatically calculates risk rankings for each worksheet and enhances
access to fact sheets through on-line help. DSS is programmed to display all pollution risks for the entire
property on one screen and to identify actions that respond to those risks. Joe Fitzgerald of the Soil and
Water Conservation District in Stearns County, Minnesota says, "The printouts help develop action plans
that are effective and easy to implement." With over three years experience using Farm*A*Syst,
Fitzgerald indicates that "farmers really appreciate short, precise answers to any problems they
have...The farmers were more willing to get busy and address these needs, rather than having to read a
long document they don't have time for." He sees measurable difference with DSS, if "we had this
system three or four years ago, we'd probably have more than tripled the number of farmsteads
protected." Cooperators are comfortable with computer-assisted delivers, saying it is "quick and easy to
-------
understand" and can be "done right on the farm."
DSS simplifies the compilation of data without compromising confidentiality. Keeping data confidential
increases the willingness of farmers to participate. Having information on the frequency of high risks
identified allows for targeting educational and technical assistance support to the most important risk
areas first. Making constructive use of data to refine a voluntary program also boosts participant
confidence because they can see the benefits of their participation.
Communities are increasingly showing interest in incorporating Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst
programs into their source water protection efforts. Over the past year, 11 states have integrated
Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst into source water protection projects. Farm*A*Syst has been integrated
into seventeen and Home*A*Syst into fifteen. In general, the increased interest in using Farm*A*Syst
and Home*A*Syst in source water protection is linked to recognition that effective programs depend on:
accurate identification of structures and management practices that present pollution risks; identification
of acceptable actions that reduce risks and prevent pollution and development of support systems that aid
individuals in taking voluntary actions that result in source water protection.
Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst programs have the capacity to identify pollution risks and actions
needed to prevent pollution. Collective use of these tools within a source water protection area will:
¦ Identify the extent of pollution risks within a source water protection area.
¦ Identify the types of actions needed to prevent pollution.
¦ Increase home and farm owners' and managers' understanding of how their management practices
and structures influence pollution risks.
¦ Increase home and farm owners' and managers' understanding of voluntary actions they can take
to prevent pollution.
¦ Empower community leaders to develop support systems that will encourage and assist home and
farm managers in taking voluntary actions that provide source water protection.
Budget limitations will likely require most community efforts to be based on voluntary participation to
identify pollution risks and to implement actions to prevent pollution. The delivery approaches that have
been used with Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst are ideally suited to meet those needs.
Conclusion
Pollution prevention is recognized as the most cost-effective approach to protecting water quality.
Farm*A*Syst/Home*A*Syst provides a mechanism for identifying pollution risks and motivating
-------
voluntary actions to prevent pollution. It provides states with an effective, voluntary system to promote
pollution prevention on farms, ranches and rural residences. It strengthens cooperation and builds
partnerships among environmental and agricultural regulators, public officials and farm groups,
environmentalists and farmers. It provides citizens with an acceptable approach for identifying and
addressing pollution risks on their property. These are comprehensive, voluntary pollution prevention
programs that can play a major role in watershed management efforts and source water protection
projects. Development of effective assessment tools requires interagency and private sector cooperation
that can result in coordinated program delivery. Landowner concerns about confidentiality and liability
must be addressed to increase voluntary participation. Assessment data can be aggregated to show
general characteristics of the watershed and pinpoint problems in the watershed that other sources of
information cannot identify.
The national expansion of the Farm*A*Syst and Home*A*Syst programs has documented that this
approach can work. Building interagency and private sector cooperation strengthens the overall program,
but sometimes requires a major effort. In the end we all have the same objective, namely helping citizens
take voluntary actions that prevent pollution. Focusing on the needs and concerns of citizens will help
overcome barriers to interagency and private sector cooperation. Where we accomplish this, we all win.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Impact of Uncertainty on Risk Assessment with
the AGNPS Model
Shane Parson, Graduate Student
James Hamlett, Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering
Michael Foster, Research Associate
Paul Robillard, Associate Professor of Agricultural Engineering
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Introduction
This research developed a methodology for studying the impact of input parameter uncertainty on
decision making and risk assessment with a nonpoint source pollution model. The methodology was
applied to the Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model (AGNPS) (Young et al., 1994) linked to the
GRASS (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1993) geographic information system (GIS). Although the
methodology was applied to AGNPS, it was developed to be utilized with any deterministic computer
model which is used for decision making between alternative scenarios.
Methods
Many watershed-based models currently used for nonpoint source or diffuse pollution prediction are
deterministic. Single values are used for each characteristic which are then processed by these models to
make single value predictions about pollution. For example, the deterministic AGNPS model uses single
values for characteristics like soil properties, land cover, and slope and predicts single values for the
sediment, sediment-bound, and soluble pollutants in a stream exiting a watershed. Often these single
value predictions are compared for various best management practices (BMPs) and planning decisions
are made from the comparisons. By comparing only single values, however, the amount of risk involved
-------
with making the decision can not be assessed. Yet, the risk assessment can be one of the most important
factors in making a decision for watershed pollution prevention.
By including the uncertainty of input parameters through simulation, the amount of risk involved with
making an important watershed pollution prevention decision can be better known. All characteristic
parameters used in models have uncertainty due to variability found in the real world and data
measurement limitations. A certain soil series may have, on average, 20 percent clay, but has an actual
range from 10 percent to 30 percent clay. To represent input parameter uncertainty, a uniform
distribution was developed based on a percentage of the original input parameter value. These uniform
distributions were developed for all input parameters as some set percentage for different scenarios. A
Monte Carlo simulation technique selected values from these intervals to use as model input parameters
and produced simulations which could be run through the model. The simulations through the model
produced a series of output parameter probability distributions which predict the amounts of pollutants
exiting a watershed. In order to make decisions based on the output distributions, several different
methods were used to determine the overlap or risk between distributions. Two of these methods were
developed as part of this research. The risk between distributions determined the impact of input
uncertainty on decision making and risk assessment with the model.
Application
For this research, the methodology was applied to the Hazelton Drain subwatershed of the Sycamore
Creek watershed in Michigan with the Hydrologic Unit / Water Quality Tool (HU/WQ) (USDA-NRCS,
1994). HU/WQ was developed by the U. S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resource
Conversation Service (NRCS) to link together nonpoint source pollution models and GIS. For this
research, the HU/WQ link between AGNPS and GRASS was used to create eight AGNPS input files.
These eight files reflected the conditions on the subwatershed for two different BMPs (original
conditions and contouring on three critical fields) for a 5.08 cm (2.00 inch) rainfall on June 1 for four
different years. A Monte Carlo simulation technique was used to include input parameter uncertainty into
the AGNPS input files. The input parameter uncertainty was varied from 0 percent to 50 percent at 5
percent intervals, using uniform distributions about the original input parameter values.
Several computer programs were created to do the Monte Carlo simulations, run the simulations through
AGNPS, and extract output parameter distributions from the AGNPS output files. The output parameter
distributions were created for several sediment and water-soluble pollutants. Alternative BMP/Year
scenarios for output parameter distributions were compared, using other specially created computer
programs. These comparisons were used to determine the amount of overlap or risk which occurred
between the output parameter distributions of alternative scenarios.
Results
The results of these comparisons were used to produce graphs (for each output parameter) of input
parameter uncertainty versus output parameter risk for different scenario comparisons. For example,
-------
sediment yield output distributions were compared between various BMP/Year scenarios to determine
the relationship between input uncertainty, output risk, and relative difference between sediment yield
estimates for the different scenarios. The relative difference between sediment yield estimates for the
different scenarios can be represented by a number called the R-Value. This R-Value is the ratio between
two estimates of an output parameter at 0 percent uncertainty. It represents how much relative difference
there is between any two output values. For example, if BMP A produces a sediment yield of 100 Mg/yr.
at the watershed outlet and BMP B produces 200 Mg/yr., the R-Value for their comparison would be 0.5.
The data gathered as part of this research also allows one to make predictions of how different R-Values
affect the relationship between input uncertainty and output parameter risk (Figure 1). In Figure 1, an R-
Value corresponds to some hypothetical comparison between sediment yield distributions which would
have that particular R-Value. The research found that the relationship between R-Values, input
uncertainty, and output risk differs for sediment-based and soluble or water-based outputs.
60
50
10 15 20 25 30 35
Iifiui Parameter Uncatam^f (%)
40
45
R-Value
50
0.10
*—0.20
-A—0.30
-X—0.40
—0.50
-4—0.60
H—0.70
——0.80
——0.90
-~—1.00
Figure 1. The effect of input uncertainty on risk assessment in sediment yield decisions.
For sediment based output parameters (such as sediment yield in Figure 1), the output parameter risk
increases rapidly from 0% to 10% input parameter uncertainty and then levels out. In contrast, soluble or
water-based output parameters (such as runoff volume in Figure 2) increase slowly from low input
uncertainty levels and continue to increase for the entire range of input parameter uncertainty values.
These graphs and their corresponding values can be used to determine the amount of risk associated with
a decision between two alternative BMP scenarios, when the input parameter uncertainty is known.
-------
60

R-Value
10 15 20 25 30 35
Iiftui Parameter Une«Ttainijr (% )
40 45
50
—$—0.50
-•—0.60
—1—0.70
—-—0.80
--—0.90
—~—1.00
Figure 2. The effect of input uncertainty on risk assessment in runoff volume decisions.
Conclusions
Graphs like Figure 1 and Figure 2 give a decision maker an additional tool in trying to minimize risk. By
lowering input uncertainty or R-Values, the risk of choosing between alternative BMPs can be decreased.
Input uncertainty is tied to data quality issues. By using better quality model input data from sources such
as direct measurements and detailed soil surveys, the input uncertainty lessens. To lower the R-Value, a
BMP can be created which does better in reducing the pollutant of concern. In addition, these graphs give
some indication of how changes in input uncertainty or R-Values change the risk. For sediment-based
outputs (Figure 1), small changes in input uncertainty do not greatly affect the risk, due to the leveling
out of the lines. Soluble or water-based outputs (Figure 2), however, show that slight changes in input
uncertainty can reduce the decision risk. Both sediment and soluble output have reduced risk for reduced
R-Values.
These figures also raise many questions which challenge the traditional understanding of watershed
modeling. This research has answered questions like, "What chance is there that one has selected the
correct BMP given two alternatives?" By determining the impact of input parameter uncertainty on
decision making, future decisions using AGNPS will be better based. Instead of just asking "If' two
BMPs are different, the decision maker will also ask "How much different are two BMPs?" As the
economic aspects of pollution become much more prominent in decision making, the risk of decisions
will become a more essential part of environmental decision making. This will allow future decisions
-------
made with models like AGNPS to take advantage of model capabilities, while also considering the
limitations that modeling poses.
References
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1993) GRASS 4.1 user's reference manual. Construction
Engineering Research Laboratories, Champaign, Illinois.
USDA-NRCS. (1994) Hydrologic unit / water quality tool, Beta Version 1.4, user's guide.
Washington, DC: USDA-NRCS.
Young, R.A., C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson. (1994) Agricultural non-point source
pollution model, version 4.02. AGNPS user's guide. North Central Soil Conservation Research
Laboratory, Morris, Minnesota.
Acronyms
AGNPS Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution Model
BMP Best Management Practice
GIS Geographic Information System
GRASS Geographic Resources Analysis Support System
HU/WQ Hydrologic Unit / Water Quality Tool
NRCS Natural Resource Conversation Service
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture
-------
Illtf
Note: This information is provided lor reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now
outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Modification of the WERF Methodology for Aquatic Ecological
Risk Assessment for Assessing Watershed-Scale Aquatic
Risks*
Benjamin R. Parkhurst, Principal
William Warren-Hicks, Principal
Clayton Creager, Principal
The Cadmus Group, Inc., Laramie, WY, Durham, NC, and Calistoga, CA
Introduction
Ecological risk assessment is a process that estimates the likelihood and magnitude of adverse ecological effects from exposure to
environmental stresses. It differs from other types of ecological assessments in that it should be quantitative and probabilistic.
When properly used, ecological risk assessment can be used to evaluate the ecological and economic costs and benefits of
environmental remediation alternatives, such as hazardous waste site cleanup and wastewater treatment. With such use, resources
can be allocated to environmental improvement in a more cost and ecologically-effective manner. Consequently, ecological risk
assessment is becoming a basic paradigm for environmental decision making. This is reflected in the reorganization of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency within a ecological risk assessment framework, and the proposed re-authorization of several
environmental laws (Clean Water Act, Superfund) to make them more risk based.
However, until very recently, most ecological risk assessments suffered from several deficiencies. First, most were not
quantitative and probabilistic. Instead, they were qualitative and deterministic. Virtually all risk assessments were done using the
quotient method and the risk characterizations were generally qualitative. Second, most ecological risk assessments only assessed
the risks of toxic chemicals and they failed to assess the risks of other non-chemical types of stressors that may have been present
concurrently with toxic chemicals. And third, most stressors were evaluated one-at-a-time.
In the past, these deficiencies were not important, because of the large extent of water quality problems caused by toxic chemicals
in effluents present in many surface waters. But, because of the successful implementation of the Clean Water Act, most point
source discharges of toxic chemicals have been treated or eliminated so that at present few surface waters now have acute or
chronic toxicity caused solely by point source discharges. As a result of these improvements, water quality has greatly improved
in many previously degraded waters, and with these improvements the ecological integrity of many waters also has greatly
improved. Many of the Nation's waters are now "fishable and swimmable". Still, many waters are not attaining their full
ecological potential. However, most of the remaining ecological problems are not caused by toxic chemicals, but by other sources
of ecological degradation, such as habitat degradation, sedimentation, eutrophication, channelization, urbanization, etc. What is
now needed to gain further improvements in the ecological integrity of the Nation's waters are ecological risk assessment methods
which can evaluate and quantify the risks of multiple stressors on a watershed scale. With this knowledge, efforts to improve
ecological integrity can focus on the most important limiting factors.
-------
Materials and Methods
The WERF Methodology for Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment (Parkhurst et al., 1995), which has been endorsed by the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, is used to address these issues. The WERF methodology provides quantitative probabilistic
risk assessments for chemicals, which can be applied on a watershed scale. However, chemical toxicity is only one of many
stressors that potentially may be affecting aquatic ecosystems within watersheds. Other important watershed-scale aquatic
stressors include physical stressors, such as suspended sediments and high water temperatures, hydrologic stressors such as very
high and low stream flows, low dissolved oxygen concentrations, and physical habitat degradation. Using the WERF
Methodology, we can quantify the risks of habitat degradation and non-toxic chemicals as environmental stressors and compare
these risks with the risks from toxic chemicals. The method uses habitat models to estimate the effects of habitat quality on
biodiversity. This information is then compared to the risks from chemical toxicity derived from the WERF methodology, which
are also assess risks of toxic chemicals to biodiversity. The results compare the relative risks of chemical toxicity with the risks of
other types of stressors, so that factors most limiting to a species abundance can be identified. With this information, the types of
ecological restoration (e.g. improvements in wastewater treatment, non-point source pollutant reductions, and/or physical habitat
improvement) that will provide the greatest aquatic ecological benefit are identified and available resources then can be allocated
so as to provide the greatest ecological benefit to the watershed.
The methodology has three tiers: (1) screening-level risk assessment, (2) quantitative risk assessments, and (3) risk refinement and
evaluation. Each tier includes six steps, as follows:
1. Stressor identification. Identify sources of stressors of potential concern, such as chemicals (e.g., single or multiple, point
or nonpoint, continuous or intermittent) or habitat limitations (e.g., channel modifications, flows, solids, and temperature)
that affect the system of concern.
2. Exposure assessment. Estimate the level of exposure of the aquatic community to chemical and/or physical habitat
stressors. Expected exposure conditions (EECs) for stressors of potential concern can be estimated using existing data,
models, and new data. As an example, chemical EECs can be represented by mean or median concentrations from
historical data to estimate chronic risk levels and as 95th percentile concentration for acute risks. Physical habitat EECs can
be characterized by the mean of standard habitat indices, which address a wide range of factors including the condition of
substrate, channel configuration, pools, banks, riffles, and vegetative cover. In Tiers 2 and 3, probability density
distributions of EECs and habitat quality are developed (Figure 1).
-------
Ecological Effects Characterization
Step 1
{Tootle en mi) I? ill, HaMtal Quality. or older fasten]
Exposure Assessment
Step 2.
EEC
(Taoilc Chfl^fciK Hflbllal Ctafllllp, 5P1 Fjinl^rt)
Step 3 E(Risk) =J"E(R/EEC) f(EEC) cf(EEC)
=J* Logistic Model] [EEC Distribution] dEEC
RISK
Figure L Tier 2 ecological effects characterization, exposure assessment, and
characterization for a Jingle stressor.
-------
figure i» iicr & ccuiugitui cliccisi iliumi; u- r iz ui iuii, eajjusure u;* sennit-in, unu
characterization for a single stressor*
3. Ecological receptor characterization. Identify aquatic biota that are potentially at risk in the specific location being
evaluated. The assessment endpoints can be individual species of special concern, such as game fish, or the community
level endpoint, biodiversity.
4. Ecological effects characterization. Determine ecological risk criteria (ERCs), or levels of chemical contaminants and/or
physical conditions that could adversely affect the aquatic biota identified in Step 3 above. In Tier 1, for chemical
constituents, ERCs can be defined by acute or chronic water quality criteria, or by some other value that defines
community level effects. Tier 1 criteria to assess the impacts of physical limitations are habitat suitability indices for
individual species, and habitat quality indices for the community. In Tier 2 and 3, models are developed that quantify the
relationships between the magnitude of the stressor (EEC) and the percent of species affected (Figure 1).
5. Risk characterization. Tier 1 uses the quotient method for risk characterization. The output from Tier 1 is a list of stressors
of potential concern. In Tier 2, risks are quantified by integrating the probability density distributions of the stressors
(chemicals and habitat) with the probability density distribution for the modeled effects of the stressor (toxicity, habitat
quality, Figure 1). Stressors are assumed to be additive in their effects on an individual species or the number of species;
therefore, the cumulative effects of multiple stressors can be estimated by integrating the risks of all stressors (Figure 2).
p All str***ar* f' QO
E(R/EEC) f(EEC) dEEC
Stressor 1
Stressor 2
RISK
RISK
m
-------
Q
>•
m
c
d>
Integrated Fhsk
For Air Stressors
Figure 2. Tier 2 Risk Characterization for Multiple Stressors
6. Risk management. Evaluate the potential ecological benefits of mitigating chemical and/or physical limitations by looking
at reductions in the total community risk, by removing a given limiting factor from the analysis and re-evaluating the
overall risk. The results of this analysis can help to determine the relative value of remediating various factors. For
example, it may not be worthwhile to reduce metal concentrations, if the reduction in total risk is relatively minor due to
overwhelming risk posed by habitat and chloride.
Discussion
The results of the risk characterization provide a tool for evaluating in a quantitative and probabilistic manner the risks of multiple
stressors, including both toxic chemicals and physical habitat. It can be used to determine the most cost-effective means for
improving aquatic ecological integrity on a watershed scale. Watershed scale ecological risk assessment is completely consistent
with the statewide watershed management approach that has been recently developed and implemented by several states. The risk
characterization supports the priority setting, targeting, and development of management strategy elements of the statewide
watershed approach. The statewide watershed management approach creates enhanced opportunities for the use of ecological risk
assessment. The approach uses geographically defined management units and requires explicit priority setting procedures. With
more states developing this approach, there is both an increasing need and opportunity for watershed scale ecological risk
assessments.
References
Parkhurst, B.R., W. Warren-Hicks, R.D. Cardwell, J. Volosin, T. Etchison, J.B. Butcher, and S.M. Covington.
Methodology for Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment. Contract No. RP91-AER-1. Water Environment Research
Foundation, Alexandria, Virginia (in press).
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is
now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official
positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Application of Aquatic Ecological Risk Methodology to
Support Site-Specific Water Quality-Based Permitting
Cynthia Paulson, Ph.D., P.E.
Brown and Caldwell
Ben Parkhurst, Ph.D.
The Cadmus Group Inc.
The objective of the Clean Water Act is to "restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
Nation's waters." To date, efforts to protect aquatic life have focused on individual chemical constituents, using well-
established methodologies to compare instream concentrations to criteria. However, there has been recognition that
physical and biological integrity are at least as important as chemical conditions and often more important.
Aquatic ecological risk assessment is one tool that can be applied to effectively integrate impacts from multiple chemical
and physical parameters on biological systems and to evaluate the relative importance of specific factors. This approach
can be used to evaluate the probability and magnitude of adverse aquatic ecological effects that could result from
exposure to one or more toxic chemicals, as well as other stressors, such as poor physical habitat. The results of aquatic
ecological risk analysis can be applied to identify the relative importance of various stressors on aquatic life, the total risk
from multiple stressors, and ecological benefits of mitigating identified stressors.
Across the country, there has also been a move to refine water quality-based permitting approaches to provide appropriate
levels of protection without being overly conservative. In a recent vision statement, the U.S. EPA stated a need to
"integrate new science into a basin management approach that enables flexible, sensible decisions" and to "avoid a
program that results in costly requirements that have little or no environmental benefit" (U.S. EPA, 1995). Ecological risk
assessment is a tool that can be applied to identify limiting factors in an aquatic system and to help ensure that resources
are directed toward providing real environmental benefits by focusing on the most significant limiting factors and not
wasting resources on factors that are relatively insignificant.
In considering the overall ecological risk to an aquatic system, a number of factors must be considered, including
chemical pollutants from natural, point, and nonpoint sources; and physical limitations resulting from low flow
conditions, channel straightening and widening, high suspended solids loadings, and high temperatures. The challenge is
to develop a uniform framework in which to compare the relative importance these dissimilar types of limitations.
Aquatic Ecological Risk to Address Multiple Stressors
-------
A quantitative, probabilistic methodology for aquatic ecological risk assessment has been developed for the Water
Environment Research Foundation, which has been reviewed and endorsed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
(Parkhurst et al., 1996). Although the methodology was developed specifically for application to chemical parameters, it
can also be applied to address physical limitations with some modifications, as described below.
The methodology has three tiers: (1) screening-level risk assessment, (2) quantitative risk assessments, and (3) risk
refinement and evaluation. Each tier includes six steps, as follows.
1. Stressor identification. Identify sources of stressors of potential concern, such as chemicals (e.g., single or
multiple, point or nonpoint, continuous or intermittent) or habitat limitations (e.g., channel modifications, flows,
solids, and temperature) that affect the system of concern.
2. Exposure assessment. Estimate the level of exposure of the aquatic community to chemical and/or physical habitat
stressors. Expected exposure conditions (EECs) for stressors of potential concern can be estimated using existing
data, models, and new data. As an example, chemical EECs can be represented by mean or median concentrations
from historical data to estimate chronic risk levels and as 95th percentile concentration for acute risks. Physical
habitat can be characterized by the mean of standard habitat indices, which address a wide range of factors
including the condition of substrate, channel configuration, pools, banks, riffles, and vegetative cover.
3. Ecological receptor characterization. Identify aquatic biota that are potentially at risk in the specific location being
evaluated. Receptors may include communities or individual species of benthic macroinvertebrates and fish.
Biological assessment approaches, including rapid bioassessment protocols (U.S. EPA, 1988) and biological
criteria (U.S. EPA, 1994) have more recently focused on communities rather than individual species since
community-based approaches provide a more comprehensive ecological evaluation.
4. Ecological effects characterization. Determine ecological risk criteria (ERCs), or levels of chemical contaminants
and/or physical conditions that could adversely affect the aquatic biota identified in Step 3 above. In Tier 1, for
chemical constituents, ERCs can be defined by acute or chronic water quality criteria, or by some other value that
defines community level effects. Tier 1 criteria to assess the impacts of physical limitations are habitat suitability
indices for individual species, and habitat quality indices for the community. In Tier 2 and 3, models are
developed that quantify the relationships between the magnitude of the stressor and the number of taxa or the
abundance of a species.
5. Risk characterization. Tier 1 uses the quotient method for risk characterization. The output from Tier 1 is a list of
stressors of potential concern. In Tier 2, risks are quantified by integrating the probability density distributions of
the stressor (chemical or habitat) with the probability density distribution for the modeled effects of the stressor
(toxicity, habitat quality). Stressors can be assumed to be additive in their effects on an individual species or the
community. Figure 1 provides an example of a Tier 2 risk characterization.
-------
lo
_Q
O
D_
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
Percentage of Species Affected
6. Risk management. Evaluate the potential ecological benefits of mitigating chemical and/or physical limitations.
Determine reductions in the total system risk, by removing a given limiting factor from the analysis and re-
evaluating the overall risk. The results of this analysis can help to determine the relative value of mitigating
various factors. For instance, it may not be worthwhile to reduce zinc concentrations in the example in Figure 1, if
the reduction in total risk is relatively minor due to overwhelming risk posed by habitat and chloride.
Application of Aquatic Ecological Risk in Permitting
Aquatic ecological risk methods can be used to help define the appropriateness of proposed water quality-based NPDES
permit limits and to support alternative approaches. A conceptual example is presented below to illustrate how these
methods could be applied and incorporated within the water quality standards and permitting processes.
Stressor Identification
As an example, consider a system with the following types of stressors:
¦ A natural, continuously occurring chemical (e.g., chloride).
¦ A chemical constituent discharged continuously from a point source (e.g., zinc).
¦ Long-term physical habitat limitations due to channelization.
¦ Intermittent habitat limitations due to low flow conditions.
1.1 —
1.0-
0.9-
0.8-
0.7-
0.6-
0.5-
0.4-
0.3-
0.2-
0.1-
0.0-
Total Risk
X.
\
\
Chloride
Habitat
v
v
V
Ziric

"is.

Exposure Assessment and Ecological Effects Characterization
-------
Expected exposure conditions could be calculated as the mean and variance for concentrations for the two continuously
occurring chemical constituents, based on data collected during baseflow conditions (a minimum of three measurements
at each site, covering the range of seasonal conditions, are recommended). Standard habitat sampling methods would be
used to characterize habitat conditions and physical EECs could be calculated as the mean and variance for the habitat
quality indices.
Risk Characterization
Risks from the two chemicals and habitat quality are quantified and presented as in Figure 1. In this particular example,
on average about 90% of the species are adversely affected by habitat quality, 25% by chloride toxicity, and 5% by zinc
toxicity. In addition, 95% confidence limits for these risk estimates can be estimated.
Risk Management
The ecological risk analysis in the above example indicates that two factors dominate the total risk to the aquatic
communities_the naturally occurring pollutant and habitat limitations. The natural pollutant is inalterable, but the next
most effective means to reduce risk to the aquatic communities is to address the habitat limitations due to channelization
and extreme low flow conditions. This could be achieved through channel restoration and establishment of a minimum
instream flow. In this example, the chemical constituent discharged from the WWTP also exceeds instream criteria
occasionally, but constitutes a relative small portion of the total risk to the aquatic community. The implementation of
costly improvements to the WWTP would provide only limited improvements in the aquatic communities.
In the past most ecological risk assessments have focused on toxic chemicals and have ignored the effects of other
important stressors to aquatic ecosystems. In addition, most risk assessments have not been quantitative or probabilistic.
This example illustrates how the WERF Methodology for Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment can be used to identify
and quantify the risks of all important stressors to aquatic communities in a probabilistic manner and identify the most
cost-effective ways to improve the quality of degraded aquatic systems.
References
Parkhurst, B.R., W. Warren-Hicks, R.D. Cardwell, J. Volosin, T. Etchison, J.B. Butcher, and S.M. Covington.
Methodology for Aquatic Ecological Risk Assessment. Contract No. RP91-AER-1. Water Environment Research
Foundation, Alexandria, VA (in press).
U.S. EPA, 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers. Office of Water. EPA/444/4-89-
001.
U.S. EPA, 1994. Biological Criteria Technical Guidance for Streams and Small Rivers. Office of Water. EPA
822-13-94-001.
U.S. EPA, 1995. Advance Notice of Proposed Rule Making: Water Quality Standards Regulations. Office of
Water.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Use of Risk Analysis in Watershed Planning
Activities
David F. Mitchell, Don Galya, Betsy Ruffle, and John A. Bleiler
ENSR Corporation, Acton, MA
Abstract
A risk analysis approach has been adapted for use in watershed planning activities to assist with risk-
based decision-making. This approach consists of two phases: risk assessment and risk management.
This watershed-based approach includes an evaluation of major areas of uncertainty. A hypothetical
watershed is used to illustrate the application of the approach in a watershed context.
The watershed risk assessment approach follows the current EPA ecological risk assessment paradigm of
problem formulation, analysis, and risk characterization. Problem formulation involves identification of
watershed resources and receptors, and selection of priority assessment endpoints. During this stage,
physical, chemical, and biological watershed-specific stressors are identified. Measurement endpoints
(e.g., water quality, criteria, 7Q10 flows) are selected based on the desired level of resource protection.
Analysis identifies exposure pathways and scenarios to assess the levels of human and ecological
receptor exposure to various stressors. Analysis for watershed management often consists of evaluation
of human and/or ecological exposure to stressors, water quality modelling, and hydrological and
hydrodynamic analyses. Risk characterization involves estimating risk to both human health and
ecological interests and identifying appropriate decision-making criteria.
Watershed-based risk management helps interpret the level of risk and select the appropriate course of
action. In addition to the risk assessment results, the proposed watershed based risk management
approach incorporates a variety of social, legal, political, and economic factors.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
Definition of Risk in a Watershed Context
Risk can be broadly defined as an estimate, either qualitative or quantitative, of the probability or
likelihood of an event taking place. Risk assessment for regulatory decision-making is typically divided
into human health risk assessment and ecological risk assessment. Human health risk assessment is
concerned with estimating potential adverse effects (e.g., mortality or incidences of cancer) to human
populations. Ecological risk assessment has a broader scope and looks to estimate the potential impacts
to plant and animal species, the biological communities that they comprise, and the habitats and
ecosystems in which they reside.
Watershed risk management is defined as the process used to estimate the probability for adverse effects
to watershed resources and receptors as part of an integrated watershed management. Because watershed
management involves evaluation of the desires of the watershed's human residents and the needs of the
natural environment, watershed risk management incorporates components of both human health and
ecological risk assessment.
The move to a balanced assessment is historically analogous to the changing goals of watershed
management, which originally arose out of a desire to improve selected water uses such as flood control,
elimination of waterborne diseases, or providing hydropower. Watershed management now encompasses
environmental concerns such as minimum low flows, prevention of eutrophication, protection of critical
habitats, and maintenance of sediment quality.
Application of the Risk Assessment Framework to Watershed
Management
The risk assessment approach adapted for watershed management was proposed in Framework for
Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1992) and recently modified in Draft Proposed Guidelines for
Ecological Risk Assessment (U.S. EPA, 1995). This approach incorporates several elements of the
human health risk assessment paradigm (NAS, 1983). The risk assessment consists of three parts:
problem formulation, analysis, and risk characterization. An illustration of the use of risk analysis for
decision-making in a simplified, hypothetical watershed is shown in Figure 1.
-------
Characterization o£ W atershed
E e s ci u r ce l& e cep to r s
¦potential drinking
water supply
' warrnwater "fishery
" recreational uses
lT: hi.—ir—« ;ti—¦ rrr.-rU in i_if
Wate rs h e d Stressors
"hydrologic variability
" landfill leach ate seepage
" lurbidily/sediment
1 in s fr e am h ab i ta t mo d i fi ca ti on
Assessment Endpoints
' dependable, potable water supply
"balanced, indigenous fish comnifliity
" diverse recreational water uses
Measurement Endpoints
' ttewceedances of drinking water MCLs
" # ewceedances of ambient WQ criteria
1 TrfT'irm.-nri flows and dept requirements
" h ab i ta t q u a I i ty in d i ce s con^i a r e d to
reference locations
¥
Assessment of Exposure to Humans and Ecological Eesources /Eeceptors
' modeling of fate and transport in water body
' identification offish spawning and nursery waters
" h yd r o d yn arri c rro d e I in g o £ arm u a I fl o w s
' calculation o£sedimentaion rates
Characterization o£ Eisk to Human and Ecologic-al Eesourees /Eeceptors
" calculate human health cancer risk
' estimate towceSects on biota
" p r ob ab i I i ty o t n o t me e tin g rnin imum I o w fi o w s
" estimate loss otswinrnable i1 fish able /boatable areas
Watershed Manager
" conpare risk
" weigh oflier factors [watershed
g r o w ti i, w e ti an d p r o te cti on
open space policy!
Wate rs hed Manage rre nt
Decision
Figure 1
111 u strati o n of H y p oth eti c a I Wate rs h e d R i s k As s e s s rn e nt
Figure 1. Illustration of Hypothetical Watershed Risk Assessment.
It is important to recognize the difference between risk assessment and risk management. The former is
based on scientific methods to provide an objective assessment of the likelihood of risk. The latter is the
decision-making result of risk assessment, which weighs the results of risk characterization against
competing considerations, such as beneficial effects, socioeconomic factors, competing resources, or
-------
regulatory policy, to arrive at a final watershed management decision. Accordingly, it is incumbent upon
the risk assessor to clearly and precisely communicate the nature and scope of potential risks to the
watershed manager, who acts as risk manager.
Problem Formulation
The initial planning and scoping process which defines the watershed-based risk assessment scope and
objectives is problem formulation. Problem formulation includes the following steps:
¦ Development of information on and an understanding of general watershed characteristics (land
types, hydrology, water quality).
¦ Identification of human and ecological resources and receptors within the watershed (human
population, biota and habitats).
¦ Selection of assessment endpoints through an initial screening process to select critical or
representative resources to be evaluated in the risk assessment study.
¦ Identification of stressors that might adversely affect watershed resources (physical, chemical,
biological).
¦ Selection of risk assessment measurement endpoints or values that will be used to evaluate
potential risks.
After the initial inventory of watershed characteristics, resources, and receptor, selection of the priority
water uses to be protected should involve a consensus of the watershed stakeholders. These uses frame
the identified assessment endpoints (e.g., maintenance of balanced, indigenous fishery). The stressors of
concern in a watershed may include physical (e.g., drought, flooding, water diversion, sedimentation, or
alterations in habitat, light, thermal, or energy regimes); chemical (e.g., toxic chemicals, cultural
eutrophication, and salinization); and biological (e.g., invasive exotics, pathogens). The impact or risk of
the stressors to assessment endpoints are quantified by the measurement endpoints (e.g., number of
exceedances of drinking water standards).
Analysis
The objectives of this phase of the risk assessment are to:
¦ Identify exposure pathways and scenarios.
Qualitatively or quantitatively assess the levels of exposure and effects on human and ecological
receptors from watershed stressors.
-------
Human health and ecological risk assessments have traditionally focused on chemical stressors. On a
watershed scale, humans may be exposed to chemical stressors via withdrawal of water for household
use; ingestion of contaminated fish, shellfish, or wildlife; exposure to surface water or sediments while
swimming or bathing; and a variety of indirect exposure pathways. The exposure assessment for aquatic
resources to toxic chemicals involves estimation of chemical concentrations in water and sediments at
habitats where ecological receptors are located and may be exposed. In order to assess exposure to
terrestrial receptors, chemical concentrations in aquatic organisms that may serve as food for terrestrial
predators must also be estimated or determined (e.g., bioaccumulation).
Risk assessment tools can be used to identify watershed-specific chemical exposure pathways and
scenarios, and to estimate locations and numbers of receptors, chemical exposure concentrations,
chemical doses, and toxicity threshold values. Modeling is frequently conducted to provide a cost-
effective means of evaluating human and aquatic exposures to chemical stressors (e.g. WASP5).
A primary physical stressor for human receptors is flooding within a watershed. Assessing this stressor
may involve hydrologic and hydraulic modeling, determining flood flows, and delineation of areas of
inundation during flooding events. Ecological exposures to and effects from physical stressors may be
evaluated through a variety of methods, including various fish and macroinvertebrate bioassessment
protocols and instream flow models.
Pathogenic bacteria and viruses are likely to be the most significant biological stressors for human
receptors. Primary pathogen exposure pathways include ingestion of drinking water, shellfish, and fish.
Quantification of human exposure to and effects from biological stressors may be based on direct
measurements or on modelling predictions. The primary biological stressors of concern for ecological
receptors are invasive exotic plant and animal species. Field surveys can be used to monitor spatial and
temporal trends and to estimate colonization rates of invasive plants and animals.
As part of the analysis, the adverse response of the receptor to the stress must be determined (e.g., dose-
response value, LC50, population loss, etc.) and acceptable levels of stress identified. These values are
generally derived from the scientific literature or appropriate databases (e.g., HEAST, IRIS, AQUIRE,
ECOTOX).
Risk Characterization
The concluding portion of the risk assessment:
¦ Combines the results of the exposure assessment and predicted effects of stressors on watershed
receptors or resources.
Determines the potential for adverse effects to occur in the watershed receptors or resources.
-------
¦ Provides an estimate of the uncertainty associated with the predicted effects.
In the context of watershed management, risk characterization can be used to quantify adverse impacts to
watershed receptors. Risk characterization of chemical stressors is perhaps the clearest and least
ambiguous assessment. Comparison of a chemical-specific media concentration to a regulatory criterion
(e.g., drinking water MCL) or federal ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) provides an easily
calculable ratio (e.g., hazard quotient or toxicity quotient. This ratio can provide a direct mathematical
expression of whether certain water uses or protective regulatory criteria are being met. Alternatively, for
non-numerical determinations, quantifiable or describable habitat dimensions, areal representations, or
temporal properties can be compared to reference areas, "typical" values, or a pre-determined limit (e.g.,
critical flow).
The risk assessment process is inherently uncertain. Information is often limited for a great many factors
or parameters used in a risk assessment (e.g., extent of chemical contamination, nature of human and
wildlife exposures, chemical toxicity). Consequently, practitioners of risk assessment must make
assumptions when exact information is lacking. It is therefore important to specify the assumptions and
uncertainties inherent in the risk assessment to place the risk estimates in proper perspective. The
identification and evaluation of key uncertainty factors or parameters in a risk assessment is referred to as
uncertainty analysis.
Uncertainty analysis can be qualitative, involving a discussion about the major areas of uncertainty, the
assumptions made to compensate for the uncertainty, and the likely effects on the risk results if
alternative assumptions were made. Alternatively, uncertainty analysis can be highly quantitative,
involving characterization of the probability distributions for key input variables and propagating
parameter uncertainties through the analysis using analytic (e.g., first-order analyses) or numerical
methods (e.g., Monte Carlo simulation). It is critical that decision-makers who use risk assessment results
understand the extent of the model's limitations and its results.
Risk Management
In addition to the risk assessment, social, legal, engineering, political, and economic factors are
considered in the risk management phase of watershed risk analysis. Legal decisions consider the
relevant watershed laws being implemented. Practical technologies are often considered in the
engineering evaluation. An understanding of costs and economic benefits, as well as local and regional
social contexts, is critical to making informed watershed risk management decisions. It is desirable to
develop a framework on a watershed-specific basis for eliminating de minimis risks and concentrating on
significant risks (Suter, 1993). This allows the watershed manager to identify the watershed stressors
which need to be addressed and their relative importance in achieving watershed goals.
Summary
The current risk analysis paradigm can be adapted for purposes of watershed management. It presents a
-------
conceptual model for identifying watershed resources at risk and evaluating the potential impact of
watershed management options.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Developing Cost Effective Geographic Targets for
Nitrogen Reductions in the Long Island Sound
Watershed
Mark A. Tedesco, Technical Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Long Island Sound Study Office,
Stamford, CT
Paul E. Stacey
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection, Hartford, CT
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
Since its inception in 1985, the Long Island Sound Study (LISS) has been characterizing the primary
water quality and habitat problems affecting Long Island Sound and implementing management plans to
address those problems. LISS, a member of EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP), is a partnership of
the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (CTDEP), the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC), and EPA at the policy level, but the formal conference
established under NEP draws in state, federal, and local agencies as well as non-government public and
private interests.
LISS has emphasized the problem of hypoxia, or low dissolved oxygen, which establishes itself in
-------
bottom waters of more than half of Long Island Sound during the late summer each year. While the
natural phenomenon of stratification makes the Sound very susceptible to hypoxia, water quality
monitoring and modeling has supported nutrient enrichment as the primary cause of the severe hypoxia
experienced today. The model, named the "LIS 3.0" model, was developed by HydroQual, Inc. of
Mahwah, NJ, under an EPA-LISS contract. LIS 3.0 demonstrates that under pre-Colonial conditions
hypoxia did not occur and that nitrogen enrichment is the key nutrient for management purposes as it
limits phytoplankton productivity during peak bloom periods. LIS 3.0 also shows that nitrogen control, if
aggressive enough, can raise late summer oxygen to levels that would be protective of most aquatic
species that inhabit the Sound.
Nitrogen originates from both natural and anthropogenic sources in the Sound's 16,000 mi2 drainage
basin, plus from atmospheric deposition and through the "boundaries" where Long Island Sound
connects with the Atlantic Ocean via The Race and New York Harbor via the East River. By far, the
dominant human source of nitrogen is municipal sewage treatment plants, but atmospheric deposition
and nonpoint sources contribute substantial nitrogen loads that provide other management opportunities.
LISS is implementing a phased approach to reducing nitrogen loadings to the Sound from point and
nonpoint sources within the Sound's drainage basin. Phase I, announced in 1990, established a freeze on
point and nonpoint nitrogen loadings to the Sound in critical areas. Phase II, announced in 1994, set
commitments for low cost actions to begin to reduce the annual load of nitrogen. LISS is now working to
identify long-term nitrogen reduction targets for point and nonpoint sources within the drainage basin.
LISS is charged with developing a cost-effective approach to ensure implementation is not only
technically feasible, but fair and supportable by both government and the public. For this example, only
point source contributions are considered, but targeting for nonpoint source management will follow the
same pattern of analysis.
Geographic Segmentation
The first step in the process was to divide the Long Island Sound watershed into several smaller units or
segments. These segments are more manageable with respect to nitrogen load calculation, monitoring,
and planning. Eleven segments or management zones were established based on natural watershed
boundaries that drain to Long Island Sound within the states of Connecticut and New York (Figure 1).
Some of the management zones in the larger basins of Connecticut were further divided into two to four
tiers (Figure 1). This reduced size variation among the zones and also allowed accounting for nitrogen
attenuation that naturally occurs during transport downriver from the more distant tiers. As a general
assumption, all anthropogenic nitrogen originating in the first tier of Zones 1 through 4, and in all of the
remaining zones (5-11) that have only one tier, was delivered to Long Island Sound with 100 percent
efficiency. Nitrogen originating in higher tiers was attenuated, the amount depending on estimates
empirically derived from monitoring data. Because of attenuation, and the increasing inefficiency of
managing more distant sources, nitrogen exported from areas north of Connecticut is not being
considered for management at this time.
-------
Figure 1. Geographic segments (zones and tier) and response regions for Long Island Sound.
Nitrogen Sources
Point sources dominate the anthropogenic load of nitrogen to Long Island Sound and provide good
material for a descriptive analysis. Publicly-owned sewage treatment plants are the predominant point
source although two industries in Connecticut also contribute substantial portions of nitrogen. The
nitrogen load is apportioned among the 19 zones and tiers according to development patterns, which
concentrate much of the load near western Long Island Sound and central Connecticut (Table 1).
However, some of the nitrogen load originating in central Connecticut (e.g., Zone 2, Tiers 2 and 3; and
Zone 3, Tier 2) attenuates during transport to the Sound, as discussed earlier (Table 1). That loss must be
accounted when relative benefits and costs associated with management are calculated to realize the true
benefit affecting the Sound.
Oxygen Response in the Sound
The HydroQual, Inc. LIS 3.0 model was used to determine the dissolved oxygen response to nitrogen
removal from each of the management zones. Because the LIS 3.0 model is a sophisticated, three-
dimensional model that is calibrated to actual conditions in the Sound, the dissolved oxygen response
varies depending upon where in the Sound the response is being predicted and from which management
zone the nitrogen is coming from. These relationships must be considered because, like the attenuation
factor for more distant sources of nitrogen, there are higher cost efficiencies when managing sources of
nitrogen that result in a larger dissolved oxygen improvement. To simplify the analysis, the Sound was
divided into ten response regions (Figure 1) within which a single dissolved oxygen response,
representative of each respective response region, was used to evaluate the response to nitrogen
management scenarios being tested. A unit response matrix was prepared by HydroQual to identify the
relative response of dissolved oxygen in each response region based on an equal amount of nitrogen (in
-------
this case 10,000 lbs/day) removed from each of the 11 management zones. Oxygen response varies
depending on both the geographic source of nitrogen and the response region in the Sound (Figure 2).
The Cost of Management
The final ingredient in establishing cost-effective geographic targeting of nitrogen management is the
cost/benefit evaluation of each management activity. Each point source was evaluated by CTDEP,
NYSDEC, and New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP) staff to determine
how much it would cost to remove nitrogen at two or three general reduction levels. The costs and
reductions were compiled by geographic segment and the dissolved oxygen benefit paired with each
segment's total cost after accounting for both attenuation for the more distant tiers and the dissolved
oxygen response depicted in Figure 2. This cost/dissolved oxygen benefit relationship was graphed to
develop a cost curve to help assist LISS identify the point at which additional nitrogen reductions result
in diminished dissolved oxygen improvements relative to increased cost (Figure 3).
Target Setting
Striking a balance between cost and technical feasibility shown in the cost curve and resource protection
is a difficult and laborious process. Many other factors will come into play before that decision is
negotiated among all the stakeholders and regulators of Long Island Sound. The ultimate management
goal being addressed is to achieve dissolved oxygen concentrations protective of most of the resident
aquatic life. LISS will use the information from the cost curves in combination with other factors to help
identify a Sound-wide nitrogen reduction target for point and nonpoint sources that maximizes progress
toward this goal. Management of more distant sources, including those contributing to atmospheric
deposition, may be necessary to fully meet the dissolved oxygen goal.
While it is desirable to minimize the overall costs to society for achieving environmental improvements,
a fair and equitable means of distributing responsibility is of paramount concern. This is especially true
now that primary financing of improvements in sewage treatment has been shifted from federal to state
and local levels. LISS hopes to achieve geographic and source equity by distributing the necessary
nitrogen reductions among the management zones based on their relative contribution to the problem.
Within each management zone, flexibility to distribute management actions among point and nonpoint
sources will be allowed as long as the overall reduction goals are met.
To encourage innovation and spur market efficiencies, LISS is investigating effluent trading as a
mechanism for state administration of the program. As each segment bargains for the least expensive
way to meet its assigned target, actual reductions achieved by the most cost efficient sources would go
up, while the expensive geographic areas would contribute less nitrogen reduction, instead providing
funds to the efficient areas for additional controls. For example, a cost-inefficient point source may
arrange for (fund) another point source to undertake greater than required control in lieu of upgrading its
own treatment. To ensure that water quality improvements are not compromised, "currency" rates for
trades among different geographic segments will be set based on the LIS 3.0 model.
-------
Conclusion
LISS will continue to evaluate the cost curves, for point sources and for nonpoint sources of nitrogen to
help identify cost-effective levels of management. Other factors, such as the significance of dissolved
oxygen impairments on habitat quality, equity of management responsibility, and availability of
financing, will be considered in establishing nitrogen reduction targets for each of eleven watershed
management zones. It is hoped that the provisions of sound economic analysis and free-market trading
will help assuage concerns over the fairness of the system, while still accomplishing resource goals
needed to correct hypoxia in Long Island
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Models of Nonpoint Source Water Quality for
Watershed Assessment and Management
Anthony S. Donigian, Jr.
AQUA TERRA Consultants, Mountain View, CA
Wayne C. Huber Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR
Thomas O. Barnwell, Jr.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA
Watershed models are being used extensively as tools for assessment and evaluation of management
activities for resource and environmental issues throughout the United States and abroad. These models
typically include components to deal with both point and nonpoint contamination sources, and the
nonpoint source assessment must consider all potential sources, including both urban and rural (i.e. non-
urban) land areas and associated activities. This paper briefly summarizes a major nonpoint source model
review effort published by the U.S. EPA in 1991 that focussed on nonpoint source assessment procedures
and modeling techniques for both urban and non-urban land areas (Donigian and Huber, 1991). That
report provides detailed reviews of specific methodologies and models, along with overview discussions
and model comparison tables. Simple procedures, such as regression and loading function approaches are
also described in the report, along with complex models such as SWMM, HSPF, STORM,
CREAMS/GLEAMS, SWRRB, AGNPS, and others. Brief case studies of modeling efforts are
summarized with emphasis on the use of nonpoint and comprehensive watershed models for watershed
management activities. In this brief paper, we focus on the comparative evaluation of the major
simulation models used for both urban and non-urban nonpoint source and water quality assessments.
Overview of Available Nonpoint Source Modeling Options
-------
Several modeling options exist for simulation of quality in urban storm and combined sewer systems.
These have been reviewed in the literature and range from simple to involved, although some simple
methods, e.g., the EPA statistical methods, can incorporate quite sophisticated concepts. The principal
methods available to the contemporary engineer, in a rough order of complexity, include: constant
concentration, spreadsheet, statistical, rating curve or regression, and buildup/washoff. A comprehensive
description of each of these five methods is provided in Donigian and Huber (1991) and Donigian et al.
(1995). Although some of these options are used as stand-alone techniques, they are also included as
alternatives in the available simulation models.
Similarly, modeling nonpoint source pollutants from non-urban areas ranges from simple annual 'loading
functions' to detailed process simulation models. The key issue in estimating nonpoint pollution loads
from a watershed is the type and extent of human activities occurring on the land. The same hydrologic,
physical, and chemical/biological processes that determine nonpoint pollutant loads occur on all land
surfaces (and in the soil profile) whether it is urban, forest, agricultural cropland, pasture, mining, etc.
The relative importance and magnitude of these processes in determining nonpoint loads will vary among
land use categories and associated human activities. Even within an urban region, the parameters
required for the various modeling options will differ for alternative land uses. Many of these same urban
modeling options have been used for non-urban land areas with parameters (e.g., constant
concentrations) estimated for the specific non-urban land use.
Urban Runoff Quality Models
Five models (USGS, HSPF, STORM, SWMM, AUTO-QI), details of which may be found in Donigian
and Huber (1991), collectively make up the best choice of full-scale simulation models for urban areas.
Other models have been adapted from SWMM and STORM and given modified names, but the
principles are fairly similar. At least two European models, MOUSE and Wallingford (Hydraulic
Research, Ltd.), are available for simulating water quality. Also, there are many models well known in
the hydrologic literature, such as those developed by the Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) and U.S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS), but this review was limited to models that directly simulate water
quality. A general comparison of urban model attributes is given in Table 1. This table includes the EPA
Statistical Method since it can be considered a formalized procedure.
Table 1.
Comparison of urban model attributes.
Attribute Istatistical(a) STORM ISWMM lAUTO-QI
KJLAL H!Sx r
-------
Sponsoring agency j USGS
EPA
EPA
HEC
EPA
State of
Illinois
Simulation type (b) J C, SE
C, SE
N/A
C
C, SE
C, SE
No. pollutants J 4
10
Any
6
10
5
Ra.infa.11/ninoff
analysis
Y
Y
N(c)
Y
Y
Y
Sewer system flow
routing
Y
Y
N/A
N
Y
N
Full, dynamic flow
routing
N
N
N/A
N
Y (d)
N/A
Surcharge
Y(e)
N
N/A
N
Y(d)
N/A
Regulators, overflow
structures,
e.g., weirs, orifices,
etc.
N
N
N/A
Y
Y
N/A
Special solids
routines
Y
Y
N
N
Y
N
Storage analysis
Y
Y
Y(f)
Y
Y
N
Treatment analysis
Y
Y
Y(f)
Y
Y
Y
Suitable for
screening (S),
design (D)
S,D
S,D
S
S
S,D
S,D
Available on micro-
computer
N
Y
Y(g)
Y
Y
Y
Data and Personnel
requirements (h)
Medium
High
Medium
Low
High J Medium
Overall model
complexity (i)
Medium
High
Medium
Medium
High J Medium
(a)EPA procedure
(b)C = continuous simulation, SE = single event simulation
(c)Runoff coefficient used to obtain runoff volumes.
(d)Full dynamic equations and surcharge calculations only in Extran Block of SWMM
(e)Surcharge simulated by storing excess inflow at upstream end of pipe. Preasure flow not
simulated.
(f)Storage and treatment analyzed analytically.
(g)FHWA study, Driscoll et al. (1989)
-------
(h)General requirements for model insallation, familiarization, data requirements, etc. To be
interpreted only very generally.
(i)Reflection of general size and overall model capabilities. Note that complex models may
still be used to simulate very simple systems with attendant minimal data requirements
Since SWMM and HSPF are clearly the most versatile and most widely applicable of the models, they
are briefly described below. As noted above, detailed descriptions for each of the reviewed models is
provided in Donigian and Huber (1991), with shorter descriptions in Donigian et al. (1995).
SWMM. The original version of the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) was developed for EPA
as single-event model specifically for the analysis of combined sewer overflows (CSOs) (Metcalf and
Eddy et al., 1971), but its scope has vastly broadened since the original release. Version 4 (Huber and
Dickinson, 1988; Roesner et al., 1988) of the model performs both continuous and single-event
simulation throughout the whole model; can simulate backwater, surcharging, pressure flow and looped
connections (by solving the complete dynamic wave equations) in its Extran Block; and has a variety of
options for quality simulation, including traditional buildup and washoff formulations as well as rating
curves and regression techniques.
HSPF. The Hydrological Simulation Program - FORTRAN (HSPF) (Johanson et al., 1984; Bicknell et
al., 1993) is a comprehensive package for simulation of watershed hydrology and water quality for both
conventional and toxic organic pollutants. HSPF incorporates the watershed scale ARM and NPS models
into a basin-scale analysis framework that includes fate and transport in one-dimensional stream
channels. It is the only comprehensive model of watershed hydrology and water quality that allows the
integrated simulation of land and soil contaminant runoff processes with instream hydraulic, water
temperature, sediment transport, nutrient, and sediment-chemical interactions. The runoff quality
capabilities include both simple relationships (i.e., empirical, buildup/washoff, constant concentrations)
and detailed soil process options (i.e., leaching, sorption, soil attenuation, and soil nutrient
transformations).
Non-Urban Runoff Quality Models
The most useful non-urban runoff quality models that are currently available include: HSPF,
CREAMS/GLEAMS, ANSWERS, AGNPS, PRZM, SWRRB, and UTM-TOX. HSPF was briefly
described earlier as it also includes urban runoff modeling capabilities. Table 2 shows a comparison of
selected non-urban model attributes and capabilities.
Table 2.
-------
Comparison of urban model attributes.
Attribute JAGNPS
ANSWERS
CREAMS
HSPF
PRZM
SWRRB
TOX
Sponsoring agency
USDA
Purdue
USDA
EPA
EPA
USDA
ORNL&
EPA
Simulation type
C, SE
SE
C, SE
C, SE
C
C
C, SE
Rainfall/runoff
analysis
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Erosion Modeling
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Pesticides
Y
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Nutrients
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
N
User-Defined
Constituents
Soil Processes
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Pesticides
N
N
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Nutrients
N
N
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Multiple Land Type
Capability
Y
Y
N
Y
N
Y
Y
In stream Water
Quality Simulation
N
N
N
Y
N
N
Y
Available on Micro-
computer
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Data and Personnel
Requirements
M
M/H
H
H
M
M
H
Overall Model
Complexity
M
M
H
H
M
M/H
H
Y = Yes, N = No, M = Moderate, H = High, C = Continuous, SE = Storm Event
Continuing model development and testing within the agricultural research community will likely lead to
further enhancements of the agricultural models like CREAMS/GLEAMS, SWRRB, and AGNPS. In
fact, USDA continues to support, a wide range of model development work. SWRRB development
appears to be focusing on a middle ground (in terms of complexity) between HSPF and the detailed field-
scale models that are limited to small areas; its use of daily rainfall, as opposed to smaller time interval
measurements (usually hourly is needed for HSPF), is seen as a definite advantage by many users.
However, most of these efforts still focus primarily on agricultural areas, with limited abilities to be used
in large, complex multi-land use basins.
-------
Discussion and Summary Recommendations
The models mentioned here do not represent all of the modeling options available for runoff quality
simulation, but they are certainly the most notable, widely used and most operational. Selection from
among these models is often made on the basis of personal preference and familiarity, in addition to
needed model capabilities. As noted above, HSPF and SWMM are probably the most versatile and most
widely applicable of the models, with the nod to SWMM if urban hydrology and hydraulics must be
simulated in detail. On the other hand, the water quality routines in HSPF for sediment erosion, pollutant
interactions and surface water quality are superior, and the capability to handle all types of land uses and
pollutant sources efficiently (including urban and agriculture, point and nonpoint) is a definite advantage
when needed for large complex basins. Both models appear somewhat overwhelming in terms of size to
the novice user, but only the components of interest of either model need be used in a given study, the
catchment schematization can often be coarse for purposes of simulation of water quality at the outlet,
and they may be applied with simple water quality options with a significant reduction in data
requirements.
Simulation of runoff quality will increase in importance as regulation and control of nonpoint sources
continues to increase into the next century. The implementation and enforcement of various federal and
state regulations will require assessment of stormwater outfalls for NPDES permits, waste load
allocations (TMDLs), and appropriate control strategies that demand more detailed analyses of nonpoint
contributions for comprehensive water quality management.
In spite of their more complex data requirements, conceptual models (DR3M-QUAL, HSPF, STORM,
SWMM, CREAMS, SWRRB, AUTO-QI) have advantages in terms of simulation of routing effects and
control options as well as superior statistical properties of continuous time series. The urban and non-
urban conceptual models discussed all have a means of simulating storage and treatment effects and/or
impacts of a significant number of management options. Other than a constant removal, this is difficult to
do with the simpler methods. The conceptual models generally have very much superior hydrologic and
hydraulic simulation capabilities. This alone usually leads to better prediction of loads (product of flow
times concentration).
SWMM and HSPF retain limited support from the EPA Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling
(CEAM, ceam@athens.ath.epa.gov) at Athens, Georgia, and a similar level of support is available for
CREAMS and SWRRB from the USDA. Extramural support for all major operational models is highly
desirable for maintenance and improvements. No model can exist for long without continuing sustenance
in the form of user support, maintenance, and refinements in response to changing technology. All
agencies that have sponsored, or are currently sponsoring, model development efforts need to recognize
the critical importance of these activities if their efforts are to produce 'operational' models with
associated wide-spread usage.
When properly applied and when their assumptions are respected, models can be tremendously useful
-------
tools in analysis of urban and non-urban runoff quality problems. Methods and models are evolving that
utilize the large and currently expanding data base of quality information. As increasing attention is paid
to runoff problems in the future, the methods and models can only be expected to improve.
Primary References
(Other cited references can be found in Donigian and Huber, 1991.)
Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle, A.S. Donigian Jr., and R.C. Johanson. 1993. Hydrological
Simulation Program FORTRAN (HSPF): User's Manual for Release 10. EPA-600/R-93/174. U.
S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA.
Donigian, A.S. Jr. and W. C. Huber. 1991. Modeling of Nonpoint Source Water Quality in Urban
and Non-urban Areas. EPA/600/3-91/039. (NTIS PB92-109115). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Athens, GA.
Donigian, A.S. Jr., W.C. Huber and T.O. Barnwell. 1995. Modeling of Nonpoint Source Water
Quality in Urban and Nonurban Areas. In: Nonpoint Pollution and Urban Water Management.
Technomic Pub. Co., V. Novotny, Ed.
Huber, W.C. and R.E. Dickinson. 1988. Storm Water Management Model User's Manual, Version
4. EPA/600/3-88/ 001a (NTIS PB88-236641/AS), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Athens, GA.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Compilation of Digital Geospatial Data Sets for
the Mississippi River Basin
Alan Rea, Hydrologist
Joel R. Cederstrand, Geographer
U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma City, OK
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
Digital geospatial data sets for the Mississippi River Basin have been released by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) on compact disc. The data sets, suitable for use with geographic information systems, are
a compilation of several geographic reference data sets of interest to the global-change research
community. The data sets were chosen with input from the Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment
(GEWEX) Continental-Scale International Project (GCIP) Data Committee and the GCIP
Hydrometeorology and Atmospheric Subpanels. The data sets include: locations and periods of record
for stream gages, reservoir gages, and meteorological stations; a 500-meter-resolution Digital Elevation
Model (DEM); grid-node locations for the Eta numerical weather prediction model; and digital map data
sets of geology, land use, streams, large reservoirs, average annual runoff, average annual precipitation,
average annual temperature, average annual heating and cooling degree days, hydrologic units, and state
and county boundaries. Also included are digital index maps for LANDSAT scenes, and for the U.S.
Geological Survey 1:250,000, 1:100,000, and l:24,000-scale map series. A listing of Hydro-Climatic
Data Network (HCDN) stream gages (Slack and others, 1993) also is included and can be related to the
stream-gage site file for locations and other information.
-------
Most of the data sets cover the conterminous United States; the DEM also includes part of southern
Canada. The stream and reservoir gage and meteorological station files include sites from all states
having area within the Mississippi River basin, plus that part of the Mississippi River Basin lying within
Canada. Several data-base retrievals were processed by state, therefore many sites outside the Mississippi
River Basin are included.
A documentation file accompanies each data set, indicating the datasource, associated time frame, and
other information. The stream gages, reservoir gages, and meteorological stations are divided into two
separate files for currently operating or historical (discontinued) sites; sites with data for 1993 or later
(1992 for the Canadian hydrometric sites) are considered currently operating unless otherwise indicated.
The data sets are provided in at least two formats: a generic or public-domain format; and ARC/INFO*
export files (except the DEM). The DEM is provided in ARC/INFO Grid (version 7.0.2) format, rather
than export-file format. Graphic images of the data sets also are provided in Graphics Interchange Format
(GIF) files. GIF files are easily displayed on a variety of computer systems using readily available
display software. These images provide a simplified view of the data sets available on the disc, and may
be used for browsing purposes. The GIF files in all cases portray significantly less spatial resolution and
information content than the actual data sets.
Compilation and publication of the compact disc were funded by the USGS Global-Change Research
Program.
Disc Organization
The disc complies with the ISO 9660 standard for CD-ROM discs. It is intended for use with personal
computers using the MS-DOS operating system. The disc is compatible with UNIX, Macintosh, and
VAX computers equipped with the appropriate CD-ROM reader and software. The overall layout of the
disc is:
areadme. 1 st
Main documentation file
basins\
Hydrologic units of the conterminous United States, plus the
boundary of the Mississippi River Basin in Canada
browse\
GIF images for browsing
climate\
Climatography of the United States, maps of 1961-90 normal
temperature, precipitation, and degree days
etamodel\
Grid-node locations and description of the Eta model
geology\
Geology of the conterminous United States at 1:2,500,000 Scale
-------
maps\
State and county boundaries, quadrangle index maps,
conterminous United States
landsat\
Scene boundaries for LANDSAT paths and rows, conterminous
United States and southern Canada
landuse\
Major land uses in the United States
resrvoir\
Large reservoirs of the United States
rivers\
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency river-reach file (RF-1)
runoff\
Average annual runoff in the United States
sites\
Locations of stream gages, reservoir gages, and meteorological
stations, Mississippi River Basin
software\
Programs for handling map projections and compressed files
terrain\
Digital Elevation Model of the conterminous United States and
southern Canada, 500-meter resolution
xportarc\
ARC/INFO export files of the above data sets
Data-Set Documentation
A README.TXT file exists in each directory, and provides an overview of the contents of the files or
subdirectories in the directory. A documentation file for each data set is located in the directory with the
data set, and is named with a file extension of ".DOC." The documentation files comply with the Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata, dated June 8,
1994. The FGDC-compliant metadata files are very detailed descriptions of the data sets, and include a
narrative section describing the procedures used to produce the data set in digital form. The FGDC-
compliant metadata files are plain ASCII text files.
Distribution Information
Copies of the CD-ROM, titled "Global Energy and Water Cycle Experiment (GEWEX) Continental-
Scale International Project (GCIP) Reference Data Set (GREDS)," by Alan Rea and Joel R. Cederstrand,
may be purchased for $32 from the U.S. Geological Survey, Earth Science Information Center, Open-
File Reports Section, Box 25286, Denver, Colorado 80225, phone (303) 202-4200. The CD-ROM is
identified as Open-File Report 94-388.
The data sets also were released on the Internet World-Wide Web in May 1995. The Internet Uniform
Resource Locator (URL) for information on the data sets
is:http://nsdi.usgs.gov/nsdi/wais/water/gcip.HTML
Information on this and other geospatial data available from the U.S. Geological Survey may be found
-------
through the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse node on the Internet at the following URL:
http://nsdi.usgs.gov/nsdi/index.html
Acknowledgments
Numerous people and agencies contributed data sets and time to make this disc possible. Steve Williams
and Linda Cully, of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research (UCAR), in Boulder,
Colorado, compiled the non-USGS meteorological-stations data set. Terry Krauss and his colleagues, of
Environment Canada, were instrumental in providing the Canadian hydrometric and climatological
station catalogs without restrictions on the distribution. Richard Heim, of the National Climatic Data
Center, provided the data and original maps of the Climatography of the United States. Kenneth Mitchell,
National Meteorological Center, provided the Eta model grid. David Maidment, University of Texas at
Austin, provided valuable consultation on coordinate conversions for the Eta model grid. Authors,
contacts, and reviewers for all data sets are listed in the documentation files for the individual data sets.
Reference Cited
Slack, J.R., Lumb, A.M., and Landwehr, J. M. (1993) Hydro-climatic data network (HCDN)
streamflow data set, 1874-1988. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report
93-4076, CD- ROM.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Time-Scale Perspective Applied to Toxicity
Assessments Performed in Watershed
Management Programs and Performance
Assessments
Edwin E. Herricks, Professor; Robert Brent, Laurence Burle
University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
Ian Johnson, Ian Milne
WRc Engineers and Scientists, Huntingdon Valley, PA
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
Watershed management, and associated assessments of performance based on quality indicators, are
governed by the fundamental physical, chemical and biological/ecological processes that operate in the
watershed. These processes operate over different spatial and temporal scales and may be specific to a
location in the watershed. A starting point for the analysis of these fundamental processes is the
recognition of the importance of watershed location on the potential influence of contaminants and land
use. For example, in a low-order stream reach changes in physical and chemical conditions, as measured
from baseline/baseflow conditions, will be of short duration. Although the duration of events may be
short in low order streams, the magnitude of change is often great, while only limited residual effects are
observed because of high transport rates out of the system. In low order streams management will often
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
focus on contaminant concentration, rather than loading, and the control of single sources. In addition,
the potential for contamination is usually limited by the small watershed area associated with these small
streams. In contrast, the change in physical and chemical conditions in high order streams will have
longer durations. Although the change in physical and chemical conditions may still be rapid, the
magnitude of this change will be moderated by the increased baseflow and dilution capacity of these
larger streams. In high order streams, event duration is often long, reflecting the extended concentration
time for flows from tributaries. In addition, the effect of contaminants can be extended because residuals
are stored or only slowly transported within these larger rivers. The management focus in larger
watersheds will typically shift to contaminant loading, the effects of multiple sources, and the effect that
a more diverse land use has on both the number and mass loading of contaminants.
It is possible to extend this analysis of the management focus in low and high order streams to
considerations of toxic potential. The disturbance of any watershed, natural or anthropogenic, is expected
to produce alterations in runoff volume, and chemical characteristics of the runoff (Borman et al., 1968;
Vitousek et al., 1979; Webster and Patten, 1979; McDowell, 1988; Close and Davies-Colley, 1990;
Edwards and Helvey, 1991). Unfortunately, the concentration of human populations also leads to the
concentration of contaminants and the proliferation of landscape/watershed disturbances both near the
population center and at locations where resources are obtained to meet population needs (Goudie, 1990).
The result is that water quality alterations are magnified by the combined effects of disturbance and the
concentration of contaminants. The effects on receiving system aquatic life will be short-term if the
natural assimilative capacity of the stream/watershed system is not exceeded and long term if deposited
contaminants lead to residual effects. As noted above, watershed location (stream order) is critical in
determining the relative importance of concentration or loading. When low order streams are compared
with high order streams, the effects of changes in runoff volume and contaminant concentration are less
likely to be moderated by ambient flows leading to acute toxicity and profound, short-term change in
receiving system biota. In high order streams contaminant concentrations may not be acutely toxic, but
the residual effects produced by deposition, storage, or slow transport will lead to chronic toxicity and
the effects on receiving system biota will be subtle. As the ratio of disturbed to undisturbed land
increases, the risk of severe impact also increases. Recent analyses indicate that any increase in
impervious area above 15 to 20% will severely limit ecological integrity (Shaver, et al., 1995).
This complex set of relationships among spatial scale, duration of effect, location, and risk of impairment
requires that watershed assessment and management use techniques appropriate to scale and location.
The development of appropriate management techniques is dependent on the acquisition of the right
information to support that management. As part of a research effort directed to the development of
appropriate measures of effect/impact over connected temporal and spatial scales, a time-scale toxicity
paradigm has been developed that is useful in watershed management and performance assessments. This
paradigm recognizes that measuring the effect on receiving system biota, and associated measures of
ecological integrity, begins with an understanding of both contaminant concentration and duration of
exposure. In this paradigm, the time-scale of exposure is the starting point for selection of assessment
procedures, as well as identification of appropriate management practices and performance measures.
-------
A Time-scale Perspective
A time-scale perspective begins with defining appropriate time-scales for management activity. Although
time-scales of significance can vary widely at a location, as well as in the watershed (Herricks, 1996),
three time-scales are used as the starting point for toxicity assessment. A short time-scale is intended to
assess effects of change within an event that produces change in the hydrology or chemistry. In this intra-
event scale, concentration variation may be several orders of magnitude and exposure times may be as
short as seconds, certainly minutes and possibly a few hours. The second time-scale spans an entire
event, normally starting with a rise in the hydrograph, which initiates physical and chemical change, and
extends some time after the event when conditions return to near baseline, typically not exceeding a few
days. This event time-scale requires compositing methods to provide samples from an event that reflect
average, rather than extreme, conditions. An event time-scale analysis is particularly applicable to the
assessment of management practices that modify the hydrograph and "average" water quality through
detention and mixing. The final time-scale is long, weeks to years, where exposure concentrations are
relatively constant, and typically, low. This long-term time-scale occurs either in constantly discharging
effluents, or is associated with the residuals left from single events. Since toxicity is associated with both
magnitude (concentration) and duration of exposure, short-term methods of toxicity assessment are
applicable to intra-event and event time-scales. In fact, intra-event time scales have required
development of new toxicity testing procedures (Herricks, et al. 1994). Toxicity assessment in the long-
term time-scale is appropriately measured by chronic test procedures, or procedures that address
frequency of exposure over a given time period. A test for a long term time-scale must meet different
criteria from those appropriate to shorter time-scale assessment. Further, it should be recognized that
longer time-scales introduce greater complexity in the determination of cause and effect, requiring either
a greater number of measures for confirmation of effect, or measures that require a longer time span for
completion of analysis, or where sequential events must occur to produce a given effect.
Time-scale Toxicity Analyses
Current toxicity testing methods expose organisms to a constant concentration of contaminant for a given
time period (usually 48-96 hours), measuring a median lethal concentration (LC50) or a median lethal
time of exposure (LT50). These exposure situations only have relevance to extended event or long-term
time scales in watershed assessment. To assess toxicity associated with intra-event or event time-scales
where contaminant concentrations fluctuate, often changing by several orders of magnitude in short time
periods, the response of organisms to short duration (less than 4 hours) contaminant exposure and
fluctuating contaminant exposure (a second exposure after 72 hours) was assessed.
Laboratory experiments used the invertebrates Hyalella azteca and Ceriodaphnia dubia. Cadmium
solutions ranging from 0.06 mg/L -11.8 mg/L and zinc solutions ranging from 0.032 to 1.6 mg/1 were
used at exposure periods of 15, 30, 60, 120, and 240 minutes. Twenty organisms were exposed in each
test. The exposure times were chosen to represent typical exposure periods observed in storm events.
After the prescribed exposure period, organisms were removed from the contaminant, placed in a rinse
container to dilute and remove residual contaminants, and finally placed in clean freshwater for a post
-------
exposure observation period. During the post exposure observation period, mortality was monitored and
recorded for up to 6 days past initial exposure. In one test series a second exposure followed the initial
exposure. In these tests, an initial exposure of 15 or 60 minutes was followed by a second exposure of the
same time, at the same concentrations, 72 hours following the initial exposure.
Die-off curves were plotted for each experiment, Figure 1. The general result found that mortality did not
occur during the exposure period, rather mortality began after organisms were transferred to clean water
and continued for up to 120 hours (or five days) after an initial exposure period of only 15 to 240
minutes. Repeat exposures produced little additional mortality in test organisms, Figure 2.
This series of time-scale toxicity experiments illustrates the critical importance of selecting test systems
and measurement outcomes specific to the time scale of the disturbance. The results suggest that
commonly used toxicity testing techniques (long exposure times to constant concentrations) will not
adequately predict short term toxicity. Management strategies must consider both the concentration and
duration of exposure to contaminants, which will vary with watershed location. In addition, test systems
must be selected that have a response time appropriate to the exposure time and conditions. A time-scale
perspective requires new approaches to the selection of management practices to meet specific watershed
protection goals or performance requirements, which will be location specific.
Acknowledgements
This research was supported by the Water Environment Research Foundation, Project 92-BAR-l funded
in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency through Cooperative Agreement
CR818249 with the Water Environment Research Foundation. The work of Laurence Burle was funded,
in part by the Ecole Nationale du Genie de l'Eau et de l'Environnement de Strasbourg, France.
References
Borman, F. H., G. E. Likens, D. W. Fisher, and R. S. Pierce (1968). Nutrient loss accelerated by
clear cutting of a forest ecosystem. Science 159:882-4.
Close, M. E. and R. J. Davies-Colley (1990). Baseflow water chemistry in New Zealand rivers 1.
Influence of environmental factors. New Zealand J of Marine and Freshwater Res. 24:343-356.
Edwards, P. J. and J. D. Helvey (1991). Long-term ionic increases for a central Appalachian
forested watershed. J. Environ. Qual 20:250-255.
Goudie, A. (1990). The Human Impact on the Natural Environment (3rd Edition). MIT Press,
Cambridge, MA.
Herricks, E. E. (1996). Water Quality Issues in River Channel Restoration. In Brookes A, and
-------
Shields, D. (eds). River Channel Restoration, Wiley, N.Y.
McDowell, W. H. and G. E. Likens (1988). Origin, composition, and flux of dissolved organic
carbon in the Hubbard Brook valley. Ecological Monographs 58(3): 177-195.
Shaver, E., J. Maxted, G. Curtis, and D. Carter (1994). Watershed protection using an integrated
approach. Stormwater NPDES Related Monitoring Needs. Torno, H. C. (ed), ASCE, New York, p
435-459.
Vitousek, P. M., J. R. Gosz, C. C. Gruer, J. M. Melillo, W. A. Reiners, and R. L. Todd (1979).
Nitrate losses from disturbed ecosystems. Science 204:469-73.
Webster, J. R. and B. C. Patten (1979). Effects of watershed perturbation on stream potassium and
calcium dynamics. Ecological Monographs 49(1):51-72.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Landscape Characterization For Watershed
Management
Carolyn T. Hunsaker, Research Staff
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
Paul M. Schwartz, Postgraduate Fellow
Oak Ridge Institute for Science Education, Oak Ridge, TN
Barbara L. Jackson, Research Staff
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Streams and rivers serve as integrators of terrestrial landscape characteristics and as recipients of
pollutants from both the atmosphere and the land; thus, large rivers are especially good indicators of
cumulative impacts. Allan and Flecker (1993), who have identified six major factors threatening the
destruction of river ecosystems, state that various transformations of the landscape-hydrologic changes to
streams and rivers resulting from changes in land use, habitat alteration, and nonpoint source pollution
are probably the most widespread and potent threats to the well-being of lotic ecosystems. Landscape
ecologists seek to better understand the relationships between landscape structure and ecosystem
processes at various spatial scales (Turner, 1989). Understanding how scale, both data resolution and
geographic extent, influences landscape characterization and how terrestrial processes affect water
quality are critically important for model development and translation of research results from
experimental watersheds to management of large drainage basins.
-------
Measures of landscape structure are useful to monitor change and assess the risks it poses to ecological
resources (Hunsaker et al., 1990). Many studies have shown that the proportion of different land uses
within a watershed can account for some of the variability in surface water quality (DelRegno and
Atkinson, 1988; Omernik, 1977; Reckhow et al., 1980; Sivertun et al., 1988). Hunsaker and Levine
(1995) showed that both proportion of land uses and the spatial pattern of land uses is important for
characterizing and modeling water quality; however, proportion consistently accounted for the most
variance (40% to 86%) across a range of watershed sizes (1000 to 1.35 million ha).
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is performing a demonstration of its Environmental
Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) for the Mid-Atlantic Region (Figure 1). One activity, the
Mid-Atlantic Integrated Assessment, is designed as a collaborative initiative between EPA's Office of
Research and Development and EPA's Region III (Kepner 1995). The U.S. Geological Survey developed
a 4-level watershed classification scheme for the United States (Seaber et al., 1984). These watersheds
are called hydrologic units, and each one has a unique code. In this paper we use the third level of
watersheds, Accounting Units, as our analysis units. There are 352 Accounting Units in the United
States. Our Mid-Atlantic Region contains 18 of these units or watersheds (Figure 1) which range in size
from 14,550 to 38,890 sq km.
This paper outlines the application of landscape pattern metrics for monitoring and assessing regional
water quality. Regional water quality was characterized using commonly measured parameters such as
total nitrogen, total phosphorus, conductivity, and sediments. Water chemistry data were retrieved from
the EPA's STORET (STOrage and RETrieval) database. Land-use/land-cover data came from the
Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometry (AVHRR) satellite imagery with a resolution of 1 sq km
and a simple classification scheme, Anderson Level 1: urban land, agricultural land, rangeland, forest
land, water, wetland, and barren land.
A watershed is typically characterized by the proportion of the watershed covered by each land use of
interest (Table 1); however, the spatial pattern of that land use is thought to be equally important for
some ecological processes (Hunsaker and Levine, 1995). Landscape ecologists have proposed many
metrics of spatial pattern that may be useful for monitoring ecological condition (Hunsaker et al., 1994;
Riitters et al., 1995). Landscape pattern was characterized by proportion of the seven land-use types and
several integrative metrics. Dominance measures the extent to which one or a few land uses dominate the
landscape, and contagion measures the extent to which the landscape is fragmented. These metrics can
range from 0 to 1. Shape complexity is a perimeter to area ratio for each patch of a land use; natural land
covers like forest are expected to have higher shape complexity than agriculture patches which usually
have more uniform, linear edges. Shape complexity can range from 0 to 2, but we seldom see values less
than 1.0 or larger than 1.8 with real landscapes. These metrics are calculated after identification of all
patches of the same land use; a patch is an area or polygon of the same, contiguous land use class. The
percent of potential edges tells us how many of the edge types (i.e., forest and wetland edge or
agriculture and urban edge) that could exist, given the number of land uses, actually do occur; one can
think of this as a measure of edge heterogeniety.
-------
Table 1. Percent of watershed in each land-use class for the Mid-Atlantic Region.
Watershed are the USGS Accounting Units. If no value is given the percent is less
than 1.
Accounting Unit
20401
20402
20501
20502
20503
20600
20700
20801
20802
30101
30102
30201
30202
50100
50200
50301
50302
50500
Urban
2.0
11.1
1.5
1.6
3.8
3.3
1.2
2.7
1.5
2.2
1.6
2.9
5.4
Agricultural
land
22.2
52.0
19.3
20.5
37.9
42.9
12.0
12.8
7.4
18.1
39.2
33.2
59.0
10.5
4.9
21.9
3.6
1.0
Rangeland
1.1
1.0
Forest
land
75.6
25.3
79.0
78.9
59.6
25.4
81.1
59.6
87.9
79.8
47.2
26.5
36.0
87.6
92.0
71.6
95.9
98.4
Water
26.6
3.6
25.1
1.9
12.9
38.0
2.7
1.1
Maximumland
dominance (a)
69
13
74
75
41
34
76
55
80
74
25
37
46
87
92
68
96
98
Area of largest patch divided by area of hydrologic unit.
Table 2 lists some of these landscape metrics for the Mid-Atlantic Region. Disturbed land covers like
agriculture, barren, and rangeland have positive associations with water-quality parameters; that is, as the
proportion of agriculture increases, so does the amount of nitrogen or sediments. Contagion and
proportion of forest were found to be negatively correlated with water-quality parameters (Hunsaker and
Levine, 1995). Thus, an area that has contiguous land covers (is not fragmented) or that is dominated by
forests tends to have better water quality.
-------
Table 2. Integrative pattern metrics by USGS Accounting Units in Mid-Atlantic
Region.
Accounting Number of
Unit
land uses
Dominance Contagion
Shape
complexity
Number of
patches
Percent of
potential
edges
20401
5
0.6
0.62
1.45
468
90
20402
5
0.25
0.62
1.46
604
90
20501
5
0.64
0.65
1.5
946
80
20502
4
0.61
0.57
1.49
387
83
20503
5
0.51
0.6
149
761
80
20600
7
0.36
0.65
1.49
810
71
20700
5
0.59
0.61
1.45
764
100
20801
7
0.47
0.59
1.45
588
86
20802
6
0.73
0.59
1.39
323
93
30101
5
0.64
0.53
1.5
560
90
30102
7
0.47
0.68
1.51
765
71
30201
7
0.38
0.62
1.44
707
81
30202
6
0.52
0.63
1.49
470
93
50100
4
0.69
0.46
1.48
706
100
50200
5
0.79
0.61
1.35
362
80
50301
5
0.52
0.52
1.52
724
90
50302
4
0.86
0.49
1.34
140
100
50500
4
0.94
0.61
1.26
127
100
The Mid-Atlantic Region is heavily dominated by forests when characterized by AVHRR data and seven
land use classes. In general, agriculture is the second largest land use although water makes up a large
proportion of some of the hydrologic units that contain the Chesapeake Bay. We focus on describing a
few of the hydrologic units to highlight their similarities and differences, but all of the data are presented
in Tables 1 and 2. The Upper Ohio-Little Kanawha (50302) and the Kanawha (50500) are almost totally
dominated by forests, the largest patch accounts for more than 95% of the watershed (Table 1), and there
are a small number of total patches compared to the other watersheds (Table 2). Thus it is not surprising
that these hydrologic units have a high dominance value (Table 2). They only contain four of the seven
land uses and have all of their potential edge types. One difference between the two watersheds is that
the patches in 50500 are significantly more contiguous with a contagion value of 0.61 as compared to
0.49 for 50302. The shape complexity values are low, 1.26 and 1.34, considering that forest patches are
very dominant. The Lower Delaware watershed (20402) is extremely different from the Upper Ohio and
Kanawha watersheds. It has a lot of patches (604) that are very contiguous (0.62), but it is not dominated
-------
by a single land use with a dominance value of 0.25 for five land uses. Its largest patch only makes up
13% of the watershed. The Lower Delaware has the highest proportion of disturbed land use with 11%
urban and 52% agriculture; we expect that it will have poor water quality compared to those watersheds
that are dominated by contiguous forest patches. The Albemarle-Chowan watershed (30102) contains all
seven land uses, has similar amounts of forest and agriculture, and thus has a moderate dominance value
(0.47). It has a large number of patches with the largest patch accounting for 25% of the watershed. It has
high contagion and shape complexity and has low edge heterogeniety.
References
Allan, J.D., and A.S. Flecker. (1993) Biodiversity conservation in running waters. Bioscience 43:
32-43.
DelRegno, K.J., and S.F. Atkinson. (1988) Nonpoint pollution and watershed management: A
remote
sensing and geographic information system (GIS) approach. Lake Reservoir Manage. 4:17-25.
Hunsaker, C.T., R.L. Graham, G.W. Suter II, R.V. O'Neill, L.W. Barnthouse, andR.H. Gardner.
(1990) Assessing ecological risk on a regional scale. Environ. Manage. 14:325-332.
Hunsaker, C.T., R.V. O'Neill, B.L. Jackson, S.P. Timmins, D.A. Levine, and D.J. Norton. (1994)
Sampling to characterize landscape pattern. Landscape Ecol. 9:207-226.
Hunsaker, C.T., and D.A. Levine. (1995) Hierarchical approaches to the sutdy of water quality in
rivers. Bioscience 45:193-203.
Kepner, W.G., K.B. Jones, D.J. Chaloud, J.D. Wickham, K.H. Riitters, and R.V. O'Neill. (1995)
Mid-Atlantic landscape indicators project plan, Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
Program. EPA 620/R-95/003. National Exposure Research Laboratory, US Environmental
Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC.
Omernik, J.M. (1977) Nonpoint source-stream nutrient level relationships: A Nationwide study.
EPA-600/3-77-105. US Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, OR.
Reckhow, K.H., M.N. Beaulac, and J.T. Simpson. (1980) Modeling phosphorus loading and lake
response under uncertainty: A manual and compilation of export coefficients. EPA 440/5-80-011.
US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Riitters, K.H., R.V. O'Neill, C.T. Hunsaker, J.D. Wickham, D.H. Yankee, and S.P. Timmins.
(1995) A factor analysis of landscape pattern and structure metrics. Landscape Ecol. 10:23-39.
-------
Seaber, P.R., F.P. Kapinos, and G.L. Knapp. (1984) State Hydrologic Units Maps. US Geological
Survey Open-File Report 84-708. United Stated Department of the Interior, Reston VA.
Sivertun, A., L.E. Reinelt, and R. Castensson. (1988) A GIS method to aid in non-point source
critical area analysis. International Journal of Geographic Information Systems 2:365-378.
Turner, M.G. (1989) Landscape ecology: The effect of pattern on process. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Syst.
20:171-197.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Analysis and Management: The
Importance of Geology
Craig Goodwin, Senior Scientist
Fluvial System Consulting, Logan, UT
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
A watershed-based approach for the management of public lands is being adopted by federal government
land management agencies. Watershed analysis is the primary tool that provides the basis for a
scientifically sound understanding of watershed conditions and management options. A primary step in
watershed analysis is stratification, i.e., identifying areas that can be evaluated as uniform units (U.S.
Forest Service, 1994). The most useful stratification criteria are those that control distribution of
conditions and rates of processes. This paper provides an overview of how geology may literally be the
most underlying factor controlling watershed processes and conditions.
Conceptual Model of Interacting Watershed Elements
A watershed may be treated as an open system with inputs, outputs, and measurable physical
conditions which describe the state of the system. Figure 1 diagrams the conceptual watershed model
used in this paper. Geology and climate are the two independent factors or system inputs which influence
watershed condition. Watershed vegetation, soils, hydrology, and morphology are dependent upon
geology, modified by the climatic conditions, and are interdependent upon each other, as indicated by the
arrows in Figure 1. Geology is an inherent watershed factor that does not change with time and which is
unaffected by climate, the four interdependent factors, or land use practices at a human time scale.
Climate and the four interdependent factors are ephemeral and may change during a period of several
-------
years to several decades. Land- and water-use potential are a function of these two independent and four
interdependent factors. Watershed condition at any given time results from an integration of these six
natural factors and land and water use practices. Land and water use practices may affect through
feedback mechanisms the states of the four interdependent variables, but they do not affect geology or
climate.
Because it is an inherent, usually constant factor over extensive areas of a watershed, geology should be
a first choice for watershed stratification. Geologic conditions are readily mapable, and, except for
unusual situations, need to be mapped only once, whereas some resources may change with time due to
climatic or anthropogenic changes. Finally, geologic conditions are critical for they directly or indirectly
affect many watershed conditions.
Geology and Geologic Controls
Geology, for the purposes of watershed analysis, essentially can be described by two parameters: rock
unit lithology and geologic structure. Lithology describes the physical properties of a rock unit, whereas
structure describes the rearrangement of a rock unit by tectonic forces. The principle unit used by
geologists for mapping rock bodies is the formation. A formation is a body of rock that consists of a
certain lithologic type or combination of types; it may be igneous, sedimentary, or metamorphic and be
consolidated or unconsolidated (American Geological Institute, 1984). Many rock units originate as
horizontal, sheet-like features which may extend over tens to tens of thousands of square kilometers, and
range from a few meters to several kilometers in thickness. However, near-surface exposures of
formations are typically much less extensive, ranging from only several to several hundred square
kilometers as a result of burial or erosion. Tectonic forces generated within the earth cause displacement
of crustal rocks and the development of structural features across rock units.
Lithologic Controls
For watershed and landscape analysis, two lithologic characteristics of rocks are of greatest importance:
rock strength and hydraulic conductivity. Numerous classification schemes have been devised to describe
rock durability, strength, hardness, or resistance to weathering. Compressive strength determined by
subjecting a rock sample to uniaxial (unconfined) compression testing is one generally accepted measure
of rock strength. Although lab tests of strength are most accurate, simple field tests using a Schmidt
hammer or rock hammer may be used as indices to rock strength (West, 1991). Rock strength, measured
in units of million newtons per meter2 (MN/m2), ranges to over 150 for extremely strong rock (granite,
basalt) to well under 100 for weak rock (shale, sandstone). Unconsolidated formations such as dune
sands, loess, or glacial till usually have strengths of 1 MN/m2 and less. Conditions such as fracturing or
weathering may substantially reduce strength.
Hydraulic conductivity (or permeability) is the rate at which water moves through a porous medium
under a unit potential-energy gradient. It is primarily a function of the cross-sectional area available for
water transmission for saturated groundwater conditions, and is also a function of degree of saturation for
-------
unsaturated conditions. Generally, saturated hydraulic conductivity increases with increasing grain size
and sediments of uniform grain size. Interlocking grains or crystals, as in igneous rocks, yield extremely
low conductivities, whereas unconsolidated deposits generally have high conductivities. Conductivities
may be very high where solution has dissolved rock and provided large flow pathways, as is often the
case for carbonate rock units.
Figure 2 illustrates a plot of rock strength versus hydraulic conductivity for several major rock types. The
plotted values are median values; not shown on the diagram is the large range over which the two
parameters may vary for a given rock type depending on specific conditions of a particular rock body.
Structural Geology Controls
Deformations of the earth's crust are manifested in rock units as faults (displacement along fractures),
joints (brittle fractures with no displacement), and folds (plastic flexures). Faulting and folding provide
for initial topographic relief and may differentially raise or lower formations with respect to one another.
Faults and areas of fractured rock are weaker and more subject to erosion than unfractured rock. Because
of this weakness, these areas may form topographic low spots and control the drainage network of a
watershed. Likewise, interbedded stronger and weaker rock formations may be exposed at the surface by
fold structures, with the stream network influenced by the outcrop pattern of the rock units. Examples of
Geologic Controls on the Watershed
Watershed Morphology and Sediment Yield
The bedrock underlying a watershed and soils derived from that bedrock have a significant effect upon
watershed morphology. Stronger rocks provide the opportunity for greater relief, whereas weaker rocks
generally create low-relief topography. Geologic structures may define the pattern of the drainage
network. Soil permeability and infiltration rates roughly correlate with hydraulic conductivity. Drainage
density is inversely correlated with permeability, and has been shown to be related to bedrock geology in
a region of climatic similarity (Hadley and Schumm, 1961).
Runoff Hydrology
Geology affects hydrograph characteristics including mean annual runoff, baseflow, and flood
hydrology. Little surface runoff occurs from highly permeable dune fields or karstic carbonate rocks,
whereas these areas may sustain a near-constant year-round baseflow. However, in areas where structural
folds cause bedrock to dip away from the watershed outlet, baseflow may be reduced because
groundwater movement is not coincident with watershed topography.
Flood runoff is more efficient and more quickly reaches a watershed outlet when drainage densities are
higher. Since drainage density is inversely related to the hydraulic conductivity of the underlying
bedrock and derived soil, watersheds underlain by impervious shales should produce higher peaks than
-------
those underlain by pervious sandstones. An investigation of 35 watersheds in Wyoming and Colorado
reveals runoff and peak discharge to be directly related to the bedrock geology of the watersheds.
Water Quality
Rock unit chemistry directly influences water quality, as water flowing over or through a rock unit and
its residuum dissolves salts from the unit. Analysis of stream water quality for northeast Wyoming
reveals that the waters can be classified into six distinct categories based upon major ionic constituents.
Grouping water quality sample sites by water quality categories shows a direct correspondence with the
bedrock geology underlying the source watershed.
Stream Character
Throughout much of the western United States, the U.S. Forest Service is stratifying stream segments
using a stream classification procedure devised by Rosgen (1994). Slope, sinuosity, entrenchment, and
sediment size are characteristics used in the procedure to classify a stream as a given type. However,
bedrock geology can often provide an explanation of why a stream has those characteristics. A stream's
sediment size is related to sediment source rock strength and distance of transport. At a reach scale,
slope, sinuosity, and entrenchment may be a function of rock strength and the stream's relationship to
geologic structure. Understanding the dependencies of stream character upon the underlying geology can
provide guidance in stream and watershed restoration.
Vegetation
The transition of vegetation type with climatic conditions is readily observable in mountainous regions.
However, vegetation type may change even more abruptly at contacts or faults separating distinct rock
lithologies. For example, in arid regions of the West, sagebrush tends to occupy shale and soft sandstone
lithologies where their roots can extend in all directions to absorb moisture. Pinyon and juniper, however,
occupy stronger, jointed sandstones, preferentially located along joints. In areas where plant community
differentiation is dominated by geology, geologic mapping could be used for wildlife resource
management planning.
Land Use
Geology may influence potential land use; an excellent example is agricultural land use within the Big
Sandy Creek watershed of eastern Colorado as described by Coffin (1967). Areas of the watershed are
underlain by a sandy silt loess, dune sands, or the Pierre Shale. Dryland farming in the area is restricted
to the loess, which is easily tillable and has good moisture retention. The Pierre Shale is fairly
impermeable and generates rapid runoff. Perennial short grasses are abundant, and grazing is possible.
However, overgrazing leads to erosion and invasion by less desirable plants. Dune sands are not suitable
for cultivation, for wind erosion can occur and soil moisture rapidly percolates through the sand. Dune
-------
areas provide abundant grasses for cattle grazing.
Geology and Watershed Stratification
Stratification should be made on the basis of rock units of similar physical or lithologic character,
possibly as expressed in Figure 2. Generally, the formation will be the proper rock unit for stratification;
however, groups of formations or parts of formations (members) may provide rational groupings.
Overlaying the bedrock stratification is a structural stratification layer, which positions faults, illustrates
primary jointing directions, and shows fold axes and dip direction. At watershed sizes of 50 to 500 km2,
geologic maps with the proper resolution are typically available for much of the United States. Geology
coverages can readily be incorporated into a geographic information system for concurrent analysis with
other watershed elements. Lithologic units are implemented as polygons, with structural features
typically specified as arcs.
Summary and Conclusions
Geology is a important factor affecting the conditions and physical processes occurring in a watershed,
and in regions of climatic similarity, geology may be the most significant factor in determining potential
watershed condition. Physical and ecological conditions of a watershed are often directly or indirectly
related to bedrock lithology and structural geology of the underlying geologic formations. Bull (1991)
indicates that seemingly anomalous conditions in a watershed may be completely explained by its
geology. This paper presents several of these relationships, for they and the underlying role of geology
are more than occasionally ignored in watershed, landscape, and ecologic analyses. Finally, geology
makes an excellent stratification tool for watershed analysis and management for several reasons:
¦ Many physical and biological processes of the watershed are directly or indirectly related to the
underlying bedrock geology.
¦ The areal distribution of geologic units is often appropriate for watershed-scale analyses.
¦ Geologic maps generally are readily available at scales that are useful for watershed stratification.
References
American Geological Institute. (1984) Dictionary of geologic terms. Doubleday, New York, 571p.
Bull, W. B. (1991) Geomorphic responses to climate change. Oxford University Press, New York,
326p.
Coffin, D. L. (1967) Geology and ground-water resources of the Big Sandy Creek valley Lincoln,
Cheyenne, and Kiowa Counties, Colorado. U.S. Geological Survey Water-Supply Paper 1843,
49p.
-------
Hadley, R. F. and Schumm, S. A. (1961) Hydrology of the upper Cheyenne River basin: B.
sediment sources and drainage characteristics in upper Cheyenne River basin. U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 1531, 198p.
Rosgen, D. L. (1994) A classification of natural rivers. Catena 22: 169-199.
U.S. Forest Service. (1994) A federal agency guide for pilot watershed analysis. U.S. Forest
Service Regional Ecosystem Office, Portland. Version 1.2.
West, Grahm. (1991) The field description of engineering soils and rocks. Open University Press,
Buckingham, U.K., 129p.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Development and Application of Watershed
Analysis to Washington State's Forest Lands
David Roberts, Unit Supervisor, Water Quality Program
Washington State Department of Ecology, Olympia, WA
Background
The State of Washington contains 12 million acres of state and private forest lands. Forest management
on these lands is controlled by the Forest Practices Act enacted in 1974 and a comprehensive set of rules
and regulations designed to protect public resources (Fish, wildlife, water and public improvements)
while at the same time providing for a viable forest products industry.
Historically, the Forest Practices Rules only allowed for site specific reviews of proposed forest
management activities. In the late 1980's, high timber prices, sales of large timber land holdings, and
concerns about environmental regulation led many landowners to significantly escalate their timber
harvest activities. The number of applications for harvest processed by the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR) has approximately quadrupled from approximately 8,000 applications per year in 1988
to about 11,000-12,000 applications per year at present. At one point, the numbers exceeded 16,500
applications per year.
During this time period, concerns were expressed on a number of fronts about the potential cumulative
effects of this increased logging activity. In addition, data from forest lands indicated fish habitat
degradation, significant changes in fish stock viability, and poor water quality. Reviews of the forest
practices regulations as part of a legal challenge revealed that the state was unable to prevent cumulative
impacts and the resulting public resource losses without a change in the rule structure.
The Washington State Forest Practices Board and Department of Ecology jointly adopted cumulative
-------
effects rules in 1992. With the help of participants under the Timber, Fish, Wildlife Agreement (TFW),
the need for rule changes was evaluated and a new rule framework was designed. At the same time, TFW
scientists were developing the first version of the technical manual used to implement the rules. The
focus was limited to fish, water and public improvements in the initial stages due to concerns about
methodologies and implications of wildlife. The result was Watershed Analysis (WA).
Overview
Watershed analysis has many attributes. First of all it is scientifically based. The best available
knowledge of watershed and ecosystem needs has been assembled and documented in a comprehensive
evaluation. The analysis process has been broken into two levels of detail to accommodate watershed of a
variety of complexities.
Second, watershed analysts must be qualified to participate in the process. Each technical area in
watershed analysis has a set of qualifications based on experience. In addition, qualification requirements
include completion of a training program.
A third attribute is the basin specific focus. Forest lands in the state have been broken up into Watershed
Administrative Units (WAUs) based on hydrologic and geomorphic considerations. Each WAU is
between 10,000 and 50,000 acres in size, an areas deemed to be manageable in terms of information and
decision making. The WSA process can be initiated by the DNR, or by any landowner within a WAU
owning 10% or more of the drainage.
Finally, WSA has a logical link to the other forest practices rules. In all watershed analyses, the analyst
knows that the minimum protection for all areas on the landscape is provided by the standard forest
practices rules. WSA indicates where additional protection is needed. This leads to basin specific
management and increased predictability for all those concerned.
The Watershed Analysis Process
The four key process steps in WA are: Start-Up, Assessment, Synthesis and Prescriptions (see Figure 1).
The process is usually overseen by a watershed analysis leader who keeps people on schedule and makes
sure the proper steps are followed and adequately documented.
-------

START-UP
ASSESSMENT
Watershed Process Modules
Rescivce Vulnerability Modules
Mm s Was ting
Stream Chan/mi
Hydrology Chmge

Surface Emsk>n
Water Suppf¥
Rtpmsn Function
Public Wotfts
SYNTHESIS ^
Casual Mechanism Report
Routing
PRESCRIPTIONS
Figure 1. Watershed analysis flow chart.
The Start-Up step primarily involves identification of team members and assembly of needed resources
(maps, data, equipment). Teams are established for each technical aspect of the assessment process, plus
synthesis and prescriptions. Lastly, the initial level of analysis (Level I or II) is determined.
The Assessment step is the most complex part of Watershed Analysis. It involves three primary
activities: data collection, analysis, and decision making. During this step, analysts must assess the
environmental effects of forest management activities on fish habitat, water quality, and capitol
improvements, and determine the hazards on the landscape.
-------
Seven "Modules" are used to assemble the necessary information and direct the decision making. There
are four watershed process modules. These address mass wasting, surface erosion, hydrology, and
riparian function. They assist the analyst in evaluating the following types of input variables: water,
wood, coarse sediments, fine sediments, and energy (heat).
Three resource modules focus on collecting information on fish use and habitat characteristics, water
supplies (domestic, irrigation, and fish hatcheries) and capital improvements (public roads, bridges,
power lines, etc.). Finally, a channel module acts as an integrator of the process and resource concerns by
indicating the dynamic character of the channel.
The resource modules provide two critical pieces of information. The first is resource "vulnerability"-a
qualitative measure of the sensitivity of a resource to change based on present condition at a specific
location. A rating system using high, medium and low vulnerability is used. The second piece of
information is a map showing the location of all vulnerable resources in the basin. It is used later in the
synthesis process.
In the next step, the analyst determines the likelihood of "delivery" of a hazard to a stream. Deliverability
is defined as "the likelihood that a material amount of wood, sediment, or energy will be delivered to
fish, water, or capital improvements of the state." Tools are provided for evaluating landscape features
and predicting delivery at various confidence levels.
When the assessment process is completed, the information from each module is collected by the module
team leader. This person assembles the information and verifies the technical quality of the products. The
end products of Assessment include a standard format report which prepares the analysts for synthesis. In
addition, 1:24000 level base maps are prepared with either watershed hazards (process modules) and
resource information.
Synthesis is the next activity. The team leaders of each of the modules assemble and summarize the
hazard and resource vulnerability information. The primary activity in Synthesis is the "routing" exercise-
an evaluation of cause and effect. Analysts review the hazard and vulnerability information, then
determine the likelihood that a deliverable hazard will materially change a vulnerable resource. Where
deliverable hazards are likely to impact vulnerable resources, an "area of resource sensitivity" is indicated
on the map (See Figure 2).
-------
Figure 2. Determining the relationship of watershed hazards to vulnerable resources.
The next step in the Synthesis process is called the "Rule Call". Table 1 is used to compare the
vulnerability rating to the delivered hazard rating for a given area. It indicates whether activities in the
future should be managed under current rules or not. If not, activities will need to be more strictly
regulated so that they minimize, prevent, or avoid impact to vulnerable resources.
Table 1. Vulnerability rating as compared to delivered hazard.
Delivered Hazard
Low Medium High
Low
Vulnerability Medium
High
Standard Rules
Standard Rules
Standard Rules
Standard Rules
Minimize
Prevent or Avoid
Prevent or Avoid
Prevent or Avoid
Prevent or Avoid
-------
For each area where the rule matrix calls for minimize, prevent or avoid, a causal mechanism report must
be prepared. This report describes sensitive areas using a standardized format including a statement
called the situation sentence-a statement that links the hazards, management activities, and resource
vulnerabilities together.
For each causal mechanism report a set of prescriptions are identified by the Prescription Team. The team
is made up of forest management and resource professionals who have been certified to do this part WA.
The sponsor of the WA is encouraged to include representatives from the landowners, state agencies,
Indian tribes and other interested and affected parties in the design of prescriptions.
The last step in the process is to develop a monitoring plan. At the present time, development of this plan
is voluntary. However, a module has been prepared to assist watershed analysis teams. The plans are
designed to evaluate key resource issues and watershed processes identified in the analysis process. New
mechanisms are being explored to ensure that monitoring occurs.
Once the monitoring plan is completed, a final report is assembled including all the maps and decision
documents. This report is peer reviewed, then sent out by the DNR for formal public review under the
provisions of the State Environmental Policy Act. Comments are taken and if no modifications are
needed, the watershed analysis is approved. DNR then uses the information in the watershed analysis
(primarily in GIS map form) to review forest practices applications. The prescriptions are voluntary and
applications including the prescriptions are given a minimium review by agencies. Applications from
landowners choosing to not follow the prescriptions are reviewed under the rigorous State Enviromental
Policy Act rules-a broad evaluation of potential impacts resulting from the planned activity.
Each watershed analysis is expected to be reviewed every five years. At these reviews, DNR will assist
the sponsor in determining the effectiveness of their prescriptions. Needs for changes in prescriptions will
be evaluated and modifications can be made at that time.
Summary
Many benefits have been identified in watershed analysis. They include managing on a basin level,
predictability for all parties, reduced processing time for permits, reduced workload in day-to-day
management, and a scheduled evaluation of effectiveness.
Currently, watershed analysis is underway or complete in approximately fifty-five WAUs. This is a small
portion of the 800+ WAUs in the state, however, we believe it is a good start for only three years of
implementation.
The process is gaining interest and more people are being qualified to conduct the analysis each year.
Adaptive management is being used to constantly hone the modules and new pieces are under
development at this time, mainly focused on water quality and wetlands. Finally attempts are being made
to link watershed analysis with Habitat Conservation Plans (HCPs) and Total Maximum Daily Loads
-------
(TMDLs).
References
Washington Forest Practices Board, Standard Methodology for Conducting Watershed Analysis,
Version 3.0, November 1995, Washington Department of Natural Resources, Olympia WA.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now
outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official
positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Structural Best Management Practices for Storm Water
Pollution Control at Industrial Facilities
John Botts
EA Engineering, Science and Technology, Inc., Hunt Valley, MD
Lisa Allard
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., Fairfax, VA
James Wheeler
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Introduction
Storm water management at industrial facilities generally focuses on minimizing the contact of manufacturing materials with wet
and dry weather flows through improved spill control, pollution prevention, and isolation of identified sources. In some cases,
these best management practices (BMPs) may not completely prevent storm water contamination and on-line and/or off-line
structural BMPs may be needed to capture pollutants before they migrate off-site. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
has developed guidance on structural BMPs for industrial activities (USEPA, 1992). In 1993, EPA investigated the performance,
effectiveness, reliability, and cost of four BMPs: water quality inlets, sand filters, infiltration trenches, and wet detention ponds.
This work included an evaluation of the BMPs at selected industrial facilities nationwide. The primary objective was to identify
factors that influence the selection of structural BMPs for industries, particularly the performance, limitations, longevity, design
criteria, maintenance requirements, costs, and environmental impacts.
Description of BMPs
Water Quality Inlet
As shown in Figurel, water quality inlets consist of a series of chambers that remove sediment, screen debris, and separate free
oil from storm water. Water quality inlets are designed to capture the first flush of runoff. This BMP is particularly well-suited to
capture particulates and hydrocarbons from small, highly impervious areas, such as loading areas, parking lots, and gas stations.
Water quality inlets can be purchased as pre-cast units or can be constructed on site.
-------
Storm water Inlet Pipe
BB3EajaBBBBBJ||K^BBBBBrfaJIEBBBBBflpEBBOTjPCBBBriHpB""|||||||a||||||||||'B*"1111111111^^
Source; NMPDC. «S2.
Figure 1. Profile of a Typical Water Quality Inlet.
Water quality inlets are commonly used where land constraints prohibit the application of other BMPs or where pretreatment of a
portion of the runoff is desired. These devices are generally used in an off-line configuration (i.e., only part of the runoff is
diverted to the inlet). On-line units may not perform as well because of the increased turbulence of higher flows that cause
resuspension of settled material in the sedimentation chamber.
Infiltration Trench
Infiltration trenches are designed to capture and filter small amounts of runoff, preferably the first flush. As shown in Figure 2,
an infiltration trench is an excavated trench, 3 to 12 feet deep, containing stone aggregate with, perhaps, pea gravel in the top
layer. Pollutant removal is achieved by filtration through the surrounding soils. Trenches can achieve up to 90 percent removal of
particulates, metals, organic compounds, and bacteria. Moderate removal of biochemical oxygen demand (BOD), nitrogen and
phosphorus is also possible. Pollutant removal may be enhanced by adding organic material and loam to the trench subsoil.
Preferred site characteristics include low surrounding slopes, well-drained soils overlying a deep water table and bedrock, and
revegetated (undisturbed) drainage areas. Upstream BMPs may be needed to pretreat runoff to remove sediments or
hydrocarbons that may clog the trench. Soil infiltration is the primary pollutant removal mechanism; therefore, groundwater
contamination is a concern. Industries can minimize the introduction of toxic and hazardous materials in the runoff by isolating
areas of concern or by diverting flows from these areas away from the trench.
-------
3 FT
1 FT.
GEOTEXTILE
FILTER FABRIC
REMOVABLE!
WELL CAP
4 FT. DEEP TRENCH
FILLED WITH 1-3 INCH
CLEAN STONE
UNDISTURBED SOIL
MINIMUM INFILTRATION RATE
OF 0.50 INCH PER HOUR
9 INCH SQUARE STEEL FOOT PLATE
1/2 INCH DIAMETER REBAR ANCHOR
Source; SEWRPC.
Figure 2. Infiltration Trench
Wet Detention Ponds
Wet detention ponds provide both quality and quantity control of storm water. A wet detention pond maintains a permanent pool
(see Figure 3) where long-term treatment of pollutants occurs by physical, biological, and chemical processes. Sediment and
particulate metals are removed by sedimentation and dissolved metals and nutrients are removed by physico-chemical action and
biological uptake. Typically, a sediment forebay is included to capture heavy sediments that would otherwise fill in the
permanent pool. The addition of shallow ledges or wetlands around the pool allows the growth of aquatic plants that enhance
nutrient removal.
-------
Source: Schueto; 1991.
Figure 3. Schematic of Enhanced Wet Detention Pond.
Wet ponds must maintain a permanent pool; therefore, the drainage area should receive sufficient rainfall and relatively
impermeable soils should be used in construction. Adequate land area must also be available for the pond and associated
easements.
Sand Filter
There are several variations of sand filters, including surface and underground and on-line and off-line systems. The Washington,
D.C. sand filter, shown in Figure 4, is an underground unit consisting of a sedimentation chamber for sediment and floatables
removal and a filtration chamber for removing pollutants associated with particulates. Sand filters can achieve high removals of
sediment, BOD, and coliform bacteria. Metals removal is moderate and nutrient removal is low. However, a peat layer can be
added in the filtration chamber to improve the removal of these pollutants.
Sand filters are recommended for highly impervious areas where land availability is limited. Washington, D.C. sand filters are
used to treat runoff from airports, loading areas, storage yards, vehicle maintenance garages, and service stations. This BMP may
substitute for water quality inlets in areas where lower sediment loads occur.
-------
30" MANHOLE
FRAME & COVER
30" MANHOLE
FRAME KCOVER
14" MANHOLE
FRAME & COVER
6" PVC
^D'EWATERING
' DRAIN WITH
PVC GATE
VALVE
WASHEDi"
AGGREGATE
6" PVC CLEAN
PIPE WITH CAP
OUT
FILTER
FABRIC
OUTFLOW
PIPE
Source; District ofCotumMa,

Figure 4. Washington, D.C. Sand Filter.
Factors Affecting the Selection of BMPs for Industrial Activities
A summary of the factors affecting the selection of the BMPs is presented in Table 1. Each of these factors is discussed below.
BMP
Water Quality
Inlet
Infiltration
Trench
Applications
Stand alone or
pretreatment
device
Drainage area
<1 acre
Short detention
time
Drainage area
<10 acres
Must receive
low
sediment/oil &
grease loads
Soil infiltration
rate >0.5 in/hr
Limitations
Not appropriate
for disturbed
areas
Routine
maintenance is
essential
Infiltration rate
reduced in
freezing
conditions
Potential for
clogging
Must prevent
groundwater
contamination
Longevity
Long life
span: 95%
operate as
designed in
first 5 yr
Lack of
regular clean-
outs limits
effectiveness
Short life
span: >50%
fail in 5 yr
Increased by
proper site
selection, use
of
pretreatment
BMPs, and
maintenance
Maintenance
Construction Environmental
Inspect each
season and
after major
storm events
Clean out
sediments and
debris
Costs
$5,000 to
$16,000 for
cast-in-place
Pre-cast are
less expensive
Inspect
annually and
after large
storms
Monitor
drainage rate
Replace
clogged media
$3,000 to
$8,500 for 3 ft
deep x 4ft
wide
(1,200 cu ft)*
$8,000 to
$19,000 for 6
ft deep x 4ft
wide
(2,400 cu ft)*
Impact
Efficient
removal of
debris, sediment,
and
hydrocarbons
Residuals may
require disposal
as a hazardous
waste
Efficient
removal of
particulates,
coliform
bacteria,
organics,
nutrients and
some soluble
metals
-------

Water table

Potential for

depth >4ft

ground water
contamination
i Wet Detention
Used for both
Moderate
Well designed
Inspect
Average 25 to
Reduces
Pond
quality and
precipitation
ponds
structural
40% more
downstream

quantity control
and low soil
function as
integrity of
than
flooding and

infiltration rates
designed for
embankment
conventional
erosion

Drainage area
are required to
20 or more yr
and inlet and
storm water

of 10 acres to 1
maintain

outlet
detention
Efficient

sq mile
permanent pool

Erosion
Costs include
removal of
particulates,

Preferred BMP
Space

control
wetland
metals, and

for nutrient
constraints

permits and
soluble nutrients

removal

Periodic
sediment
removal and
algal/plant
control
dam safety
certificates

\Sand Filter
Preferred over
Limited to
Increased by
Inspect after
$6,300 to
Efficient
(underground)
infiltration
small drainage
proper design
major storms
$10,500 for
removal of

devices where
areas
and

pre-cast filters
particulates,

ground water

maintenance
Monitor
for drainage
BOD, and

contamination
Potential for

dewatering
areas <1 acre
coliform

or impermeable
soils are a
clogging
Replacement
times

bacteria

of filter media

concern
May not
may be
Replacement

Low nutrient

Suited for
function as well
needed within
of clogged

removal

in cold climates
3 to 5 yr
filter media

impervious

sites

Table 1. Summary of the factors affecting the selection of BMPs.
Applications
Water quality inlets can be used where sediments and free oil are a concern such as at vehicle maintenance facilities, loading
areas, and parking lots. Filtration devices provide additional treatment for removal of pollutants associated with particulates,
including metals, BOD, nutrients, and bacteria. Soluble organic compounds, nutrients, and metals can also be removed by an
infiltration trench; however, its application is limited to small drainage areas and groundwater contamination is a concern. If
sufficient land area is available, a wet detention pond can be designed to achieve pollutant removal that is comparable to an
infiltration trench.
Limitations
Common limitations of the BMPs include the need to minimize the input of high loadings of sediments and hydrocarbons and a
-------
decreased performance in cold environments. Each of the BMPs, except the wet detention pond, is limited to relatively small
drainage areas (<10 acres) or should receive just a portion of the runoff, usually the first flush. Only wet detention ponds provide
both quality and quantity control of storm water. However, land availability may be a concern for wet ponds.
Longevity and Maintenance
Routine maintenance is essential to effective, long-term BMP operation. Schueler (1992) found that poor pollutant removal in
water quality inlets was related to a lack of regular clean-outs. Greater than 50 percent of infiltration trenches fail after five years
because of poor design and clogging of the trench (Lindsey et al, 1991). These BMPs will function well beyond five years, if
pretreatment BMPs or diversion structures are in place and clogged media is routinely replaced. Well designed and well
maintained wet detention ponds continue to perform well after 20 years (Schueler et al, 1992).
Construction Costs
The cost of construction includes permits, excavation, BMP installation, landscaping, and, perhaps, the addition of pretreatment
BMPs or diversion structures. Construction costs for water quality inlets, sand filters, and infiltration trenches are comparable
[costs in Table 1 are based on 1989 dollars (SEWRPC, 1991)]. Pre-cast water quality inlets and sand filters are less costly than
cast-in-place units. Wet detention ponds are considerably higher in cost; the size greatly influences the construction costs.
Additional costs for wet pond installation may include wetland permits and dam safety certifications.
Environmental Impact
Downstream water quality is improved through pollutant removal. In addition, wet ponds reduce stream bank erosion and
flooding by controlling the quantity of runoff released. This attribute is important in commercial areas and industrial parks where
high runoff flows can damage stream habitat.
Potential adverse impacts to the environment should be minimized. Control measures include prevention of ground water
contamination from infiltration trenches and proper disposal of sediments captured by the BMPs.
Summary
A variety of structural BMPs are available to control wet weather pollution at industrial facilities. The selection of an appropriate
BMP should include a review and comparison of several factors, including performance, limitations, longevity, design criteria,
maintenance requirements, costs, and environmental impacts. These criteria can also be used to evaluate newly developed
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Petroleum Hydrocarbon Concentrations Observed in
Runoff From Discrete, Urbanized Automotive-
Intensive Land Uses
David L. Shepp, Senior Environmental Engineer
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC
Introduction
This documents a portion of work performed by the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
(MWCOG) for the State of Maryland Department of the Environment (MDE) and EPA's Chesapeake Bay
Program Office (CBPO) pertaining to a comprehensive study of the generation and control of petroleum
hydrocarbons in urban runoff. The purpose of this particular study task was to characterize the relative
contribution of petroleum hydrocarbons and other typically encountered urban pollutants contained within
stormwater runoff from small, single land use catchments. The following four automotive-intensive land uses
were evaluated: (1) all-day parking lots, (2) streets, (3) gas stations, and (4) convenience commercial. The
study was conducted from October, 1992 through December, 1993. The study area encompassed the District
of Columbia and Suburban Prince George's County, Maryland.
Methodology
Due to budgetary constraints, only one site per land use was studied. The following prerequisite conditions
were met for each site: (1) the selected site had to be representative of the general land use classification, (2)
the selected site had to be uncontrolled from the perspective of stormwater management, (3) the selected site
had to be feasible for discrete land use monitoring (e.g. all stormwater flows had to emanate exclusively from
the targeted land use).

The study monitoring contractor, the Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory (OWML) suggested the
use of Cashockton Wheel samplers due to their ability to sample a vertical "slice" of the influent stormwater
-------
column. Due to the known partitioning of various petroleum hydrocarbon fractions in stormwater runoff,
OWML felt the Cashockton Wheel samplers were superior to traditional automated samplers in obtaining a
representative characterization of petroleum hydrocarbons from each site's runoff They consist of a small
"H" flume connected to a gravity-driven, rotating flow splitting device. As runoff flows from the impervious
surface to the monitoring station, it is collected and fimneled to the sampler by the "H" flume. The elevational
differential between the flume and the horizontally-oriented platter-like wheel turns the wheel, via energy
imparted to turning vanes from the falling inflow. As the wheel spins (similar to a record player), it splits a
fraction, or "slice" of the stormwater inflow into a collection vessel through a small slot in its surface. This
configuration yields a flow-weighted composite runoff sample and associated event mean concentrations
(EMC) for each of the evaluated constituents. The Cashockton Wheels were deployed inside catch basins (3
sites) and within a locked fiberglass monitoring shed in a surface installation (1 site). Notable operation and
maintenance constraints were encountered with the use of the Cashockton Wheel samplers in the study
context. Urban grit and organics were found to impede the normal rotation of the samplers. For this reason,
all samplers were temporarily removed from service and retrofitted with sealed, Teflon-coated central
bearings. Even following retrofitting, the problem persisted, requiring close attention and frequent cleaning
following storm events and regularly-scheduled weekly maintenance visits.
Rainfall measurements (rain depth) for 3 of the 4 sites were collected at the nearby USD A National
Arboretum raingage. Due to the distance to the gas station site (located in Laurel, Maryland) an additional
gage was installed on the stations' rooftop. Storm samples were retrieved following rainfall events and
transported to OWML in Manassas, Virginia for laboratory analysis. A technique, utilizing non-dispersive
infrared spectrometry, was developed for the purpose of evaluating the concentration of total hydrocarbons.
OWML staff developed a functional relationship between petroleum hydrocarbon concentration and
associated light transmittance in the infrared wavelength of 3.5 microns. It represents an improvement over
standard gravimetric methods for oil and grease since it requires less lab time, reduced sample volumes and
avoids "noise" from non-target solids in the sample volume. Associated limitations for this methodology
include its lack of specificity (the results cannot be compared with results from studies which generate a
higher degree of fractional resolution) and the potential for a lack of accounting for as much as 50% of the
lighter fractions (due to their loss via volatilization during extraction); this can result in a conservative
estimate of the total hydrocarbons. In a practical context, the total hydrocarbon concentration represents a
changable, dynamic index where, due to field volatilization rates, the lighter fractions escape within a few
days from the surface of the water column to the atmosphere.
Results
The following include the most important findings of the study:
1. While the total imperviousness for each site was virtually equivalent (estimated values ranged from 95-
100%), the observed median EMC's for each site exhibited substantial differences (see Figure 1). The
observed mean EMC's for each site exhibited a similar pattern as evidenced by arraying the studied
land uses in descending order of total hydrocarbon concentration: (1) Convenience Commercial, mean
observation: 12.4 milligrams per liter, range: 2.7 to 56.0 milligrams per liter, (2) Gas Station, mean
observation 3.7 milligrams per liter, (3) Street, mean: 2.2 milligrams per liter, range: 0.8 to 4.7
milligrams per liter, and (4) All day Parking, mean: 0.9 milligrams per liter, range: 0.3 to 4.4
-------
milligrams per liter.
TOTAL HYDROCARBON CONCENTRATIONS
MEDIAN VALUES (mg/l) BY LAND USE
O
o
o
5
>-
X
SOURCE: D, SHE PR MWCOG/MDE
HYDROCARBON STUDY, 1995
ALL DAY
PARKING
STREET
GAS
STATION
CONVENIENCE
COMMERCIAL
EVALUATED LAND USE CONDITION
2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) indicated that significant differences exist between the observed
means. Two-sample F-Tests of significance revealed that the majority of the means were significantly
different from each other. Only the comparison of street and gas station means lacked sufficient
significance to accept the null hypothesis. This suggests that imperviousness is not an acceptable
singular indicator for predicting total hydrocarbon concentrations associated with automotive-
intensive land use.
3. Data scatter plots revealed the following observed relationships:
¦ Rainfall Depth vs. Total Hydrocarbons. The All day parking, Street and Convenience
commercial sites exhibited a negative relationship, whereas the gas station site exhibited a
positive relationship.
¦ Rainfall Depth vs Total Suspended Solids. The All day parking, Gas Station and Convenience
commercial sites exhibited a negative relationship, whereas the Street site exhibited a positive
-------
relationship.
¦ Total Hydrocarbons vs Total Suspended Solids. All sites exhibited a positive relationship.
4. Observed data suggests a relationship between automotive exposure and total hydrocarbon
concentration. Thermal expansion and contraction of oil-bearing regions of automotive drive trains is
thought to be the primary source of petroleum hydrocarbons, via seepage. Duration of automotive
exposure (i.e. the time a given impervious surface is exposed to hot vehicles in a thermal expansion
mode) as well as volume of automotive exposure (i.e. the number of hot vehicles in a thermal
expansion mode exposed to a given impervious surface) are suggested as the principal factors in the
generation of petroleum hydrocarbon pollution upon automotive intensive land uses (see Table 1).
Table 1. Automotive Exposure and Observed Hydrocarbon Concentraions by
Land Use.
Land Use Duration of Volume of Automotive Observed

Automotive Exposure
Exposure
Median
Cone.
ALL DAY PARKING
National Arboretum
LONG (4 to 8 Hours
per Car per Day)
LOW (1 to 2 Cars per
Parking Space per Day)
0.7 mg/1
GAS STATION
Laurel Texaco
MODERATE (5 to 10
Minutes per Car per
Day**No
Repair/Maint. Service
Provided**Pump &
Pour Your Own "Micro
Spills" Anticipated)
MODERATE (A Steady
Stream of Cars Throughout
Day)
4.2 mg/1
STREET
20th @ Franklin St.
BRIEF (10 to 60
Seconds, Depending on
the Traffic Light Cycle)
HIGH (1,000 plus Cars
Estimated; AM & PM Rush
Hr. Peaks, Steady Midday
Use as Secondary Roadway)
1.9 mg/l
CONVENIENCE
COMM.
N.h. Ave. Mcdonald's
MODERATE (10 to 30
Minutes per Car per
Day Estimated)
MODERATE/HIGH
(Breakfast, Lunch & Dinner
Peaks, Steady Throughout
Day)
6.6 mg/1
5. Many of the highest observed concentrations were associated with rainfall depths less than 0.25 inch,
-------
with accompanying durations spanning 2 to 3 days. Concentrations associated with such low volume,
low intensity events clearly underscore the relative ease of mobilization of petroleum hydrocarbons
from impervious surfaces. Examination of rainfall patterns in the middle Atlantic region show that on
average, (approximately every 3 to 4 days) precipitation events, with the potential to mobilize
surprisingly high concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons, occur. Furthermore, given their relative
ease of mobilization, the potential for the delivery of substantial concentrations of petroleum
hydrocarbons from automotive-intensive land uses to receiving waters exists both regionally and
nationally for the majority of measurable annual rainfall events. The observed data suggest the
principal source (automotive), its associated accumulation medium (imperviousness) and delivery
mechanism (normal rainfall) central to this cycle.
6. Two separate items of information serve to provide a useful context for understanding the importance
of the observed median total hydrocarbon concentrations presented in Figure 1 and the previously-
mentioned range of observed concentrations for each land use (i.e. 0.3 to 2.4 milligrams per liter for
the All day parking site, 0.8 to 4.7 milligrams per liter for the Street site, 1.2 to 5.5 milligrams per liter
for the Gas station site, and 2.7 to 56.0 milligrams per liter for the Convenience Commercial site).
First, maximum concentrations observed from the Convenience commercial site, 56.0 milligrams per
liter, exceeded recently monitored observations for Hickey Run in the District of Columbia (50.0
milligrams per liter). Hickey Run has the dubious distinction as the most polluted subwatershed in the
degraded Anacostia Watershed (due primarily to a history of chronic and episodic waste oil dumping)
and as one of the most polluted urban subwatersheds in the entire Chesapeake Bay drainage.
Secondly, recommended maximum concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons for drinking water
supplies and fisheries protection typically range from 0.01 to 0.1 milligrams per liter; crude oil
concentrations of 0.3 milligrams per liter can cause toxic effects in freshwater fish (D. Chapman and
V. Kimstach, 1992).
7. Evaluation of rank and percentile of observed rainfall and hydrocarbon concentrations occuring over
the span of an entire year indicated that 23 of 30 (or 77%) of the top half, or highest, observed total
hydrocarbon concentrations could be managed via effective stormwater controls designed to treat the
first 0.5 inch of runoff from the studied sites. If a 0.25 inch design treatment volume was utilized, 12
of 30 (or 40%) of the top half of the highest observed concentrations could be managed. These values
stand in stark contrast when compared to the currently prevailing design rules for target treatment
volumes relative to the control of petroleum hydrocarbons in urban runoff. Typical oil-grit separator
design is based upon a 0.10 inch treatment volume of runoff. Utilizing the same overall dataset, this
level of control equates to treating 2 of 30 (or 7%) of the highest hydrocarbon generating events of the
evaluated annual rainfall.
Implications
Based upon analysis of the study observations, the following conclusions were reached:
1. Evaluation of the observations suggest that runoff concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons from
automotive-intensive land uses typically range from 0.7 to 6.6 milligrams per liter. Given the
recommended maximum petroleum hydrocarbon concentrations of petroleum hydrocarbons for
-------
drinking water supply and fisheries protection (0.01 to 0.1 milligrams per liter) and the reported toxic
effects observed in freshwater fish from crude oil concentrations of 0.3 milligrams per liter (D.
Chapman and V. Kimstach, 1992), the observed total hydrocarbon concentrations suggest their
substantial national impact as a nonpoint source pollutant. This suggestion is fiither reinforced by the
knowledge that many of the monitored automotive-intenstive land uses are commonly found
throughout all, but the most rural and remote areas, of the United States.
2. Evaluation of the observations and their respective catchment areas suggest that the degree of
automotive exposure (a combination of duration of exposure and volume of exposure) is the primary
factor in the generation of petroleum hydrocarbons in runoff from automotive-intensive land uses. The
pollutant pathway: (1) originates via drive train seepage from automotive vehicles, (2) accumulates
upon highly impervious surfaces designed for automotive conveyance or parking, and (3) is readily
mobilized via runoff produced by low volume, low intensity storms. The measured and visual
observations gathered throughout the course of the study suggested, with the notable exception of
expensive, new cars (W. Bell, et.al., 1995), virtually all motorized vehicles seep a measurable volume
of petroleum hydrocarbon based lubricating agents. Casual visual observation suggests a wide range
in the relative rates of seepage exists from vehicle-to-vehicle. Further visual observation suggests this
variability is primarily a function of the age and relative degree of mechanical upkeep associated with
a given vehicle.
3. Application of BMP's effective in the control of petroleum hydrocarbons is suggested for the
treatment of runoff from automotive-intensive catchments as small as 0.5 acres. Recent performance
evaluations of sand filtration BMP's , independently conducted by the District of Columbia (H.
Troung, et. al.,1993) and the City of Alexandria, Virginia (W. Bell, et.al., 1995), suggest removal
efficiencies for total hydrocarbons in excess of 77 per-cent. In addition to their reported removal
efficiencies, the local availability of sand and gravel resources in the Middle Atlantic's Coastal Plain
enhances the attractiveness of filtration-based treatment of runoff from automotive-intensive land
uses. Design treatment storage volumes up to the first 0.5 inch of runoff are suggested for the
treatment of petroleum hydrocarbons in the Middle Atlantic region.
4. A seepage evaluation is suggested as a new pollution prevention component of regularly-scheduled
vehicular safety/emissions inspections. A simple, relatively "low tech" approach could be developed,
possibly using kraft paper as an evaluation medium. The diameter and number of seepage stains
accumulated over a pre-determined evaluation period could potentially be utilized to develop an
evaluation metric for identifying unacceptably high petroleum hydrocarbon seepage rates. A possible
hierarchy of corrective actions could include: (1) mechanical tightening of drive train mating surfaces
containing petroleum hydrocarbon lubricants, (2) the external application of petroleum hydrocarbon
and heat resistant flexible sealants to seeping areas and (3) replacement of deteriorated and/or
hardened gaskets and seals (this represents the last choice due to its associated disassembly time and
related expense). An accompanying public education/outreach initiative as an additional component of
a comprehensive pollution prevention program is suggested. The effort could be specifically targeted
for the general public and the automotive repair and service industry. Its focus could revolve around
the need to raise the public's awareness of the ubiquitous nature and potential environmental damage
associated with uncontrolled/untreated petroleum hydrocarbons in runoff from automotive-intensive
land uses.
-------
References
W. Bell, et. al., (1995) Assessment of the Pollutant Removal Efficiencies of Delaware Sand Filter
BMPs. City of Alexandria, Virginia.
D. Chapman and Kimstach V. (1992) Water Quality Assessments. For UNESCO, WHO and UNEP.
H. V. Truong, et. al., (1993) Application of Washington, D.C. Sand Filter for Urban Runoff Control.
Stormwater Management Branch, DC Environmental Regulation Administration, Washington, DC.
USDA. (1979) Field Manual for Research in Agricultural Hydrology. Agriculture Handbook No. 224.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Environmentally Sensitive Low-Impact
Development
Larry S. Coffman, Associate Director
DER, Prince George's County, MD
Jennifer Smith, Environmental Engineer
Mohammed Lahlou, Environmental Engineer
Tetra Tech, Inc. Fairfax, VA
Introduction
Urban development has proven to greatly alter the quantity and quality of receiving water resulting in
cumulative impacts on the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of ecosystems (Galli, 1992).
Urbanization has been associated with significant degradation of aquatic, riparian, and terrestrial habitat
through loss of ecosystem quality and connectivity; loss of wildlife corridors; increases in the intensity,
frequency, duration, and transport capacity of the hydrologic regime; and increases in pollutant buildup.
Zoning and site planning requirements reduce impacts by preserving sensitive areas such as wetland and
floodplains. However, developed areas continue to exhibit significant disturbances due to massive
grading. Several structural management measures, derived mostly from flood control practices with little
or no adaptation, have been implemented to control the environmental impact of new development or to
retrofit existing facilities. Although in a few situations such measures have been demonstrated to control
certain types of pollutants, they have been of limited value in comprehensively addressing ecosystem
integrity. Furthermore, implementation of such measures has led to the development of programmatic and
engineering practices that pose various roadblocks to engineering and scientific creativity and innovation
in the way sites are developed. It is now well understood that controlling urban development after the fact
is expensive. Conventional measures are costly to implement and to maintain while they achieve only
limited ecological balance. There is therefore, a growing need to reevaluate current practices in all phases
-------
of urban development to incorporate innovative, cost-effective management measures.
The Prince George's County, Maryland, Low-Impact Development (PGLID) approach presents a new
perspective in urban development. It integrates site ecological and environmental requirements into all
phases of urban planning and design, and it considers the implications of development on a broad scale
ranging from the watershed to the individual residential lot. This comprehensive approach relies on
balancing urban development impacts and site design features while enhancing lot yields, reducing
development costs, and encouraging development and economic growth. The goal of developing such an
environmentally sensitive approach is to eliminate, minimize, or mitigate the "root" causes of
development-generated impacts at the sources. This goal is achieved through the harmonious integration
of site fingerprinting that preserves sensitive habitat and its connectivity and stormwater management
measures that make the development's landscape more ecologically and hydrologically functional. This
paper describes the concepts used to develop PGLID and the benefits to the developer, property owner,
and county. The Prince George's County has implemented this approach on a 200-acre residential
subdivision called Somerset, in cooperation with a developer and with significant contributions from the
State of Maryland Department of the Environment and a number of federal agencies.
Objectives of Low-impact Development
The basic objectives of the PGLID approach include (1) restoring the site hydrologic regime to mimic the
natural or predevelopment condition, (2) maintaining surfacewater and groundwater quality and
minimizing the generation and off-site transport of pollutants, (3) minimizing disturbance of riparian
habitat functions, and (4) preserving terrestrial habitat ecological functions and maximizing conservation
of woodland and vegetative cover.
Mimic Hydrologic Regime. Typically, when developing a well-vegetated site such as a forested area into
a residential community, several activities disturb the original site hydrologic response. Such activities
include clearing and eliminating the original tree cover, piping and channelizing flow to minimize the risk
of localized flooding, and compacting land surfaces and increasing impervious areas. This disturbance
results in a higher runoff volume due to the loss of interception, infiltration, and depression storage;
higher peak discharge and flow velocities due to increased imperviousness and runoff concentration and
decreased travel time; increase of frequency and overall duration of higher flows due to the combined
effects of increased runoff coefficients and flow routing and transport patterns; and decrease of baseflow
and groundwater recharge due to higher imperviousness. Additional impacts include increased
downstream flooding potential, accelerated erosion and stream physical and morphological instability,
and increased water temperature. Consequently, significant degradation of stream biological integrity is
often observed.
The Somerset development was originally planned using traditional development practices. Stormwater
impacts were to be "controlled" by conveying stormwater runoff off lots and roadways through
underground storm drain piping, and controlling peak discharge via three on-site wet detention ponds.
Past experience with these facilities, however, pointed to their inherent environmental and economic
-------
limitations and liabilities. The design and computation practices used to conceptualize such facilities still
rely on traditional hydrologic flood control approaches, limiting their overall function in mitigating
multiple and cumulative impacts. In addition, they are expensive to install and maintain. Through an
aggressive public outreach program and effective coordination with various stakeholders, the plan for
Somerset was redesigned based on the PGLID concept of restoring the site hydrologic regime to mimic
the predevelopment condition. This concept was implemented through an integrated site design that
reduces, eliminates, or treats the impacts at the source and attempts to restore the original hydrologic
functions. Several landscape and on-lot control features considered (Box 1) are easy to construct and
require little infrastructure maintenance, in addition to providing ecologically sustainable and balanced
coexistence between residential users and the surrounding environment. In addition to the well-accepted
aesthetic value, the on-site integration of such functional hydrologic features was implemented to
compensate for each disturbance to the predevelopment condition and preserve the characteristics of
various storm hydrographs. Measurable environmental benefits are anticipated from this environmentally
sensitive landscaping application. Prince George's County has initiated a hydrologic, physical, biological,
and water quality monitoring program to assess the "before" and "after" conditions. The county is also
reviewing the strengths and limitations of available assessment tools and is developing design guidance
and modeling techniques that could potentially assist both developers and the county's plan reviewers.
Box 1
Hydrologic Design Features
Considered
On-lot storage and infiltration system
Functional landscaping
Open drainage swales
Reduced imperviousness
Flatter grades
Increased runoff travel time
Maintain Surface Water and Groundwater Quality. When
developing a residential community, surface water and
groundwater quality is typically impacted through both (1)
hydrologic changes that increase erosion processes and
pollutant transport capacity and (2) increased loadings of
several pollutants associated with residential activities such as
lawn care practices and car care practices, as well as impacts
due to automobile and traffic activities, degradation of roads
and building material, and atmospheric deposition. Water
quality impacts are due not only to increases of conventional
pollutants and nutrient loading but also to a major shift in the
water quality composition. Significant increases in heavy
metals, oil and grease, pest control chemicals, and other toxic
organics, in addition to increases in bacterial counts and
temperature are key characteristics of urban runoff (PGDER,
1993). To maintain surface water and groundwater quality and
minimize the buildup and off-site transport of pollutants in
Somerset, several functional landscape controls were considered (Box 2). On-lot integration of such
features results in reestablishing and even increasing the surface storage capacity of the site;
compensating for loss of infiltration due to increased imperviousness; and treating runoff through
sedimentation, filtration, soil adsorption, microbial decay, and plant uptake. Bioretention, a key
component of PGLID, provides multiple functions for hydrologic and water quality control using a micro
scale landscaped islands interspersed throughout each lot and the community. An active public
participation program to promote pollution prevention practices and ensure proper maintenance of the
functional role of landscape features was initiated by the county at the early phases of the development
Enhanced infiltration and depression
storage
Minimized woodland disturbance
Runoff water conservation and reuse
-------
and is being carried out by the county, developer, builder, home owners association (HOA), and
individual residents. To facilitate this effort, PGLID homeowner brochures and landscaping and
maintenance manuals have been developed by the county and distributed to all prospective home buyers.
HOA covenants include provisions for the formation of an environmental committee to sustain PGLID
pollution prevention and landscape maintenance efforts. In addition, individual homeowners are required
to sign a bioretention area maintenance agreement to ensure participation in the community programs.
Box 2
Water Quality Features Considered
On-lot functional landscaping (bioretention)
Storage/Infiltration
F iltration/Removal
Grassed swales
Flow attenuation
Storage/Infiltration/Sedimentation
Reduced soil compaction and imperviousness
Sheet flow/Infiltration
Runoff water Conservation and reuse
Flow volume and concentration
Public education
Pollution prevention
Maintenance of functional uses
Riparian and Terrestrial Habitat Protection and Woodland Conservation. The biological integrity of a
riparian system depends on maintaining the stability and balance of the watershed's dynamics, and its
physical, chemical, and biological characteristics and processes over time. Conventional site planning
techniques consider delineation of ecologically sensitive areas. However, developed areas are typically
mass graded and then reconstructed, requiring the mitigation effort to be directed towards restoration
rather than prevention. Basic approaches used in land development include the preservation of riparian
corridors through wetland, floodplain, and buffer regulations (MOP, 1995). In addition, innovative
control of hydrologic changes is also a key feature for effective preservation of the terrestrial habitat
ecological functions and conservation of woodland and vegetative cover. The Somerset development uses
the prevention of hydrologic changes, coupled with minimized grading and maximized stream riparian
buffer setbacks, while allowing development to occur. The key functional landscape and control features
considered in meeting the objective of PGLID for the preservation of riparian and terrestrial habitat are
presented in Box 3.
Terrestrial habitat protection and woodland conservation also rely on the county's existing Woodland
-------
Conservation and Tree Preservation programs. These existing
regulatory programs provide an example of modifying zoning
and subdivision ordinances and grading requirements to allow
the flexibility needed to develop land with minimal impacts on
terrestrial habitat. The Low-Impact Development approach
expands the overall limits on woodland impacts in floodplains,
in wetlands, and on steep slopes to include provisions for
woodland connectivity and habitat, hydrologic, and water
quality functions. Additional features considered in the
Somerset site layout include the use of multifunctional
backyard habitat, landscaped open space providing
connectivity and habitat edge, and clustering developed areas.
Other features under consideration include the use of smaller
lots in cluster development, zero lot line subdivision design,
use of common driveways to minimize pavement, integration
of lot design into the existing woodlands landscape, site
fingerprinting to reduce grading and disturbance, and
xeriscaping.
Flexible and Integrated Land
Development Regulations
Box 3
Habitat Protection
Riparian Habitat Protection
Mimic predevelopment hydrograph
Maintain baseflow and infiltration
Stream buffer protection and corridors
Wetland buffer protection
Floodplain buffer protection
Steep slope protection
Terrestrial Habitat Protection
Smaller lots and cluster development
Zero lot line subdivision design
Common driveways
Integration of existing woodlands
landscape
Site fingerprinting
Addition of and enhancement of edge
habitat
Woodland conservation and tree
preservation
Xeriscaping
Generally, site designers and regulators examine the
environmental mitigation requirements of a development in a
mechanical fashion. Floodplains, natural resources, utilities,
roadways, and the stormwater infrastructure are designed to
meet "by the numbers" regulations. Site development designs -
and stormwater BMPs are usually selected based on subjective economic concerns, site constraints,
jurisdictional preferences, personal preferences, and restrictive zoning. It is assumed that if one complies
with a specific regulation, the adverse effects of development are adequately mitigated. Limited attention
has been paid to maintaining predevelopment ecological functions to protect riparian integrity.
The Somerset development required both flexibility and coordination in regulatory review and
enforcement. All components, including infrastructure, stormwater management, woodland conservation,
and zoning were considered as an integrated package. This has allowed the county to work toward
introducing and encouraging creative and cost-effective management alternatives. The regulatory review
and consensus building have involved coordination among eight county review agencies, the Maryland
Department of the Environment and federal agencies, and numerous public advisory and activist groups.
Although the initial process was time-consuming, the development review process has been streamlined
and is anticipated to provide for a more environmentally sensitive and sustainable community.
Cost savings
-------
Changing the stormwater management approach from a "collect and treat/pipe and pond" strategy to the
low-impact approach has significantly reduced site development costs. Cost savings are achieved as a
result of less clearing; less earth work; less pipe; fewer drainage control structures; minimum use of
roadside curb and gutter; less road pavement; fewer sidewalks; and lower wetland, tree and stream
mitigation costs. The developer's benefits included in addition to a significant savings in infrastructure
construction and a successful market acceptance. This approach has also resulted in reduced local
government BMP maintenance costs and a potential savings to residents through tax reduction.
References
Coffman, L.S., et al. (1993) Design Manual for the Use of Bioretention in Stormwater
Management. Prince George's County Department of Environmental Resources, Maryland.
Galli, J. (1992) Analysis of Urban BMP Performance and Longevity in Prince George's County,
Maryland. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington D.C.
Maryland Office of Planning. (1995) Managing Maryland's Growth, Models and Guidelines.
Flexible and Innovative Zoning Series: Achieving Environmentally Sensitive Design in Growth
Areas through Flexible and Innovative Regulations. The Maryland Economic Growth, Resource
Protection, and Planning Act of 1992.
Prince George's County Department of Environmental Protection. (1993) Water Quality Sampling
and Monitoring Report.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed '96
Contents - Sessions 21 - 40
[Session 211 \Session 221 fSession 231 fSession 241 \Session 251
[Session 261 \Session 271 fSession 281 fSession 291 \Session 301
[Session 311 \Session 321 fSession 331 fSession 341 \Session 351
[Session 361 \Session 371 fSession 381 fSession 391 \Session 401
SESSION 21
Consensus Building and Grass Roots Efforts in a Comprehensive Urban Watershed
Management Program
Josephine Powell, Zachare Ball, Jack Bails
Partnerships That Pay Off: TVA's Watershed Approach
Wayne Poppe, Renee Hurst
Parkers Creek Watershed Management Plan — A Local, State and Federal
Partnership
David C. Brownlee, Mark Headly, Chris Athanas
—r——
ffV 4 <3i, i
!-r' V
/£-•+ - -vi,
228
231
-------
Savannah River Basin Watershed Project: Implementing Strategies, Building
Partnerships
Meredith Anderson, Leroy Crosby
SESSION 22
SESSION 23
Citizen Partners in Water Quality Monitoring: The Volunteer Monitoring
Movement
237
239
The Nexus of Agency Reinvention and Water Resource Management:
Incorporating a Watershed Approach into Agency Activities
Shannon Cunniff
Transportation Planning — The Watershed Connection 243
Fred G. Bank
Return to the Future: Watershed Planning — The Quest for a New Paradigm 246
Eugene Z. Stakhiv
250
Alice Mayio
Swan Creek Watershed Assessment and Restoration 252
Kenneth R. Yetman, Doug Bailey, Christine Buckley, Paul Sneeringer, Mark Colosimo,
Linda Morrison, James Bailey
Save Money and Increase Community Support: Targeted Volunteer Monitoring 255
Anne E. Lyon
Demonstrating Partnerships for Habitat Restoration: Experiences in the
Chickahominy Watershed
Margot W. Garcia
SESSION 24
Lake Decatur, Illinois, Case Study: Nitrate Reduction for SDWA Compliance in an
Agricultural Watershed
Stephen F. John, Keith Alexander, Tim Hoffman, Laura Keefer
SESSION 25
-------
Comprehensive Solutions for an Urban Watershed - A case Study of the Beaverdam
Creek Watershed
SESSION 26
Historical Vegetation Changes On The Edwards Plateau of Texas and the Effects
Upon Watersheds
Mike B. Mecke
Implementation of a Watershed Management Plan for Drinking Water Source
Protection: A Case Study
Jane E. Smith-Decker
Reservoir Watershed Protection: A Voluntary Interagency Agreement to Protect
Sources of Drinking Water for Metropolitan Baltimore
Jack Anderson, Rowland Agbede, Patricia Bernhardt, Richard Dixon, James Ensor,
William Parrish Jr., Charles Null, Susan Overstreet, Catherine Rappe, Robert Ryan,
William Stack
SESSION 27
The Role of Pollution Prevention in the Watershed Management Approach to
Toxics Control
271
Mary E. (Lerch) Roman, Mow-Soung Cheng
Integrated Watershed Planning and Management: Growth, Land Resources, and
Nonpoint Source Pollution
Joseph F. Tassone, RichardE. Hall, Nevitt S. Edwards, Deborah M.G. Weller
Sawmill Creek: A Multi-disciplinary Watershed Restoration Project 275
Larry Lubbers
Managing the Mandates: Baltimore County, Maryland's Experience in Applying
the Watershed Approach
Donald C. Outen
278
281
285
290
Point-Nonpoint Pollutant Trading Study 293
Rita Fordiani
European Experience with Decision Support Systems for Watershed and Basin
Managers with Implications for the U.S.
Tim Bondelid
297
300
-------
308
312
Phil Bobel, Simon Heart
Watershed Protection Verses Housing in the Germantown Master Plan 304
Nazir Baig, Gregory Fick
SESSION 28
Ground Water Nitrogen Contributions to Coastal Waters of Virginia's Eastern
shore: Identification of High-Risk Discharge Regions and Remediation Strategies
William G. Reay, Michael A. Robinson, Charles A. Lunsford
Enhancement and Application of HSPF for Stream Temperature Simulation in
Upper Grande Ronde Watershed, Oregon
Y. David Chen, Steven C. McCutcheon, Robert F. Carsel, Douglas J. Norton, John P.
Craig
Evaluation and Use of Fertilizer and Pesticide Fate and Transport Models At Golf
Courses
William Warren-Hicks, Miles M. (Bud) Smart, Charles H. Peacock
SESSION 29
A Visual/Interactive Method for Examining the National Stream Quality
Accounting Network (NASQAN) Data
Lauren E. Hay, William A. Battaglin
Using a Watershed Approach in Superfund: NOAA's Newark Bay Watershed
Project
L. Jay Field, Jackie McGee, Tim Hammermeister, Corinne Severn, Diane Wehner
US Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water-Water Systems
Modernization
316
317
320
323
Lee Manning, Robert King
Characterizing Drinking Water Quality In the Watershed: Do We Have The Tools? 326
Carl B. Reeverts
SESSION 30
Application of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Models to predict Surface Water
Quality Resulting From Golf Course Management Practices
Leslie R. Brunell, Demitris Dermatas, Roy W. Meyer
329
-------
Urban Forest Management of Community-Owned Open Spaces
332
Brian M. LeCouteur
Best Management Practices and Integrated Pest Management Strategies for
" " " " 33 S
Protection of Natural Resources on Golf Course Watersheds
Charles H. Peacock, Miles M. (Bud) Smart, William Warren-Hicks
Hydrologic Methods and Stormwater Management Approaches Applicable to
Undeveloped Drainage Areas
L. Moris Cabezas, Thomas A. Shoopman
SESSION 31
An Overview of Washington State's Watershed Approach to Water Quality
Management
Ron McBride
Texas' Strategy for a Watershed Management Approach 346
Mel Vargas
Integrating Water Resources Management: An Evolving Approach for Wisconsin 349
Ken Genskow, Danielle Valvassori, Jim Baumann, Charlotte Haynes, Lisa Kosmond
Implementation of the Watershed Approach in Massachusetts 353
Arleen O'Donnell, Michael Domenica
SESSION 32
358
Talking to the Stone — The Art and Science of Querying Watersheds in Washington
State Watershed Analysis
Jim Currie
The Environmental Protection Agency's Tribal Watershed Assessment and
Planning Process
Terry Williams
An Approach To Selecting A Watershed For Rehabilitation Developed For The
Zuni Reservation, New Mexico
Allen Gellis, Andres Cheama, Stan Lalio, Jim Enote
Sustainability through Restoration: Experiences of the White Mountain Apache
Tribe
Jonathan Long
360
364
-------
Every River Has Its People
Ann Seiter, Lynn Muench, Linda Newberry
368
SESSION 33
Chesapeake Bay Community Action Guide: A Step-by Step Guide to Improving the
369
Environment in Your Neighborhood
Brian M. LeCouteur, Jennifer Greenfeld
Backyard Actions for a Cleaner Chesapeake Bay: A Cooperative Outreach
Program
Merrill Leffler, Rona Flagle
Multi-Faceted Extension Education Program to Reduce Residential Nonpoint
Source Pollution
371
374
Marc T. Aveni
Blue Thumb- An Urban Watershed Success Story 377
Susan Gray, Michael Smolen, Cheryl Cheadle, Laura Pollard, Jennifer Myers, John
Hassell
SESSION 34
Lessons Learned from Preparation of the Mill Creek Special Area Management
Plan
Michael Scuderi
A Multiobjective Decision Support System for Wetland Mitigation Banking in a
Watershed Context
379
382
Justin Williams, Robert Brumbaugh
Watershed-based Planning For Wetlands Categorization: The Financing Dimension 385
Leonard Shabman
Economic Benefits of Urban Runoff Controls 389
Rod Frederick, Robert Goo, Mary Beth Corrigan, Susan Bartow, Michele Billingsley
SESSION 35
Community-Based Stream Restoration Using State and Local Youth Corps 393
Andrew O. Moore
-------
Promoting Awareness of the Urban Connections to Watersheds in Cleveland 395
Deborah Alex-Saunders
Using Volunteer Water Quality Data in Assessing Human Health of El Paso/Juarez
Valley Colonia Residents
Cynthia Lopez, Jack Byrne
Urban River Restoration: How One Group Does It
Laurene von Klan
SESSION 36
A Ground-water Lens Based Strategy For Water Quality Protection on Cape Cod 405
Gabrielle C. Belfit, Thomas C. Cambareri
Searching for Common Goals: Protecting Potable Water Supply Watersheds 409
Justin D. Mahon, Jr, Raymond J. Cywinski
Ground Water, Source Water Protection and the Watershed Approach 412
Paul Jehn, Mike Paque
SESSION 37
Progress in Addressing Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution
Peyton Robertson, Marcella Jansen, Kenneth Walker
Integrating the Point Source Permitting Program into a Watershed Management
Approach
Deborah G. Nagle, Gregory W. Currey, Will Hall, Jeffery L. Lape
Stakeholder Issues for the Watershed Science Institute of the Natural Resources
Conservation Service
Lyn Townsend, Carolyn Adams
Role Of the U.S. Geological Survey in Water-Resource Planning in Kansas
Kyle E. Juracek, Thomas C. Stiles
SESSION 38
Procedures for Indexing Monthly NPS Pollution Loads from Agricultural and
431
Urban Fringe Watersheds
Gene Yagow, Vernon Shanholtz
398
401
416
419
423
427
-------
A Dynamic Programming Approach to Storm Water Management Systems Design 435
Kum Sung Wong, Karen Schaeffer, Jim George, Tom Tapley
Modeling Nutrients From the Minnesota River Watershed 439
Avinash S. Patwardhan, RonaldM. Jacobson, Wayne P. Anderson, Anthony S. Donigian,
Jr.
SESSION 39
Managing Watershed Data with the USEPA Reach File
Thomas G. Dewald, Sue Ann Hanson, Lucinda D. McKay, William D. Wheaton
Stream Water-Quality Data from Selected U.S. Geological Survey National
Monitoring Networks on CD-ROM
Richard B. Alexander, Terry L. Schertz, Amy S. Ludtke, Kathy K. Fitzgerald, Larry I.
Briel
The National Water Information System — A Tool for Managing Hydrologic Data
John C. Briggs, Alan M. Lumb
Watershed Boundaries and Digital Elevation Model of Oklahoma Derived from
l:100,000-Scale Digital Topographic Maps
Joel R. Cederstrand, Alan Rea
SESSION 40
Optimization of BMP Implementation Schemes at a Watershed Scale using Genetic
Algorithms
Abhijit Chatterjee, James M. Hamlett, Don J. Epp, Gary W. Petersen
Best Management Practices: Cost-Effective Solutions to Protect Maine's Water
Quality
Kevin Feuka, Sherry Hanson
The StormTreat System Used As a Storm Water Best Management Practice
Lisa A. Allard, Edward Graham, WinfriedPlatz, RickCarr, James Wheeler
Watershed Source Identification and Control for Heavy Metals 466
Louis J. Armstrong, Peter Mangarella, Janet Corsale
443
447
451
457
460
463
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Consensus Building and Grass Roots Efforts in a
Comprehensive Urban Watershed Management
Program
Josephine Powell, Deputy Director
Wayne County (MI) Department of Environment
Zachare Ball
Environmental Consulting and Technology, Inc.
Jack Bails
Public Sector Consultants
Wayne County's Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project (Rouge Project) is a
comprehensive program to restore the water quality of the Rouge River. This federal/state/local
cooperative watershed management effort is supported by multi-year federal grants with matching funds
being provided by local communities. The Rouge River Watershed includes 48 communities in three
counties of southeastern Michigan, encompasses 467 square miles and 125 miles of river channel and is
home to 1.5 million people.
A variety of pollutant sources has contributed to the historical and continued pollution of the Rouge
River. The Remedial Action Plan for the Rouge River, prepared by the Michigan Department of Natural
Resources (MDNR) and in conjunction with the Southeast Michigan Council of Governments, concludes
that progress has been made with point source controls but wet weather sources such as combined sewer
overflows (CSOs) and storm water runoff/NPS source pollution need to be addressed. Sources of
nonpoint pollution are varied and dispersed across the watershed. The Rouge Project has developed its
watershed-wide management program based on the concept that each citizen has the right to expect clean
-------
water from their upstream neighbor and are also expected to assure that their downstream neighbor is
given the same consideration.
The early days of the Rouge Project were focused on alleviating the current loads of sewage and storm
water flowing to CSOs and the construction of 11 demonstration CSO retention basins in several
watershed communities. Additional study showed that nonpoint sources of pollution, like storm water
runoff, needed to be addressed. One way to address these forms of pollution was to inform the
watershed's residents and businesses that they had a stake in restoring the Rouge River and that there
were things they could do to help restore it.
This necessitated creating a strong consensus building public involvement program to address the
concerns of area residents, educate the community about the effect of their current activities on the
watershed and include all stakeholders in the mission to restore the Rouge River. A Rouge River Public
Involvement Action Plan (Action Plan) was devised in the Fall of 1994 based upon a survey and focus
groups involving stakeholders living and working in the Rouge River Watershed.
The goal of the Action Plan is to engage numerous stakeholders, inform them, and hopefully gain their
support and encourage them to change their behavior to help achieve and maintain a healthy watershed.
This paper will define the consensus building strategies being used for each of the plan's seven target
stakeholder groups and present an overview of the specific activities being carried out with these groups.
The Action Plan identified seven stakeholder groups whose support was critical to the success of the
Rouge Project: the general public, the media, local government officials, educators, industry and
business, environmental and community groups and the technical community. To accomplish its
objectives, the project must inform people and receive feedback. Communication must be continual,
consistent, truthful and always two-way.
For each target audience the objective is to move the group along a communications continuum.
¦ First, develop the members' general knowledge of the Rouge Project (inform);
¦ Second, inform them on how point-source and nonpoint source pollution currently affects the
Rouge River and the targeted remediation efforts of the Rouge Project (educate);
¦ Third, work with them to identify and change attitudes and behaviors that negatively affect the
water quality of the Rouge River (change);
¦ Fourth, gain their support in fully championing new attitudes and behaviors that positively impact
the Rouge River (support);
¦ Fifth, build on the relationships developed to actively engage people in constructive
environmental behavior and support of improving water quality in the Rouge River in general
(involve).
The road to support and consensus-building should be paved with open communication and quick
response to questions or concerns. In many cases, the fair and open treatment of one group of
-------
stakeholders can help garner the support and advocacy from another group of stakeholders.
For example, when communities who are building CSO retention basins expressed concern about public
reaction to the construction of the basins, the Rouge Project conferred with the community leaders about
the appropriate message and means of distributing the information. Six meetings were held with local
elected officials and technical staff to identify what questions were most asked by the public, what
information would satisfactorily address their concerns, and what was the best way to deliver the
information.
Rouge Project staff and the local communities started with a list of the most asked questions about the
basins. Coupled with answers, this list served as an outline for an easy-to-understand brochure for
distribution to the general public. The brochure, entitled "When It Rains," describes why the basins are
needed, what will accomplished by building them, and where they are located. To date, 27,000 brochures
have been mailed by five local governments to their residents.
Because of the relationship struck by that partnership, the Rouge Project received support from the
mayor of Dearborn Heights, Michigan, and the City Council in establishing Golfview Manor Civic
Association as a pilot participant in the Clean Neighborhood Program, a pollution prevention program
that incorporates household hazardous waste education, stream monitoring and storm drain stenciling.
The Clean Neighborhood Program is targeted at the general public and was developed to:
¦ Inform individuals that nonpoint sources contribute pollution to the Rouge River;
¦ Inform individuals that they live in the watershed and contribute to nonpoint pollution;
¦ Provide residents with opportunities to help clean up the Rouge River by demonstrating how they
can minimize nonpoint source pollution thereby improving the river's quality.
Rouge Project staff made initial contact with the Golfview Manor Civic Association leadership to outline
the program in advance of a presentation to the general membership. The Golfview Manor Subdivision is
made up of 500 middle-income families whose backyards, in some cases, abut the Rouge River. They
participate in Rouge Rescue, an annual clean-up of the river sponsored by Friends of the Rouge.
Once the general membership agreed to become a pilot Clean Neighborhood, the Rouge Project staff
designed a survey to measure residents' knowledge of the Rouge River and pollution prevention
strategies, concerns about the general environmental health of the neighborhood and to define
neighborhood demographics.
A focus group of ten residents reviewed the proposed survey, made revisions and agreed to include it in
their next newsletter. At the same time, they were asked to define the characteristics of their
neighborhood, identify businesses with whom they had a good relationship and outline any
environmental concerns they may have. The discussion provided a snapshot of the neighborhood and
also helped identify possible participants for a parallel program for watershed businesses called The
-------
Clean Business Program.
The Mayor's Office and the City Council also reviewed the survey. The surveys and a self-addressed
stamped envelope were distributed in the association's monthly newsletter. Residents will help compile
the results which will be presented to the general membership and be used to tailor the Clean
Neighborhood Program to the Golfview subdivision.
The activism of another Clean Neighborhood pilot formed the bridge between the community, a local
business and the Rouge Project. Although, the Clean Neighborhood program in the Brightmoor
Community of Detroit is in the embryonic stage, residents contacted both the Friends of the Rouge and
the Rouge Project when they feared a local business owner's expansion would negatively impact the
Rouge River, which runs the length of their neighborhood. The business was purchasing surplus park
land from the city so it could expand a used car lot into a large urban neighborhood park which adjoins
the River. Ultimately, certain restrictions were put on the expansion based on input by the residents, the
Friends of the Rouge and the Rouge Project.
The businessman, who was feeling a bit bruised by the reaction of the community group and others, was
approached about being one of several businessmen to help develop the Clean Business Program, that
will encourage small businesses to be Rouge-Friendly in their operations. After he began participating
several things were discovered: he was raised in the Brightmoor neighborhood, he was very aware of the
Rouge and its problems and he was willing to allow his business to be used for a site audit to collect data
for the Rouge Clean Business Program. In addition, the community group will ask him to participate in
plans for a Riverfest in the park near his business. The Riverfest, to kick off the Clean Neighborhood
Program, will be done in conjunction with Rouge Rescue sponsored by the Friends of the Rouge.
Other bridges are being built. The Rouge River Watershed is fortunate to have a number of active
environmental awareness organizations. In the past, there has been some resentment on their part because
they perceive that the Rouge Project is marching full steam ahead without asking for their input, or
ignoring it when it is given. Through a partnership with the Friends of the Rouge and The Rouge
Remedial Action Plan Advisory Council that perception is being changed and real work is getting done.
For instance, representatives from all three organizations are using the recommendations of the Rouge
Remedial Action Plan and the Rouge Project Public Involvement Strategy as a framework to: develop the
Rouge Project message for the general public; decide what is the best way to get the message out and
develop a plan to bring more people to the river for recreational activities. In addition, the group is
developing a slide presentation for a Speaker's Bureau.
The media can play an important role in Rouge River Watershed restoration efforts. Ten years ago, when
the Rouge River was being written off as a viable resource, a local newspaper chain printed a tabloid
insert about the Rouge River entitled: "Our River: We discovered it, We settled along its banks, We built
homes, farms and factories, and slowly, steadily we began to kill it." After being approached by the
Rouge Project, the chain has agreed to publish an update pegged to the Rouge Rescue efforts in June to
-------
educate their readership about the restoration of the Rouge River.
The Rouge Project is using a number of strategies to keep the technical audience informed. It is
sponsoring a number of workshops for local community engineers which not only presents Rouge Project
findings, but allows local community engineers to ask questions and use the tools the Rouge Project has
developed. In addition, the Rouge Project Public Involvement Team created a Rouge Products Catalog
which lists all Rouge Project technical memoranda, maps, and data sets, that can be ordered free of
charge. The Rouge Project has also placed a complete collection of materials from the products catalog
in public libraries in seven municipalities across the watershed.
These are just a few ways the Rouge Project is forging bonds and creating partnerships to educate the
public and ultimately restore the Rouge River. Since implementation of the Action Plan, we have seen
remarkable accomplishments. There is still much to do. Public involvement work is time-consuming, but
ultimately rewarding. It operates under the assumption that we're all in this together and that the more
inclusive the process is, the easier it is to build consensus. We are now dealing with more subtle forms of
pollution which necessitates changes in the practices of the majority of watershed stakeholders.
Consensus building is vital to the successful completion of a comprehensive urban watershed
management program. This new approach may be slow, but the progress is real. Our success is
dependent on our ability to build on this progress.
Meaningful public involvement goes beyond holding public meetings, creating educational materials and
providing easy access to information. It requires careful planning to create real opportunities for
stakeholders to influence decisions. It assumes there is a willingness to share power and authority for
making decisions with those most affected. Above all, public involvement requires that those making
decisions listen and respond to concerns, suggestions and ideas provided so that there is a collective
ownership of the project by as many stakeholders as possible.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Partnerships That Pay Off: TVA's Watershed
Approach
Wayne Poppe, Acting Manager
Renee Hurst, Education Specialist
Clean Water Initiative, Tennessee Valley Authority, Knoxville, TN
Introduction
The mission of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) is to provide for the "unified conservation and
development of the Tennessee River system" (TVA Act, 1933). The Tennessee River drains a 41,000-
square-mile watershed, covering portions of seven southeastern states and includes more than 30 major
reservoirs, operated by TVA for navigation, flood control, power production, water quality, recreation,
and other purposes.
In 1991, the TVA Board adopted a reservoir operating plan that increased the emphasis placed on water
quality and recreation (TVA, 1990). This plan delayed the drawdown of ten tributary reservoirs to extend
the recreation season and included a five-year, $50 million program to improve conditions for aquatic life
in tailwater areas by providing year-round minimum flows and installing aeration equipment at 16 dams
to increase dissolved oxygen levels.
In 1992, to prevent these improvements from being negated by nonpoint pollution and to respond to
growing public interest in water quality, the TVA Board launched the Clean Water Initiative (CWI)-a
unique effort to break down the traditional geo-political, attitudinal, and financial barriers to watershed
protection and improvement by forging alliances with governments, businesses, and citizen volunteers.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Program Description
-------
The goal of TVA's Clean Water Initiative is to ensure that each lake, river, and stream in the Tennessee
Valley is ecologically healthy, biologically diverse, and supports sustainable uses. To accomplish this
goal without regulatory or enforcement authority, TVA is placing River Action Teams in each of the
Tennessee River's 12 major sub water sheds. These teams are responsible for assessing resource
conditions and building partnerships to address protection and improvement needs.
River Action Teams
CWI represents a transformation of TVA's water management organization from a hierarchy organized
around technical disciplines to a dynamic organization based upon cross-functional teams. These teams,
known as River Action Teams or RATs, are unique in several ways:
¦ RATs combine the skills of aquatic biologists, environmental engineers, and other water resource
professionals with the skills of community specialists and environmental educators. Technical
team members learn to communicate with the public in nontechnical language and to build
partnerships with farmers, waterfront property owners, businesses, recreation users, and
local/state government officials.
¦ RATs serve specific watersheds, enabling them to address the causes rather than just the
symptoms of pollution impacts and to coordinate efforts across political boundaries. Assigning
teams to a geographical area for the long-term also allows the teams to gain a better understanding
of resource conditions, builds community trust, and enhances the development of cooperative
relationships with stakeholders.
¦ RATs are self-managed. They are empowered to decide how to focus resources and address
protection and improvement needs, allowing a rapid response to evolving or newly discovered
problems and opportunities.
¦ RATs use resource-based, results-oriented performance measures to evaluate project success and
ensure that limited resources are focused on the most critical problems. Outcome measures for
fiscal year 1996 focus on increasing the number of hydrologic units meeting beneficial uses and
decreasing the level of TVA resources in targeted hydrologic units. Monthly performance is
monitored through key indicators—i.e., the number of hydrologic units with current stream
assessments, problem causes identified, correction/protection activities, coalitions under
development, and sustainable coalitions in place.
Resource Assessment
A distinguishing feature of TVA's Clean Water Initiative is the use of monitoring data rather than
suppositions to guide watershed protection and improvement activities. River Action Teams start by
assessing the status of individual streams and rivers in their watersheds, including ecological health and
land use. They take a comprehensive inventory of the aquatic resources in major streams and rate each
stream's health compared to what it would be like if it were in an undisturbed, or pristine, condition.
RATs conduct stream inspections and use selected biological indicators to take a "snapshot" of a stream's
-------
ecological condition. Team members collect information about the number, type, and condition of the
fish and benthic organisms, and analyze it for clues about what is occurring in the watershed. They also
examine existing data and seek input from resource users and other stakeholders. This information is
used to decide where to focus team resources and to evaluate improvement activities.
Physical and chemical monitoring of streams and reservoirs is conducted when additional information is
needed to assess specific water quality issues—for example, how nutrients, pathogens, sediment, or
habitat losses affect aquatic life or beneficial uses. In watersheds having significant impacts from
nonpoint source pollution—and agency or local interest in nonpoint source control—aerial remote sensing
is used to locate and characterize nonpoint pollution sources in order to target specific sites for treatment.
RATs are continuing to pioneer new methods to collect high-quality information at low cost with the
objective of spending less money on studying problems and more on fixing them.
Coalition Building
The fundamental strategy of TVA's River Action Teams is coalition building. Team members share
monitoring information with key stakeholders—regulatory agencies, state and local governments,
businesses and industries, citizen-based action groups, and watershed residents—and seek their support in
developing and implementing protection and mitigation plans. The challenge is to persuade potential
partners that solving a given water resource issue is important to meeting their personal economic, social,
and environmental needs, and the needs of their community.
RATs have found that building effective partnerships not only requires a significant investment of
resources; it often takes technical experts outside their comfort zone. Team members who are more
comfortable sampling water resource conditions and developing engineering solutions to problems spend
much of their time meeting with potential partners, making presentations to local groups, providing
information to reporters, organizing stream cleanups, and otherwise working to increase public
awareness of watershed conditions and resource needs.
The first River Action Teams to take to the field offer this advice for developing effective partnerships:
¦ Potential cooperators must be involved from the outset of the project. Their needs and priorities
must be considered in identifying, assessing, and solving problems.
¦ Successful cooperative efforts are inclusive. All stakeholders must be involved in the project
planning process—critics as well as eager volunteers.
¦ It helps to offer incentives to encourage local participation. Cost-sharing assistance clearly will
make a difference in the number of landowners willing to change their operation.
¦ Local ownership is critical. One or two local leaders dedicated to the success of the project can
accomplish more than an army of technical advisors.
¦ It is important to choose projects carefully, or as one writer put it, to "pick battles big enough to
matter, small enough to win." RATs weigh a variety of factors in resource allocation decisions,
-------
including public interest, the value of the waterbody (e.g., is it a source of public drinking water?),
the impact of the problem on the waterbody, and the probability of project success.
Results
River Action Team efforts to build partnerships already are paying off. Last year, 22,500 volunteer hours
were logged in monitoring, habitat enhancement, cleanup, and protection activities. Acting as catalysts
for change, RATs helped start or worked in partnership with 43 local coalitions to solve water quality
problems; conducted 412 stream and reservoir assessments; established 20 native aquatic plant stands;
installed 4,500 habitat structures; stabilized 9,300 feet of shoreline; and implemented 43 best
management practices, including constructed wetlands, fencing, and streambank revegetation. Team
members also spearheaded a variety of communications activities designed to educate people about water
quality and involve them in solving pollution problems.
By focusing on partnerships, RATs are able to accomplish more with less, as these examples show:
¦ The Hiwassee RAT brought together a cost-share grant from the National Fish and Wildlife
Foundation, heavy equipment from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and
technical assistance from the U.S. Forest Service and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission to stabilize critically eroding streambank along Shuler Creek in western North
Carolina. The project reduced sedimentation in a section of the Hiwassee River that harbors a
variety of rare mussel species. Trout Unlimited volunteers are continuing to work with the TVA
team to monitor sedimentation and siltation in the Hiwassee watershed.
¦ The Chickamauga-Nickajack RAT is partnering with Friends of North Chickamauga Creek
Greenway, a nonprofit citizen group dedicated to reviving North Chickamauga Creek near
Chattanooga, Tennessee. The group is coordinating the efforts of federal and state agencies,
Chattanooga and Hamilton County governments, and area and regional businesses to identify and
address a variety of issues. These include a multiyear project to reduce acid mine drainage by
installing passive treatment systems, an ecological restoration training workshop for the
community, acquisition of land for extension of the Greenway and protection of water quality,
streambank stabilization, and educational activities in schools and communities in the watershed.
¦ The Holston RAT worked with the Middle Fork Holston Water Quality Committee to teach
teachers in Southwest Virginia how to map a watershed, document land uses, sample streams for
water quality, and locate pollution sources as part of an innovative Adopt-A-Water shed project.
Teachers and their students have adopted sections of the Holston River and are working together
to solve pollution problems with technical support and funding from local, state, and federal
agencies. The project was recently awarded an environmental justice grant which is being used to
fund a full-time coordinator.
¦ For the last year, the Wheeler-Elk RAT has facilitated the Paint Rock River Initiative in
northeastern Alabama. The 450-square-mile watershed supports 98 fish and 44 mussel species,
many of which are threatened by sedimentation. Landowners are concerned about flooding and
streambank erosion. Landowners and 20 agencies and organizations are working together to
-------
increase awareness, stabilize streambanks, and implement best management practices.
Critique
As TVA moves forward in implementing its watershed approach, several weaknesses are being
addressed. RATs are working to include a wider group of public interests in team projects; to overcome
barriers to interagency cooperation, such as changes in agency representation, conflicting priorities, and
distrust among potential cooperators; and to develop more effective strategies for achieving the voluntary
use of best management practices, especially in areas with below-average income. Efforts also are
underway to develop better biological assessment tools and resource-based performance measures.
These challenges, however, are offset by the demonstrated advantages of a partnership approach. As
facilitators of cooperative efforts, RATs are able to address needs and issues that often cannot be
addressed effectively under single programs. RATs are able to:
¦ Factor in the needs and expectations of all stakeholders-including resource users, land owners,
and cooperators-to increase the likelihood that voluntary solutions will be implemented widely
and successfully.
¦ Tackle resource issues from a broader perspective, unrestricted by political boundaries, legislative
requirements, or jurisdictional constraints related to resource area, pollutant type, or technology.
¦ Develop and promote strategies that balance human use of the resource with resource integrity to
achieve economic sustainability.
¦ Protect resources before uses are impaired or ecological integrity is degraded.
¦ Leverage funds through cooperative interagency ventures to fund large-scale projects that
otherwise would be unaffordable.
CWI's success already has attracted national attention. Water Quality 2000, a coalition of 70 different
national organizations, evaluated TVA's approach in June 1994 and concluded that it should be
"expanded, promoted, and replicated in other watersheds." In June 1995, CWI received a Hammer
Award from Vice President A1 Gore. The Vice President specifically recognized TVA's River Action
Teams for reinventing government by developing new approaches for water pollution cleanup and by
cutting red tape to better serve customers.
Six River Action Teams already are in place, and TVA plans to establish teams in the remaining six
subwatersheds in the Tennessee Valley. The goal is to improve the beneficial uses of the water resources
and transfer the responsibility for sustaining these improvements to the user public by 2015.
References
Tennessee Valley Authority Act. (1933).
-------
Tennessee Valley Authority. (1990) Tennessee River and Reservoir System Operation and
Planning Review. Knoxville, TN.
Water Quality 2000 Model Watershed Committee. (1994) Evaluation of a Watershed Approach to
Clean Water: A Site Visit to the Tennessee Valley Authority and Evaluation of their Clean Water
Initiative. Alexandria, VA.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Parkers Creek Watershed Management Plan-A
Local, State, and Federal Partnership
David C. Brownlee, PhD, AICP, Principal Environmental Planner
Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning, Prince Frederick, MD
Mark Headly, Associate
Wetlands and Environmental Management, Dewberry and Davis, Fairfax, VA
Chris Athanas, PhD, President
Chris Athanas, PhD. & Associates, Inc., Laurel, MD Parkers Creek Watershed
Task Force
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Introduction
The Parkers Creek Watershed Management Plan is the result of a local, state, federal, and private
partnership to preserve, protect, and manage the natural resources in a watershed with rapid growth
potential. The watershed is located in Calvert County, Maryland, a peninsular county lying between the
Chesapeake Bay and the Patuxent River. The county, though rural, is experiencing greater than a 4%
growth rate (highest in Maryland). However, the Parkers Creek watershed has experienced very little
growth except in its northwest section which encompasses part of the Prince Frederick Town Center.
Prince Frederick is the major growth center in the County for government, medical, and retail activity
and is targeted for high density residential growth. The greatest challenge of this Plan is to promote
economic viability of the Prince Frederick Town Center while preserving the pristine nature of a large
portion of the Parkers Creek watershed.
-------
Prior to the watershed management initiatives, major development projects in the Prince Frederick Town
Center which required some fill of nontidal wetlands where reviewed by State and Federal Agencies on a
site by site basis. The review was without regard to the fact that the site was within a designated growth
area and that over the entire watershed the County was being very protective of sensitive areas and was
promoting preservation of habitat and open space. Local, state, and federal agencies agreed that a
comprehensive watershed management approach would be the best way to evaluate future projects in the
watershed. The citizen based Parkers Creek Watershed Task Force was formed to guide the development
of the Parkers Creek Watershed Management Plan.
Parkers Creek
Parkers Creek flows from west to east and becomes tidal before flowing into the Chesapeake Bay. The
watershed, encompassing approximately 12.6 square miles, includes the mainstem of Parkers Creek and
sixteen tributaries and associated wetlands flowing from the north and south into the Creek. The
watershed contains some of the largest unbroken woodlands left in Calvert County. These surround non-
tidal wetlands and the only pristine salt-water/fresh-water marsh on the Western Shore of the Chesapeake
Bay. Parkers Creek flows through woods and marsh, across a barrier beach, and into Chesapeake Bay.
The high cliffs at each end of the beach, the open bay, the creek, marsh, wetlands, and woods are all still
in their natural state. This combination is unique.
Parkers Creek Watershed Management Plan
Approach
The Plan follows the model given in "A Guide to Developing Nontidal Wetlands Watershed
Management Plans in Maryland." This document is a result of the Maryland Nontidal Wetlands
Protection Act (MNWPA, 1989) which followed from the Chesapeake Bay Agreement in (1987). The
MNWPA mandated that the State assist local governments in the development of watershed management
plans which address wetland protection, cumulative impacts, mitigation, water supply, and flood
management. This plan, when certified by the State and adopted by Calvert County, will be used to
evaluate proposed wetland impacts in the watershed under section 404 of the Clean Water Act.
Visions and Goals
The Parkers Creek Watershed Task Force,after reviewing the functional assessment, and getting direction
and information from federal, state, and local agencies, developed visions for the Parkers Creek
Watershed and from these visions, set goals and developed an action plan.
Though the action plan is too lengthy to include here, the visions and goals are listed below:
¦ Preserve open space, wildlife corridors, and vistas
-------
Goal Preserve the eastern 2/3 of the watershed
Goal Preserve, extend, and improve wildlife corridors
¦ Foster productivity
Goal Support non-polluting farming operations
Goal Maintain water quality in the watershed
¦ Encourage ecological and cultural research
Goal Encourage ecological research center in watershed
Goal Conduct cultural resources survey for the watershed.
¦ Maintain and improve water quality
Goal Establish water quality monitoring program in Parkers Creek
Goal Decrease impacts from developed areas on watershed
¦ Maintain land values
Goal Provide programs for land preservation that maintain property values
Natural Resource Identification
As part of the Watershed Management Plan, attempts have been made to locate, map, and document as
many of the natural resources in the watershed as possible. These resources include wetlands and
waterways, hydric soils, floodplains, water supply, forests, and rare, threatened, and endangered species
habitat.
Wetlands. Wetlands within the Parkers Creek watershed were identified using the FWS National
Wetland Inventory maps. Data were collected from the majority of these wetlands to assess their
functional value.
In the "Parkers Creek Watershed Wetland Assessment" (PCWWA, 1995, Dewberry and Davis and Chris
Athanas, Ph.D. & Associates, Inc.) the functional value of each of the wetlands, based on an assessment
of 52 out of a total of 88 wetlands, was estimated using the WET II (Adamus et al., 1987) and New
Hampshire (Ammann & Stone, 1991) wetland functional assessment procedures. In addition, an
expanded wildlife habitat procedure was developed to obtain a broader perspective of habitat than that
obtained by either the New Hampshire method or Wet II.
An examination of all of the freshwater wetlands in the Parkers Creek watershed as a functioning system
provides insight into the watershed. Most of the nontidal wetlands along the Parkers Creek mainstem
provide the pollution removal/transformation and water-oriented wildlife functions in the watershed. The
forested PFOIA wetlands extending up along the tributaries of the creek provide several important
functions in the watershed that do not show up in the WET II and New Hampshire method assessments.
These wetlands provide stable conduits for the transfer of water and forest organic material to Parkers
Creek from the surrounding uplands. In addition, the wetland forests, along with the contiguous upland
forests, remove fine sediment and nutrients from the non-channel runoff leaving agricultural fields. A
very important function of these forested wetlands is providing habitat diversity within the landscape.
-------
Habitat of Special Concern. The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) has identified
several rare, threatened or endangered species within the watershed. Bald Eagles (Haliaeetus
leucocephalus), Northeaster Beach Tiger-Beetles (Cicindela dorsalis), single-headed pussytoes
(Antennaria solitaria), and large-seeded touch-me-nots (Myosotis macrosperma) exist in the watershed.
In addition, the large tracts of contiguous forest area are potential forest interior dwelling (FID) bird
habitat.
Forest Cover. Parkers Creek has over 5,594 acres of forest (76% of the watershed) and 80% of this forest
qualifies as potential FID bird habitat. It is therefore important to preserve this large contiguous core
natural area and link it by forest corridors to other significant blocks of undisturbed natural area.
Cumulative Impacts
The cumulative impacts to wetlands in the watershed were evaluated based on two build-out scenarios in
conjunction with the wetland functional analysis. A flood study was also conducted in conjunction with
the COE, Baltimore District.
In terms of nutrient and sediment inputs, the two subwatersheds draining the Town Center are predicted
to have the greatest increases in loadings under full build-out, and among the highest in total loadings. It
was concluded in the functional analysis that, due to the pollutant loadings and the town center zoning
and its associated impervious surfaces, that the stormwater runoff from these two subwatersheds could
best be treated with regional stormwater basins. This approach is currently being discussed with federal,
state, and local agencies.
By contrast, the low density clustered development that could occur on much of the land in the remaining
subwatersheds can be treated by on-site stormwater management basins. For those areas where
agriculture or forestry is to be preserved, non-structural stormwater runoff management practices could
be used.
With the expanding traffic demand, options to accommodate the additional traffic loads are being
considered by the Maryland State Highway Administration. One of the alternatives was an eastern Prince
Frederick bypass. This proposed bypass would have resulted in the displacement of 20 to 30 structures,
and the filling of 24 acres of wetland in the Parkers Creek Watershed. The COE found the eastern bypass
the least favorable alternative due to the greatest loss of wetlands and greatest costs. The Parkers Creek
Watershed Management Plan based on the functional analysis supports this conclusion.
Partnerships
The development of the Parkers Creek Watershed Management Plan has been and continues to be a
collaborative effort by local, state, federal, and private entities (Table 1).
-------
Table 1. Matrix of Local, State, Federal, and Private Partnerships in the Development of the
Parkers Creek Watershed Management Plan
Funding
Natural Res. Inventory
Visions and Goals
Cumulative Impacts
Monitoring
Flood Study
Certification of Plan
Adoption of Plan
Local
CCG
CCG PCWTF
CSCD
PCWTF CCG*
CCG CSCD*
PCWTF*
CCG PCWTF CCS
CCG
CCG CCC
PCWTF*
State
DNR-CZM
MDE-WMA
DNRMDE
DNR-CZM*
MDE-WMA*
DNR* MDE*
DNR
DNR*
MDE-WMA
MDE* DNR*
Federal
EPA COE FWS
NOAA
FWS NRCS
EPA-BP*
COE* FWS*
NRCS*
COE FEMA*
COE* FWS*
Private
ACLT CBT TNC
Consultants
ACLT* Consultants*
Consultants
ACLT
Consultants
ACLT = American Chestnut Land Trust; BP = Chesapeake Bay Program; CBT = Chesapeake Bay Trust; CCG =
Calvert County Government; CCC = Calvert County Citizens; CCS = Calvert County Schools; COE = Army Corp of
Engineers; CSCD = Calvert Soil Conservation District; CZM = Coastal Zone Management Division; DNR = Maryland
Department of Natural Resources; EPA = Environmental Protection Agency; FEMA = Federal Emergency Management
Administration; FWS = US Fish and Wildlife Service; MDE = Maryland Department of the Environment; NOAA =
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration; NRCS = Natural Resources Conservation Service; PCWTF =
Parkers Creek Watershed Task Force; TNC = The Nature Conservancy; WMA = Water Management Administration. *
= Advise and/or review.
The partnership begins with a recognition by all parties of the value and appropriateness of the watershed
planning approach and a recognition of the interest that each of the groups play in its formation and
implementation. The cooperation continues throughout the watershed planning effort including aspects
such as: funding, providing a natural resources inventory, developing the visions and goals of the plan,
estimating cumulative impacts, monitoring water quality, and certification of the plan. The PCWTF was
responsible for developing the visions, goals, and an action plan for the watershed. They consulted with
local, state, and federal agencies as well as with private consultants during this process. The Maryland
Department of the Environment, Water Management Administration is responsible for the certification
process in which they consult with other state and federal agencies. The adoption process is a County
Government responsibility though comments from state and federal agencies and the public are invited
during the public hearing process.
Summary
-------
It is a local, state, and federal goal to preserve as much of this watershed, especially its wetlands, outside
of the town center as possible. It is also a goal to protect the pristine portions of the watershed from the
impacts of the development of the town center while maintaining the towns economic viability. The
Parkers Creek Watershed Management Plan represents a partnership among local, state, federal, and
private entities to accomplish these goals.
Acknowledgements
Funding for this study was provided by: Calvert County Government; the Coastal and Watershed
Resources Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources, through a grant (NA 370 ZO 359) from
NOAA; the Water Management Administration, Maryland Department of the Environment through a
grant (CD 003918-01-0) from EPA; Chesapeake Bay Trust; and COE, Baltimore District. The views,
opinions, or policies expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views,
opinions, or policies of the funding agencies.
References
Adamus, P.R., E.J. Clairain, R.D. Smith, and R.E. Young. 1987. Wetland Evaluation Technique
(WET), Volume II, Methodology. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C.
Ammarm, A.P. and A. Lindley Stone. 1991. Method for the comparative evaluation of nontidal
wetlands in New Hampshire. Published by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services. NHDES-WRD-1991-3.
Dewberry & Davis and Chris Athanas, Ph.D. & Associates, Inc. 1995. Parkers Creek Watershed
Wetland Assessment. Final Report. For Calvert County Department of Planning and Zoning.
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Water Resources Administration. 1991. A Guide for
Developing Nontidal Wetlands Watershed Management Plans in Maryland.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Savannah River Basin Watershed Project:
Implementing Strategies, Building Partnerships
Meredith Anderson, Environmental Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region IV, Atlanta, GA
Leroy Crosby, Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Savannah District, Savannah, GA
The emphasis of many environmental programs is shifting towards an integrated, holistic management
approach in order to cohesively address the many diverse environmental threats to the water, air, and
land. This approach, often termed "ecosystem protection," emphasizes the achievement and measurement
of environmental results and builds on a water quality protection approach utilized by many agencies.
This water quality protection approach is being applied in the Savannah River basin (Figure 1) to reduce
environmental and human health risk through improved resource protection, with water quality as a
primary indicator of program success.
The watershed protection approach in the Savannah River basin is built on three main principles: (1)
identification of the primary threats to human and ecosystem health within the watershed, (2)
involvement of the people, or stakeholders, most likely to be concerned or affected or most able to take
action, and (3) the development and implementation of actions in a comprehensive, integrated manner.
The vision of project participants is to manage comprehensively the Savannah River basin to conserve,
restore, enhance, and protect its ecosystems, especially aquatic ecosystems, in a way that allows the
balancing of multiple uses. The goal is to develop and implement a multi-agency/organization
environmental protection project which incorporates the authorities and expertise of all interested parties
in the future management and protection of the basin's resources.
At the initiation of the Savannah River Basin Watershed Project, eighty-eight (88) environmental issues
-------
related to the Savannah River basin were identified
by basin stakeholders. These issues included
impacts to fish resources, riparian habitat
degradation, reservoir discharge impacts, and
wetlands impacts, for example. The issues formed
the basis for the development of a project structure,
which consists of six (6) Resource Committees,
three (3) Technical Advisory Committees, a
Management Committee, and a Policy Committee
(Figure 2).
Savannah
River Basin
«¦ ,r
I
S41
Georgia
so
North Carolina
South Carolina
SAVANNAH RIViR BASIN WATSbbMri:
W COHlMTTf!
S2
« 40 120 tiOmilw
40 SO 120 140 Kiliimtters
Savannah River Basin Watershed
Project Location Map.
SAVANNAH
HARBOR

MANAGEMENT

CCWMIIIfct
DEVELOPMENT
NC MAP~~
MOMTOiiii®
RESOURCE COW TfEIS
WATER QUALfTY
mcmMitemi (:i,
-------
ranking by many different groups of stakeholders in the membership.
Another area with virtually the same level of agreement concerned the lack of coordination,
communication, and cooperation by stakeholders around this great central resource, the Savannah River.
The members found a need for improvement in all levels of government (federal, state, and local), within
different agencies in the same levels of government, and between the public and private sectors.
A third general area of concern involved data and information technology. This included the lack of
appropriate scientific data needed for decisions, the lack of common data (different data is now used by
different entities to address the same issue), the need for common models (multiple models are now used
by different entities to address a single issue), and the need for a geographic information system
accessible to all stakeholders.
The Management Committee found that there were many worthwhile and valid efforts being made to
improve the Savannah River and its resources. These endeavors could be improved with increased
communication and coordination. A collective plan, or watershed strategy, with all stakeholders involved
will make more efficient use of the limited financial resources available to the Savannah River basin
community of resource managers and users.
The Policy Committee is developing and implementing a watershed strategy from the Initial Assessment
Report. Both short-term and long-term objectives are being developed to address the priority
recommendations of the Initial Assessment Report. Specifically, the watershed strategy will: identify the
highest priority problems and opportunities, as presented in the Initial Assessment Report; describe
specific actions to address problems and opportunities and identify who will take these actions; specify
problems or issues that require additional data gathering and analysis; identify opportunities for
cooperative efforts among stakeholders; and delineate ways to leverage resources from project
participants.
This multi-stakeholder process will accomplish short- and long-term basin management and protection
efforts utilizing the expertise, authorities, and resources of all basin stakeholders. It will promote
coordination, cooperation, and planning among the stakeholders, ultimately maximizing resources and
environmental results.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Nexus of Agency Reinvention and Water
Resource Management: Incorporating a Watershed
Approach into Agency Activities
Shannon Cunniff, Assistant to the Commissioner
Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, DC
Most people know the Bureau of Reclamation as the builder of big dams and the largest supplier of water
in the 17 western states, delivering each year 30 to 35 million acre-feet of water for agriculture,
municipal, industrial, and domestic uses. However, BOR projects often serve multiple purposes,
including flood damage reduction, hydropower generation, recreation, and fish and wildlife protection
and enhancement. BOR now recognizes the tremendous changes in and losses to riparian and aquatic
habitat that were brought about by its large dams and inter-basin transfers. BOR now appreciates the
significance of watersheds and associated ecosystems and the natural beneficial functions they provide.
Consequently, BOR is striving for better ways to manage water and related land resources. The agency
has redefined its approach to water resource management to be responsive to society's current
environmental and economic needs. While the agency has made significant progress, it has a long way to
go to achieve a better balance between the multiple stakeholders that often see their interests at odds with
each other.
BOR's transition from a construction-oriented agency to one focusing on water resource management
started several years ago—new work was not being authorized by the Congress and changes in public
opinion were forcing BOR to consider new directions. Its traditional program had come to an end. New
political realities—reinvention and deficit reduction—profoundly influenced BOR's approach to
establishing new directions. The need to become a water resource management agency and the need to
change the way of doing business converged—helping the agency to examine and alter its structures and
functions to efficiently and effectively foster water resource management.
-------
The mission and structure of BOR's organization has significantly changed since 1993. In the past 36
months, BOR has reduced its work force by 20 percent. By December, 1996, we will have 25 percent
fewer positions than the 8,200 people we had just over 2 years ago. The number of senior level managers
has been reduced by 50 percent. BOR reduced its own budget request by $100 million—more than a 12
percent reduction—in the last two years. Field offices have been restructured and empowered, and now
have the responsibility for making day-to-day decisions. Area office employees now have the authority—
indeed the responsibility—to make decisions, be creative and take risks. BOR is in the process of
divesting itself of ownership and operational responsibility for many smaller structures that are not
identified as having national significance. BOR has reviewed all of its activities to either take certain
responsibilities entirely "off its plate" or to alter its approach to these actions. By divesting itself of some
of these responsibilities, BOR hopes to concentrate on the new priorities and goals of managing the
limited water resources of the western United States.
Streamlined decision making, an empowered staff, increased flexibility, and elimination of regulations
and internal requirements and are now the norm at BOR. Responsible water resource management
decision making is the agency goal. The current dilemma facing BOR is how to incorporate all the
philosophical underpinnings and techniques comprised by the concept of a watershed approach into the
culture of the agency and its individuals without detailed directives or onerous regulations. This paper
discusses what BOR is doing to impart to BOR activities a watershed philosophy. BOR believes that
watersheds should be used to help define appropriate geographic boundaries, while "problemsheds" and
ecosystems should be used to guide selection of the appropriate scales of analysis. They reflect the need
for multi-scalar (large and small scales) and multi-temporal (short- and long-term) examination of direct
and indirect impacts and their cumulative effects in problem identification and alternative solutions'
development.
Old Missions, New Missions
BOR, founded in 1902, had as it original mission the development of the water resources of the arid
western United States to promote the settlement and economic development of the region. As a water
resource developer, BOR created a substantial infrastructure making it the largest wholesale supplier of
water in the United States and the country's sixth largest electric power generator. BOR, its original
mission complete, now manages 45 percent of surface water in the western United States.
Like any business, BOR found it needed to change to meet new market conditions. Water resource
policies in the western United States were originally conceived and implemented to meet the needs of
agriculture and mining. BOR's construction and diversion approaches were acceptable so long as there
were ample water supplies, and plentiful government funds, and so long as environmentalists and
indigenous peoples had limited influence in political or legal proceedings. All that has changed. The
western United States is experiencing the most rapid growth of the nation and is becoming increasingly
urbanized. Urban residential and industrial demands on the existing water resource system differ from
those of agriculture and mining. A number of converging forces mandate new approaches to western
water resource management:
-------
¦ Lack of new acceptable storage sites for large quantities of water.
¦ Diminished public support for subsidies to a small number of agricultural producers and
landowners (the economic foundation of many BOR projects).
¦ Scarcity of federal funds for large, long-term projects.
¦ Increased concern over domestic water pollution.
¦ Greater competition for water.
¦ Increased broad-based, public support for protecting non-consumptive uses and protecting the
environment.
These factors compel change in BOR's approach to problem solving and business practices. These factors
will also require new and more flexible approaches by water districts, cities, and states to water resources
and water law.
A watershed philosophy to water resource management decision making is reflected in both BOR's
mission statement and its organizing principles. BOR's new mission is "To manage, develop, and protect
water and related resources in an environmentally and economically sound manner in the interest of the
American public." Six organizational principles guide BOR's efforts; BOR will:
¦ Facilitate changes from current to new uses of water in accordance with state law when such
changes increase benefits to society and the environment.
¦ Emphasize the coordinated use and management of our existing facilities to improve the
management of existing water and hydroelectric supplies.
¦ Encourage conservation and improvements in the efficiency of use of already developed water
and hydroelectric supplies.
¦ Promote the sustainable use of water and associated land resources in an environmentally
sensitive manner throughout the 17 western states.
¦ Facilitate integrated water resources management on a watershed basis, stressing interagency
cooperation, public participation, and local implementation.
¦ Conduct all activities in a fiscally responsible manner and ensure the use of sound business
practices in all that BOR does.
Reflecting a Watershed Philosophy in Agency Structure and Policy
BOR is also changing how decisions are made and problems solved. One means of affecting the change
has been to diversify the agencies' managers. No longer is leadership of area and regional offices the
domain of engineers. While BOR is maintaining certain key engineering expertise, is also developing a
staff with skills in computer programming, data management and analysis, geographic information
systems, negotiations, alternative dispute resolution, and public deliberation. Each of these actions are
initial steps toward realizing BOR's goal of being recognized as the world's premier water management
agency.
Cultivating a watershed approach as a standard way of doing business has been the challenge. A
-------
watershed approach helps set the stage involving the wider range of constituencies to which BOR must
now respond. To these ends, BOR has incorporated the watershed concept by traditional means of policy
and guidelines development. However, in keeping with its reinvention, BOR policy establishes only a
general framework for decision making—providing broad direction and parameters within which the
decision-maker will generally work. Line managers have discretion to exercise their duties creatively and
flexibly within the policy framework. BOR's guidelines on the watershed approach to water resource
management provide practical interpretations of policy to aid its implementation. Guidelines, however,
do not need to be followed. To help ensure that the final policy and guidelines have broad acceptance by
those who will be expected to operate within this framework, BOR uses a team approach involving
practitioners from its regional and area offices. Further, BOR is incorporating the watershed approach
into new policies and guidelines on floodplain management, wetland enhancement and mitigation, and
endangered species conservation.
Watershed Approaches in Agency Activities
Coincident with terminating and curtailing its involvement in some traditional areas, BOR has launched a
series of new and important initiatives. To reinforce the importance and value of a watershed approach in
decision making that supports sustainable development, BOR is attempting to reflect the watershed
approach in all of its activities. BOR's projects affect water resources both individually and cumulatively
along with other activities in a watershed. Project operations can influence adjacent land use activities,
which, in turn, can affect water quality and in-stream flow. Likewise, activities occurring in a watershed
can affect the quality and supply of water reaching BOR's projects. Given this relationship, there is broad
recognition among BOR staff and management that actions cannot be considered in isolation from other
activities occurring within a watershed. Proposed actions cannot be considered in isolation from the
attributes of the watershed or the effect on the watershed functions and values. In setting management
objectives, managers now consider how project operations are interrelated with other activities in the
region and what impacts operations will have on the watershed. Upstream activities affect downstream
operations, and changes in project operations downstream may alter requests for upstream water.
Downstream impacts may include sediment transport and sandbar development, river stage and reservoir
elevation, and water quality and temperature. These impacts have implications for the protection and
enhancement of natural, cultural, recreational, and environmental resources, in addition to consequences
for downstream power operations. BOR's current emphasis on the movement of water from one use to
another (as opposed to trans-basin diversions)~by increasing water use efficiency, encouraging demand-
side management, and supporting water reuse activities—requires the application of techniques inherent
to the watershed philosophy. Any water resource management decisions should reflect watershed
conditions and involve the stakeholders within the affected watershed(s) in order to provide real
economic benefits to a broader range of interests.
One exciting example of BOR's new approach to water resource management is an accord reached in
California in December 1994. Watershed principles were applied to reach this historic agreement where
three agencies of the federal government and the State of California agreed to implement a coordinated
package of actions to protect the San Francisco Bay and Sacramento, San Joaquin River Delta while
-------
strengthening the state's long-term economic health. Business leaders, state officials, and agricultural as
well as urban and environmental interests joined with federal officials in endorsing a plan designed to
restore and protect this important, yet stressed, aquatic ecosystem. It is expected that this agreement will
provide the certainty that California agricultural interests require and the stability to a region that has
been long embroiled in heated rhetorical and legal battles over California's water supply needs.
The development of BOR's dam operations and resource management plans typically reflect a watershed
approach to decision making. In augmenting stream flows, BOR is investigating coordinated operation of
projects within a basin to help meet in-stream flow objectives. In integrating facility operations, a
watershed approach to water supply, hydropower generation, and environmental demands allows the
flexibility to provide water supplies to uses which historically received only ad hoc consideration. Ideally
operations are coordinated with other (i.e., non-BOR) activities in the watershed. This is happening in
both the Columbia and Colorado River systems. Greater opportunity to address multiple stakeholder
needs exists in multi-reservoir systems. BOR encourages that dam operation objectives be selected only
after recognizing that each individual project is an integral component of a basinwide water management
system. To integrate reservoir operations, complex system models are used to develop reservoir
operating criteria.
Often the water user community can be flexible enough to institute in-stream flow programs through
simple measures, such as water transfers or the added-value concept whereby water is moved through a
system so that in-stream benefits accrue while pre-existing functions are satisfied. These decisions
require a broad look at both benefical and adverse environmental, ecomonic, and social impacts. Again
the watershed approach is the approach used to identify issues and help select the appropriate course of
action.
BOR is looking for incentives to enhance water conservation. The decision to conserve water must be
weighed carefully—not only in the obvious economic cost and benefit terms but also in light of the
environmental effects that more efficient use of water may have on a watershed and the habitats that have
developed as a result of inefficient practices. The issue of conserved water, as well as irrigation return
flow water quality, are best dealt with using a watershed approach to problem definition, opportunity
identification, and, ultimately decision making. BOR plans to enhance its relationships with states and
irrigation districts to ensure that proposed increases in water efficiency do not aggravate adverse
conditions in a watershed (e.g., dry out valuable wetland habitats) and we will look for opportunities
where efficiency gains can contribute to improvements in water quality.
With new water sources dwindling and the increased interest in obtaining and maintaining fishable and
swimmable waters, attention is focusing on potable and non-potable water reuse. Closed water treatment
systems that pump water to ground water offer municipalities a means to avoid increasingly strict
discharge permit requirements but such activities can have adverse consequences for riparian and
wetland habitats that have grown dependent upon wastewater flows. In setting priorities for funding
water reuse endeavors, BOR plans to employ a watershed approach to decision making. A watershed
approach will help BOR to determine the appropriate type of assistance and ensure protection and
enhancement of environmental resources.
-------
BOR's Western Partnership Initiative, initiated in 1995, brings traditional BOR partners, such as
irrigation districts, together with BOR and other stakeholders to define an area's goals for water
management as well as other objectives and mutually establish a framework for achieving these goals.
These principles correspond to those embodied by the watershed approach concept. BOR's purpose for
forming these partnerships is to resolve existing resource related problems; address watershed and river
basin resource issues and future concerns; remove institutional legal and contractual issues that constrain
good resource management; improve efficiencies of services provided; and/or provide expertise,
assistance and training for the purpose of improving the water management skills of its partners.
Applicants for funding from the BOR through the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation for
environmental restoration activities must demonstrate that their proposed project applies techniques and
principles inherent to an ecological approach to stream and watershed restoration. The guidelines specify
that the proposed projects should involve habitat protection, restoration, or enhancement that considers
species needs and ecosystems needs, as well as the species' linkage to its watershed and ecosystem.
Conclusion
A watershed approach is not enough to ensure that BOR makes wise water management decisions, but it
does helps set the stage for the broader thinking required for water resources and related land
management issues facing the western United States. The BOR has changed its historic emphasis on
construction and is working hard to focus on water resource management. Despite progress, BOR's water
resource management roles and responsibilities need to be further defined. Regardless of how the
agency's roles are defined, BOR must approach the problem of competing water demands in a manner
that allows the short- and long-term environmental and economic consequences of proposed actions and
policies to be recognized and to find means to sustainable manage water resources in the west. The next
step is for BOR to work collaboratively with states to ensure corresponding support for sustainable water
resource management. Only through the involvement of states and other stakeholders will the
fundamental issues facing western water resource managers be solved. Broader adoption and
implementation of the principles inherent to watershed approaches to decision making may provide the
common thread needed to to ensure that western water management proceeds in an environmentally and
economically sustainable manner.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Return to the Future: Watershed Planning-The
Quest for a New Paradigm
Eugene Z. Stakhiv
Policy and Special Studies Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for
Water Resources, Alexandria, VA
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Abstract
Regulatory agencies, EPA in particular, have been leading an initiative to conduct natural resources
related planning at the watershed level. The focus has been on coordinating programs at the intra-agency
level to better serve watershed needs. Coordination, by itself, does not constitute watershed planning. So
far, no recognizable planning and evaluation framework designed for coordinated comprehensive, joint
inter-agency endeavors has emerged. Intra-agency programmatic integration is a prerequisite to, not a
substitute for comprehensive planning. The Water Resources Council's (WRC) hierarchy of nested river
basin planning levels should serve as a starting point for devising a new watershed-level planning
process. Such planning should be strategic in nature, rather than project specific. Agency programs,
authorities and capabilities would be matched, leveraged and dedicated to deal with priority problems
identified through watershed planning. Such planning should focus on formulating alternative strategies
towards achieving sustainable development. Opportunity costs would serve as the basis for economic
analysis rather than the more stringent benefit-cost procedures associated with conventional water
resources project planning, in consideration of the greater emphasis on environmental protection and
restoration as primary planning purposes. The current WRC "Principles and Guidelines" (P&G) could
serve as the basis for developing watershed planning guidelines.
Introduction
Watersheds have become the physiographic organizing framework of choice for many federal and state
-------
water and natural resources management programs and initiatives. There is nothing new in this concept,
for federal and state water resources agencies have been operating within such a framework in an
organized fashion since at least the 1930's. The Natural Resources and Conservation Service (NRCS,
formerly Soil Conservation Service) has been operating under PL 83-566 which set up the "Small
Watershed Program" (less that 250,000 acres or 391 sq. mi.) to deal with soil, water and other related
natural resources problems. Much of the work of water resources management agencies has been
conducted on a watershed level, and countless conferences, guidelines and regulations all attest to the
program and project management focus on the river basin and watershed level as the basic hydrologic
unit for analysis. Hydrology determines the appropriate level and boundaries for water resources analysis
and, concordantly is the primary determinant for aquatic ecosystems.
The integration of water quantity, water quality and aquatic ecosystem needs has been the quest of
federal agencies since well before the enactment of the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965. This Act
expressly required the development of "comprehensive, coordinated joint plans" (CCJP's) for river
basins. A recent National Academy of Sciences Report on "Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems" (NRC:
1992) merely reaffirmed what has been known by all practitioners, i.e. "[BJecause aquatic ecosystem are
interconnected and interactive, effective restoration efforts should usually be conducted on a large
enough scale to include all significant components of the watershed." (pg 5).
What then, is the basis for the renewed interest in watershed planning? How is it different from the
traditional approach to water resources planning as expressed in the WRC's P&G (WRC, 1983)? Finally,
what are the requisite conditions for watershed planning to succeed and what should be the outcomes of
such efforts? These are the issues that will be addressed further.
A Renewed Interest in Watersheds
It appears that the new interest in watersheds as the basic planning unit is currently driven by two
principal issues: (1) the proliferation of disparate regulatory agency programs that protect various aspects
of water-dependent public health and environmental quality concerns and (2) the increased emphasis by
all federal resources management agencies on improving ecosystem management and restoration through
their respective programs and authorities. The difficulty that this poses for interagency cooperation and
collaboration as part of the implicit requirements of watershed planning is that there is an incompatibility
among the various regulatory agencies and between the traditional water resources management agencies
as to the basic philosophy of what integrated, multi-objective planning means. That incongruity is not
something that increased coordination can overcome, even if every agency conducted their respective
planning efforts at the watershed level.
Additionally, two other significant factors played into the realization that watersheds represent the proper
context for future intra- and inter-agency planning and management efforts. First, budgetary constraints
are forcing greater cooperation and complementarity among federal programs. Second, a very good case
can be made that the watershed scale, rather than the larger river basin scale, makes comprehensive
planning efforts more tractable. It is also more compatible with the desires of state and local entities to
-------
take on responsibilities for implementing the actions and initiatives of such efforts. Indeed, the recent
"National Water Policy Charter" of the Interstate Council on Water Policy (1996) lays out a series of
principles for its member states, attesting to their understanding that effective stewardship of water and
related natural resources is best accomplished at the watershed level, and their desire that states should
bear primary responsibility, authority and accountability for water management.
All agencies need to deal with project and programmatic integration. Numerous water-related
environmental protection laws have been enacted, and a vast array of programs have materialized, many
pursuing very worthy, but narrow and often conflicting objectives. Coordination among programs by
itself, whether mandated or voluntary, could not keep up with the growing number of initiatives and
increasing complexity and diversity of problems that emerged over the past few decades. So, the first
level of administrative restructuring must occur at the intra-agency level. EPA, for example was
motivated to integrate the objectives and outcomes of its various instream and drinking water quality
programs, combined sewer overflow program, wastewater and sanitary sewer program, and non-point
source pollution efforts with an overarching need to protect ecological integrity (wetlands, riparian
habitat and aquatic ecosystems). The Corps of Engineers is charting a similar path (Shabman, 1993), as it
attempts to reconcile conceptual differences in the respective planning, regulatory and operations and
maintenance philosophies and guidelines as part of their renewed watershed-based management focus.
The Traditional Water Resources Planning Model
While most now agree that the watershed should be the basic scale for organizing resource management
programs, a framework for planning and decisionmaking has not yet been devised. The USDA Forest
Service is, perhaps, furthest ahead in developing a watershed analysis framework for ecosystem
management (Montgomery, et .al., 1995). Programmatic integration does not resolve the larger issue of
the purposes of watershed planning and integration across agency programs (what are we planning for,
who takes the lead and what evaluation framework is to be used?). The now defunct WRC, established
by the Water Resources Planning Act of 1965, had a sensible notion in its three-tier hierarchy of nested
planning levels:
¦ Level A - Framework studies, multiple river basin or large systems (e.g. Great Lakes);
¦ Level B - Single river basin at the two-digit USGS/WRC level, strategic plans and project
priorities;
¦ Level C - Project feasibility studies at the watershed level/political boundaries.
What is currently being suggested by the still vague agency initiatives is a level of analysis that lies
between Level B and Level C, i.e. strategic planning to achieve sustainable development at the watershed
level (6-digit USGS designated code). The USGS system of watershed designation should serve as
starting point for defining the scale of these studies. The purpose of this planning should not necessarily
be to define projects, but to better define priority problems and to match existing agency resources and
-------
authorities which could be used to complement one another to solve those problems.
But the WRC also developed an internally consistent planning and evaluation framework (P&S) in 1973
that were revised in 1983 as the P&G. Today, they are in use for Level C project feasibility studies
conducted at what is essentially the watershed scale. A uniform planning framework, to be applied by all
federal agencies operating in watersheds is essential if programmatic coordination is to be turned into
true planning collaboration. Originally, in 1971, when the draft WRC P&S were issued for review, all
federal agencies (including EPA, FWS, FERC, etc.) that interacted with the principal water resources
management agencies were covered by the provisions of the P&S. The intent was to ensure that a
common set of evaluation principles and frame of reference for the planning process itself was used by
all the agencies in their mutual dealings, coordination and review of reports. The final regulations
however, applied only to the Corps, Bureau of Reclamation, TVA, SCS and the Forest Service,
exempting the federal regulatory agencies.
As a consequence, there are now four distinctly different evaluation philosophies that have emerged from
the milieu of federal water-related programs (Table 1). Evidence already exists that watershed planning
efforts conducted by different agencies operating under their own planning process and evaluation
criteria, will result in different outcomes. However, the real crux of watershed planning is to encourage
inter-agency collaboration; to ensure complementarity of their respective programs; leverage budget-
constrained resources; and develop comprehensive plans designed to attain the elusive goal of
sustainable development. Hence, a uniform evaluation framework is yet another prerequisite for
collaborative watershed planning, to ensure that the outcomes are comparable.
Table 1. Four Extant Planning & Evaluation Philosophies
DESCRIPTIVE- Assessment-oriented: describe options;
(to delineate, classify rather than explain) layout possibilities. Decisionmaking based
on consensus without normative, formal
replicable evaluation procedures, (e.g.
Coastal Zone Mgmt.)
Evaluation-oriented: assess problems;
formulate options to address multiple
INDICATIVE- objectives; evaluate according to normative
(to demonstrate the need for) decision criteria, public preferences, BCA,
EIA, financial, etc. (e.g. Water Resources
Council P&G)
-------
PRESCRIPTIVE-
(to establish as a rule or law)
Prescribed standards, targets, criteria,
technologies. Purpose of analysis is focused
on single objective. Little flexibility in
formulating options.(e.g. EPA Section 208)
PRO SCRIPTIVE-
(to prohibit, exclude)
Generally single objective planning, problem
solving; assessment of problems, needs and
solutions subject to constraints. Focus on
environmental issues. Follow "NEPA-
process", EIS decisionmaking framework.
Little risk or economic analysis
The "New" Watershed Planning Paradigm
The scope (purposes, approach and outcomes) of watershed planning is still to be determined. The
administrative integration of agency programs is a prerequisite for comprehensive, multi-objective
planning—the essence of planning for sustainable development. What then is the nature of such planning?
How are plans to be formulated? How are choices about sustainable development to be evaluated? This
should be the essence of a watershed planning framework.
Fortunately, there already exists a firm conceptual and procedural basis in existing WRC guidelines as a
starting point. While it is perfectly appropriate to rely on the current P&G, and the underlying benefit-
cost principles for project planning and evaluation, supplemented by the NEPA/EIS process, it is not
particularly well-suited for the type of collaborative watershed planning that is suggested by the evolving
notions of a more participatory style of planning. Indeed, both Shabman (1993) and the NRC report
(1992) on aquatic ecosystem restoration recommend an evaluation approach based on "opportunity
costs". Rather than the stricter ideas of maximizing economic efficiency, this approach provides the
analytical rigor needed to determine the relative economic and ecological "worth" of alternative strategic
plans. It is based on a human-based determination of value but looks to collective action to define the
value of the need for protection, restoration, mitigation and/or development. Thus, watershed planning
should serve as the basis for defining water-dependent problems and formulating alternative strategies
(courses of action) which fulfill different attainment levels of sustainable development. It should
facilitate the evaluation, within a uniform framework of internally consistent principles, of which course
of action is "optimal"; which one is preferred; and what relative social, economic, and environmental
benefits and costs that each path engenders.
This planning philosophy is embodied in the P&G, but is not practiced by the regulatory agencies.
Nevertheless, a series of recent laws and executive orders, capped by the just-released report of the
President's Council on Sustainable Development (1996), all endorse the need for improved resource
management performance, buttressed by a greater stress on economic efficiency considerations (benefit-
-------
cost analysis, risk-cost analysis, opportunity costs) in pursing the goals of environmental protection. In
addition, EPA and other federal regulatory agencies are being directed by the implementing guidelines
which the White House Council of Economic Advisors set forth in "Best Practices for Preparing
Economic Analysis of Regulatory Actions" (1996), as a complement to EO 12866 (1993), to assess costs
and benefits of various regulatory options and to select the one that maximizes the greatest net gain for
society. Similarly, the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 (PL 103-62) directs all agencies
to "establish performance indicators to be used in measuring or assessing the relevant outputs, service
levels and outcomes of each program activity". All these recent directives reflect a convergence on the
principles and objectives of indicative planning (See table 1), making it easier for the regulatory agencies
to convert to the practices embodied in the P&G.
A Prospective Strategy for the Corps
As a first step, the Corps should continue their efforts to better integrate the many water resources
management programs and consolidate the evaluation procedures so that they are more internally
consistent. Some steps have already been taken, but there are gaps between the project planning,
regulatory and operations arms of the Corps (Shabman, 1993). Second, the Corps should continue to
focus their project planning and restoration efforts in the river corridor i.e. that part of the watershed
which is covered by overlapping authorities that deal with activities in the flood plains, riparian zones
and wetlands. Multi-objective river corridor management is an apt term for the watershed emphasis that
the Corps ought to address as their primary mission. This would enable the Corps to serve two
purposes_project level analysis along with comprehensive environmental resources management.
However, before the higher, integrating level of comprehensive, collaborative watershed planning can be
achieved by any single federal agency, a new evaluation framework needs to be fashioned to reflect the
strategic purposes of such planning. The previous WRC P&S and existing P&G should serve as a starting
point for an interagency group to develop a more general framework oriented to developing alternative
paths towards achieving sustainable development, with a coordinated implementation strategy. The
Corps should take the initiative in leading this effort.
References
Montgomery, D.R., G.E. Grant and K. Sullivan, 1995 Watershed Analysis as a Framework for
Implementing Ecosystem Management. Water Resources Bull. Vol 31 (3), pp 369-386.
National Research Council (NRC), 1992. Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. National Academy
Press, Washington, D.C. 522pp.
Shabman, L., 1993. Environmental Activities in Corps of Engineers Water Resources Program:
Charting a New Direction. Prepared for: Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. IWR Report-93-PS-l, Alexandria, VA 85pp.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Citizen Partners in Water Quality Monitoring: The
Volunteer Monitoring Movement
Alice Mayio, National Volunteer Monitoring Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
What is Volunteer Monitoring?
Across the country, people of all ages and backgrounds are learning about water quality issues and
helping protect our Nation's water resources by becoming volunteer monitors. Five hundred and twenty
programs with over 350,000 volunteers were known to exist in 1994, and the number of programs is
continually growing (EPA, 1994).
Volunteers may analyze water samples for constituents such as dissolved oxygen, pH, temperature, and
nutrients; evaluate the health of stream habitats and aquatic biological communities; inventory streamside
conditions and land uses that may affect water quality; catalog and collect beach debris; or restore
degraded aquatic habitats. They do this during all hours, in all kinds of weather, for the simple
satisfaction of knowing that their efforts can make a difference in protecting our valuable streams, lakes,
beaches, bays, and wetlands.
Some of these volunteer monitors are organized and trained by coordinators from state water quality or
natural resource agencies. We currently know of about 35 such agency-supported volunteer monitoring
programs.
Many other volunteer monitors belong to small, grassroots community organizations concerned about a
particular waterbody or watershed. In fact, the median size of volunteer programs is about 25 volunteers,
and 60% of programs have annual budgets of less than $10,000.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
Some large environmental organizations support volunteer monitoring programs, as do many schools,
universities, city or county governments, and even corporations. And on the federal level, agencies as
diverse as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the U.S. Department of Agriculture, and the
National Park Service all recognize the value of volunteer monitoring and provide some type of support.
EPA's support consists primarily of technical and program planning guidance, some funding through
grants to the states, and outreach tools such as regular conferences, a national newsletter, and electronic
communications.
Why Does EPA Support Volunteer Monitoring?
EPA has supported volunteer monitoring since 1988 for two primary reasons: to help encourage
improved stewardship of water resources, and to increase our knowledge of water quality conditions
nationwide.
First, let me address the issue of water stewardship. In monitoring training sessions, volunteers learn
about water pollution and how natural systems work. To many, this knowledge is an eye-opener. They
come away from the training sessions and their work as volunteers with much more awareness of the
impacts of their own personal actions on water quality, and may well become involved in follow-up
activities such as stream restoration and watershed planning. They become, in short, educated
stakeholders.
Second, the data they collect can be of inestimable value to local, state, and federal water quality
planners. Volunteers can monitor waters that state and local agencies don't have the time, staff, or money
to monitor.
Why is this important? Because, as the states tell us in the 1994 National Water Quality Inventory Report
to Congress (EPA, 1995), we have water quality information for only about 17% of the nation's 3.5
million river and stream miles, 42% of its 40.8 million acres of lakes, 78% of its 34,000 square miles of
estuaries, and 9% of its 36,000 shoreline miles. Clearly the need for information on water quality
conditions is vital if we are to make intelligent management decisions, and volunteer monitors can help
in this task.
When volunteers are properly trained and follow quality-assured methods, their data proves very
credible. EPA has developed a series of monitoring methods manuals and a guide to quality assurance
project plans for volunteer programs to help encourage the collection of high quality data that will be
useful to state and local water quality managers.
In fact, according to the National Directory of Volunteer Environmental Monitoring Programs (EPA,
1994), state and local government agencies are the leading users of volunteer data. Volunteer data is
used, most commonly, to educate the community about water issues, to screen for water quality problems
(which might then be further investigated by the water quality agencies) and in local decision making.
-------
Here are some examples of how government agencies use volunteer data:
¦ The Maine Department of Marine Resources relies on data collected by volunteers on septic
systems along the state's 5,000-mile coastline. Volunteers conduct "shoreline surveys" looking at
septic systems and documenting other potential problems such as erosion or oil slicks. Identified
problems are further investigated by the state. The volunteer data is then used along with state-
collected water quality information to help determine if coastal areas should be opened or closed
to shellfishing.
¦ In Minnesota, volunteers have been collecting lake quality data since 1973. The Minnesota
Pollution Control Agency publishes regular reports on the volunteer data that are used by lake
associations, county planners, and government agencies to help make decisions about lake
management issues such as septic system upgrades, algicide treatments, dredging, and shoreline
construction. Data from the lake monitors also is used in the state's biennial water quality
assessment report to the EPA (the 305(b) report).
¦ Maryland's Save Our Streams program works in partnership with the State Highway
Administration to monitor stream conditions before road projects are begun, to assess the impact
of road projects on streams, to determine whether sediment control regulations are being met
during construction, and to help with mitigation measures where construction-related impacts are
demonstrated.
How Are Volunteer Monitoring Programs Changing?
As in all things, change is coming to the volunteer monitoring movement. Volunteer programs are
branching out. Increasingly, they are taking a whole-watershed approach to monitoring not just looking
at one specific type of water body, such as lakes or streams, but recognizing that different types of waters
and the land they drain are interconnected. Of the volunteer monitoring programs listed in the National
Directory, 38% monitor more than one waterbody type.
Volunteer programs are also moving away from simple physical and chemical measurements of water
quality, which is how many programs began. More and more programs are evaluating such things as the
biological health of aquatic communities and the integrity of aquatic habitats. They are looking at
nonpoint source pollution impacts and land use conditions. They are inventorying storm sewer outfalls,
mapping wetland vegetation, testing wells, and conducting angler surveys.
Volunteer monitoring programs are also learning that they can become players in watershed protection.
Volunteer data can be of great value to watershed planning councils and associations. The volunteers
themselves often become involved in the resource management process. Many volunteers are showing
interest in restoring the waters they have spent years monitoring. They are also looking at environmental
justice issues by reaching out to communities that have long been neglected and seeking to engage and
empower people whose very health may depend on clean water.
-------
These changes point to a vibrant, growing community of dedicated, educated people who are taking
personal responsibility for their local environment. All indications are that their role will continue to
expand as water resource managers increasingly focus on nonpoint source pollution, integrated
watershed management, and public involvement.
References
Rhode Island Sea Grant and U.S. EPA. National Directory of Volunteer Environmental
Monitoring Programs, 4th edition. EPA 841-B-94-001. 1994.
The Volunteer Monitor, volume 6, no. 1, Spring 1994. "Volunteer Monitoring: Past, Present, and
Future."
U.S. EPA. National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. Office of Water.
December 1995.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Swan Creek Watershed Assessment and
Restoration
Kenneth T. Yetman, Doug Bailey
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD
Christine Buckley
Harford County Dept. of Public Works, Bel Air, MD
Paul Sneeringer, Mark Colosimo, and Linda Morrison
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers - Baltimore District, Baltimore, MD
Dr. James Bailey
Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Aberdeen, MD
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
The Swan Creek Watershed is located in eastern Harford County, Maryland and drains directly into the
Chesapeake Bay. The City of Aberdeen and Town of Havre de Grace are located on the edges of the
watershed which encompasses 26.5 square miles. In the early 1990s, the City of Aberdeen proposed the
construction of an in-stream storm water management pond on a small tributary to Swan Creek. During
the wetlands review process questions were raised about the pond's location and it's effectiveness in
addressing significant pollution problems within the watershed. In response to the concerns raised, the
Corps of Engineers (COE) brought together federal, state, and local government agencies that shared
-------
environmental interest in the Swan Creek area. A series of meetings were held to determine the interest
and available resources that the different agencies could devote to this project, as well as to better define
the work that needed be done.
During these early meetings the participants recognized the need to find new ways to assess and manage
natural resources on a watershed basis. Currently, most agencies are organized to deal with individual
resource management issues, or in the case of permitting agencies, are often restricted to site specific
assessments. Finding new ways to coordinate management and permitting activities in a watershed
context was seen as mutually beneficial to all parties. Therefore, a partnership to promote a watershed
approach to stream protection and restoration within the Swan Creek Watershed was developed. The
Swan Creek Restoration Partnership was formed in the Spring of 1994 and its members include Harford
County Government, the Baltimore District of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Maryland
Departments of Natural Resources and Environment, the City of Aberdeen, and Aberdeen Proving
Grounds.
During the initial organization of the Swan Creek Restoration Partnership the Ecosystem Recovery
Institute, a non-profit private organization, was contracted to serve as the project's integrator. The use of
a independent integrator was helpful because no single agency could initially devote sufficient resources
to organize and manage this project alone. An independent integrator also does not have many of the
perceived biases that a representative from a single agency may have and can enlist greater cooperation
among different agencies. Unfortunately, funding for the integrator was limited and the contract was
eventually terminated. The integrator's tasks were divided among the Partnership's members. Harford
County assumed the role of project coordinator while the state and federal agencies contributed their time
and expertise.
The Partnership's first task was to assess and inventory the overall condition of Swan Creek. This was
done using two approaches. The first approach involved field surveys of water quality, stream habitat,
fish, and benthic macroinvertebrates during the Summer of 1994 along with a review of historical
environmental information on the stream.
A synoptic survey of water quality was conducted at 23 stations. This survey provided a snapshot of the
water quality conditions in Swan Creek during a summer base flow period. The survey examined a
variety of water quality parameters including flow, water temperature, pH, conductivity, total suspended
solids, biochemical oxygen demand, fecal coliform, total coliform, and nutrient levels. The results of the
water quality surveys indicated that bacteria, suspended sediment, and nutrient levels were elevated at
some sections of the stream.
Stream habitat, fish, and macro benthic surveys were conducted at 6 stations. These surveys were done
using a modified version of EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols. Benthic samples were collected using a
surber sampler. A total of 23 benthic families with diversity ranging from five to 16 families were
present at individual stations. Using several indices of biological integrity (ie. IB I) the stream was
classified as moderately impacted.
-------
Fish samples were collected using a backpack electrofishing unit during two passes over a 75 meter
stream reach. The fish surveys found between 9 and 17 different species of fish. Differences in fish
assemblages among stations appear to be related mainly to habitat conditions at each site.
The second approach to assess and inventory the overall condition of Swan Creek involved a stream walk
survey of the entire drainage network in the Spring of 1994. The survey used was a modified version of
one developed by Maryland Save-Our-Streams. At the beginning of the survey, 45 volunteers from
various government agencies were trained to identify potential problems and restoration opportunities
within the stream corridor. Potential environmental problems recorded during the stream walk survey are
shown in Table 1. The watershed was divided into four major sub water sheds. A team leader was
assigned to each of the four major sub water sheds. Groups of two or three individuals were then assigned
to a basin within the subwatersheds. Each team leader was responsible for the activities within the
subwatershed and answered any questions the volunteers had. Over a three-day period, the volunteers
walked 96 miles of stream recording information on data sheets about potential problems and restoration
opportunities. The volunteers also indicated site locations on 200 scale topographic maps, and
photographing sites for future analysis.
The information from the field data sheets was
entered into a relational data base and the site
locations were digitized into a geographic
information system. Each site was assigned a
unique identification number that linked the data
base to the mapping information. This allowed for
the production of maps showing the location of
individual problems within the watershed. An
example of this is displayed in Figure 1 which
shows the locations of fish migration barriers within
the watershed. The site identification number was
also used to organize photographs into a photo-
library of problem sites.
A total of 453 problems were identified at 332 sites.
The number of problems reported in each of the
survey categories are presented in Table 1. The
survey found that many sites have several different
problems. For example, in areas where livestock
were permitted unrestricted access to the stream,
the streams were often unshaded and the stream
banks showed evidence of erosion. In addition, 65
sites were identified as potential wetland creation
and/or water quality retrofit sites.
Table 1. Potential environmental
problems and restoration opportunities
reported in Swan Creek.
Potential Problems
Problems
Observed
Evidence of Erosion
179
Trash Dumping Areas
84
Unshaded Stream
Sections
66
Fish Migration Barriers
49
Channelized Stream
Sections
40
Pipe Outfalls
29
Instream Construction
Total
6
453
Potential Wetlands or
Water Quality Retrofit
Site
65
-------
The most frequently identified problem was stream bank erosion that was common in both the mainstem
and small tributaries throughout the drainage network. Approximately 54 percent of the sites showed
some evidence of stream bank erosion. Severity of the problems varied from small isolated erosion sites
to large reaches with incised channels below the root zone of adjacent riparian vegetation. Unshaded
stream sections were reported at 20 percent of the sites. The adjacent land use at unshaded sites was split
between agricultural and residential uses despite the fact that most of the non-forested land in the
watershed is used for agriculture.
Blockages to fish migration were reported at 15% of the sites. Three partially breached dams along the
streams mainstem were determined to be the only barriers to anadromous fish migration on the lower
portion of Swan Creek. Follow-up surveys found excellent spawning habitat for blueback herring and
alewife above these dams and that removal of these structures could eventually lead to the restoration of
anadromous spawning runs in the stream.
While results of the water quality, biological, and stream walk surveys indicated that the system does
have some problems, Swan Creek is in relatively good environmental condition. The surveys also
indicated that no single problem alone is profoundly affecting aquatic resources. Instead the cumulative
impact of many small environmental insults is the main problem.
Once the overall environmental condition of the watershed was assessed, the next task of the Partnership
was to begin considering restoration opportunities. Because of the amount of data collected was so large,
organizing the information was a challenge. During the Winter of 1994, follow-up field visits were
conducted by the four team leaders to rectify any inconsistent data and rank the problems. Each problem
was ranked based on severity of the problem, restoration potential, and access to the site. Photographs
taken of each of the sites during the stream walk survey were also very helpful in this work.
The ranking of problems within the different problem categories has allowed the Partnership to develop a
restoration strategy and set priorities for restoration efforts. The Partnership is now working with other
governmental agencies which are best suited to address specific problems. Some of these agencies
include: Natural Resource Conservation Service, Maryland Agricultural Extension Service, DNR
Forestry, Maryland Transportation Authority, Harford County Public Schools, National Civilian
Conservation Corps, and Maryland Conservation Corps.
Because a majority of the land within the watershed is privately owned, the Partnership is striving to
involve the citizens within the watershed in the decision making process. A presentation of the study by
the Partnership was given at a special public meeting in the watershed. The reaction of the over one
hundred citizens that attended was very positive. Additional community based environmental projects
have also been organized in the watershed including tree planting, steam side trash cleanup, and
stormdrain stencilling.
Some additional accomplishments of the Partnership are as follows:
-------
¦ Harford County received a $60,000 grant from the Maryland Department of the Environment to
hire a consultant to study the practicability of storm water management retrofits. Based on the
findings of the study an additional $400,000 may be available for design and construction.
¦ Because the initial environmental assessment identified a unique opportunity to restore blueback
herring and alewife spawning runs to Swan Creek, the Partnership has designated this as a
restoration priority. The COE is working with a commercial developer, who was having difficulty
finding a suitable wetlands mitigation site, to remove the three partially breached dams as out-of-
kind mitigation.
¦ Aberdeen High School received a $5,000 grant from the Chesapeake Bay Trust to purchase an
spectrophotometer and other supplies to monitor water quality in Swan Creek. A training session
was held to introduce teachers to the ecology of local streams and to demonstrate ways students
can monitor changes in them. As part of this effort, the Aberdeen Wastewater Treatment Plant
will also periodically analyze water samples collected by the students to insure the validity of
their data collections.
¦ The Partnership completed two stream stabilization projects and removed a culvert pipe that was
causing a barrier to fish movement using AmeriCorps volunteers.
¦ A manure discharge from a dairy farm identified during the survey as a significant pollution
problem has been corrected through the combined efforts of the landowner, MDE and NRCS.
¦ The watershed evaluation of the City of Aberdeen's proposed storm water management pond
found that it would help manage a significant pollution problem and the necessary environmental
permits have been issued.
By inventorying and then prioritizing environmental problems in the watershed the Swan Creek
Restoration Partnership has been able to effectively target available resources where they will have the
greatest benefit. The Swan Creek Restoration Partnership has also been successful in bringing together
local, state, and federal resource management and environmental permitting agencies as well as schools,
landowners, and businesses for a coordinated effort to protect and enhance the natural resources of Swan
Creek. While direct funding for this initiative has been limited, the Partnership has demonstrated that by
pooling participants resources, comprehensive
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Save Money and Increase Community Support:
Targeted Volunteer Monitoring
Anne E. Lyon, Education Specialist
Tennessee Valley Authority Clean Water Initiative, Chattanooga, TN
The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), like many agencies, is challenged with doing more with less. In
an effort to address water quality issues on a local level, The Clean Water Initiative (CWI) was formed in
1993 to identify the root causes of water resource problems and bring together the people and
organizations necessary to fix them. CWI divided the Tennessee River watershed into 12 uniquely
different subwatersheds and began assigning River Action Teams (RATs) to each. Six teams composed
of biologists, environmental engineers, and education specialists have formed and are in various stages of
assessing water resource conditions.
These teams all face the same problem finding enough money and staff to collect the water quality
monitoring data needed to target cleanup and protection activities. With cost of conducting professional
monitoring on the rise and pressing needs to provide timely and accurate information to focus scarce
resources on the most pressing problems, CWI teams decided to take a fresh look at using volunteers to
collect some of this information. Aside from the obvious financial advantages of free labor, local
volunteers bring a perspective and expertise to the table that might not otherwise be available. Hands-on
participation also encourages feelings of ownership. Agencies can provide valuable technical assistance
and funding for specific projects, but interested citizens, local officials, and landowners are the key to
any long-term success in solving water quality problems and protecting water resources.
Our challenge was to develop a flexible framework that individual River Actions Teams (RATs) could
use to:
¦ Enable volunteer groups or individual citizens to collect useful scientific data.
-------
¦ Reduce agency costs.
¦ Educate the local community about water issues.
¦ Encourage citizens to participate in restoration and cleanup efforts.
CWI did not to want to develop and manage a large volunteer program. We wanted to facilitate the
recruitment/development of self-sustaining groups or individual volunteers to supply needed information
and provide a means for collectively receiving, analyzing, and reporting data. CWI's goal was to enable
volunteers to contribute useful data, yet maintain group or individual autonomy.
Developing the Framework
Representatives from each CWI RAT team formed a working group to develop the framework in 1994.
River Watch Inc. was brought in to facilitate the process and demonstrate use of their 11-step
organizational planning model to develop self-sustaining volunteer groups. RAT members agreed the
program should:
¦ Provide CWI RATs, other water management agencies, and communities with useful data on the
condition of local water resources and alert RATs to potential water quality problems.
¦ Provide citizens with opportunities to get involved in water quality issues by testing water quality
in their own communities.
¦ Develop community awareness and ownership of water quality issues.
¦ Create an understanding of watersheds and the interrelationships between water quality and land
use.
¦ Encourage communities to take actions to protect and improve water quality.
¦ Demonstrate the effectiveness of protection and improvement projects.
RAT members identified the types of information volunteers could collect or assist in collecting.
Parameters selected include habitat assessments, temperature, dissolved oxygen, biological oxygen
demand, pH, nitrates, phosphates, total dissolved solids, conductivity, turbidity, sediment, benthic
macroinvertebrates, and fecal coliforms.
To make sure that the data collected by different volunteer groups was comparable, CWI decided to
develop a manual of accepted procedures for volunteers to follow. An EPA Volunteer Monitoring
Manual was already in draft, so TVA secured permission to use it as a template. Individual procedures
-------
were modified so they were consistent with TVA monitoring protocols and other protocols used in the
seven-state Valley region. To make the manual more useful as a tool to develop self-sustaining volunteer
groups, additional information was added on developing a volunteer program, organizing and training
volunteers, and educating volunteers about water quality issues.
Recruiting Volunteers
Each RAT is responsible for recruiting and training their own volunteers. Community interest and
severity of problems dictate where RATs focus their efforts. RATs recruit potential volunteers from
existing clubs and groups, local schools and colleges, and citizens who express an interest in a particular
area by attending a meeting or calling the team. Areas where volunteer help could be useful is
determined in part by the teams assessment of hydrologic units (HUC) within their watershed and
projects ongoing in that HUC. Some volunteer projects are also citizen initiated.
Targeting Volunteer Efforts
Each team has used volunteers in different ways depending on their needs and the issues in the
watershed. Volunteer projects range from monitoring trends and conditions to identifying water quality
problems to monitoring the success of best management practices (BMPs). The key to success has been
involving volunteers in efforts to collect useful data the teams need while involving the community. The
following are specific examples of how RATs have used volunteers to monitor conditions in their
watersheds.
Stream Surveys
One of CWI's bigger costs is to assess the biological condition of streams and identify potential water
quality problems. Recons, a 4-hour per site form of rapid bioassessment which includes evaluating fish
and benthic communities and riverine habitat quality, are conducted on major streams within a RAT's
watershed. Depending on the size of the watershed and number of streams, between 100-200 recons may
be conducted over a 2-3 year period by each RAT. The average cost to perform a combined biotic index
for streams or a "recon" is about $1000 per site including biologists, contractors, equipment rental and
supplies, travel, lab work, and data management. The field crew usually includes between 2-4 biologists
and/or 4-6 contractors depending on the site; deeper sites require more crew and equipment. It was
determined that only one benthic taxonomist and one fish taxonomist were actually needed onsite to
perform the work. If contractors were replaced with volunteers, approximately $300 could be saved per
site or about $15 per volunteer hour.
The Holston RAT put a priority on using volunteers. One member of the RAT devoted a portion of his
time (about 10% or $5,000 per year) to identifying and recruiting volunteers and coordinating their
participation. The team also agreed to provide transportation, meals, and lodging cost reimbursement to
volunteers as appropriate to cover any out-of-pocket expenses. These costs ($500 per year) were minimal
-------
because most volunteers were local. In 1994, 7 volunteers logged 890 hours on stream surveys in the
Holston watershed and in 1995, 19 volunteers logged, 1012 hours. The value of volunteer time was
estimated at $13,500 for 1994 and $15,000 for 1995. When you subtract the team costs of $5500 per
year, the team estimates a savings of $8,000 for 1994 and $9,500 in 1995 to perform the work. But the
value of their participation goes far beyond dollars and cents. These volunteers have seen first-hand the
condition of their local streams, and you can bet they will be sharing this with their community.
Swimming Beach Fecal Coiiform Monitoring
TVA has traditionally monitored fecal coliforms at selected swimming beaches throughout the Valley
during peak use in the summer months of July or August and published these results in RiverPulse, an
annual report detailing water quality conditions in the Tennessee River by watershed. To get an accurate
picture of fecal populations, a single site is sampled 10 times in 30 days. Depending on the location of
the swim beach, costs to perform this service range between $500 - $1,500 per site (10 samples)
including travel. A lab-certified technician is used to collect and process the samples in accordance with
standard methods established by EPA.
The highest cost to perform swim beach samples was in the Holston Watershed because of the distance
to the sites and the need for overnight travel. But instead of eliminating the program in this watershed,
CWI's Monitoring team worked with the Holston RAT to explore other alternatives. The Monitoring
Team decided that a lab-certified technician might not be necessary given this is a screening program. If
unusually high results were found, it would cost a lot less to send out a lab-certified technician to only
the site in question. The teams decided to approach two local colleges in the area, which already had the
equipment and supplies necessary to run the samples, to discuss the possibility of enlisting their help to
sample swimming beach sites.
Eastern Tennessee State University (ETSU) and Carson Newman College both agreed to participate.
ETSU sampled 9 sites on Fort Patrick Henry, South Holston, Boone, and Wautauga. Carson Newman
monitored 2 sites on Cherokee and Douglas. A contract of $1,000 per year was prepared for ETSU to
cover travel costs and supplies. The Monitoring Team provided approximately $200 directly to Carson
Newman in lieu of a contract to sample their sites. The Monitoring Team would have paid $14,400 to
obtain this information. Instead, it cost them approximately $1,200 to recruit and train the two schools
and $1,200 in contracts and supplies for a savings of $12,000 per year. CWI was able to include their
data in RiverPulse and both colleges were able to incorporate the program into their field studies classes
and give students hands-on experience they might not otherwise have gotten.
Sediment Monitoring
The Hiwassee River supports an excellent trout and small mouth bass fisheries, but sediment was
threatening this resource. Pinpointing the exact source of sediment loading is especially difficult and
costly. Intensive sampling was needed to locate the source, but the team didn't have the money or the
time to do it themselves. Local interest in fly fishing has always been high and sediment could potentially
-------
hurt game fishing, so the Hiwassee RAT decided to enlist local fishermanTrout Unlimited (TU)
volunteers.
In 1995, the Hiwassee Rat and TU volunteers installed sediment samplers vertically on posts in the river
to capture silt transported in storm events. Six samplers were set up at the mouth of 12 Hiwassee River
tributaries. Volunteers collect the samples after rain events and deliver them to Hiwassee RAT members
who have them analyzed at TVA's Environmental Chemistry Lab to determine the amounts of suspended
solids in each sample. They also collect daily rainfall data which is correlated with the sediment data.
Initial findings show that Turtletown watershed, the most developed and populated area in the sampled
watershed, is the major source of the sediment. In order to pinpoint specific sources, 5 new stations are
being installed at mouths of tributaries in the Turtletown watershed in 1996.
Most studies of this type are contracted out to local universities. The average cost to CWI to conduct a
study of this type is about $18,000 including university overhead. The cost for the team to perform the
work would have been about $12,000 including travel. Instead the program cost the team $2,400 to
process the samples, a savings of $9,600. Because of the intense local involvement and the desire to
protect the fisheries, you can be sure there will be a lot of local interest and resources made available to
correct the problems once the sources are identified.
Acid Mine Drainage BMP Monitoring
Once a problem is identified, it can be quite a challenge to solve the problem, especially if the technology
being used to solve the problem is new and unproven and more than one site needs to be reclaimed to
complete the project. The Chickamauga-Nickajack RAT and the Friends of the North Chickamauga
Creek Greenway (FNCCG) found this out as they applied for numerous grants to control acid mine
drainage by installing constructed wetlands at several key sites at abandoned shaft-type coal mines on
Waldens Ridge at the headwaters of North Chickamauga Creek. Granting institutions want proof the
solution is working before they commit more funds. Also, many granting organizations, especially
EPA/State 319 grants, require an education component in the program to educate others about the
effectiveness of the solution. Demonstrating the effectiveness of BMPs can also be very costly if
professional teams are used to monitor the sites.
The Chickamauga-Nickajack RAT and FNCCG decided the solution was to develop a school-based
volunteer water quality monitoring program to monitor the effectiveness of the BMPs and educate area
residents about the problems facing North Chickamauga Creek. High quality water quality data was
needed which would be comparable with professional data being collected with a Hydrolabr by the
University of Tennessee at Chattanooga who were contracted to provide baseline data. The Corning
Checkmater, a multi-sampler probe which tests for temperature, pH, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and
total dissolved solids, was chosen because it would provide reliable data at a relatively low cost and
could be operated by teachers and students.
In 1995, a grant for $5,000 from the Fish and Wildlife Foundation was obtained to buy probes and begin
-------
the program in 5 schools. Five local schools and the county Center for Advanced Sciences (which serves
6 high schools) agreed to participate and were trained in November. The cost for the RAT to monitor 8
sites 4 times a year is approximately $300 per site including labor, equipment rental, and travel. In 1995-
1996, 8 schools (instead of 5) will monitor one site each 4 times a year at a savings to the team of $2,400
per year. In addition to the required monitoring, 3 schools will be monitoring fecal sites which would
cost the team $1,000 per site or $3,000 per year and 4 schools will be collecting grab samples for nutrient
analysis which will cost the team $25 per site to process at our environmental lab instead of the $300 per
site for professional collection and processing. In 1995, the value of the monitoring program to the
Chickamauga-Nickajack RAT was estimated to be $6,600. But the real value of the program is the
community buy-in the project is receiving. Participating students serve as ambassadors of the creek and
educate the whole community about its condition. FNCCG has received a second grant of $5,500 to
expand the program in 1996-1997.
Assessing the Program's Value
It has become increasingly clear to CWI that relying on volunteers is an effective way to do more with
less. Without volunteers, many of the monitoring, cleanup, and protection activities would not have been
done. Involving the public early on, in meaningful activities, can really pay off. From October 1994 to
September 1995, volunteers logged over 22,500 hours in monitoring, streambank stabilization, habitat
enhancement, cleanups, and storm drain stenciling in the 6 watersheds where RATs are active. Between
October and December of 1995, volunteers clocked over 4,700 hours, an increase of 2000 hours over the
same time period in 1994. Over 40 percent of these hours was spent on monitoring projects. Many
volunteers begin monitoring streams and come back to participate in other cleanup and protection
activities. CWI saved an estimated $38,000 in 1995 just by using volunteers to conduct the four projects
highlighted in this paper. It would have cost CWI over $100,000 in 1995 to use professional staff to
perform the same monitoring, cleanup, and protection jobs completed by volunteers.
But you can't measure the value of the community buy-in you get when you involve local people in
protection and improvement efforts. When volunteers learn about the problems first-hand and share this
with others in their communities, they bring a credibility to the problem an army of agency professionals
cannot. Professionals may understand the problems, but volunteers understand their communities needs
and values. And when the communities needs and priorities become the driving force, water quality
problems can and do get solved. Doing more with less, has turned out to be doing more with more.
References
Byrne J., G. Dates, and S. Behar, (1994) Program Organizing Guide. River Watch Network,
Montpelier, VT.
Byrne J., G. Dates, and S. Behar, (1994) Study Design Workbook. River Watch Network,
Montpelier, VT.
-------
Dates, Geoffrey (1994) A Plan for Water shed-wide Volunteer Monitoring. Volunteer Monitor
6(2): 8.
Lyon, Anne E., editor. (January 1995) CWI Volunteer Stream Monitoring Methods Manual,
unpublished draft. Tennessee Valley Authority. Water Resources. Clean Water Initiative.
Chattanooga, TN.
Mayio, Alice, editor. (April 1995) Volunteer Stream Monitoring: A Methods Manual, field test
draft. EPA 841 D 95-001. United States Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water.
Washington DC.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Demonstrating Partnerships for Habitat
Restoration: Experiences in the Chickahominy
Watershed
Margot W. Garcia PhD, AICP, Associate Professor
Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA
State and federal agencies, even local government can no longer restore degraded environmental areas by
themselves. They must learn to work in partnerships; interagency partnerships, intergovernmental
partnerships, and partnerships with various types of volunteer or non-governmental organizations. There
has often been a reluctance by professionals in governmental agencies to work with volunteers. However,
in a time of diminished budgets, volunteers are a great source of human talent, skills, and energy to
accomplish desired tasks. There are process issues of how to find willing volunteers and how to get them
involved. Since there are many different kinds of volunteer organizations, an agency must also ask
themselves what are the barriers and opportunities presented by partnerships with different types of
organizations or groups organized around different interests.
A description of the watershed begins the presentation, followed by some discussion of volunteer
organizations and habitat restoration. The purpose of this research is to document barriers and
opportunities for governmental agencies in establishing government/volunteer partnerships to undertake
riparian habitat restoration.
Physical Description of the Watershed
In the 264,518 acre watershed that makes up the Chickahominy River Basin in Virginia, there is
increasing urbanization leading to the destruction of riparian forests and wildlife habitat. The watershed
covers five counties and part of the City of Richmond (see Table 1).
-------
Table 1. Chickahominy Watershed.
County/City
New Kent
Henrico
Hanover
James City
Charles City
City of Richmond
Total Acres
143,956
155,612
303,309
117,295
131,011
40,017
Acres in watershed
75,606
74,972
46,464
41,232
33,790
2,451
% of county in
watershed
53%
48%
15%
35%
26%
6%
% of watershed in
county
28%
27%
17%
15%
12%
1%
Source: Virginia Hydrologic Unit Atlas 1991.
The population changes for these six jurisdictions over the last 40 years varies from a 451% increase for
James City County to a loss of 11% for the City of Richmond. The average population change is a 65%
increase.
The freshwater portion of the Chickahominy River is 237 miles long from its headwaters in northwestern
Henrico County to Walkers Dam. Part of the UUC 02080206 James River Subbasin from the Fall Line to
Hampton Roads, the Chickahominy River basin has been subdivided into four hydrologic units: G05
Morris Creek/ Chickahominy River, G06 Chickahominy River/Diascund Creek, G07 Chickahominy
River/Possum Creek, and G08 Upper Chickahominy Creek/Stony Run. The 1993 Nonpoint Assessment
document of the Division of Soil and Water Conservation (DSWC) of Virginia's Department of
Conservation and Recreation (DCR) evaluated the hydrologic units for agricultural and urban nonpoint
source impacts. Old hydrologic unit G08* rates in the top 5% and G07 is in the top 10% of all
watersheds statewide for urban pollution potential. These are clearly watersheds in need of attention.
The destruction of riparian forests in the Chickahominy River watershed as a result of development, has
allowed increased nutrients, sediments, and other pollutants to be carried down to the James River and
ultimately into the Chesapeake Bay. As the 1994 Virginia Nonpoint Source Management Implementation
Report notes "Streamside forests act as sinks for nutrients and sediments, trapping and absorbing them as
they run off of adjacent land. Streamside forests maintain cooler water temperature regimes, reducing
fluctuation in stream temperatures that rob stream of dissolved oxygen essential to aquatic life. By
increasing biological diversity, watershed system stability and available habitat, streamside forests
maintain and enhance stream system integrity and benefit aquatic life." Riparian forests have also been
recognized by state and federal agencies as a key component to reducing nonpoint source pollution and
restoring the living resources of the Chesapeake Bay.
The watershed has many nontidal wetlands which play an important role in the hydrology of the
watershed. They store water, filter pollutants from stormwater runoff, reduce stream velocity, serve as
groundwater recharge areas and provide important habitat for aquatic and terrestrial species.
-------
The Chickahominy River Basin system contains three waterbodies used for drinking water supplies. The
Chickahominy Lake, Diascund Creek and Little Creek are all water supply reservoirs. Because the river
supplies drinking water, the State has set special effluent standards limiting phosphorus for the entire
Chickahominy Watershed above Walker's Dam (see Virginia regulation VR680-21-07.ini for more
detail).
Volunteer Organizations
The United States is a nation of volunteers and voluntary organizations. Early in childhood, we are
exposed to voluntary groups like Boy Scouts, Camp Fire Boys and Girls, and Pee Wee Football. There
are the ecology and language clubs in Junior and High School as well as church youth groups and student
orchestras. As adults we can choose to belong to church groups, civic organizations like neighborhood
associations, Civitan, political parties, and the Chamber of Commerce, social organizations, sports and
recreation organizations, professional organizations, business organizations, and advocacy groups, just to
name a few categories. Many people belong to a number of different organizations. The most active
people in a community belong to many organizations, using their network of connections with different
groups as a means of communication and a source of volunteers to get things accomplished.
We are using several different types of voluntary organizations as a basis for partnerships in undertaking
habitat restoration along the Chickahominy River, especially degraded stream segments and wetlands
areas. The partnerships are between Soil and Water Conservation Districts and volunteer groups. One
partnership will be with a homeowners association in a new subdivision located in the headwaters of the
Chickahominy River. Another will be with the Chickahominy Watershed Alliance, a group composed of
a variety of stakeholders in the watershed, and a third partnership will be with a youth group. An
advisory group of wetlands professionals, facilitated by each of the three Soil and Water Conservation
Districts involved, will provide a technical component for selecting the site for restoration. This group
will evaluate data, conduct field evaluation and verification, advise on restoration alternatives and assist
with each project.
Each of the above partnerships present opportunities for knowledge transfer and participant satisfaction
as well as barriers to participation in the habitat restoration. Participation will mean taking time to do
physical work, giving up the opportunity of doing something else. The neighborhood association is a
group of people interested in their own area of the watershed, but who may not have much interest in the
total watershed. They probably do not even realize where their little stream goes, nor its relationship to
the larger Chesapeake Bay. They have joined together to create a better environment for their families.
Can they be motivated to care for the larger community? The Chickahominy Watershed Alliance is a
group of people representing different areas of the watershed. They certainly have the larger watershed in
mind and many come from professional backgrounds so their overall knowledge will be high. But will
they be willing to come together for habitat restoration in an area not in their own "backyard"? The youth
group will have less demands on their time, but will have a lesser knowledge base, and therefore may not
understand why they are doing some of the activities they are asked to do. Not having their own
transportation, they will require the backing and participation of other family members. We are
-------
documenting the interactions with each group so as to help those who want to develop partnerships in the
future will some understanding of the barriers and opportunities involved in these types of partnerships.
We will also survey participant satisfaction with the process. Will the volunteers participate again in a
partnership for habitat restoration? What were the barriers and opportunities to working in the
partnership from their perspective? Have they changed in how they view watershed processes and how
they live day-to-day as a result of this experience?
Habitat Restoration
Habitat Restoration can be thought of as a short term effort and a long term effort. In the short term,
degraded stream segments and wetlands can be the sites for habitat restoration projects. Restoration
includes removing trash and planting trees, shrubs, and other plants where they have been destroyed
through misuse or deliberately at the time of construction activities. Restoration may also mean stream
bank stabilization and earth moving efforts to restore topography for flooding or excavation of excess
sediment from stream bottoms. These are immediate kinds of activities that will have longer term
impacts.
However, in the long term, habitat restoration must come from changes in how we, as people, use our
riparian areas. It must come from understanding the impacts of our actions on the hydrologic system
which includes streams, wetlands and riparian habitat. We are linking this concept with short term
physical actions through environmental education. When we first work with a group, we are asking them
to fill out a survey about their knowledge of watersheds, nonpoint pollution prevention, wetland
functions, riparian forest buffers, habitat restoration, and the tie between tributary ecological health and
the health of the Chesapeake Bay. Then we are conducting, as part of the preparation for habitat
restoration, environmental education focused at those areas where the survey showed gaps in knowledge.
There will also be a survey after the restoration work to see if people have made any changes in how they
perform their day-by-day activities as a result of doing the restoration work and getting new information.
Summary
Watersheds make the ideal analysis and work-based unit for improving water quality, especially for
nonpoint sources. As rural areas become more urbanized there is a change in nonpoint sources from
those dominated by agricultural practices to those characteristic of urban areas: degradation as a result of
construction practices be it for utility lines, new homes and commercial areas, road runoff, or human
activities which trash wetlands and riparian areas. The ultimate goal of all restoration activities is clean
and productive streams, rivers, and estuaries.
Government, at any level—federal, state, regional, or local—does not have the funds to clean up and
restore all the wetlands and riparian areas that have been degraded by human activities. However,
government does have the expertise to form partnerships with citizens so that together they can restore
degraded habitat. There are lots of ways to work with citizens, but one that shows great promise is to
-------
work with existing organized groups. This project is exploring the opportunities and barriers in working
with different kinds of voluntary groups to develop partnerships that will undertake habitat restoration,
both in the short term,as physical activities, and in the long term, as changes in personal behavior, that
will benefit the watershed.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Lake Decatur, Illinois, Case Study: Nitrate
Reduction for SDWA Compliance in an Agricultural
Watershed
Stephen F. John, President
Environmental Planning and Economics Inc., Decatur, IL
Keith Alexander, Lake Manager
City of Decatur, IL
Tim Hoffman, Chairman
Macon County Soil and Water Conservation District, Decatur, IL
Laura Keefer, Associate Hydrologist
Illinois State Water Survey, Urbana, IL
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Introduction
Lake Decatur was created as an impoundment of the Sangamon River in 1922 to serve as the water
supply and a recreational resource for Decatur, Illinois, an industrial and agribusiness center with a
population of 84,000. The upper Sangamon River watershed above the Lake Decatur dam comprises 925
square miles, 87 percent of which is used for row crops, mainly corn and soybeans.
Nitrate concentrations are a problem in Lake Decatur. Most of each year, the concentration is well below
the drinking water Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) of 10 mg/1 (as N) but peak concentrations in the
range of 10 to 16 mg/1 are often reached in the spring.
-------
In 1992, the City of Decatur signed a Letter of Commitment to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency (IEPA) to achieve compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) nitrate standard no
later than the year 2001. IEPA initially proposed that the City either remove nitrates in the water
treatment plants or switch to a water source with lower nitrate levels. The City negotiated a revision that
identifies watershed management as the preferred approach for meeting the nitrate standard.
This paper discusses the technical feasibility of a watershed approach to solving Lake Decatur's nitrate
problems and, equally important, the economic, social and political issues involved in implementing a
successful management strategy in an agricultural watershed.
Background
Decatur is located in central Illinois, 180 miles southwest of Chicago, 40 miles east of Springfield. The
Upper Sangamon River watershed extends from the Lake Decatur dam to the northeast across parts of
seven counties (Figure 1). The watershed is located on the Bloomington Ridged Plain, a subdivision of
the Till Plains section of the Central Lowland physiographic province characterized by low broad
morainic ridges with intervening wide stretches of relatively flat or gently undulating ground moraine.
-------
FORD
Orb ana
antoul
CHAMPAIGN
LOCATION OF THE WATERSHED
IN ILLINOIS
Big Ditch
MCLMJf
•iblitr
LEGEND
Watershed Boundary
Streams
Stream Names
Lake Decatur
County Boundary
County Name
Mftiidpaliiies
SHELBY
Figure 1. Location of the Lake Decatur Waterhshed
Soils in the watershed typically formed under prairie or forest vegetation in more than 40 inches of loess
over glacial till. Organic content, available water holding capacity and fertility are high. Macon County,
in which Decatur is located, has an average farm size of 403 acres and average corn yield of 162 bushels
per acre.
Agricultural land use accounts for over 87 percent of the total watershed area. Before 1960, grassy crops
-------
such as wheat, oats and hay comprised a significant portion of the agricultural acreage. From 1950
through the 1970s, acreage devoted to these crops declined and today they make up a fraction of a
percent. The major nonagricultural land uses are urban land at 4.5 percent of the total watershed area,
nonagricultural rural land at 3.9 percent, and woods/open space at 3.1 percent.
The peak nitrate concentration in Lake Decatur has equaled or exceeded the MCL every year from 1980
to 1992 (Figure 2). Nitrates are not effectively removed by coagulation/sedimentation, lime softening,
filtration or disinfection, the treatment processes already in place in Decatur's water plants. Adding ion
exchange treatment to achieve a blended finished water nitrate concentration below 10 mg/1 was
estimated to have a $12 million capital cost and $400,000 annual operating cost. Switching to a
permanent groundwater supply would be even more expensive and would place the City in conflict with
present users of groundwater resources.
1965 1070 1975 1980 1905 1990 1995 2000
YEAR
Figure 2. Nitrate Concentrations in Lake Decatur (1967-95).
Well before 1992 when IEPA forced the issue by presenting the City of Decatur with a draft Letter of
Commitment, Decatur officials had begun working with the agricultural community to address water
quality problems including soil erosion and sedimentation, as well as nitrates. With this experience and
an awareness of the cost of more traditional approaches, the City was predisposed to seriously consider a
-------
watershed approach to the nitrate problem. IEPA officials accepted this change to the draft LOC and
agreed to a timetable that permitted a fair opportunity to evaluate and implement a watershed solution.
Significant milestones contained in the LOC are:
¦ June 1992: Implement agricultural outreach program
¦ October 1992: Monitor major tributaries for nitrate levels
¦ June 1993: Perform hydrological characterization of watershed
¦ October 1993: Rank hydrologic units by nitrate levels
¦ June 1994: Implement detailed plan including soil conservation practices, sediment basins,
artificial wetlands, streambank and shoreline vegetation establishment, reduced nitrate usage,
and/or other agreed upon mitigation methods
¦ June 1994: Submit preliminary alternatives study on water treatment, other water sources,
watershed protection and financing
¦ December 1994: Submit final plan of proposed solutions, compliance milestones, permit and
construction scheduling, results and recommendations of watershed study
¦ June 1995: Submit preliminary justification for continuing the plan
¦ June 1998: Submit final justification, if watershed management not viable then treatment and/or
blending must be implemented
¦ April 2001: SDWA compliance achieved
Watershed Monitoring and Modeling
Decatur contracted with the Illinois State Water Survey (ISWS) to study nitrogen sources, movement and
control options in the Lake Decatur Watershed. Hydrologic and water quality monitoring and modeling
are being performed to evaluate the effect of Best Management Practices (BMPs) on lake nitrate loadings
and alternative strategies for maintaining the nitrate concentration below the MCL. Monitoring data was
collected from April 1993 through April 1995. The monitoring report was completed in January 1996
(ISWS, 1996) and the final report is due in May 1996.
ISWS established monitoring stations at selected locations on the main river and tributary streams to
generate reliable and current hydrologic and water quality data to identify the sources and quantify the
-------
amounts of nitrate generated in the watershed. Eight major stations equipped with continuous stage
recorders and three supplementary stations with staff gages near the lake were installed. Additional
sampling sites were located in two tributary watersheds. All sites sampled for nitrate-nitrogen,
ammonium-nitrogen, and total Kjeldahl nitrogen.
Precipitation records in the watershed show that the first year data collection period was wetter than
normal, with more than 10 inches of rainfall above normal for most of the upper portions of the
watershed. On the other hand, precipitation for the second year was below normal by more than 10
inches for most of the watershed. Total runoff for the first year was more than three times that of the
second year. Low flows during the first year were well above normal with some record highs, whereas
most of the tributary streams were almost dry during the summer in the second year.
Historical nitrate concentrations have a seasonal cycle as shown in Figure 3. Concentrations start out low
in the fall, rise slightly during the winter months, then drop in early spring. The highest concentrations
occur in late spring to summer, then they drop again through to fall. This general cycle is apparent in the
study period samples with some exceptions due to climate variability.

Maximum
Minimum
Average

,/
MCL

•
./
J ~~
X
. - - -
__

•K.

- - "
s
-¦*
**

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apt May Jun Jul Aug Sep
MONTH
Figure 3. Monthly maximum, minimum, and average nitrate concentraions in Lake Decatur from
1967-1995.
-------
For the first year of data collection, the nitrate concentrations in the tributary watersheds were generally
above 4 mg/1. The highest concentrations were in May and June of 1993 when concentrations above 14
mg/1 were measured. For a period of almost nine months from August to April, nitrate concentrations at
all the stations were generally between 4 to 10 mg/1. The concentrations stayed elevated even during the
summer months when they were expected to have dropped significantly. During the second year, for
three and a half months from mid-July to the end of October, nitrate concentrations were near zero at all
of the monitoring stations. Nitrate concentrations were generally lower in the second year than the first
year except during March and April when second year concentrations were higher than the first year. The
highest concentrations in the second year were measured in March and April as opposed to May and June
for the first year.
The Sangamon River stations also show the significant difference between the first and second year data
similar to conditions observed in the tributary streams. During the first year data collection, nitrate
concentrations almost never fell below 2 mg/1. The second year, nitrate concentrations were zero or near
zero for a period of three and a half months from mid-July to the end of October. During the first year,
nitrate concentrations were high at all stations in May and June, started to drop in July, and essentially
stayed between 2 and 8 mg/1 for the rest of the year.
The overall average annual load for the tributary streams was 14 lb/acre in the second year compared to
39 lb/acre for the first year. Main river station average annual load for the first year was 37 lb/acre as
compared to 15 lb/acre for the second year. Based on the nitrate load data, we can conclude that the
source of nitrate in the Lake Decatur watershed is truly dispersed throughout the watershed. More than
80 percent of the drainage area yields nitrate at almost a uniform rate.
One of the main objectives of this project was to evaluate the potential effects of alternative agricultural
best management practices (BMPs) at different locations of the Lake Decatur watershed on nitrate level
reduction at Lake Decatur. The AGNPS (Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution) model for agricultural
watersheds was used for quantitative evaluation of the effects of alternative management practices on
nonpoint source pollution from the Lake Decatur watershed. This model has been developed and
distributed by the North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture Research Service.
Four broad categories of BMPs were evaluated: nutrient management, mitigation projects, conservation
practices, and a combination of nutrient management and conservation practices. Different scenarios of
these four BMPs were applied to sub-watersheds. Reductions and reduction efficiencies of nitrate
loadings into Lake Decatur were computed.
The modeling results show that reducing the fertilizer application rate was the most effective and reliable
BMP in reducing nitrate loading into the lake. Nitrate loading into the lake was directly proportional to
the amount and area of nutrient application. For example, a 25 percent reduction in N fertilizer
application over the entire watershed was projected to result in a nitrogen concentration of 8.9 mg/1 in
water flowing into Lake Decatur after a one-year storm, compared with 11.6 mg/1 for the base run with
-------
current application rates.
Similarly, mitigation projects such as wetlands or buffer strips that remove nitrate were also effective in
reducing nitrate loading into the lake. However, it is difficult to quantify the extent to which mitigation
projects are needed.
Conservation tillage practices reduced runoff but could either reduce or increase nitrate concentrations in
the lake depending upon the locations of applications with respect to the lake. Conservation practices
applied over the entire watershed and over areas closer to the lake reduce nitrate concentrations in the
lake. Conservation practices applied over areas further away from the lake tend to increase nitrate
concentrations in the lake if nutrient applications remain the same. However, when conservation
practices are combined with nutrient management they are found to be very effective.
City Involvement in the Watershed
Decatur's active involvement in watershed management goes back at least to 1941 when the City
employed two soil conservationists to promote soil erosion control in the Lake Decatur watershed. These
early efforts continued through the 1950s. Program accomplishments included conservation plans, crop
rotations, contour lines, terraces, waterways, pastures, wildlife and tree plantings, surface and tile
drainage, ponds, fertilizer plans, and public education (City of Decatur, c.1959). The program was later
discontinued but available City records do not indicate when it ended.
The Lake Decatur watershed is large relative to the size of the lake. Despite the generally flat
topography, soil erosion and sedimentation are a significant problem in the watershed. From its
construction in 1922 through the most recent sedimentation survey in 1983, Lake Decatur's average
annual sediment accumulation rate was 160,000 tons, or about 150 acre-feet (ISWS, 1987). In 1956,
bascule gates were added to the dam to raise the lake level and increase storage capacity to 28,000 acre-
feet. Thus the historical sedimentation rate is about 0.5 percent of reservoir capacity. In 1985, a City
Sedimentation Control Committee recommended a selective lake dredging program. Since then, about
2,000 acre-feet of sediment has been dredged from the lake and placed on an adjacent upland site.
The current City involvement in the watershed began in response to another recommendation of the
Sedimentation Control Committee. In 1985, the Decatur City Council approved a $45,500 contract with
the Macon County Soil and Water Conservation District (MCSWCD) to support conservation activities,
primarily for reducing soil erosion. Annual contracts have been approved every year since 1985. The
focus of these efforts has gradually expanded to emphasize nitrate reduction. The 1995-96 contract
amount was $91,500 for salaries, administrative expenses, public education activities and locally
designed cost-share incentives. These incentives are targeted to local priorities and augment the cost-
share programs administered by the Natural Resource Conservation Service of the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.
A stakeholder group called the Lower Lake Decatur Watershed Resource Planning Committee (LDWC)
-------
was established in 1989 by local government agency representatives, watershed landowners and
agribusiness interests. From an initial focus on seeking federal technical and financial assistance, the
Committee's role has expanded to include promotion of water quality improvements throughout the
watershed. The LDWC brings together key stakeholders and technical experts from government and the
University of Illinois.
Over the years, relations between the City of Decatur and its agricultural neighbors have sometimes been
strained. Much of the conflict has centered on water resource management issues. Long-time area
residents remember a Corps of Engineers proposal in the 1960s and early '70s to construct a new
impoundment on the Sangamon River upstream of Lake Decatur. This project, which was supported by
Decatur officials, was defeated by public opposition. After the severe drought of 1988, Decatur
constructed water supply wells as a supplemental water source. This project generated opposition from
small communities and farmers concerned about the effect on their own wells. The City has so far made
good on its pledge to use the wells only on a short term basis during droughts and to remedy impacts on
private or municipal wells resulting from City groundwater withdrawals.
The ongoing City involvement with watershed landowners through the MCSWCD and the Watershed
Committee has contributed to improved mutual understanding between urban and rural people. In
seeking a watershed solution for the Lake Decatur nitrate problem, Decatur officials have stressed the
importance of communication and cooperation among watershed stakeholders, a strong preference for
market-based strategies rather than regulatory approaches, and support for techniques such as wetlands
restoration that provide multiple benefits.
Market-Based Solutions
The annual MCSWCD contracts have incorporated a watershed approach to reducing nitrate loadings
and concentrations in Lake Decatur. To date, the City's financial commitment to watershed programs has
been relatively modest. With the completion of the ISWS monitoring and modeling study, the City has
the essential information to support a preliminary conclusion that using watershed management strategies
to achieve compliance with the SDWA nitrate standard is technically feasible.
Before making a final decision to adopt the watershed approach, an evaluation of its costs and
implementability still must be done. The ISWS modeling results identify combinations of BMPs and
mitigation practices that would be expected to keep the peak nitrate concentration below the 10 mg/1
MCL. Key questions now include: Can enough watershed landowners be convinced to change their
nitrogen management practices or implement mitigation projects to meet the nitrate standard? If so, how
and at what cost to the City of Decatur? From the City's perspective, the bottom line test of feasibility is
whether the cost to City water ratepayers of meeting the nitrate standard through watershed management
is less than the cost for upgrading water treatment or developing an alternate supply.
The Watershed Committee, made up of city, farm and industry stakeholders, attempts to find and
implement win-win strategies that can both improve water quality and increase, or at least maintain, net
-------
farm income. We stress that, if a pound of fertilizer nitrogen ends up in Lake Decatur, the City's water
supply is damaged and the farmer's money is wasted. Furthermore, there are mutual advantages to city-
farm cooperation. A healthy farm economy is good for the City and maintaining competitive water rates
is good for local farmers. They receive a premium price for their crop because of their proximity to major
grain processors located in the City of Decatur. If Decatur must raise water rates to finance nitrate
removal, the cost of doing business would go up and agri-industry could shift production elsewhere.
The Lake Decatur watershed project is ongoing and its outcome is not yet certain. At deadline time for
the Watershed '96 proceedings, we have successfully implemented a number of relatively small scale
programs to reduce soil erosion and control nitrogen loadings but we do not have a clear blueprint for
expanding the scale of these or other activities sufficiently to meet the nitrate MCL. The following
sections present some preliminary thoughts from the farm perspective and the city perspective. The
former is by Tim Hoffman, co-chair of the LDWC and a farmer in the watershed; the latter by Stephen
John, the other LDWC co-chair and a former Decatur City Councilmember.
The View from the Farm
As a farmer in this watershed, it was apparent to me from the beginning that a watershed that is 87
percent farmland and has a nitrate problem has to have farmer cooperation for successful improvement in
water quality. The high nitrate levels in Lake Decatur and the high percentage of farmland as land use
don't necessarily mean that farmers in the watershed are negligent in their application of nitrogen
fertilizer. Indeed the ISWS study has shown that the levels are widespread and evenly dispersed
throughout farmland in the watershed. No "hot spots", which might suggest severe over-application in
certain locations, were found.
This leads me to believe that education could be a reasonable solution. Farmers could benefit from
education on problems created for the City water supply that are related to typical farming activity. A
basic understanding of the hydrology of the watershed, and how a farming activity translates into a
watershed problem are key elements of a solution from their standpoint. The farmer needs to believe that
there is a problem and the perception of the problem is the same for all parties. The City partners could
benefit from education on the reasons farmers make the decisions they do about fertilizers, herbicides
and pesticides. A basic understanding of the social and economic pressures exerted on farmers are key
elements of a solution from their standpoint.
Farmers have always been concerned about environmental pressures resulting from normal farming
activities. However, we do not have the ability to pass along any added expenses. Any remedies to
watershed problems that would possibly impact farmer productivity would probably meet opposition.
Therefore remedies must be workable solutions in both practical and economic aspects for those
involved. Solutions must be readily adaptable and economically feasible if they are to be successful. As
with any project that involves a diverse population, all parties involved should have extensive input from
the beginning. This not only gives everyone a chance to represent their interests but it gives them the
sense of ownership needed to make the basic philosophical changes that are necessary.
-------
We have adapted this process and so far it has proven to be successful. With a watershed as large as ours,
925 square miles spread out over six counties, it is a formidable task to undertake. Add to this an IEPA
mandate to have a nitrate reduction plan implemented by 1998 and compliance by 2001 and we then
need to instill in everyone involved a sense of urgency. After we get through this stage of ownership,
everyone involved should feel this sense of urgency.
We have designed our programs to meet these criteria and also to be tools that build bridges where gaps
exist. We are attempting to practice the old adage that you can get anywhere if you first build the road.
One specific market-based idea that deserves consideration is to impose a special tax on land in the
watershed. The tax should apply to all land, not just farmland. With a watershed area of nearly 600,000
acres, a tax of $5 per acre would yield nearly $2 million per year. Landowners that implemented nutrient
management practices would receive a rebate that could be up to twice the amount of tax they paid. This
would be in effect an incentive to encourage nutrient management and help to cover any associated costs.
The system could be designed so that the net tax revenue (taxes revenue collected minus
rebates/incentives distributed) was zero. If needed to meet water quality goals, City contributions could
be added to increase the funds available for incentives.
The View from City Hall
The hard line view sometimes expressed around City Hall is simple: we didn't put the nitrates in our lake
and we shouldn't have to pay to remove nitrates. Cities must ensure that their public water supplies meet
Safe Drinking Water Act standards. Farmers, shown to be the source of much (although definitely not
all) of the problem in Decatur's case, are not legally obligated to prevent the pollution of our water
supply. The Clean Water Act which would logically control farm runoff does not deal effectively with
such nonpoint sources.
As we began to research other watershed-based efforts to improve water quality we were directed to the
literature on point source/NPS source trading. The approach we are using draws on this concept but there
is a fundamental difference. PS/NPS trading involves two types of polluters, one subject to strict permit
limitations and the other not. In our case, there are not two categories of polluters but rather one group of
polluters and a downstream injured party. It hardly seems equitable that the legal mandate to abate the
problem falls on the latter.
I do not subscribe to the hard line view. Recognizing our mutual interests, city and farm should make
every effort to craft solutions that work for everyone concerned. Participation in the Watershed
Committee has helped to educate me and other city dwellers about issues of farm economics that Tim
Hoffman raises. Farmers in the watershed generally appear to follow the established fertilizer guidelines
pretty closely. Through my work as an environmental planner, I have come to prefer market approaches,
such as cost internalization, over command-and-control style regulation, especially for addressing
pollution that results from overuse of common products ranging from fertilizer to gasoline to wasteful
-------
packaging.
Iowa has shown what can be achieved through "a large and varied network of on-farm demonstration and
implementation projects ... coupled with an aggressive marketing and information plan to accelerate
voluntary adoption" (Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 1991). In a single demonstration project
involving 48 farmers in one Iowa county, fertilizer nitrogen use was reduced by over 240,000 pounds
with no reduction in yields resulting in a significant increase in net return.
In our LDWC discussions it has become clear that many farmers and farm managers focus on
maximizing yields, even though that may not always maximize profits. We have heard estimates that
typical nitrogen application rates may be as much as 15 to 20 percent higher than optimum in part
because, when using equations in the fertilizer guidelines, there is a natural tendency to use overly
optimistic yield goals. Since nitrogen has been a relatively small part of total input costs, it has been easy
to over-apply to some extent to make sure that nitrogen does not limit yields. Recent increases in the cost
of nitrogen and the increased use of fertilizer monitors have helped to make farmers more aware of using
nitrogen efficiently.
If administrative and political hurdles can be overcome, I could easily support the system of taxes and
incentives Tim Hoffman outlined. The same objective could be accomplished through a fertilizer tax
with rebates to farmers adopting BMPs. This concept has the advantage of directly targeting overuse but
it would also be cumbersome to administer and it would face political opposition.
Another concept we have discussed is a voluntary nitrogen risk-share program. MCSWCD has used
Decatur contract funds for a small, locally designed risk-share program to promote adoption of no-till
farming. A risk-share program could be designed to encourage reduction in the nitrogen application rate
to corn. Participating farmers would apply nitrogen at a reduced rate resulting in lower cash inputs. Some
of the cash savings would be retained by the farmer; some would be deposited in a risk-share pool that
would insure participants against lost revenue from reduced yields. If necessary, City contributions could
be used to capitalize the insurance pool. Like the tax/rebate concepts, a risk-share strategy would pose
administrative difficulties. On the plus side, it would be unlikely to generate opposition if it were entirely
voluntary.
The role of wetland restoration should be further evaluated as we move toward a final watershed plan.
ISWS modeling has shown that such mitigation projects can help to reduce nitrate loadings to Lake
Decatur. University of Illinois researchers have successfully demonstrated the water quality benefits of
small wetlands constructed at the outfalls of farm field tiles. To the extent that wetlands provide multiple
benefits, mechanisms to spread the costs among the beneficiaries needs to be explored. Decatur could
contribute in proportion to benefits related to removal of sediment, nutrients and pesticides; conservation
agencies or private organizations could contribute toward enhancement of habitat and recreation.
To me, prospects for a watershed solution to Lake Decatur nitrate problems are great enough to justify
the City's commitment to the effort to develop and implement a plan that is good for City water users and
-------
good for our farm neighbors.
References
City of Decatur, undated (c.1959). Urban-Rural Conservation Program. By H. R. Beeson, Decatur
Lake Management Division. Unpublished.
Illinois State Water Survey, 1987. Sedimentation and Hydrologic Processes in Lake Decatur and
Its Watershed. ISWS Report of Investigation 107. By William P. Fitzpatrick, William C. Bogner
and Nani G. Bhowmik.
Illinois State Water Survey, 1996. Watershed Monitoring and Land Use Evaluation for the Lake
Decatur Watershed. ISWS Miscellaneous Publication 169. Principal investigators Misganaw
Demissie and Laura Keefer.
Iowa Department of Natural Resources, 1991. A Progress Review of Iowa's Agricultural-Energy-
Environmental Initiatives: Nitrogen Management in Iowa. IDNR Technical Information Series 22.
Prepared by G. R. Hallberg et al.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Comprehensive Solutions for an Urban Watershed-
A Case Study of the Beaverdam Creek Watershed
Mary E. (Lerch) Roman, P.E., Project Manager
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., Greenbelt, MD
Mow-Soung Cheng, Ph.D., P.E., Section Head
Prince George's County, Department of Environmental Resources, Largo, MD
Introduction
Historically, counties focused on solving flooding problems within watersheds. In the late 1980's water
quality and habitat concerns emerged as a focus of many watershed studies. In 1989, the Prince George's
County Department of Environmental Resources determined that a comprehensive program was needed
to simultaneously address flooding, water quality, and habitat concerns in the County watersheds. The
Beaverdam Creek watershed was selected because the flooding, water quality, and habitat conditions in
the watershed are typical of urban watersheds in the region.
The Beaverdam Creek Watershed Study, which was completed in June 1995, evaluated existing flooding
and water quality conditions and identified methods to improve conditions in the watershed. In addition,
the study resulted in the development of a comprehensive "generic work plan" for application in other
county watersheds. The County's intent for this work plan, which was refined through the course of the
project, is to apply it to other watersheds in the County.
Background
The Lower Beaverdam Creek watershed drains approximately 14.9 square miles of central Prince
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
George's County and is generally located east of the Baltimore-Washington Parkway, west of Interstate
95, south of Maryland Route 450, and north of Marlboro Pike. The stream is located in the coastal plain
province and is thus characterized by relatively mild stream slopes and wide flat floodplains. The stream
outfalls into the Anacostia River near Kenilworth Avenue at the District of Columbia and Prince
George's County line.
The watershed, which is located east of Washington, D.C., is heavily developed with a mixture of
medium-density residential, commercial, and industrial land uses. The watershed consists of the main
stem of Beaverdam Creek, two large tributaries (i.e., Cabin Branch and Cattail Branch), and 19 smaller
tributaries to these three streams.
The Beaverdam Creek watershed is typical of many urban watersheds in which a majority of the
extensive development in the watershed occurred during the post World War II era, preceding the
adoption of storm water management regulations. Therefore, the watershed shows the effects of
uncontrolled urban runoff in the form of flood-prone structures, stream bank erosion, and numerous
water quality problems.
To address these issues, the two-part study consisted of a Flood Management Study and a Water Quality
Improvement Study. The Flood Management Study involved determining the water-surface elevations
for storms of various recurrence intervals, identifying the flood-prone structures, and identifying and
evaluating potential solutions to eliminate the flooding hazards. The Water Quality Improvement Study
focused on identifying existing conditions in the watershed that contribute to nonpoint source pollution,
identifying existing controls to mitigate nonpoint source pollution, and identifying and evaluating
solutions to improve the water quality, habitat, and physical conditions in the watershed.
Because of the extent of existing development in the watershed, the flooding and water quality problems
are wide-spread and retrofit opportunities are limited. Therefore, to be effective, the study focused on
both traditional improvements (e.g., SWM ponds) and on innovative structural and non-structural
approaches.
Flood Management Study
The team conducted detailed hydrologic and hydraulic analyses to determine the existing and ultimate
land use conditions flood elevations for over 25 stream miles (22 streams) in the Beaverdam Creek
watershed. Using the Soil Conservation Service's TR-20 program, the team estimated discharges for
various locations in the watershed. The resulting discharge calculations were input into the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers HEC-2 program to determine the flood elevations.
Next, the team performed computations to estimate the depth of flooding for various storms under
existing and ultimate land use conditions. Based on the 100-year ultimate land use floodplain boundaries,
280 potential flood-prone residential and non-residential structures were identified. Of the 280 structures,
29 of these are anticipated to be flooded by the 2-year event.
-------
Based on these assumptions, the structure and contents damages were also estimated based on the depth
of flooding and on the type of structure (e.g., two-story, one-story with basement). The estimated flood
annual damages are significant: $224,000 for residential structures and $4,719,000 for non-residential
structures.
To reduce flooding potential in the watershed, the team identified and evaluated traditional structural
flood control measures. Several traditional structural flood control measures, such as levees, floodwalls,
and storm water management facilities, were identified; however, only a few of these were recommended
for implementation due to significant downstream impacts, environmental impacts, or because they
would be ineffective at reducing the flood hazard. Channelization was not considered due to adverse
environmental impacts.
To augment the structural controls, non-structural/non-traditional alternatives were identified to eliminate
potential flood hazards. In general, flood insurance is recommended for all flood-prone structures. We
recommended acquisition and flood-proofing for the flood-prone structures that would not be protected
by the structural controls. Other flood control options, such as flood warning and land use planning, were
considered for the watershed as well.
Water Quality Improvement Study
The team used a wide variety of approaches to assess existing environmental and water quality
conditions. First, we conducted a detailed field reconnaissance to evaluate the water quality, habitat, and
physical stream conditions. Also, we used aerial photographs to identify environmental resources such as
large wooded areas, wetlands, and other significant habitat and wildlife areas.
The team then estimated annual pollutant loads and in-stream concentrations for six pollutants (i.e.,
copper, lead, total suspended solids, total phosphorus, total nitrogen, and biochemical oxygen demand)
using a computer spreadsheet-type model based on Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
loading rates. Limited baseflow sampling and a macroinvertebrate analysis and habitat assessment were
conducted at 18 representative stations in the watershed to assess relative water quality conditions.
The results of the assessment of environmental/water quality conditions indicate that the Beaverdam
Creek watershed is a typical urban stream system which suffers from the effects of uncontrolled urban
runoff. Most of the problems occur in the areas of intense development, which is along the Beaverdam
Creek main stem and tributaries, as well as in the Cattail Branch subwatershed. In these areas,
environmental conditions in the watershed are degraded. Existing wetlands in the Beaverdam Creek
watershed are typically confined to the floodplain corridors, and many of the stream systems lack
riparian habitat and buffers. Portions of the stream system are conveyed in concrete channels. Because
much of the watershed was developed before the implementation of storm water management
regulations, there are few existing storm water management facilities.
-------
To improve the degraded conditions in the watershed, traditional water quality/habitat alternatives
identified and evaluated included water quality ponds, regional facilities, and stream restoration
alternatives. Conceptual designs and feasibility analyses were conducted for each of the structural
improvements in the watershed. Similar to the flood control measures, the potential water quality and
restoration measures were constrained by steep slopes, potential wetlands impacts, utility line impacts,
and lack of space. In addition, the potential sites often consisted of floodplain, wetlands, or parkland
areas.
Opportunities for improvements in the watershed were driven more by available sites than by problem
areas. The team designed facilities to provide the maximum water quality benefit that could be obtained.
For example, due to insufficient storage, many of the regional facilities were designed to provide only
water quality control. Based on the analysis, the team recommended eleven water quality facilities, seven
regional storm water management facilities, and eleven stream restoration opportunities for
implementation.
The team considered non-structural alternatives, such as the industrial action plans and watershed-wide
alternatives, an important supplement to the structural water quality alternatives, especially in areas
where open space is limited. To improve the quality of runoff from the industrial facilities in the
watershed, we developed a three-phase Action Plan. The components in the Action Plan consist of:
¦ Determining NPDES status.
¦ Assessing the pollution potential for each of the industries.
¦ Identifying best management practices.
¦ Assessing the potential for education and outreach programs.
¦ Water quality sampling.
The Plan calls for a County liaison to be assigned to each group of industries to implement the Action
Plan. In general, the Action Plans developed for the industrial facilities would focus on pollution
prevention rather than treatment after the runoff has reached the stream.
Watershed-wide alternatives represent another important component for improving water quality.
Typically structural and non-site specific, these focus on improvements that can be implemented on a
watershed-wide or county-wide basis. Components considered include public education, public
involvement, stormdrain maintenance, storm water pollution prevention plans, street cleaning, debris
cleanup, winter road treatment management, riparian reforestation, mowing limitations, and creation of
nature trails. Recommendations included both improvements to existing programs and implementation of
new programs. In general, these improvements are recommended for implementation on a county-wide
rather than watershed-wide basis.
Implementation Program
The implementation program for improvement measures in the Beaverdam Creek watershed took a
-------
segment-focused approach which recommends that all restoration opportunities for a given stream
segment be implemented concurrently. The benefits to this approach include minimizing disturbance to
homeowners and stream systems. A better evaluation of the proposed improvements can be generated
from a segment-focused approach. In addition, many of the components within a watershed are related
which makes the order of implementation critical. For example, storm water control should be provided
prior to implementing stream restoration measures. Further, potential negative impacts stemming from
implementation of an alternative can be mitigated during the same time period. In general, the priority of
implementation was based on the severity of the problem and the extent of the expected improvement by
each alternative.
A comprehensive schedule including design, permitting, and construction, was developed for
implementation of the alternatives. The implementation schedule includes all of the recommended flood
control alternatives, water quality and regional facilities, stream restoration alternatives, and the
Industrial Action Plans. The watershed-wide alternatives were not included in the schedule because, for
the most part, these alternatives will be implemented on a county-wide basis rather than just in the
Beaverdam Creek watershed.
Summary
The challenges in restoring the Beaverdam Creek watershed are very similar to those experienced in
virtually all developed watersheds. Development in the watershed occurred prior to storm water
management. As a result, the stream systems suffer from the effects of uncontrolled runoff and
opportunities for improvements are limited by space and potential impacts.
To effectively reduce flooding potential and improve water quality and habitat conditions in the
watershed, it is necessary to identify and study a wide variety of opportunities, including traditional
structural alternatives and non-structural alternatives. Through the implementation of the recommended
measures, significant improvements to the Beaverdam Creek watershed will be realized. In addition, and
perhaps more importantly, insights gained through this evaluation may be used to improve watersheds
throughout the region.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Integrated Watershed Planning and Management:
Growth, Land Resources, and Nonpoint Source
Pollution
Joseph F. Tassone, Richard E. Hall, Nevitt S. Edwards, and Deborah M.G.
Weller
Background/Introduction
It is widely recognized that management of growth and new development is an essential part of
watershed protection and control of nonpoint source pollution. Methods to plan and manage growth for
these goals, however, are not well established at the watershed scale.
One obstacle to systematic use of existing information for this purpose is the inability to integrate the
diverse and abundant data, available from research, monitoring, and modeling exercises, for land use
management decision support. To accomplish this, we must use the information to clearly gauge the
effects of population growth and alternative development patterns at the watershed scale, in relation to
the effects of other pollution control activities. Perhaps most important, we must be able to relate this
information to the land use decision-making processes of the responsible government agencies. A
corollary to these observations is that a sound, long-term nonpoint source management strategy must
emphasize and account for both the effects of traditionally recognized NPS control practices and the
effects of the types of growth and growth management that will occur in the watershed.
Local governments in Maryland (23 counties, Baltimore City, and municipalities) have regulatory
authority for land use management. They also are responsible for resource land conservation, local water
resources, protection of environmentally sensitive areas, the local economy and jobs (in part), and
balancing conflicting issues relating to private property rights. These are just a few of the things that
influence growth management policies and programs.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
An important goal for Maryland as a signatory to the interstate Chesapeake Bay Agreement is to reduce
1985 nutrient pollution loads from each of 10 major Maryland tributaries (Tributary Strategies) to the
Bay by 40%, and to "cap" pollution at those levels thereafter. In rapidly growing (population) areas, the
ways in which local governments exercise their land use management authority will be critical to
success. Consequently, local governments are being asked to contribute in this regard and, conversely,
want their contributions recognized. The challenge therefore is to conduct a watershed planning process
that integrates across activities (growth management and pollution control), objectives (local
responsibilities and the 40% reduction goal), and levels of geography and government (local, state, and
interstate).
The Watershed Planning and Management Process
Over the past four years, the Maryland Office of Planning has worked with State agencies, counties, and
soil conservation districts to develop and implement such an integrated watershed planning and
management process. Participants are directly involved through a team approach with analysis,
evaluation, and strategy development. To facilitate the process, a series of geographic information system
(GIS) based models, collectively called the "Watershed Planning System" (WPS), was designed to
evaluate the individual and cumulative effects of both alternative land management and nonpoint source
pollution control measures in an integrated fashion. The watershed approach and the WPS models are
designed to accommodate both local and watershed-scale perspectives and priorities. It is illustrated in a
most general way in Figure 1, and is described in more detail in another paper from this conference
(Weller et. al., 1996). The System has been developed in context of applications in the Piney-Alloway
Creeks Watershed in Carroll County, the Patuxent River Watershed (covering parts of seven counties),
and, most recently, the Winter's Run Watershed (38,000 largely rural acres) in Harford County.
-------
Land Us*, Soils,
WiilandE,
Streams. Natural By (Tens
Zoning, Stwtr Service.
Transportation Analysis
Zonts,
County 8 Subwatershed
Boundaries, Infill Areas.
Growth Envelopes
Growth
Management
Simulation Model
Existing Land
Use Inventory
N on Point Source
Management Simulation
Model
Population
Projections,
Zoning Into.
Sewer Plan,
MgmtToolE
Future Landscape
Seenados
Agricultural
Statistics,
Soil
Characteristics
Septic System
Info.
PS Mgmt Data1
Stormwater,
Agricultural,
Natural Buffers
Inventory cf Future Bourses
effects at n*qrnt-»r*J butlers
Inv&rrteHj if Existing Sources
tfflfavlt; uf i i>ui i iL «nl Liuffni t
The goal of the Winter's Run project was to identify measures that would accommodate projected growth
in the watershed through the year 2010, while addressing County growth management and environmental
objectives. These objectives include preservation of agricultural land, environmentally-sensitive areas,
and resource lands, particularly forest, wetlands, and riparian buffers. They also include minimizing
nonpoint source nitrogen pollution loads to ground and surface water supplies in the area, and identifying
ways to implement the Upper Western Shore Tributary Strategy through the County's plans and
programs. The Upper Western Shore, of which Winter's Run is a part, is one of Maryland's ten
Chesapeake Bay tributaries mentioned above, for which draft 40% nutrient-reduction strategies have
been formulated through a cooperative State and local effort.
The project examined the effects of a number of management options. These included purchase of
development rights (PDR) and transfer of development rights (TDR). Together, these techniques would
shift new development from land in the County's agricultural zoning district to land in County-designated
rural residential in-fill areas. Options also included cluster development in the rural in-fill areas, and the
use of innovative, nitrogen-removing septic systems for new development in un-sewered areas. Also
examined were the impacts of existing County management programs, specifically for forest
conservation, storm water management, and riparian buffer protection.
-------
Figure 2 shows the estimated amount of land needed to accommodate projected growth in the watershed
from 1990-2010. The graph compares land consumed under a "Directed Growth" scenario, in which the
County would use the growth management techniques described above, and a "Base Zoning" scenario, in
which it would not. While both watershed scenarios accommodate the 11,867 new households projected
for the area, "Directed Growth" techniques would consume far less agricultural land, and increase the
amount of land in forests and forested stream buffers.
Winter's Run: Potential Effects of Land Use
Tools on Land Consumption, 1990-2010
11,000
io.mb --
u*
Oh
c
a*
ts
e
E.000
MOjwot
1 —1 »—1
1 I 1

1
2610
Bate Zoning
DftVftlopad
Agriculture
Forest
2010
Dl rested Grown*
Figure 3 compares estimated levels of nonpoint source nitrogen pollution from developed land in 1990,
and for the two scenarios described above in the year 2010. The 2010 load is significantly less under the
"Directed Growth" scenario. This results from the effects of both the growth management options
considered, and the County's existing management programs (mentioned earlier). The greatest effects
result from the combined use of the PDR, TDR, and clustering options to direct growth, followed by the
effects of forest and riparian buffer protection, use of nitrogen reducing septic systems, and storm water
management, in that order.
-------
Winter's Run - Potential Effects of Land Use Tools on Nonpoint
Source Nitrogen From Developed Land in 2D1D
300,000
2S0JQCD
j?_ 2uCJ,ClDj
E
Si 1HMOD
~
£ 1 DO,ODD
50/jCij
1990
2Q1D
Base Zening
2(10
Directed Growth
These findings indicate some solutions that can be pursued by Harford County to best address multiple
objectives. More agricultural and natural resource lands can be preserved in the watershed through
judicious use of growth management options. Through the same activities, the County can minimize
nitrogen pollution from new development, minimize nitrogen load increases to water supplies, and
optimize the County's contribution to the success of the Upper Western Shore Tributary Strategy.
The results of Phase I of the Patuxent River Watershed Demonstration Project (the Patuxent is an entire
"Tributary") illustrate findings from the watershed planning process in a larger, 7 county, 930 square
mile watershed. Figure 4 shows the estimated effects of growth management tools on land use in the
Patuxent Watershed for the year 2010. Both of the 2010 scenarios accommodate the same number of
projected housing units. Clustering growth, forest conservation, and stream buffer conservation account
for significantly less land consumed for development, preserving more forest and agricultural land. The
nature and effect of these management tools was different in each county. They had the greatest effects in
areas projected for rapid growth with sufficient buildable land zoned for their use. These techniques are
already established through programs and procedures in some of the counties (existing tools), while in
others they represent enhancements of existing tools (enhanced tools). For both existing and enhanced
tools, the effects simulated represent rigorous use of the management techniques in all counties from
1990 through 2010.
-------
Patuxent Watershed
Potential Effects of Land Use Tools on Land Consumption. 1990-2010
1SD.00G
100,000
a
S ED.OQQ
c
ZD
E
m
a

[TOO .OW|
Agricultural Land
.
Developed Land
Forest Land
¦> :• :<:
2010
Base Zoning
2010
Directed GrevDi
Figure 5 shows total nonpoint source nitrogen loads for the Patuxent Watershed in the year 2010 based
on the estimated effects of land and nonpoint source management tools. A theoretical nonpoint source
"cap" for the watershed was estimated using assumed point source load reductions from the Patuxent
Tributary Strategy. The estimated 2010 load under the "Directed Growth" scenario suggests that the 40%
reduction goal, which we expect to reach by the year 2000, may be compromised as a result of additional
growth by the year 2010. Management tools to be evaluated in Phase II of the project will include a
number of additional directed growth techniques. These tools are likely to be necessary to maintain the
"cap."
-------
Patuxent Watershed: Contribution of Management
Tools to the 40% Reduction Goal (Cap)
4,000,000 -|
i_ 5,510,000
mi
m
s
3,000,000
w
m
0
2,500,000
1
-^nnnnnn
1,500,000
im 2010 . 2010
Base Zoning d l re cited G rowtrt with
and NPS M8mt- Enhanced NPS Mgmt
Figure 6 shows the potential reductions in year 2010 nonpoint source nitrogen loads estimated for both
existing and enhanced land management and pollution control techniques. All of the effects are
significant, but it is interesting to note that four of the techniques, including two of the "top three," are
implemented through growth management procedures, such as comprehensive planning, zoning, water
and sewer planning, and the subdivision process. Traditional nonpoint source "best management
practices" (Agricultural BMPs and SWM (storm water management)), and conservation of forested
stream buffers on agricultural land, will also play important roles. Taken collectively, these results
suggest that the effects of additional land use management tools to be examined in Phase II of the project
have great potential to be significant.
Conclusion
The keys to achieving meaningful (on-the-ground) results from this type of work are the local and state
planning, political, and management processes. Both levels of government are responding to multiple
constituencies and objectives, so it is critical to "package" findings, in a timely manner, in ways that can
be used and understood by agencies, politicians, interest groups, and the development and agricultural
communities involved in these processes. Collectively, these processes comprise the public decision-
making process which, in turn, determines many actions. Through the "Watershed Planning and
Management" approach described here, and its other efforts to implement Maryland's 1992 Economic
MHS Mtrog.

-------
Growth, Resource Protection, and Planning Act, the Maryland Office of Planning is committed to
supporting sound public policy and management by providing information to decision-makers.
To this end, counties collaborating in the watershed planning process to-date are using results in several
capacities. Harford County has initiated a second project with the State to apply the approach County-
wide. They will use results from Winter's Run and the County-wide effort to illustrate to local officials
and affected communities the implications of proposed management strategies for local and regional
goals. Examples are the merits of redirecting growth through a transfer of development rights program,
and of targeting sensitive area protection and restoration in locations with greatest potential to reduce
pollution loads. Benefits of these techniques, as shown for specific subwatershed areas of the County,
will be used in elements of the County Master Plan and in the County's Community Planning Program, to
show effects on land and water resource goals of direct interest to specific communities, and the
implications for related goals at the County, watershed, and Tributary scales.
In the Patuxent Watershed, a revision of an inter-jurisdictional Patuxent Policy Plan is being prepared in
Phase II of the Demonstration Project. Revisions are based on the collective experience of the counties
since the Policy Plan was originally developed, and on the analyses conducted through the watershed
planning process. Phase II of the process is being used to identify area-specific land management needs
within the watershed to effectively address land resource and pollution control objectives. As an
example, Calvert County, one of the counties in the watershed, is using the watershed planning approach
to contribute to its Comprehensive Plan update. That effort focuses on concentrating growth in village
centers and using various techniques to preserve rural and agricultural land. The potential for more
widespread use of nitrogen reducing septic systems is also being examined. The watershed planning
process in the Patuxent will provide an important part of the basis for policies and management
decisions, for both the watershed and for many of the counties.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Sawmill Creek: A Multi-disciplinary Watershed
Restoration Project
Larry Lubbers, Program Chief
Watershed Assessment and Targeting
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD
Abstract
The Sawmill Creek project is a comprehensive multi-agency watershed restoration effort. The goal is to
demonstrate that existing programs can be coordinated in order to improve water quality, and habitat for
living resources. Coordination of multiple restoration projects has been a major factor in addressing the
cumulative impacts in the watershed.
Water quantity management includes reducing stormwater discharge rates and increasing stream base
flow. Habitat improvement projects were designed to match the best possible stormwater discharge rates.
The habitat projects include stabilizing and revegetating 1737 meters of eroded stream channels with
natural materials. These projects will provide sediment and erosion control as well as restore fish,
invertebrate and riparian habitat and eliminate 5 fish passage blockages.
Water quality improvements include reducing nutrient loadings through bio-retention as well as isolating
and treating several types of industrial chemical discharges. Funding for most of these restoration
projects has been incorporated into existing budgets for the development and maintenance of the business
and community infrastructure.
Introduction
Currently most management and regulatory strategies address environmental impacts of individual land
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
use practices. This project-by-project approach developed at a time when the cumulative impacts of
human activities were far less significant. Today many agencies recognize that this approach is no longer
adequate to protect or restore the Chesapeake bay or its tributaries. As a result, Sawmill Creek was
chosen as one of four targeted watersheds by the Governor's Bay Work Group. These watersheds were
selected in order to develop, demonstrate, and evaluate a coordinated approach to improving water
quality and the habitat conditions for living resources.
Description of Sawmill Creek Watershed
Sawmill Creek is a second order freshwater stream on Maryland's coastal plain. The watershed drains
approximately 8.4 square miles and the creek flows about 5 miles from its headwaters until it empties
into a tidal estuary near the mouth of the Patapsco river and Baltimore Harbor. The region was originally
known for its productive fruit and vegetable farms. Approximately two thirds of the watershed has been
converted to residential and light industrial land uses over the past 50 years. Development of a major
transportation network has had a significant effect on the watershed, with Baltimore Washington
International Airport as the center of a web interconnecting rail lines and interstate highways. Ground
water usage for municipal drinking water has increased dramatically. Due to excessive pumping from an
unconfined aquifer, annual base flow in the creek was reduced from an average 6 cubic feet per second
(cfs) to as less than 1 cfs during dry years.
Organization of the Project
At the beginning of the project two inter-agency teams were identified. The first was an overall
monitoring group which immediately began to document existing biological conditions. The
implementation team used the monitoring data to target restoration projects and to subsequently measure
their environmental benefits.
A wide spectrum of land owners and land management agencies have contributed to the restoration
efforts. Five Anne Arundel county government departments and seven state agencies have been involved
in various capacities. Three federal agencies, five nongovernmental organizations, numerous private
citizens and several local businesses have been participating. An important mandate was to use existing
programs to achieve the restoration objectives. No new funds were allocated for implementation projects.
The implementation team used biological indicators to determine which land management activities were
having the most significant impacts on the watershed. A restoration strategy was drafted which described
the geographic distribution of environmental problems and explained how they had evolved during the
development of the watershed. For each major environmental problem, a restoration strategy was
proposed and the responsible management agencies were identified. The monitoring and planning
process evolved over a 3 year period. The implementation phase began in 1994 and will continue for
another 3 to 4 years.
-------
Restoration Projects
Figure 1 shows the distribution of problems and restoration projects that were identified by the inter-
agency teams. Each letter indicates a different type of project. In some areas restoration projects have
been linked together in order to address cumulative impacts to water quantity, water quality, and habitat
problems within specific sub-basins of the watershed.
Figure 1. Sawmill Creek showing location of restoration projects.
The sub-basin known as Muddy Bridge Branch provides a good example of the cumulative impacts of
commercial and residential development. Stream habitat has been degraded by stormwater erosion,
despite the presence of 4 stormwater management (SWM) basins. Additional stormwater related impacts
include; degraded water quality, fish passage blockages, and sedimentation of the large pond and
wetlands downstream. Runoff from airplane deicing has caused chemical oxygen demand as high as
2700 mg/1 and laboratory bioassays have documented significant mortality rates in fish and invertebrates.
Urea is used for runway deicing and NH3 concentrations as high as 35 mg/1 have been recorded. The loss
of baseflow in this tributary has negatively impacted habitat space, temperature, dissolved oxygen, and
the dilution rates of the chemical pollutants mentioned above.
Figure 2 provides a schematic of some of the coordinated restoration projects on Muddy Bridge Branch.
In order to restore aquatic habitat, 1341 meters of stream channel will be stabilized using bio-engineering
techniques, including tree root wads to stabilize failing banks and vortex rock weirs to provide grade
-------
control. The Rosgen stream classification system was used to design the restored channel geometry, non-
erosive flow capacity, and channel cross section. All the stormwater management ponds were analyzed in
order to determine the most economical way to produce a non-erosive discharge rate that would be
compatible with the rebuilt stream channel dimensions.
— RQAD6
. RUNWAYS
w^TTfrabueft « Oi:!W
™fcTEHSHEO BGUNPAHOf
2 RESTOWmOMFIWJBCTO
STREAM RESTORATION
Figure 2. Muddy Bridge Branch restoration projects.
In order to achieve a more stable hydrologic regime a variety of stormwater management (SWM)
techniques are being combined. The outlet structures at the airport's two largest SWM basins will be
modified. Additional storage capacity will be created by raising the height of the lower impoundment.
The two year storm discharge rate will be reduced from 3.3 cubic meters per second to 1.6 cubic meters
per second. Additional volume reductions will be accomplished by diverting some of the runoff from the
-------
upper SWM pond back into an adjacent drainage basin that was cut off during earlier airfield
construction.
As part of their new regional stormwater management plan the MD Aviation Administration has begun
to re-vegetate many of its drainage swales and open spaces. This will have several benefits including;
increases in infiltration, nutrient uptake and evapo-transpiration as well as reducing runoff times of
concentration and thermal loadings to the stream.
Several of the downstream road crossings are built on berms that act as unintentional detention structures
during large storm events. Upland areas behind these crossings will be excavated and planted with
wetlands vegetation in order to increase floodplain storage, wetland habitat, sediment trapping and
nutrient assimilation.
Two of the culverts will be replaced and a third will be modified as part of local highway improvements.
The new structures have been designed to restore fish passage and be compatible with the stream
restoration design.
In addition to reducing high flow impacts, baseflow will be improved by phasing out several older
municipal well fields within the watershed. An analysis of regional water supplies has indicated that
water needs can be met more efficiently by investing in a better regional transmission line network.
Significant water quality improvements will result from the new deicer management plan at Baltimore
Washington International Airport. Deicing pads, waste storage tanks, vacuum sweeper trucks, and testing
of alternative deicing materials are being implemented. This is one of most extensive deicer management
plans thus far at an operating US airport. Monitoring and management plans are also being developed to
deal with leaking underground storage tanks at two local industrial facilities.
A number of the restoration practices described for Muddy Bridge Branch are gradually being
implemented in other parts of the watershed. The EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (RBP) are being
used to quantify the effectiveness of a stream restoration project on Tributary 9. Post construction habitat
scores have improved by 60 % within the first growing season. We expect that the habitat scores will
continue to improve as the riparian plantings develop into a mature forest buffer. Nine species of fish
have been stocked in this stream segment which only supported one species before the restoration
project. The team is also working on plans to remove a downstream fish blockage.
Conclusion
The Sawmill Creek project is a good example of how a multi-disciplinary team can develop an
ecologically sound watershed management project. The key to success was the use of quantifiable
measures of biological health and stream stability to guide the integration of a wide variety of best
management practices. This approach can be used for both restoration and
-------
r*J.
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Managing the Mandates: Baltimore County,
Maryland's Experience in Applying the Watershed
Approach
Donald C. Outen, Bureau Chief
Baltimore County Dept. of Environmental Protection and Resource Management,
Towson, MD
Baltimore County, Maryland has developed a watershed management program to address federal
nonpoint source pollution control mandates, State of Maryland initiatives for restoration of the
Chesapeake Bay, and special cooperative water quality projects. The County's watershed approach allows
for consideration of different geographic scales and management objectives. Characterization of
watershed resources and problems, and prioritization of restoration opportunities, are accomplished
through the preparation of watershed management plans, which are implemented through capital and
operating programs. This paper describes the development of the watershed approach in Baltimore
County and components of a successful program.
Geographic Context
Baltimore County is located in north-central Maryland and straddles the Fall line separating the
Appalachian Piedmont and Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic provinces. With a land area of
approximately 610 square miles and a 1995 population estimate of 710,000, it is the third largest in area
and population of Maryland's 23 counties and the independent City of Baltimore. The County surrounds
the majority of Baltimore City and contains no incorporated municipalities. Land use composition is
rather evenly-divided among forest, agricultural, and urban uses.
With respect to water resources, the County includes more than 2,100 miles of streams and rivers. About
46 percent of the land area drains to 3 reservoirs, 2 of which (Loch Raven and Prettyboy) are located
-------
wholly in the County, with the third (Liberty) located on the western boundary with Carroll County.
These 3 reservoirs are owned and managed by the City of Baltimore as the drinking water source for 1.6
million citizens in the metropolitan region, including the City, about 90 percent of Baltimore County, and
small portions of 3 other counties. Baltimore County's streams and rivers ultimately drain to the
Chesapeake Bay, and the County has 175 miles of shoreline along the Patapsco, Back, Middle, and
Gunpowder Rivers and other smaller creeks which are sub-estuaries of the Bay (Figure 1).
ID UTER SU&QUEHANIM RIVER APIA
10 I Deer Creek
iSUNPCiWCER RTVER ARIA
101 Pre t cy boy He servo l r
103 Loch Ra',if=n Resfervoir
104 Little Gunpowder
105 Bird ELwr
106 Louver Gunpowder
ID7 CuQpcwder River
IDS Mitkjle "River
PATAPSCO RIVEB A EE A
109 L i ba rty fteEE r
-------
Baltimore City
.<3 3 ;i 4 } C.N;
Hrancf: -Y
L'fLUVKHfllTVflil -K
irBvu
-------
to 10 percent. The watershed culture of the County, focused on protection of the regional water supply
reservoirs during the decades of rapid suburbanization, set the stage for more comprehensive initiatives in
the following decades.
Early DEPRM Initiatives
In 1987 Baltimore County created the Department of Environmental Protection and Resource
Management (DEPRM) to consolidate environmental functions from four departments and initiate
enhanced resource management. The watershed approach was developed within DEPRM's Bureau of
Water Quality and Resource Management. One early initiative for forested stream buffer regulations was
implemented in 1989 and 1991. Codified as "Regulations for the Protection of Water Quality, Streams,
Wetlands, and Floodplains," the regulations were enacted to provide protection of the County's streams
during the development process, particularly headwater streams.
A second initiative was the creation of a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for environmental
restoration in 1987. With a fiscal year 1988-1993 budget of $6.2 million, the "Waterway Improvement
Program" was established to fund the design and construction of shore erosion control projects,
stormwater retrofits, and waterway dredging to restore recreational boating access. These latter projects
were typically localized and involved the assessment of sediment and nutrient loading to dredged
channels and permit conditions for construction of stormwater retrofits or wetlands to help reduce
continuing sedimentation of tidal waterways. For the first few years of DEPRM's CIP, primarily local
priorities were addressed.
The restoration program especially addressed the fact that 95 percent of the County's population growth,
which slowed dramatically to only 11.5 percent from 1970 to 1990, occurred prior to Maryland's
programs in the 1980s for storm water management or the protection of resources such as non-tidal
wetlands, forests, and the Chesapeake Bay Critical Area. The cumulative result of population growth
trends and its growth management program was that Baltimore County protected two-thirds of its land
from urban density development, but concentrated some 600,000 people in the remaining one-third of its
area. For this area, some of the watersheds were reduced to only 10 to 20 percent forest cover, and many
first and second-order stream systems were virtually eliminated. The CIP was an opportunity to begin
prioritized restoration of important resource functions.
The Impetus for County-wide Watershed Management
Baltimore County adopted a watershed management framework in the early 1990s in response to federal
and State of Maryland water quality mandates and initiatives, each with differing scales of treatment,
resource objectives, and time-frames. In 1991 and 1992 the County prepared for implementation of the
federally-mandated National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Storm Water permit
program, which applies to all urbanized watersheds of the County. DEPRM also became aware of
potential management initiatives under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Management program, which
would have covered the NPDES watersheds as well as rural watersheds due to nonpoint management
-------
measures for agriculture, forestry, and septic systems.
At the same time that the County was applying for its NPDES permit, the State of Maryland launched a
major Chesapeake Bay program initiative in 1993, the Tributary Strategies for Nutrient Reduction. This
program focuses on reduction of the controllable 1985 loading of nitrogen and phosphorus by 40 percent
by the year 2000 and maintenance of nutrient caps for 10 large river basins. Baltimore County comprises
part of two of the State's 10 tributaries under this effort, which arose from the 1992 Amendments to the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. After Maryland's counties signed a Partnership Agreement with the State for
the Tributary Strategies program, participation was added as a special condition of the local NPDES
Storm Water permits issued in 1995.
The County is also participating in special watershed restoration projects, including the Army Corps of
Engineers' Baltimore Metropolitan Water Resources Study and the US Forest Service's Revitalizing
Baltimore project, both for the Gwynns Falls watershed. These projects involve the participation of
federal agencies, State agencies, the City of Baltimore, and citizen group partners. Even smaller
watershed restoration efforts, such as that of the Herring Run Watershed Association in the County's
Back River watershed, are accommodated by providing some technical assistance, potential capital
project funding, and computerized resource management information.
Watershed Management Program Components
An important part of DEPRM's watershed management program involves the use of Geographic
Information System (GIS) technology to perform analysis and mapping for environmental data layers.
Student interns are routinely used to help build the GIS database. Of special note, stream systems were
digitized from 1"=200' photogrammetric maps, allowing scale flexibility through the hierarchical
classification of stream segments and watersheds. Fourteen major fifth-order or larger watersheds and
about 200 third-order or larger watersheds were delineated. The GIS's capability is enhanced through use
of MIPS, Idrisi, Maplnfo, and ARC-Info programs. It is accompanied by database tracking of projects
and implementation progress for the NPDES, Tributary Strategies, and special watershed partnership
projects.
Using selected information about land use, storm water outfalls, and management facilities, the County's
14 watersheds were prioritized for the NPDES Storm Water permit program. The County's program
involves preparation of watershed management plans for 3 priority watersheds every two years. For 1995-
1996, watershed management plans are to be prepared for the Loch Raven, Back River, and Jones Falls
watersheds. The prioritization and two-year cycle were selected to acknowledge the need to implement
the program at a scale appropriate for making capital project decisions. For each watershed plan, sub-area
assessments and prioritization are conducted by consultant firms. The assessments include water quality
conditions, calibrated runs of the Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) to develop sub-area
pollutant loadings, and Rosgen-based stream assessments to identify unstable stream reaches and
restoration needs. This management plan structure was adapted from a special study of the Bird River
watershed completed in 1995. Water quality monitoring is also conducted for the NPDES permit and to
-------
evaluate project effectiveness.
The watershed plans result in prioritized needs for stream restoration and for storm water facilities.
Preparation and implementation of watershed management plans are funded through DEPRM's CIP,
which was re-structured in 1993 to provide funds for the 14 major watersheds, following the phase-in
scheduling. The existing fiscal year 1996-2001 CIP is $23.5 million. Baltimore County's capital program
is supported primarily (75 percent) by County General Obligation bonds, with the remaining funds from
Maryland General Assembly bond bills for the County and State of Maryland cost share programs. These
programs include the Waterway Improvement Fund and the Storm Water Pollution Control and Small
Creeks and Estuaries cost-share programs. To date, assessments and project implementation are
underway in 8 of the County's 14 major watersheds.
County operating programs, including storm drain inlet cleaning with 3 special vacuum trucks, are also
coordinated through the watershed program and help address specific management requirements for
NPDES. Citizen involvement programs, including participation in the Tree-Mendous Maryland
reforestation program and ambient stream biomonitoring as part of a continuing Citizen's for Stream
Restoration Campaign in partnership with Maryland Save Our Streams, are further coordinated through
the watershed program.
Summary
Baltimore County's watershed management program illustrates a successful application of the watershed
approach for implementing multiple resource management mandates and initiatives. The program is
comprehensive and flexible, due to the combined use of regulation, restoration, and
education/participation; an established watershed culture; the ability to attract cost-share funding and to
enter partnership projects through CIP funding; an agency with an inter-disciplinary "team" structure;
integrated GIS capability; and a commitment to fostering effective citizen participation.
-------
irra;
- ¦» t
ttrtraPstf'tT
y' x
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Historical Vegetation Changes On The Edwards
Plateau of Texas and The Effects Upon Watersheds
Mike B. Mecke, Coordinator-Technology Review & Transfer
Data Services Department, San Antonio Water System
San Antonio, TX
Spanish Explorations-1675 to 1723
The early Spanish explorers of the Southwest were required by the Crown to keep diaries of their travels
(1) Many had more than one diarist accompanying their expeditions to record "the leagues traveled, the
mountains, streams, prairies, and woodlands crossed, and the chief characteristics of these natural
features of the land (2)" Fortunately for historians and others interested in the early history, geography
and natural history of Texas many of these early explorers accurately described the vegetation and
wildlife which was found in Texas during early Spanish colonial times.
"The first European explorers of Mexico and Texas came themselves from the high arid plains of Spain
where water was more precious than gold." (3) Texas was mapped in 1519 by Capt. Alonso Alvarez de
Pineda and one of his unnamed rivers was the San Antonio River. It is unsure as to which Spaniard first
camped at the headwaters of the river at the San Antonio springs. Many historians believe that Cabeza de
Vaca was the first in the 1520's when he wrote of his shipwrecked adventures and first described the
buffalo in writing. Other historians credit Alonso de Leon as the first in 1670. In 1691 the first governor
of Texas, Domingo Teran de Los Rios and Fray Damian Massanet, a Franciscan missionary, camped at
or near the present day San Antonio springs alongside a village of friendly Indians. Some authors
interpret Massanet's diary to actually describe Leon Springs as what he named "San Antonio de Padua"
whereas others are sure that they first camped at San Pedro Springs, which are much nearer to the river's
headwaters (1) The flag of Spain was raised and the expedition marched eastward on "The King's Road"
to the boundary of French Louisiana to expel all foreigners and lay claim to the lands for the King of
-------
Spain. (3)
Thus, San Antonio with its clear, cool, flowing springs and lush river became the most important
stopping point for all future expeditions. Spanish expeditions began from various points, but most
eventually travelled to San Antonio, known in early days as San Antonio de Bexar. In 1718, nine years
after his quest for the establishment of a mission in San Antonio, Father Antonio de Olivares, broke
ground for mission San Antonio de Valero. Days later Governor Alarcon of the Province of Tejas
founded the Presidio de Bejar (Bexar) and its Villa (3) The first Mission San Antonio was located west of
San Pedro Springs, which forms a tributary of the San Antonio River. A year later the mission was
moved to a site near its present location, where it remained until destroyed by hurricane floods in 1724
and then moved to its final location on Alamo Plaza. In 1801 the mission was renamed "Alamo" after a
Spanish cavalry company from the town of Alamo (which means cottonwood) in Mexico. (3)
Manzannet, diarist on the Teran expedition, described the area explored as very beautiful, having hills
with large oaks and easy for travel. He describes a region well-grassed with few oaks and mesquites on
the hills and along streams. There were many fish in the streams, chickens (prairie) on the highlands and
buffaloes roamed the region. (1)
The Espinosa-Olivaris-Aguirre expedition of 1709 traveled into the present Bexar County through a well-
watered route with only the arroyos and creeks being timbered with oaks, mesquites, walnuts, poplars,
elms and mulberries. (1) "Espinosa reports on the Ramon expedition of 1716, of travel through hills and
dales covered with lush pasturage of very green grama-grass." Only sparse mesquites and some oaks
were reported until reaching the various springs, creeks and rivers near San Antonio (1) The Aguayo
Expedition of 1720, as reported by Pena, also rode across a " beautiful treeless plain with fertile valleys
until reaching San Antonio." Leaving Bexar in 1722, Aguayo traveled thru "a beautiful level country
sparsely covered with evergreen oaks." (1)
The Edwards Plateau Region of Texas
The Edwards Plateau region of central and west-central Texas is locally known as "the Hill Country." It
is bounded on the east and on the south by the Balcones Fault, which caused a geological uplift known as
the Balcones Escarpment. The Plateau's northern edge grades into the Cross Timbers Oak, the Llano
Uplift and the north Plains Regions. On the west, the Plateau is bounded by the Rio Grande and Pecos
Rivers. The Edwards Plateau consists of 31,000 square miles and ranges in elevation from 1000' msl to
over 3,000' msl. Precipitation is 33 inches at Austin in the east down to 15 inches in the west(4). The
Plateau is composed of Edwards and Glen Rose limestones with large areas exposed at the surface of this
predominantly rangeland region. The shallow calcareous soils are dissected by many canyons along the
southern boundary with steep grades and exposed geological strata. Several river systems flow from the
region with the Nueces, San Antonio and Guadalupe River basins being the most important. The well
known Edwards Aquifer is fed by precipitation and streamflow from the 4,400 square mile Drainage
Area which is in 13 counties lying north of the Edwards Recharge Zone (ERZ).
-------
Water entering from the ERZ percolates by gravity through the exposed limestone fractures and pore
spaces into the aquifer flowing generally to the southeast. Aquifer flows are from areas where the water
levels are at higher elevations to areas where the water levels are at lower elevations (near the major
springs.) Caves and sinkholes are very common in this area. The complex geology of the aquifer has
produced estimated flow rates ranging from two to 31 feet per day, but local transmission rates of as
much as 1,000 feet per day have been recorded. In the Artesian or Reservoir Area of the aquifer, the
Edwards limestone is buried between confining formations. The Edwards formation is about 500' thick in
this area and slopes downward to about 1000' below the land surface at the southern edge of this zone.
The Edwards Aquifer contains many pore spaces and huge underground pools which have often
produced wells from 6000 to 7000 gals/min. Prior to well drilling and pumping, there existed a natural
balance in the aquifer between recharge and spring flow. Of the five major springs in the region: the
Leona (Uvalde), San Antonio and San Pedro (San Antonio), Comal (New Braunfels) and San Marcos,
only the later two are now of any significance. Many small springs and creeks in the region are now dry
or only flow during very wet years (5).
Early Vegetation of the Edwards Plateau
Some of the common grasses first identified on the Plateau's upland sites were little and big bluestem,
Indiangrass, sideoats grama, Canada wildrye, Texas wintergrass, buffalograss, etc. Riparian area grasses
included switchgrass, eastern gamagrass, Virginia wildrye, dropseeds and the smaller bluestems. The
drier western section grew shorter grasses such as: tabossa, curly mesquite and threeawns, etc.
Trees and shrubs on the Plateau include: many oaks such as live oak, Spanish, burr, shin, blackjack and
post oaks; hackberrys and elm; mesquite; junipers ("cedars"~two species), catclaw, yucca, cacti,
bumelia, cenizia, mountain laurel and sumacs. The cooler and more moist bottomlands and canyons also
contain many eastern species mixed with western plants. Found in these less xeric environments were:
pecan, ash, bald cypress, walnut, mulberry, maple, willow, sycamore and cottonwood(6,8).
In scattered sites across the region were found less common plants such as: Texas madrone, hickory and
even piny on pine on many southwestern hill tops. The drier and hotter western Edwards Plateau was
home to numerous genera including: opuntia, cholla, ocotillo, saltbush, snakeweeds, acacias, prunus,
sacahuista, ephedras, lechuguilla and agarita (9)
The Vegetation Changes-Causes and Results
By 1930, heavy, continuous grazing combined with range fencing and the control of wildfire, greatly
reduced growth of the more desirable grasses allowing many shrubs and trees to invade the uplands.
What early Texas explorers once had described as "a waving sea of grass, often stirrup-high on a horse or
high as a cow's back" deteriorated into the present shortgrass, rock, shrub, cactus and tree dominated
landscape. (10) Soil conservation experts estimate that between 1930 and 1995, many tons per acre of
valuable top soil have been lost, especially from the steeper and more shallow soiled hillsides and from
overgrazed riparian areas. We know from rancher's quotes, historical records and maps that many springs
-------
have dried up, numerous perennial creeks now only flow intermittently and grassland productivity has
been drastically lowered. Ranges which once supported from 300-500 cattle per section (640 acres) in the
1860's often are presently recommended to carry no more than 50 animal units per section. (6)
As the more palatable grasses and forbs decreased or even disappeared, many ranchers on the Plateau
switched to cattle, sheep and Angora goat operations, often grazing all three types of livestock to better
utilize the now dominant shrubby vegetation (6) Unfortunately, little attention was given, and less was
known until decades later, concerning desirable proportions of each type of livestock pastured together.
This factor, combined with the steady climb of deer herd numbers on the Edwards has caused further
range deterioration on much of the region. Range and wildlife management is now often complicated by
free-ranging herds of exotic big game animals, which are commonly found across much of the Plateau.
Many ranches have several species of exotics-either within game fences or free-ranging (11).
On the Plateau the most prominent and widespread brush invaders are junipers, primarily ashe juniper;
liveoak, mesquite, shinoak, and cactus. Ashe juniper, also called cedar, is by far the most common shrub
invading the southern and central Plateau. Cedar, a water hog, is very susceptible to killing and long-term
control by fire (12, 13, 16). Prior to the brush invasion, dense mid and tallgrass stands slowed runoff,
organic matter in the soil enhanced water infiltration allowing rains to rapidly replenish not only the
Edwards but other local aquifers as well. Today, runoff erodes bare areas around cedars, biomass
intercepts moisture, while dominating the grasses and forbs for space, sunlight and soil nutrients. Many
of these evergreen plants transpire year-around, which increases soil water losses. The most valuable
product of rangelands is water!! Ideally, rangelands should be managed not only to provide livestock
forage, wildlife habitat, and recreational opportunities-but, primarily, to produce sufficient quantities of
clean water throughout watersheds. This water maintains creek and river flows and recharges aquifers. If
watersheds become infested with heavy water utilizing shrubs and trees, they soon lose the beneficial
characteristics so desired by hydrologists (15).
One of the principal net effects of this woody plant invasion coupled with the decrease in herbaceous
vegetation, is that less water is available to replenish the Edwards Aquifer—especially during dry years,
when little rain runoff is available for groundwater recharge. This is the effect which should be of most
concern to not only to the urban users and industry, but also to irrigators, ranchers, wildlife biologists,
downstream water users and to the federal courts which are now protecting the Endangered Species in
the Comal and San Marcos Springs. Complicating the serious concerns about the Edwards Aquifer's
quality and quantity of water, are the 1990 Texas Water Development Board's projections for state's
municipal and industrial water demands to increase by 186% by the year 2040 (5).
Texas Research and Demonstrations
While many Texas researchers, agency personnel and ranchers have long been aware of the hydrologic
benefits of cedar management upon watersheds of the Edwards Plateau, few definitive studies are
available. Research and extension policy has long been slanted towards animal science goals. Now, with
renewed emphasis and concerns in the Edwards Aquifer region on aquifer production and quality, new
-------
research is being designed and implemented to address many of the concerns and unknowns affecting
watershed management in this area.(14) Some concerns are more urban in nature, such as city zoning,
planning and developmental regulations. The San Antonio Water System (SAWS) is directly involved in
aquifer recharge zone regulation, as well as in research. New studies have been funded with the USGS to
both depict and investigate the surface geology of this critical zone. Another is designed to calculate and
predict pollutant loadings of runoff water from selected types of development. Other SAWS studies
monitor stormwater quantity and quality across the city and groundwater quality.
Watershed, range and agricultural researchers have also made great advances in recent years. Recent
research has shown water savings varying from 30,000 to 160,000 gals/acre/yr. resulting from differing
levels of ashe juniper control. Research scientists and extension specialists from the Texas A & M
University System at College Station and from the Uvalde, Temple and Sonora Research Centers have
improved criteria for watershed management methods with resulting benefits. Ranchers in the region
continue to be assisted by Range Specialists with the USDA's Natural Resources Conservation Service
(former SCS) in planning and implementing range management alternatives accomplishing the desired
livestock or wildlife objectives and improving watershed characteristics as well.
Several large rangeland watershed projects on Texas ranches have aptly shown the hydrologic benefits of
planned brush control. One noted example involving the infamous mesquite tree, was the Rocky Creek
site near San Angelo. While results were unquantified, springs feeding a long-dry creek resumed flow
following shrub management on several ranches in the upper watershed^ 14) The author has had identical
results from cedar control on the Beal Ranch in the same area, where following control, unknown springs
and seeps developed into flows maintaining numerous small ponds. The Bamberger Ranch north of San
Antonio had identical results from a planned rangeland recovery utilizing the NRCS's Great Plains
Program funding. The Kerr Wildlife Management Area near Hunt, Texas has describedthe mutual
benefits of selected brush management using prescribed fire and livestock to improve wildlife habitat,
increase Endangered Species numbers and to expand their cattle herd (16).
Texas Tech University scientists evaluated cedar control on several research projects and highly
recommended fire as an effective tool (17). On the Annandale Ranch near Uvalde, researchers found
water savings of 160,000 Gal/Ac/Yr when all cedar was removed from small watersheds (12). The
famous Seco Creek Water Quality Demonstration Project, which lies west of Bexar County astradle the
EARZ, has produced excellent results in several water conservation areas including spring development
(19). This project typlifies a multiple agency approach to problem solving. The Sonora Center has
assessed the impacts of juniper management on water yield (12) with data indicating a major increase.
Summary
¦ Site hydrology greatly affected by vegetation changes
¦ Juniper significantly reduces amount and distribution of water reaching the soil
¦ Juniper out competes herbaceous plants, potentially uses more water
¦ Combined effects of juniper invasion on rangelands is reduced water yields and herbaceous plant
-------
production, plus wildlife habitat losses (14)
References
1. Inglis, Jack M., 1964. A history of vegetation on the Rio Grande Plain. Bui. 45. Texas Parks &
Wildlife Department.
2. Hoffman, F.L. 1935. Diary of the Alarcon expedition into Texas, 1718-1719, by Fray Francisco
Celiz. Quivara Society, Pub.V.
3. Guerra, Mary Ann Noonan. 1987. The San Antonio River. Alamo Press.
4. Godfrey, Curtis L., Clarence R. Carter and Gordon S. McKee. Land resource areas of Texas.
Undated. Pub. 1070. Texas A & M University.
5. Powers, Chris. Editor, 1993. The case for new legislation for the Edwards Aquifer. SAWS.
6. Buechner, H.K. 1944. The range vegetation of Kerr County, in relation to livestock and white-
tailed deer. American Midland Naturalist.
7. Bray, W.L. 1904. The timber of the Edwards Plateau of Texas. USDA Forest Service Bulletin
49.
8. Palmer, Ernest J. 1920. The Canyon Flora of the Edwards Plateau of Texas. Journal of the
Arnold Arboretum 1: 233-239.
9. Bray, W.L. 1901. Ecological relations of the vegetation of western Texas. Botanical Gazette.
10. Bentley, H.L. 1898. Cattle ranges of the Southwest. Bui. 72, USDA.
11. Mecke, Mike. 1978. Texotics-exotic ungulates in Texas. Unpublished Graduate Paper,
University of Wyoming.
12. Taylor, Charles, Editor. 1994. Juniper symposium. Tech. Rpt. 94-2 Texas A & M University
Research Station at Sonora.
13. Mecke, Mike. 1963. A discussion of the burning of slash in ashe juniper Woodlands.
Unpublished Graduate Paper. Texas A & M University.
14. McCarl, Bruce A. et al. 1987. Brushland management for water yield: prospects for Texas.
Bulletin 1569, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station
-------
15. Richardson, C.W., Editor. 1979. Hydrologic effects of brush control on Texas rangelands.
Transactions of the ASCE, Vol. 22, No.2.
16. Brand, R. & J. Franklin. 1991. Cattle & fire-important tools benefiting wildlife. Rangelands,
13 Texas State Soil & Water Conservation Board. 1995. Water conservation for the Edwards
Aquifer.
17. Rasmussen, G. Allen, et al. 1986. Prescribed burning juniper communities in Texas.
Management Note 10.
18. Owens, M.K. and R.W. Knight. 1992. Water use on rangelands. Texas Agricultural
Experiment Station Progress Report PR-5043.
19. Wright, Phillip. 1994. Seco Creek water quality demonstration project Annual Report FY-94.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the information provided
here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Implementation of a Watershed Management Plan for Drinking Water
Source Protection: A Case Study
Jane E. Smith-Decker, DeHart Dam Superintendent/Watershed Manager
City of Harrisburg, Bureau of Water, Harrisburg, PA
Introduction
The purpose of this paper is to present a "utility perspective" on the value of implementing a Watershed Management Program for drinking water
source protection. It is intended to demonstrate the importance of a Watershed Management Program in managing a raw water supply and in
determining methods to protect and enhance the quality of water produced in the watershed area for drinking water purposes by developing a
baseline of water quality data that will serve as a standard with which to compare future water quality and by addressing the management of natural,
cultural and biological resources of the watershed area and its 6.0 billion gallon reservoir. Regulatory agencies have set finished water standards at
levels that utilities may find difficult and expensive to meet. This problem could worsen in the near future if these standards are tightly sharpened.
A reservoir-watershed monitoring program is essential to the proper operation of a surface drinking water supply, even if no finished water quality
problems are presently perceived. Therefore, it is the thesis of this paper that reservoir/watershed protection and restorative methods can provide a
valuable supplement to in-plant operations. A policy for the management of the watershed and reservoir area, established by a thorough and regular
stream and reservoir monitoring program to assess the reservoir's condition, anticipating timely and appropriate watershed and in-reservoir
management and restorative strategies, will enable water plant operators to predict changes in reservoir water quality. If raw water quality is
improved, then the costs of in-plant treatments may be reduced and their effectiveness increased.
The Harrisburg Water Treatment Facility (HWTF) receives source water from an impoundment reservoir supplied by water from Clark's Creek and
23 minor tributaries, and from the Susquehanna River. The system consists primarily of the DeHart Reservoir, the impoundment which provides
water via a 42" transmission line to the Robert E. Young Water Filtration Facility. In addition, an intake located in the Susquehanna River is
connected to a pumping station, which pumps river water to the filtration facility. In the recent past, the HWTF completed construction of the 20
MGD Water Filtration Facility in an effort to meet the filtration requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and to meet anticipated
increases in demand for drinking water in the City of Harrisburg area.
Prior to 1994, the source of the system consisted solely of the DeHart Reservoir and treatment facility. Concerns that led to the construction of the
new facility in 1994, included the fact that the DeHart source was unfiltered and that demands on this supply may exceed its yield. In addition, low
alkalinity and low pH in the DeHart source resulted in aggressive water creating elevated iron and manganese levels at dead ends in the distribution
system. Infrequent algae on the reservoir may have contributed to taste and odor complaints, however, the source of the complaints and the type of
algae was not documented. Operators simply added approximately 8 pounds per year of copper sulfate to the reservoir in anticipation of the growth
of algae.
In 1994, the DeHart Superintendent's responsibilities were modified to include Watershed /Reservoir Management. Up until this time, there was not
a watershed protection plan in place other than protection of the water resource by routinely patrolling the reservoir and restricting the area to
trespassers.
Background
Description of the DeHart Reservoir and Watershed
The DeHart Reservoir and Watershed area (refer to Figure 1 (343 K)) is located 20 miles northeast of the City of Harrisburg on PA Route 325 and
impounds water flowing through the valley in Clark's Creek and twenty-three (23) smaller tributaries producing an impoundment of water that
when full is 4.55 miles long and contains about 23,000 acre feet of water, or approximately 6 billion gallons of water. The reservoir drains an area
-------
of 21.62 square miles of which 90% is forested, 5% is residential and 5% is owned and managed by the PA State Game Commission. The
Harrisburg Authority owns 8,600 acres of the watershed area. The DeHart Reservoir is closed to the public and used solely as a source of drinking
water. The watershed area is open to hunting and receives heavy pressure from fisherman, however, no other recreational uses are allowed. In 1994,
a Forest Management Plan was prepared for 1/2 of the watershed area, which reported stands of timber that included valuable species of oak. The
watershed lies in an area surrounded by 43,000 acres of State Game Lands and is one of the few unbroken tracts of forestland remaining in the
central area of Pennsylvania.
Preliminary analysis of the water quality in DeHart Reservoir and Clark's Creek, along with investigation into historical water quality information
shows the source tends to be acidic with very low alkalinity. Stratification occurs near the intake area at a depth of approximately 30 feet in late
summer. There seems to be little observable species diversity, i.e., zooplankton, fish, aquatic plants, and algae; although Clark's Creek has shown
the capability of supporting stocked species of brown trout that grow to a reported weight of 9 pounds. Heavy metals appear to be concentrated in
the hypolimnion and the sampling has shown the reservoir to have acceptable levels of transparency, hence the reservoir does not appear to be
highly productive.
Water Quality Protection Planning Approach
The development of a source protection plan for the DeHart Reservoir and Watershed Area consists of five principal component parts: (1) scoping,
(2) watershed analysis, (3) a monitoring program for the reservoir and watershed, (4) selection of appropriate control measures to protect water
quality, and (5) source protection plan implementation. These are briefly described as follows:
1. Scoping: Scoping establishes the breadth and depth of problems that may result from certain types of land uses. This takes into consideration
the concerns of the utility in providing a safe drinking water source. Perhaps no issue has been of greater concern to the drinking water
treatment industry than the issue of the generation of trihalomethanes (THMs). THMs appear in the water when chlorine is added to the raw
drinking water that includes certain organic molecules, primarily humics. These organic molecules, called THM precursors, appear to
originate mainly from terrestrial and aquatic vegetation. (Reference 1). Some of the other concerns that needed to be addressed include: iron
and manganese control, algae control, the cause of apparent lack of biodiversity, timber resource management, the trophic (productivity)
state of the reservoir and protection of the watershed from human activities in an effort to prevent contamination.
2. Watershed Analysis: A Watershed Analysis is used to inventory and characterize the watershed area in terms of its physical characteristics,
land uses, ownership and water quality. In addition, potential contaminants of concern, their sources and their rates of generation are
identified in this stage.
3. Monitoring: A monitoring program for the reservoir and watershed area has been established to begin to provide a database for the analysis
of water quality in the reservoir. This analysis is used to address concerns listed in the Scoping stage and to develop the Watershed
Management Plan. Once the Watershed Management Plan is implemented, the data is used to monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the
source protection program.
A description of the monitoring program developed and initiated for the DeHart Reservoir and Watershed Area is listed in Table 1. Results
of monitoring of temperature and dissolved oxygen for the first year are listed in Table 2. In addition, treatment plant records were examined
to determine historical and current levels of treatment chemical use as an estimate of long term changes in water quality and the costs of
maintaining water quality standards. Future plans include collecting data on those inorganic and organic chemicals for which monitoring is
required under the SDWA and its amendments. The monitoring program described here is fairly representative of most diagnostic programs
with some adaptations made to target the particular concerns of the HWTF. The information is loaded into a computer program such as
Microsoft Excel or Lotus 1,2,3 in an effort to record, analyze and display the information. The monitoring program is an ongoing part of the
Source Protection Plan. Information from this program is used to make operational adjustments, and once enough data has been collected, to
develop source management strategies.
-------
'Jsbb L Dsttlww s.r fMilurt Rcwrvvur
hmvm XI Sinfitu Use X taja* !i! Tina p S|*l sis «*i»* iIim
Jnpitfi1* kHtflfe Safid* 1 Te&Yer
«4c
fciht
ISSilisitaiiMlfta
fcCiillfll
dmesi&i)
to
Due
Exhibit
CITY OF HARK1SBU R(t
WATER TREATMENT FACILITY
I«mperature Had l)i$i«|v?d itaygen •! Various Depths in tie U«Hirt Reservoir
Station 1
[D5/16^5|
<, * i
r-._-.rwi: . |X=. •'V'
* •. i . i * n

1.1
I
/ /
t.
I-
( I
. J. ' > ' i L_
IV ZujZ
if » Sf ^ w >
|55^s5|
"•*¦#»<.* mjww
¦D lk-'^k Zfc-ip" WX:-#-
0&15/95
D txyw+z
-------
K -it i. ^ \
is/iays
l-i'tcj'.* I ,CH-pC;i
i*
-. * > i $
iiijji«iij»iti
'i^ti Jt-+. 1. ili'r] ^
I,-
r"
i- 4 * -i i; •? *« »*> if w ;t- ¦* j)
r*r-w:-.*i ,.Tkcc»
OsW.lo
n I^yiy- l>.l .—'j""l
f
u j u « ?: :•«? m :* jn *
d-riir*'^ T ftaQi"
_i i ' 1 ..J. .1 L i
1 ' •¦ i I. O ¦¦ it i. y.
lnyoaro
{•-uK-'a#: ^'^i- ,re:. -•fcr
» ¦ « : * • : f i:
t—i 1—»—r—i—jj-*
I /'
' /
: i.: n * it -.
ft-'-f'Ci:-':- ' iDc-aC
U iJ •
itMwras
r liyL»' IM-
; k h i"-
' I »
«r«*SKa5
~ i ? \ A - T, ? i 1 v.
I.
Ki
t I I .1 1 J 1 L I. ¦ A
i * f ¦¦ i r

J
/ V

t •• li- <« fc n -
i tv%f;
¦ i-
60:£4.^5
f-i
¦ 4 .• 1 0 i:
-t. -J. . J i J i
,• 4 4 p- i: i" i-, r ii- >. r 'H >. :-3 t
I¦:• ¦* [X''i _-3 I itwgC'
¦ IwrpsrstuiE, , ittojC; « l>^'>
Table 2. Temperature and dissolved oxygen at various depths in the DeHart Reservoir (Station 1).
4. Select appropriate control measures to protect water quality: In the case of the DeHart Watershed area, land use and ownership are optimal in
that the majority of the land is owned by either The Harrisburg Authority and managed by the City's Water Bureau, or by the State Game
Commission, allowing for either direct control by HWTF or control measures implemented through cooperative agreement with the State's
Game and Fish Commission's. The majority of the land is forested which, compared to other land uses, contributes the least amount of
potential contaminants. Some contaminants are associated with forestry practices such as: turbidity, sediment, nutrients (which can lead to
algae production), bacteria, THM precursors, pesticides and the presence of iron and manganese.
One of the several control measures being explored to address the potential of pollution from these contaminants is the preparation of timber
harvest management plans that considers the timber harvest sales to increase the quantity of water in the watershed area while preserving or,
possibly, enhancing the water quality of the reservoir. Timber harvest sales are set up by a forestry consultant through the preparation of a
timber harvest plan and include the preparation of erosion and sedimentation control plans, the proper location of skid trails and water bars,
the selection of trees to be harvested, including the removal of lower value timber in an effort to enhance the growth of more desirable
timber that is allowed to remain, and post-timbering inspections to ensure the regeneration of the forest stand and the maintenance of erosion
control measures. In addition, timber harvest sales, if properly planned, provide potential revenue to The Harrisburg Authority and increase
the value of the timber resource in the watershed area.
The potential benefits of other control measures that may be considered include examples such as: pH control in the watershed area by
stream dosing with lime, bioremediation, improved communications with cooperating agencies, and sediment removal to increase reservoir
capacity. One control measure, reservoir depth selection, has already been successfully utilized in the first year to completely eliminate the
use of copper sulfate by lowering the raw water intake level to below the uppermost stratified area, reducing the intake of algae and lowering
the turbidity of the raw water delivered to the treatment plant. This has already shown a decrease in the cost of chemicals such as copper
sulfate, alum, and disinfection, which can lead to the formation of THM precursors.
In the future, capability will be developed to use "real time" water quality information to make determinations as to times, zones and depths
of optimal water quality within the reservoir. This information will also help to control taste and odor problems associated with algae by
predicting blooms and, as a result, manipulation of the water intake depth rather than rely solely on the application of copper sulfate to the
reservoir. Drawing off of these depths will then help reduce the costs of chemical treatment at the Harrisburg Water Treatment Facility while
still meeting water quality standards.
-------
5. Source Protection Plan Implementation: As shown above, some parts of the DeHart Watershed Management Plan are already in the stages of
implementation. With further monitoring and data analysis, areas of improvement of the water quality will be identified and control
measures will be evaluated to meet water quality standards. In addition, the information gathered will be used to evaluate existing controls
and to propose new controls. For example, one possible aspect that could be explored is policy decisions such as public use or land
acquisition. The Plan is flexible in that it allows for re-evaluation based on data gathered and on any new circumstances that may arise.
Conclusions
A water quality protection plan should provide feasible and effective solutions to managing the quality of reservoirs. The concepts used to develop
the Watershed Management Plan for the DeHart Reservoir are directly applicable to other lakes and reservoirs. As it becomes more difficult to
develop new sources, and as SDWA restrictions become more stringent and demands for existing supplies increase, it will become imperative to
manage and protect our existing raw water supplies more intensively. A source protection plan should be considered a basic reservoir management
tool, and an essential part of the surface drinking water treatment process.
References
1. AWWA Research Foundation. (1989) Reservoir Management for Water Quality and THM Precursor Control. Prepared by G. Dennis
Cooke and Robert E. Carlson.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Reservoir Watershed Protection: A Voluntary
Interagency Agreement to Protect Sources of
Drinking Water for Metropolitan Baltimore
Jack Anderson, Manager, Special Projects
Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore, MD
Rowland Agbede
Maryland Department of Agriculture, Annapolis, MD
Patricia Bernhardt
Harford County Department of Planning and Zoning, Bel Air, MD
Richard Dixon, P.E.
Anne Arundel County Department of Public Works, Glen Burnie, MD
James Ensor
Baltimore County Soil Conservation District, Cockeysville, MD
William Parrish, Jr.
Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD
Charles Null
Carroll Soil Conservation District, Westminster, MD
Susan Overstreet
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
Howard County Department of Planning and Zoning, Ellicott City, MD
Catherine Rappe
Carroll County Bureau of Water Resource Management, Westminster, MD
Robert Ryan
Baltimore County Department, of Environmental Protection & Resource
Management, Towson, MD
William Stack
Baltimore City Department of Public Works, Water Quality Management,
Baltimore, MD
(The author and co-authors are members of the interagency Reservoir Technical
Group.)
Few resources are as important as our sources of drinking water. The Baltimore Region has been
fortunate in having an excellent metropolitan water supply system. Protection of our source of drinking
water is vital to the future of the Baltimore region. The Reservoir Watershed Protection Program is a
voluntary, interagency partnership established by the 1984 Watershed Management Agreement. The
purpose of the Program is to improve the quality of water feeding into the reservoirs. This paper traces
the history of this program, highlights its accomplishments and future challenges, and offers a few tips
for other communities considering voluntary reservoir watershed management programs.
Reservoir Watersheds
Three reservoirs Loch Raven, Prettyboy and Liberty and their watersheds provide water for over 1.6
million people living in Baltimore City and five suburban counties. Baltimore City owns and manages
the reservoirs and is responsible for the quality of water delivered to customers. Reservoir drainage areas
extend over 466 square miles and include large portions of Baltimore County and Carroll County. (See
Figure 1.) Land within the watersheds is used for a wide variety of purposes ranging from farmland and
rural residential communities, to small towns and villages, to intensive commercial and office
development. Over 60,000 homes, thousands of businesses, and hundreds of farms are located in the
watersheds. About half of the homes in the watershed depend on individual wells and septic systems. The
other half are served by public water systems and sewerage infrastructure including pipes and pumping
stations. Baltimore City-owned municipal watersheds and reservoirs cover 38 square miles only 8 pecent
of the total watershed. Streams feeding the reservoirs include some of the best trout streams on the East
Coast, and others that have been severely degraded by streambank erosion, sediment, and runoff.
-------
Pollution problems in the watersheds became apparent during the 1970s and early 80s. In the early 70s
all three reservoirs were found to be in various states of eutrophication. Algal blooms associated with
eutrophication were causing water treatment problems and were adversely affecting the taste and odor of
the drinking water. In the late 1970s, studies conducted by the Johns Hopkins University concluded that,
like parts of the Chesapeake Bay, algae in the reservoir are phosphorus limited. Phosphorus from sewage
treatment plants, agriculture and urban development was causing excessive growth of algae.
Sedimentation rates were high. Coordinated action had to be taken to correct the problems and to
establish the basis for continual, long-term improvement in water quality in the reservoirs.
Reservoir Watershed Management Agreement
These concerns led to the first Reservoir Agreement in 1979. In 1984, a strengthened Reservoir
Watershed Management Agreement was agreed upon. It has two goals:
1. .. .prevent increased phosphorus and sediment loadings in all three reservoirs, and
2. ...reduce phosphorus loadings in Loch Raven, Liberty and Prettyboy Reservoirs to acceptable
levels as soon as possible (...to levels that are not likely to cause algal blooms)
The Agreement and its related "Action Strategy" have provided a cooperative framework for improving
the quality of waters feeding into the reservoirs. Signatories are:
¦ Baltimore City
¦ Baltimore County
¦ Carroll County
¦ Maryland Department of Agriculture
¦ Maryland Department of the Environment
¦ Baltimore County Soil Conservation District
¦ Carroll Soil Conservation District
¦ Baltimore Metropolitan Council (BMC)
¦ Water Quality Coordinating Committee
Most of the reservoirs' drainage area is located in Baltimore and Carroll Counties. The Maryland
Departments of the Environment and Agriculture administer state regulatory and assistance programs
critical to watershed improvement. Two soil conservation districts provide direct water quality and soil
conservation services to farmers and residents in the watersheds. Although not signatories to the
Agreement, Anne Arundel, Harford and Howard Counties have agreed to participate in the Program
because, as users of reservoir water, they also are stakeholders in its quality.
Reservoir Watershed Protection Program
The Agreement put in place the Reservoir Watershed Protection Program, a voluntary partnership among
-------
participating organizations. Each organization exercises its own authority and leadership in implementing
components of an agreed-upon "Action Strategy." Top Executives approved the Agreement and related
Action Strategy. Oversight and policy guidance is the responsibility of the Reservoir Watershed
Protection Subcommittee. The Reservoir Technical Group of water quality staff from participating
organizations coordinates implementation of the Action Strategy and guides technical work in support of
the Program. Each year the Subcommittee reviews progress in implementing the Action Strategy and,
pursuant to the Agreement, issues an Annual Report which describes reservoir conditions and trends, and
summarizes progress in implementing each item in the Action Strategy. The Baltimore Metropolitan
Council serves as convener and facilitator of the process, provides technical support, coordinates
preparation of the draft Annual Report, and conducts public awareness efforts in support of the Reservoir
Watershed Protection Program. BMC's work is funded by contributions from each of the six participating
jurisdictions. The amount is determined by how much water from the system is used by each jurisdiction.
Action Strategy
The Action Strategy includes specific management actions in the following categories:
Water Quality Monitoring. Water quality monitoring is a critical component of the Action Strategy.
Beginning in 1981, the Baltimore City Water Quality Management Office (WQMO) initiated storm water
monitoring at key tributaries feeding the reservoirs. The resulting data are used to estimate phosphorus
loadings and their sources, and to relate these to conditions in the reservoirs. The WQMO also monitors
in-lake conditions within the three reservoirs. A large body of water quality data has been collected and
is being used to monitor conditions and analyze trends, and to focus management efforts on critical
issues and practices. Periodically, the WQMO issues a Water Quality Progress Report summarizing
current findings which is included in the Action Report for the Reservoir Watersheds.
Point Source Management. Point Sources (effluent from pipes) are regulated mainly by the Maryland
Department of the Environment.
Nonpoint Source Management. Nonpoint sources of pollution are extremely complex and very difficult
to control. The Action Strategy has identified specific action items in the following areas: agricultural
practices, stormwater and sewerage infrastructure, septic systems, planning, zoning and development,
municipal watersheds, and resource conservation.
Reservoir Watershed Protection Program Coordination and Support. This category includes the work of
the Subcommittee and Reservoir Technical Group, technical support by BMC, and coordination with
related watershed program by state and local governments. Members of the Reservoir Technical Group
are active on two of Maryland's tributary strategy teams formed to implement the Chesapeake Bay
nutrient reduction and tributary strategy goals.
Public Awareness. Realizing the critical importance of voluntary efforts of individuals in improving or
degrading waters feeding into the reservoirs, we recently initiated a public awareness campaign in
-------
support of reservoir watershed protection. The campaign was designed by Save Our Streams under
contract to BMC. The first step was a telephone survey of reservoir watershed residents done in
collaboration with the Schaefer Center for Public Policy. Planned in consultation with the Reservoir
Technical Group, the survey provides a wealth of information on the current state of awareness, attitudes
and behavior of watershed residents in matters affecting reservoir water quality. In collaboration with
Baltimore and Carroll County Public Schools, a Reservoir Watershed Protection is being developed.
Designed by and for teachers, it includes field studies at reservoir sites, staff development, and is now
being used in middle and high schools in these two large school districts. We have piloted public
workshops and displays on reservoir watershed protection in collaboration with Save Our Streams and
others. We are continually working to determine how best to reach and motivate individuals to take
responsible actions in reducing pollution in the watershed. We are very grateful to the Chesapeake Bay
Trust and EPA's Environmental Education Program for assistance in funding these efforts.
Results and Future Challenges
The Agreement and related "Action Strategy" has provided a sound framework for improving the quality
of waters feeding into the reservoirs. Numerous actions, taken by signatory agencies and summarized in
annual Action Reports, have reduced pollutants entering the reservoirs. Some projects have been
completed, many point sources eliminated, and some nonpoint sources reduced. Other projects are
ongoing. Water quality trends in streams feeding the reservoirs, despite the inherent variability associated
with hydrological phenomena, show that the trend in total phosphorus loads into Liberty Reservoir is
downward. No clear downward trend is evident in streams feeding Loch Raven and Prettyboy
Reservoirs. Nitrate concentrations, however, are trending upward a disturbing trend. Future challenges
include the continuing suburbanization in the watersheds; maintaining sewerage infrastructure;
implementing management practices that are more effective in controlling eutrophication in the
reservoirs; giving more attention to issues related to toxics, pathogens and disinfectant by-products;
securing funds for implementation; and expanding our public awareness efforts.
Tips for Other Organizations Considering Reservoir Watershed
Protection
Work with top executives in State and local government when putting a program together. Make sure
they have a key role in the Program. Include elected officials. Make sure to involve the key public
agencies. Carefully identify and involve key stakeholders in your program. Form partnerships and
alliances with other organizations. Work toward a culture of cooperation. Establish clear long-term goals.
Work toward those goals by accomplishing short-term tasks. Establish an open process and involve the
public. Develop a public awareness marketing plan and use survey research to determine target
audiences. Piggy-back on fairs and other public gatherings with displays and information on reservoir
watershed protection. Take a comprehensive approach in developing your "action strategy." Establish an
agreed-upon funding mechanism to provide program and technical support. Make sure you have a high-
quality ongoing monitoring program in place. It is crucial in focusing your program on relevant issues.
-------
Take the first step! The future health of your source of drinking water depends on
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Point-Nonpoint Pollutant Trading Study
Rita Fordiani, P.E., Environmental Engineer
CH2M HILL, Boston, MA
In the spring of 1993, the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission through a grant
from EPA, together with the City of Stamford, Connecticut, and CH2M HILL funded a two-part study of
nitrogen reduction techniques in Stamford, Connecticut, as part of the Long Island Sound Action Plan
Demonstration Project. The City of Stamford is located in the southwestern corner of Connecticut, on the
northern bank of Long Island Sound. The first part of the study involved the operation of a 0.3-million-
gallon-per-day biological fluid-bed denitrification reactor to reduce the total effluent nitrogen at the
Stamford, Connecticut, Water Pollution Control Facility (WPCF) to very low levels, 3 to 5 milligrams
per liter. The second part of the study involved assessing point-nonpoint source trading potential in the
Stamford area by comparing the effectiveness of reducing nonpoint source nitrogen loads with point
source nitrogen loads to Long Island Sound. The subject of this paper is the second part of the study, the
assessment of point-nonpoint source nitrogen trading.
The study area, shown in Figure 1, consists of the urban coastal area of Stamford and two watersheds, the
Rippowam River Watershed and the Noroton River Watershed. All areas drain to Long Island Sound.
The Stamford coastal area encompasses approximately 7 square miles of 100 percent sewered area. The
watersheds encompass 35 square miles and cross political boundaries, intersecting the towns of
Stamford, Darien, and New Canaan, Connecticut, and Westchester County, New York. Land cover in the
watersheds is approximately 50 percent urban and 50 percent wooded and includes a small amount of
agricultural terrain. Approximately 20 percent of the watershed area has sewers.
-------
Legend
I iRIppowam River
Watershed
Noroton River
Watershed
U 1 MILt
Stamford Coast a
Area
Munlclpa
Boundary
i
\ Stamford/
Greenwich \
long Is faneI
Sound
Figure 1. Study area.
The trading concept in the context of the study focused on the cost-effectiveness of reducing nitrogen
loads through nonpoint source controls versus point source controls within the study area. As part of the
study, nitrogen loads from various towns in the watersheds were also identified to demonstrate a
potential for a town to pursue nitrogen controls for the watershed and to receive "credit" for reducing the
nitrogen load above its contribution.
-------
The assessment of point-nonpoint nitrogen trading included the following approach:
¦ Identification of point and nonpoint nitrogen sources.
¦ Development of point and nonpoint source nitrogen loads.
¦ Comparison of point and nonpoint source loads.
¦ Comparison of strategies for point and nonpoint source control.
Identification of Point and Nonpoint Nitrogen Sources
Nitrogen is introduced and transported through the watersheds and to the Rippowam and Noroton Rivers
through a variety of sources that can be principally categorized as follows:
¦ Surface nonpoint sources related to land cover and land use.
¦ Groundwater and soil nonpoint sources related to septic systems.
¦ Point sources (direct discharges).
Data on nitrogen sources in the study area were obtained from the City of Stamford and from the
Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection's Geographic Information System (GIS) database.
Development of Point and Nonpoint Source Nitrogen Loads
Nitrogen export coefficients for Long Island Sound (lbs/acre/year) were previously estimated (Frink,
1991) by measuring concentrations of nitrogen in 33 lakes in Connecticut and relating the measurements
to the land use in their watersheds. These coefficients included both the surface and subsurface nitrogen
load. Therefore, in unsewered areas nitrogen loads were developed by applying mean annual nitrogen
export coefficients, as developed by Frink, to acreage's of urban/suburban, wooded/parkland, and
agricultural land cover.
Nitrogen loads in sewered areas were developed by subtracting the septic load from the mean annual
nitrogen export coefficient developed by Frink. The nitrogen load from septic tanks was based on
extensive groundwater sampling data available from the City of Stamford and USGS baseflow data for
the Rippowam and Noroton Rivers. The river baseflow data were multiplied by the groundwater nitrogen
concentrations to calculate the groundwater nitrogen contribution to the surface water. New mean annual
nitrogen export coefficients were developed for sewered areas.
-------
Information on potential point sources of nitrogen was obtained from the GIS database, including the
location, a short description of the site, and whether the site is an active or inactive discharge location.
Potential nitrogen loads were developed directly from site data or, if no data were available, from values
in the literature (Lu et al., 1985).
Data on future development that may affect the loading rates from both nonpoint and point sources were
also integrated but found to be not significant.
Comparison of Point and Nonpoint Source Loads
A spreadsheet model was developed to calculate and compare the nitrogen loadings from the various
sources in the Rippowam and Noroton River watersheds. As a result, the most significant contribution,
approximately 134,000 lbs/year of nitrogen, is from nonpoint sources in the watershed. Of that total,
approximately 108,000 lbs/year were estimated from unsewered areas (i.e., septic systems) and the
remaining 26,000 lbs/year were estimated from sewered areas, predominantly surface runoff. Only 520
lbs/year were estimated from point sources in the watershed. The effects of future development were not
significant.
The loads for the two watersheds were then compared with the point source nitrogen load of the
Stamford WPCF and the nonpoint source nitrogen load of the urban coastal area surrounding the plant.
The comparison of the nitrogen load from the Stamford coastal area and by town within the watersheds is
provided in Table 1.
Table 1. Comparison of Nitrogen Load by Town.
Nitrogen Load (lbs/yr)
Rippowam and Noroton River Watersheds
Nitrogen Load Source
Stamford
Darien
New
Canaan
Westchester
Co.
Stamford
Coastal Area
Total
Nonpoint Surface
Groundwater/Soil Unsewered
67,700
5,010
28,900
6,700
29,800
138,000
Nonpoint Surface
Groundwater/Soil Sewered
18,800
4,850
1,970
0
—
25,600
Point Source
520
—
--
5
473,270 (1)
473,800
Total
87,000
9,860
30,900
6,700
503,100
637,500
Percent of Total Load (2)
14%
2%
5%
1%
79%
--
Acres
12,820
1,740
5,260
2,305
4,610
26,735
Percent of Total Area
48%
6%
20%
9%
17%
--
-------
(1)The significant component of this load is the Stamford WPCF, which receives wastewater from
the towns of Stamford and Darien.
(2)Percent of total load >100 percent because of rounding.
As shown in Table 1, the Stamford WPCF under its current operation by far contributes the greatest
nitrogen load within the study area to Long Island Sound, approximately 470,000 lbs/year. The nonpoint
source nitrogen load from the urban coastal area was estimated to be approximately 30,000 lbs/year.
Comparison of Strategies for Point and Nonpoint Source Control
Control strategies for nonpoint sources were evaluated to compare the costs of reducing nitrogen from
nonpoint sources with the strategy being developed under the second part of the study for reducing
nitrogen at the WPCF.
Controls for groundwater nonpoint sources of nitrogen (i.e., septic systems in the study area) were
reviewed. Nitrogen removal efficiencies of an anaerobic upflow filter, recirculating sand filter, and
constructed wetlands vary in the literature from 60, 65, and 90 percent nitrogen removal, respectively
(U.S. EPA, 1993). Costs for the various controls varied from $10 to $55 per pound of nitrogen removed.
Although it is unlikely each unsewered household would retrofit an existing septic system to provide
additional nitrogen removal, it is possible that some existing and new developments could provide
additional treatment. At the time of the study, the nitrogen removal potential related to reduction of the
subsurface nitrogen load was unknown.
Surface controls for nonpoint sources that were reviewed included pollution prevention programs and
detention basins and infiltration areas with and without vegetation. Although information was collected
related to the types of pollution prevention programs in place in the various communities, no information
was available to quantify the cost-effectiveness of the pollution prevention programs or to determine the
amount of nitrogen reduction achieved by the programs. Pollution prevention programs implemented in
the various towns included street sweeping, catch basin cleaning, erosion control, and litter control. As a
result, the surface nonpoint source controls focused on the potential application of detention basins and
infiltration areas.
The GIS database was used to identify potential sites for nonpoint source controls and to develop
estimates of nitrogen reduction for the various control sites. Nitrogen removal effectiveness of these
controls varied in the literature from 10 to 90 percent depending on the quality of the site selection for
the particular technology application (Griffin, 1993). Costs for the detention and infiltration basins
ranged from approximately $110 to $130 per pound of nitrogen removed. Assuming a few sites are
potentially suitable for surface nitrogen removal results in about a 5 percent reduction in the total
nitrogen load of the watersheds.
-------
The cost-effectiveness of pollution prevention programs for nitrogen control requires further study.
Pollution prevention programs may be the most appropriate nitrogen controls in areas where land is
scarce or unsuitable for other controls.
Under the second part of the study, strategies to reduce the nitrogen load in the WPCF discharge to long
Island Sound were being pilot-tested. At the time of the study, it was estimated that approximately 50
percent of the nitrogen load could be removed at a cost of $ 1 per pound of nitrogen removed, resulting in
the most cost-effective method for reducing the nitrogen load to Long Island Sound within the study area
(CH2M HILL, 1993).
Conclusion
Through this study, a methodology was developed to identify nitrogen sources, develop nitrogen loads,
and identify nitrogen control strategies within the study area. The methodology can be easily expanded to
include other watersheds and towns and is best used to identify where nitrogen control may be cost-
effective. Conclusions from the study follow:
¦ The study identified the WPCF, septic systems, and urban surface runoff as the most significant
sources of nitrogen pollution in the study area.
¦ The effectiveness and cost of nitrogen controls is very site-specific.
¦ Controlling nitrogen at the WPCF is a cost-effective alternative for the study area.
¦ Appropriate siting, operation, and maintenance of a nonpoint source control alternative in an ideal
setting can provide significant removals.
¦ Pollution prevention programs need to be documented and monitored to determine their cost-
effectiveness in reducing nonpoint source pollution.
¦ Pollutant trading credits could be available for collecting and treating a significant percentage of
the nitrogen pollutant load of the study area.
¦ Study area boundaries need to be expanded to investigate the potential for pollutant trading
among towns.
References
CH2M HILL. Stamford WPCF: Interim Nitrogen Reduction Assessment. 1993.
Griffin, Carol. Effectiveness and Feasibility of Best Management Practices in Reducing Urban
-------
Nonpoint Sources of Nitrogen to Long Island Sound. State University of New York. 1993.
U.S. EPA. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nitrogen to Long Island
Sound. 1993.
WEF/ASCE. Design of Municipal Wastewater Treatment Plants. 1992.
The Westchester Land Trust. The Mianus River Watershed Projects. 1992.
Frink, Charles. Estimating Nutrient Exports to Estuaries. Journal of Environmental Quality;
20:717-724. 1991.
Farrow et al. The National Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory. Estimates for Long Island
Sound and Selected Appendices. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 1986.
Lu et al. Leachate from Municipal Landfill. 1985.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
European Experience with Decision Support
Systems for Watershed and Basin Managers with
Implications for the U.S.
Tim Bondelid
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC
The Danube Emissions Management Decision Support System (DEMDESS) is an approach to managing
water quality that centers on a PC-based data integration and modeling tool. The U.S. Agency for
International Development (USAID) has sponsored DEMDESS development and institutionalization in
the Danubian countries of Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, and Slovakia since the winter of 1991. Figure 1
shows a map of the region. Assistance to Poland began in 1993. USAID's goal was to assist countries in
Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) with water quality and pollution management decision making.
DEMDESS started with experience
gained in the U.S., especially lessons from
the success of the U.S. EPA's STORET
and Reach Files. The first phase
emphasized the development of an "Initial
DEMDESS" and building of the
institutional support. The second phase
emphasized training and technical
development. The third phase was
targeted at strengthening specific aspects
of the decision process within
DEMDESS, in direct response to host
country needs.
-------
My work in Central and Eastern Europe
provided a unique laboratory for
development of a systematic approach to
integrated decision support systems for
basin planning. The CEE countries are in
a unique position in history. They are
undergoing complete political and
institutional change, which opens them up
to new ideas and approaches. Also, they
have excellent basic technical capabilities
in engineering and science. The major
problem has been a "disconnect" between
decision making and technical
capabilities; decisions have emanated
primarily from high-level political
positions often without regard for
technical merit.
Based on these experiences, I would like to highlight five major lessons that are applicable to watershed
planning and management programs in the U.S.:
¦ Place equal emphasis on institutional and technical issues. The best approach is to work the
institutional and technical factors in parallel, letting the technical solutions support the
institutional considerations. This is accomplished by including the following elements in the
program:
o Engage the decision makers in the process from the beginning. Seek their advice, support,
and guidelines throughout the process. Be sure to keep them engaged!
o Include training and institutional capacity-building in the program. Training should start
early on, and be sure the institutions have the capacity to use and support the system.
o Regular system "marketing" and outreach activities (demonstrations, meetings, etc.) will
build and maintain support for the program.
o A multi-disciplinary team approach works very well at properly addressing the many
objectives of a watershed management system. The first phase of DEMDESS was carried
out by such a team, which included engineers, an institutional analyst, a training expert, an
economist, and myself, a systems analyst/modeler.
¦ Build the DSS "on top" of the existing routine administrative systems. There are three "layers" of
DEMDESS functions. The first layer is the central data bases, drawn from the existing systems
•%
ROMANIA
, BULGARIA x-
Figure 1. Danube Basin.
-------
and models. The second layer is integrated applications, for example an Emissions Policy Model
and a Scenario Manager. The third layer is called "Executive Interfaces," which provide concise,
clear graphical presentations for decision makers, nontechnical stakeholders, etc.
DEMDESS does not need to change the underlying systems, such as ambient water quality and
discharger monitoring data bases. Further, DEMDESS is designed to work with existing models,
such as Qual2e, as they are currently being used. Putting DEMDESS on top of existing systems
has several advantages. First, nobody has to change the way they are currently doing business;
there is a minimum of disruption. Second, you take full advantage of the good, hard work that the
experts have already invested to solve their problems. Third, there is great flexibility in adding
"new" components as needed (especially if the next two lessons are followed). Fourth, effort is
focused on the decision-support issues rather than the routine administrative programs.
¦ Use a data-based approach to integration as opposed to a software-based approach. Modern data
base management systems have tremendous power for quickly and efficiently integrating a wide
variety of data. Figure 2 illustrates this approach. A "data-based" approach means that the core of
the system is a set of data bases surrounded by various individual data systems and models. The
individual systems are linked to the core data bases through customized "gateways." This means
that the DSS is composed of many diverse, individual data and software systems tied together by
one DSS data system. For example, DEMDESS currently uses the stand-alone Qual2e water
quality model; another water quality model could be used and only the "gateway" would need to
change. Think of this approach as a "plug and play" system.
-------
Figure 2. The data-based approach to decision support systems.
A software-based approach would incorporate all of the DSS elements into one software package.
This necessarily leads to numerous complications and extra costs. The system would have to be
quite large, with many reprogrammed elements (e.g., water quality modeling). Adding and
changing components can become complex, with changes and additions having a ripple effect
through the system.
¦ Careful design of central organizing constructs is critical. One very powerful construct is the
Reach File. Reach Files are central to DEMDESS. A Reach File has been built and used to
integrate the water data in every country in which DEMDESS is implemented. Dr. Ilya Natchkov,
the Danube Programme Coordinator for Bulgaria, said "The most important thing DEMDESS has
brought to us is the Reach File philosophy." The Reach File philosophy is obviously readily
transferable to the U.S. through Reach File Version 3 (RF3). Other central organizing constructs
are important, such as a single unified parameter code table, economic sector table, etc.
¦ Bring in costing, financing, and economics as integral components, preferably at the beginning of
the program. Cost-benefit analyses and justifying expenditures to the public are going to have to
-------
be the norm in U.S. basin management. The countries in CEE are severely strapped for cash, and
getting the biggest bang for the buck is essential. Therefore, DEMDESS has as much emphasis on
the financial side as on the technical side. By bringing these financial factors into the system at
the beginning, we can achieve quite dynamic interactions between water quality changes, costs,
and economic benefits.
Application of these five lessons will lead to a technical system that is matched to institutional
requirements and capacity. The system will be well-placed for ongoing use over many years and be able
to adapt and grow as the issues and technologies change.
DEMDESS Implementation
DEMDESS is an entirely PC-based system. The core DEMDESS system is implemented in Paradoxr for
DOS. The Executive Interfaces are implemented in Quattro Pror for Windows. The underlying databases
are built for each country's routine administrative systems, most often X-Base files. Linked models are
implemented in a variety of languages, including Visual Basic, Fortran, and Paradox Application
Language. The Polish implementation includes links to their Maplnfo Geographic Information System.
Our Polish counterparts have also implemented ground-water and water supply systems using the
principles learned from DEMDESS.
DEMDESS has been implemented in Bulgaria, Hungary, Romania, Slovakia, and Poland. In each case,
DEMDESS is translated into the host language and customized to work with the local data bases. We are
continuing work in Poland this year. We have also begun work on a greatly expanded DEMDESS
implementation, with major hydrologic and water supply components. This most recent work is for the
Aral Sea program at US AID.
DEMDESS Presentation
This presentation highlights the use of DEMDESS for prefeasibility studies using the city of Sevlievo,
Bulgaria, as the case study. The interactions of several core data components and models are shown,
especially analysis of existing conditions and wastewater treatment alternatives analyses. Tradeoffs
between costs and ambient water quality improvements are illustrated with
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Role of Pollution Prevention in the Watershed
Management Approach to Toxics Control
Phil Bobel
Regional Water Quality Control Plant, Palo Alto, CA
Simon Heart
Montgomery Watson, Walnut Creek, CA
The watershed management concept is fast becoming established as the logical envelope for
implementing water quality improvements in accordance with the natural physical divisions of aquatic
ecosystems. Similarly, pollution prevention is favored by EPA and many wastewater dischargers as the
preferred approach to minimizing pollutant loading to receiving waters. These concepts are
fundamentally tied to one another because watershed management helps to define two notorious
questions surrounding pollution prevention programs: "Who should be required to do pollution
prevention?" and "To what extent should pollution prevention be carried out?" The coordination and
implementation of these two broad-based concepts is not always clearly defined, particularly where
technical, financial, or regulatory obstacles hinder a rapid switch-over to a watershed management
approach.
In the Spring of 1994, members of Tri-TAC, a technical advisory committee which is jointly sponsored
by the League of California Cities, the California Association of Sanitation Agencies, and the California
Water Environment Association, analyzed the role of pollution prevention within the watershed
management approach to toxics control. This paper discusses Tri-TAC's recommended approach to
integrating these concepts, and suggests some interim steps that may be taken where the watershed
approach to pollutant management has not yet been established.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
A Holistic View of Pollution Prevention
-------
The pollution prevention agenda was far simpler in the past when water quality degradation was
primarily the result of point source discharges, and improvements to our waterways could most quickly
and cost-effectively be implemented by upgrading treatment systems at industrial dischargers and
publicly-owned treatment works (POTWs). With significant advancements in treatment technology and
widespread implementation of pretreatment programs, the balance of pollution sources in California (and
many other states around the country) has shifted; the traditional industries and POTWs are generally
contributing a smaller percentage of the pollutants entering US waterways. While there continues to be a
need for effective pollution prevention at large point sources, it is clear that we must increasingly focus
on the more diffuse, broad-based pollutant sources such as agricultural and urban runoff, commercial
businesses, and household toxics. These sources are not as easily identifiable or controllable as the
industrial or POTW discharge pipe, but in many cases they represent more cost-effective targets for
pollutant reductions.
Numerous POTWs across the country have instituted pollution prevention programs in an effort to meet
stringent permit limits. For example, POTWs discharging to San Francisco Bay have been particularly
aggressive establishing programs aimed at reducing the loadings of heavy metals such as copper, silver,
nickel, and mercury to sewer systems due to extremely low NPDES permit limits (e.g., a 4.9 (ig/L copper
limit where tap water concentrations average 30 to 40 (ig/L). In the face of potential permit violations,
enforcement measures, and/or citizen lawsuits, these pollution prevention program measures have
appeared cost-effective for POTWs when compared to the more costly end-of-pipe options such as
reverse osmosis. However, were the receiving water body to be examined as a whole, it may be that more
cost-effective pollutant reductions would be obtained elsewhere within the watershed. It is inappropriate,
therefore, to limit the comparison of these pollution prevention programs being implemented by POTWs
only to alternative POTW treatment measures. Ideally, the pollution prevention measures of each
contributing source (whether discharging directly to a water body or to a POTW's sewer system) would
be compared to all of the potential control measures within the watershed on a pollutant-by-pollutant
basis. Without such a holistic view, gross ineconomies can result as point sources face diminishing
returns on their pollution prevention investments.
Integrating Pollution Prevention into the Watershed Management
Approach
Tri-TAC's approach to integrating pollution prevention and watershed management uses a modified
version of EPA's existing Total Maximum Daily Loading (TMDL) process. It utilizes the predicted
impacts of pollution prevention strategies on pollutant sources to determine the appropriate allocations of
pollutant loadings among the key sources contributing to a watershed. This approach calls for a review of
available historical data and other pertinent information on pollution prevention options and the
associated potential reductions for each key source. In light of the maximum pollutant loadings allowed
to enter the watershed to meet water quality standards, and the expected loadings reductions to be
obtained from each source through pollution prevention, an appropriate pollutant loading is allocated to
each source. This approach dictates that certain priority sources will be targeted for strict reductions,
-------
whereas other sources must merely comply with baseline measures, or "minimum standards of operation"
(MSOs) in order to meet their pollutant loading allocation. Selection of the priority sources for pollution
prevention is thus determined through watershed management.
If water quality standards are not achieved following subsequent implementation of control actions and
monitoring, then the process could be repeated with more site-specific information and a better idea of
the expected impacts of pollution prevention measures. However, in some cases, low-cost pollution
prevention measures alone may not be sufficient to attain water quality standards. In these cases, end-of-
pipe treatment, or other more capital intensive structural measures, should be employed as necessary
where the most significant reductions in pollutant loadings can be attained.
Targeting Pollutant Reductions
A cost-efficient watershed management program relies on a clearly defined methodology for targeting
which watershed sources should implement extensive pollutant reduction measures, and which should
merely employ baseline measures, or "minimum standards of operation" (MSOs). This determination
relies on a two-step process being conducted for each pollutant of concern:
¦ Identify and assess the cost effectiveness of pollutant reduction options, watershed-wide
¦ Rank the options in the order of cost-effectiveness, and identify the minimum number of targeted
control measures to achieve the cumulative reductions necessary to meet water quality standards
A ranking process for pollution prevention measures could be incorporated into the watershed approach
to cost-effectively reduce toxic loadings. Feasible pollution prevention and end-of-pipe treatment
measures would be identified, evaluated, and ranked for comparison purposes on the basis of expected
dollars to be spent per pound of pollutant expected to be removed ($/lb). Pollution prevention measures
can take the form of educational/outreach measures (e.g., storm drain stenciling, leaflet distribution,
public meetings) or more structural solutions such as building stormwater catch basins or implementing
wastewater recycling programs at POTWs. Although extensive cost-effectiveness information is not
currently available for ranking many of these control measures, development of a consistent protocols
(e.g., the watershed management approach) through which such information can be employed, would
allow the appropriate data to eventually be gathered to facilitate this ranking procedure.
The ranking of the watershed management pollutant reduction measures by expected cost effectiveness
would allow selection of high-priority control measures, and a prediction of the expected implementation
cost to reduce the overall watershed mass loadings to levels below the water quality standards. The cost-
effectiveness of pollution prevention measures would be ranked side-by-side along with end-of-pipe
treatment measures to determine which should be selected for implementation. In one case where such
ranking was applied, the annual pollutant loadings to the watershed exceeded the water quality standards
(WQSs) by 280 lb/yr. In order to meet these WQSs, the five most cost effective reduction measures
(pollution prevention and end-of-pipe treatment measures) would need to be implemented at a total cost
of $40 million. By applying this approach to pollution prevention, there is a clearly defined purpose and
-------
endpoint for each reduction measure. Each source targeted for extensive reduction measures would know
why they are expected to perform the measures, and to what extent they must be carried out. The
remaining sources would initiate MSOs (e.g., regular monitoring, public education materials, staff
training) such that no easily controllable copper loadings would be contributed to the water body.
It is noteworthy that in addition to the two-tiered system of targeted and baseline programs described
above, special consideration (e.g., a separate ranking procedure) may be necessary to address high-risk
discharges that pose an imminent threat to public health or sensitive ecosystems. Also note that the
dollars-per-pound ranking approach does not account for the impacts of flow alone on river and stream
systems. Scouring and other high-flow impacts can often be more significant for habitat loss than the
long-term impacts of chemical pollutants. Thus, a ranking of flow-oriented habitat improvement
measures also may be necessary to supplement the above methodologies.
Interim Approaches to Watershed Management
The watershed management process described above depends upon three key pieces of information, each
of which can prove extremely difficult to finalize:
¦ the water quality standards must be determined.
¦ a predictive water quality model must be available.
¦ the cost per pound of pollutant for the potential control measures must be known.
In many geographic areas, water quality standards for metals are being re-evaluated to incorporate new
data, to move to a dissolved basis, and/or to develop site specific water quality standards (objectives). In
a number of areas this reanalysis is not complete and new standards are therefore not finalized. Predictive
water quality models are more available for rivers and traditional pollutants and decidedly less well
developed for estuaries and for low level toxics. Contributions from air deposition and resuspended
sediments have been especially difficult to model. Finally, the cost of source control measures has not yet
received the research attention that the cost of end-of-pipe treatment has received. For example, despite
the fact that 35 percent of the copper loading to the lower South San Francisco Bay has been attributed to
automobile brake pads (a greater contribution than point sources), no cost estimate for brake pad
reductions is available. In contrast, costs of further end of pipe treatment in this same area are well
established (at several thousand dollars per pound of copper removed).
As a result of these and other shortcomings, it will often not be possible to immediately conduct the most
desirable form of watershed planning in many geographic areas. Recognizing this dilemma, Tri-TAC,
industrial, and regulatory agency representatives recently developed a set of recommendations for
permitting point sources in the near term; either in lieu of, or until a more scientifically satisfying
analysis can be performed.
Task Force Recommendations
-------
In 1995 the California State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) convened eight Task Forces to
provide recommendations for creating new water quality plans for California. One of the task forces, the
Permitting and Compliance Issues (P&CI) Task Force, developed recommendations for permitting point
source dischargers when a "scientifically constructed" watershed management plan is not available.
Lacking one or more of the three key information pieces (listed above) for a comprehensive watershed
management plan need not be fatal. A key recommendation of the P&CI Task Force is to convene
stakeholder groups and initiate a collaborative watershed planning process despite information gaps. It
may be possible for the stakeholders to negotiate a set of agreements and control measures which can be
approved by regulatory agencies as an Interim TMDL and Waste Load Allocation (WLA). If
environmental advocacy groups and the regulatory agencies are partners in the process, there should be
no barriers to approval of a negotiated agreement as the Interim TMDL and WLA.
While less scientifically satisfying than a modeled and a calculated TMDL and WLA, it must be
remembered that even with full data availability, neither science or economics can necessarily provide an
implementable WLA. Economic theory can tell us which control measures to pick to minimize overall
costs to society. But economic theory cannot tell us who should bear those costs or where the money
should come from to implement the chosen control measures. In the end, regulatory agencies must either
require implementation or facilitate negotiation among stakeholders.
In California, it is becoming increasingly true that no single regulatory agency can require
implementation of all, or even most, of the needed control measures. Again taking copper as an example,
it is now clear that the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) has
the regulatory authority to control only a small fraction of the copper entering the Bay. Pesticides
(regulated by the Department of Pesticide Regulation), erosion and abandoned mines (regulated to some
extent by other water and resource conservation agencies), and vehicle emissions (regulated to some
extent by the California Air Resources Board and US EPA) contribute the vast majority of the copper.
Therefore an approach which depends alone upon the Regional Board requiring people to do things is
doomed to failure. Thus we should not be bashful about moving immediately to an arena of negotiated
agreements.
Definition of "TMDL"
The P&CI Task Force recommended using an expanded definition of TMDL developed by SWRCB staff
to facilitate the negotiation process. It will often be difficult to express the TMDL as originally
envisioned; the total pounds of a pollutant that the water body can accept. Large, complicated water
bodies will present particularly challenging technical problems. Therefore, the TMDL could be expressed
as a "Quantifiable Target" of something other than pollutant loading. It could be a percentage reduction
of a pollutant, a measure of ecosystem improvement (a specific increase in fish population), or a specific
degree of implementation of a control measure. Committing to and implementing pollution prevention
measures could thus become a direct measure of success.
-------
Negotiated Agreements Also Take Time
But what if attempts to negotiate agreements don't produce immediate results? If certainty on water
quality standards is lacking, it should be no surprise that stakeholders will be reluctant to make
commitments. They, in fact, would only make commitments if they believed either 1) that they will have
to do even more if they wait, or 2) that they will be subject to undesirable public criticism for not
agreeing. When agreements on TMDLs and WLAs are not reached, regulators still need to issue NPDES
permits for point source discharges. The P&CI Task Force made a number of recommendations for this
case.
If it has not been demonstrated that the discharger has a reasonable potential of causing a water quality
standard to be violated, no interim water quality based effluent limit would be imposed. Neither would
new source control or pollution prevention requirements be imposed for that pollutant. But if a
reasonable potential of a standard violation was demonstrated, then interim limits and/or requirements to
implement source control or pollution prevention requirements would be imposed.
Regulatory agencies will generally need to have an enforceable limit in the permit. Dischargers will resist
enforceable limits when the TMDL/WLA process is incomplete. The compromise recommended by the
P&CI Task Force is to have two limits—a trigger effluent concentration (TEC) and an interim limit (IL).
The IL would be the enforceable limit and the TEC would be a somewhat lower value that would trigger
further monitoring, investigation, and analysis by the discharger. The TEC would be based on statistical
methods developed by EPA for estimating maximum concentrations from past performance data. The IL
would be calculated by multiplying the TEC times an uncertainty factor developed by the regulatory
agency. The uncertainty factor would account for unforeseen and uncontrollable circumstances that may
cause future increases.
Conclusion
Watershed management planning should be the driving force to determine which pollution prevention
measures will be implemented. Minimizing overall costs to society should be the guiding light.
Stakeholder involvement in the planning process should be used to avoid unacceptable impacts to
particular sectors of the economy, and can be initiated despite information gaps. The types and degree of
pollution prevention determined to be needed will depend on the availability of good data and degree to
which stakeholders can come to agreement. The role of regulatory agencies should be to insure needed
information is developed and to facilitate agreements among stakeholders.
-------
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Protection Verses Housing in the
Germantown Master Plan
Nazir Baig, P.E., Coordinator
Gregory Fick, Environmental Planner
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC),
Environmental Planning Division, Silver Spring, MD
Introduction
In the late 1980s, the Montgomery County Planning Board was confronted with
two conflicting needs when revising the older 1974 master plan for the
Germantown area: (1) the need to protect environmentally sensitive stream
systems that exist within the planning area; and (2) the need for additional
housing near an important employment and transportation corridor.
The Germantown planning area in Montgomery County, Maryland, encompasses
approximately 10,350 acres (16 square miles) and is located approximately 25
miles northwest of Washington, D.C. It is bisected by Interstate-270, a primary
transportation route and high employment corridor in the county. The
Germantown planning area lies within the Seneca Creek basin, the largest
watershed in the county. The Seneca Creek basin has a total drainage area of
approximately 82,000 acres (128 square miles), and includes three significant
subbasins: the Great Seneca Creek, the Little Seneca Creek, and the Dry Seneca
-------
Creek. The entire Seneca Creek basin drains to the Potomac River, which in turn
drains to the Chesapeake Bay. The Little Seneca Creek in the Germantown area is
one of the most environmentally sensitive portions within the Seneca Creek basin,
supporting a naturally-reproducing population of brown trout.
In the face of increasing residential development, the protection of water
resources in a watershed can be reinforced by applying low-impact land use
policies in combination with environmentally sensitive best management
practices. Low density development is generally less damaging to the existing
natural resources as it typically produces less storm water runoff, less impervious
surfaces, and less nonpoint source pollution than high density development. Yet
low density residential development patterns, especially those near important
employment and transportation corridors, tend to conflict with the need to
accommodate the rapid population growth and rising demand for affordable
housing in the county. Furthermore, the general development plan for the county
envisions higher density residential and commercial development in close
proximity to the major transportation "corridors", and a series of lower density
residential developments in combination with agricultural areas in the "wedges"
between the corridors.
In the initial stages of updating the Germantown master plan, planning staff
identified specific areas adjacent to the Little Seneca Creek trout stream as the
most environmentally sensitive areas of concern. Typical zoning
recommendations in the revised master plan called for increasing the base zoning
densities throughout the planning area from agriculture and rural residential to
medium density and high density residential and commercial patterns. It was
recognized that those high density development patterns near the Little Seneca
Creek could potentially induce substantial degradation of the existing stream
habitat, hydrology, and water quality which support the naturally-reproducing
brown trout population. As a means to reduce the threat of degradation, a series of
requirements were introduced into the revised master plan to promote stream
protection in specific portions of the planning area.
Discussion
-------
The revised 1989 Germantown master plan envisions the Germantown area as a
group of six interconnected villages or communities. For planning purposes, the
villages are divided into analysis areas. The KI-2 analysis area of the Kingsview
village and the NE-1 analysis area of the Neelsville village were scheduled to be
the last significant developable tracts within the planning area. The KI-2 analysis
area lies downstream of the Little Seneca Lake, a drinking water reservoir, and is
adjacent to a segment of Little Seneca Creek. The NE-1 analysis area drains
directly into Little Seneca Lake. Both analysis areas have streams with existing
high quality ecosystems based on agency surveys.
Planning staff initially recommended low residential densities in the KI-2 and NE-
1 analysis areas as a means to protect the trout stream and the reservoir from
potential impacts of high density development. In the 1988 preliminary draft
master plan, planning staff recommended that the maximum residential base
densities in these two areas be set at one dwelling unit per acre, and that no public
water/sewer pipelines be constructed in the stream valleys of both areas to serve
the proposed developments. However, given the county-wide demand for more
housing and Germantown's status as a future corridor city, the County Planning
Board and the County Council decided to retain a more intense base density of
two dwelling units per acre in these two analysis areas with options to increase
these densities even further. In addition, two alternative alignments for new
arterial roads were included in the master plan for the KI-2 and NE-1 analysis
areas, further compounding the potential for impacts to the nearby water
resources. The recommended densities initially proposed by staff in these two
analysis areas as a means to protect the water quality and stream habitat were
believed by the political leaders at the time to be too low to support corridor city
development.
Planning staff recognized that residential development patterns of two or more
dwelling units per acre would result in detrimental increases of nonpoint source
pollution and peak storm water flows to the nearby streams, and could potentially
jeopardize the long-term survival of existing brown trout populations and the
water quality of the reservoir. These impacts could also potentially violate state
-------
regulations on permissible water temperature and nonpoint source pollution
loadings for trout waterbodies. As a result, the Planning Board and planning staff
agreed that special protective measures for development projects in the NE-1 and
KI-2 analysis areas should be specified in the new master plan to offset the more
intense land use recommendations.
The protective measures outlined in the 1989 Germantown Master Plan require
development projects within the KI-2 and NE-1 analysis areas of Germantown to
conform to the following conditions.
¦ Prepare an environmental impact analysis to assess the potential impacts of a
proposed development project.
¦ Document the existing conditions of adjacent stream ecosystems and track
the short-term and long-term trends in those conditions.
¦ Utilize enhanced development standards and innovative site designs to
promote stream protection.
¦ Utilize enhanced best management practices, storm water management
systems, and sediment control measures.
¦ Implement special mitigative measures to offset potential impacts to nearby
streams.
¦ Establish binding, long-term inspection and maintenance agreements for
various structural and non-structural best management practices.
These protective measures aim to: (1) prevent the excessive degradation and
contamination of streams through innovative site design and enhanced best
management practices; (2) provide increased control of sediment and storm water
runoff through the application of enhanced management systems; (3) minimize
disturbances within stream valleys (such as road crossings and water/sewer
pipelines); (4) provide timely feedback on the effects of development activity on
neighboring stream ecosystems; and (5) protect existing forested areas, especially
in stream valleys, and promote reforestation.
The environmental impact analysis requires the collection of detailed information
to characterize the existing topography, soils and geology, vegetation, stream
-------
ecosystem, hydrology, and water quality associated with the site. The impact
analysis evaluates a number of aspects such as the size and location of proposed
development, the proposed storm water management plan, the proposed sewer
and water system plan, and the proposed best management practices to estimate
the potential impacts to existing environmental conditions, stream valleys,
wetlands, aquatic organisms, and water quality. Also, the environmental impact
analysis is required to estimate the potential for violations of the state's water
quality criteria for trout streams, which include: coliform bacteria, dissolved
oxygen, temperature, pH, turbidity, total residual chlorine, and a number of
inorganic substances (mainly metals) and organic substances (mainly herbicides
and pesticides). Specific storm water management performance criteria were
developed for the KI-2 and NE-1 analysis areas to encourage conformance with
these state water quality criteria.
To tract the impacts of construction activity and the performance of storm water
management systems, developers are required to monitor the condition of the
stream ecosystem(s) adjacent to the development site for a minimum period of
eight months prior to construction, throughout the construction period, and 18
months following the construction period. After this period, the county will
continue long-term monitoring, but at a less intense frequency of sampling. The
stream monitoring required by the developer includes: (1) assessing benthic
macroinvertebrate communities and stream habitat conditions three times per year
following modified EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol III methods; (2)
examining changes in stream channel cross-sections at specific locations once
every three months; (3) assessing of the performance of water quality and quantity
control of the storm water management facilities following construction activity;
(4) collecting local rainfall information to aid in correlating bank-full storm event
frequency before and after construction; (5) measuring nutrient loadings and
selected chemical water quality constituents before and after construction; (6)
routinely measuring physical water quality attributes; (7) measuring monthly
fluctuations of sediment loadings in pools and riffles; (8) monitoring water and air
temperatures hourly during the summer; and (9) photographing the condition of
the site and the monitoring stations during monitoring events.
-------
The enhanced development standards require the use of certain site configurations
and best management practices to encourage the protection of nearby streams. For
instance, one site design standard limits the maximum impervious surface over
the developable portion of the site to 20 percent. The results of recent
imperviousness studies document serious stream impacts when drainage areas
approach 15 to 20 percent impervious cover for most piedmont ecoregion
watersheds (Klein, 1979 and CWP, 1994). Separation of larger expanses of
impervious surfaces into smaller, interconnected areas with shading and vegetated
spaces is encouraged. Other site design criteria expand the normal 100 feet
minimum stream buffer to 150 feet from the edge of each stream bank, and
restrict all construction activity within this buffer area. Stream buffers are
required to be placed in a conservation easement or dedicated to the county park
system. A similar approach applies to existing wetlands. Stream buffer
reforestation is required in areas were the stream side forest or natural vegetation
was previously removed. Development activity is to be avoided, or minimized as
much as possible, on slopes which exceed 15 percent. Further site design
measures call for reducing allowable densities near stream valleys, wetlands and
other environmentally sensitive areas and transferring or clustering those
allowable units to more suitable areas of the site. Development activity is
encouraged in areas which are already cleared as a result of past agricultural
activity rather than in areas of existing forest and steep slopes. The importance of
maintaining forests in the stream buffers and stream valleys is stressed as a critical
component to ensuring the success of the protective measures. A high priority is
placed on situating infrastructure facilities away from environmentally sensitive
areas such as stream valleys, high quality forests, and steep slopes. If intrusion
into these sensitive areas are unavoidable, then measures are taken to permit only
the footprint of structures to be disturbed. For roads, the use of bridges instead of
closed culverts for stream crossings is strongly encouraged. The use of pumping
stations to connect with existing gravity sewers and existing water lines is also
encouraged, rather than constructing new gravity sewers and water lines in stream
valleys.
The use of enhanced best management practices (BMPs) is another protective
measure required on development projects within the KI-2 and NE-1 analysis
-------
areas of Germantown. These BMPs are designed to strengthen efforts to reduce
sediment, storm water, and nonpoint source pollution loadings to nearby streams
above and beyond the typical strategies required by state and county regulations.
For instance, infiltration is the preferred method of storm water management,
followed by dry ponds with extended detention. Permanent wet ponds are
discouraged due to their propensity for discharging high temperature water into
receiving streams and infringing on existing wetlands and forests in stream
valleys (Galli, 1993). The use of both vegetative shading and created wetlands are
strongly encouraged as part of storm water management concepts. Areas with
highly pervious soils are recommended for use as open space or storm water
facility sites due to their natural capability for infiltration. Other BMPs require
more stringent sediment and erosion control standards during construction, such
as use of oversized sediment traps, use of redundant control systems, timely
vegetative stabilization after grading activity, and increases in fines for violations.
Routine site inspections by county enforcement staff are scheduled more
frequently than normal.
Long-term storm water management facility inspection and maintenance
agreements are required as part development plan approval in the KI-2 and NE-1
areas of Germantown to ensure that the guidelines specified in the master plan are
followed. Developers and/or homeowner associations are required to enter into
binding agreements with the county to guarantee that storm water facilities are
constructed, inspected and maintained in accordance with the guidance specified
in the master plan. An escrow fund is established by the developer or homeowners
association to finance the various inspection and maintenance activities and any
needed repairs or improvements to a storm water management facility. If the
developer or homeowners association fails to inspect and maintain storm water
management facilities in a timely fashion and in accordance with the agreement,
then the county would perform the necessary repair and/or maintenance activity
and assess the developer or homeowners association for the costs of this work
along with any applicable penalties.
Conclusion
-------
The discussion surrounding the use of enhanced environmental protection
strategies in the KI-2 and NE-1 analysis areas of Germantown convinced the
County Planning Board and the County Council to adopt new philosophies and
approaches to deal with balancing the impacts of development on natural
resources and the need to sustain growth in areas near important transportation
corridors and employment centers. Indeed, planning for the future to ensure a
relatively health quality of life for the community is greatly dependent on
maintaining the health of the natural resources (e.g., healthy air, water, soils, etc.).
The maintenance of these natural resources must be carefully balanced and
integrated with economic growth and population growth so that all are
sustainable.
The special protective measures established in the Germantown master plan for
the KI-2 and NE-1 analysis areas were compromises between the need for
maintaining and protecting the natural resources of Little Seneca Creek and the
need for more residential housing in this area of planned growth. By applying
these special protective measures, the probability that Little Seneca Creek will
retain its exceptional ecological health is enhanced. The success of this master
plan approach to stream protection and the offshoots of these original
philosophies have led to many new master plan strategies and policies for
improving the environmental sensitivity of land use planning throughout the
county. These policies have helped to establish a regulatory framework through
master plans for promoting the protection of stream ecosystems in a more
comprehensive, watershed-based manner that more equitably balances county
growth needs with natural resource protection needs so that both can be sustained
into the future.
References
Galli, J. 1993. Thermal impacts associated with urbanization and stormwater
management best management practices. Metropolitan Washington Council
of Governments. Washington, D.C.
Klein, R.D. 1979. Urbanization and stream quality impairment. American
-------
Water Resources Association. Water Resources Bulletin. 15 (4): 948-963.
The Center for Watershed Protection (CWP). 1994. The importance of
impervious. Watershed Protection Techniques. 1 (3): 100-111.
The Maryland-National Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC). 1993.
Approved and Adopted General Plan Refinement of the Goals and
Objectives for Montgomery County (Amendments to the 1964 General Plan
for the Mary land-Washington Regional District in Montgomery and Prince
George's Counties and the 1969 Updated General Plan for Montgomery
County) M-NCPPC. Silver Spring, MD.
The Maryland-National Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC). 1989.
Approved and Adopted Comprehensive Amendment to the Germantown
Master Plan (Amendments to the 1974 Germantown Master Plan). M-
NCPPC. Silver Spring, MD.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now
outdated.
T
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official
positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Ground Water Nitrogen Contributions to Coastal Waters of
Virginia's Eastern Shore: Identification of High-Risk Discharge
Regions and Remediation Strategies
William G. Reay, Research Scientist
Michael A. Robinson, Research Associate
Department of Civil Engineering, VPI&SU, Blacksburg, VA
Charles A. Lunsford, Environmental Program Planner
Va. Department of Conservation and Recreation, Richmond, VA
Introduction
The shallow, unconfined aquifers of the mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain display characteristics that are conducive to ground water
contamination and its subsequent transport into aquatic habitats. Ground water contributions of nitrogen, both in the form of
base flow and direct discharge to tidal waters, have been implicated in nitrogen enrichment of surface waters of Virginia's
Eastern Shore. Therefore, detailed information regarding the coupling of surface and ground water resources is a primary
requirement for rational watershed management and water quality protection. Efforts within Cherrystone Inlet watershed, a Bay-
side watershed located on the southern tip of the Delmarva Peninsula, have concentrated on defining ground water discharge
patterns and associated nitrogen flux and developing and initiating watershed management strategies.
Cherrystone Inlet watershed, approximately 20 km2 in upland area, is located on the Chesapeake Bay side of the southern
Delmarva Peninsula. Average annual rainfall is 108 centimeters (Virginia Agricultural Extension Service, Painter, Va.).
Agriculture is a dominant land use within the watershed accounting for approximately 50 percent of the land cover. Surface
relief is generally low, with slopes ranging from 0-2 percent over the main portion of the watershed; greater slopes are
associated with regions adjacent to perennial and intermittent streams. Upland soils are dominated by well drained fine-sandy to
sandy loams with moderate to rapid (0.4-3.7 m . day-1) saturated infiltration rates. The unconfined aquifer, the Columbia, is
underlain by the Yorktown-Eastover confining unit at a depth ranging from 8 to 20 meters below ground elevation.
With narrow channels flanked by broad shoal regions, Cherrystone Inlet is representative of Bay-side inlets. Maximum depth
within the main stem channel is 4 meters and the nearshore and tidal creeks display mean depths of 1 meter or less. Mean
semidiurnal tidal range is 0.7 meters with salinities ranging from 14-23 % (Reay et al., 1995). Intertidal and nearshore
sediments within Cherrystone Inlet are predominantly sandy substrates, whereas sediments in the more protected coves and
upper creek reaches are dominated by finer grained sediments. Deeper main stem channel regions are represented by both silt-
Study Site Description
-------
clay and sandy sediment types.
Methodology
Ground Water Flow Analysis
Over 130 monitoring wells have been established within Cherrystone Inlet watershed to determine lateral and vertical hydraulic
head variations, aquifer media characteristics, and collect water samples for nitrogen analysis. In addition, water level staffs
have been installed within selected non-tidal impoundments. Shallow monitoring wells penetrated one meter into the
unconfined aquifer and deeper wells were up to 18.9 meters in depth. Saturated hydraulic conductivities (Ksat) of upland
substratum were determined at selected wells using a slug test method. Samples for chemical analysis were collected with a
peristaltic pump following purging of three well volumes of water. Standard methods were used for the analysis of ammonium
(NH4+), nitrite (N02-), nitrate (N03-). Total dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) is the sum of NH4+, N02-, and N03-.
Hydrologic modeling efforts have concentrated on both field and watershed scales. A two-dimensional profile model
(FEMCoast), developed at VPI&SU, was used to simulate density-dependent nearshore ground water flow patterns.
MODFLOW, a USGS three dimensional ground water flow model, was used to investigate upland freshwater ground water
flow patterns to first-order streams and impoundments. The use of conventional flow models provided a better understanding of
ground water dynamics which were incorporated into a geographical information systems (GIS) approach. The GIS model
incorporated hydrologic, geologic, and land use base data layers to prioritize shorelines with respect to nitrogen loadings to
surface waters.
Results and Discussion
Ground Water Quality
N03- comprised greater than 95 percent of DIN in shallow ground water underlying cultivated, woody, and grasslands;
contributions of NH4+ were greater for developed land. DIN concentrations of shallow ground water as related to upland land-
cover are summarized in Figure 1. These results are comparable with reported values within the mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain and
indicated that shallow ground water quality is reflective of overlying land use. Upland land-cover determinations were assigned
according to NOAA C-CAP (NOAA, 1995) land-cover classification system. Land cover classified as "developed" consisted of
low intensity single-family housing utilizing on-site wastewater disposal systems. Grasslands consisted primarily of managed
herbaceous cover which included road/railroad right-of-ways, lawns, and wastewater irrigated fields.
O
£
zl
m
o
•400 1
cultivated grasslands
vwody deyslofied
Figure 1. Boxplot of shallow ground water DIN quality in relation to land cover within the Cherrystone Inlet watershed.
A Kruskal-Wallis analysis of variance by ranks test demonstrated significant differences in shallow ground water DIN
concentrations as related to land cover (p<0.01). Based on nonparametric multiple comparison test (a = 0.05), DIN levels for
-------
cultivated lands were not significantly greater than levels associated with developed or grasslands, but were significantly greater
than woody lands. Plant uptake, microbial mediated processes (denitrification), soil adsorption and storage, and potential
dilution with low nitrogen sources of water result in low N03- levels in ground water underlying forested land. Elevated ground
water N03- levels can be observed if deeper ground water flow from upgradient regions is nitrogen enriched, and if the water
table is located below the forest's biologically active zone or an underlying local confining units restricts interaction with the
biological active zone.
Elevated N03- concentrations also occurred in deeper portions of the unconfined aquifer down-gradient from distant nitrogen
sources. N03- concentrations on the order of 700 a)r-l were measured at 8.4 meters below the water table (12.1 meters below
the lands surface). Samples taken near the base of the unconfined aquifer showed a relatively consistent pattern of moderate
NH4+ concentrations (40 l.r-1) and low (~1 (a)r-l) to non-detectable levels of N03-.
Ground Water Flow
In general, sediments comprising the upper portion of the unconfined aquifer ranged from silty-sands to coarse clean sands with
moderate to rapid (0.2-9.0 m . day-1) hydraulic conductivities. Sediments graded into a finer texture near the Yorktown-
Eastover confining unit. Interbedded, thin and discontinuous silt-clay and peat layers have been observed in specific regions.
Guidelines are being developed to estimate Ksat of major soil series for use in GIS analysis. Methods to estimate Ksat based on
soil texture for well drained sandy-loam soils are in relative agreement with in situ measurements (root mean square error =1.9
m.day-1). The final guidelines to estimate Ksat values of major soil series, as classified by county soil surveys, will be
determined following analysis of the moderately well-drained and poorly drained soils.
Water table elevations at the topographic divide are over 8 meters above mean local sea level. Depth to the water table varied
between near surface to 3.7 meters below ground level. Water table fluctuations varied from 0.5 to 1.5 meters and were
dependent on depth to the water table, land cover, and general hydrogeologic setting. Elevated water tables were associated with
late winter/early spring recharge periods, whereas the lowest water table elevations occurred in fall. Tidal variations associated
with shoreline wells were 0.1 to 0.2 meters.
Contours of water table elevation for Cherrystone Inlet watershed are shown in Figure 2. Water table contours were relatively
uniform near the topographic divide and converged along tidal inlet headwaters and perennial streams and impoundments.
Hydraulic gradients along the upland regions adjacent to Cherrystone Inlet shorelines were between 0.001-0.002 m . m-1 and
increased to 0.004 mday-1 in upland regions adjacent to Cherrystone Inlet shorelines and 0.01-0.15 m . day-1 in upland regions
near tidal creek headwaters.
-------
Figure 2. Contours of water table elevation for Cherrystone Inlet watershed. Sample period: February 1995.
The discharge of ground water into coastal environments is a nearshore process with daily and seasonal variations in discharge
patterns and rates. Discharge of water across the sediment-water interface is a mixture of fresh ground water and interstitial
seawater. Measured discharge rates ranged from 0 to 3.7 1. m-2 . hr-1 for sandy sediments. Fresh water contributions to
measured discharge were on the order of 10 percent. Figure 3 depicts a vertical profile of modeled discharge patterns across the
sediment-water interface and interstitial water salinity ratios relative to ambient Cherrystone Inlet waters. Ground water flow is
sharply forced upward near the shoreline along the dispersive interface between the fresh ground water and interstitial salt
water.
-------
Distance from shoreline (m)
Figure 3. Vertical profile of modeled (FEMCoast) ground water movement and interstitial water salinity ratios relative
to ambient Cherrystone Inlet waters for a representative sandy shoreline with homogeneous geologic parameters.
Sediment nitrogen fluxes are a function of physical, chemical, and biological processes. In nearshore sandy sediment, nitrogen
fluxes were dependent on freshwater discharge rates and upland ground water quality. Elevated sediment N03- flux rates,
greater than 2000 a). hr-1, were measured adjacent to upland agricultural land uses (Simmons et al., 1992; Reay et al., 1992;
Gallagher et al., 1996). Such elevated fluxes can have an measurable impact on estuarine water quality. DIN levels within main
stem Cherrystone Inlet are approximately two orders of magnitude less than ground water impacted by cultivated or developed
land uses.
Ground water discharge couples land use activity and the quality of surface water in aquatic environments. Conventional
modeling and field efforts have been used to assess contamination risk and potential nutrient loadings to surface water
resources. GIS efforts have concentrated on determining high-risk landscapes, based on geohydrologic setting and land use
patterns. Based on initial findings, development and implementation of best management practices designed to reduce ground
water nitrogen loadings to surface waters have begun within the watershed. Efforts have concentrated on determination of
optimal locations for vegetative buffers and the development/assessment of deep-rooted native warm season grass buffers.
Findings of this research are directly applicable to similar coastal plain watersheds.
Literature Cited
NOAA. (1995) NOAA coastal change analysis programs (C-CAP): Guidance for regional implementation. NOAA
Technical Report NMFS 123, U.S. Department of Commerce, Seattle, Washington.
Gallagher, D.L., A.M. Dietrich, W.G. Reay, M.C. Hayes, and G.M. Simmons, Jr. (1996) Groundwater discharge of
agricultural pesticides and nutrients to estuarine surface waters. Journal of Ground Water Monitoring and Remediation
(In Press).
Reay, W.G., D.L. Gallagher, and G.M. Simmons, Jr. (1992) Groundwater discharge and its impact on surface water
quality in a Chesapeake Bay inlet. Water Resources Bulletin 28(6): 1121-1134.
Simmons, G.M., Jr, E. Miles, W. G. Reay, and D. L. Gallagher (1992) Submarine groundwater discharge quality in
relation to land use patterns in the southern Chesapeake Bay. Stanford J. A. and J. Simons, editors. Proceedings of the
First International Conference on Ground Water Ecology. American Water Resource Association. Bethesda, MD. 341-
350.
-------
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Enhancement and Application of HSPF for Stream
Temperature Simulation in Upper Grande Ronde
Watershed, Oregon
Y. David Chen, NRC Research Associate
Steven C. McCutcheon, Environmental Engineer
Robert F. Carsel, Chief, Regulatory Support Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA
Douglas J. Norton, Environmental Scientist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
John P. Craig, Senior Scientist
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Reduction or removal of streamside vegetation by logging and grazing can alter stream temperatures by
reducing riparian shading. In the Pacific Northwest and other parts of the United States, elevated stream
temperatures in summer are a major fish habitat degradation problem that affects coldwater species such
as salmon and trout. For example, the lethal temperature for Chinook Salmon is approximately 26oC, and
sublethal effects on juveniles can occur at significantly lower temperatures. Projects to restore riparian
forest cover are often intended to reestablish shading and reduce stream temperatures to levels that can
support coldwater communities. To provide guidance for riparian vegetation restoration activities,
comprehensive and dynamic information about stream temperature regimes can be cost-effectively
generated by watershed-scale, continuous stream temperature modeling. The Hydrologic Simulation
Program - FORTRAN (HSPF), a major EPA and USGS watershed modeling tool, together with its
supporting data management programs and expert system software for model calibration, form a
comprehensive watershed hydrology and water quality modeling system that may be used to conduct
-------
hydrologic/hydraulic and stream temperature simulations (Bicknell et al., 1993).
In recognition of the limitations of HSPF for simulating temperatures of forest streams, enhancements
were made to improve the model's applicability and accuracy. The enhanced HSPF modeling system
with a new stand-alone program called SHADE was applied to the Upper Grande Ronde watershed in
northeast Oregon (Figure 1). This paper presents a brief summary of the methodologies and algorithms
for HSPF enhancements and the modeling results of the application study in the watershed. A complete
and detailed report of this study is given by Chen (1996).
Model Enhancements
SHADE Program
The module section HTRCH in HSPF is a one-dimensional code for simulating water temperature of
reaches (called RCHRES) in a stream network. In HTRCH, the energy budget analysis technique is
-------
employed to determine the net heat exchange for simulating stream temperature dynamics. However,
HTRCH does not have the capability to realistically estimate the amount of incoming solar radiation that
actually enters stream water, due to the lack of adequate algorithms for vegetation and topographic
shading computations. Therefore, a stand-alone program called SHADE was developed for dynamically
estimating the contribution of riparian vegetation buffers and topography to stream surface shade.
Stream shading dynamics are controlled by the spatial relationships among sun position, location and
orientation of a RCHRES, hillslope topography, and riparian vegetation buffers. For each hourly time
interval, SHADE computes the riparian shading and thus adjusts the incoming global solar radiation to
the amount of radiation which is effective for stream heating. Shade computations are made at stream
sample points located at 100 meter intervals throughout a RCHRES. The average solar radiation for that
RCHRES is then estimated. Model inputs for SHADE include: (1) watershed location and number of
RCHRESs to be simulated; (2) incoming daily global solar radiation (RADG); (3) hourly values of
stream wetted width (TWID) computed by the hydraulic module section HYDR in HSPF; (4) stream
sample point location in UTM coordinates and topographic shade angles (TSA) in the 12 directions
whose azimuth angles are Oo, 30o, 60o,..., 330o (clockwise from due north); and (5) vegetation shading
characteristics specifying the location (left or right bank), nature (forest/shrub or gap), and dimensions of
each vegetation polygon mapped as homogeneous stands. The required geometric features are: (1)
distance from the edge of stream wetted perimeter to the near-stream polygon boundary (DIS); (2) width
of polygon (WID); (3) average height of vegetation polygon in absolute value (HABS); (4) average
height of vegetation polygon in reference to the elevation of stream surface (HDEM), which is the sum of
HABS and the difference between the ground elevation and the stream channel elevation; and (5)
average canopy density of vegetation polygon (DEN). These topographic and vegetation shading
characteristics can be effectively created and processed using remote sensing data sets with geographic
information systems (see also Norton et al., 1996, in this proceedings).
The input data of global solar radiation are disaggregated into two components, beam and diffuse, which
are reduced differently by the topographic and vegetation shading effects. For beam radiation, the solar
path is defined by two angles, the zenith angle Z or its complement, the solar altitude ALT, and the
azimuth AZ. When ALT TSA, no sun beam can enter the stream valley, and there is no vegetation
shading effect. When ALT > TSA, the vegetation buffer (if existent) provides the only obstruction to the
sun beam. The effective length and density of shadows of single or multiple vegetation polygons on
stream surface are estimated. The amount of incoming beam radiation that actually reaches the stream
surface is then approximated based on the fraction of unshaded stream surface. In contrast to the dynamic
shading effects on the beam radiation, the blockage to the diffuse radiation is assumed to be controlled
only by the sky openness of the stream valley and does not change over time.
The SHADE program generates two output files of hourly time series data for each RCHRES. One is the
solar radiation adjusted to account for the riparian shading effects. The other is the solar radiation factor
(SRF, the ratio of radiation effective for stream heating divided by the incoming radiation before any
reduction by shading) values that can be used to characterize the dynamic shading conditions. SHADE
was coded in FORTRAN 77 programming language and its application program can be run in a DOS
environment on any IBM compatible PC computer. The input and output data files for SHADE and its
-------
integration with the HSPF modeling system (within the dotted box) are illustrated in Figure 2.
Figure 2. Enhanced HSPF modeling system with SHADE program for forest stream temperature
dimulation (expanded from A.M. Lumb of USGS, personal communication, 1994).
Heat Exchange Between Water and Streambed
The heat flux between water and streambed is neglected in HTRCH. However, the importance of this
energy component has been recognized in water temperature simulation studies for rivers and streams
and even for shallow lakes. The bed conduction becomes even more important in small shallow streams
(e.g., the low order forest streams in the Upper Grande Ronde) as the diurnal variation in water
temperature increases. Therefore, a methodology for computing the heat flux between water and
streambed was selected, evaluated, implemented, and coded into HTRCH in HSPF.
Literature review indicated that the algorithms developed by Jobson (1977) are appropriate for direct
computation of the heat flux which can easily be added into HTRCH for a complete heat budget analysis.
Jobson's method was evaluated using the recorded hourly temperature data at two monitoring sites in the
watershed, indicating the reliability of heat conduction estimates and the importance of this energy
component in stream temperature simulation. Watershed Segmentation and Database Development
Applying a semi-distributed parameter model like HSPF requires division of the watershed into relatively
homogeneous land and stream segments. Maps and digital databases of various land and stream
characteristics within the Upper Grande Ronde were assembled and processed with ARC/INFO GIS for
watershed characterization and segmentation. Overlaying of three data layers (topography, vegetation
types and soil characteristics, and locations of meteorologic stations) resulted in 19 pervious land
-------
segments (PERLNDs) in 5 groups and 51 stream reaches (RCHRESs) in 51 sub-basins.
Weather conditions in each of the five PERLND groups were represented by one of the five primary
meteorologic stations. Six other stations near the watershed were selected as secondary stations to
provide supplemental and reference data for developing the meteorologic database. There is only one
long-term USGS gaging station (#9000) at the watershed outlet which has mean daily streamflow
records. Observed hourly stream temperatures were available at 30 monitoring sites for the summers of
1991 and 1992 (Bohle, 1994). See Figure 1 for the locations of various stations. Based on the availability
of time series data, hydrologic simulations were conducted for eleven calendar years (1984 to 1989 for
calibration, and 1981 to 1983 for calibration) and stream temperature simulations for two calendar years
(1991 for calibration and 1992 for validation). The time step for all simulations was one hour. The time
series and spatial data described above were used to develop the WDM (watershed data management)
and UCI (user control input) files for HSPF and SHADE simulations. Pre- and post-processing of input
and output time series data sets in the WDM file were undertaken using ANNIE, METCMP, and
SWSTAT (also see Figure 2).
Simulation Results and Conclusions
The enhanced HSPF modeling system with the new SHADE model was applied to simulate the
watershed hydrology and stream temperatures in the Upper Grande Ronde. The hydrologic simulation
results are presented in Chen et al (1995). Stream temperature simulation confirmed the accuracy and
robustness of the modeling system. To identify the possible causes for reducing the high summer stream
temperatures, the impacts of hydroclimatic shifts and hypothetical riparian vegetation buffers were
evaluated. Simulations demonstrate that natural weather cycles of nl0% or n20% in air temperature,
solar radiation, and precipitation can not sufficiently moderate the stream temperature regimes for the
survival and reproduction of salmon. Therefore, riparian vegetation is the only critical factor that can be
managed to significantly alleviate the lethal and sub-lethal stream temperatures. Stream temperature
forecasts for restored riparian buffers demonstrate that 44 out of 51 reaches in the watershed can achieve
the standards which include the maximum summer temperature of 16oC and average 7-day maximum
temperature of 14.5oC. Downstream reaches on the mainstem Grande Ronde River are too wide to be
sufficiently shaded by the restored buffers to meet the standards. The creation of thermal refugia or other
management practices may be required if studies of the threatened salmon species show that the
mainstem is a critical habitat.
Simulated maximum values of stream temperature, on which the riparian restoration forecasts are based,
are accurate to 2.6 to 3.0oC. Hourly simulations have approximately the same accuracy and precision.
The phase, diurnal fluctuations, and day-to-day trends in stream temperature simulations are very good,
confirming the validity of shading computations and the observed air temperatures. Occasionally, the
model conservatively oversimulated, especially in localized areas where cool ground-water in-flow may
dominate. The difference in the spatial resolution between the reach-averaged simulations and the point
measurements of stream temperature, together with other data uncertainties such as the limited precision
and accuracy of riparian shading characteristics and the lack of extensive channel morphological data,
-------
caused some systematic simulation errors for 13 of the 27 calibration sites which have valid data.
In summary, the application study demonstrated the validity and usefulness of the SHADE-HSPF
modeling system. With the SHADE-generated solar radiation data, the enhanced HSPF modeling system
can accurately simulate reach-averaged stream temperatures at the watershed scale by accounting for the
riparian shading characteristics and the thermal impacts of basin-wide land cover on the runoff
temperatures. Compared to the 8 to lOoC violations of the temperature standards under the present
riparian vegetation conditions in the Upper Grande Ronde, the model accuracy of 2.8oC is more than
adequate to assess riparian restoration scenarios. The calibrated and validated HSPF modeling system
will be used to target critical temperature-impaired reaches for riparian restoration and to predict the
effectiveness of various hypothetical restoration alternatives in supporting of the development of the
nation's first stream temperature TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load).
References
Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle, Jr., A.S. Donigian, and R.C. Johanson. (1993) Hydrologic
Simulation Program - FORTRAN (HSPF): Users Manual for Release 10. EPA/600/R-93/174,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, 660 pp.
Chen, Y.D. (1996) Hydrologic and Water Quality Modeling for Aquatic Ecosystem Protection
and Restoration in Forest Watersheds: A Case Study of Stream Temperature in the Upper Grande
Ronde River, Oregon. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens, GA, 268 pp.
Chen, Y.D., S.C. McCutcheon, R.F. Carsel, A.S. Donigian, Jr., J.R. Cannell, and J.P. Craig.
(1995) Validation of HSPF for the water balance simulation of the Upper Grande Ronde
watershed, Oregon, USA. In: G. Petts (ed), Man's Influence on Freshwater Ecosystems and Water
Use, IAHS Publication No. 230, p. 3-13.
Jobson, H.E. (1977) Bed conduction computation for thermal models. J. Hydraul. Div Am. Soc.
Civ. Eng. 103(HY10): 1213-1216.
Norton, D.J., M.A. Flood, and B.A. Mcintosh. (1996) EPA's GATF project: modeling, monitoring
and restoring water quality and habitat in Pacific Northwestern watersheds. Poster Paper in
Proceedings of Watershed'96.
-------
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Evaluation and Use of Fertilizer and Pesticide Fate
and Transport Models At Golf Courses
William Warren-Hicks, Ph.D, Vice President
The Cadmus Group, Durham, NC
Miles M. (Bud) Smart, Ph.D., President and CEO
The Turf Science Group, Inc., Cary, NC
Charles H. Peacock, Ph.D., Professor
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC
Pesticide fate and transport to receiving waterbodies near golf courses have become important issues to
the regulatory and scientific community. Unfortunately, few if any studies are available that rigorously
evaluate existing models for their applicability and accuracy of prediction under the soil and turf profiles
typically found at golf courses. EPA and other regulatory agencies are currently formulating policy
designed to minimize the impacts of pesticides on receiving streams based on expected toxic effects of
pesticides to plants and wildlife. However, the analytical tools needed to predict actual instream
concentrations of pesticides under standard application rates have not been tested or validated for golf
course conditions. In particular, many existing models are designed at the "micro-scale", requiring
complex information on soil profiles, hydrology, rate constants, and other hydro-geographic information
which is typically not available at most golf course locations. In most regulatory applications, models
developed at the "macro-scale" may be more applicable and require much less information to run.
This presentation contains results of an intensive study funded by the U.S. Golf Association to evaluate
the universe of potential fate and transport models. The study consisted of the following phases: (1)
identification of candidate models; (2) review of all models with respect to data requirements,
applicability to regulatory settings, ease of use, and expected prediction accuracy and precision; (3)
-------
selection of the best 2 or 3 models for rigorous evaluation; (4) quantitative testing and validation of the
best models with actual monitoring information typically collected by golf courses; and (5) statistical
analysis of the models' accuracy and prediction under a variety of conditions.
An eight-step process was initiated to determine the suite of applicable models for macro-scale analysis
of pesticide and nutrient runoff from golf courses. Thirty models were evaluated. Models were selected
based on criteria that included the following characteristics: resolution, hydrology requirements and
handling, sediment transport requirements and handling, pesticide and nutrient management flexibility,
and total amount of input data required. Based on the established criteria, SWAT and SWRRBWQ were
selected. Two screening models were also selected: CHEMRANK and NPURG. These models represent
the most basic level of models in terms of assumptions, information needs, and output.
In addition, we developed and evaluated simple Tier I-level risk assessment procedures for determining
the potential risk of pesticides and nutrients to receiving streams.
At our presentation, we will present the final results of the analyses including the following:
1. An analysis of the of the precision and accuracy of SWAT and SWRRBWQ in predicting runoff
from golf courses will be presented. Model predictions will be compared with actual
measurements taken at operating golf courses.
2. Methods appropriate for Tier I risk assessment will be presented. These include cost-effective
procedures for evaluating the impacts of pesticide runoff on receiving streams near golf courses.
3. We will present an analysis of the differing environmental management decisions that a golf
course could possibly make based on the results from various assessment approaches, including
screening-level approaches and exposure modeling procedures. We will evaluate the associated
costs with each approach.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Visual/Interactive Method for Examining the
National Stream Quality Accounting Network
(NASQAN) Data
Lauren E. Hay, Hydrologist
William A. Battaglin, Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, CO
The U.S. Geological Survey's National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) program started
in 1973 and was designed to describe the water quality of the Nation's streams and rivers on a systematic
basis and to identify temporal trends in the concentration of measured constituents. There have been as
many as 500 sampling stations, and samples have been collected as frequently as monthly in the history
of the program. Samples were analyzed for a wide range of chemical constituents and properties. The
interpretation of NASQAN data on a regional scale has been limited.
This paper discusses the use of multimedia software on a personal computer to visualize and analyze
NASQAN data output generated using geographic information system and scientific visualization system
techniques in a way that can be accessed and understood by the general public and scientists. This
technique allows the user to interact with NASQAN data and visually examine a portion of the data base.
The discussion in this paper focuses on NASQAN sites in the Mississippi River Basin and selected water
quality parameters.
Introduction
This paper describes how an integrated system consisting of a large historical database, a geographic
information system (GIS), a scientific visualization system (SVS), and multimedia software are used to
produce an interactive data analysis tool that is useful to both the scientific community and the general
public. The integrated system allows users to analyze the vast amount of three-dimensional data
-------
contained in the NASQAN database in an intuitive manner, from both a scientific and a management
perspective. Visual representations of water quality constituent concentrations across space and over time
are used to facilitate data verification and interpretation. This paper briefly describes the: (1) NASQAN
database; (2) study area; (3) software components; and (4) interactive data analysis tool that is produced.
NASQAN Data Base
The National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN) program began periodic collection of
water quality and sediment samples at selected fixed sites in 1973. The number of sites in the network
increased from less than 100 in 1973-1974 to 518 during 1978-1986, then decreased to 284 by 1994. At
most sites, samples were collected monthly until the early 1980's when financial constraints resulted in a
decrease in sampling frequency to bimonthly or quarterly. The water quality characteristics measured at
NASQAN stations include water temperature and pH; common dissolved constituents such as calcium
and silica; major nutrients such as phosphorus and nitrogen; trace elements such as lead and zinc;
organics and biota such as organic carbon and phytoplankton; and suspended sediment (Ficke and
Hawkinson, 1975). The original objective of NASQAN was to account for the quantity and quality of
river water within and leaving the United States. In the 1980's the objectives of NASQAN were
broadened and efforts were made to identify trends in the concentration of measured constituents.
Declining availability of resources for the NASQAN program resulted in a decrease in sampling
frequency, limitations in the number and types of constituents measured, and limitations in the
interpretation of the data. Still, more than 65,000 samples have been collected and analyzed by the
NASQAN program. Currently (1996) the NASQAN program is undergoing a major redesign (NASQAN
II). In NASQAN II, fewer sites (80 or less) will be sampled. At these sites sampling will occur more
frequently (12-15 times annually) and more constituents (including pesticides) will be measured. Results
will be used to evaluate water quality conditions and constituent fluxes at selected locations on large
rivers in the Nation's largest river basins.
The example presented in this paper uses data collected at 221 NASQAN sites in the Mississippi River
Basin between 1971 (at some sites data were collected prior to the official start of NASQAN) and 1993.
These data were retrieved from a centralized database maintained on a computer in Reston, Va. (Kathleen
Fitzgerald, USGS, written commun., 1995). The bulk of the NASQAN data base soon will be released on
CDROM (Richard Alexander, USGS, oral commun., 1996). NASQAN data also have been published by
the USGS in annual state hydrologic data reports.
Study Area
The Mississippi River Basin (MRB) was selected as the study area for this paper because the MRB is the
largest river basin in North America (3,237,500 square kilometers) and the third largest basin in the world
(the Amazon and Congo River Basins are larger) (van der Leeden and others, 1990). The MRB drains
about 40 percent of the conterminous United States. The average MRB discharge (about 17,300 cubic
meters per second) is the seventh largest among world rivers. The MRB is home to more than 72 million
people (about 30 percent of the total U.S. population), and includes the majority of the Nation's cropland
-------
and livestock. For example, about 80 percent of the corn and soybeans and 60 percent of the cattle and
calves in the U.S. are produced in the MRB (U.S. Department of Commerce, 1989; Battaglin and
Goolsby, 1994). The application of agricultural chemicals (pesticides and fertilizers), tillage practices,
land irrigation or drainage, and urbanization of farm land affect surface water quality. Runoff from both
agricultural and non-agricultural land in the MRB contains sediment, naturally occurring chemicals
weathered from soils and rocks, and contaminants from human activities. These contaminants can have
significant effects on the quality of water in the MRB and the Gulf of Mexico (Justic and others, 1992).
The spatial and temporal variability of several contaminants that are affected by agricultural land
management practices have been monitored at NASQAN sites.
GIS, SVS and Multimedia Software
Geographic Information Systems (GISs) are useful to perform spatial analyses but commonly only used
to analyze two-dimensional data. GIS tools are integral to the understanding or modeling of geographic
phenomena because they provide easy data access and the ability to develop flexible methods for
quantifying spatial variables over discrete areas (Hay and Knapp, 1996). Analysis of spatially-distributed
data through time is tedious and time consuming as each time period is treated as a separate spatial layer.
Many hydrologic models use three-dimensional and/or time-variant data. A visual representation of three-
dimensional model output in two-dimensional space does not give the full representation of the data.
Scientific Visualization Systems (SVSs) can be used to generate interactive, multidimensional displays of
data, but lack data management facilities and the capability to perform complex spatial operations. The
objective of SVS software, to provide an interactive environment for visually exploring data, results in a
wider array of visualization techniques than those found in most GISs. SVS permit the manipulation and
display of data which have three spatial dimensions and are time variant. SVS also provides a variety of
techniques to present data including maps, animated maps, plots, cross-sections, glyphs, dynamic glyphs,
and statistical graphs. Incorporating SVS techniques into a geographic problem-solving environment can
greatly enhance data interpretation because both spatial and temporal dimensions can be explored, large
complex data sets can be viewed interactively, and multiple data images can be presented to
accommodate a variety of scientific and management perspectives.
Multimedia software (MS) is useful to produce stand-alone projectors (movies on a personal computer)
that are built from images produced using other software (such as GIS and SVS). Projectors with sound
incorporated can be distributed to other parties and viewed on a compatible personal computer.
GIS, SVS, and MS are individually strong in specific aspects of spatial data analysis and display, but are
inadequate in cross-functional analysis of complex problems. The software components of the integrated
system presented here consist of ESRI's GIS tool ARC/INFO (use of trade names does not constitute
endorsement by the USGS and is for identification purposes only), IBM's SVS tool Data Explorer (DX)
and Macromedia's MS tool Director.
Example
-------
.... Total N02 + N03
C- A . ^in mg/L as N
^ Year 1979
/
f
\

•"¦f , -T "
O Maximum = 9.0
~ Selected Station

01 23456789
mg/L
_l | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |-
= Mississippi River at Thebes, Illinois
±
j i i i i i i
Di
r-
o?
h-
m

m
h*
en
o
ro
CM
CO
o
CO
0*
<0
» CO
O* 0>
o
O)
<3>

*3"
o>
Year
-------
Year
Figure 1. Sample output from the data analysis tool.
The water quality constituents selected for display in this example are concentrations of total N02 + N03
as N, total phosphorus as P, and total dissolved solids, dissolved oxygen as a percentage of saturation,
fecal coliform count, and suspended sediment concentration.
In this example, the user is able to select: (1) a constituent; (2) a seasonal or annual time frame; and (3) a
station. For example, figure 1 shows total N02 + N03 as N on an annual average basis at all sites, and at
a selected station: Mississippi River at Thebes, 111.. The selected station appears with a black box around
it on the map. The maximum annual average concentration for that year appears highlighted with a circle
around the station. During the analysis, the station's marker symbol changes color as the annual average
concentration changes over time. The graph shows the annual average concentration at the selected
station for the period of record.
Each of the software components contributed to the making of the final data analysis tool. GIS provided
all the background coverages (rivers, state outlines, and station locations). SVS produced the actual
images utilizing the GIS information and sequencing through time. These images were saved and
transferred to the MS where sound, additional text, and interactive buttons were incorporated, producing
a stand alone projector.
Discussion and Conclusions
A method for viewing selected data from the NASQAN data base for the Mississippi River Basin is
described in this paper. In this method, the user is able to select a water quality parameter and observe
seasonal or annual concentration time series over space and time, in both spatial and graphical forms.
GIS, SVS, and MS were all used in the production of this data analysis tool which is transferrable to
compatible personal computers for interactive use. Interpretation of the NASQAN data using
visualization and statistical analysis provides a basis for the further understanding of water quality
conditions in the Mississippi River Basin.
References
Battaglin, W. A., and Goolsby, D. A. (1994) Spatial data in geographic information system format
on agricultural chemical use, land use, and cropping practices in the United States. U.S.
Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94-4176, 87 p.
Hay, L. E., and Knapp, L. K. (1996) Integrating a geographic information system, a scientific
visualization system, and an orographic precipitation model. Water Resources Bulletin (in press).
Ficke, J. F., and Hawkinson, R. O. (1975) The national stream quality accounting network
-------
(NASQAN)some questions and answers. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 719, 23 p.
Justic, D., Rabalais, N. N., and Turner, R. E. (1992) Riverborne nutrients, hypoxia and coastal
ecosystem evolution: biological responses to long-term changes in nutrient loads carried by the Po
and Mississippi Rivers. In Dyer, K. R., and Orth, R. J., eds., Proceedings of ECSA22/ERF
Symposium, September, 1992, Institute of Marine Studies, University of Plymouth, Olsen &
Olsen Academic Publishers, Fredensborg, Denmark, p. 161-167.
U.S. Department of Commerce. (1989) Census of agriculture, 1987_final county file. U.S.
Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census, [machine-readable data file].
van der Leeden, F., Troise, F. L., and Todd, D. K. (1990) The Water Encyclopedia. Second
Edition, Lewis Publishers, Inc., Chelsea, Michigan, 808 p.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
US Environmental Protection Agency Office of
Water-Water Systems Modernization
Lee Manning, Computer Specialist
Robert King, Environmental Protection Specialist
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington DC
Introduction
The Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Water has begun to re-engineer its primary marine and
freshwater ambient water quality and biological monitoring and information systems, the STOrage and
RETrieval System (STORET), Biological Information System (BIOS), and the Ocean Data Evaluation
System (ODES). This project, begun in 1992, and scheduled for completion in mid 1997 will represent a
first for the Agency in the area of large systems re-engineering. STORET, BIOS, and ODES contain over
250 million parametric observations from over 850,000 sampling stations nationwide. These data,
collected primarily by States, represent an investment of over $2.2 billion. These systems serve as the
Agency's primary sources of point and non-point source ambient water quality and biological monitoring
data and their analytical tools support a wide range of EPA water quality and ecosystem health
assessment activities.
This new system will better meet the emerging data and information needs associated with watershed
level environmental protection. This new system will also facilitate the data sharing activities and spatial
assessment requirements necessary for successful local watershed protection programs.
Implementation of new system will begin in mid 1997, initially in a client/server architecture probably
using a UNIX/Oracle server and a PC-based Oracle client workstation configuration. Additionally, we
may offer a version which will operate in a stand-alone mode on a 32-bit PC workstation. Final
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
determination of our implementation architecture will be made in late 1996. We expect to precede our
implementation and roll-out with a period of "Beta" testing in selected EPA Regional Offices. For these
tests, we will install the new system in the Region, and conduct hands-on training in its use. Feedback
from these tests will help determine the actual configuration of the new systems first release.
Background
The features of the new system are being carefully engineered to meet the information requirements of
our federal, state, and local clients engaged in ambient water quality and biological monitoring activities
of all kinds. The process of identifying the functions which make up these activities, and identifying
information generated by, and needed to, conduct them is known as Information Engineering (IE).
IE employs a common repository of analytical tools to construct models of data relationships and process
flows to efficiently design an information system to store data for an organization. To support the IE
approach the project team is using the Texas Instruments I-CASE tool set, Information Engineering
FacilityO to capture detailed data requirements.
This project began in early 1992 with a series of system requirements gathering workshops. EPA
conducted over 15 Joint Requirement Planning Sessions (JRPS) nationally involving well over 600
current STORET, BIOS, and ODES users, as well as their middle and senior managers. These workshops
were attended by many State and local governments, and several environmental organizations. From the
results of these workshops the Agency generated a high level data architecture, and formulated five
critical success factors for the new system:
1. It must be easy to get data in to and out of the system,
2. The system must have a menu access and browse capability,
3. The system must support the storage of quality assurance and quality control (QA/QC)
information on a project basis,
4. The system must be flexible and able to change with the changing needs of its users,
5. The system must provide a wide range of standard output formats, i.e., dBase, Lotus, ASCII...
including the GIS environment.
The immediate next steps conducted during 1993 and 1994 included the completion of the business area
analysis, construction of logical data model, and the prototyping of system functional requirements. User
testing of portions of the new system began in late 1994. Users were formally introduced to the new
system during a National Workshop held in Dallas in February 1995. At this workshop attendees began
the testing and validation of user requirements, a process which is crucial to user acceptance of the new
system. At the next National Workshop, tentatively scheduled for September 1996, users will begin
-------
testing the complete system prototype. Roll-out of Production Version 1.0 of the new system for use by
the federal, state, and local users is planned for mid 1997.
Database Design
The new system, designated STORET X for development purposes, has been divided into 5 primary
business areas, each one representing a closely related set of activities and their associated data. These
are:
1. Identify and describe organizations which conduct ambient water quality and biological
monitoring activities.
2. Identify and describe the projects or surveys within which these activities are carried out.
3. Identify and describe the physical locations (sites, areas) at which monitoring occurs.
4. Identify and describe water quality sampling, observation, and measurement activities which
occur at these sites.
5. Record the results of sample analyses and field measurement.
The STORET X prototype embodies these five business areas. As mentioned earlier we will be
demonstrating this new system to current and future clients beginning in September 1996.
The following discussion highlights the key features of the new system, with an emphasis on areas in
which it differs from the legacy systems it will re-place.
Organizations
In STORET X, organizations will be the primary owners of data, and will control access to it.
Organizations will also own metadata, or data describing their data. Organizations will own project
descriptions, and lists of organizations and people with whom they work. Organizations will also control
a broad set of lists representing their preferences or usual practices associated with their monitoring
activities. These lists may include aids to data entry (e.g. substances tracked by monitoring activities,
habitat evaluation criteria, and so forth), equipment used in the field, methods used in their labs,
bibliographic references they use, and many others.
Projects or Surveys
Monitoring activities are organized by Project or Survey. The descriptions of an organization's projects
-------
will be kept, in summary form, in STORET X. Field activities and their analytical results will be linked
directly to all the projects they support. Projects may in turn be linked to programs, and because
programs may be defined broadly to include the projects of several organizations, data from any field
activity may be easily shared among both organizations and projects.
Project descriptions will permit the linking of data quality objectives and other quality control plan items
to a broad spectrum of data. In this way, the needs of users for data quality descriptors can be met with a
minimum of data entry effort.
Sites or Areas Monitored
As in the legacy systems, all data concerning field work is keyed to the specific location at which the
field work is conducted, so that measurements of water quality obtained can be linked to the place they
represent. The concept of "site" in STORET X is broader than it was in these older systems.
Location is very important to EPA, and the EPA standards for locational data are strictly followed in
STORET X. In addition, all applicable federal standards (FIPS, NIST, and others) are used wherever
possible.
Each STORET X site has a point of reference, whose latitude and longitude are fully defined. In addition,
each site may include an area boundary, a field of actual monitoring locations, and the descriptions of
any permanent sampling grid or transect found there. For facility sites, additional locational data may be
entered for the individual end-of-pipe locations, and for well sites, a field of individual wells may be
described.
Sites may participate in external reference schemes, and may carry identifiers from these schemes. For
example, a site in STORET X might have an NPDES number, and also be assigned a code to represent it
within a state regulatory program. In addition, any site which contributes data to a project may be
assigned a project-specific identifier to assist project staff in easily identifying it.
Once a site has a defined reference point, with a latitude and longitude consistent with EPA policies for
locational data, it may be assigned to one or more projects, and begin collecting samples. This assures
that all results are place-based.
Site Visits, Cruises or Trips
The collection of environmental data is always linked to a specific site visit, to relate it to both space and
time. Site visits are treated as events on a trip (or cruise), and activities which are related to multiple site
visits are linked to the trip. Trip descriptions will include the names of key participants, cooperating
organizations, and the sites to be visited. Certain Quality Control (QC) activities such as the preparation
and handling of trip level, as well as, site and sample level QC samples are linked directly to the trip and
-------
associated with their corresponding individual(s) samples.
Each site visit on the trip becomes an opportunity to make field measurements, record observations about
both the site and the environment at the site during the visit, and to collect samples. Single sites may be
visited more than once during a trip, and sample collection may occur repeatedly during each visit.
Samples collected may include biological catches/traps, sediment grabs, water, or air samples.
Field Monitoring Activity
Field monitoring activity may consist of water, air, or sediment sample collection, biological specimen
catch/trap events, and any measurements or observations obtained while at the site. Each of these field
activities is linked to those analytical results it generates.
Measurements and Observations
Information gathered in the field through the process of measuring or observing the environment during
the site visit is recorded in STORET X as part of the site visit description. These data may include
physical conditions of the site itself, status of any equipment permanently located at the site, biological
habitat assessments, weather observations, and simple field-determined physical or chemical data.
Samples
Samples are described according to the medium sampled, and the intent for which they were collected.
Methods and equipment used to collect samples are fully described, by linkage to lists of methods and
equipment. These lists will be available from EPA, or client organizations may choose to supply their
own lists.
STORET X will accept descriptions of the sample collection process which address the complete
spectrum of water monitoring and sampling of the biological community. For large area samples, such as
trawls, details such as the lat/long of its end points, the gear deployment depth, the bottom conditions
under the trawl, and others can all be recorded.
Samples can be created from other samples, by compositing, splitting, or subsampling. Each new sample
is linked to its "parents", so that it can be traced back to all the events which might influence its results. A
sample which is generated by a trawl (a "catch") might be the parent of a sample which is an individual
fish. The fish in turn might be the parent of a sample which is a specimen of liver tissue, and chemical
results for this liver specimen can thus be traced back to the spatial coordinates of the original trawl.
Results
Each result is attached to a field monitoring activity. If the activity was the collection of a water sample,
-------
the results are qualified by all the methods used to collect, handle, store, and process that sample. The
results may be further qualified by the identity of the lab performing the analytical work, and equipment
and methods used in this process. Statistical information concerning confidence intervals may be
supplied, and for results which are not quantified, detection status and quantitation status may be stored.
Results which are counts or percentages may be qualified by the range of some size or weight variable
which they represent.
Biological results are handled in different ways. For a "catch", the biota may be grouped and regrouped
repeatedly for counting, weighing, or measuring. For example, one grouping might be by taxon, and the
counts recorded for purposes of computing taxonomic diversity and richness. Another grouping might be
a user-defined histogram or class frequency table of fish lengths within a species, and yet another might
be to record counts and weights of only adults, or only gravid females, or any other category the analyst
might request. A catch might be divided so that a group contains only 1 individual, and a detailed
description of it recorded.
Planned Outputs
STORET X will emphasize the delivery of data to the end user, in the form most compatible with the
intended analysis. A variety of data delivery formats is envisioned which will facilitate the export of
STORET X data onto the local workstation, from which it may be portrayed statistically or graphically,
or imported into a Geographic Information System (GIS). Users will have broad latitude in defining these
export formats. In addition, certain aids to data interpretation will be available on our server, to enable
data browsing and to provide data summaries.
Summary
STORET X is the first major change to EPA's immensely popular STORET System since its inception in
1964. With this new system, the water monitoring community will have access to information and data
structures which accurately reflect the current and future way they do their jobs, and which can be
effectively used by decision makers to both plan and evaluate the effectiveness of pollution prevention
and abatement programs.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Characterizing Drinking Water Quality In the
Watershed: Do We Have The Tools?
Carl B. Reeverts, Chief
Drinking Water Data Management and Support Branch
Drinking Water Implementation Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Characterizing Drinking Water Quality-Data Management vs. Data
Availability
Our ability as State and EPA regulators to characterize the drinking water quality in the watershed is in
most cases poor. Even the data available to the water systems on their own water supply sources is
limited in scope and sporadic. Yet despite the data gap, source water management has emerged at the
national and state levels as an attractive alternative to the existing drinking water regulatory framework.
EPA has taken advantage of its limited statutory discretion to build such options into its current
regulatory program. Under EPA's Surface Water Treatment Rule over 150 water systems were allowed to
avoid filtration treatment (and save millions of dollars in capital costs) because they were able to show
their source water was protected from contamination. Many thousands of water systems also were
granted monitoring waivers for selected chemicals where the data showed that the source water was not
susceptible to contamination. Such incentives are likely to increase in the future: Source water protection
will likely find its way in one form or another into the Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorizatrion
proposals now under consideration in Congress.
Are we as regulators able to take advantage of the source water alternative to the traditional "monitor,
then treat" drinking water regulatory structure? Do we have an adequate information base to know which
source waters are impaired and what potential risks to drinking water supplies are on the horizon? The
short answer is NO! Although there is plenty of water quality monitoring data available from several
-------
different programs, we have been unable to effectively collect, integrate, and manage the existing data to
systematically show which source waters are at risk and which are not.
What can we do to improve data management to support our source water initiatives? At least at EPA
and most states, launching a new data collection initiative is not on the horizon. The challenge is to make
effective use of the tools already in place on the existing data bases to better characterize drinking water
quality in the watershed.
This paper will focus on two data management tools that could help states build a source water quality
data base. First, Section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act requires the states to prepare on a biennial basis
an assessment of which water bodies are meeting the designated uses defined under State Water Quality
standards, including for drinking water use. The guidelines sent to the states for the 1996 305(b) report
included for the first time a detailed technical approach to assembling available Clean Water and Safe
Drinking Water Act data to make the assessment. Second, EPA is beginning the installation of the new
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS) in selected states, which will give the states
capability (at their option) to merge analytical results data through Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
with locational data on water sources, flow, and treatment.
The 1996 Guidelines for the CWA 305(b) Report and Drinking Water
Assessments
The 1996 305(b) Guidelines provide a framework for characterizing drinking water quality in the
watershed. States are asked to assess whether water bodies can support their use as water supplies and
then to group each water body into one of five categories, based on an objective look at available
monitoring and other data: fully supporting, threatened, partially supporting , non-supporting, or
unassessed. States are asked to focus their drinking water use assessments on those contaminants with
State Water Quality Standards under the Clean Water Act that also are regulated under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
The Guidelines lay out three different data sources for use in the state assessment of drinking water use
support:
¦ Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Data available at the state from the water quality management
program for rivers, lakes, and reservoirs used as drinking water supplies by public water systems.
¦ Drinking Water Use Restrictions set by the state or local government for a specific source,
including closures, other restrictions (e.g., boil water notices), or requirements for treatment based
on source water quality.
¦ Public Water System (PWS) Compliance Monitoring Data required to be submitted to the state
under the drinking water regulatory program.
-------
Ambient water quality monitoring data, including raw water data collected at the water intakes, is clearly
the best data source. But availability of such ambient monitoring data is sharply limited for most source
waters. Data on use restrictions is even more limited. These data limitations in the past have resulted in a
relatively small percentage of water bodies with drinking water use assessments. EPA proposed new
guidelines that the states use the compliance monitoring data base where other data is not available or
inconclusive. By broadening the data base to monitoring data taken at the water system itself, EPA hoped
to increase the percentage of water bodies assessed for drinking water use.
This recommended new protocol is fraught with risk if not used carefully. First, much of the water
system data is collected after treatment, and may not properly represent the source water quality. Second,
the drinking water data base may be managed by a separate Division or Agency in the state and the
integration of data sources may not be feasible. The Guidelines address how such risks can be avoided
through a front end screening of available data before use in the water body assessment.
Safe Drinking Water Information System (SDWIS)
SDWIS offers the states a data base structure to store, retrieve, analyze, and report on data needed to
complete the drinking water portion of the 305(b) report. SDWIS contains information on over 200,000
public water systems. The potential for its use to support 305(b) assessments is great, but tailoring such a
use for SDWIS will be a long undertaking and require considerable resources.
EPA initiated the modernization of its previous drinking water data base (i.e., the Federal Reporting Data
System (FRDS)) in 1992 to address existing drinking water data deficiencies and to respond to an
emerging Agency priority to integrate data bases around "places" rather than programs. The objective
was to improve the accessability and quality of drinking water data to a broader range of stakeholders,
including the states. EPA published an Information Strategy Plan (ISP) in December, 1992 that defined
the components of the data base structure and the technical architecture of the system itself.
The SDWIS data base structure laid out in the ISP covered all aspects of the drinking water business,
from traditional drinking water elements-such as inventory, sampling, monitoring schedules, and
enforcement-to program tools such as automatic compliance determinations and monitoring schedule
adjustments.
The technical architecture envisioned two systems: a national EPA data base (converted from FRDS)
residing on DB2 on the EPA Mainframe (called SDWIS/FED) and a State-level Oracle-data base
operating in a network environment using either Novell or IBM's OS/2 LAN manager (called
SDWIS/LAN). The two systems would use the same data model and data element encyclopedia. Upload
of selected data fields to the EPA SDWIS/FED data base from the State SDWIS/LAN would be part of
the system design.
SDWIS is being developed in a modular fashion, with each successive module integrated into an
upgraded version offered to the states for installation. The current version of SDWIS includes four core
-------
business systems (inventory, sampling and analytical results, compliance schedules, and automatic non-
compliance determinations for selected rules). SDWIS/FED replaced FRDS as the EPA data base of
record last August. The SDWIS/LAN software has been installed in nine states and two Regional Indian
Land programs. We will shortly offer the states the capability to electronically transfer sampling data
directly from the analytical lab to the SDWIS data base, using an Electronic Data Interchange (EDI)
standard approved by ANSI. Eventually, we expect over 30 states to adopt SDWIS/LAN as their
drinking water data base of record.
The potential for use of the SDWIS data base to support the states' 305(b) assessment is great. The
SDWIS/LAN data base can be used, at the state's option, to store analytical results for both regulated and
unregulated contaminants, linked to each water source and treatment facility. The data base includes
common identifiers, including HUC code and lat/long, that could give a spacial dimension to the data and
link it with related data used in the 305(b) assessment. Special fields in SDWIS will allow data sharing
with STORET and other state data bases to better characterize the water quality in selected watersheds.
The Challenge-Taking Steps Now that Make a Difference in the
Future
The two data management tools outlined here are of most use to the states, who have the most to gain
from better management of the available data to characterize drinking water quality in their watersheds.
The 1996 305(b) Guidelines define a protocol for States to collect and evaluate data from several sources
to make a reasoned assessment of whether water bodies meet their drinking water designated uses. The
emergence of SDWIS as the State drinking water data base provides a vehicle that supports the state use
of this 305(b) protocol. Although only 9 States and two Regional offices currently have the SDWIS
application installed locally, there are close to 25 additional states who are interested in pursuing SDWIS
over the next several years.
The integration of SDWA information into what has traditionally been a CWA program is no small
undertaking. The benefits of such integration for building a drinking water source water protection
program could be substantial, but the resource investment at the state level is significant. States interested
in using the 305(b) process for the drinking water assessment, in conjunction with SDWIS
implementation, should work closely with both the water quality and drinking water staff at EPA to
devise a multi-year strategy to bring the various pieces together.
References
U.S. EPA, "Guidelines for Preparation of the 1996 State Water Quality Assessments (305(b)
Reports)," Chapter 5, Section 5.4 and Chapter 7 (EPA 841 B-95-001, May 1995)
U.S. EPA, "Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) Information Strategy Plan," (Dec.31, 1992)
-------
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Application of Agricultural Nonpoint Source Models
to Predict Surface Water Quality Resulting From
Golf Course Management Practices
Leslie R. Brunell, P.E. (January 1996)
Demitris Dermatas, Ph.D.
Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, NJ
Roy W. Meyer, Ph.D.,
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection - Pesticide Control
Program, Trenton, NJ
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Abstract
Pesticide use on golf courses within the State of New Jersey is presently being examined as a major
contributor to the degradation of surface and ground water quality. In April of 1991, as part of an effort
to determine pesticide use in New Jersey, a survey was sent to all 219 courses within the state by the
New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection Pesticide Control Program (NJDEP-PCP). Of the
219 golf courses surveyed, 204 responded to the survey (93%). From these completed surveys, it was
determined that fungicides are the most widely used pesticide within the state, accounting for 63% of all
pesticides utilized.
-------
The goal of this survey was to address public concerns, establish monitoring programs for pesticide use,
and develop guidelines for golf course management. In 1993, the NJDEP draft manual entitled a
"Guidance Manual for Siting, Design and Maintenance of Golf Courses" recommended the use of
computer models to predict the impact of pesticides on surface water. In conjunction with the NJDEP-
PCP, Stevens Institute of Technology examined the use of several agricultural nonpoint source models to
determine their applicability to a golf course management. This paper presents the use of an existing
agricultural water quality model to predict surface water quality resulting from different golf course
management practices.
Modeling a Golf Course
Participation in the NJDEP-PCP golf course survey was strictly voluntary. The courses which
participated provided all chemical application information for 1993, 1994 and 1995. As part of a
continuing investigation by the NJDEP-PCP, several golf courses granted permission to the NJDEP-PCP
to obtain surface water and soil samples periodically throughout the year. These samples were used to
validate the computer model.
The course selected for the initial modeling began operation in June of 1993. Prior to its development as
a luxury 18-hole course, the land was part of the New Jersey Pine Barrens, and most likely not subjected
to chemical applications. As a result, any chemicals found in the surface water and soil samples were
assumed to be related to current golf course management practices. The course covers approximately 80
acres and is located within the southern coastal plain of the state (Atlantic County). The soils in this
region are generally a sandy loam and classified as hydrologic soil group B. The surface water within the
course is collected by four detention basins. Surface water and soil samples were taken by the NJDEP-
PCP in May, July, August, September and November of 1994. The water samples were taken from the
surface of each pond, and soil samples taken along the banks. These sample locations were chosen
because they represented the low point within each drainage area.
The computer model selected for the analysis was Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural
Management Systems (GLEAMS). It is an extension of the Chemical Runoff, and Erosion from
Agricultural Management Systems Model (CREAMS). These models were developed by the United
States Department of Agriculture Agricultural Research Service (USDA-ARS) Southeast Watershed
Research Lab. The GLEAMS model consists of four input files, hydrology, erosion, pesticide and
nutrient. Since the golf course survey indicated that pesticides where the most commonly used chemical,
the nutrient component of the GLEAMS model was not considered.
The GLEAMS model was chosen for several reasons: (1) It was recommended by the NJDEP in it's draft
golf course design guidance manual, (2) It is a very user friendly model and (3) The data necessary to run
the GLEAMS can be obtained from construction drawings of the course, chemical application records,
the county soil survey, minimal soil samples, and sound engineering judgment.
The GLEAMS model was used to predict the fate of pesticides in surface water for 1993 and 1994 on the
-------
Atlantic County course. Input files were created for each of the four drainage areas, the required
Hydrology, Erosion and Pesticide input for the GLEAMS simulation were as follows:
Hydrology
The drainage area, hydraulic slope and the ratio of the field length to width were obtained using the
construction drawings of the course. A Soil Conservation Curve Number (SCS-CN) of 80 was selected
due to the extremely dense nature of the surface of a golf course. The root zone for the course was
chosen to be 6-inches. This was determined from soil samples and available data on the turf. Two soil
horizons were determined to exist within the 6-inch root zone. The top 2-inches were found to consist of
a very sandy soil and the 4-inches immediately below consisted of a sandy loam. The parameters
required for these two soil layers were obtained from laboratory tests, the United States Geological
Survey (USGS) Soil Survey for Atlantic County, New Jersey, and other available data. Other hydraulic
parameters including porosity, field capacity, wilting point, saturated conductivity, organic matter
content, and the percent of silt and clay were also required. Environmental input parameters including the
mean monthly maximum and minimum temperatures, and monthly solar radiation for each year within
the simulation period are also necessary.
Erosion
The erosion component of GLEAMS accounts for the surface conditions of the drainage areas. An
overland flow profile was determined from the construction drawings of the golf course. A site visit was
also performed to verify the path. This overland flow profile was entered in segments of uniform slope.
The soil erodibility of the surface profile was entered in segments of uniform erodibility. The path should
best represent how the soil erodibility changes within the drainage area. For a golf course there are
several different land surfaces, turf grass, sand traps, rough areas and sometimes a natural border of
woods, each which can have a different erodibility. The overland flow path is further described by
parameters which include the soil loss ratio, contouring factor and the roughness coefficient (Manning's
"n"), for each segment. The overland flow path for the area was chosen to best represent the drainage
area.
Pesticide
Ten separate pesticides can be simulated in a single run of GLEAMS. The Atlantic County golf course
uses many different chemicals. The three most frequently used were Chlorothalonil, Iprodione and
Metalaxyl. These are all fungicides and were applied frequently throughout the season. The pesticide
input data included the water solubility of each pesticide, the half-life of the chemical within the soil,
upon the foliage and the partitioning coefficient. These values are all readily available, either from the
chemical manufacturer, or in applicable agricultural literature (Balough, 1992 and Meister, 1992). Along
with the chemical specific parameters, other input values included the concentration of pesticide residue
on the foliage and in the soil when the simulation began, the fraction of pesticide on the foliage available
-------
for washoff by rainfall and the coefficient of pesticide uptake by the plants.
Following the chemical specific input, the pesticide application information was entered. The application
rates were entered according to the Julian date of the application, the pesticide being applied, the depth of
incorporation, and the fraction of pesticide applied to the soil and the foliage. These values were entered
for each day of application within the simulation period.
Results of the GLEAMS Simulation
The GLEAMS model was used to simulate the four separate drainage areas within the Atlantic County
course. The results of each area were analyzed separately and compared to the field samples obtained
from the respective areas. Since the results of the four areas was determined to be similar, only one of the
four areas will be presented for discussion. Also, since Metalaxyl was the only pesticide consistently
detected in the field samples, further analysis of Chlorothalonil and Iprodione was discontinued.
The output from the GLEAMS model gave the predicted pesticide concentration in the runoff water,
sediment and percolation water. Since this study was directly concerned with the contamination of
surface water, only the concentrations in the runoff water were examined. The predicted concentrations
of Metalaxyl in the runoff water for a single drainage area are presented in Figure 1.
The initial predicted concentrations of Metalaxyl did not correlate well with the actual surface water
samples taken by the NJDEP-PCP. It was determined that GLEAMS was not accounting for the dilution
and degradation of the pesticides in the ponds. The GLEAMS model was modified to account for these
processes. The final predicted concentrations of Metalaxyl compared to the actual sample results are
presented in, Figure 2.
Figure 2 shows the initial levels of Metalaxyl in one of the ponds and the degradation which then takes
place. The three points represent the samples taken by the NJDEP-PCP on August 24, September 15, and
November 4, 1994. As can be seen from this figure, the final predicted concentrations of Metalaxyl were
in close agreement with the actual surface water samples.
Conclusions
The modified GLEAMS model can be a very useful and effective tool in predicting the movement of
pesticides on the surface of a golf course. The GLEAMS model was developed in order to predict the
fate of agricultural chemicals and determine the best management practices for agricultural land use.
Unlike farmland, golf courses are not flat and uniformly planted or maintained. With some modifications
to the program and the input parameters, GLEAMS can predict the movement of pesticides into the water
system of a golf course and which chemicals may pose a direct threat to the quality of surface waters.
The State of New Jersey presently has 219 USGA approved 18 hole courses. This number is expected to
-------
double by the year 2000. A predictive tool such as the modified GLEAMS model can be a valuable asset
to the golf course industry in order to preserve the quality of surface waters within the state. When the
construction of a course is proposed, the input requirements can be easily obtained through soil testing
and site plans. The GLEAMS model could be used to determine the best management practices for the
course, the best locations of ponds, and the most effective grading of the land. Using GLEAMS to model
an existing course can assist golf course managers in choosing the best management practices in order to
preserve surface water quality.
Future research on this subject should include the use of the GLEAMS model in conjunction with
additional program modifications/extensions to further refine the model's applicability for golf course
management.
References
Balogh, J. C., and W. J. Walker (1992) Golf Course Management and Construction,
Environmental Issues. Lewis Publishers, Michigan.
Farm Chemicals Handbook, 78th Edition (1992). Meister Publishing Company, Ohio.
Knisel, W. G. (1980) CREAMS: A Field Scale Model for Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion form
Agricultural Management Systems, U. S. Department of Agricultural Management Systems, U. S.
Department of Agriculture, Science and Education Administration, Conservation Research Report
No. 26.
Knisel, W. G., F. M. Davis and R. A. Leonard. (1993) GLEAMS Version 2.1, Part III: User
Manual, U. S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service.
NJDEP. (1993) Pesticide use in New Jersey, A Survey of Golf Courses and the Lawn Care
Industries. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy, Environmental
Safety, Health and Analytical Programs, Pesticide Control Program.
NJDEP. (1993) Guidance Manual for Siting, Design and Maintenance of Golf Courses in New
Jersey. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection and Energy.
-------
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Urban Forest Management of Community-Owned
Open Spaces
Brian M. LeCouteur, Environmental Planner/Forester and
The Metropolitan Washington Community Forestry Network
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC
Trees and forests are essential components of our communities that make a community more livable.
Studies show that trees and shrubs improve a community's appearance, improve energy efficiency and air
quality, and increase property values. Trees are also a factor in retaining and attracting residents, which
promotes community stability. More and more businesses are locating their offices and industrial
complexes in wooded settings because they present a desirable aesthetic atmosphere for their employees
and customers. But aesthetic benefits of a forested environment is only one of many provided by forests.
The economic and environmental benefits that forests provide are also part of the explanation for the
increasing value of forested real estate.
Nationally, 75% of the population lives in the urban/suburban environment and these areas are expanding
at a rate of 3500 acres per day.l Therefore, the need for our communities to develop a plan to manage
our remaining natural resources is becoming increasingly important. The remaining fragments of
undeveloped open space, parkland and street trees comprise the urban forest. Overall, our community
forests are declining from poor management and surveys indicate the rate of tree removal exceeds those
being planted.2 So it is important to properly mange these tracts to maintain their health in order to
derive the maximum benefit for both human and animal life.
Currently, a comprehensive guidance document for the owners of these tracts; homeowners associations,
community associations, or property management companies, is unavailable. Management is either
performed on an as needed basis, possibly incorrectly or not at all. To address this issue, COG staff in
coordination with the Community Forestry Network has developed the Community Forestry
-------
Management Handbook. This handbook was inspired by a concern for the care of these urban forest
lands, and also to foster an appreciation for this valuable resource. Another goal of this handbook is to
guide the forester/urban forestry professional to better understand the needs of the community in the
management of their urban forests. Together, all of these communities and their urban forest tracts are
"linked". By providing a consistent management philosophy, it is the hope that the outcome will be a
healthier forest, wildlife and human community.
The most important aspect of Community Forestry, as presented in this handbook, is promoting the idea
of stewardship of the environment. Whether the issue is water quality, soil erosion, or forest land
management, these aspects of the environment are so closely connected that an affect on one influences
them all. Stewardship of the environment must always be the first consideration whenever an activity
may affect any one of these environmental components. This applies to the largest of community projects
to the smallest homeowner project.
The focus of the program should be to re-establish woodlands removed during construction, landscaping
new areas for beautification, and preserving and maintaining the existing community forest. Activities
can range from creating a forested buffer along a stream, improving water quality in local streams, to
providing wildlife habitat for forest mammals and birds.
The key to growing and maintaining a healthy community forest is to involve the community and to
pursue those individuals or groups that will help attain these goals. This handbook is designed to provide
the basic information needed to begin to manage your community's forest.
Who Practices Community Forestry?
Community Forestry is the act of caring for our natural environment through the planting and
management of trees in our parks, open spaces, common lands, yards and streets. Supporters of
community forestry include private citizens, professionals, and governmental agencies. Private and
governmental professionals are also involved in community forestry, with backgrounds from the fields of
forestry, arboriculture, horticulture, wildlife, biology, natural resource conservation, and urban or
environmental planning. Also, citizens groups and grassroots organizations devoted to terrestrial and/or
watershed protection, community outreach and education and other civic-minded activities. Citizens
active in their communities promote community forestry through their attention, energy and time to
actively care for their surroundings.
How Does Community Forestry Begin?
Community Forest Management Programs can begin in different ways. The impetus may be a concerned
resident or group that promotes a community beautification project, or the influence of the environmental
quality of a neighboring community. Whatever the reason, everyone in the community has the
opportunity to make a personal contribution. The success of the forest management program will be
-------
determined by the cooperation of everyone involved.
This handbook presents a logical, step-by-step process on how to establish and continue a community
forestry program. The ultimate goal of a successful community forestry program is to create a sustainable
natural resource that provides a continual benefit to both the human and wildlife community. All
community members have a vested interest in the trees and other natural resources of the community.
The chapters in this handbook are organized so that they include the essential components of a
comprehensive Community Forestry Program. The following are the topics covered in the chapters of
this handbook.
Handbook Chapters
Chapter I - Establishing a Program
Chapter II - Conducting Forest Inventories
Chapter III - Creating A Community Forest Plan
Chapter IV - Tree Planting
Chapter V - Community Forest Maintenance
Appendices included cover information needed to execute the inventory and to aid in understanding the
management of the urban ecosystem. Among the most notable sections are: Sources of Technical
Assistance, Funding a Community Forestry Program, Pruning Standards, How to Hire an Urban Forestry
Professional, Contracting.
Forest Inventories
The core of this handbook is the nuts and bolts of how to implement an inventory of forest resources
within the framework of the existing community. The level of inventory conducted for the community
will be contingent upon the needs and resources of the community. Typically, a community has street
trees and landscaping, and in some cases larger tracts of urban forest. To evaluate these different types of
forest cover, the following two methodologies are discussed to inventory woody vegetation:
¦ Forest Tract Sampling This method refers to the process of collecting data from representative
plots of a forest stand or other vegetation type, and then using this data to estimate the content of
the entire tract. This eliminates the laborious task of locating and plotting each tree in a forest
stand.
¦ Individual Tree Inventory This method examines the entire tree population by gathering
-------
information on individual trees. The complete inventory is the most appropriate for street trees,
landscaped areas and "pocket" forest tracts. The data collection for these areas will concentrate on
exact location, health, size, species, and surrounding conditions. The identification of hazardous
trees is especially important in high traffic areas i.e. street trees, sidewalks, recreation areas etc..
This method is an intensive community forest assessment that clarifies maintenance needs,
maintenance budgets, and prioritizes management activities. The individual tree inventory does
require a thorough use of resources, however it does provide the best representation of forest
health for the community.
Once the community has determined the most appropriate inventory method for their purposed, the field
work can begin. The field survey portion of the forest inventory process combines all of the map overlays
to date and uses them to conduct the actual field survey work. Included in the handbook are field data
worksheets, instructions and examples of their application. For individual tree inventories, criteria are
listed on a field sheet to use in the evaluation of each tree. When the data is compiled for each inventory
method, it is transferred to a forest resource map overlay so that it may be viewed with other community
infrastructure. Figure 1 demonstrates how the resulting maps are compiled to provide a "picture" of how
all of the communities features are linked to aid in forest management decisions.
Step A. Compile MAPS 1,2, &3 overlays to create a composite of the community
Step B. Use the resulting compostie map to identify the areas to conduct field inventory using Forest
Tract Sampling and/or Individual Tree Inventory
Step C. Update Map 3 with field data retrieved during the field inventory (Step B).
Conducting the Field Survey
Map 2: Natural Features and General Cover Types
Map L; Coniiiiunity Features/Dase Map/Land Use
Map 3; Vegetation Map
Figure 1. Forest Resource Map Overlay.
Community Forest Plan
-------
The forest inventory is the key to developing a long-range community forest plan. Derived from the
plotting of the inventory data are two basic components:
¦ A Resource Map developed from the community forest inventory depicting the existing and future
planting patterns and other natural features for the entire community.
¦ A Forest Plan report that puts forth recommendations, actions and schedules to achieve the
community's stated goals for the program. The report should also include how the stated goals
will be achieved within the confines of the budget, available resources, related community
ordinances and policies and a list of program priorities for the long-term management of the
community forest.
A strategy is typically a combination of actions necessary to achieve a set of related goals and objectives.
For example, a goal may be to protect the community's water resources from nonpoint source pollution in
order to improve water-related recreation opportunities for the community. An effective strategy to
achieve this goal is to identify those areas from the inventory data that will provide the most benefit for
water quality through reforestation; evaluation of the quantity and quality of piped drainage that is
impacting the watershed and determine ways to improve that delivery system; and the implementation of
a community-wide education program on the use of pesticides, herbicides, fertilizers, and petroleum
products that find their way into streams. In doing this, other benefits derived will be an improvement of
wildlife habitat, aquatic habitat, community awareness and aesthetics. In turn, the resulting benefits will
include increased property values from the community-wide improvement and recreational benefits.
The final plan should be ecologically-based, economically feasible, dynamic and flexible enough to
allow updates in response to any changes in environmental conditions and community needs. Of course,
the achievement of these goals will require time to plan, implement within the confines of the budget. A
primary realization in situations where watershed degradation is the focus of the forest management plan
is that the direct benefits are only effective when performed in conjunction with other specific
rehabilitative techniques. An important period of convalescence for the watershed is coupled with a
realization that indications of improvement in the health of the watershed will occur as gradual as the
degradation.
Tree Planting
Planting street trees, landscaping reforestation or riparian restoration projects all require some
knowledge of what to plant, where to buy, and how to plant them. A Tree Planting Plan establishes a
program for planning and creating a community that is attractive and is environmentally functional. The
planting plan is necessary to establish a logical schedule to achieve the community's tree planting goals.
A planting plan can be implemented in one season or in phases depending upon community priorities and
the available resources and is divided into two sections: Landscaping/Street Trees and Reforestation.
-------
Trees are an important community asset in that they play a key role in determining the "livability" of a
community by softening the sometimes stark atmosphere of the urban/suburban environment. A healthy
community forest or forested commercial or residential property has been documented to increase
property values. Forested communities also contribute to a healthy ecosystem, and water quality benefits
through interception and absorption of rainfall over non-forested properties.
A Tree Planting Plan enhances the community benefits of trees by providing:
¦ Improved Long-Term Tree Health
¦ Reduced Maintenance Costs
¦ Improved Aesthetic Character
¦ Reduced Liability from Hazardous Trees
This chapter also provides guidance on how to select and purchase the right tree for the right
place matrices and tables of desirable characteristics for specific planting situations specifications for
reforestation projects and wildlife habitat planning.
Community Forest Maintenance
Frequently, maintenance of anything that requires it, receives large helpings of neglect. Natural systems
possibly suffer more as a result of an idea that if something is after all, natural, what kind of maintenance
could it possibly need? Well, the answer is...Plenty. When the forest exists without human interaction, it
does function well without maintenance. However, in the case of community forests, we are placing
humans and infrastructure into an environment where human interaction affects the performance of the
natural environment. The maintenance section provides guidance for developing a tree health monitoring
plan for watering, fertilization, pruning, pest identification and control measures. Timing of these needs
are summarized in a landscape maintenance calendar for the Mid-Atlantic region.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Best Management Practices and Integrated Pest
Management Strategies for Protection of Natural
Resources on Golf Course Watersheds
Charles H. Peacock, PhD, CPAg
North Carolina State University
Miles M. (Bud) Smart, PhD
Turf Science Group, Inc., Cary, NC
William Warren-Hicks, PhD
The Cadmus Group, Durham, NC
Introduction
Golf course management for the 21st century must be different than now. Whatever the futuristic plans
for the year 2000 might include, add three factors concerning the environment to those other golf course
management decisions which will affect how golf courses are managed-credibility, accountability and
defensibility. Why? Because the public does influence environmental law. Because the public will insist
that drinking water supplies be protected. Because of the link between water resources and watersheds,
management of water resources must include the watershed. Incorporation of Best Management Practices
(BMPs) to protect water resources should be part of the golf course's overall environmental management
program.
Golf course management decisions must be made based on the principles of Sustainable Resource
Management. This can be defined as a pattern of human activity that can be supported indefinitely. This
means it must be synonymous with progress. It also means becoming less dependent on non-renewable
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
resources and that activities associated with golf course management must not create a negative impact
environmentally. In many people's eyes, golf courses have an image as an energy waster and polluter.
Those knowledgeable about turfgrasses can offer many positive environmental impacts such as the
following: oxygen production; cooling of the atmosphere; absorption of sound and glare; preventing
erosion; and effective filtering of natural and synthetic contaminants. Equally, a second list could be
offered which touches on the positive impacts dealing with our quality of life including the following:
providing areas for popular recreational activities; increasing property values; providing greenspace and
wildlife habitats in urban areas; and economics-jobs! Less informed individuals, and those whose
agendas are anti-development and anti-golf would list the following as negative impacts: destruction of
wildlife habitat; sedimentation of wetlands; fertilizer and pesticide pollution; and wasting of valuable
water resources.
Environmental quality has many aspects. Public perception and attitude is often influenced by the
popular press. Consider the following article on the Neuse River which flows through Raleigh, North
Carolina to the coast:
"City sewage, industrial wastewater, farm fertilizers, livestock manure and lawn
and golf course chemicals are changing the Neuse (River), choking it with nitrogen
and phosphorus."
Julie Powers Rives
Raleigh News and Observer
Upon inquiring as the types of studies into the problems associated with environmental quality and the
Neuse River which focussed specifically on lawn and golf course problems, it was determined that there
were none. The reporter admitted that she was just making a "generalization." The danger here is
obvious. The public does not know what is a "generalization". Since fertilizers and pesticides are used on
lawns and golf courses they must create a pollution problem. What is lacking is good, scientifically valid
data which identifies a specific problem which must be corrected.
The response to these problems from the golf course perspective is clear. The industry must be proactive
and not only just point out the positive benefits, but must also address situations where golf course
management intersects with environmentally sensitive areas and develop management strategies which
will protect these areas. To protect natural resources within the watershed a threefold approach should be
taken as follows: 1) Preventative measures; 2) Control measures; and 3) Detection. This proactive
approach stresses incorporating Best Management Practices (BMPs) into the design as a preventative
strategy; protecting water quality through removal, filtration, detention or rerouting potential
contaminants before they enter surface waters; using Integrated Pest Management (IPM) to achieve BMP
goals; a Risk Assessment, including developing strategies for protection of environmentally sensitive
areas and guidelines for pesticide selection based on this assessment; and detection through an
environmental monitoring program that provides feedback to the golf course superintendent as to
conditions and movement of materials.
-------
Management Program
A well developed management plan will be well documented and structured. While some of the types of
information may at first seem elementary, to someone who is not scientifically astute it will lend
credibility to one's intentions to manage the golf course in a responsible way rather than making
instantaneous decisions. This plan should include, but not necessarily be limited to, the following:
Site Description and Evaluation-This will include a detailed description of the physical setting,
preferably hole-by-hole with the surrounding environment with drawings and/or aerial photographs as
available to delineate where concerns must be focussed. The description should also include details of the
topography and how it intersects with natural areas and interacts with management practices. The general
soils mapping should be included which classifies the native soils and gives an indication of fertility,
percolation, depth to bedrock and/or groundwater. Surface water features should be described and
located. Data on the climate should summarize conditions which relate to growth of turfgrasses at the
course and impact pest management strategies such as temperature, rainfall, potential evapotranspiration,
length of growing season, and mean first and last frost dates.
Golf Course Cultural Practices-Mowing affects playability, turf performance, stress tolerance, pest
problems and evapotranspiration. Mowing factors to consider include species, cultivars, and golfer's
expectations. Mowing objectives during optimum and stress situations should be described. Irrigation
factors such as slope, type of grass, height of cut, rooting depth, weather factors, soil types and irrigation
system performance should also be documented. Fertilization factors to be addressed should include soil
and plant tissue testing, objectives for growth, choice of materials, and environmental consequences.
Supplemental practices such as aerification (which could affect pesticide/nutrient loss due to runoff),
topdressing/vertical mowing (which affects thatch control and pesticide/nutrient response) and others are
also important.
Safety-Details on storage, handling, disposal and record keeping of pesticides related to worker
protection, employee right-to-know, OSHA, should be provided.
Best Management Practices-Developing the plan should rely heavily on use of (BMPs). There are several
goals of BMPs which are as follows:
¦ Reduce the off-site transport of sediment, nutrients and pesticides;
¦ Control the rate, method and type of chemicals being applied;
¦ Reduce the total chemical loads by use of IPM, economic thresholds, alternative pest control and
fertility testing
Examples of BMPs which can be put into place include:
¦ use of vegetative buffers for filtering runoff or sub-surface drainage
-------
¦ planting more pest resistant or stress tolerant cultivars
¦ culturally or biologically controlling pests
¦ using soil testing and plant tissue analysis to help determine nutritional requirements
There are many more examples which are intent on meeting the goals of BMPs as stated above (Balogh
and Walker, 1992; USEPA, 1993).
Integrated Pest Management-IPM is a BMP whose strategies have been applied in agriculture for over 30
years. Recently, the US Department of Agriculture has launched an initiative which has a goal to
implement IPM methods on 75% of the total crop acreage by the year 2000. The EPA supports this effort
and the Office of Pesticide Programs has been instrumental in helping golf course superintendents find
ways to incorporate IPM strategies into their programs. The definition of IPM as put forward by the
Responsible Industry for a Sound Environment (RISE) is as follows:
"A system of controlling pests in which pests are identified, action thresholds are considered, all possible
control options are evaluated and selected controls are implemented. Control options-which include
biological, chemical, cultural, manual and mechanical methods-are used to prevent or remedy
unacceptable pest activity or damage."
The choice of control options then is based on:
¦ effectiveness
¦ environmental impact
¦ site characteristics
¦ worker/public health and safety
¦ economics
The basic components of IPM are 1) monitoring of potential pest populations and their environment; 2)
determining pest injury levels; 3) decision making-developing and integrating all biological, cultural and
chemical control strategies; 4) educating personnel on all biological and chemical control strategies; 5)
timing and spot treatment utilizing either the chemical, biological or cultural methods; 6) evaluating the
results an on-going process. This necessitates that the turf manager and people involved in the IPM
program have a thorough knowledge of turf and its pest problems, that there be a structured monitoring
or scouting program the intensity of which is determined by the value of the area and a knowledge of
pest life cycles and that detailed records are kept to measure the effectiveness of the program and record
information on which to make future decisions.
There are six basic approaches for turf protection using IPM as follows: 1) regulatory using certified
seed, sod, and sprigs; 2) genetic selecting the best adapted species/cultivars for the location; 3) cultural-a
healthy grass means fewer problems; 4) physical-isolating areas where pests are a problem; 5) biological-
favoring natural competition; and 6) chemical-which is selective, but may be necessary. One of the
critical strategies to an IPM approach is to set thresholds for pest problems and try to only use chemical
-------
treatments when they are exceeded. This requires vigilant daily scouting for pests by qualified personnel
who are trained to recognize the pest problem even at an early stage.
These are also largely determined by the value of the area and the recuperative capacity of the turf
(Watschke et al., 1994). Information on the biology of insect problems common to the area should also
be included in an IPM plan. For example, there is a degree day model on billbug larvae and adults that
uses climatic information on which to base the scouting program and plan the most effective treatment
schedule.
Thresholds for fungal and bacterial diseases are less well defined and depend to a great extent on the
turfgrass species, prevailing environmental conditions, economic or aesthetic value of the site, and the
cost of chemical treatment versus renovation of damaged turf sites. Thresholds may also be based on
previous history of infection at the site, particularly for problems such as Spring Dead Spot, Take-All
Patch and Summer Patch. Similarly, weed problems can be handled with the same objective in mind.
Monitoring programs focus on two objectives as follows: the IPM objective, to determine if pest
populations are building to a point they will need some form of control to be implemented; and the
environmental objective to determine if any environmental impact is occurring. Monitoring for golf
agronomic purposes can be grouped by frequency. There are those items which need to be monitored on
a daily basis such as quality of cut, soil moisture, disease incidence, weed infestation and leaf insects; on
a weekly basis such as soil temperatures, tissue nitrogen concentrations, algae and moss infestation and
the presence of hydrophobic soil problems; on a monthly basis the soil profile should be examined for
presence of fungi, compaction, infiltration rate, soil pH should be analyzed, and the irrigation system
should be checked for calibration; at least annually a complete soil analysis should be performed,
drainage should be evaluated, wind movement and shade should be checked. The determination of timing
on these and other factors may vary due to location and the type of soil and turfgrasses in the area. But,
some form of structured program should be in place to collect information to help in making
management decisions.
IPM is an evolutionary process! Changes will continually be made to the program as information is
collected about the golf course, new information on strategies for control and as the options for control
change. When starting an IPM program it is important that it be a structured program. The monitoring
should be set up to use designated scouts (which should include the superintendent), keep detailed
records and continually evaluate the results.
Risk Assessment
Risk Assessment is the process of assigning magnitudes and probabilities of effects to ecosystems
resulting from human activities or natural phenomena. The risk assessment protocols include procedures
that characterize the source of the risk, the ecological resources at potential risk, the magnitude of the
hazard, the exposure potential, and the assessment of risk. A list of pesticides appropriate for use in
watershed locations should be developed from this type of analysis. Based on the receptors on the
-------
property, restrictions for use of certain materials should be made where appropriate. Evaluation of
materials should start with chemical properties and site conditions. Further evaluation will be based on
exposure potential and toxicity and screening models such as GUS, SCS ad PLP can be used. At this
point, materials may be accepted for use or require further evaluation. Computer simulations and
maximum exposure limitations can further refine the list of those acceptable for use, perhaps with
restrictions on locations based on site conditions such as slope, soil texture, proximity to surface water
features, etc. This risk assessment procedure will allow development of a list of pesticides which under
well managed conditions present the least possible potential for environmental problems.
Cooperative Sanctuary Program
An additional option as part of the overall IPM and monitoring strategy is to consider becoming a part of
the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary Program of Audubon International. The whole approach to the
Audubon program is to promote sound land management and conservation of natural resources,
incorporating every aspect of the use of BMPs and IPM. Additionally, it encourages the superintendent
to take a leadership role in conservation projects and the recognize those golf courses for their efforts.
Under this program, everyone should work towards gaining certification in the areas of environmental
planning, public involvement, integrated pest management, wildlife food enhancement, wildlife cover
enhancement, water conservation and water enhancement. These are not just critical issues from the
public relations perspective, but promote and document good stewardship on the golf course.
Summary
The benefits of incorporating BMPs and IPM into golf course management programs are threefold:
¦ assures more judicious use of pesticides/fertilizers
¦ an economic savings
¦ public relations over environmental concerns and less environmental impact
IPM strategies have been successfully employed at thousands of golf courses around the world. By
adopting the strategies of prevention, control and detection and using recognized conservation principles,
good stewardship and environmental awareness can make golf course management in watershed areas
environmentally responsible.
Literature Cited
Balogh, James C. and William J. Walker. 1992. Golf Course Management and Construction:
Environmental Issues. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
USEPA. Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in
Coastal Waters. United States Environmental Protection Agency, 840-B-92-902, Washington,
-------
DC.
Watschke, Thomas L., Peter H. Dernoeden and David J. Shetlar. 1994. Managing Turfgrass Pests.
Lewis Publishing Co., Boca Raton, FL.
-------
Note: This information is provided lor reference purposes only. Although the information
provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Hydrologic Methods and Stormwater Management Approaches
Applicable to Undeveloped Drainage Areas
L. Moris Cabezas, Ph.D., P.E.
Parsons Engineering-Science, Inc., Sarasota, FL
Thomas A. Shoopman, P.E.
Sarasota County Transportation Department, Sarasota, FL
General
In an effort to address area flooding and water quality concerns, Sarasota County has initiated a Basin Master Planning Program. Funded
through the Sarasota County Stormwater Environmental Utility, this program was initiated in fiscal year 1991. It is intended to provide a
systems approach to the planning of facilities, programs, and management efforts for comprehensive management and use of stormwater.
The Sarasota County Comprehensive Plan calls for initiation of basin master plans for all 25 basins in the County by the year 2001. The
basin master plan for Forked Creek is a continuation of the master planning program. This master plan has a high priority due to
development pressures and the need to establish accurate flood elevations for assessing potential flood hazard and to determine the
limitations of existing drainage systems to accommodate future development.
Project Background
The Forked Creek basin is a coastal urbanizing basin within south Sarasota County. It drains approximately 8 square miles. The entire
watershed consists of gently sloping terrain which rises from sea level at the outflow in Lemon Bay to just over 10 feet (NGVD) at the
headwaters. The basin has an average slope of just over 0.02 percent or a 1.3 foot drop for every mile of distance. The Forked Creek basin is
primarily undeveloped with approximately 75 percent in a natural state or being used for agriculture. Over 20 percent of the undeveloped
area is wetlands. Historic flooding in the basin has at times been severe. The water quality impacts of stormwater runoff from the basins are
also a concern. This is especially important because the state of Florida has designated Lemon Bay as "Outstanding Florida Waters."
Modeling Objectives and Scope
The results of hydrologic and hydraulic modeling provide flood peaks and runoff hydrographs that are used to assess existing conditions and
for drainage facility design. The modeling objectives and scope included calibration and verification to provide a degree of certainty to the
predicted flood peaks and runoff hydrographs. Calibration and verification of hydrologic and hydraulic models require measured hydrologic
data from actual storm events. In the summer of 1991 the USGS, in cooperation with Sarasota County initiated rainfall runoff monitoring
stations in seven (7) coastal watersheds in the County. One station was located in the Forked Creek basin. The station is located
approximately 1.4 miles upstream from the mouth of the creek. It consisted of a continuous water level gauge and a rainfall gauge.
Numerous discharge measurements were made at the site to develop the stage versus discharge curve. The drainage area to the USGS station
is about 2.5 square miles and is 95 percent undeveloped. About 20 percent of this area has been classified as wetlands.
Purpose of this Study
The purpose of this study was to identify the most applicable hydrologic method to simulate basin conditions. The hydrologic model initially
selected and specified in the scope of work for the basin master plans was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
-------
SWMM/RUNOFF/EXTRAN computer software. Difficulty in calibrating the SWMM/RUNOFF module to recorded data with reasonable
parameters prompted consideration of other methods. A variety of modeling methods are available. However, as with SWMM/RUNOFF,
standard parameters developed for other areas of the Country have been found to be inappropriate for some areas in Sarasota County and
west-central Florida. Because of extremely flat topography, high water-table, and large areas covered by wetlands, applying these techniques
requires that empirical relationships be extrapolated beyond tested ranges. As a result, investigating the most adequate hydrologic method for
the Forked Creek basin became necessary. All methods investigated herein were based on the unit hydrograph concept. Simulations were
conducted using the U.S Army Corps of Engineers HEC-1 Flood Hydrograph Package. Model calibration was conducted using rainfall and
streamflow data collected between June 24 and June 29, 1992. Model verification data were obtained between August 9 and 17, 1992. This
paper describes the results obtained during the model calibration process.
Calibration Data
The June, 1992, storm resulted in one of the most extreme flooding events on record in Sarasota County. The Forked Creek station recorded
about 13 inches of accumulated rainfall. The storm hyetograph is shown in Figure 1. The rainfall depth measured at both the USGS Gottfried
Creek station and the NOAA Venice station during that same period was about 11 inches. The Gottfried Creek station is located about 2
miles southwest and the NOAA station is about 7 miles south from the Forked Creek station. This additional information indicated the
basinwide characteristics of the storm event. Figure 1 also shows the measured hydrograph used for calibration. This type of hydrograph
appears to be typical of the area as it shows similar characteristics of other hydrographs reviewed during this study. The runoff to rainfall
ratio is about 70 percent. The initial storage stage is relatively large and results from retention in the existing wetlands as well as in the soil
layer above the water table. The total streamflow during this period is small which shows the effects of a high retardance factor.
Subsequently, the hydrograph rising stage is characterized by a rapid and substantial increase of the flowrate until the peak is reached.
During the June storm, the volume under the hydrograph's rising limb amounted to about 20 percent of the total storm runoff. This also
appears to be within a fairly typical range for this area. Finally, the hydrograph recession period is sustained during several days as runoff is
released from storage. It should be pointed out that at the gauge station location, Forked Creek has no base flow.
TIME
-------
DATE; 6-24 6-26 6-29 6-30 7-2 7-i
TIME
Figure 1. Forked Creek Calibration Hydrograph and Hyetograph
Computer Simulations
The unit hydrographs methods investigated during this study included the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), Snyder's, and Clark's methods.
For all simulations, the initial rainfall abstraction was calculated for all subbasins based on available detention/retention capabilities, mainly
in wetland areas. The SCS curve number method was used for calculating rainfall loss rates. This method was considered adequate as it
allows easy modifications of the input data for model application to expected future conditions. Following is a brief description of each one
of the methods investigated in this study and the results obtained from the analyses.
The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Method
The SCS method is probably the most commonly used hydrologic method in Florida. The time to peak is expressed in terms of the duration
of unit precipitation excess and the lag time. The relationship peak discharge to time to peak is:
K * A
where:
p = peak discharge
tp = time to peak
K = Shape factor
A = Area
The hydrograph shape is dependent on the peak factor K which proportions the rising and recession limbs of the hydrograph. For example,
the standard SCS unit hydrographs uses a value of the shape factor K= 484 when flow is in cfs, tp in hours and area in square miles. This
reflects a unit hydrograph that has 3/8 of its area under the rising limb and 5/8 under the recession limb. In this case, the recession to rising
limb area ratio is 1.67. The Hillsborough County Stormwater Management Technical Manual (1) recommends the use of a 256 shape factor,
which results in an area ratio of about 4. Studies conducted by the South Florida Water Management District (2) indicate that peak factors as
low as 100 may be more applicable to southern Florida conditions as the lower value of the shape factors would account for the high
retardance shown by the measured hydrographs. Figure 2 shows the calibration hydrographs obtained by using the SCS method with shape
factors of 484, 256, and 150. The unit hydrograph ordinates for the 150 shape factor were obtained by applying the Neidrauer equation (3).
In all cases, the parameters initial retention and lag time were manipulated to maximize the calibration fitting. Results show that the best fit
is obtained with the 150 shape factor. However, none of the methods account properly for the retardance factor on the rising limb of the
hydrograph as well as on its tail.
-------
350
HOURS
Figure 2. SCS Loss Rate and SCS Unit Hydrograph Methods.
The Snyder's Unit Hydrograph Method
The Snyder's UH method is quite similar to the SCS method. The peak discharge to lag time relationship is expressed as indicated below.
The coefficient Cp is the equivalent of the shape factor in the SCS method. Cp is another calibration parameter in addition to the lag time.
This could be consider an advantage of the Snyder's method over SCS.
640 * A * Cp
where:
= peak discharge
ti = lag lime
Cp = Storage Coefficient
A = A r e a
As shown by the calibration results shown in Figure 3, the resulting hydrograph is similar to that obtained from the SCS method. For the
Forked Creek conditions, the value of Cp was found to vary between 0.2 and 0.3 when qp is in cfs, tl is in hours, and area is in square miles.
Increasing the Cp factor tends to increase retardance and decrease the peak. On the other hand, increasing the lag time reduces retardance
and increases the peak. As with the SCS method, the application of the Snyder's method resulted in a hydrograph that did not account
adequately for the large storage capacity of the basin and the sustained flow at the hydrograph's tail.
-------
C 50 100 150 200 250
HOURS
Figure 3. SCS Loss Rate and Snyder's Unit Hydrograph Method.
The Clark's Unit Hydrograph Method
The Clark's UH method requires two input variables, the time of concentration and the storage coefficient R. In addition, the application of
this method allows the user to input a time area curve that represents the extent of the watershed contributing to runoff at the basin outlet
from the beginning of the storm to the time of concentration. From the calibration standpoint, the Clark's method has one parameter more
than the Snyder's method and two parameters more than the SCS method. The main drawback in using this method is the estimation of R.
Although Clark defines R as the ratio between the discharge Q and the slope of a tangent at the hydrographs inflection point, estimating this
parameter is mostly a judgmental process. Intuitively R should be related to the time of concentration and the basin slope. Figure 4 shows the
results of the calibration using this method. By computing the deviation from the measured hydrograph, this method showed the best
calibration fit. However, the calibration fit is not exact. For this application, the value of R was found to approximate the following
relationship:
-------
C 50 100 150 200 250
HOURS
Figure 4. SCS Loss Rate and Clark's Unit Hydrograph Method
R + t.
0.57L° 45S ° 35
where:
Storage coefficient
(hours)
time of concentration
(hours)
basin length (ft.)
Basin slope (ft/ft)
Conclusions and Recommendations
In the present study, the Clark's unit hydrograph method and the SCS method with a shape factor equal to 150 seem to be the most
appropriate for calibrating hydrologic models for undeveloped basins in southwest Florida. However, none of the methods investigated
resulted in an exact replication of the measured hydrograph. Sarasota County elected to use the SCS method when developing the
Stormwater Management Plan for Forked Creek because of the method's wide use in central and south Florida. The SCS and others are
continuing investigations to determine the appropriate parameters for application of the SCS method to the low-gradient watersheds of west-
central Florida. Parameters developed through this study are comparable to those of others for similar areas and will add to the data base
being developed for use in Sarasota County and other similar areas. It is recommended that additional studies be conducted to develop unit
-------
hydrographs more applicable to central and south Florida.
References
Hillsborough County, Florida (1993). Stormwater Management Technical Manual.
Rogers, R.A. (1993). A South Florida Application of the SCS Rainfall-Runoff Method.
Neidrauer, C.J. (1990). A Simple Equation to Represent General Curvilinear Dimensionless Unit Hydrographs.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now
outdated.
T
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official
positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
An Overview of Washington State's Watershed Approach to
Water Quality Management
Ron McBride, Watershed Coordinator Water Quality Program, Department of Ecology,
Olympia, WA
In July 1993, the Washington State Department of Ecology initiated a new managerial framework to improve the protection of
water quality. Ecology began a five year transition to a comprehensive Watershed Approach to Water Quality Management. In
this approach, both point and nonpoint source problems and needs are addressed for all parts of the state.
As a management approach, the design was formulated to guide the organization toward improving coordination of water
quality activities, service delivery, protection and prevention activities, and finally improved water quality statewide.
The cornerstones of the approach are the designation of water quality management areas (WQMA), the appointment of staff
"leads" for each WQMA, and a five step process for systematically issuing permits, assessing water quality conditions, focusing
staff effort, and developing an improved basis for decision making in each WQMA. This management model was necessitated
by the need to increase protection using fewer resources. The objective is to develop more precise information so that managers
can allocate scarce resources to where they are most needed and to better schedule workload over time. Since 1993, the
watershed approach management model has provided a consistent and sequential internal structure for improving water quality,
it is nationally recognized, and it is a prime example within EPA's Statewide Watershed Management Course as a planning and
priority setting system.
The watershed approach synchronizes water quality monitoring, inspections and permitting and supports water protection
activities on a geographic basis. It is a coordinated and integrated method to link science, permits, and other water pollution
control and prevention activities to meet state water quality standards. As a management tool, the watershed approach focuses
resources by matrixing staff through time into a variety of tasks and areas of the state. Each step of the process addresses
specific evaluation, planning, and implementation needs. A strong public involvement process insures that the state continues to
support and validate local watershed efforts. Local priorities strongly influence state planning and grant/loan funding priorities.
The State of Washington has been divided into 23 water quality management areas (WQMA's). Ecology has four regional
offices located throughout the state. Each region has approximately five WQMA's with its boundaries with the exception of
Eastern Regional Office has eight WQMA (total is 23). The WQMA's have been named and an identified staff "lead" has been
assigned to coordinate watershed processes and activities within the area (see attached map).
Other water quality technicians and research staff are also targeted to these 23 WQMA's across the state. Point source permits
for municipal and industrial facilities are scheduled within individual watersheds to be issued during the same year to ensure
equity, consistency, and predictability (see attached schedule). Nonpoint source pollution controls along with technical and
financial assistance programs are being integrated to complete the comprehensive system.
-------
Five Step_Five Year Cycle
Each year, approximately four or five WQMAs are scheduled into a cycle. Within each cycle, there are five steps with each step
consuming one year. The steps are:
¦ Year 1: SCOPING: Identify and prioritize known and suspected water quality issues within the WQMA by assembling
input from extensive community involvement and internal Ecology staff. Produce a Needs Assessment.
¦ Year 2/3: DATA COLLECTION/ANALYSIS: Conduct water quality TMDL's, monitoring, special studies, class II
inspections and general research to discern which of the issues identified in scoping are in fact problems.
¦ Year 4: TECHNICAL REPORT: Develop a report in coordination with the community that addresses the problems
identified above and other areas of concern. Also, outline strategies and management activities needed to reissue permits,
to form partnerships, and to solidify nonpoint partnerships with grants/loans.
¦ Year 5: IMPLEMENTATION: Issue/reissue waste water discharge permits and work with local programs and partners
to implement nonpoint pollution prevention and control activities that respond to priority water quality problems.
Approximately five WQMA's are scheduled each year to enter the process. The attached schedule shows the WQMA names in
the left-hand column organized into year groups. These groups are moved through the five step, five year process outlined
above. In this way, the entire state will be covered within a period of five years. It is important to note that statewide coverage is
ensured by scheduling WQMA's rather than prioritizing them. Scheduling avoids the priority trap, that is, placing all assets into
one area only to find too much work leading to excluding other areas for treatment.
The above process will be repeated on a five-year rotating cycle. By focusing on smaller geographical areas, Ecology closely
scrutinize the sources and effects of pollution within each watershed (WQMA) and can take positive action to dramatically
improve the water quality over time.
Unlike permitting which is mostly a scheduling effort, nonpoint problems must be addressed through cooperative relationships
with local partners. In order to facilitate these activities, issues must be targeted, partners identified and cultivated, and funding
sources must be coordinated and focused to address mutually agreed upon priority needs. Financial support systems are key and
critical to a strong nonpoint effort. In its third year, the watershed approach model is now ready to create, innovate, and
incorporate funding frameworks.
-------
State of Washington
Water Quality Management Areas
Lessons Learned to Date
¦ Targeting issues for treatment each cycle provides focus.
¦ Building relationships with partners is essential to nonpoint progress.
¦ Help and facilitate those who want to help themselves.
¦ Watershed teams are key to obtaining comprehensive information.
¦ Ecology staff act as brokers to facilitate multiple activities.
¦ Community involvement is essential for continued improvement.
Activities Schedule for Watersheds Under 5-year Cycle
(lower case letters denote transition activities)
State Fiscal Year (July 1 through June 30)
-------
Water Quality Management Areas
FY94 |FY95
FY96
FY97
FY98
FY99
FY01
FY02
Skagit/Stillaguamish, Columbia Gorge,
Horseheaven/Klickitat, Upper Columbia, Pend Oreille
S
D
A
R
I
S
D
A
Island/Snohomish, South Puget Sound, Okanogan, Crab
C reek, Esquatzel

S
D
A
R
I
S
D
Nooksack/San Juan, Western Olympic, Wenatchee, Upper
Snake, Lower Snake

S
D
A
R
I
S
Kitsap, Lower Columbia, Upper Yakima, Mid Columbia

S
D
A
R
1
Cedar/Green, Eastern Olympic, Lower Yakima, Spokane

S
D
A
R
I = Permits Issued; Other Actions Started
S = Scoping
D = Data Collection
A = Data Analysis
R = Technical Report
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Texas' Strategy for a Watershed Management
Approach
Mel Vargas, Planner
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, TX
Introduction
The planning and management of water resources in Texas rely on a host of local, state, and federal
programs and participants to manage, protect, and enhance public health and the environment. However,
planning and management activities for the state's water resources are often fragmented due to multiple
jurisdictional boundaries, statutory limitations, and the distinct classification of surface and ground
waters into separate resources. Furthermore, due to program-centered objectives and funding, and
statewide regulations which do not accommodate geographic differences, water resource programs often
lack flexibility and coordination necessary to effectively address water resource issues. While Texas has
made significant progress to protect and improve water resources, water resource managers and other
interested parties continue to face complex public health and water resource issues. To address these
issues, the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) is implementing a
comprehensive approach to better coordinate and integrate water resource management activities
geographically by river basin or watershed.
Existing Building Blocks to Support a Statewide Watershed
Management Approach
To implement a comprehensive watershed approach for water resource management in Texas, the
TNRCC had to determine the goals and boundaries of the approach and identify existing programs or
tools which support watershed management. The primary goal of Texas' statewide watershed
management approach (WMA) is to maintain and improve the designated uses of water resources within
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
each river basin. The WMA identifies and evaluates water quality issues, establishes priorities for
corrective action, and initiates the work necessary to implement those actions. When considering whether
to coordinate both water quality and water quantity programs, the TNRCC determined the approach
needed to concentrate on water quality management programs consistently before dealing with water
quantity programs. Guided by this decision, the TNRCC then began to identify all of the existing water
quality programs which could be used as building blocks to support a WMA.
For its WMA, the TNRCC established a planning process through which it sought to organize programs,
funding, public participation, and ultimately the implementation of solutions to water quality issues at the
watershed level (Figure 1). Using watershed management as an organizing principle for water quality
programs was based in part on the premise that water resource protection and restoration are best
addressed through integrated efforts within hydrologically defined watersheds or river basins. Driven by
these two basic tenets, the TNRCC recognized it already possessed some of the major components of an
effective WMA. The major components the TNRCC has in place are the Texas Clean Rivers Program
(CRP) and the Permit-by-Basin Rule. The CRP was established by the Texas Clean Rivers Act in 1991 to
provide an initial framework for water resource management statewide. The goal of the CRP is to
maintain and improve the quality of water resources within each river basin in Texas through an ongoing
partnership involving the TNRCC, other agencies, river authorities, regional entities, local governments,
industry and citizens. The program uses a watershed management approach to coordinate public
participation, target water quality monitoring to identify and evaluate water quality issues, and assess the
data to establish priorities within each river basin.
-------
I Scoping/Re-evaluation of U
1 Water Quality Issues/Goals |T"

Data Collection

Assessment and Prioritization

| Strategy Development

Implementation of Solutions

Figure 1. Texas' Watershed Management Planning Process.
The Permit-by-Basin Rule states the TNRCC shall to the greatest practicable extent, require all permits
for the discharge of wastewater within a single watershed or river basin to have the same expiration date.
By requiring a comprehensive evaluation of the combined effects of permitted discharges, the TNRCC
has initiated the long-term watershed management process necessary to better understand the overall
water quality of a river basin or watershed. The Permit-by-Basin Rule also allows the TNRCC to better
balance its permit work load and provides consistency to the permitting process.
While these two major components provide a solid foundation for a statewide watershed management
approach, the TNRCC and other water resource management partners recognized other components
necessary to support the Watershed Management Planning Process were not fully in place. Other water
resource management partners include agencies, organizations, or individuals at the local, regional, state,
or federal level with an interest in water resource management. Despite having a well-organized
watershed monitoring program, public participation through river basin steering committees, a water
quality assessment component, and schedules for issuing wastewater permits by river basin, certain
components were still missing and additional coordination was needed. Specifically these include
activities and resources associated with Strategy Development and Implementation of Solutions.
-------
Building a Better Mouse Trap
To develop additional components and identify the coordination necessary to support a WMA, the
TNRCC and other water resource management partners determined which existing water quality
management programs fulfilled the objectives of each phase of the Watershed Management Planning
Process. The programs evaluated included: water quality monitoring, modeling, toxicity, water quality
standards, Clean Rivers Program, nonpoint source, and wastewater permitting. Where existing programs
and resources were not designed to fulfill the roles, responsibilities, and objectives of the five phases of
the Watershed Management Planning Process, an internal work group was selected to develop the
components and coordination necessary to ensure a comprehensive approach. Highlights of this
evaluation are presented below.
With respect to the first three phases, Scoping/Re-evaluation, Data Collection, and Assessment and
Prioritization, the Clean Rivers Program and other existing water quality management programs provide
the framework and resources necessary to achieve the objectives and needs of a comprehensive WMA.
Some adjustments between the programs involved in these phases were identified which could strengthen
each phase, most of which centered around better coordination and timeliness of deliverables.
With respect to the last two phases, Strategy Development and Implementation of Solutions, an effective
process was not in place to address the priority issues identified through public participation, monitoring,
and assessment. As a result, the TNRCC developed a list of activities necessary to implement these
phases of the process. These activities are outlined as follows:
Strategy Development
1. Coordinate participants and target priority issues by watershed.
¦ Incorporate public participation.
¦ Identify scale at which issue needs to be addressed (site, segment, reservoir, aquifer,
watershed, basin, etc.).
¦ Identify and predict the targeted loading in each priority watershed (total maximum daily
loads).
¦ Identify the roles, capabilities, and authorities of key partners to solve priority issues.
¦ Identify new opportunities for leveraging resources of partners.
¦ Establish specific management objectives for each issue.
¦ Select indicators which link management options to objectives.
¦ Identify range of feasible management options and establish potential combinations of
management options.
¦ Develop most promising scenarios, identify funding alternatives, and evaluate the degree
to which each scenario achieves the objectives.
¦ Reach consensus on optimal management strategies to be implemented.
¦ Specify methods, funding, roles, and time tables for implementation of management
strategies.
-------
2. Document management strategies.
¦ Establish a format for a written document which can serve as the reference for all partners.
¦ Describe the methods, funding, roles, and time tables for implementation of management
strategies in the document.
¦ Coordinate and seek public input on the draft document.
Implementation of Solutions
1. Implementing management strategies.
¦ After revisions to the draft document, the partners adopt the management strategies as their
action plan.
¦ Partners initiate the actions (permit effluent limits, best management practices, stream
standard revisions, public education, etc.), resources, and funding per the action plan.
¦ Conduct outreach to increase stakeholder awareness of, and participation in, implementing
management strategies.
2. Initiate evaluation of progress made in implementing solutions.
Making the Transition
Having defined what needs to be done under a watershed management approach, the TNRCC and other
partners are in the process of identifying the coordination, resources (management, technical, funding),
and commitments necessary to support the five phases. Some of the preliminary recommendations which
are being considered as necessary to support the five phases are listed below.
1. Strengthening participation in the existing river basin steering committees.
2. Augmenting the existing river basin steering committees with a technical advisory committee.
3. Obtaining commitment of resources from partners to develop and document management
strategies.
4. Sequencing activities across basins to balance workloads of key partners who operate in more
than one basin.
5. Consolidating various state reporting requirements to allow staff more time for data collection,
assessment, and strategy development.
6.
Designating basin coordinators to oversee the coordination of multiple programs and resources in
specific areas of the state.
-------
7. Improving existing information management systems to allow partners to share raw and
interpreted data better.
To effectively communicate the components, activities, responsibilities, and coordination associated with
Texas' WMA, the TNRCC will prepare a guidance document for programs to follow as they make the
transition to a watershed approach. Based on the guidance document, the TNRCC will then begin to
develop a two-year work plan to guide the location and timing of the activities and funding for the
following TNRCC teams: surface water quality; modeling; toxicity evaluation; water quality standards;
Clean Rivers Program; nonpoint source; and, wastewater permitting.
Lessons Learned
The development and implementation of a statewide watershed management approach have been an
arduous yet beneficial process for the TNRCC. In conclusion, some of the important lessons the TNRCC
learned along the way include:
¦ Developing a statewide watershed management approach requires commitment from the
leadership of the lead water resource management agency.
¦ Enlisting partners to educate others about the watershed management approach is essential to
statewide acceptance.
¦ Strive for flexibility in the approach; work with other partners and the EPA to achieve this
flexibility at all levels.
Work to achieve the highest level of internal understanding and support of the watershed
approach before implementation is initiated.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Integrating Water Resources Management: An
Evolving Approach for Wisconsin
Ken Genskow, Danielle Valvassori, Jim Baumann, Charlotte Haynes, Lisa
Kosmond
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Wisconsin is moving toward a new phase in water resources management. The impetus for the shift stems
from the need to better protect and preserve the state's highly valued natural resources, which include
15,000 lakes, nearly 60,000 miles of rivers and streams, the Great Lakes Michigan and Superior, the
Mississippi River, groundwater, and associated bird, fish and wildlife habitats. More and more, resource
managers and citizens in Wisconsin are realizing that effective resource management must include
cooperation among agencies, active stakeholder involvement and an agency structure which supports
interaction and coordination. The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is in the midst of
better accommodating these needs through a departmental reorganization and an evolving interest and
belief in watershed and ecosystem management approaches. Wisconsin is making strides toward more
integrated water resources management.
As part of the learning process, WDNR has initiated a series of seven "pilot" projects to shed light on
current and future challenges associated with integrated management, including: defining a specific role
for stakeholders, determining pollutant load allocations, and developing a mechanism for trading between
point and nonpoint sources of pollution. Several other issues also remain unresolved. These include:
deciding how to adapt our current basin management plans to the new structure and the new approach;
determining how to target efforts among and within the state's basins; and understanding more completely
-------
how these plans will fit with broader resource management goals.
This paper briefly outlines a "working" model of Wisconsin's new watershed approach. For context, both
the old and new WDNR organizational structures and their relationship to approach development and
implementation are briefly explained. The main emphasis is on the approach and the pilot projects. A
final synthesis ties together our experiences and how WDNR is moving towards a goal of integration.
Outlining the Goal: Clarifying a Watershed Approach
Wisconsin's watershed approach emphasizes integrating management through two main concepts: first,
stakeholders are central to decision making and implementation, and second, solutions are geographically-
based and reflect an array of factors affecting an area. In part, Wisconsin's concept mirrors a
characterization of integrated environmental management made by Born and Sonzogni (1995) who
suggest integrated management efforts begin with an holistic conceptualization of issues affecting the
resource with a realization of interconnections between issues. A specific management strategy emerges
out of the initial conceptualization by reducing the issues into an implementable plan. The whole process
includes a variety of participants and hinges on the degree of interaction and coordination among them.
WDNR's eventual goal is to integrate land and water resource management activities; first by integrating
water management.
Stakeholder involvement will be part of the process at multiple levels: state, basin, and watershed.
Involving stakeholders in a meaningful way adds unique insights into resource management needs and
opportunities including valuable knowledge of resource use histories and creative methods to meet
resource goals. Stakeholder roles will include identifying issues, setting and prioritizing goals, and
assisting with implementation. At the state level, a dormant statewide water quality advisory committee
may be reactivated to coordinate efforts under the watershed approach. This committee would include
members from academic, industrial, agricultural, development, local government, user, and regulatory
communities who will lend unique perspectives, strengthen acceptance for pilot projects, and help
coordinate pilot projects and implementation efforts. Stakeholder groups will also be created to advise
WDNR resource management teams in each of 23 newly delineated geographical management units
(GMUs) (Figure 1). These units are a blend of basin, terrestrial management, and county boundaries; two
of the 23 GMUs coordinate activities related to the Mississippi River and Lake Michigan. Wisconsin is
further divided into 333 watershed management units. Stakeholders from these watersheds will form the
core of GMU stakeholder groups.
Wisconsin's watershed approach builds on several ideas which have long been part of the state's water
management package. A set of 25 water quality management plans has been guiding several water
resource activities for nearly three decades. These plans guide monitoring needs, identify point sources of
pollution, provide an inventory of water quality in steams and lakes, and determine eligibility for priority
watershed projects. Priority watershed projects alone represent a significant history of targeted watershed-
based management programs aimed at reducing nonpoint sources. Over the past 18 years, nearly 20
percent of the 333 watersheds have been selected for nonpoint source pollution treatment under the state's
priority watershed program. Priority watershed projects are planned and implemented jointly with local
-------
governments, WDNR, and the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection.
The projects encourage integrated resource management and strong roles for stakeholders, both through
their involvement in citizen advisory committees and in implementation of best management practices.
The new approach has a central emphasis on broad stakeholder involvement and incorporating multiple
water resource needs into management strategies. Whereas past efforts have focused separately on point
sources or nonpoint sources of surface water pollution, groundwater protection, site remediation, or
fisheries management, this approach considers the combined impacts of these and of other resource
management actions. The continuum in Figure 2 illustrates several degrees of integration. Currently, most
WDNR activities are located at the left end of this continuum. WDNR's goal is to move along a
continuum toward integration within water resource activities and eventually with all other resource
management programs.
Pilot Projects: Seeking Answers to Implementation Issues
WDNR has initiated a series of pilot projects to add insights into practical aspects of integrating water
resources management activities. At this stage, these projects are focused on gaining stakeholder
involvement in waste load allocation among point and nonpoint pollution sources. Concepts explored
through these projects include developing new tools for working with permittees, empowering
stakeholders in targeted geographic areas, sharing responsibilities for monitoring and some management
-------
decisions, promoting intergovernmental partnerships, and developing mechanisms for financial assistance
to support cooperative management through a watershed approach. These projects are funded through a
mix of EPA 104(b)(3) grants and state and local government funds. There are currently seven pilot
projects in place. A description of three of them will help illustrate where we are with Wisconsin's
approach.
Red Cedar River Basin Project: Phosphorus Management & Defining
the Role of the Public
This project incorporates stakeholders in a phosphorus management scheme for an eight-watershed sub-
basin covering 1900 square miles and parts of eight counties in west-central Wisconsin. The willingness
of stakeholders to interact and develop a scheme for wasteload allocation, the potential of developing new
tools to work with point discharge permittees and nonpoint sources, and how to develop a strategy for
implementing tradeoffs will be studied. The largely rural area includes several villages, the City of
Menomonie, and several impoundments. This project will also develop stakeholder involvement in local
watershed management activities. One of the early discoveries has been the lack of identity (and
occasional animosity) among stakeholders in this relatively large area. Whereas stakeholders do see local
benefits, little enthusiasm exists for improving downstream water quality. There has also been initial
confusion over the differences between this project and the Department's priority watershed efforts. These
issues may change as a core group of stakeholders emerges to work on the region as a whole. An overall
action plan for this project area will be developed by September 1997.
Upper Sugar River Integrated Management Initiative: Grassroots
Partnerships
A second project involves developing a watershed management strategy based on joint WDNR and
external partner issue identification and prioritization. Rather than respond to a specific issue identified by
resource managers, stakeholders and resource managers are working as partners to identify water resource
priorities for this area. This project is limited to a single 90 square mile watershed southwest of Madison,
in central Wisconsin, a rolling rural area experiencing rapid conversion from agricultural to urban land
uses. Preliminary discussions indicate a general concern with the effects of this urbanization. Some of the
major issues already identified include groundwater contamination and groundwater diversion due to
pumping for municipal water supplies, continued agricultural discharges, urban storm water discharges,
loss of wetlands and recreational space, concerns over aging dams, and coordination problems among the
several local governments in the watershed. At the end of this eighteen month project the resource
manager/stakeholder partnership should have an implementable management plan focused on the key
water resource issues in the watershed.
Yahara River Project: Integrating Point and Nonpoint Sources
A third project deals with innovative approaches to managing phosphorus in a 500 square mile, five
-------
watershed sub-basin of the Yahara River. This project, adjacent to the Upper Sugar Watershed Project,
involves numerous institutional issues also addressed in the Red Cedar River Basin Project. The major
interest is in estimating the costs and cost effectiveness of point versus nonpoint source reductions and
exploring pollutant trade-offs between stakeholders. Issues include: the willingness of various groups to
trade phosphorus, possible implementation scenarios, successful incentives for financial transfers likely
needed to implement the allocation, and responsibility for the attainment of phosphorus reduction goals.
Changing Departmental Structure: Complementing a Watershed
Approach
An ongoing departmental reorganization has introduced a fundamental shift in WDNR management
structure. Wisconsin created the nation's first "super-agency" for natural resource management in 1969 by
combining environmental quality and resource management functions into a single Department of Natural
Resources; the original agency structure included separate divisions of Environmental Quality and
Resource Management with several additional divisions for enforcement and management support. Over
the past year and a half, WDNR has gone through a comprehensive self-assessment and restructuring. The
new structure, which is expected to be fully in place this fall, organizes the Department by media. All
water resource management activities will be joined into a single Water Division. The Water Division
will include the Bureaus of Watershed Management, Fisheries and Surface Waters, and Drinking Water
and Groundwater, all of which will be coordinated by a Water Division Integration Team.
In addition to reorganizing the central office, the new structure divides the state into five regions and 23
geographic management units (GMUs) (Figure 1). Each region contains the greater portion of four to six
GMUs and will be staffed by interdisciplinary land and water resource management teams. Under this
arrangement, the central office will continue to provide policy guidance and certain types of technical
support, but specific resource management efforts and projects will have regional leadership and local
stakeholder partnerships. These changes are intended to facilitate integrated approaches to resource
management and enhance the role of citizens as stakeholders.
Synthesis: Continued Evolution
In summary, WDNR has set a goal of integrated water resource management and continues to move
towards this goal. Currently, we are in the midst of refining our vision of a watershed approach, how that
approach fits in with other Department management schemes, and how to implement this integrated
approach to include targeted efforts and broad stakeholder involvement. We have spent a lot of time
sorting through institutional relationships and are currently working through a reorganization and a series
of pilot projects aimed at addressing several continuing challenges. Challenges include developing new
tools for working with permittees, empowering stakeholders in targeted geographic areas, sharing
responsibilities for monitoring and management decisions, promoting intergovernmental partnerships, and
developing mechanisms for financial assistance to support interactive management through a watershed
approach.
-------
WDNR is moving away from its programmatic emphasis on either point or nonpoint sources and its
separate treatment of water resource management activities and towards an integrated management
approach encompassing both land and water resources. WDNR's new approach places great emphasis the
stakeholder role in identifying and prioritizing goals and in implementing management strategies.
Sustained protection of Wisconsin's aquatic resources depends on our ability to move forward in this
direction.
Reference
Born, S. M. and W. C. Sonzogni. (1995). "Integrated Environmental Management: Strengthening
the Conceptualization." Envir. Management. Vol. 19, No. 12, Pp. 167-182.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Implementation of the Watershed Approach in
Massachusetts
Arleen O'Donnell, Assistant Commissioner for Resource Protection
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, Boston, MA
Michael Domenica, Principal
Water Resources Associates, Acton, MA
The watershed approach to resource management is the centerpiece of the Department's "Clean Water
Strategy", and as such, the river basin has been designated as the fundamental planning unit upon which
the integrated water quality management activities of the Bureau of Resource Protection's Office of
Watershed Management (OWM) watershed teams are based. In fact, this model is the foundation upon
which the OWM was established, allowing the Department to synchronize five functions according to a
watershed-oriented regimen that had previously been performed in isolation. These were: water quality
monitoring and assessment, water withdrawal permitting, nonpoint source pollution control, awarding of
water quality related grants, and wastewater permitting under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES). By coordinating these programs, and focusing their activities in a
particular watershed, the relationship between water quality and water quantity, and point and nonpoint
source pollution are better understood and more effectively communicated to the public.
OWM has established river basin work groups or "teams" for the twenty-seven river basins in
Massachusetts for the purpose of implementing its watershed-based resource assessment, surface water
permitting, and non-point pollution control programs. The use of teams allows staff to pool their
knowledge and skills and is gaining wide acceptance as a project management strategy in both public
agencies and in the private sector, and is built on the premise that, when functioning properly, the
synergy created by pooling individual areas of expertise and the mutual support gained by group
members, produces energy and creativity that greatly exceeds the sum of its parts.
-------
A phased program for watershed-based assessment, permitting, and nonpoint pollution control has been
adopted by the OWM. Water quality and biomonitoring surveys are carried out by the river basin teams
two years prior to the year in which NPDES and water-withdrawal permits are to be issued for the entire
basin. The scope of the field assessments varies depending upon the resources available and the
important water quality issues within each watershed. Input from outside agencies and the general public
is actively solicited by the OWM basin team in order to gain further insight with respect to water quality
goals and use-objectives for Massachusetts surface waters, and to build partnerships with "stake-holders"
who will play an increasingly important role in protecting these waters as the focus of water pollution
abatement continues to shift to nonpoint source control measures.
Resource assessment information, including, where applicable, the determination of site-specific water
quality criteria, calculation of total maximum daily loads (TMDL), and the derivation of load/wasteload
allocations and instream flow requirements are completed during the year prior to permit issuance.
Finally, the third phase involves meeting with the permittees and issuing final wastewater and water
withdrawal permits. In addition, this phase includes the targeting of priority waterbodies exhibiting
nonpoint pollution problems for the implementation of Best Management Practices (BMP) or other
control strategies. Implementation will be realized, in part, by the awarding of Nonpoint Source Pollution
competitive grants in accordance with the requirements of Section 319 of the Clean Water Act. Because
the entire OWM watershed management process is implemented over a period of three years on a
rotating basis, a period of five years is required to complete one cycle of assessment, planning, and
implementation for all twenty-seven Massachusetts river basins, and not all river basin teams are active
at the same time.
The successful completion for a particular river basin of each of the phases described above is now the
responsibility of the respective river basin team.
To enable the Commonwealth to understand the relationship between point and non point pollution, land
use and water withdrawals the Department is using an EPA 104(b)(3) grant to support the development
of a GIS based computer model. The model is being piloted in the Neponset River Basin, and will enable
managers to consider different scenarios for pollution abatement. The model will provide predictions
regarding changes in water quality from different strategies, allowing targeting of those efforts which
promise the greatest environmental and economic return. While the model will be transportable to other
basins, the Neponset will be the basis for the development as it is the pilot basin for coordinated activity
between the Executive Office of Environmental Affairs, the Neponset River Watershed Association,
EPA and the general public.
Massachusetts' twenty seven watersheds vary dramatically with respect to size, hydrology, land use,
geography, available data, water management institutions and their resources and capabilities, public
priorities, water body characteristics, and numerous other factors. Watershed management must tailor its
planning approaches to the unique characteristics of each watershed. Existing water quantity and quality
models utilize past water quality and flow data to allow users to predict the response of a watershed and
river system to various control programs, to assess the consequences of future development and land use
-------
changes, and to prioritize the control and management options based on benefits and costs.
In embarking on a comprehensive watershed planning and management initiative over the next decade it
is imperative that the modeling and analytical approaches be appropriate for the watershed
characteristics, data availability, regulatory requirements (e.g. permitting, water quality standards setting,
partial use of determinations, etc.), and water use goals and problems of a particular watershed. Modeling
approaches must also be scientifically valid, technically defensible, affordable, and responsive to
schedule requirements. Inappropriate selection and/or use of models often results in misdirected plans,
inefficient or inappropriate use of data, substantial waste of human and fiscal sources and loss of
opportunity to improve water quality and beneficial uses. Most importantly, results of analytical work
must clearly answer specific, critical water management questions and must be understandable to the
public-those responsible for implementing necessary programs.
The goals of the modelling project are to facilitate watershed planning statewide by organizing and
making available modeling technology and user guidance that will result in cost-effective, technically
sound analytical approaches that make best use of data that are now or will soon be available and
produce results that are understandable to informed but non-technical individuals. The project will have
three phases. The first will be the development and selection of a methodology useful in Massachusetts.
The second phase will be application of the model in the Neponset Basin. The third phase will be the
development of a plan to expand the use of the methodology throughout the Commonwealth.
The project involves the development of computer modeling capability and user guidance necessary for
implementation of the statewide watershed management initiative in Massachusetts. The products of this
three phase project will be:
• A suite or "menu" of watershed runoff models (or analytical methods) and receiving water quality
models suitable for application to a range of requirements for watershed and receiving water
quality analysis.
• Set up and application of several of these models or analytical methods in the Neponset River
Basin or its sub watersheds.
• Guidance to users regarding the selection and use of runoff and receiving water models tailored to
the particular conditions of each watershed and planning program, and
• A plan for use of the analytical (modeling) tools and application guidance through the state.
It is anticipated that the models utilized will be those developed by EPA and other federal agencies over
the last 25 years and available in the public domain. These water quality and land based pollutant loading
models will be linked with one another and, after piloting in the Neponset, be used to develop
relationships between land use, point and non-point sources, water withdrawal, and water quality in
rivers and estuaries throughout the state. The models will generally be GIS (land use) based and will be
adaptable to the level of data available in each watershed. The models will provide predictions regarding
changes in water quality from different pollution control strategies, allowing targeting of those efforts
which promise the greatest environmental benefit and economic return. While the models will be useful
-------
in all basins, depending upon goals of the specific watershed programs, the Neponset will be the basis for
the development and prototyping, as it is the pilot basin for coordinated activity between the Executive
Office of Environmental Affairs, the Neponset River Watershed Association, EPA and the general public
under the Massachusetts Watershed Initiative. A key objective of the proposed project is to develop DEP
staff technical capability to support watershed planning statewide on a long-term basis. DEP staff will be
assigned to work with the selected consultant as a means of developing internal staff capabilities.
Additional 104(b)(3) funding is being sought to support the development of a complimentary economics
model that will assist in the evaluation of the relative costs of the options for water quality improvement.
The Commonwealth's ability to cost effectively improve water quality has to be guided by a more
thorough understanding of the relative costs and benefits of the different strategies revealed by the water
quality analysis. Funding of this final component of the modelling project will provide a framework from
which a discussion of the optimal option can be conducted.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now
outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official
positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Talking to the Stone-The Art and Science of Querying
Watersheds in Washington State Watershed Analysis
Jim Currie, Systems-Policy Analyst
Pacific Watershed Institute, Seattle, WA
Since antiquity man has searched for more and more powerful ways to interrogate nature to learn her secrets. Francis Bacon,
a principal architect of the scientific method, argued for natura vexata, vexing/agitating nature so that she would give up her
secrets. More recently Ludwig Von Bertalanffy and other systems theorists have argued for interrogation of natural systems
using a biological, interdisciplinary model of how physical processes interact to create stability, balance, and resilience.
Washington State Watershed Analysis, a four-year-old management system, embraces aspects of these and other natural
philosophies in a pioneering effort to practice systems ecology and management. It does this in an interdisciplinary manner,
with hydrologists, biologists, geomorphologists, and managers working as a team to evaluate watershed processes, risks to
resources, and appropriate management prescriptions.
Origins
Washington State Watershed Analysis originated in the late 1980s in a crucible of imminent litigation over the cumulative
effects of forest practices on salmon. At issue were declining fish production and demonstrable impacts on fish habitat
coincident with increased harvest rates.
After lengthy negotiations in 1987, industry, tribes, environmental groups and other cooperators signed a mediated
agreement committing signatories to work together to find cooperative solutions to problems on the forest landscape. The
principal mechanism for this would be an organization known as TFW (timber, fish, and wildlife group) with
administrative, policy and scientific arms.
Despite initial successes, TFW came under increasing pressure to find a mutually agreeable scientific approach to managing
cumulative effects, in particular, the effects of high sediment yield on fish habitat. This eventually led to a 1991
commitment to develop watershed analysis, an interdisciplinary, watershed-level assessment method.
A prototype methodology was developed by the Pacific Watershed Institute in 1992, with field applications quick to follow.
Since then, watershed analysis has been considerably refined and widely practiced throughout the state.
Elements of Watershed Analysis
-------
Watershed analysis is really watershed analysis and management (WAM), an integration of assessment, management, and
monitoring at the watershed level (See Figure 1). It is the linkage between policy and technical elements that most
distinguishes it from other analytical or management approaches.
I Monitoring
v

\
Rules &
i Regulations
\
Training
i
j
Prescriptions
\
x.
}
^ liiil $!<•.

\
"I Assesement )
^ /
/

Public Involvement
| And I
i Stewardship
\
\
V
Public
/
[Management
Investment
Private
Figure 1. Components of Waterhsed Analysis and Management.
Policy Process
A stakeholder policy group (i.e., TFW) is the hub of the overall system. The effectiveness of a WAM system is largely
based upon the fact that values and objectives of stakeholders are treated in an explicit manner. The Washington system
recognizes that critical value judgments commonly enter into problem scoping, issue definition, effort allocation in
assessment, treatment of uncertainty, and other analytical-technical steps.
Consensus decisions made by the TFW policy group ensure that products, including assessments and prescriptions, will be
implemented. The TFW policy group also presents a common front to the state legislature in seeking program funding.
Assessment
Assessment is the system component for interdisciplinary analysis of watershed conditions, sensitivities and risks. Analysts,
using repeatable assessment methods set forth in a state-approved manual, must define sensitivity of stream resources to
-------
changes in the flows of wood, water, energy/temperature, sediment, nutrients and pollutants. Landscape analyses of these
processes establish the presence of hazards, while a delivery or routing method establishes the connection to sensitive
resources and overall risks.
Prescriptions
Management prescriptions are the remedies for problems and risks defined by analysis. Prescription for hazardous areas
may include buffer protection, land treatment measures, scheduling to mitigate impacts, and a host of other commonly
employed BMP's. WAM prescription-setting always attempts to tailor practices to site sensitivities and risks, rather than
rely on "one-size-fits-all" BMP's.
Rules and Regulations
Washington State Watershed Analysis is integrated with rules and regulations through revisions of the State Forest Practices
Act. As a result of TFW-sponsored changes, the act conditions the approval of site permits on the consistency between
planned actions and watershed analysis prescriptions.
Revised rules and regulations also set forth the bounds and structure for prescription-setting. Three categories of risks are
defined by law which dictate the severity-stringency of prescriptions for different plots of ground. Forest land managers are
thereby provided with a valuable planning tool: they know in advance of a planned harvest what issues must be addressed,
the severity of resource risks, and the kinds of conditions that are likely to be attached to permits.
Targeted Investment and Business Planning
This is an embryonic but promising element of an overall WAM system. Business plans involve a clear identification of
goals, products, priorities, timelines, investment streams, strategies, and measures of effectiveness. Under a business
planning approach to environmental management, public agencies would align programs for maximum leverage and
efficiency. They would also reorient protection, prevention and restoration efforts toward end-products, such as clean water,
fish, clean air, sustainable resource flows, rather than toward indirect (and more conventional program objectives) such as
activity levels, dollars spent, enforcement actions taken, numbers of people involved in programs, etc.
Recently Weyerhaeuser and Critical Path Productions of Seattle developed a concept paper for implementing such an
approach in conjunction with Watershed Analysis and Management. The paper describes how business plans could take
advantage of watershed analyses to build strategies for effective watershed management.
Diagnostics features of the Assessment Method
Original design standards for the assessment method called for a repeatable methodology with explicit treatment of
uncertainty, variable levels of resolution and discrimination, and a capability of linking physical processes (e.g., surface
erosion) to resource sensitivities (e.g., the sensitivity of salmon to sedimentation).
Early attempts floundered over questions of analytical rigor, the merits of individual methods, and questions of scale and
resolution. A major breakthrough occurred when a core team headed by Dr. Kate Sullivan of Weyerhaeuser decided that the
overall method should pivot on risk-related questions that would be addressed in all analyses. The questions would be
linked to various methods, more or less quantitative and rigorous depending upon desired resolution and confidence levels.
Critical questions and alternative methods for answering them were subsequently defined for both physical processes and
potentially affected beneficial uses. Process questions probe the sources, magnitude, and variability of surface erosion, mass
wasting, hydrology, riparian processes, and channel dynamics. Beneficial use questions interrogate the sensitivities of
-------
aquatic resources, water quality, cultural resources, and public capital improvements to changes in the flows of water, wood,
heat energy, sediment, and pollutants.
The questions are hierarchical and, in most cases, holarchical in design. High order questions generally capture
interconnections between processes and habitat or beneficial uses. For example, a high-order stream channel question would
be:
What is the channel sensitivity to changes in flood frequency and magnitude?
Foundational, lower-order questions probe spatial and temporal variability, interrogating different channel reaches to
establish current conditions, departures from the historical record, indicators of disturbance and disequilibrium, and
triggering/causative factors.
The product of such guided questioning is a series of "situations sentences" (or problem statements) contained in a "causal
mechanism report". In developing these problem statements, analysts are cautioned to avoid overly reductionist, near-
sighted analysis. They are encouraged to look for "a big picture" that may transcend the guiding menu of questions and
methods and data used to answer them.
Correspondingly, each team is called upon to define "the watershed story" which requires group dialog to probe for
dominant historical phenomena, contextual issues, and signature features of adjustment, balance, resilience, and
homeostasis. It is also recognized that many of the relevant processes in a watershed cannot be readily evaluated with the
recommended watershed-scale methods. In these cases, team members are expected to record "indeterminate" findings that
may lead to more detailed evaluation using more powerful methods and detailed site analysis.
Results and Prognosis
As of late January 1996, 50 watershed analyses have been completed with plans for over 300 more in the next several years.
A related effort has been mounted to conduct watershed analysis on federally owned lands. The federal method, however, is
much less structured and has prompted criticisms about reliability, repeatability, and unrecognized value judgments implicit
in analyses. These are all problems anticipated and planned for in the development of the Washington system.
Nationally, the Pacific Watershed Institute is involved in a project sponsored by EPA to explore application of WAM to
other ecological provinces and settings. The institute is currently working on a guide to be used for inventorying and
characterizing processes on and off tribal lands in diverse ecological provinces. The guide will also define design
considerations for prescription-setting, watershed monitoring, and the training of practitioners. Demonstrations on tribal
lands are expected in the coming year.
-------
G*ern orphic
lBpu* Time frame
Watershed ... ,
proD&sc Hillslcpeunit
locator
^ Chitons and
/ / ¦ / 7
Coarse sediment f J j j rruxlifiers
from pa si- f d J j Channel sited*
mass wi sling * f / -
In unit J J Locator
associated toithclearcuhoggihgj f / / Resouce effects
on unstable slopes (Is)
Channel eitecis
/Loca
/
reducing pooIs Jr
In segrrii nts 1 and 2
/
and digrmding summer fearing habitat
Figure 2. Situation Sentence Syntax.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Environmental Protection Agency's Tribal
Watershed Assessment and Planning Process
Terry Williams, Director
American Indian Environmental Office, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Over the past two years, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has made a concerted effort to
strengthen its Indian Program and fulfill its trust responsibilities to tribes. As two significant and visible
components of the EPA's commitment to advance tribal environmental and resource management,
Administrator Carol Browner established the American Indian Environmental Office (AIEO) and a
Tribal Operations Committee (TOC), composed of nineteen tribal representatives in 1994. The
Administrator also reaffirmed the Agency's 1984 Indian Policy which stresses that tribes are clearly the
appropriate government to design and implement environmental management programs for their
reservations. Where tribes do not have adequate programmatic resources to establish such systems, the
EPA provides assistance to tribal governments in building tribal capacity to manage reservation
environments, and directly implements environmental programs on reservations until tribal governments
can assume these responsibilities.
As the EPA strengthens its Indian program, the Agency recognizes the fundamental needs both to better
understand past and present tribal environmental conditions, problems, and capacity and also to address
the future environmental expectations, objectives, and priorities of tribes. This gap in information is not a
new problem and over the years the Agency and tribal organizations have tried to obtain this information
in various ways. These past efforts have had varying success and failure in building a baseline of data on
tribal environmental conditions and needs.
On July 14, 1994, the Administrator issued an action memorandum directing her management team and
all EPA employees to take prompt action to enhance EPA-tribal programs. The cornerstone of this
Action Directive is a recommendation that tribes and EPA jointly develop Tribal/EPA Environmental
-------
Agreements (TEAs). EPA developed the concept for TEAs working with the TOC and other tribal
leaders. The purpose of the TEAs is to ensure that the EPA and a tribe work toward the tribe's
environmental and public health goals. The agreements are meant to describe the current condition of a
tribe's health and environment, the tribe's vision for their environmental future, and the near-term steps
the EPA and the tribe will take to meet the tribe's long-term goals. The EPA and the TOC envision the
TEAs as planning strategies that include a careful review of all tribal resources, including cultural, and an
identification of the tribal needs necessary to build an appropriate management and resource preservation
program. If designed properly, TEAs can provide a comprehensive strategy for managing and preserving
tribal resources while still maintaining maximum flexibility to support an effective government-to-
government partnership. TEAs are not a requirement, however, EPA's goal is to develop a TEA with
every tribe that wants one.
The EPA and the TOC recognize that to be successful, TEAs must respect the government-to-
government partnership between the EPA and tribes. Thus the EPA and the TOC identified some key
principles for the TEAs. First, the information generated for the TEAs had to come from the tribes, not
from the EPA. Second, the method had to account for the varying levels of environmental capacity
among the tribes, so that every tribe could participate whether or not the tribe already had an
environmental program in place. Third, the method needed to generate not only information about
existing environmental conditions and needs, but also the expectations, goals, objectives, and priorities of
individual tribes. Fourth, this information needed to be generated so that it could then later be aggregated
into regional and national program workplans to support Agency resource decisions. Finally, the method
needed to be more than an information gathering process; it needed to be the first step in an ongoing
process of developing tribal environmental capacity, developing EPA-tribal partnerships, and addressing
tribal environmental concerns.
Good TEAs depend on good information. As one effort to ensure that tribes have sound data to use in
setting environmental priorities, the EPA's AIEO is developing a watershed evaluation technique which
is called the Watershed Analysis and Management (WAM) approach. Through the WAM approach,
tribes can categorically survey and assess their resources using defensible and reproducible scientific
procedures. These results then become integrated into TEAs as part of the decision-making process and
as an environmental strategy for implementation. Therefore, TEAs in concert with the WAM
recommendations and data, provide tribes with a long-term, comprehensive and defensible management
plan. A technical discussion and overview of the WAM framework entitled, "Talking to the Stone-the
Art and Science of Querying in Watersheds" is being presented at this conference by Jim Currie from the
Pacific Watershed Institute.
TEAs and the WAM approach are intended to support effective management of: (1) tribal subsistence
lifestyle opportunities, and (2) traditional food and vegetation (e.g., grasses, medicine plants). For
example, overgrazing by livestock and the subsequent erosion may result in impacts to native grasses
which are a critical cultural resource to basket-weaving tribes. Also, the application of certain pesticides
may result in contamination of the grasses such that they become a health hazard to basket weavers using
the traditional methods for basket weaving. Traditional basket weaving involves many techniques
including the splitting of the reeds by hand and mouth by the basket weaver. This traditional art form is
-------
one of many tribal activities which are an integral part of tribal lifestyles, economy and traditional
culture.
Another cultural resource is fish consumption which in many tribes has both religious as well as a direct
connection to tribal traditions celebrating family. One impact to the cultural practice of fish consumption
is bioacculmulation of toxins (especially organic) in fish fatty tissue thus preventing certain tribal
members or possibly any member from consuming their native fish resources. Toxic pollutants may also
result in fish population depletion and species diversity impacts. Cultural fish resources can also be
impacted by timber harvesting, grazing and other activities that, if mismanaged, may contribute to
changes in stream structure, temperature modifications and turbidity increases.
To develop the WAM approach, the EPA is coordinating with tribes to implement four pilot
demonstrations of the watershed analysis and management framework on reservations. These pilot
demonstrations are critical steps toward validating the framework for wide tribal use. The framework is
designed to be a very powerful tool. For example, the framework might support a persuasive cumulative
effects analysis under NEPA showing that erosion caused by grazing or other activities on off-reservation
lands would adversely impact tribal watersheds and, therefore, harm a tribe's ability to sustain its cultural,
religious and subsistence resources. Thus, the use of the WAM approach and the implementation of the
resulting TEAs fulfills many of the principles in the TEAs guidance, including the principle that tribal
culture and non-traditional values are sustained.
The AIEO recognizes that the WAM framework by itself addresses only part of the information needs for
comprehensive environmental decision-making. Thus, the AIEO is also developing a multi-faceted
decision-making and management "toolbox" to enable tribes to accurately assess environmental impacts,
to make well-informed decisions about tribal priorities, and to respond quickly to activities that pose
serious threats to tribal health, cultural and natural resources. Among other components, the tool box may
include:
¦ Models of tribal environmental policy, acts, and guidance to assist tribes that want a larger role
under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in reviewing actions that effect tribal
resources.
¦ A geographic information system that tribes could use to map their resources and develop
overlays that show the various activities contributing to tribal health risks and natural resource
degradation (e.g., air emissions, discharges to surface waters, septic fields).
¦ A decision guide that would help a tribal environmental program manager assess and weigh
various environmental risks, incorporating, for example, watershed analyses and the results of
radon and lead paint screening procedures.
As comprehensive TEAs are implemented and several WAM modules are developed, tribal experts
certified for the WAM approach will be able to transfer the WAM approach to other tribes thus
-------
expanding the base of successful watershed management across tribal watersheds. Tribal managers will
also be able to share quality watershed data and have access to a wealth of information on potential
watershed management strategies. In order for tribal watersheds and critical tribal resources to be
appropriately managed and sustained, there needs to be national coordination and implementation of
repeatable and sound WAM techniques. When these national objectives are achieved, tribal cultural and
natural resources, tribal watersheds, and tribal economic benefits that depend on managing and
preserving these resources are more likely to be sustained for the use of current and future generations.
Acronym Key List:
AIEO American Indian Environmental Office
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
TEAs Tribal Environmental Agreements
TOC Tribal Operations Committee
WAM Watershed Analysis and Management
-------
Note: This information is provided lor reference purposes only. Although the information
provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
An Approach To Selecting A Watershed For Rehabilitation Developed
For The Zuni Reservation, New Mexico
Allen Gellis, Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey, Albuquerque, NM
Andres Cheama, Stan Lalio, Jim Enote
Pueblo of Zuni, Zuni, NM
The physical restoration and maintenance of watersheds on the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, are essential to the Zuni Tribe's economic
and social well being. Soil erosion on the Zuni Reservation has been a continuing problem since the early part of the 20th century. Active
gullying (arroyo incision), a major part of this erosion, is affecting the sustainability of various natural and cultural resources, such as
farmland and grazing areas, wildlife habitats, and roads, within watersheds on the reservation. The Zuni Land Conservation Act of 1990
authorized the Zuni Tribe to formulate a Resource Development Plan that includes a program of watershed rehabilitation. The tribe's
approach for selecting a watershed for rehabilitation was to prioritize the watersheds by integrating data on physical elements and
anthropogenic features in the watersheds and by incorporating community input.
Methods
Watershed rehabilitation is a mechanism to improve and maintain the physical and socioeconomic quality of watersheds that have been
degraded by a combination of natural causes and anthropogenic activities. A major part of watershed rehabilitation is erosion control.
Erosion control may involve structural treatments in the channel (gully rehabilitation) or nonstructural treatments in the watershed outside
the channel (reseeding). To develop an integrated approach for selecting a watershed for rehabilitation, the Zuni Tribe instituted the Zuni
Conservation Project, which included several work groups: geographic information system (GIS), hydrology and erosion, fish and wildlife,
range science, forestry, and agriculture.
Selection of a Watershed for Rehabilitation
Because of the size of the Zuni Reservation (1,653 km2) (Figure 1), rehabilitating the watersheds within the Zuni Reservation in one project
phase is not feasible. Instead, watershed rehabilitation efforts may be more effective if started in smaller subbasins. Therefore, a basin for
rehabilitation was selected in two stages. In the first stage the reservation was divided into eight major watersheds; delineated from major
drainages on topographic maps (Figure 1). After a major watershed was selected for rehabilitation, this major watershed was divided into
subbasins in the second stage.
-------
a
Zunl Reservation
River watersheds
Zuni Reservation
boundary
10 MILES
10 KILOMETERS
b;
EXPLANATION
: 1 jV^-unit Draw
(f: Lower Nutria
f 3: Coal Mine
:'4;Burnt Timber Canyon
(5'; Crow Canyon
(6: Wetlands
= 7) Garcia Draw
•8}Benny Draw
',§*:¦ Conservation Draw
tit}- Gcsshoppsr Canyon Draw
ill Three Carbon Draw
>ii- Hind Canyon Draw
Jimrin/ Langhose Draw
¦rH- Etox S Canyon
North Burnt Tmber
Qsnym
EXPLANATION
(i;.'ZUNI RIVER
(S/BOSSON WASH
'3,'PLU MAS ANO WASH
(4,TRAPPED ROCK DRAW
¦S)GALESTINACANYOM
•;e) OAK WASH
'J; RIO NUTRIA
¦,8'RIO PESCADO
9 .• ='10;
10 MILES
10 KILOMETERS
Figure 1. (a)location of major watersheds of the Zuni River basin on the Zuni Reservation, New Mexico, and (b) location of
subbasins in te Rio Nutria Watershed.
Data Collection for Selection of a Major Table '• Factors considered in the selection of a major watershed
Watershed for Rehabilitation for rehabllltatlon-
Quantitative and qualitative information on natural and anthropogenic
-------
factors in each major watershed on the Zuni Reservation (Table 1)
was collected and assessed to select a watershed for rehabilitation.
Quantitative data included headcut density and vegetative
characteristics such as percentage of bare ground and percentage of
chained areas. Headcuts are vertical drops in the bed of the gully.
They are important indicators of erosion because they represent
baselevel lowering of the channel and channel downcutting. Headcuts
were identified from color aerial photographs available for 1988 at a
scale of 1:15,840; and some headcuts were verified in the field.
Percentage of bare ground, tabulated by the range science work group
of the Zuni Conservation Project, was based on plot studies for each
soil type and extrapolated to unmeasured areas. Areas of bare ground
may be natural, due to the chemical nature of the soil, or
anthropogenic, due to clearing activities, such as in chained areas.
Chained areas are those areas where vegetative cover was removed
for the purposes of improving grass cover.
VI. Weighting Factor
a. Agriculture (hectares)
b. Results of community survey
IV. Roads
a. Density of dirt roads (m/km2)
III. Vegetative Cover
a. Bare ground (percent)
b. Chained area (percent)
V. Structures
a. Number of failed dams
II. Qualitative Physical Features
a. Average value of main channel erosion
b. Average value of tributary erosion
c. Visual estimate of watershed erosion
I. Physical Features
a. Headcut density (hcadcuts/km2)
Qualitative information also included a relative ranking of main
channel erosion, tributary erosion, and an estimate of erosion for the entire watershed. A scale of 1 to 10 was used in this ranking, 10
representing the potential for the most erosion, 1 representing the potential for the least erosion. Similar qualitative rankings for erosion were
used in the Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee (1968).
Data collected on anthropogenic features in major watersheds included the density of dirt roads and the number of failed dams. Both features
were obtained from aerial photographs and digitized into a GIS. Dirt roads can channel runoff and may cause gullying (Gellis, 1996).
Structures such as earthen dams used for erosion control were examined from aerial photographs to discern if the structures had failed. The
failed structures have ceased to retard sediment and because some have failed by headcutting may cause a new cycle of erosion in the
watershed.
The percentage of agricultural acreage in each basin and the results of a community survey were used as weighting factors in the selection of
a watershed for rehabilitation (Table 1). Agriculture is an important socioeconomic factor to consider. For example, two major watersheds
may have an equal potential for erosion, a watershed used heavily for agriculture may be of more socioeconomic value to rehabilitate. The
community was surveyed about its interpretation of the most appropriate watershed for rehabilitation. A map depicting the eight major
watersheds on the reservation was handed out at a land user meeting where participants were asked, "Which area of the reservation do you
think needs to have erosion-control work first, second, third, and so on?".
After all data were collected, the watersheds were ranked on a scale of 1 to 8, with 8 representing the watershed with the potential for the
most erosion. The ratings were summed and the highest total value indicated the most appropriate watershed for rehabilitation. The first
ranking which assumed all variables to be equally weighted, indicated the main stem Zuni River as the most appropriate major watershed for
rehabilitation, followed by Trapped Rock Draw and Rio Nutria. A weighted value was assigned to select factors listed in Table 1 based on
their significance in characterizing erosion. For example, weights were given as follows: headcut density, 1.5; percentage of bare ground,
2.5; number of failed dams, 2; agricultural acreage, 1.5; and results of community survey, 4. The use of these weighted values indicated Rio
Nutria watershed as the most appropriate watershed for rehabilitation followed by Trapped Rock Draw and the main stem Zuni River.
The Rio Nutria watershed was selected by the Zuni Tribe as the first watershed for rehabilitation. Selection of this basin was based on the
weighted values, with special regard to its selection as the most appropriate watershed for rehabilitation by the community survey (weighted
value of 4). Rio Nutria was also a pilot project basin.
Data Collection for Selection of a Subbasin for Rehabilitation
As the major watershed selected for rehabilitation, the Rio Nutria watershed was divided into 15 subbasins (Figure 1), and physical and
anthropogenic information was collected for each subbasin (Table 2). Physical information included quantitative information on (1) headcut
density, (2) change in gully lengths between 1934 and 1988, (3) gully density in 1988, (4) width-to-depth ratios of gullies, (5) sheetwash
erosion rates, and (6) the percentage of chained areas (Table 2). Physical information also included a qualitative ranking of main channel
erosion, tributary erosion, and an estimate of entire subbasin erosion. Anthropogenic data included information on dirt roads and erosion-
control structures.
Increases in gully length over time may indicate subbasins with
Table 2. Factors considered in the selection of a subbasin for
-------
greater rates of erosion. Gully density was used in the subbasin
assessment process. Gully density is the total length of gullies in a
subbasin divided by subbasin area (Table 2). Narrow, deep channels
are more erodible; therefore, width-to-depth ratio is a variable that
can be used to describe erosion in a channel. Width-to-depth ratios of
incised channels in Mississippi were used as part of a geomorphic
approach developed to aid engineers in rehabilitation efforts
(Schumm et al., 1984). In the assessment of a subbasin for
rehabilitation, width-to-depth measurements were made in select
channels (Table 2). An average of all width-to-depth measurements
for a gully were used in the assessment.
Sheetwash erosion is the erosion and transport of soil from a hillslope
by tiny streams that move back and forth across the hillslope during a
rainstorm (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). Sheetwash together with
rainsplash are responsible for most hillslope erosion. In a study
conducted on sheetwash erosion in the Rio Nutria watershed on
selected land-cover sites using sediment traps, the highest total
sediment concentrations were measured at chained areas and in two
of the three grazed pastures. Due to the nature of chaining, vegetation
may not have recolonized these areas effectively, resulting in large
areas of bare ground. The lowest sediment concentrations were
measured in woodland areas (pinyon and juniper, sage and ponderosa
pine) and may be due to high vegetative cover and leaf litter.
rehabilitation.
I. Physical Features
a. Hcadcut density (hcadcuts/km2)
b. Change in gully length 1934-88 (m/km2)
c. Gully density in 1988, (m/km2)
d. Width-to-depth ratios (m/m)
e. Average sheetwash erosion rates (grams sediment/
grams runoff)
II. Qualitative Physical Features
a. Average value of main channel erosion
b. Average value of tributary erosion
c. Visual estimate of subbasin erosion
III. Vegetative Cover
a. Chained area (percent)
IV. Roads
a. 1988 density of dirt roads (m/km2)
b. Change in dirt road length 1934-88, (m/km2)
V. Structures
a. Number of failed dams
b. Number of structures more than 50% filled
c. Number of dams with headcuts downgradient
VI. Weighting Factor
a. Agriculture (hectare)
Average sheetwash erosion rates were obtained from the sediment trap data using total sediment concentration per unit area (g/g/hectare).
The concentration per unit area for a select land cover type was extrapolated to similar land-cover types in each subbasin of the Rio Nutria
Basin.
Qualitative information collected for the assessment of subbasins was similar to that collected for the assessment of a major watershed. A
relative interpretation of main channel erosion and tributary erosion was made by assigning a value of 1 to 10; 10 indicates the channel
having the most potential for erosion.
A map of dirt roads in the Rio Nutria Basin in 1934 was created from aerial photographs (scale 1:28,000), and a map of dirt roads in 1988
was created from aerial photographs (scale 1:15,840). An increase in the lengths of dirt roads per unit area between 1934 and 1988 is an
indicator of the potential for increased erosion.
Three characteristics useful in the assessment of erosion-control structures in the Rio Nutria watershed were: (1) number of failed dams in
each subbasin, (2) number of structures more than 50 percent silted, and (3) number of structures with headcuts downgradient (Table 2)
(Gellis et al., 1995). Agriculture acreage in each subbasin was obtained from a coverage created in GIS (Graham, 1990).
After all data on physical and anthropogenic factors were collected, the data were entered onto a spreadsheet. All factors were ranked on a
scale of 1 to 15, with a value of 15 given to the factor with the most potential for erosion. The values were summed and the highest value
indicated the subbasin with the most potential for erosion. Various scenarios using various weighted values were presented to rank the
watersheds. In almost all scenarios the three most appropriate watersheds for rehabilitation were Coal Mine Canyon, Garcia Draw, and
Benny Draw.
Monitoring Erosion Control
A monitoring program was established to determine if erosion control is successful over an extended period of time. Monitoring in the Zuni
watersheds is carried out by the Zuni Tribe at the watershed and gully (arroyo) scale. The watershed scale incorporates an area greater than
26 km2 and encompasses 3rd-order drainages or greater. Both structural and nonstructural controls used in erosion control are monitored. A
check dam is considered a structural control, whereas reseeding is considered a nonstructural control. The gully scale typically refers to 1st to
3rd order drainage systems. Monitoring is conducted by the collection of streamflow and suspended-sediment data at the mouth of the basin.
At the gully scale, monitoring includes but is not limited to resurveys of cross sections and inspections and surveys on erosion-control
structures.
-------
References
Dunne, T., and Leopold, L.B. (1978) Water in environmental planning. W.H. Freeman, New York, 818 p.
Gellis, A.C. (1996) Gullying at the Petroglyph National Monument. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation (In Press).
Gellis, A.C., Cheama, A., Laahty, V., and Lalio, S. (1995) Assessment of gully-control structures in the Rio Nutria watershed, Zuni
Reservation, New Mexico. Water Resources Bulletin, v. 31, no. 4, p. 633-636.
Graham, M. (1990) Report on documented 20th century irrigated agricultural fields on the Zuni Reservation. Manuscript preserved
for use as expert testimony to the Institute of the North American West in behalf of the Zuni Indian Tribe in City of Gallup vs. USA,
no. CU. 84-0164, District Court, McKinley County, N. Mex.
Pacific Southwest Inter-Agency Committee (1968) Factors affecting sediment yield in the Pacific Southwest area. Pacific Southwest
Inter-Agency Committee, 14 p.
Schumm, S.A., Harvey, M.D., and Watson, C.C. (1984) Incised channels. Littleton, Colo., Water Resources Publications, 200 p.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although
the information provided here was accurate and current when first created,
it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent
official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Sustainability through Restoration: Experiences of the
White Mountain Apache Tribe
Jonathan Long, Watershed Planner
White Mountain Apache Tribe, Whiteriver, AZ
The White Mountain Apache Tribe has launched a many-pronged effort to achieve its goals for sustainable
development. This approach is guided by the understanding that sustainability has four cornerstones, which are
mutually reinforcing and interdependent:
1. People, with knowledge, awareness, faith, and energy to promote sound resource management.
2. Ecosystems, that are currently in, or can be restored to, healthy and productive conditions.
3. Culture, instilling strong values that bind communities, that facilitate long-range planning based on
traditional knowledge and experience, and that encourage promotion of healthy ecosystems.
4. Sovereignty, including the power to make unfettered decisions about tribal resources.
The Tribe recognizes these four forms of social and natural capital as essential to its existence. All have been
attacked and diminished by federal and state policies ever since the US first sought to control Apache lands. Many
people unfamiliar with tribes question the inclusion of sovereignty as an essential component of sustainability. The
experience of White Mountain reveals that threats to tribal sovereignty constrain the Tribe's ability to make
decisions that best promote sustainable development. Sovereignty in this context includes self-government, cultural
and religious freedom, and economic power derived from control of resources. All of these factors empower tribes
to manage their lands as they wish, and thereby pursue their visions of sustainable development.
No one can define sustainability within the White Mountain Apache Reservation better than the Tribe itself. Their
aboriginal lands and waters not only provide tremendous natural resources, such as ponderosa pine, trophy elk,
native trout and rich rangelands, but also play a critical role in sustaining the Tribe's culture, health and values.
Western approaches to management of these resources may conflict with Apache perspectives. For example, many
Apaches believe that it is presumptuous for humans to try to dictate where and whether other creatures should live;
therefore, both critical habitat and species reintroduction may be viewed as unnatural. Other Apache belief
-------
systems, such as the cyclical nature of the world, do provide a solid foundation for concepts such as ecosystem
management, sustainable yield and land restoration. Particularized knowledge and values, such as historical
conditions and significance of certain waters, are invaluable resources for ecosystem management. Despite the
attention given by outsiders to biological diversity, this ecological knowledge acquired by the Tribe over millennia
is the most vulnerable aspect of sustainable development, as each year buries more knowledge of the elders.
Sovereignty
The White Mountain Apache Tribe has a long and storied history of defending its lands and freedom while
pursuing economic development, extending back to its success in retaining much of its ancestral lands within the
boundaries of the Reservation. Other highlights include an armed confrontation with the State of Arizona over the
building of a reservoir on its lands, the development of a ski resort, a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals case supporting
the Tribe's exclusive right to regulate hunting and fishing, and long battles with Phoenix and the Salt River Project
over water flows.
One of the more recent conflicts occurred when the US Fish and Wildlife Service sought to impose Endangered
Species Act regulations on the Tribe. This conflict was resolved through the adoption of a Statement of
Relationship between the Tribe and the Service in 1994. At the heart of this declaration was the Tribe's objective of
developing ecosystem management plans with technical assistance from the Service. The agreement has led to
numerous creative solutions to ecosystem management challenges on the Reservation, and off it as well. The Tribe
has adopted ecosystem management plans that safeguard sensitive species such as the Mexican Spotted Owl and
Arizona Willow, and it has initiated stream restoration projects with assistance from the Service. Both parties
recognize that far more ecosystem protection has been accomplished through this effort than through a legal battle
over federal regulations.
The Tribe and the Service are planning to take their relationship into a new phase, by developing an Ecosystem
Management and Research Project for a large portion of the Reservation. Dubbed the Medicine Ecosystem Project,
it will bring together individuals with varied talents. Scientists will address native fishes, birds, plants, and
watershed health, cultural advisors will identify significant cultural resources to be protected, and resource planners
will mitigate the impacts of development.
People
The comprehensive Medicine Project will build upon the Tribe's numerous smaller programs to target particular
elements of sustainable development (see Figure 1). A Tribal Watershed Planning Program, funded by the EPA
and the Tribe for two years now, conducts stream monitoring with assistance from Forest Service researchers and
develops integrated resource plans to reconcile multiple uses and promote ecosystem health. The Tribe has
operated an environmental restoration program for two years that employs young persons while informing them
about ecosystem management issues on their lands. This program is being extended to include a Youth Training
Camp, where college and high school students are being trained in stream monitoring and restoration. The youth
programs serve to demonstrate that people can make a good living by taking care of their land.
-------
afining
PEOPLE
Environ me ma I Rejioraita Program
Youth Training Center
SOVEREIGNTY U *
Statement of Relationship wth USFWS
— SUSTA INABILITY
tedicme Ecosyetsem Project Ecotnurlsm
| r,-t
J- ,
V. i-i 1 '-¦*-ZjL ~x 7
V-, i L j
i 1 •
j ^ MF"
r\

•..
v/ - M
n
CULTURE
Ethnoecology Project
I AUh Stream Restoration Projects
LMrtLI Native Species Management
Figure 1
Whit# rtoiaitdn
Indian Reservation
Arizona
Figure 1.
Ecosystems
The land restoration program has focused on high-elevation streams, home of the Apache Trout and dominated by
highly productive mountain meadows. The lessons learned in the mountains are now being extended to the more
arid low country. One of the most important of these lessons has been that non-woody vegetation such as sedges,
rushes, reeds, and bulrushes play a critical role in maintaining stream structure and function. These plants have
been severely depleted due to historic overgrazing, vegetation eradication, and channel manipulations_activities
that were sponsored by the federal government. These findings support the need to promote natural recovery of
systems and to research undisturbed conditions. The focus on recovering plants and streams has been well-received
by tribal leaders and elders, who remember how their lands have been damaged by outsiders.
Culture
-------
The cultural dimension of restoration will be directly addressed through the establishment of an Ethnoecology
Project, in which elders will be enlisted in recording and applying traditional knowledge of places, plants, and
animals. This information will guide resource management and educational programs. The Tribe is working to
encourage eco-tourism ventures by tribal members, while instituting plans to ensure that such development is
compatible with cultural and environmental concerns.
Unifying Strategy: Restoration
At the heart of the Tribe's sustainable development program is the strategy of restoration, in all four areas of
people, culture, land, and sovereignty. The youth programs are rebuilding human capital, the stream projects are
restoring waters, fisheries and riparian zones, and the cultural programs are revitalizing traditional language and
knowledge. Providing impetus for these efforts has been the Statement of Relationship, which in essence, was a
restoration of the Tribe's way of dealing with external entities. This affirmation of tribal sovereignty reinforced an
assertiveness that permeates tribal natural resources management and policy. While the Tribe has sometimes been
insular and reactive, it now seeks out contacts and opportunities to address challenges. The most important step to
guarantee long-term success of this effort is to prepare enough skilled tribal members to lead at all levels. This goal
has been promoted through regular Natural Resource Workshops that bring leaders and resource managers
together. Tribal members have led most of the presentations, many of which are conducted in Apache.
Development of tribal managers is also being promoted through apprenticeship-like positions under the supervision
and training of experienced managers. The Tribal Council made a powerful statement in support of the restoration
strategy in deciding the fate of a $4 million portion of the settlement of its claim against the United States for
damage to its lands prior to 1946. In November 1995, the Council recommended that the Tribe establish a
permanent fund to assist students of natural resources management and support ecosystem restoration projects.
This resolution emphasizes the Tribe's role as the dominant investor in its own sustainable development.
Integrating Management
Concurrent with this astounding growth, the structure of natural resources management is becoming better
integrated. Programs and projects bring together experts from different fields, such as law, science, education,
health, and public policy. Such achievements seem simple, but are not easy due to the alien statutes, confining
grant programs, bifurcated management, and entrenched mindsets that have been typical contributions of the
federal government. These conditions do not create incentives or resources for integrated management.
Nevertheless, the Tribe has pieced together funding, projects, and staff to work in a common direction. Several
steps were helpful in integrating management:
¦ Focus on field work: to train young persons and to show the real challenges and potential of restoration.
¦ Informal interdisciplinary teams: to encourage brainstorming from many perspectives.
¦ Joint funding and projects: to encourage communication and a shared mission.
¦ Speaking with elders: to promote awareness of the history and purpose of management.
Lessons for Non-tribal Entities
-------
The experience of White Mountain brings important lessons to people and agencies outside the Tribe. One of them
is to facilitate tribes in building integrated programs that draw upon the resources and expertise of all governmental
agencies that offer valuable resources and appreciate their responsibilities to tribes. A second lesson is that
developing strong local relations greatly encourages cooperation, as the Fish and Wildlife Service has
demonstrated by establishing a new position in the local Fisheries Resources Office to serve as a liaison to the
Tribe on endangered species issues.
Integrating management and localizing relationships are helpful steps, but for sustainable development to be
realized, tribes must have the power to make decisions free of imposed constraints. Non-Indian society must
acknowledge its responsibility for the precarious conditions in Indian Country that are products of the numerous
long- and still-standing policies that erode tribal sovereignty, ecosystems, and culture. No one who has either a
sense of justice or a hope for sustainability can fairly argue that these historical disparities can be passed over as we
move forward. Many advocates of sustainable development and ecosystem protection express support for their
notions of tribal management based on traditional values, but these same individuals may be circumspect, if not
outright confrontational, when tribes take steps that do not mesh with their romanticized views. There are many
constraints that are unavoidable, including degraded lands and waters, lack of education, and economic resources.
But these constraints are not immutable, and other ones, such as the violation of water rights and abdication of
treaty responsibilities, are matters of policy that can be righted. Therefore, any effort that seeks to promote
sustainability within Indian Country should help to remedy these conditions rather than dismiss them as intractable
or irrelevant.
Promoting self-determination is not only morally justified, it is also the only strategy likely to succeed. Non-Indian
laws, regulations, and priorities will not solve the complex ecosystem problems in Indian Country. Consider the
issue of the federally endangered salmon runs: even from a narrow view of sustainability, it is irrelevant who has
the right to take the last salmon, because at that point the salmon is already lost. We should accept a broader view,
which recognizes that the same forces that have jeopardized our nation's ecosystems, have also threatened tribal
peoples, political systems, economies, and cultures. Then we can see that steps to restore ecosystems and ensure
sustainable development should harness the tremendous power and knowledge that tribes possess, by supporting
tribes in their efforts to restore their worlds.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Every River Has Its People
Ann Seiter, Lynn Muench and Linda Newberry
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe
Sequim, WA
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
A tribal saying is that "Every River Has Its People" and in the Dungeness watershed of Washington State
an unusual mix of committed groups and individuals have been working together for the last few years to
address the deteriorating condition of the Dungeness River ecosystem. The Dungeness has always been
the primary river of the Jamestown Band of S'Klallam people, who pooled $500 in gold coin in 1874 and
purchased 200 acres near the river to remain in their traditional territory. Unfortunately, the Dungeness is
not the abundant source of fisheries that it was in the last century with chinook and fall pink salmon now
identified as critically depressed (Washington State Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory, 1992),
meaning the runs are now so small that permanent damage to the stock is likely or has already occurred.
A number of interrelated factors have led to this decline including logging practices from decades past,
past water withdrawals for irrigation, shoreline development, bridge construction, and diking. The
Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe participated in a series of separate planning processes that each addressed a
piece of the watershed puzzle, i.e. water quality, flood management, water quantity, and fisheries
restoration. The Tribe served as the coordinating entity for the successful development of a water
resource management plan under the auspices of the "Chelan Agreement," a locally-based consensus
process that sought to avoid water rights litigation through regional negotiations.
The result of all this planning has been the advancement of the "three R's" in the Dungeness watershed:
(1) improved technical knowledge through research; (2) better management of watershed resources
through consensus-based recommendations; and (3) the building of lasting relationships among the
people with a stake in the watershed. Clallam County and the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribe passed a joint
resolution in 1995 to form a Dungeness River Management Team that is comprised of representatives
from the Tribe, County, state, and federal agencies, riparian property owners, farmers, environmentalists,
and scientists. These veterans of watershed planning processes and a few new recruits have stated the
-------
purpose of exchanging information, implementing watershed plans, coordinating staff and funding, and
promoting public education on watershed processes. It is hoped that the Team will continue the positive
direction that emerged from endless hours of meetings, careful analysis, and learning to listen to each
other. In the words of the Jamestown S'Klallam Tribal Chairman, Ron Allen: "We have chosen to
manage the water resources of the Dungeness watershed with the residents of this community, rather then
seek solutions in the distant courts. Whether this will remain possible in the long run is up to the people
of the river."
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Chesapeake Bay Community Action Guide: A Step-
by-Step Guide to Improving the Environment in
Your Neighborhood
Brian M. LeCouteur, Environmental Planner/Forester
Jennifer Greenfeld
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC
In 1987, the Chesapeake Bay restoration effort was heightened by the signing of the Anacostia River
Restoration Agreement, by the Governor of Maryland, Mayor of the District of Columbia and the County
Executives of Prince Georges and Montgomery Counties. And, in 1991, as a signatory in this multi-
jurisdictional agreement, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments developed a Six-Point
Action Plan for the restoration activities for this highly degraded tributary of the Potomac River.
The Anacostia Watershed Restoration Committee (AWRC), comprised of state and local government
officials from the District of Columbia, Prince Georges County, Montgomery County and the State of
Maryland, was established to ensure that the objectives of the 1987 Agreement were met. The
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (COG) has the responsibility of providing staff
support to the AWRC as well as providing the Committee with recommendations on new initiatives to be
undertaken by the AWRC in support of the 1987 Agreement. The AWRC has been actively involved in
the restoration effort, having committed to over 50 restoration initiatives in 1990 alone.
Since the signing of these agreements, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of resource
restoration projects within the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Many of these projects are initiated at the
public and private levels and are supported by citizen volunteers. Two initiatives were spawned within
the Anacostia Watershed as this environmental restoration effort proceeded: 1) an effort to coordinate
groups interested in participating in the restoration activities, and 2) technical guidance to assist citizens
-------
in overcoming the hurdles organizing and implementing these projects successfully.
The first initiative was accomplished through the establishment of the "Small Habitat Improvement
Program" (SHIP), whose primary purpose is to assist implementation of a series of small scale
restoration projects by citizen groups and others. The second initiative was The Chesapeake Bay
Community Action Guide which is a publication specifically targeted at those groups both public and
private that want to improve the environment of the Bay watershed. Published in final form in May of
1994, the Community Action Guide is designed to provide step-by-step instructions on environmental
restoration projects for those interested in participating in these efforts. These citizens groups and
volunteers to governmental efforts are increasingly important as financial resources devoted to such
activities shrink.
This handbook-style document has aided many community groups, teachers and other school groups, as
well as individuals to implement Chesapeake Bay Cleanup activities in their communities. Included in
the Handbook, are case studies of continuing restoration projects in the Anacostia River Watershed.
Projects which involve a volunteer labor force require a considerable amount of time in planning,
executing and follow-up activities. Although numerous projects of this type have occurred, little
information is available on how to ensure a successful project. Consequently many project organizers
have to continually reinvent the wheel, expending valuable time and resources. It is the intent of this
document to provide volunteer project organizers a concise, step-by-step approach to organize a resource
restoration project.
Also, by providing concise, up-to-date information, as well as step-by-step guidance from project
organizers who have had experience with volunteer projects, the chances of implementing a successful
project are enhanced. Not only does this save valuable time, but it also saves valuable resources and
ensures that the money spent on a volunteer project is money well spent.
The Guide is a handy reference guide to be used by educators, public agencies and environmental groups.
This should encourage groups or agencies to sponsor mere volunteer projects. It may also encourage
other groups that do not normally sponsor volunteer projects, to become involved due to the reduction in
the time involved in project organization. By conducting mere volunteer restoration projects, it is
anticipated more people living within the Bay watershed will be able to take an active role in the Bay
clean-up effort.
Guide Content
The Guide has provided guidance in the following types of environmental projects:
¦ Storm Drain Stenciling
¦ Wetlands Plantings
-------
¦ Stream Cleanups
¦ Reforestation and Tree Care
Although the Guide has been developed based on the Anacostia restoration effort, the nature of the
document will allow its adaptation throughout the Bay watershed. Information on project contacts,
checklists have been written at a generic level, allowing for their use on the eastern shore of Maryland as
well as in the western portion of the state, with mock project plans as well as educational materials.
The most important part of any environmental/community project are the volunteers. This Guidebook
highlights the importance of volunteer involvement and support as well as methods on how to organize
restoration events and how to maximize the benefit to the volunteers and organization resulting in a
100% positive experience.
¦ Checklists for each specific type of project which will guide a project organizer through project
development, execution, and identify critical follow-up activities to ensure project success;
¦ Mock Project Plans for each type of project, including project location; project description;
sources of labor, materials and funds; location map(s) and schematics of the project; cost
estimates; and a time line for project implementation;
¦ Generic Educational Material for each type of project, to be used as is or adapted as needed; this
material will explain project importance and will be distributed not only to project volunteers, but
also to the surrounding project community;
This Guide is currently being distributed free of charge throughout the Chesapeake Bay region and
beyond. It has been used as a model to develop similar programs in other watersheds outside of the Bay
region.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Backyard Actions for a Cleaner Chesapeake Bay: A
Cooperative Outreach Program
Merrill Leffler, Environmental Writer
University of Maryland Sea Grant College Program, College Park, MD
Rona Flagle, Public Information
Maryland Department of Agriculture, Annapolis, MD
Public Education and Water Quality
Increasingly we realize that the key to restoring the health of Chesapeake Bay lies in the hands of
individual citizens. Reaching those citizens, however, represents a daunting challenge, one we have
addressed through a multi-media public information campaign described below.
Restoration of Water Quality in Chesapeake Bay
Water quality in the Chesapeake Bay has been on the decline for nearly 40 years-that decline has been
especially evident in oxygen-depleted bottom waters, in widespread losses of submerged aquatic
vegetation and in periodic fish kills. We have known for some time now that good water quality begins
with land practices-how we use the land, how we eliminate and change its natural topography (e.g.,
forests and grasslands to farms and suburban development), and how we protect its connections with the
water, for instance, the direct discharges from sewage treatment and commercial plants, the indirect
loading through runoff and groundwater seepage, and the airborne pollutants released from smokestacks
and automobiles.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Years of scientific research have shown that much of the Bay's degradation is the result of excessive
-------
nutrients that overwhelm the ecosystem's assimilative capacity. Overenrichment of nitrogen and
phosphorus sets into motion processes that feed massive growths of algae, much of which sinks
unconsumed through Bay waters to fuel bacterial growth among the end results is depletion of oxygen,
elimination of habitat and deterioration of a healthy ecological infrastructure.
A major goal of the Chesapeake Bay Program-a compact of state and federal governments to restore Bay
water quality-is to slash nutrient flow to the Bay. In 1985, the states of Maryland, Virginia and
Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, and the Environmental Protection Agency set a goal of reducing
nutrient releases to the Bay 40 percent by the year 2000.
A Cleaner Chesapeake: The Need for Educated Citizens
Notable achievements towards meeting the 40 percent reduction have been made, for instance, through
such actions as the banning of phosphorus detergents and through the upgrading of sewage treatment
plants to remove phosphorus and, more selectively, nitrogen. In addition, the federal Clean Water and
Clean Air Acts have led to significant reductions in direct discharges of contaminants from industrial
processes as well. As direct discharges of pollutants come under greater control, primarily through
regulatory efforts, diffuse, or non-point, sources of pollutants loom as a larger problem to water quality:
runoff from highways and streets, farms, and urban and suburban development are not as amenable to
regulatory control and enforcement.
The Chesapeake Bay Program has developed a Tributary Strategy that sets goals for nutrient reductions
in major river basins that make up the Bay ecosystem. To meet those goals, nutrient and toxic runoff will
have to be severely curtailed from many sources. While farms constitute a major source of nutrients to
the Bay, through runoff and groundwater seepage, state programs, Cooperative Extension Service
agencies, and soil conservation districts in the Chesapeake Bay watershed are working with farmers in
numerous programs to encourage voluntary reduction of fertilizer and pesticide use and control of soil
erosion.
Related efforts are not in place for curtailing nutrient and pesticide runoff from residential areas: few
educational programs reach out to citizens. In Backyard Actions for a Cleaner Chesapeake Bay-a public
education outreach program-the Maryland Department of Agriculture, the Maryland Sea Grant College
Program, the University of Maryland Cooperative Extension Service, and Maryland farmers joined
together in a program in Spring and Summer 1995 to begin educating citizens on practical actions they
could take on their lawns and gardens to help protect the Chesapeake Bay.
Backyard Actions for a Cleaner Chesapeake Bay: The Outreach
Program
Goals
-------
Called Backyard Actions for a Cleaner Chesapeake Bay, the goals of the education program were three-
fold: (1) to inform citizens that their personal actions, even on small plots of land, can impact the health
of Chesapeake Bay, (2) to provide hands-on information on gardening and lawn maintenance practices
and (3) to show city dwellers and suburbanites that farmers are stewards of the land and what they are
doing to protect the Bay.
The educational focus was on wise fertilizer use, alternatives to pesticides and controlling soil erosion.
According to a recent public attitudes survey on the Chesapeake Bay, citizens are still not aware that
nonpoint sources of pollution play a major role in the Bay's health: 32 percent of those interviewed said
that industries were the major cause of pollution in the Bay and 8 percent that farmers were-7 percent
identified individuals (Chesapeake Bay Attitudes Survey 1994).
Strategy
Three, 30-second video public service
announcements (PSAs) and radio
scripts, produced by the University of
Maryland Sea Grant College, formed
the centerpiece of the outreach program
to disseminate the conservation
message. The outreach strategy
included important and related
elements:
¦ Take It from Maryland Farmers
Bay-Wise Guides designed to
give easily accessible advice on
gardening and lawn practices.
By phoning the 800 number at
the Maryland Cooperative
Extension Service's Home and
Garden Information Center,
callers received copies of Use
Fertilizers Wisely; Control Soil
Erosion Around Your Home;
Try Pesticide Alternatives.
¦ Take It From Maryland Farmers posters advertising the availability of the Bay-Wise Guides by
calling the 800 number. These were distributed to libraries, schools and public office buildings.
Maryland Farmers Partners With the Bay stickers. Handed out at special events.
-------
Take It From Maryland Farmers table top exhibit for use at special events such as home and
flower shows, National Soil Stewardship Week, Earth Day, Governor's Bay Bridge Walk,
Maryland State Fair, Chesapeake Appreciation Days.
¦ Cooperative Extension Service outreach education programs.
¦ Chesapeake Regional Information Service (CRIS), Soil Conservation district outreach programs.
¦ Television and radio appearances with farmers, among them, Martha Clarke, Central Maryland;
Don Spickler, Western Maryland; Martha Daughdrill, Southern Maryland; Marty Rice, Frederick
County. Other spokesmen were interviewed, including Maryland Department of Agriculture head,
Lou Riley.
Backyard Actions for a Cleaner Chesapeake Bay: The Results
The Maryland Department of Agriculture was responsible for marketing the PSAs, arranging television
and radio interviews, and contacting print journalists for stories on the Backyard Actions campaign. The
Maryland Cooperative Extension Service provided the 800 number and distributed materials-they recived
more than 3500 calls. In addition, Cooperative Extension Service agents used the fact sheets in
educational programs in their counties. While the campaign was slated to run from April to June 1995,
television stations are still running the PSAs in winter 1996. Channel 2 in Baltimore, for example,
reported that PSAs were shown four times in December 1995, representing a broadcast value of $850.
The data below are as of October 1995-the estimated value of public service announcements and print
media during this time totaled more than $62,000.
Public Service Announcements
The Public Service Announcements were run on at least 44 outlets (15 television and 29 radio) with an
average of at least five runs per station: 2,200 hits for a total estimated value of $22,000. The channels
included commercial stations WJLA-7, WBAL-11, WMAR-2, WUSA-9; Maryland Public Television;
and cable stations. Radio stations (throughout Maryland and the Washington metropolitan area) read or
adapted PSA scripts, among them, WRC-980, WTOP-1500, WMAL-63.0, WBAL-1090, and National
Public Radio.
Television and Radio Interviews
Between April 3 and July 9, ten radio and television on-the-air interviews were placed: they included a
WJZ-TV Bob Turk Interview and WBAL-TV Dave Durlen Interview. WBOC-TV ran programs on the
evening and morning news. Longer programs on television included two 30-minute programs on WJFK
(Trish Mahoney) and WLIF (Sloane Brown). The dollar value of these interviews are estimated at
$7,300.
-------
Print Media
Articles or mentions of the Backyard Actions campaign appeared in at least 20 different publications, and
ranged from large newspapers such as The Washington Post to more regional newspapers such as the
Daily Banner, Maryland Independent, and the Star-Democrat to specialist newspapers such as Delmarva
Farmer. The estimated dollar value of these articles or mentions is $27,884.
Additional Marketing Outlets
While the media outreach markets played a major role in public education, the Bay-Wise Guides were
delivered to other outlets for educational programming. A total of 5,000 guides were delivered to 24 Soil
Conservation Districts and to Cooperative Extension Service Offices, Pennsylvania and Virginia
Departments of Agriculture and Natural Resources, Maryland Farm Bureau, local government agencies,
various homeowners and condominium associations, teachers, Save Our Streams, and Federated Garden
Clubs of Maryland.
The 1996 Outreach Campaign and the Future
During spring and summer 1996, we will repeat the Take It From Maryland Farmers campaign; this will
include updating the PSAs and adding a 10- or 20-second version on preventing soil erosion. We have
also begun planning a public education effort on the prevention of soil erosion during winter.
We are developing a survey questionnaire for interviews with callers who requested Bay-Wise Guides.
Our aim is to evaluate the effectiveness of PSAs and the value of the guides in gardening and lawn
practices.
Using the Backyard Actions campaign as a model, we will explore the potential with other state agencies
for extending the campaign throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.
References
Chesapeake Bay Attitudes Survey. (1994). Chesapeake Bay Program Communications
Subcommittee. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for the Chesapeake Bay Program.
-------
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Multi-Faceted Extension Education Program to
Reduce Residential Nonpoint Source Pollution
Marc T. Aveni, Area Extension Agent
Virginia Cooperative Extension, Prince William County, VA
Introduction
The Water Wise Gardener Program, developed by Virginia Cooperative Extension (VCE) with funding
from the Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES) at the U.S.
Department of Agriculture (USDA), is an educational program aimed at reducing nonpoint source
pollution from suburban residential areas. Targeted pollutants include: (1) nutrients, especially nitrogen
and phosphorus from residential fertilizer use and pet wastes; (2) sediments, primarily due to erosion
from poor landscape or site development practices; and (3) toxics, such as pesticides and household
chemicals.
The program seeks to reduce pollution to area water ways through the following objectives:
¦ Education on various lawn, landscape, septic system, and well-water best management practices;
¦ Implementation by homeowners of recommended practices;
¦ Partner Master Gardener volunteers with homeowners to achieve the first two objectives listed.
Specific working goals of the program that have been met include:
¦ 85 percent of participants complete one-year Water Wise Gardener program; this includes
attendance at a series of spring and fall seminars, implementing at least five recommended
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
practices, keeping accurate records of lawn and landscape activities, and meeting at least once
with a Master Gardener;
¦ Documentation of a 40 percent reduction in nitrogen applied, and a 25 percent reduction in yard
waste sent off-site, pesticides applied, and water used in the landscape.
The following discussion will identify and describe some key aspects and lessons learned from
conducting the Water Wise Gardener to date.
Who is the Audience?
Before planning or conducting a water quality education program, one should ask the question: "Who is
the intended audience?" There are a number of ways to classify the publics (people) served by a public
education program. The physical area served by an Extension office or agency, e.g. a small community, a
big city, a rapidly developing suburban area, will play a large part in audience determination. An inner-
city program will be different from a suburban program or a rural program. Discovering which water
quality issues are important from a community, social, and political perspective is a key element of the
program planning process.
Some generalizations about audiences and their interests in water quality education can be made. For
example, in rural areas, the quality of well water and septic system maintenance will likely be of major
interest to both residents and local government. In suburban areas, lawn and yard care is popular with
residents and commercial landscapers, neighborhood appearance is a great concern to homeowner
associations, and storm-water management is emerging as an issue localities must deal with. Inner-city
audiences may be concerned about urban stream restoration, river clean-up, or municipal water quality
problems.
What is Public Education Anyway?
Cooperative Extension programs incorporate a combination of informational, developmental, and
implementational components. Informational programs are focused on distributing and sharing
information. Speakers, brochures, videos, news releases, seminars, and, field days generally fall into this
category. Stand alone informational activities such as a seminar or brochure generally provide a "one
shot" approach to education. The impact of such an approach is difficult to quantify, other than to specify
how many people attended or received a publication. What people do as a result of the event, e.g., did
participants change their behaviors, or did they go on doing what they were doing before, is hard to
determine. Nonetheless, such informational opportunities certainly have a place in educational programs;
they are effective in raising awareness and encouraging people to a deeper level of involvement.
In most areas, Cooperative Extension programs are getting away from a purely informational approach to
education in favor of a more developmental approach. The aim of a developmental program is to move a
targeted audience confronted with a problem (poor water quality, a bad lawn, overuse of fertilizer),
-------
through an educational process that leads to implementation of desired behaviors. Developmental
programs work best with objectives that are sequenced and aimed towards accomplishment of program
goals, and, an evaluation of program results.
The Five Level Program Involvement Model for Water Quality
Education
The heart of the Water Wise Gardener Program is the Five level program involvement model for water
quality education shown in Table 1. In the first level of the program, suburban homeowners and renters
participate in a series of seminars designed to educate them on various lawn and landscape topics that
also impact water quality. Examples include fertilization, integrated pest management, plant selection
and care, and composting. The seminars feature speakers and actual demonstrations. Plenty of time is
allowed for questions, and publications on the topic are available. The seminars also serve to interest
individuals in participating in the volunteer lawn component of the program (level two). Many
Cooperative Extension offices are already conducting these types of programs with existing resources. If
available, additional funding can be sought to purchase or design publications, promotional items, or pay
for speakers.
Level two recognizes that while seminars and workshops are great places to begin public education on
water quality issues, developmental programs should challenge people to a deeper level of personal
involvement. One of the most successful methods of developmental education related to lawn care and
water quality is the volunteer lawn. In this part of the program, homeowners volunteer to implement the
recommended practices they have learned in the seminars. The homeowner signs an agreement stating
his or her intention to implement at least five best management practices, as well as keep track of lawn
and yard care activities and amounts of fertilizer and pesticides applied on a record form. The
homeowner is assigned a personal Master Gardener (Cooperative Extension volunteers trained in many
aspects of horticulture), with whom the homeowner can consult about the implementation of the
recommended practices. The Master Gardener conducts at least one personal visit with the homeowner
and establishes regular phone hours when he or she can be contacted with questions. While by no means
essential, additional funding at this point can allow a part time professional to be hired for managing and
tracking the individual volunteer lawns.
Table 1. Five level program involvement model for water quality education.
Level # and Name
#1 workshop, seminar, field day
Program Objective
awareness,
provide written material,
opportunity to hear speaker and
ask questions,
recruitment for next level
Time & Funds Needed
one year $0 - $500 (supplies
and promotion)
-------
#2 volunteer lawn
adoption of best management
practices,
data collection,
one-on-one interaction with
volunteers
two years, $0 - $5000 (above
plus wages for technician)
#3 demonstration lawn
term data
program publicity, long term
three years, $0 - $10,000
(above plus more wages)
#4 master gardner training
train new volunteers already
familiar with the program
three years, $0 - $25,000
(above plus more wages)
#5 transfer to community
bring program to closure,
refocus based on new priorities
four + years, $0 - ?
It is generally a good idea to start out with a small number of volunteer lawns the first year, perhaps 10,
and see how it goes before committing to greater numbers of lawns. Some homeowners can require a big
time commitment, especially if their yards need a great deal of work and they are counting on you to
answer all their questions! In many cases, a lack of trained Master Gardeners is the primary factor
limiting the number of volunteer lawns that can be initiated at one time. A minimum of a one-year
commitment by the volunteer lawn homeowner is essential to learn and implement the recommended
practices as well as collect data. It's okay to have a homeowner in the program longer than one year.
Demonstration lawns are the third level in the Water Wise Gardener Program. The purpose of a
demonstration lawn is to signify achievement, mastery, and knowledge gained. Once homeowners have
been in volunteer lawn status for a year or more, they are knowledge about how water quality relates to
lawn care, and hopefully the educational role of Cooperative Extension. Their lawns are probably
looking good as well! This is the time to reward them by highlighting their efforts to the community with
some type of yard sign. This not only emphasizes the "grassroots" nature of your program, but is also an
effective marketing strategy. Demonstration lawns can also provide you with a source of long term data,
i.e., did participants follow the recommendations beyond the one year period, beyond two years? A
realistic goal is to have about 20 percent of the volunteer lawns continue on as a demonstration lawn.
Here again, additional funds can provide more personnel to help you manage an expanding program.
Master Gardener training is the fourth level of the program. Here, the idea here is to encourage
volunteers who are already familiar with the Water Wise Gardener Program, by virtue of having
participated as a volunteer or demonstration lawn themselves, to become Master Gardeners. This brings
the volunteer effort full circle, as the volunteer who has received training in levels one through three now
makes a commitment to share his or her knowledge with others in the community. At this point,
additional funds can support an expanded training effort.
Level five is evaluation of the program. Evaluation of some sort should occur every year. This is covered
in more detail in the following section. In addition to yearly evaluation, every three to four years,
decisions about future program direction should be made. Perhaps the original goals have not been met
-------
and either more time or goal redefinition is needed. If the program goals have been achieved in one
particular community, perhaps resources can now be focused on other community. It may be that the
program focus changes to some other water quality aspect, such as well-water testing or septic system
maintenance, and the community takes on the lawn and landscape part. It is not an easy task to get a
community to feel invested enough in a program to continue it without the time and money resources of
your agency. You may find it helpful to adopt such a attitude as you go about conducting your program.
Don't Forget Evaluation
Assessing the impacts and outcomes of water quality public education programs is important for many
reasons. Increasingly, limited funds for such programs means that managers will be required to show that
the education efforts are producing desired impacts and outcomes. Recall that developmental programs
are designed to assist participants in both learning new information and changing behaviors. A common
approach to evaluating these types of changes is the administration of a before and after survey that asks
the same questions. Such a survey can assess changes in before and after behaviors or practices (usually
expressed as a percent) addressed in the educational program. Besides obtaining data on homeowner
behaviors and practices, a well designed survey can provide demographic information such as age, race,
income level, and voting district. Such a survey, administered before the homeowner attends the first
seminar or event, can also supply specifics on amounts of fertilizer, pesticide, and water being used.
Similarly, a survey completed after the homeowner has been participating in the program for at least a
year will show what the person has learned, attitude changes, and quantitative data on fertilizer,
pesticide, and water usage. Comparison of the surveys will enable you to evaluate whether or not
program goals are being met. Use of a computer software spreadsheet or database manager facilitates
keeping track of, analyzing, and reporting of this type of data.
Once data has been collected and analyzed, it is essential that you use it to improve your program, not
just to see how good or bad you did. If your goals are not being met, ask yourself why. Could it be that
another year is needed, or were the goals perhaps too unrealistic? It may take a few years until the
program is running as it should. Be sure to prepare and widely distribute an easy-to-read summary or
impact sheet showing your more positive results. Such information helps to demonstrate that public
education is indeed effective in reducing nonpoint sources of pollution by changing peoples attitudes and
practices in and around their homes and yards.
What's Next?
With funding from the CSREES at the USD A, and Extension specialist support from Virginia Tech, a
program guide on the Water Wise Gardener has been developed. The program is currently being
expanded to Cooperative Extension offices in the Chesapeake Bay watershed. Further expansion on a
national level is hopeful.
-------
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Blue Thumb-An Urban Watershed Success Story
Susan Gray, Extension Horticulture/Water Quality Agent
Michael Smolen, Water Quality Coordinator
Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service
Cheryl Cheadle, District Manager
Tulsa County Conservation District
Laura Pollard, District Manager
Oklahoma County Conservation District
Jennifer Myers, Blue Thumb Coordinator
John Hassell, Water Quality Programs Coordinator
Oklahoma Conservation Commission
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Blue Thumb, a nationwide effort to educate citizens about nonpoint source
pollution was begun by the American Waterworks Association (A WW A). When
our state began an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 319 project to teach
our citizens how to protect their watersheds, we adopted the Blue Thumb logo
with AWWA's permission. As you can see from the long list of authors, we had
several agencies involved. The Blue Thumb logo was just the ticket to packaging
a public relations program to teach folks to care about their storm sewer system in
urban areas.
-------
Blue Thumb is Oklahoma's statewide, volunteer based, water quality education
project. It began in 1992 with an EPA grant to a dedicated group of agencies:
Oklahoma Conservation Commission, Conservation District offices in Tulsa and
Oklahoma Counties, Oklahoma Cooperative Extension Service, and the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service).
This is the story of how all of these agencies cooperatively worked to get the
message out that "We all live downstream."
The Blue Thumb logo was selected for the project as an eye-appealing way to
present the water quality message. It has been loaned to us by the AWWA and is,
indeed, part of a nationwide campaign. Our mission is to teach citizens in urban
areas of Oklahoma that they are part of a watershed that needs protection from
nonpoint source pollutants. If we are good gardeners, we are said to have a green
thumb. The Blue Thumb indicates that we also are good to our environment and
that we care about water running downstream from our homes.
Having water quality awareness takes us to a greater depth of understanding of
the following areas of the urban environment: stormwater drainage, urban erosion
and sediment control on construction sites, and groundwater protection, and
proper choices of fertilizers and pesticides for our homes, yards, and golf courses.
These facets of urban activity affect all of us, downstream. Blue Thumb's job has
been to convey to people just how important they are in maintaining healthy
aquatic ecosystems in the cities.
We have educated people about storm water drainage by starting the first storm
drain stenciling project in Oklahoma. Volunteers can come to the Blue Thumb
office, check out a stenciling kit, and spend a few hours labeling drains and
explaining to the public that these are direct conveyances to local water resources.
Stencils read: "Dump No Waste—Drains to River." The stenciling project has
taken off in Tulsa and Owasso. It will soon be expanding to other cities in
Oklahoma as well.
-------
Construction projects are infamous for clearing land and choking downstream
waters with sediment. To address this, Blue Thumb has teamed up with local
Builders Associations, the Oklahoma State University Biosystems and
Agricultural Engineering Department, the City of Tulsa, and the Oklahoma
Department of Transportation to teach a series of erosion control seminars and an
engineering design short course. These are now a routine part of continuing
education for engineers and field operators in the construction industry.
Groundwater protection is a serious concern. Small pump houses behind urban
homes are often used for pesticide storage. Blue Thumb in Oklahoma City has
worked hard to convince homeowners that spilled or leaking lawn and garden
products in the area of wellheads spell trouble for groundwater. This problem is
nearly impossible to clean up once the damage is done.
In the Oklahoma City metro area, Blue Thumb provides helpful messages to the
public through "The Environment Guide", a voice mail system accessible through
the information pages of the phone book. Recorded messages tell listeners where
their drinking water comes from, how it is protected, and what they can do to
protect the environment.
Fleas, weeds, household pests, and other problems often prompt the use of
pesticides. Blue Thumb has strived to give the public sound advice on proper
selection and use of such pesticides. Oklahoma County Blue Thumb equipped
lawn and garden centers with brochures on proper pesticide selection to provide
to their customers. We have worked closely with small municipalities, such as the
City of Norman, to provide flea control information. Tips on environmentally
responsible flea control were broadcast to the general public. People were
especially urged never to dump pesticides down storm drains or into the sanitary
sewer system via sinks and toilets. As a result, the City of Norman Wastewater
Treatment Plant was able to reduce discharge of the pesticide diazinon in the
Little River. EPA standards at that location were previously exceeded. The
educational efforts of Blue Thumb are now being shared with other cities around
the State of Oklahoma via the "Oklahoma Clean!" campaign to keep pesticides
out of the wastewater system.
-------
Our program is gaining momentum and continues to be used as a model for the
region in successful environmental education for the people.
Acronyms
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
AWWA American Waterworks Association
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Lessons Learned from Preparation of the Mill Creek
Special Area Management Plan
Michael Scuderi, Environmental Protection Specialist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle, WA
Since the first inquires in 1988, the development of the Mill Creek Special Area Management Plan
(SAMP) in the lower Green River Valley, King County, Washington has presented a significant
challenge bringing together agency, environmental and development interests. The Mill Creek Basin
contains the last large (greater than 2,500 acres), fairly contiguous wetland system in southern King
County. The basin wetlands are also one of the last large blocks of land suitable for industrial
development in King County. The Mill Creek SAMP was initiated to address the conflict between
resource protection and the need for land for development. Under the present system of case by case
permit review, outcomes of permit decisions were unpredictable, and lead to increasing fragmentation of
the existing system. The long term cumulative impacts of projects were not evaluated in the context of
broad ecosystem needs. In addition, mitigation efforts were not coordinated, missing opportunities to
capture benefits of combining areas where wetland were being restored, created or enhanced as
compensatory mitigation for development projects.
To address these problems, the Corps of Engineers, the Environmental Protection Agency, King County,
and the city of Auburn, and the city of Kent entered into an agreement in August 1990 to develop a
SAMP to better manage and protect the wetland resources of the Mill Creek Basin, while allowing for
some development of the basin wetlands. The 1980 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act
established the Special Area Management Plan mechanism. The Corps of Engineers adopted this
mechanism for wetland planning as described in the Regulatory Guidance Letter Number 92-03 on
SAMPs (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1992).
Goals of the Mill Creek SAMP
-------
Six general goals were presented in the Plan of Study to guide the development of the Mill Creek SAMP:
¦ Provide for a balance between wetlands protection and economic development in the Basin,
¦ Ensure that wetland functions and values continue to be equal to or greater than those currently
existing in the Mill Creek Basin,
¦ Reflect the needs and interests of the federal, state, and local regulatory and resource agencies and
contribute to consistency among federal, state and local efforts for wetlands protection and
management,
¦ Provide detailed information (including watershed information) to agencies and all interested
parties for resource management and protection and for assessment of cumulative impacts,
¦ Provide greater predictability for both developmental and environmental interests, and
¦ Provide an abbreviated Corps of Engineers and local government permit process for projects
meeting certain conditions and located in appropriate areas of the Basin.
Development of Wetland Management Alternatives for the Mill Creek
SAMP
The first step in developing alternatives for SAMP was to inventory and characterize the wetlands of the
basin. The Mill Creek Basin is approximately 22 square miles in size. Mill Creek and Mullen Slough are
the major tributaries in the basin, and despite degraded water quality conditions, still support significant
coho rearing habitat. The wetland inventory identified 128 wetland systems covering over 2,500 acres.
The majority of the wetlands identified are emergent systems, either actively farmed or in various stages
of reversion from cultivation to a more natural state. Approximately 360 acres of forested systems with
large areas of open water also exist in the basin.
After the inventory was completed, a wetlands functions and values assessment was conducted using the
Wetland Evaluation Technique (WET), and the Washington State Department of Ecology rating system.
The result of this characterization was the realization that while the basin's wetlands might appear to be
highly degraded, they still are providing significant fish and wildlife habitat, flood water storage, and
water quality improvement.
The "performance" of functions by wetlands in the SAMP area was then quantified using the Indicator
Value Assessment (IVA) methodology developed by Dr. Thomas Hruby (1995), Washington State
Department of Ecology. This method provides a relative estimate of the performance of wetland
functions based on specific indicators. The IVA does not provide generic models for measuring
performance, but rather a framework for developing local models. Thus, the specific quantitative models
needed to evaluate performance in the Mill Creek basin were developed by a local committee of wetland
experts, and reflect conditions and factors known to affect performance in this area. The wetland with the
highest performance in the basin is scored at 100 and the rest are scored relative to this. Wetland
performance was characterized according to Fish habitat, Wildlife Habitat, Floodflow Alteration, and
Water Quality Improvement.
-------
Information on the relative value of basin wetlands' performance, combined with an analysis of
landscape position were used to identify wetlands in the basin which were of higher value or had a high
restoration/enhancement potential. Wetlands adjacent to Mill Creek or containing mature forested
systems were found to have the highest values. Wetlands not in the Mill Creek floodplain were found to
have lower values for habitat, floodwater storage, and water quality improvement.
Given this knowledge, the next step was to develop alternatives which balanced wetland preservation and
a reasonable level of development while maintaining no net loss of wetland functions and values in the
basin. The IVA methodology was used again to identify if there was adequate mitigation land available
to compensate for various levels of wetland fills while maintaining and enhancing the basin's highest
value wetlands, and preserving a corridor adjacent to Mill Creek. The potential increase in functions
through restoration or enhancement actions was scored using the IVA by identifying how wetland
indicators would be likely to change. The increases identified over the existing functions could be used in
compensating for wetland fills elsewhere in the basin. In evaluating ten alternatives, it was found that
enough potential mitigation land exists to allow for development of approximately 300 acres of wetlands
which are not in the Mill Creek floodplain. Potential mitigation land consists of both uplands which
could be restored to wetlands, or wetlands which could be enhanced.
Status of the Mill Creek SAMP
The SAMP process to date has shown that it is possible to craft a wetland management plan which
maintains or increases wetland functions and values in the basin, and maintains a fairly contiguous
system, while allowing for some development. At this point in time the ten SAMP alternatives are being
reviewed, with a preferred final plan to be selected after extensive public review. Simultaneous with the
development of alternatives, a combined agency and citizens group has been developing policy options
to allow for an abbreviated permit review process.
Lessons Learned From Development of the Mill Creek SAMP
Because the SAMP process is relatively new and untested, a great deal of time was spent "inventing" the
process for developing the plan. Several simple, but important lessons have been learned from this
process:
¦ Be Prepared for the Long Haul. The development of a plan which abbreviates the permit process
requires agencies and individuals to give up some of their review responsibilities and control.
Trust must be developed. This takes time. To achieve a working level of trust, groups must
recognize that they do share some common goals with other affected parties.
¦ Interact Frequently With Groups That Will be Affected by the Plan. Always remember that
without the willing participation of all affected parties, the best plans will fail. In the Mill Creek
SAMP planning process, a citizen's group composed of environmental and development interests
was formed to solicit public input on a regular basis. The input from the citizen's group provided a
useful "reality check" on ideas developed by agency representatives. A continual request from the
-------
citizen's group was , "To insure success of the plan, keep the process simple."
¦ In Developing a Plan, Work with the Existing Landscape. One of the big challenges of assessing
the potential for restoring wetlands in the Mill Creek Basin, was determining what landscape to
restore. While a general consensus was to restore the wetland systems of the basin to pre-
settlement conditions, this was not technically feasible in many cases. In addition, restoration to
pre-settlement conditions would in some cases significantly impact important existing resources
such as waterfowl. Shreffler and Thom (1993) have identified five different approaches to
restoration of natural systems: 1) restoration to predisturbance conditions, 2) restoration to historic
conditions, 3) enhancement of selected attributes, 4) creation of a new ecosystem, and 5) no
intervention. All these option s must be considered in developing a basinwide plan.
¦ Don't Expect Development to Wait for the Process to Conclude. Development pressures will
typically not stop while the planning process is ongoing. Use development actions as
opportunities to test ideas, and get all involved parties used to the ideas that are being proposed in
the plan.
¦ Be flexible! While your information might be the best available, be prepared to update and change
as new information comes on-line. The Mill Creek wetland inventory was only an inventory, and
has been at times superseded by field delineations. Any plan must recognize the accuracy of the
baseline data, and be flexible to accept new information. The policy section of the Mill Creek
SAMP has incorporated yearly review requirements as well as review triggers based on
monitoring information. In addition, while the use of mitigation banks is good for the long-term,
usually the process cannot wait for a bank to come on-line. Any plans must include processes to
address the immediate and near future developments which cannot wait for a bank, not just the
long term.
References
Hruby, Thomas et al. (1995) Estimating Relative Wetland Values for Regional Planning.
Wetlands 15(2).
Shreffler, D.K., and R.M. Thom (1993) Restoration of Urban Estuaries: New Approaches for Site
Location and Design. Prepared for Washington State Department of Natural Resources Aquatic
Lands Division, Olympia, Washington by Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratories.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1992) Regulatory Guidance Letter 92-03, Subject: "Special Area
Management Plans (SAMPs)."
-------
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Multiobjective Decision Support System for
Wetland Mitigation Banking in a Watershed Context
Justin Williams and Robert Brumbaugh
Policy and Special Studies Division, Institute for Water Resources, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA
Introduction
Wetland mitigation banking is a regulatory alternative for protecting and managing wetlands within a
watershed-based planning context. Mitigation banking provides a flexible way to achieve "no net loss" of
wetland functions and values and to comply with Clean Water Act section 404 permit requirements.
Mitigation banks provide not only off-site mitigation opportunities for regulated wetland activities, but
also enable small, piecemeal mitigation to be pooled into larger, more ecologically viable compensatory
efforts that may be planned within the context of watershed needs.
This paper reviews a computer-based decision support system (DSS) which is being developed by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources (IWR) to assist regulators and planners in
siting mitigation banks as part of a watershed-based approach to wetlands planning. This DSS is
essentially a tool which allows planners and decision makers to explicitly address the many goals and
objectives involved in mitigation bank siting. Specifically, the DSS has been designed for the task of
systematically identifying and selecting suitable land for banks or bank systems in response to a wide
range of objectives, including but not limited to cost, location, provision of wetland functions and values,
and biogeographic concerns.
Decision Support System Components
The DSS framework contains two types of components, which may be used either individually or in
-------
tandem. The first component is a multiobjective programming (MOP) model, which employs
mathematical programming to generate alternative mitigation bank plans. Typically, an MOP model must
be formulated for the specific problem at hand, but once formulated can be solved on a computer using
commercially available software. The second component is a multicriteria decision making (MCDM)
model, used for evaluating alternative bank plans which have been generated either by the MOP model
or by some other method. MCDM's are typically "shells" which can be applied to a wide range of
problem types. A variety of MCDM methodologies exist, some of which are available in the form of
commercial software. A geographic information system (GIS) can also be used in conjunction with the
DSS, for both managing data and for compiling maps of alternative plans generated by the DSS.
In order to formulate alternative wetland mitigation bank plans, the MOP model is applied to the problem
of selecting one or more wetland sites for a mitigation bank or bank system from among a larger set of
available "candidate" sites. The MOP will select the combination of sites which best addresses the
planning objectives under consideration. Multiobjective linear programming (Cohon, 1978) is used in
this selection process, and economic, ecological, physical, and land use data at the site level are needed
as inputs. The MOP can be used to generate a variety of "nondominated" alternatives, each of which
optimizes a particular prioritization or weighting of the objectives. Specifically, an alternative is said to
be nondominated if one objective can be improved only by sacrificing some other objective. Together,
the nondominated plans represent the efficient tradeoffs among the objectives.
Once the MOP has been used to formulate a suitable array of alternative plans, the MCDM model is then
used to efficiently evaluate and rank these alternatives. Plans formulated by other methods may also be
evaluated by the MCDM. To begin this process, each plan is assessed in terms of its performance or
attainment with respect to a range of criteria, as specified by the decision maker. These attainment levels
are then used, collectively, to score and rank each plan relative to all other alternatives, along a single
metric. As a result of this process, the MCDM identifies the better or more desirable nondominated
alternatives so that a smaller and manageable "choice set" of alternatives can be advanced for further
consideration.
The criteria used in the MCDM may correspond to the objectives used in the MOP, but may also include
additional criteria not incorporated within the MOP. In a practical sense, the MCDM can address more
criteria than the MOP since, as more criteria or objectives are added, the computational burden of
generating a suitable array of nondominated alternatives in the MOP grows much faster than the burden
of evaluating plans in the MCDM. A variety of MCDM methodologies are available, including both
parametric (weighting) and nonparametric methods (Hwang and Yoon, 1981). Two MCDMs are
currently being developed at IWR for use within a DSS, each of which employs a criteria weighting
technique to rank alternatives.
A Decision Support System for Wetland Mitigation Banking
As indicated above, the DSS being developed by IWR addresses the problem of selecting and evaluating
combinations of candidate sites for inclusion within a wetland mitigation bank or bank system. It is
-------
assumed that candidate sites are wetlands which can be improved or enhanced, or are areas that can be
restored to viable wetland status (e.g., agricultural land), or are nonwetland areas (e.g., uplands) suitable
for wetland creation. In some circumstances, high-quality wetland sites in need of preservation might
also be considered as candidate sites.
In the MOP component, candidate sites are selected in order to optimize two broad-based or "umbrella"
objectives: 1) minimize the total cost of the selected sites, and 2) maximize the amount of ecological
improvement that can be realized within the selected sites. In the first objective, site costs are assumed to
be based on two components: a) the real-estate cost of obtaining necessary land use rights, which can
range from the cost of obtaining conservation easements to the full purchase price; and b) the cost of
undertaking a wetland restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation project at the site, including
any additional costs associated with ongoing maintenance and monitoring.
In the second objective, the ecological improvement realizable at a particular site is measured in terms of
the number of wetland mitigation "credits" able to be produced by improving the site. Credits are used in
the accounting procedures of mitigation banks, and can be quantified in terms of either: a) the amount of
acreage restored; or b) measurable improvements in wetland functions, such as fish and wildlife habitat,
flood control, and water quality improvement, among others. Improvements in wetland functions can be
quantitatively assessed through methods such as the habitat evaluation procedure (HEP) (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, 1980) for habitat functions, and other appropriate single- or multi-factor indices for
nonhabitat functions. The IWR MOP model has been developed to account for credits based upon any
number of quantifiable wetland functions, as specified by the decision maker. In the IWR study (see
below), four types of credits were considered, based on four functions: a) flood control; b) fish habitat; c)
habitat of nonfish species, including water fowl; and d) water quality improvement.
In addition to objectives, the MOP model also employs "constraints" to ensure that the generated bank
plans satisfy any requirements specified by the decision maker. Constraints used in the MOP include
bounds placed on the amount of acreage selected in each of four wetland classes: a) emergent; b)
forested; c) open water; and d) shrub-scrub. As well, acreage proportions can be established for each
class in order to achieve a desirable mix of classes, regardless of the total acreage selected. The MOP can
also be used as a mechanism for calculating the attainment levels of additional attributes which do not
"drive" the optimization process, but whose values might nevertheless be needed later in the MCDM
procedure. In the IWR model, several physical, spatial, and administrative attributes are included in this
category: a) the number of pairwise connections or adjacencies between selected sites; b) proximity of
selected sites to incompatible land uses such as airports and industrial zones; c) hydrologic connections
between selected sites and major bodies of water; d) the amount of acreage selected from each of several
ownership categories (e.g, privately- or publicly-owned land); and e) total acreage selected.
Once the objectives and constraints of the MOP have been specified, they are written as mathematical
statements (i.e., algebraic equalities or inequalities) and entered into a linear programming (LP) solver.
The LP software is run, and the output represents an alternative plan which is both nondominated with
respect to the stated objectives and satisfies the model's constraints. Using multiobjective programming
techniques, the model's parameters can be varied and the software run many times to generate a range of
-------
nondominated alternatives.
Once a suitable set of alternatives has been formulated, either by the MOP or by some other method, the
MCDM model is used to evaluate and rank these alternatives relative to a set of criteria specified by the
decision maker. The objectives and/or constraints used in the MOP may be reiterated as MCDM criteria,
although new criteria not addressed by the MOP can also be included. The two IWR MCDMs have the
ability to evaluate plans based on up to 24 criteria, in contrast to the MOP which utilized just two
objectives (minimize cost and maximize credits). Ultimately, the task of the MCDM is to reduce the set
of nondominated plans to a smaller and manageable set of preferred alternatives which reflect the
decision maker's priorities. In the IWR study, the two MOP objectives were used again as criteria,
although each was disaggregated into its component parts, as mentioned above. The other physical,
spatial, and administrative attributes mentioned above were also used as criteria.
The two IWR MCDMs are weight-based and require the decision maker to supply a weight for each
criterion, reflecting its relative importance in the decision process. Also as input, the MCDM requires a
matrix or table of alternatives and their associated criteria attainment levels; these values can be obtained
from the MOP output. The MCDM then computes an overall score or relative ranking for each plan. One
of the MCDMs computes a numerical ranking for each plan based on the weighted sum of the criteria
values. Either single weights or weight ranges can be specified for each criterion; weight ranges can be
used to reflect uncertainty in the relative importance of a criterion, or used when the decision maker does
not otherwise wish to specify a single weight. In the other MCDM, criteria weights are used to separate
the alternatives into those which are "outranked" by other alternatives and those which are not outranked,
with the latter representing the "choice set". A third MCDM (MATS-PC), developed by Brown et al. at
the Bureau of Reclamation (1986), can also be used in this stage of the DSS.
IWR has applied this DSS to a case study involving 128 candidate wetland sites in a watershed located in
the Northwestern United States. Using data abstracted from a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP)
study, the MOP was employed to generate 23 nondominated alternative mitigation bank plans under the
objectives and constraints mentioned above. The two MCDM's were then used to evaluate and rank the
alternatives relative to 16 specific planning criteria, according to weights provided by an "expert" users.
Each MCDM was effective in reducing the 23 nondominated plans to a smaller set of three to five
preferred plans. All computing was carried out on an IBM 486 personal computer, using commercially
available mixed-integer programming software (LINDO) and MCDM software developed at IWR.
References
Bureau of Reclamation. 1986. Mats-PC Multi-Attribute Tradeoff System. Denver. 97 pp.
Cohon, J.L. (1978) Multiobjective Programming and Planning. New York: Academic Press.
Hwang, C.L. and Yoon, K. 1981. "Multiple attribute decision making, methods and applications",
Lecture Notes in Economics and Mathematical Systems, V.186. New York: Springer-Verlag.
-------
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1980. Habitat Evaluation Procedure Manual (102 ESM).
Washington, D.C.
Acronyms
DSS decision support system
GIS geographic information system
HEP habitat evaluation procedure
IWR Institute for Water Resources
LP linear programming
MCDM multicriteria decision making
MOP multiobjective programming
SAMP special area management plan
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed-based Planning For Wetlands
Categorization: The Financing Dimension
Leonard Shabman, Professor
Department of Agricultural & Applied Economics
Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
Watershed-based planning for wetlands has been advanced as a way to improve scientific determination
of wetlands functions for permitting and mitigation decisions, to provide a foundation for ecologically
successful commercial mitigation banks and to protect wetlands areas that are not subject to fill
regulation (White House Office on Environmental Policy, 1993). For several years watershed-based
planning for wetlands has been encouraged within the Corps of Engineers when one met four criteria: (1)
an area must be environmentally sensitive and face strong development pressure, (2) the public must be
involved in the planning process, (3) there must be a sponsoring local agency, and (4) all parties must
agree at the outset that the plan will result in a programmatic general permit (Studt, 1987). The desire to
develop a general permit is tied directly to the Corps regulatory mission and its desire to expedite the
permit review process. However, the first three criteria are now widely accepted as important
considerations for any federal agency to participate in a watershed planning effort (U.S. EPA). In turn,
the first two criteria are applied in setting study and planning priorities for non-federal planning efforts.
Corps influenced planning rests on three tasks: (1) mapping or identifying of wetlands and their
functions, (2) establishment of wetland evaluation protocols for ranking wetlands, and (3) wetland
categorization to allow the design of the programmatic permit. This paper discusses the wetlands
categorization component of several Corps influenced watershed-based wetland planning efforts in
Hackensack, NJ; Juneau, AK; West Eugene, OR; Dade County, FL; and DuPage County, IL. These five
cases were chosen for study because the plans were expected to result in a programmatic general permit
and in commercial mitigation venture sales to support no-net-loss goals. Detailed discussion can be found
in forthcoming publications (Scodari, Shabman, and White, 1996; White and Shabman, in press). This
study was conducted as part of the National Wetland Mitigation Banking Study being conducted by the
-------
Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources.
Categorization: One Product of the Plan
The wetland categorization process generally has the outcome of placing a wetlands into one of three
groups. A technical evaluation and policy judgment determines whether an individual wetlands area
could better contribute to the watershed environment if it were (1) developed with mitigation elsewhere
in the watershed, (2) restored, or (3) retained in its current state. These categories are established by
consideration of a wetlands parcel's functions in a specific watershed context and by public preferences
for the watershed environment in relation to population and economic development pressures. Watershed-
based planning efforts to implement categorization under Corps and local leadership do require EPA and
state approval.
The purpose of categorization is to reduce regulators' decision making costs and landowner uncertainty
by making advanced determination of a parcels desired future state. One approach to categorization is to
describe a specific desired future land use at a parcel level. In effect categorization resembles wetlands
"zoning"_mapping out in advance the future status for specific wetlands parcels. The West Eugene,
Hackensack, and Juneau plans attempted this approach to categorization. A second approach, found in
Dade Country, FL, and DuPage County, IL, was to develop general categorization guidelines. With these
guidelines as public knowledge wetlands owners would have an indication in advance of both the
decision rules that would determine whether a permit would be issued and the compensatory mitigation
that might be required. The categorization guidelines create an analytical and reproducible protocol for
permit evaluation. Whatever approach is adopted, categorization applies the sequencing logic of
individual permits under section 404, but on "watershed-wide" basis and in advance of any specific fill
permit request. The West Eugene wetlands plan indicates this purpose of categorization process:
"...Review of the Plan (i.e. results of the categorization process) will determine whether the Plan has
identified the least environmentally damaging, practicable alternative for future urban development in
West Eugene, as required by section 404 guidelines. If the plan is approved, then the Corps proposes to
adopt an alternative permitting procedure for the filling of wetlands within the Plan area under section
404."
Consequences of Parcel Categorization
The first column in Table 1 lists the general wetland categories that result from watershed-based wetlands
planning, when the plan includes provisions for a pragmatic permit, mitigation banking and preservation
of important wetland sites. Typically advocates for some form of categorization cite the ecological
advantages of such watershed-based wetland planning. These advantages are noted in the second column
of Table 1. However, some environmental groups do not accept that categorization can have positive
effects or that increased local control of wetland fill decisions under a programmatic general permit is
desirable. The West Eugene plan has been criticized and environmental opposition at the national level
has halted the implementation of watershed-based planning efforts in Juneau. But, it must also be
-------
recognized that the Nature Conservancy has been greatly involved in the development of the West
Eugene wetlands plan.
Because environmental support has been mixed, much attention is paid to satisfying the concerns of these
groups. However, landowner concerns are also heightened by categorization, especially at the parcel
specific level. Unless landowner effects are considered the implementation of the plan may be stymied.
The third column of Table 1 describes landowner effects from categorization. The general experience is
that categorization is opposed by property owners whose land is designated for preservation by the plan.
This opposition arises because development restrictions impose a possible financial loss on the
landowner. By contrast when a wetlands is designated for fill with compensation, then most of the
development value for the wetland is retained after the plan is implemented and much regulatory
uncertainty is removed. In fact, some of the most vigorous advocates for categorization have been
landowners who have development ambitions (Brown, 1993).
Table 1. Possible effects from parcel categorization.
Ecological Effects
Category
I. Areas Designated for
Compensated Fill
II. Areas Designated for
Restoration Sites
III. Areas designated for
Preservation
Compensation
requirements for granted
permits yields no net loss
Mitigation banks are sited
in ecologically beneficial
locations having high
success probability.
Restoration funds are
targeted to the most
promising sites.
Unique or high functional
value areas are preserved
jLandowner Effects
Returns to development on
permitted areas are
perserved
Profit potential from
commercial mitigation
sales.
Compensation from public
aquisition
Certain financial loss
Certain financial loss
Owners of areas designated for restoration may favor or oppose categorization, depending upon the
features of the restoration approach in the plan. If the plan suggests that the restoration will be
accomplished with public funds (including compensation payments to landowners) then opposition may
be muted. Also, if the restoration sites are designated as mitigation banks then the profit potential from
mitigation credit sales could promise a financial return adequate to discourage landowner opposition to a
restriction on development. On the other hand, if the restoration sites are simply identified in the plan,
then the landowner will perceive a financial loss similar to those whose parcels are designated for
preservation.
Financing Landowner Acceptance of Parcel Categorization
-------
If a landowner's parcel is categorized for preservation or uncompensated restoration then the future
market price of the land may be less than the owner paid for the parcel and there may be a real financial
loss. Even if the land was acquired at a low price there is a denial of possible future speculative gain. This
observation is not made to suggest that diminution of land values is legally invalid or politically
impractical. Public interest arguments may be accepted as a basis for land use restrictions. However, a
categorization that designates a parcel for "preservation" must either get landowners to sacrifice some of
the market value of the land willingly or under duress, or must provide financial compensation to the land
owner who is asked to limit possible future land uses. This is a practical reality that must be confronted in
watershed planning and is the reality that poses the question of financing landowner acceptance.
Financing landowner acceptance means developing a program to acquire the rights to place fill or
otherwise alter the wetlands character of land categorized for restoration or preservation. Fee simple
purchase of the whole property, with full title and rights to make land use decisions transferring to a
public agency, is the most straightforward approach. This would be a voluntary transaction where willing
landowners are paid a pre-categorization market value for the land categorized for restoration or
preservation. This was the approach used to overcome opposition to categorization in West Eugene, OR.
However, the purchase of full rights to the land can be expensive. In West Eugene the federal Land and
Water Conservation Fund was used to acquire categorized lands. This type of funding is limited and
could not be employed across the nation. Available funds could be stretched by purchasing only the
development rights to a categorized parcel. In a Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) program the
landowner realizes the value of the development rights by volunteering to sell development potential to
the public sector rather than by actually undertaking the development. Such PDR programs have been
used widely in state and local efforts to retain land in agricultural use.
Public purchase programs must have access to a source of funds. Possibilities include direct legislative
appropriations out of general funds; intergovernmental cost sharing or special taxes and fees, such as a
tax imposed on real estate transactions; a dedicated property tax increase; a tourist tax, or a value
increment tax levied against the gains realized from the sale of land. Absent adequate funds from these
sources owners of categorized land might be offered tax credits as a form of compensation.
From an environmental standpoint the watershed plan is likely to recommend preserving or restoring
some parcels that are under development pressure and also recommend that parcels be contiguous and
linked to other natural landscape features. However, because of the voluntary nature of the PDR program
it is expensive to acquire contiguous tracts of land. There are several reasons for this. The initial
purchases increase the development value of adjacent properties, and the properties most beneficial in
retaining land often have the greatest development potential. The end result has often been that PDR
programs which are budget constrained may result in scattered patterns of protected parcels.
Transfer of development rights (TDR) programs are a response to PDR cost control and land preservation
pattern problems. The preservation pattern problem is addressed by initially designating whole blocks of
land as off limits to certain development. To compensate landowners in these "preservation areas" for lost
-------
development rights they are assigned a certain number of transferable development "credits." Then a
development area deemed capable of sustaining higher levels of development is designated. Landowners
in the designated development areas are required to buy development credits from the preservation area,
and in return are allowed to develop properties at densities exceeding the limits set by current zoning
restrictions. The market price of development credits times the number of credits held by each landowner
determines the level of compensation. Unlike a PDR program, the buyer of development rights (credits)
is not a public agency. Instead payment for the development credits is secured through the market created
for these for these development credits. Thus when specifying a growth area TDR administrators must
ensure that adequate demand will exist for development credits. Also, program administrators must
ensure each landowner in the preservation area is issued an acceptable number of development credits.
Finally, program administrators need to overcome transactions costs inhibiting free negotiations such as
assuring the legal legitimacy of development credits or facilitating buyers' and sellers' mutual
identification and subsequent negotiations through a central TDR bank.
The TDR concept is used in many habitat conservation plans under the Endangered Species Act. Also, a
TDR program has been in place for many years to protect the New Jersey Pinelands. The Hackensack
Meadowlands SAMP has a TDR provision. An obvious benefit of the TDR approach is that the
preservation area is secured in advance and the costs of a TDR rest on developers rather than the
taxpayers. However, landowners in the preservation area bear a significant financial risk in agreeing to
restrictions on their land in return for development credits to be sold in a market with uncertain demand.
Thus, TDR programs need to provide for administrative intervention in the market to sustain a value for
development credits, often as a buyer of last resort. Without some such assurance there will be landowner
reluctance to accept a TDR system as the means for securing compensation for restrictions on
development potential.
Implications for Watershed-based Wetlands Planning
Watershed planning for wetlands can be a complex and time consuming process, especially when the
resulting product is parcel level categorization. The costs for technical studies can be substantial. The
time to reach agreement on a plan with categorization appears substantial. And, the plan implementation
often requires a mechanism to compensate landowners who lose the value of development rights through
wetland categorization. However, there are significant barriers to a successful implementation of either a
PDR or TDR compensation system. In fact, the three cases where parcel level categorization was
attempted remain some distance from full implementation, despite the time and effort invested to date.
Also, even if these efforts are finally successful, the costs are so significant that they are unlikely to be
implemented widely across the country.
Meanwhile, the Dade County and DuPage County categorization guidelines have been issued, have not
been challenged, and are being used. To be sure, as individual permits are reviewed and decisions made
on those permits, environmental interests or landowners may protest the application of the guidelines to
the particular case. However, the plans have succeeded in identifying wetland areas, in reaching a
consensus on a decision criteria, and in developing a reproducible review and analysis process for each
permit. As a result, the watershed plans have moved the regulatory program forward to protect the
-------
watershed, secure landowner agreement, and reduce decision making costs. It appears that the most
practical goal for watershed-based wetlands planning may be to establish categorization rules rather than
parcel categorization to provide consistency for permit review.
References
Brown, Ted. "Clarifying Classification." National Wetlands Newsletter. January/February 1993,
pp. 8-9.
Scodari, Paul, Leonard Shabman, and David White. Commercial Wetland Mitigation Credit
Markets: Theory and Practice. Institute for Water Resources, Water Resources Support Center,
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, Va, IWR Report 95-WMB-7, May 1996.
Studt, John F. "Special Area Management Plans in The Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory
Program." National Wetlands Newsletter, May-June 1987, pp. 8-9.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The Watershed Protection Approach, 1993/94 Activity
Report. Office of Water. EPA840-S-94-001, November 1994, 148 pp.
White, David and Leonard Shabman. Watershed-based Wetlands Planning: A Case Study Report.
Institute for Water Resources, Water Resources Support Center, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Alexandria, Va, in press.
White House Office on Environmental Policy. "Protecting America's Wetlands: A Fair, Flexible,
and Effective Approach." August 24, 1993.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Economic Benefits of Urban Runoff Controls
Rod Frederick, Robert Goo
Urban Sources Section, Assessment and Watershed Protection Division, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Mary Beth Corrigan, Susan Bartow, Michele Billingsley
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Overview
People have a strong emotional attachment to water, arising from its aesthetic qualities tranquility,
coolness, and beauty. As a result, most waterbodies within developments can be used as marketing tools
to set the tone for entire projects (Tourbier and Westmacott, 1992). A 1991 American Housing Survey
conducted by the Department of Housing and Urban Development and the Department of Commerce
also concurs that "when all else is equal, the price of a home located within 300 feet from a body of
water increases by up to 27.8 percent" (NAHB, 1993).
Although there are a limited number of natural waterfront sites, many opportunities exist to create
waterfront property. Homes and businesses can be sited along hydroelectric or water supply
impoundments or near the banks of artificial lakes created for wildlife, recreational, or aesthetic reasons.
A practice becoming more prevalent is to site developments around man-made ponds, lakes, or wetlands
created to control flooding and reduce the impacts of urban runoff on neighboring natural streams, lakes,
or coastal areas. When designed and sited correctly, artificial lakes or wetlands can help developers
reduce negative environmental impacts caused by the development process and increase the value of the
property.
Most local governments require some form of urban runoff management for new development. This
-------
report describes certain urban runoff management controls that can be incorporated into a development in
away that provides aesthetic and economic benefits. Table 1 summarizes examples of real estate
premiums charged for property fronting these controls. For existing runoff controls that are unsafe or
unsightly, corrective renovations are described.
Table 1.
Examples of real estate premiums charged for property fronting urban runoff controls.
Location Base Costs of Lots/Homes Estimated Water Premium
Chancery on the Lake,
Alexandria, Virginia
Condominium $129,000 -
$139,000
Up to $7,500
Centrex Homes at Barkley
Fairfax Virginia
Home with lot: $330,000 -
$368,000
Up to $10,000
Townhomes at Lake Barton
Burke, Virginia
Townhome with lot: $130,000 -
$160,000
Up to $10,000
Lake of the Woods
Orange County Virginia
Varies
Up to $49,000
Dodson Homes, Layton
Faquier County, Virginia
Home with lot: $289,000 -
$305,000
Up to $10,000
Ashburn Village
Loudon County, Virginia
Varies
$7,500 -$10,000
Weston Development
Broward County, Florida
Home with lot: $110,000 -
$1,000,000
$6,000 - $60,000
depending on lake size,
location
and the percent of lake
front property in the
neighborhood
Silver Lakes Development,
Broward County, Florida
Varies
$200 - $400 per linear foot of
waterfront,
depending on lake size and
view
Highland Parks,
Hybernia, Illinois
Waterfront lot: $299,900 -
$374,900
$30,000 - $37,500
Waterside Aprtments,
Reston, Virginia
Apartment Rental
Up to $10/month
Village Lake Apartments,
Waldorf, Maryland
Apartment Rental
$5 - $10/month depending on
apartment floor plan
-------
Lake Arbors Towers,
Mitchellville, Maryland
Apartment Rental
$10/month
Marymount at Laurel Lakes
Apartments
Laurel Lakes, Maryland
Apartment Rental
$10/month
Lynne Lake Arms,
St. Petersburg, Florida
Apartment rental: $336 -
$566/month
$5 - $35/month depending on
lake size
Sale Lake,
Boulder, Colorado
Waterfront lot: $134,000
Up to $35,000
The Landing,
Wichita, Kansas
Waterfront lot: $35,000 -
$40,000
Up to $20,000
Fairfax County, Virginia
Commercial Office Space
Rental
Up to $1/square foot
Laurel Lakes Executive Park,
Laurel, Maryland
Commercial Office Space
Rental
$1 - $1.50/square foot
Impacts and Controls
Urbanization leads to an increase in the amount of pollutants in an area. Sediment from construction sites
can end up in streams and rivers, choking plant and animal life. Oil and gas from vehicles can leak onto
roads and parking lots. Fertilizers and pesticides can wash off lawns (USGS, 1995). Pet waste can enter
storm drains. Household chemicals, such as paints and cleaning products, can leak if not stored or
disposed of properly. All of these pollutants can wash away when it rains and end up in streams, rivers,
lakes, estuaries, or ground water.
Development also leads to loss of pervious areas (porous surfaces) that allow rainwater to soak into the
ground and replenish ground water. This can increase the amount and velocity of rainwater flowing to
streams and rivers. This increased speed and volume of water can have many impacts, including eroded
stream banks, increased turbidity and pollution, increased stream water temperature, and increased water
flow. All of these can have an adverse effect on the fish and other organisms living in the stream and the
receiving waters.
"Best management practices," or BMPs, are designed to help reduce the amount of pollution in urban
runoff. There are two general types of BMPs: structural and nonstructural. Structural controls involve
building a "facility" for controlling urban runoff. This report discusses two types of structural controls
that have been documented as providing economic benefits: urban runoff ponds and constructed
wetlands. Nonstructural BMPs do not require construction of a facility, for example, buffers along stream
banks to minimize the amount of impervious area.
-------
Ponds and Wetlands for Urban Runoff Control
Many urban BMPs add value to adjacent property. This report focuses on two types of BMPs that are
often used: urban runoff "wet ponds" and constructed wetlands.
Wet Ponds. Wet ponds are runoff holding facilities that have water in them all the time. Storm flows are
held in the pond temporarily and then released to maintain healthy downstream habitats. Sediment and
other pollutants settle out of the water and are not discharged to receiving waters. Wet ponds are usually
vegetated, and the plants' roots hold sediment and use the nutrients that are often contained in urban
runoff. They can usually be used for large drainage areas. Developers can design the wet ponds to look
like natural lakes and enhance the value of surrounding property.
Constructed Wetlands. Because wetlands are heavily vegetated, they serve as a natural filter for urban
runoff. They also help to slow the flow of water to the receiving waters and replenish ground water.
When properly designed, constructed wetlands have many advantages as an urban BMP, including
reliable pollutant removal, longevity, adaptability to many development sites, ability to be combined with
other BMPs, and excellent wildlife habitat potential (MWCOG, 1992).
Making Urban Runoff Management Work for You
The impacts of urban runoff management controls on property values are site-specific (CDM, 1982).
Controls can affect property values in one of three ways: increase the value, decrease the value, or have
no impact.
Factors That Lead to Increases in Property Value
Urban runoff systems with standing water often appear to be natural systems. A clean lake or pond offers
benefits to developers by creating an ideal setting for model units and for the sales office. If located close
to the entrance and visible from the road, it will have considerable curb appeal and can repay installation
costs through faster sales, in addition to raising the value of adjacent lots (Tourbier and Westmacott,
1992).
Many ponds planned for urban runoff control are also designed to provide recreational facilities. They
are often surrounded by walking trails and picnic areas complete with gazebos and outdoor grills. The
ponds also can be used by nonmotorized boats like canoes. This natural setting creates a home for a
variety of birds and animals that homeowners find appealing. Fountains, often included in plans, also add
to the aesthetic qualities of the pond.
Effective landscaping can do much to improve urban runoff systems. Banks of urban runoff storage areas
and drainage ditches should be graded smoothly into adjacent areas where feasible. Steep slopes should
be protected against erosion by stabilization techniques, such as gabions, rip-rap, or other practices that
-------
detract as little as possible from the natural setting. Planting and preservation of trees, shrubs, and other
vegetation should also be a part of the improvement plan (Poertner, 1974).
Sediment accumulation and waterlogging of otherwise usable land areas can be avoided by the use of
proper design, construction, and operation techniques. Ponds used for urban runoff control can be spared
from excessive sediment accumulation by the use of forebays for silt collection. The amount of silt
transported can be reduced by directing runoff through vegetated areas or specially designed runoff
filters. Waterlogging of land surrounding urban runoff storage areas can be minimized by sloping the
ground toward storage areas, eliminating water pockets, and minimizing the frequency and duration of
ponding on areas otherwise suitable for multipurpose use (Poertner, 1974).
Factors That Lead to Decreases in Property Value
Residential lots located near an urban runoff pond are often a concern to home buyers with young
children. Parents fear their children will be attracted by the water or wildlife and drown. Incidents of
drowning in urban runoff management areas have occurred in residential as well as commercial areas.
Children who fall through frozen ponds or fall into the water without knowing how to swim are usually
the victims. Adults have also drowned in detention ponds (Woellert, 1993).
One solution is to construct a fence surrounding the pond to deter entry and reduce accident potential.
Chain-link fencing is often used. Rusting, poorly maintained chain-link fencing reduces any aesthetic
qualities of the area, but fencing that has a black or green protective coating is more attractive and can
improve the appearance of the runoff control. Prince William County, Virginia, has a fencing ordinance
for constructed ponds aimed at preventing entry of children under 4 years of age (Guzman, 1995;
MWCOG, 1983). A "protective device" of the developer's choice must be placed around ponds near
residential areas with over 2 feet of standing water or more than 2 hours of drainage time. The protective
device may be fencing or plantings of bushes and trees; in some cases, flat slopes or shallow beaches
extending at least 20 feet from the perimeter of the pond are acceptable. These flat slopes or beaches
provide protection for children who could roll down steep slopes directly into the pond. Using flat slopes
reduces the amount of land available for development, however, and is the least used option. Fencing is
the most inexpensive solution and is used frequently. It has been reported to be an "attractive nuisance,"
however, because some older children feel challenged to climb fences and enter restricted areas
(MWCOG, 1983).
Poorly maintained wet ponds or constructed wetlands are often unsightly due to excessive algal growth
or garbage build-up. Wet ponds and constructed wetlands can also become mosquito breeding grounds.
Mosquito problems usually can be reduced or eliminated by designing the wet pond so that all portions
of the basin are connected to open water to allow natural predators to control the mosquito larvae
(Tourbier and Westmacott, 1992). Generally mosquitoes are not a problem in the presence of a good
biological community. Organic controls such as mosquito-eating fish or insecticidal bacteria like Bacillus
thuringiensis israelensis (Bti), however, are also options where mosquitoes need to be controlled.
-------
Conclusion
Environmental benefits are not the only valid reason for encouraging developers to incorporate urban
runoff controls into new residential and commercial developments. Increased property values can result
from aesthetically landscaped controls. Both homeowners and developers have realized benefits from
beautification of areas adjacent to waterways and detention ponds. Residents find the beauty and
tranquility of water, as well as fish, birds, and other wildlife, highly desirable. Commercial property
owners, too, can benefit when their property is adjacent to an aesthetically designed urban runoff control.
They can realize lower vacancies, lower tenant turnover, and high rental prices. Real estate professionals
agree that the more amenities a property has, the faster it will sell or rent. Of course, wet ponds and
constructed wetlands require periodic maintenance in order to preserve their value. Moreover, for runoff
controls to be successful, they must have the support of people in the community as well as developers
(Adams et al., 1984). Then, everyone can benefit.
References
Adams, L., E. Dove, and D. Leedy. (1984) Public attitudes toward urban wetlands for stormwater
control and wildlife enhancement. Wildlife Society Bulletin 12(3):299-303.
CDM. (1982) National economic overview of urban stormwater pollution abatement. Camp
Dresser & McKee, Inc.
Guzman, Oscar, Prince William County, Virginia, personal communication, January 11, 1995.
MWCOG. (1983) An evaluation of the costs of stormwater management pond construction and
maintenance. Report by Water Resources Planning Board, Department of Environmental
Resources, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC.
MWCOG. (1992) Design of stormwater wetlands: Guidelines for creating diverse and effective
stormwater wetland systems in the mid-atlantic region. Report by T. R. Schueler, Anacostia
Restoration Team, Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments, Washington, DC.
NAHB. (1993) Housing Economics. National Association of Home Builders, Washington, DC.
Poertner, H.G. (1974) Practices in detention of urban stormwater runoff. APWA Special Report
No. 43. American Public Works Association, Washington, DC.
Tourbier, J. T., and R. Westmacott. (1992) Lakes and ponds. 2d ed. The Urban Land Institute,
Washington, DC.
USGS. (1995) National water quality assessment program report. U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
-------
VA. Woellert, L. (1993, May 31) Baby, Man Victims of Drowning. The Washington Times, p. B,
1:6.
-------
r. J --
A-V-.
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Community-Based Stream Restoration Using State
and Local Youth Corps
Andrew O. Moore, Director, Government Relations
National Association of Service and Conservation Corps, Washington, DC
Folks frequently mention youth corps as a great way to accomplish stream and waterway restoration
projects. But what exactly is a youth corps? What are some of the ways they can help with local projects?
What are the benefits of working with youth corps? And how does one find a nearby corps? This paper
answers these questions and thus helps establish some context for understanding the growing community-
based restoration movement.
Youth corps are organizations-sometimes community-based non-profits, sometimes arms of state or
municipal agencies-that marshal the energy and idealism of the young to carry out a wide range of
community service projects. Corps typically organize young people into crews, with each crew working
under the supervision of a trained adult leader. Corpsmembers, as the participants are known, receive
payment or stipends approximating minimum wage for their full-time work with the corps. Corps also
provide basic education, life skills classes, and job preparation services for their corpsmembers, many of
whom are educationally or economically disadvantaged.
A commitment to community service sets corps apart from many other job training programs. Each crew
undertakes, and completes to specifications, highly visible, achievable, and measurable projects such as
streambank stabilization, tree planting, mapping, and community outreach and environmental education.
Corps are flexible and can work with a range of project sponsors to help fill a need. Corps actually prefer
projects that require sweat, muscle, and teamwork, which corpsmembers can supply in ample quantities.
State and local corps have grown and thrived over the past 20 years because they offer great community
benefits-in fact, a four-fold return on investment. Corpsmembers gain valuable work skills, and use those
skills for the benefit of themselves, their families, and their communities (some of them may even
-------
become professional restorationists!) Corps provide temporary employment, and participants and staff
spend their wages in local stores and businesses. Corps accomplish and leave behind tangible, visible
work projects that often improve recreational facilities and the environment simultaneously. And finally,
corps focus on improving basic skills through work-based learning, so that corpsmembers will have the
reading, writing and critical thinking abilities that employers demand.
The National Association of Service and Conservation Corps (NASCC) serves as an advocate, source of
professional development, and central reference point for corps. NASCC is a membership organization
supported by dues, foundation grants, and cooperative agreements with government. In 1994, NASCC
sponsored an urban stream restoration training session to help the corps community begin to learn and
practice key stream restoration concepts and techniques. The training brought representatives of 25 corps
from 18 states to Minnesota for four days of lecture and field work on the banks of Minnehaha Creek.
Already participants in the session have trained numerous fellow corps staff and corpsmembers, and have
secured local stream restoration projects on the strength of their newly-gained knowledge. One associate
corps director who attended the training reported that when she began looking around her state for
restoration experts with whom she could launch projects, she found that she was the expert.
The training session also helped jump-start stream restoration projects at four pilot sites-Newark, New
Jersey; Oakland, California; Atlanta, Georgia; and Tacoma, Washington-underwritten with funding from
the Corporation for National Service and EPA and supported by community-based organizations. At
these four pilot sites and elsewhere, hand in hand with local stream restoration groups, youth corps crews
are building crib walls, maintaining newly planted streambanks, and conducting outreach to those in the
streams' neighborhood. The success of these project has inspired NASCC to launch the Youth Corps
Community Environmental Initiative, through which NASCC will provide additional training and
support to corps interested in doing restoration projects, and will conduct outreach efforts to federal,
state, and local agencies that can sponsor restoration.
So-take a log-choked stream, one that nearby hikers can hear better than they can see. Add spice in the
form of eroding banks that are free of vegetation. Mix in native plants. Separate out non-native elements
and crumbling concrete. Thicken trail foundations with local materials. Sprinkle with a healthy dose of
volunteer labor provided by youth conservation corps, community groups, and Scout troops. Leaven with
watershed protection funds. Allow to rise for at least one growing season. Observe the return of local
people, plants, and animals. Voila! You have just restored an urban stream.
-------
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Promoting Awareness of the Urban Connections to
Watersheds in Cleveland
Deborah Alex-Saunders, Executive Director
Minority Environmental Association, Sandusky, OH
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
The Cleveland: Heal the Waters Project has two components: research on the poison runoff problem and
outreach and education on water quality issues. Our research focused on poison runoff loadings
estimates, based on an analysis of the landscape patterns of Cuyahoga County. The results of this study
are given later in this report.
Through our outreach activities, we found that the people of the diverse communities of Greater
Cleveland care deeply about the problems caused by poison runoff and the land use patterns that lead to
it.
Clevelanders Care About the Health of Local Watersheds
In 1992 and 1993, the staff of the Cleveland: Heal the Waters Project traveled around Greater Cleveland,
met and talked with a wide variety of community leaders, and learned about how water pollution, and
especially poison runoff, are everyday headaches for Clevelanders. Throughout 1994, we continued to
exchange ideas with local watershed activists and officials about stormwater issues both local and
national. We learned that the people of Greater Cleveland, rich and poor, black and white, care deeply
about the quality of the waters from which they drink, fish, and draw spiritual sustenance. It became clear
that Cuyahoga County's ecologic and socioeconomic problems are linked—degraded streams and rivers
and decaying neighborhoods are linked to the process of suburban flight and abandonment of urban
infrastructure.
Likewise, it became equally clear that the solutions to these problems must be linked. Shrinking public
-------
budgets and the urgent need for jobs in disadvantaged communities mean that watershed restoration must
not take place in isolation, but must instead be part of a larger community process of economic
restoration.
In October of 1992, the Cleveland: Heal the Waters Project held a two-day workshop in downtown
Cleveland to examine poison runoff problems and solutions. Water quality activists; college and high
school students; government officials; and private consultants participated in the workshop and
exchanged views about sewer overflows; suburban sprawl; poison runoff pollution loadings; and
watershed restoration strategies.
Project staff ranged far and wide in the Greater Cleveland area in the search for clues to watershed
problems and solutions. In May 1993, the Minority Environmental Association (MEA) organized a half-
day workshop on urban stream restoration techniques and strategies, held at Cleveland State University.
In June 1993, Diane Cameron, from the Natural Resources Defense Council, and geographer Dr. Thomas
L. Millette surveyed Mill Creek, one example of a watershed in desperate need of restoration. We toured
the Mill Creek watershed from headwaters to mouth, observing the blighted Creek's asphalt miles, twin
blue lakes, and waste dumps. Conversations and travels with Garfield Heights Councilman Henry
Warren and ecologist David Beach revealed various pollution threats to Mill Creek: numerous landfills;
combined sewer overflows; and oil spills. With former East Cleveland Councilwoman Willie
Bloodworth, we interviewed anglers fishing along Cleveland's 55th Street pier. In August 1993, MEA
organized a "Picnic at the Fall," a forum for community leaders to discuss combined sewer overflow
(CSO) issues at the site of the Mill Creek waterfall and combined sewer outfall. Throughout the project,
MEA visited diverse citizen and government groups throughout the region.
The findings of this report reflect what we have learned about water quality and poison runoff problems
from Clevelanders through these activities, and through resources like the lower Cuyahoga River
Remedial Action Plan, Stage One Report (RAP Stage I Report). These problems did not spring up
overnight, but are the result of centuries of unchecked, unplanned urbanization, that have added to the
stormwater and sewage burden of the city's water quality infrastructure. In the first half of this report, we
will examine five aspects of the poison runoff problem in Greater Cleveland: (1) the impact of poison
runoff problems on the people of Greater Cleveland; (2) the magnitude of poison runoff pollution in
Cuyahoga County; (3) the local land use patterns that are the root cause of the massive quantities of
poison runoff in the region; (4) sources of chemical pollutants in poison runoff, and (5) a brief
description of the County's sewer systems that carry the runoff to local waters and sewage plants.
Water Pollution and Poison Runoff Harm the People of Greater
Cleveland in Diverse Ways
Clevelanders have to contend with numerous poison runoff problems. Some of these problems are simply
annoyances, some ruin or degrade weekend outings, and some threaten financial and physical health.
Fetid, foul sewer overflows flood the basements and streets of East Cleveland and other communities.
Lawns begin to wash away as heavy rains gushing off of constriction sites and shopping mall parking
-------
lots course through backyard streams, cutting into the streambanks, and lowering the resale value of
private homes. A picnic near the bank of Mill Creek, or a walk along Euclid Beach, if attempted after a
rainstorm, can be ruined by the stench of combined sewer overflows.
Fish can be caught off of the 55th Street Pier, but, depending on the type, might be ridden with sores, or
laden with toxic chemicals, generated at least in part by poison runoff flows into the Cuyahoga River and
Lake Erie. Urban and suburban land uses, as well as streets and highways and construction sites, are
named as "major sources" in the RAP Stage I Report of the following harmful pollutants: pathogens,
chlorides, oil and grease, sediment, and heavy metals. Urban runoff sources are also listed in the RAP
Stage I Report as "intermediate" sources of pesticides, toxic organics, and the "nutrients" phosphorus and
nitrogen.
The poison runoff problems encountered in Greater Cleveland can be divided into seven major
categories, which we call "The Seven Deadly Sins of Stormwater."
Poison Runoff in Greater Cleveland: The Seven Deadly Sins
The lower Cuyahoga River RAP Stage I Report is an excellent source of information on the impacts of
urban runoff on the people and ecosystems of Greater Cleveland. Below, we have relied heavily (but not
exclusively) on the RAP Stage I Report for our list of the major water quality and property damages for
which poison runoff is a prime (if not the only) culprit. Left unabated, poison runoff:
¦ Silts in the navigation channel of the lower Cuyahoga River, with contaminated sediments that
must be dredged and disposed in expensive, specialized landfills because they are laden with
heavy metals and other toxics, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, zinc,
cyanide, and oil and grease. Urban poison runoff from Greater Cleveland is a major source of
many of these heavy metals, and oil and grease.
¦ Contaminates game fish; harms all fish populations in the lower Cuyahoga. Due to PCB
contamination, a health advisory from the Ohio Department of Health warns Lake Erie anglers not
to eat channel catfish, lake trout, and large carp, more than six times a year, and to limit gamefish
meals (e.g., white perch, white bass) to 12 meals a year. Poison runoff from various urban and
industrial sites is one of several suspected sources of the PCBs and pesticides.
¦ The abundance and diversity of the fish populations in the lower Cuyahoga River ranges from
"poor" to "very poor." Urban runoff is a major source of many of the heavy metals and toxic
organics that are partly to blame, along with habitat loss, for the degraded fish populations.
¦ Fouls Cleveland's recreational waters. Just as fishing activities are harmed by poison runoff, other
kinds of waterborne recreation in Greater Cleveland are thwarted by foul runoff-related pollution.
Canoeing, wading, and swimming in local waters are not advised after "wet weather." According
to the RAP Stage I Report summary, "For up to 3 days after a storm, bacteria levels in the entire
length of the river below the Ohio Edison Dam are likely to exceed criteria established for safe
water contact. The lower Cuyahoga is not the only local water fouled by fecal pollution-for
several days after a storm, bacteria levels in nearshore bathing areas are likely to violate health
-------
criteria. The bacteria sources include urban and suburban runoff, CSOs, and sanitary sewer
overflows.
Pollutes Lake Erie. Lake Erie is Cleveland's drinking water source. Although Cleveland has high-
quality drinking water, stormwater pollution is an ongoing source of pollutants which must be
reduced to ensure that the city maintains its excellent drinking water quality over the long term.
Also, Lake Erie's "nearshore area" immediately adjacent to Cleveland is probably eutrophic,
suffering from too much organic and nutrient pollution; some of this pollution comes from urban
runoff from lawns and city streets.
Reduces and destroys aquatic bug populations, major food sources for fish. All along the lower
Cuyahoga, from the Ohio Edison Dam to the mouth, macroinvertebrates (aquatic bugs) are
reduced in places. Although there was been an overall increase in aquatic bug populations from
1984 to 1988, the population rating remained only in the "fair" range. Decreased populations of
macroinvertebrates are blamed on metals, nutrients, sediment, and destruction of habitat. Urban
runoff and urbanization are major sources of all of these pollutants and damages.
Obliterates small streams, springs, and wetlands during development. Small streams, springs, and
wetlands are usually the first casualties of urban and suburban development, and of the
uncontrolled stormflows that result from unmitigated paved and built-up areas. Other related
habitat losses include: heated discharges from paved areas; clearing trees and shrubs from river
banks and shorelines; river dredging; concretization; and rip-rapping. The RAP Stage I Report,
focusing on these latter impacts, concluded that "The quality of fish habitat has been reduced
throughout the Area of Concern [the Lower Cuyahoga and nearshore areas] while being virtually
eliminated in the navigation channel.
Damages homes and businesses. Urban runoff and runoff-related CSOs have been known to flood
basements and streets in Greater Cleveland, and to threaten suburban residents with flooding and
backyard erosion.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Using Volunteer Water Quality Data in Assessing
Human Health of El Paso/Juarez Valley Colonia
Residents
Cynthia Lopez, Health Assessment Project Director
Jack Byrne, Executive Director
River Watch Network, Inc.
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
History of the Rio Bravo River Watchers & Colonia Health
Assessment Project
In 1988, concerned citizens from the region of the Rio Grande/Rio Bravo (RG/RB) contacted the River
Watch Network (RWN) for assistance in establishing a river monitoring program to determine
contamination levels. They were particularly interested in potential adverse health consequences due to
river contamination. In early 1992, RWN had obtained seed monies from the Pew Charitable Trusts to
begin a monitoring and protection program in El Paso/Juarez. RWN staff assisted volunteers in
developing a study design, identifying appropriate sampling sites, and establishing a local advisory
board. With the assistance of the Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) Texas
Watch program, approximately thirty interested volunteers were trained to conduct basic water quality
testing in the field. RWN trained volunteers in conducting fecal coliform analyses in the laboratory.
-------
Eventually, the volunteers organized into a binational nonprofit called the Rio Bravo River Watchers
(RBRWs). RBRWs monitor twice monthly at fourteen sites across forty-two river miles. RBBWs now
are able to train new volunteers; they conduct quarterly volunteer training workshops. RBRWs seek to
answer two questions from their river monitoring. First, does the RG/RB meet Texas and Mexico's
standards for dissolved oxygen, pH, conductivity, temperature, and fecal coliforms? Second, what is the
human health risk associated with river water contact? The presence of fecal coliform bacteria in the
water indicates sewage or manure contamination that can introduce bacterial, viral, and parasitic disease
causing agents. Other potential contaminants in the river and its sediments that may contribute to adverse
health consequences include: heavy metals, semi-volatile organics, and volatile organics. These
compounds may be associated with neurologic disturbances, skin irritations, blood disorders, birth
defects, cancers, and immune system disorders.
Sampling began during the fall of 1994. The results of one year of monitoring are presented below.
These data are being used to assess RG/RB floodplains colonia residents exposure to river contamination
and their health risks. Colonias are unregulated settlements without access to potable water and sewage
treatment facilities. A cohortl of colonia residents have been interviewed on three occasions over the
past year to determine if they interact with the river, by fishing or swimming in the river, or using it as a
drinking water source. They also provided information as to their disease experiences and visits to health
care providers. Using basic statistics and a multiple logistic regression model, the health risks associated
with river water contact, while controlling for confounding exposures2, are assessed.
Results of RBRW Monitoring Activities
Volunteers from the RBRWs monitor dissolved oxygen, conductivity, pH, water and air temperature, on
a twice monthly basis. They monitor for fecal coliforms in the laboratory on a monthly basis. However,
due to inconsistencies in the volunteer labor force, some data are missing for a few sites during some
months. Twice annually volunteers gather river and sediment samples at three sites. The Citizens
Environmental Laboratory (CEL) located in Cambridge analyzes these samples for metals, semi-volatile
and volatile organics.
Two of the fourteen sites are of particular interest for the purposes of assessing colonia resident exposure
to contaminants: (1) Zaragosa International Bridge, on the Southeast outskirts of the City of El Paso; and,
(2) Riverside Canal, also Southeast of the City of El Paso. These two sites are immediately upstream of
the colonias of Campestre and San Elizario on the U.S. side of the border, and El Sauzal, Loma Blanca,
and San Isidro on the Mexican side. Information presented in the graphs below include data from these
two sites. For comparison purposes, we include data from an upstream site located on the Northwest
outskirts of El Paso/Ciudad Juarez.
Results from these sites, particularly fecal coliform bacteria results, provide information about
contaminant exposure among colonia residents who swim near these sites. Also, many residents of the
U.S. colonias use water, for bathing and washing, from shallow wells (10-25' deep) located in RG/RB
floodplains. These wells may be contaminated with river water, water draining into the river, and fecal
-------
matter from nearby leaky, uncertified, septic systems. To determine the impact on well water, a few
volunteers from the RBRWs sampled and analyzed colonia well water twice annually. These results are
also used in assessing colonia residents' health risks.
RBRW river monitoring results are presented below in the following graphs. We do not include pH
results as volunteers found all sites at all times to be within the 6.5-9.0 range considered preferable for
indigenous species of RG/RB aquatic animals. This indicator is measured in the field using a color
comparator pH kit and procedures recommended by Texas Watch. From 1994-95 across the fourteen
sites, the minimum pH found was 7.25 and the maximum 8.7.
We also do not include river conductivity results or estimates of total dissolved solids, as these also were
consistently below the standards. The Texas Water Quality Standard above the international dam, located
where the New Mexico, Texas, and Mexico borders converge, is not to exceed an annual average of 1800
mg/1.3 Texas Watch protocols. In this region, the inorganic substances likely to affect TDS include
sodium, chloride, sulfates, nitrates, and phosphates.
Dissolved oxygen (DO) is measured from samples collected in the field using Texas Watch protocols.
The samples are fixed in the field using reagents to stabilize the oxygen content and color the sample.3
The Texas Water Quality Standard for the El Paso/Ciudad Juarez region of the RG/RB is a minimum of
5.0 mg/1.4 DO is generally considered an indicator of aquatic ecosystem health. As can be determined
from viewing Graph 1, DO was above the minimum at the upstream site, Vinton, during every month
monitored by the volunteers, ranging from 6.0 to 9.0. DO was below the minimum considered acceptable
at the downstream site, Riverside, nearest the colonias. DO was below the standard during the months of
October through December of 1994 and April, May and December of 1995.
Fecal coliform bacteria are a group of bacteria commonly found in human and animal feces. These
bacteria indicate the possible presence of disease-causing bacteria, viruses, and parasites that are
harbored in feces. Hence, the presence of fecal coliforms suggest that human contact with the river may
cause adverse health consequences. RBRWs collect river samples in pre-sterilized plastic bags at each
site. Samples are cooled and transported within two hours to the RBRW laboratory. Samples are
analyzed using a RWN adaption of Standard Method 9222D.5 Each sample is filtered, placed on a
nutrient broth in petri dishes and incubated. Resulting colonies are counted and reported as "colonies per
100 mL". Results are not composited over a 30 day period and reported as a geometric mean, rather
individual results are reported.
Based on Texas Water Quality Standards, the criteria for fecal coliform above the international dam is a
geometric mean, computed over 30 days, of 200 colony forming units per lOOmL. No more than 10% of
individual samples should exceed 400. Below the dam, the criterion is a geometric mean of 2000
colonies per lOOmL. According to the "Clean Rivers Program Data Analysis Task Force," no sample
should exceed 4000 colonies per lOOmL below the dam.6 The portion of the RG/RB below the
International Dam and above the Riverside Dam is the only stretch of river where the standard is not
based on contact recreation and hence is less health protective. In truth, that stretch of river is used for
-------
recreational purposes by EL Paso and Juarez Valley residents, particularly colonia residents.
The results presented in Graph 2 are individual results, and each standard is indicated. These results
demonstrate that the upstream Vinton site may not be in compliance with the standard, either geometric
or individual, during the months of September, October, December, and July. The Zaragosa and
Riverside sites sre in compliance with the less health protective standard of 4000 colonies per lOOmL.
However, if a more conservative standard were applied, the Riverside and Zaragosa sites would
frequently exceed them.
The CEL detected arsenic, iron, and manganese in floodplains wells. In river sediments, high levels of
aluminum, chromium, iron, manganese, and zinc were detected. However, few volatile and semi-volatile
organic compounds were detected. Sodium chloride, nitrates, and sulfates were detected in river water
samples.
To determine the illness experiences of colonia residents, over 400 residents were interviewed during the
winter of 1994, and re-interviewed during the summer and winter of 1995. The survey instruments and
questions used were developed using epidemiologic? methods. Respondents reported recent symptoms of
gastro-intestinal, respiratory and dermal illnesses. They also reported recent visits to a health care
provider. Respondents were asked questions designed to determine socio-economic status, smoking
status, occupation, food and water storage and handling practices, water source, and interaction with the
river.
The results of the epidemiologic survey in the colonias, incorporated into the RWN human health
assessment, indicate that 15% of residents fish, and 9% swim, in the river. This information provides
evidence that residents do come into contact with the river below the international dam. Hence, the
rationale for the less health protective fecal coliform standard below the international dam is unclear.
Preliminary results also provide evidence that with increasing reports of exposure to river and
contaminated well water, residents report increasing amounts of gastrointestinal and skin illnesses.
Conclusion
Once the analysis of the volunteer data is complete, RWN and RBRWs intend to submit this information
to enforcement authorities such as the TNRCC, the International Boundary and Water Commission, the
Texas Attorney General's Office, and the City-County Health Authorities. Jointly, RWN and RBRWs
will recommend a more proactive effort towards protecting the RG/RB and its human inhabitants.
References
1 Texas Water Commission, Texas Surface Water Quality Standards, Appendix A, "Water Uses
and Numerical Criteria." Austin, Texas, June 27, 1991.
-------
2Ibid.
3Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Texas Watch Volunteer Environmental
Monitoring Manual. Austin, Texas, December 1994.
4Texas Water Commission, op.cit.
5American Public Health Association, et.al. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and
Wastewater. 18th Edition, 1993.
6Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Watershed Management Division. Regional
Assessment of Water Quality in the Rio Grande Basin. Austin, Texas. October 1994.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Urban River Restoration: How One Group Does It
Laurene von Klan, Executive Director
Friends of the Chicago River
Where urban rivers are concerned "restoration" can be broadly defined. While a return to some form of
ecological health is highly desiredl, successful restoration of an urban river is not limited to a return to
ecological integrity. "Restoration" in an urban setting is inevitably linked to a range of goalssafety,
recreation, flood and waste water storage and conveyance, as well as economic development. Indeed,
improving an urban river in terms of any of these goals can be a step stone to achieving ecological goals.
Friends of the Chicago River has been "restoring" the Chicago River for 17 years. The Friends'
restoration work may be viewed as both a series of projects on the ground, published, or enacted into
law or as a series of processes the processes being as important to restoration as the projects themselves.
"How One Urban River Group Does It," specifically how Friends of the Chicago River does it can be
understood by looking at the last 17 years of the Friends' work.
Since its formation in 1979, the Friends have used various types of activity: awareness and vision
building, advocacy, constituency development, and inclusive planning and project implementation. All of
these types of activities have gone on simultaneously to some degree. Nonetheless, Friends' history
shows that during certain periods, some types of activities have been more prominent than others. The
key to the success of these activities, however, has been dependent on three key factors: leadership,
institutional development, and a focus on opportunity. Though activities and projects have varied over
time, they have always been driven in part by circumstances, trends, and opportunity. Perhaps the most
significant circumstantial change is the improvement of water quality which seems to have driven
renewed interest in the river.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
The Early Years_Awareness and Institution Building
-------
The early work of the Friends is most characterized by awareness raising establishing vision, reversing
negative impressions, creating understanding of the River's potential, and programs to foster bonds
between people and the River. In fact, Friends of the Chicago River was formed when in 1979 Chicago
Magazine published its cover story article entitled "Our Friendless River." This article pointed to the
need for care of the River and the potential that the River offers. It even suggested that a "friends" group
be formed. Indeed, people began calling the author, and Friends of the Chicago River was formed.
One of the Friends' first initiatives was "Chicago River Day" (1980), actually a weekend-long event. It
included an informational festival at a downtown plaza near the River, with walking and canoe trips. In
addition, the Friends held its first river clean up in the heart of downtown Chicago in 1980. While the
cleanup did have ecological benefits of trash removal, what was more significant was the creation of
awareness. The downtown was the most well known and visible part of the River, and how it was treated
was deemed key to public and agency perceptions of the river and its value. As a result, many of the
Friends efforts have focused on the downtown. The cleanup ultimately did achieve its goals- regular
cleanups downtown after 1981 became virtually unnecessary as local businesses and agencies now
maintain this River reach.
Other initiatives during the first years included, for example, "river adventures"_teams of people going to
different parts of the river to get to know it and bring information back to the others. This was an
information gathering exercise, but was also intended to be a bonding experience. These excursions
evolved into "design charettes." At these charettes, maps of the river were spread out on the floor for
people to draw in their visions and ideas. Ideas for river trails, public boat access, and greenery were all
included. These charettes were designed to maximize a sense of community between the various
participants architects, planners, city officials and citizens. David Jones, one of the organizers, notes
that, "we consciously made it difficult to tell the city planners from the neighborhood people." Out of
these charettes, ideas were generated. The notion of public access and a Chicago River Trail emerged and
became accepted as a worthwhile goal.
"Institutional development" was a key ingredient in the generation of real river improvements. As early
as 1972 there had been efforts made to revive the River, though these were sporadic. Without a
committed and organized constituency, it seemed little would happen for the River. In 1980 and 1981,
start up grants were made for the Friends to hire their first staff person, and a local non-profit, the Open
Lands Project, gave the group an office and other support.
Friends of the Chicago River had a big fight on its hands right off the bat. When a proposal for a heliport
along a central part of the River downtown was put forth, visions of a publicly accessible and green river
corridor were threatened. Friends strongly opposed the proposal. The heliport issue became an
organizing focus for the organization. At one meeting, a public official pulled one of the Friends early
members aside and urged the group to get organized. Friends began to build its constituency. At a local
boat show and other events, people were asked to join the Friends. Approximately 2400 people signed up
(at no charge).
-------
Victory against the heliport ultimately hinged on environmental and safety regulations. However, other
significant benefits were the growth of an active river constituency, citizen and civic leadership, and a
proof of the need for both statutory protection of the river and a vision that would guide river edge land
use.
While the heliport battle was going on, Friends began a series of meetings to secure the passage of a river
protection ordinance. Numerous meetings were held, and a local business association became a partner in
the effort. While their interests were primarily business related, they provided feedback necessary for the
development of an ordinance. The ordinance was passed in 1983.
The Mid 80's_Planning and Design
In the mid 1980's, the seeds of vision that were sown began to sprout. The River was increasingly more
accepted as an asset and two community-based planning initiatives were undertaken. Friends played the
role of a facilitator as well as project coordinator. During this period Friends engaged many partners in
the creation of two significant documents. The first, the North Branch Riverwalk Concept Plan (1988)
was a guiding document for three miles of the river. It envisioned a continuous trail, parks, and wetlands.
The second was the award winning Chicago River Urban Design Guidelines (Downtown Section). This
document establishes a set of guidelines for river edge property owners to follow when their properties
are redeveloped. These guidelines, are not predominantly ecological in nature or intent. They are more
oriented to the creation of a downtown tourism destination. They do, however, address stormwater
runoff, preservation of natural river banks, and use of native trees for landscaping. In addition, by making
the river accessible and attractive, they contribute to "psychological restoration." Re-establishing the
River as a key feature of the landscape, and a living thing that all Chicagoans use and depend upon, is
considered by the Friends to be a vital part of restoration. Moreover, support for this form of
revitalization of the River has helped the Friends to cultivate a broad base of support from the business
community.
Both the North Branch Riverwalk Concept Plan and the Urban Design Guidelines were developed using
meeting facilitation skills, design sessions, and other group planning techniques. They both, however,
hinged on the drive of local constituencies. In the case of the North Branch Plan, two local citizens
groups, the North River Commission and the Albany Park Planning Committee pushed for the
development of this plan. Volunteers from the neighborhood played lead roles. According to an early
board member, the work of the Friends' staff to oversee these projects and find solutions to obstacles was
vital.
Moreover, portion of the River that became the focus of the North Branch Concept Plan seemed like a
part of the river where a victory could be accomplished. There was leadership and interest. In addition,
river conditions seemed to indicate that significant improvements were possible. It was a point of
opportunity.
The downtown was also a point of opportunity, largely due to the real estate boom of the mid 1980's. The
-------
economics of waterfront real estate development for tax revenue, real estate values and tourism spurred
both local agency and business interest. As if overnight, the river seemed to become the focal point of at
least half dozen major development proposals. Economic trends and the converging interests of the
business community, city government and citizens made the development of downtown development
guidelines possible. There was strong support from City leadership. While the City of Chicago secured
funding to hire consultants to develop these guidelines, ultimately they were authored by a Friends of the
Chicago River volunteer Ed Zotti.
To write the guidelines the Friends developed what it called the Policy and Design Committee. This
committee consisted of representatives from numerous government agencies, planners, designers,
environmentalists, citizens, and private developers. (These people were "experts" and helped to build
credibility.) The committee also reviewed every development proposal for the river edge. Because of the
converging interests of all these parties, they were disposed to come together. Friends began to identify
itself as a "facilitator of progress."
Today, the Urban Design Guidelines continue to improve the river corridor downtown. Every new river
edge development downtown is subject to review under the Guidelines. The "gateway" park, envisioned
in the North Branch Riverwalk Concept Plan in the mid 80's, is now nearing completion. It will feature
native vegetation along the river edge as well as trails and interpretive signage. Recently, Friends and its
many partner organizations were able to implement another feature of the plan, a wetlands reconstruction
at Gompers Park.
During this Planning and Design phase the Friends also enhanced its awareness raising and volunteer
programs. Walking trail maps were developed and "docents," volunteer tour leaders began to lead regular
river walks. Friends held cruises to promote the River in collaboration with the Mayors office. The
Friends had cemented its role as a part of the local civic landscape.
As the real estate boom settled down, new issues rose to the fore. In the late 1980's, after significant
flooding on the river's North Branch, and amid massive urban sprawl in the river's upper watershed, the
Friends began to work on new issues and opportunities.
Current Trends_On-Site Projects and Citizen Involvement
In the early 1990's planners and river advocates from the upper watershed contacted the Friends with
concerns about flooding and stormwater management. In response, Friends held two events entitled
"Voices from the Stream." At these events (1991 and 1992), more than 100 people representing
developers, municipalities, conservationists, and local citizens were given an opportunity to speak for a
few minutes on the river topic of their choice. The spirit of collaboration generated by the "Voices"
forums inspired funding for a Chicago River based demonstration project. This project received the
support of the National Park Service Rivers and Trails Conservation Assistance program and Congress,
and was meant to establish the Chicago River as a model for interagency collaboration on urban
waterway improvement. Since that time, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Forest Service,
-------
Army Corps of Engineers, and National Park Service have been collaborating on this effort.
Initially, this project was meant to create a resource assessment and develop a master plan and action
items for the entire watershed. However, the project was redirected. It would be too difficult to develop a
vision and plan of action for the entire 156-mile river's watershed. Moreover, unlike downtown, the
opportunities for many stretches of this were less clear and potentially divisive. Finally, there had been
plans made earlier and citizens and agencies wanted to instead to focus on projects. This focus on
projects emerged from the recognition that a window of opportunity existed, and that during this window
we needed to show on the ground results. Therefore, the project was refocused. The research studies
would be completed, and there would be an effort to implement specific projects.
On-site projects are at the heart of the current phase of the Friends' restoration work. Friends has taken on
a role as a project coordinator and facilitator. Rather than develop plans, the focus is on the ground
results. This shift to projects was also bolstered by growing awareness that citizens can undertake
waterway restoration projects.2
There are, however, potentially thousands of bank stabilization projects, storm water retrofit, and access
points that can be created on our river. How then, does a group decide what projects to undertake? Faced
with this dilemma, FOCR has developed an operating philosophy "Go for the Light." What this means
is, river improvements will most likely be successful where there is interest, desire, feasibility, and
leadership, particularly from citizens.
The types of processes that Friends has used during this current period include communication building
sessionsRiver Forums (similar to the earlier "Voices" conferences). In addition, Friends convened
interested and concerned parties to establish criteria for collaborative projects. Then, these groups
selected two projects to focus upon. Friends and its partner the National Park Service worked to ensure
that citizens were included in this process.
As a result, two on-site restoration projects are being implemented and more are on the way. These
include a 25-acre wetlands restoration along the river and a 2-acre wetlands reconstruction. (The
wetlands was included in the North Branch Riverwalk Concept Plan in 1988.) All of these projects are
being completed with multi-agency participation and citizen and youth corps labor.
Friends continues to respond to opportunity. For example, when approached by community residents
about a bank restoration/public access/beautification project, Friends helped to raise funds, bring in
agency support, provide technical and volunteer labor, participate in education projects, and publicize the
project. This project, conducted in conjunction with the Waters Elementary School, happened because of
the local leaders and because of the flexibility and assistance of government representatives. It happened
because in these leaders Friends saw the opportunity to help get a project done.
Friends continues to build awareness and to develop itself as an institution. The Friends walking tours
continue and have been supplemented by a schedule of extremely popular canoe trips. Our "Halloween
-------
Boat Float," a cruise which shows people the offbeat parts of the river they would normally not see, has
been a sell-out for three years and has helped to expand membership. The Policy and Planning
Committee still reviews river edge developments. The Friends volunteer programs have been expanded
to include more activities that engage people in hands on river improvement, such as river bank work
days and water quality monitoring. Vision exercises such as design charettes and corridor planning
efforts have been less a focus of activity than they have been in the past. As circumstances change along
the River, however, it may once again be time for some of the tools and strategies used earlier.
Conclusion
River restoration in an urban setting means defining restoration broadly. The alliances and credibility
built by working on non-ecologically driven priorities may bring resources and develop institutional
capacity needed to undertake more ecologically oriented projects. Moreover, the tools needed to
undertake and effect urban river restoration are varied, and may be more or less useful depending on the
larger cultural, economic, and policy considerations of the time. The tools used, the projects undertaken,
and their level of success must in part be influenced by the unique opportunities of the moment and the
presence of strong leadership and vision. Nurturing collaboration based on citizen involvement and
interagency collaboration is vital.2
The Coalition to Restore Urban Waters (CRUW) was formed in 1992. This Coalition helped the Friend
of the Chicago River to recognize that as a small non-profit we could play a creating
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Ground-water Lens Based Strategy For Water
Quality Protection on Cape Cod
Gabrielle C. Belfit, Hydrologist
Thomas C. Cambareri, Water Resources Program Manager
Cape Cod Commission, Barnstable, MA
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Cape Cod has traditionally enjoyed high quality water resources that support a wealth of economic and
recreational opportunities for the fifteen coastal communities. The conflicts between preserving water
quality and land use activities from a growing year round population are becoming more complex and
difficult to solve as the intensity of land use increases. This is demonstrated by the fact that the Cape has
doubled its population in the past twenty years, while the percentage of supply wells experiencing some
degradation to its water quality has increased nearly 40% percent in the past decade. Land suitable for
future water supply development has shrunk to less than 6% of the peninsula.
The aquifer located on Cape Cod, Massachusetts, is composed of six hydrogeologically separate ground-
water lenses (Figure 1). The largest two lenses, known as the Sagamore and Monomoy lenses serve as
the sole source of water to eleven of the fifteen Cape Cod communities. Besides providing excellent
quality water for public and private wells, the lenses also feed the many lakes, ponds, and marine
embayments that are an extremely important resource to Cape Cod. These two lenses were the focus of
detailed ground-water protection projects aimed at developing a comprehensive picture of potential land
use threats to ground-water quality and emphasizing the need for a regional approach to protect resources
that are not defined by political boundaries but by ground-water flow within the lens itself. This paper
describes techniques that are intended to provide resource based information in a graphical format to
-------
motivate regional ground-water protection efforts.
10
¦ *t
Groundwater Contour (ft. J
altitude of water above mean sea level
G rou n dw ate r Di vid e
Approximate divisions
be twe en grou ri dw ate r I en s e s
Pamet
r |Chequesset
Nauset
$\.^S
y ¦
Sagamore lli^y *
i * i ¦ i ¦
Figure 1. Groundwater L enses of the Cape Cod Aquifer
Figure 1. Ground water lenses of the Cape Cod aquifer.
Ground-water Lenses as Watershed Equivalents for Management
The six ground-water lenses on Cape Cod Massachusetts can be envisioned as mounds of ground-water
bordered by salt water at the edge, bedrock on the bottom, and separated from each other by tidal rivers
that stretch across the Cape peninsula. The soils on Cape Cod are predominantly sandy, which contribute
to the rapid percolation of precipitation, the only source of fresh water to the ground-water lens. The
combination of rapid percolation and generally shallow depths to ground water make the peninsula
vulnerable to contamination. These conditions also limit the process of overland flow. This means that
the use of watersheds defined by topography cannot be used to define water resource recharge areas.
Instead all recharge areas must be defined by ground-water flow paths within each of the ground-water
lenses.
Because it is not possible for ground water to move from one lens to another, the lenses, and not town
boundaries, are the key management units for ground-water protection. Within each lens, recharge areas
to public water supplies, lakes, ponds and coastal embayments represent the equivalent of subwatershed
units, with the added distinction that they often overlap each other. These defined resources formed the
-------
basis for land use analysis and regulatory strategies in the Sagamore and Monomoy lens projects (Belfit
etal., 1993, 1995).
Land Use Analysis
A detailed parcel based land use coverage was developed using the Cape Cod Commission Geographic
Information System (GIS). The parcel by parcel coverage links information from tax assessors records
such as specific land use, acreage, zoning, and owner, to each geographically defined land parcel. Water
resource area delineation overlays were added to the land use coverage enabling a wide variety of land
use analyses to be performed for each recharge area including land use mapping, nitrogen loading
analysis, and private supply well screening.
Land use maps were created for each town showing the relation of land use to water resources areas.
Potential land use risks such as underground storage tanks, landfills, and sewage treatment plants were
added to the maps in addition to the land use information. A regional map was compiled that
dramatically demonstrated the interconnectedness of the water resources with respect to town boundaries
and major potential conflicts with existing land uses such as industrial or commercial property and
landfills. The maps also provided a visual assessment of remaining developable lands. Separate land use
statistics provided a comparative assessment to visual development patterns.
Land use information was used to prepare estimates of nitrogen loading for selected wellhead protection
areas based on a cumulative mass-balance method (Eichner et al., 1992). Accounting for the total acreage
of lawns and paved surfaces, residential occupancy and commercial water use provided a conservative
estimate of the nitrogen contributing to water supplies from fertilizer, wastewater, roads, and
precipitation as nitrate-nitrogen. Dilution to the nitrogen mass is provided by the amount of recharge
available to the particular wellhead recharge area. The total nitrogen load, divided by the available
recharge results in a conservative estimate of nitrogen concentrations that may be expected in the public
water supply well. By making some assumptions on future growth potential, nitrogen loading can be
projected into the future to see if zoning is adequately protective. Due to the large amount of time needed
to determine commercial water use and verify all the figures used in the nitrogen loading calculations
only a limited number of wellhead protection areas were completed in each of the lenses (Belfit et al.,
1993, Belfit and McCaffery, 1995). Methods of shortcutting the technique by using assumptions were
compared. The advantage of a parcel by parcel nitrogen loading analysis is that it allows an ongoing
estimate of water quality impacts as new development occurs or buildout patterns are altered. The use of
generalized assumptions precludes the more refined approach.
The GIS land use analysis was also used to locate private wells. A screening method was developed by
overlying water distribution lines with the land use maps. A 250-foot buffer from the distribution lines,
which represented the maximum feasible distance that a water supply would be connected to a main, was
created. Developed lots that fell outside the buffer area were assumed to be served by private wells. This
method was tested in one town that had excellent records on private well locations, and predicted 73% of
the recorded wells. Wells that were not accounted for by the screening method were either irrigation
-------
wells, or lots with available town water that decided not to connect. The method was used throughout the
lens to create town by town lists of potential private wells.
Mechanisms for Regional Regulatory Consistency
In 1990, the Cape Cod Commission (the Commission) was established as a land use regulatory agency,
in part due to the concerns of Cape Codders that water quality was being jeopardized by the rapid growth
of this coastal community. While many of the towns have enacted wellhead protection strategies in the
form of zoning overlay districts or board of health regulations, there is a lack of consistency from town to
town and many resources such as marine embayments are not adequately protected. Through the creation
of a Regional Policy Plan, the Commission enacted regulatory controls to include all water resources
including lakes and ponds, coastal embayments, and private and future water supplies (Cape Cod
Commission, 1991).
A local ground-water protection matrix was developed for each of the lenses. The matrix helped the
towns to see inconsistencies between towns and also compared each town's activities to Massachusetts'
wellhead protection regulations and regional performance standards of the Cape Cod Commission. The
matrix encouraged the towns to be creative in protecting the entire resource regardless of political
boundaries. Through the use of the matrix, recommendations for intermunicipal goals to improve water
quality protection were created.
Regional strategies above and beyond town regulations are available to Cape towns through the Cape
Cod Commission Act and other legislative procedures. The Regional Policy Plan (RPP) itself is a
powerful regulatory document intended to guide future development on Cape Cod and assist in review of
developments of regional impact (DRIs). DRIs are classified by regional impact thresholds and are
generally large scale projects. The water resources section of the RPP recognizes the limited carrying
capacity of water resource recharge areas and uses a resource classification system (Figure 2) to address
non-point source performance standards. The use of this classification system achieves a certain level of
regional consistency. For example in wellhead protection areas, drinking water nitrogen limits are
reached when housing density is greater than one house per acre. A marine embayment may reach its
capacity with a density as low as one house per three acres. The system also recognizes impaired water
quality areas such as commercial or densely developed areas, and imposes less stringent performance
standards on these areas. The Commission review procedure is especially useful in that it looks at
problems that extend beyond town boundaries and allows off-site mitigation, which towns are unable to
do themselves.
Under the Cape Cod Commission Act, towns are required to adopt Local Comprehensive Plans (LCPs)
which are essentially small scale versions of the RPP, implemented on the local level. Development of
the plans requires that the towns do a buildout analysis that is compared with resource limitations. This
process may result in rezoning or other protective measures that direct growth away from pristine areas.
By understanding the resource limitations of surrounding communities intermunicipal goals may be
incorporated into the plans. Intermunicipal wellhead protection agreements, zoning bylaws, and board of
-------
health regulations are all possible enforcement mechanisms.
The LCP has the most potential to ensure regional consistency. By its nature, DRI review cannot address
the cumulative impacts of small projects. LCPs have the most well defined planning process,
requirements for intermunicipal coordination and most important of all, require a time-table for
implementation of the recommended actions of each LCP to assure resources will be protected.
Education and Outreach
Several techniques were used in both of the Sagamore and Monomoy Lens projects to educate citizens
about regional water quality issues. The Monomoy project involved the use of a 15-member task force to
help facilitate town communications, host workshops, and review written material. Over 80 volunteers
also participated in the project and provided valuable assistance with the creation of the GIS land use
inventory and nitrogen loading assessments. Coordination of the task force and volunteers was a time
intensive effort, but one that greatly paid off in the long run. A vast amount of work was accomplished
with very little capital cost through the joint contributions of the project participants. Dialogs at both task
force meetings and workshops encouraged citizens to get involved with local decision making, and
certainly illuminated concerns with neighboring towns.
Educational workshops were incorporated into the Monomoy Lens project including a wide variety of
topics on resource assessment and protection. The workshop series was popular with individuals who
already had a strong interest in water resource protection. Noting that the same individuals were
attending the workshops, it was concluded that the format was not the most suitable for reaching new
audiences and a different media that would reach individuals learning about ground-water protection
issues for the first time was needed.
To educate a broader population, a regional ground-water protection poster was developed for each of the
lenses. The poster included general hydrologic information, resource based protection strategies, water
quality information, and a regional land use map as a centerpiece, which defined the resource areas and
noted major contaminant plumes. It was widely distributed to municipal agencies, schools, libraries, and
a variety of environmental organizations. The format of the poster is colorful and easy to understand,
making it a valuable education tool for both youths and adults.
Project Accomplishments
After many years of planning efforts, bylaw enactment, and education, it seemed as though attention to
ground-water protection issues was taking a back seat to other planning concerns such as economic
development and traffic planning. The success of both the Sagamore and Monomoy projects can be
measured in part by the increase in water resource protection activities among the Cape towns. These
ground-water protection projects served as an important reminder that there were many new residents of
Cape Cod who were not aware of the sensitive nature or limited carrying capacity of its water resources.
Educating these individuals was critical to continuing resource protection efforts.
-------
Using land use analysis techniques, graphical media, and workshop presentations, the outstanding water
resource protection issues were clearly defined. Throughout the project establishing goals for regional
consistency was stressed as an important outcome. Many zoning changes to protect neighboring water
resources were made as the result of the project and suggestions for continuing intermunicipal
coordination were incorporated into the LCPs of most communities.
Using some of the material generated from these two projects, the Cape Cod Commission spearheaded
the nomination of Barnstable County as a Ground-water Guardian Community. The designation was
awarded to Cape Cod in November of 1995 by the Groundwater Foundation, Lincoln Nebraska. This
program is very helpful in continuing to keep awareness of ground-water protection issues at the
forefront of the media, even without a catastrophic event such as a hazardous material contamination
spill. The designation also helps keep the various groups involved in ground-water protection activities
communicating by forming a ground-water guardian team. The Barnstable County Ground-water
Guardian Team has representatives from county government, water suppliers, agriculture and
environmental activists and educators. As a team the group plans on organizing several events in the
coming year to draw attention to their water resource protection efforts.
References
Belfit, G.C. et al. (1993) Monomoy Lens Ground-water Protection Project. Cape Cod
Commission, Water Resource Office, Barnstable, MA.
Eichner, E.M. and T.C. Cambareri (1992) Technical Bulletin 91-001 Nitrogen Loading. Cape Cod
Commission, Water Resource Office, Barnstable, MA.
Belfit, G.C. and D.J. McCaffery. (1995) Nitrogen Loading in Public Water Supply Recharge
Areas. Sandwich, Massachusetts. Cape Cod Commission. Water Resource Office, Barnstable,
MA.
Cape Cod Commission. (1991) Regional Policy Plan. Barnstable County, MA.
Acronyms
DRI Development of Regional Impact
GIS Geographic Information System
LCP Local Comprehensive Plan
RPP Regional Policy Plan
-------
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Searching for Common Goals; Protecting Potable
Water Supply Watersheds
Justin D. Mahon, Jr.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., Mahwah, NJ
Raymond J. Cywinski
United Water New Jersey, Harrington Park, NJ
United Water New Jersey (the Company) is implementing a strategic water quality protection plan for
the Company's Hackensack River watershed. Components of the plan include public education,
partnering with other stakeholders in the watershed, a strategic plan document, a program to evaluate
additional buffer land acquisition, and individual management plans for select golf courses in the
watershed. The Company faces the challenge of protecting water quality in spite of very limited authority
within the watershed.
The Company is one of the largest investor-owned water utilities in the United States, currently serving
approximately 750,000 people in the New York metropolitan area. Its major source of supply is surface
water derived from three reservoirs; Lake Tappan, Woodcliff Lake, and Oradell. The three reservoirs are
located within the Hackensack River watershed and have a combined watershed area of 86 square miles,
excluding Lake DeForest and its watershed in Rockland County New York. Additional water is diverted
to the Hackensack River watershed from other sources including the Saddle River. The watersheds of the
three reservoirs and the Saddle River diversion encompass all or parts of 30 municipalities in Bergen
County New Jersey, and six municipalities in Rockland County New York. Approximately 85 percent of
the Hackensack River watershed is already developed. This development is primarily residential. There
is some commercial and industrial development.
Company land ownership in the watershed amounts to 3.1 square miles or 3.6 percent of the total
-------
watershed area, which is typical of water utilities nationwide. In addition to multiple political
jurisdictions and limited land ownership, the absence of a holistic regulatory framework for watershed
protection in New Jersey hinders water quality protection. New York's public health statutes have
provisions for utility specific watershed protection regulations similar to those promulgated recently by
New York City. However, to date the Company has not pursued regulations for its watershed in
Rockland County. Furthermore as an investor-owned utility the Company lacks the powers and rights of
government such as eminent domain that some water utilities use to acquire land for water quality
protection.
In the past Company actions have produced a range of reactions from other stakeholders. A plan over a
decade ago to develop land holdings no longer considered necessary for water quality protection
provoked virulent opposition from environmental groups and municipalities which culminated in
litigation. Since then the Company has attempted to work more proactively with other stakeholders.
The Company's watershed management objective is to control specific pollutants in a program designed
to:
¦ Avoid the need for changes in treatment.
¦ Share equitably in the costs and benefits of watershed protection.
¦ Minimize risks from hazardous chemicals.
¦ Preserve aesthetic qualities to assure customer acceptance.
Achieving this objective requires overcoming obstacles posed by the Company's limited land ownership
within the watershed, the fragmented political composition of the watershed, and the often contradictory
objectives of the other stakeholders in the watershed.
Stakeholders
As in most watersheds, high quality water is only one of the products that the watershed is expected to
produce. Other demands on the watershed include recreational use, residential, commercial and industrial
building, farming, and open space. As Robbins et al. (1991) states "Almost without exception it is these
secondary land uses that constitute a threat to water quality. Watershed management is usually, therefore,
a process of balance and compromise among competing and often conflicting demands for various
products or uses. Because of this competing and conflicting relationship between the need for high
quality water and the need for other watershed products, the extent to which sources or potential sources
of contamination are to be controlled can and must be determined only in conjunction with planning for
these other uses."
Stakeholders in the Company's watershed include the Company, local governments, and environmental
-------
preservation advocates as noted in the introduction. Other stakeholders include fisherman, bird-watchers
and golfers who utilize Company lands, developers, state and federal regulators, and the Company's rate
payers. The Company has to acknowledge the goals of all of these stakeholders as it implements its water
quality protection plan. The strategy is to share goals and resources to accomplish as much as possible.
Company Actions
The Company has established a water quality protection program including
¦ Ownership of buffer lands.
¦ Water quality monitoring.
¦ Watershed surveillance.
¦ Review of proposed construction activities in the watershed.
Company owned watershed land is located along the banks of its three reservoirs and tributaries to those
reservoirs. The Company monitors water quality at approximately 30 locations throughout the watershed
at a frequency of 12 times per year. In addition, raw water samples are taken at the Haworth Water
Treatment Plant. Proposed construction activities are reviewed when the Company receives public notice
as a nearby property owner (generally within 200 feet of the proposed project) or as a concerned party.
About 60 development projects are reviewed annually. Company employees from Engineering,
Environmental Resources, Patrol Force, Real Estate, and System Operations and Regulatory Compliance
monitor and inspect activities and projects in the watershed. The Company does not have any formal
authority to require reviews or impose reviews beyond those contained in statutes. Other Company
actions related to water quality protection are limited public access to Company owned lands,
participation in emergency response programs, participation in stormwater management, and aspects of
the Company's public education and outreach program. Company actions that best exemplify sharing of
goals and resources include access to Company lands, emergency response, and the public education and
outreach program.
Access to Company Lands
Company land surrounding the reservoirs is fenced to prevent access. Consistent with industry practices,
the Company allows certain activities on its property such as fishing and bird watching. The Company
also leases land to three golf courses. It recently completed best management practice plans for these
three courses. The plans are intended to minimize the risks to water quality posed by the intensive
fertilization and pest control practices normally used on golf courses.
Public access to Company land shares a most valuable resource, the land which both protects the water
-------
supply and provide opportunities for recreation. Likewise the Company encourages and received water
quality benefits from land owned by others being used for recreation.
The Company's relationship with operators of golf courses on its leased land is more complex. Both
stakeholders want to see that the courses are profitable and well run. However implementing the best
management practice plans for the courses has required delicate negotiations because the plans challenge
traditional golf course management practices and create more work for the course superintendents and
their staffs. The Company is making a considerable effort to persuade the superintendents that integrated
pest management and other techniques are good for the environment and their employees and may even
reduce operating costs without threatening any characteristics of the courses valuable to golfers.
Emergency Response
The Company's emergency response plan is consistent with industry practices pertaining to dumping or
spills in the watershed. Primary responsibility for immediate response to spills and other incidents
threatening water quality rests with local government including counties; sewer authorities; and
municipal police, fire, and other public agencies. Notification is made to the Company depending on the
responding agency's assessment of the dangers posed by the incident. One initiative in the Company's
water quality protection plan is to educate emergency responders from other entities regarding the types
of incidents and locations of greatest concern to the Company.
Emergency response best characterizes a shared goal among stakeholders; minimizing environmental
damage from dumping or spills. It also illustrates how resources can be shared. There exists tremendous
potential for duplication of equipment and training among the many entities sharing the responsibility for
emergency response. Duplication of equipment and training is avoided by cooperation among the
responders. This benefits all the stakeholders and frees resources to address other needs. Cooperation is
fostered through a network of informal communications among stakeholders who know one another and
share common concerns. The Company maintains a list of emergency responders in each of the
governments in the watershed and its own response team. Ordinarily a member of the Company's Patrol
Force or one of its Special Sanitary Inspectors responds to an incident. The company's representative
establishes whether further Company involvement is needed to protect water quality and contacts the
appropriate staff. The Company's emergency response team is oriented towards preventing spills from
reaching watercourses. The team also acts as the primary responder to incidents occurring on Company
properties.
Public Education and Outreach
Some of the initiatives taken by the Company in terms of outreach and education within the watershed
are as follows:
¦ Membership on the Rockland County Water Quality Committee. This committee has made
presentations to municipal planning boards throughout Rockland County concerning nonpoint
-------
source pollution and soil and sediment erosion control practices. The goals of the committee are:
to have a County or municipal ordinances governing stormwater management and soil erosion and
sediment control and to educate municipal and county officials, builders and developers, and the
citizens of Rockland County as to how to protect water resources from nonpoint source pollution.
¦ Offering assistance to a municipality in developing the section on watershed protection in its
master plan. Areas which are addressed are soil erosion, especially important due to the steep
slopes throughout the town; groundwater recharge and base streamflow; stream corridor
protection; and stormwater management as it relates to both quantity and quality.
¦ Membership on the Bergen County Watershed Management Coordinating Committee. The goal
of this committee is to establish a cooperative effort among private citizens, business and
government to identify, assess, and address water quality problems; and to coordinate and
implement an education program that informs the public of the impacts of nonpoint source
pollution on the waters of Bergen County.
¦ Participation in regional meetings of environmental commissions when the subject is watershed
protection. Offering information to the commissions such as the golf course best management
plans to serve as models for other courses throughout the watershed.
¦ The Company has written letters of support for municipalities applying for New Jersey Green
Acres funding. Green Acres is a state program that provides aid to local governments to acquire
open space and park lands. If granted, the funds will be used to acquire land along streams which
are tributary to or diverted to a water supply reservoir. The purchasing of land within the
watershed by municipalities is consistent with the belief that all the stakeholders in the watershed
need to take an active role in protecting water resources. An interesting and revealing reaction
was expressed when the Company offered a letter of support for one Green Acres funding request
by a municipality. The application was brought to the attention of the Company through its
membership in the Bergen County Watershed Management Coordinating Committee. The
Company contacted the municipality's consultant on the project and offered a letter of support.
The consultant though it would be very helpful and stated that the applicant had considered asking
the Company for support, but had decided that they would not receive cooperation from the
Company. Clearly we have more work to do explaining our objectives.
The Company's corporate communications group has no dedicated program relating to water quality
protection. However, the communications group organizes several activities that increase awareness of
the Company's facilities and lands. These activities include tours of the Haworth Water Treatment Plant
for visitors and school children, fishing and bird-watching, and beginning in 1995, nature trails. A
publication called "Community Currents" is sent three times per year to elected officials, public works
officials, public safety officials, and libraries in communities in Bergen and Hudson Counties. The
publication provides updates on the Company's activities and programs, and is a potential vehicle to
educate the public on watershed issues. The Company publishes a quarterly customer bill insert which
-------
often emphasizes watershed protection. The Company also runs a spring advertisement campaign which
features an advertisement focused on proper disposal of household hazardous waste as one way to protect
the watershed.
References
Robbins, R., Glicker, J., Bloem, D., and Niss, B. (1991). Effective Watershed Management for
Surface Water Supplies, AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Ground Water, Source Water Protection and the
Watershed Approach
Paul Jehn, Technical Director
Mike Paque, Executive Director
The Ground Water Protection Council, Oklahoma City, OK
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
Competing demands for water have reached critical levels in watersheds nationwide. Multipurpose
management for activities such as: ground water quality and quantity, drinking water supplies, stream
baseflow, resident and anadromous fish habitat, transportation, hydropower, industrial interests, and
irrigation water have required a need for an improved understanding of the multiple aspects of resource
management. Management strategies and management tools must be developed from an integrated,
system-based perspective that considers all pertinent uses of the resource and all activities impacting or
potentially impacting both water quality and quantity (surface and ground water). Ground water has been
recognized as an integral component of watershed management for many years (Goodman and Jehn,
1993). Yet many watershed management activities still do not incorporate ground water protection.
Indeed some activities are still using surface water BMPs that transfer the pollutant to ground water and
subsequently to drinking water and surface water. For example, disposing of stormwater runoff into
shallow drain wells, a practice gaining favor in many areas of the country, is not the answer. This is
merely pollution trading.
In another example of pollution trading the EPA, as directed by the Clean Water Act, is imposing more
-------
stringent water quality requirements through regulation of toxics and bioconcentratable pollutants in
addition to traditionally regulated pollutants. Point source dischargers are receiving increased pressure to
install expensive conventional tertiary treatment to address these requirements. Many NPDES
dischargers use holding lagoons and settling basins before discharging the wastestream to surface waters.
Many of these holding lagoons are merely percolation ponds that transfer the pollutants to ground water.
A further deficiency is that ground water is virtually neglected under the Clean Water Act and is only
tangentially addressed under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Ground water comprises more than 97% of
available fresh water supplies and on the average supplies approximately 40% of the stream flow in this
country (U.S. EPA 1990). In some parts of the country and during certain seasons of the year, ground
water can account for 90-100% of streamflow. Ground water and surface water are integral components
to the hydrologic cycle, yet these resources are often managed by different programs in federal, state and
local agencies where protection of one resource may have been achieved at the expense of the other.
Sometimes while the quality of surface water has been improving over the past 20 years the quality of
ground water has been declining (Jehn, 1995). Degraded ground water has also been shown to be a major
source of nutrients to surface water and is locally causing the eutrophication of ecosystems (e.g.,
Goodman and Jehn 1993, Ward 1993, Andres 1992; Mason et. al. 1990; Valiela and Costa 1988,
Boynton et. al., 1982). Because of the slow contaminant transport rates observed in many ground water
systems, contaminant loads from upgradient ground water may not impact surface water for years or
decades.
The fundamental elements for comprehensive watershed management planning are known. However,
traditional geochemical and biochemical models for determining "total maximum daily load" (TMDLs)
do not factor in the ground water contribution to the watershed. Consequently, disproportionate emphasis
may be placed on surface water sources of contaminants. In addition, water quality managers have
historically assumed that phosphorous is the only limiting factor in the eutrophication in many fresh
water systems. This in spite of the fact that the system may be receiving tons of nitrates per day from
ground water sources that are not being accounted for in the assessment of eutrophication potential or
actual cases of eutrophication (Halberg, 1993).
Source Water Protection and the Watershed Approach
There are broad based economic implications of drinking water contamination (surface and ground water
sources) to companies, counties, and municipalities. These potential problems could be eliminated or
alleviated in the future if more preventive, proactive management strategies are developed and carried
out. Source water protection allows a community to focus its management efforts, avoid excessive
management and regulations in areas that do not contribute ground water or surface water to public water
supplies and avoid spending time and funds on protecting non-critical areas where source water
contamination is low. Just as watershed protection is a method of prioritizing activities within a state or
region, source water protection is a method of prioritizing activities in a given watershed.
Source water (drinking water) protection is a primary beneficial use that must be protected in any
-------
successful watershed management plan. Watersheds typically encompass a much larger area of land than
actually drains to the drinking water supply. Within a watershed there may be different types of source
water protection needed each with its own prioritization needs. In this paper we will examine the
protection needs of three common types of source water supplies: drinking water received from aground
water supply that is not dependent on streams or lakes for recharge but is recharged by precipitation
infiltrating through the soil column. Drinking water received from a surface water supply influenced by
ground water; and drinking water derived from ground water with surface water recharging the wellhead
protection zone (figure 1).
Watershed protection requires an integrated and holistic approach to program management. Source water
protection contains many of the same elements as watershed protection but focuses on a much smaller
area or sub watersheds that contribute to drinking water supplies (figure 1). Successful source water
protection requires the integration of traditional ground water and surface water protection efforts with
programs like: emergency response; hazardous materials handling and storage; land use planning; and
pollution prevention. Depending on the area, source water protection may involve wellhead protection,
the protection of surface water reservoirs, or the protection of rivers and streams. In reality, most source
water protection areas will be a combination of at least two of these protection activities. Successful
source water protection programs can be viewed as a progression of five main steps: Delineation: Where
is the drinking water for the community coming from? Contaminant Source Inventory: What activities in
this identified recharge area has the potential to contaminant drinking water? Source Management: What
programs are needed to manage the sources of contamination? Projected Future Activities: What are the
projected future activities in the recharge area that have the potential to contaminate drinking water?
Public Ownership: Create public ownership by involving all stakeholders in the process.
Successful programs must go beyond the traditional state and federal requirements and include special
management practices specifically tailored for the identified recharge area. Often, comprehensive
watershed and source water protection can be achieved by re-prioritizing existing programs. For
example, RCRA, UST, and CERCLA activities should be prioritized in source water protection areas. In
other cases it will require more emphasis on local program development. Both regulatory and voluntary
programs can be effective at source water protection. Whatever the approach taken, successful programs
involve all stakeholders (e.g., federal state, local governments, industry, and citizen interest groups) in
the decision making process.
Drinking Water Derived from a Ground Water Source
This is perhaps the typical type of water supply when we think of wellhead protection. Research has
shown that in many areas of the country some public and private ground water drinking water sources
continue to degrade in quality (Jehn, 1995). This degradation is a result of accidental and intentional
spills and dumping. Sometimes the incidental disposal of hazardous chemical is a result of lack of
knowledge of the ground water contaminant potential. Some communities, (e.g., Dayton Ohio) are
restricting the amounts of hazardous materials that can be stored within a wellhead protection area. Some
of these same municipalities also post signs in wellhead protection zones and provide special training to
-------
emergency responders for spill response. Zoning overlay districts are also being used to attract ground
water "friendly" businesses to locate in wellhead protection zones.
Drinking Water Derived from Surface Water
This is perhaps the most dramatic example of ground water and surface water interaction. In many
alluvial valleys and flood plains this is a constant interaction. States are in the process of developing
criteria for the delineation of surface water source protection areas. These areas include the obvious areas
upstream of the surface water intake and the not so obvious areas of ground water contribution to the
system. Table 1 provides a summary of some of the criteria developed to date.
Table 1. Surface water delineation criteria for source water protection.
State Zone A Zone B Zone C
Delaware,
New Castle County
All land surfaces in
the 100-year flood
plain located
upstream of a public
water supply intake
erosion prone
slopes (greater
than 15 percent
grade)
Areas that drain on the
surface or underground to
public water supply
reservoirs
Massachusetts
200-400 feet from
the stream bank
one-half mile L . , Pjl
P , the remainder of the
from the stream I , ,
, , watershed
bank
Utah
Minimum protection area defined as 300 feet on either side of drinking
water source streams for a distance of 15 miles upstream of a public
water supply intake.
Connecticut
Land within 250 feet of a reservoir or public water supply diversion or
land within 100 feet of a tributary stream.
The Massachusetts DEP has developed criteria for the protection of surface water supplies. These criteria
place restriction on land use activity within the drinking water subwatershed (figure 2). The intent is to
prevent contamination from all type of surface activities that have the potential to contaminant either
ground water or surface water. The proposed regulations would prohibit activities such at underground
storage tanks and hazardous waste treatment storage and disposal in Zone A (200 - 400 feet from the
upper boundary of the bank of a Class A surface water source). Zone B (one-half mile upgradient of
Zone A) would prohibit activities such as landfills and hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal
facilities and Zone C (the remainder of the subwatershed) would prohibit the siting of radioactive waste
disposal facilities.
Drinking Water Derived from Ground Water Being Recharged by
Surface Water
-------
Pekin, Illinois, determined that if one of the well recharge areas in their wellfield was contaminated it
would result in a loss of 5 - 7 million gallons of production supply. It was also determined that the
approximate costs for treating ground water would be $4,000,000. It would cost approximately
$15,000,000 to build a surface water treatment plant. It was also concluded that contamination of this
supply would be detrimental to further economic development. New businesses coming into the area will
place an increased demand on the use of uncontaminated ground water.
The community water supply for Pekin Illinois provides approximately 4,200,000 gpd to 13,514 services.
The drinking water wells draw from a homogeneous, unconfined sand and gravel aquifer recharged in
part by Arlen Lake which is the 2 - 3 year time and travel of the wellfields (figure 3).
Land use activities in the source water protection area include residential, commercial, industrial and
recreational. The primary industrial activities in the area are automotive repair shops. The recreation use
is Arlen Lake. Nearby Lake Arlen provides recharge to the Pekin municipal wellfield. Endothall, an
algicide used in surface water, has been detected in the Pekin municipal wells. Pekin Illinois has
developed an ordinance to include surface water protection activities in the wellhead protection plan.
To implement a ground water protection program the team first organized a pollution prevention and
shallow injection well (Class V) workshop for the businesses in Pekin. A second pollution prevention
workshop was organized specifically to provide technical assistance to automotive repair shops that
comprise the majority for the existing businesses located within the recharge areas of the Pekin
community water supply wells. The team also developed an amendment to the existing ordinance that
required certain best management practices for existing potential contaminant sources and created a new
overlay zoning ordinance with special\conditional use permits in the commercial and industrial zoned
parcels within the well recharge areas.
Conclusion
All three examples require activities that may be more stringent and focused than those required for the
watershed approach. Ideally all water should be "swimmable, fishable, and drinkable." In reality, this is
an unrealistic goal, particularly as a short term goal. Caution must be exercised to avoid pollution
trading, which in the short term may benefit one resource at the expense of another but will eventually
come back around in the hydrologic cycle.
References
Andres, S.A. 1992. Estimate of nitrate influx to Rehoboth and Indian Rives Bays, Delaware:
through direct discharge of ground water. Delaware Geo- logical Survey Open File Report 35.
Boynton, W.R., Kemp W.M. and Keefe C.W., 1982. A comparative analysis of nutrients and
other factors influencing estuarine phytoplankton production. In: Kennedy V.S. (ed.) Estuarine
-------
Comparisons (pp69-90)). Academic Press.
Cobb, Richard, P., Richard C. Berg, and H. Allen Wehrmann. 1995. Guidance Document for
Groundwater Protection needs Assessments. Illinois Envir. Prot. Agency IEPA/PWS/95-01.
GAO Report. 1990a. Water Pollution: Greater EPA Leadership Needed to Reduce Nonpoint
Source Pollution. GAO/RCED-91-10.
Goodman, I. and Jehn, P. 1993. Assessing Ground Water Contaminant Loadings to the Mid-
Snake River Idaho. In Proceedings, Watershed '93. Terrene Institute, Wash. D.C.
Hallberg and Keeney, 1993. Nitrate in Regional ground-water quality New York: Van Nostrand
Reinhold, cl993. xix, 634 p. edited by William Alley
Jehn, Paul. 1994. The National Ground Water Status Report. Published by the Ground Water
Protection Council. 84p.
Mason, J.W., G.D. Wegner, G.I. Quinn, and E.L. Lange. 1990. Nutrient loss via ground water
discharge from small watersheds in southwestern and south central Wisconsin. Journal of Soil and
Water Conservation March-April 1990 pgs: 327-331.
U.S. EPA. 1992a. National Water Quality Inventory: 1990 Report to Congress. U.S. EPA, Office
of Water, EPA503/9-92/006, Wa., D.C.
U.S. EPA. 1992b. Managing Nonpoint Source Pollution: Final Report to Congress on Section 319
of the Clean Water Act. USEPA office of water, EPA-506/9-90 Washington D.C.
Valiela, I., and J. Costa. 1988. Eutrophication of Buttermilk Bay, a Cape Cod coastal embayment:
Concentrations of nutrients and watershed nutrient budgets, Environ. Manage, 12, 539-551.
Ward, W.D. 1993. Contaminated Ground Water Discharge to Surface Water: Trends and National
Significance, American Water Resources Association Annual Conference, Tuscon, AZ.
-------
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Progress in Addressing Coastal Nonpoint Source
Pollution
Peyton Robertson, Environmental Protection Specialist
Marcella Jansen, Technical Assistance Coordinator
Kenneth Walker, Coastal Program Specialist
Office of Ocean & Coastal Resource Management
National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration, Silver Spring, MD
Since the passage of the Clean Water Act in 1972, significant improvements have been made in
addressing point sources of pollution. However, despite this progress, a major portion of our Nation's
waters remain threatened or impaired. More than fifty percent of these remaining water quality problems
are attributed to nonpoint sources of pollution. In 1987, Section 319 of the Clean Water Act was
established as the first national program to deal specifically with nonpoint sources of pollution. Section
319 required states to assess their waters and establish management programs to address polluted runoff.
Section 6217 represents the most recent and comprehensive approach to the continuing efforts to address
nonpoint sources of pollution impacting coastal water quality.
In response to water quality problems evidenced by beach closures, shellfish harvesting prohibitions and
the loss of biological productivity, Congress determined that additional protection for coastal waters was
necessary and enacted Section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990
(CZARA) (codified as 16 USC 1455b). Section 6217 applies to the 29 states and territories with coastal
management programs approved by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA)
under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and requires the development of Coastal Nonpoint
Pollution Control Programs (coastal nonpoint programs). State and territorial programs are reviewed and
approved by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and NOAA.
Section 6217 requires the implementation of management measures reflecting the best available,
-------
economically achievable technology to reduce polluted runoff to coastal waters resulting from nonpoint
sources. This technology-based approach is a departure from previous efforts to control nonpoint
pollution in that it does not rely on a direct connection between sources of pollution and water quality
impacts. Rather than focusing on the burdensome and costly process of proving cause and effect
linkages, 6217 applies proven runoff controls to all nonpoint sources that impact coastal waters. This
allows for more comprehensive, watershed-based nonpoint source control, resulting in more extensive
implementation and water quality improvements in a more cost-effective manner.
Categories of nonpoint pollution addressed by the coastal nonpoint program include urban, agriculture,
forestry, marinas and hydromodification. State programs must also address the protection of wetlands
and riparian areas which can function to limit the impact of runoff from upland areas on coastal waters.
Coastal nonpoint programs must include enforceable policies and mechanisms to insure implementation
of the management measures. The goal of section 6217 is to restore and protect coastal waters by
strengthening the links between state coastal management and nonpoint source pollution or water quality
(Clean Water Act Section 319) programs.
CZARA provided states and territories with 30 months to complete program development and, to date,
all 29 states and territories have submitted programs to NOAA and EPA for Federal review and approval.
Although full implementation of coastal nonpoint programs is several years away, this paper will identify
some of the early successes of this effort to develop coastal nonpoint programs.
Program Development/Threshold Review
EPA, in consultation with other Federal agencies, developed guidance specifying management measures
that reflect the best available, economically achievable methods to control nonpoint pollution in coastal
waters. The Guidance Specifying Management Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution ((g)
guidance, published January 1993) represents the only compendium of its kind on methods to reduce
nonpoint source pollution. As part of the technical guidance development, EPA published an Economic
Achievability Analysis which includes important information on the costs of implementing nonpoint
source controls. Prior to this economic analysis, there were few documents available that compiled
information on costs of nonpoint source controls. In an effort to further specify what state coastal
nonpoint programs should look like, NOAA and EPA also published Program Development and
Approval Guidance. These guidance documents and supporting analysis have proved to be extremely
valuable, not only to states and territories developing programs, but also to other government agencies,
consultants, and interested citizens.
States and territories were given the opportunity to get early feedback on their program development
efforts through a process called "threshold review." Threshold reviews included development of program
summary information by states, an analysis of program material by NOAA and EPA, and a face-to-face
meeting in the state or territory. NOAA and EPA completed threshold reviews for most of the coastal
states and territories subject to the requirements of section 6217.
-------
A number of early successes were evident from the threshold review process. Drawing on a number of
different agencies for information to produce a program document, coordination at the state and
territorial improved and resulted in increased communication and cooperation between coastal zone and
water quality agencies and other state agencies, such as Departments of Agriculture, Forestry and
Transportation. These ongoing improvements have resulted in better sharing of information, enhanced
interagency knowledge of activities and programs, and cooperative ventures to address coastal nonpoint
pollution. Development of coastal nonpoint programs also improved public awareness of the impacts of
polluted runoff and the need to more comprehensively address nonpoint sources. States conducted public
meetings, developed newsletters, and made presentations to the public and affected interests. These
efforts have led to a greater public awareness that daily activities within an entire watershed can affect
the health of coastal waters.
New Flexibility for Coastal Nonpoint Programs
Based on the threshold reviews, NOAA and EPA learned that states faced a number of challenges in
developing their coastal nonpoint programs, including economic, political and institutional barriers. The
comprehensive nature of the program and potential costs of implementation have been and remain a
significant obstacle to achieving success. The statute provided only 30 months for program development,
which left a limited amount of time for pulling together necessary documentation, much less seeking new
legislation or major program restructuring. As institutional change is often in conflict with human
nature's reluctance to change, there have also been difficulties in getting both government agencies and
private sector interests to adopt the approach of 6217. Recognizing the magnitude of these challenges,
NOAA and EPA agreed that several significant changes needed to be made to provide additional time
and flexibility to states and territories developing coastal nonpoint programs. These provisions included
further flexibility by which states could receive conditional approval of programs, an extended time line
for implementation, general deference to states on determination of geographic boundaries, allowance for
phased implementation of management measures, and a broader definition of acceptable enforceable
policies and mechanisms by which states could ensure implementation.
EPA and NOAA agreed to grant conditional approval of coastal nonpoint programs for up to five years
in order to provide more time in cases where states have not fully developed management measures or
where states proposed to demonstrate that voluntary approaches, backed by broad authorities such as
water quality laws, could serve to ensure widespread implementation of management measures. During
the conditional approval period, the penalty provisions of the statute do not apply. In addition, the time
frame for implementing management measures for existing nonpoint sources was extended from three
years to five years, giving states until 2004 to complete implementation of the basic (g) management
measures and until 2009 to complete implementation of any additional management measures necessary
to meet water quality standards.
NOAA and EPA agreed to generally defer to state proposals for the 6217 management area, unless
NOAA and EPA determined that the proposed management area excludes either existing land or water
uses that reasonably can be expected to have a significant impact on coastal waters of the state, or
-------
reasonably foreseeable threats to coastal waters from nearby activities landward of the state's 6217
management area. NOAA and EPA reemphasized to states that they could exclude categories,
subcategories, and individual nonpoint sources from their programs where those sources, either
individually or cumulatively, did not have a significant impact on the coastal waters of the state. Further,
states were given greater flexibility for phasing in necessary nonpoint source controls as a result of the
extended time frames for program implementation.
Perhaps most importantly, NOAA and EPA expanded the range of acceptable back-up enforcement
authorities. This expanded list of authorities could include, for example, "bad actor" laws, enforceable
water quality standards, general environmental laws and prohibitions, and other existing authorities. This
new flexibility provides states and territories with the opportunity to demonstrate that voluntary
approaches, in combination with existing, general state authorities will be effective in achieving
widespread implementation of the management measures. In these cases, EPA and NOAA will
conditionally approve state programs for up to five years, including an evaluation of progress after three
years. When states cannot achieve widespread implementation of the management measures through this
voluntary-regulatory strategy, states will need to develop more specific authorities for implementation.
Program Submittal, Review and Approval
Section 6217 required that states and territories submit their coastal nonpoint programs by July 19, 1995.
Since that time, NOAA and EPA have received program submittals from all of the 29 states and
territories currently participating in the coastal zone management program. In light of the limited funds
available to states and territories to develop programs, the fact that all of them managed to submit a
program document is in itself a success story. While some program submittals were more complete than
others, all of the coastal states showed a commitment to addressing the serious problem of nonpoint
pollution in coastal waters.
NOAA and EPA are currently in the process of reviewing the state and territory coastal nonpoint
program submittals. The Federal agencies are evaluating the extent to which state programs include
management measures in conformity with the management measures specified in the (g) guidance
published by EPA, as well as the extent to which states can demonstrate the ability to ensure widespread
implementation. For this latter test, NOAA and EPA are considering the degree to which authorities
specifically require management measures or whether states are proposing to use a combination of
increased technical assistance, education or other incentives backed by a broader authority. NOAA and
EPA are communicating the results of this analysis to states and territories in the form of a program
findings document. For categories (e.g., agriculture), subcategories (e.g., urban runoff) or individual
management measures, NOAA and EPA make a finding that the state or territory program either includes
or does not include management measures in conformity with the (g) guidance and enforceable policies
and mechanisms to ensure implementation. Where the finding indicates that either or both of these
fundamental requirements have not been met, there will be a condition placed on that program element.
These conditions vary in terms of the need to further develop management measures, such as the need to
revise a BMP manual to conform with the (g) guidance, or to extend the applicability of existing
-------
authorities to a wider range of activities.
Early results of the program review process are encouraging. As of this writing, NOAA and EPA have
taken a preliminary look at most of the programs submitted to date. Our initial reactions are very
positive. We are impressed by the effort taken by states to assess the current status of their programs and
to make or propose significant improvements to those programs. The overall national trend clearly
indicates significant progress by states in their efforts to protect their coastal waters from nonpoint
pollution. In many cases, the coastal nonpoint program has served as a catalyst to further initiatives that
were already planned or underway. In other cases, the coastal nonpoint program has established a
programmatic context for an array of activities designed to advance nonpoint pollution control. By
inventorying this variety of nonpoint source activities, states and territories are better able to coordinate
multiple programs and more efficiently use limited resources.
Looking Back/Looking Ahead
The coordinated efforts of NOAA and EPA to develop the coastal nonpoint program at the Federal level
have resulted a better program than could have been accomplished by either agency alone. The marriage
of NOAA's coastal resource and land management expertise with the more technical water quality focus
of EPA has expanded the Federal capacity to address the complex issue of managing nonpoint pollution.
NOAA and EPA have also worked closely to provide both technical and programmatic guidance to states
and territories for designing programs that will meet Federal requirements. As available financial
resources are declining at the state and territorial level, "doing more with less" means that cooperation
between coastal management and water quality agencies will be necessary in order to accomplish mutual
program goals.
Implementing coastal nonpoint programs will demand even greater involvement by the public. The goal
of restoring and protecting coastal waters can only be accomplished if there is support from all
stakeholders in coastal watersheds. As we are all part of the problem, we must all work together to
implement the solution. The challenge ahead will not only be educating the public and affected interests
on the need for nonpoint source control, but ensuring that individual responsibility and action lead to real
improvements in the coastal water quality. As businesses and industry have already recognized that
environmental stewardship can improve the economic bottom line, so too may we, as a society, begin to
realize that controlling polluted runoff can improve our quality of life.
-------
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Integrating the Point Source Permitting Program
into a Watershed Management Approach*
Deborah G. Nagle, Environmental Engineer
Gregory W. Currey, Civil Engineer
Will Hall, Urban Wet Weather Matrix Manager
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Jeffery L. Lape, Associate Partner
Woolpert, Alexandria, VA
Background
The direction of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permits program is
changing. Over 20 years ago, the NPDES program was created as one of the primary vehicles for
achieving the goals and objectives of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Since 1972, the CWA and its
amendments have significantly expanded the coverage and scope of the NPDES program. In its
conception, the program focused on requiring national minimum levels of treatment for industrial and
publicly owned treatment works (POTWs). The program then evolved to require more stringent controls
necessary to achieve water quality standards, including chemical-specific water quality-based permit
limits and whole effluent toxicity monitoring requirements and permit limits. The 1987 Water Quality
Act greatly expanded the program scope by clarifying that storm water discharges through point sources
required NPDES permits. Today, the baseline requirements plus the newer initiatives cover hundreds of
thousands of point source dischargers.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
The efforts of states and EPA in administering the NPDES permit program have resulted in significant
environmental improvements. Not all aquatic environmental problems, however, have been corrected.
The 1994 305(b) report shows that, for the waters monitored, over a third are not meeting their water
quality standards. For rivers, 36% of the miles are impaired, and states attribute 12% of this impairment
to urban wet weather runoff. Similarly, 37% of the lake acres are impaired, and 18% of the cause is urban
runoff. Finally, 37% of estuary miles are impaired, with 46% attributed to urban wet weather runoff.
At the same time, the ability of EPA and states to
issue NPDES permits on a five year cycle is being
challenged by the increase in scope and complexity
of all the NPDES programs. For example, in 1990,
EPA regional offices were able to reissue all
expired permits by the end of the fiscal year. By
contrast, in 1995, these same offices were unable to
issue 37% of the permits that expired. There are
similar trends in several states that issue permits.
The combination of continuing environmental
problems, information showing that urban runoff is
now a large contributor to these problems, and a
realization that current funding of the programs is
insufficient to cover all requirements has led the
national NPDES program office to reexamine its
programs with the objective of making them more efficient and effective. For several years, EPA has
been promoting a watershed-based approach to addressing these challenges facing water quality
agencies. As part of its overall goal of promoting a watershed approach, EPA released the NPDES
Watershed Strategy in March 1994. The purpose of the strategy is twofold: 1) to support development of
statewide watershed management approaches, and 2) to integrate NPDES program functions into a
watershed management framework.
Supporting Statewide Watershed Management Approaches
The NPDES Watershed Strategy represents a commitment by EPA to support statewide watershed
management approaches. The Office of Water recognizes that the key to fully integrating the NPDES
program and other programs into a watershed management approach is ensuring that all related water
management activities are coordinated both spatially and temporally around watersheds. Under the
watershed management approach, a state is divided into geographic management units drawn around
river basins. Activities such as monitoring, planning, assessment, and implementation of management
controls are conducted within each basin according to an established schedule.
While basin management units provide a geographic focus for water management, activities also must be
coordinated over time to ensure integrated and consistent program implementation within the basin. A
Table 1. Facilitites Covered by the
NPDES Program
15,600 iPOTWs with individual permits
48,600
non-POTWs with individual permits
20,000
industrial non-storm water sources with
general permits
140,000
industrial storm water sources with
general permits
833
municipals with storm sewer systems
1,100
municipals with combined sewer systems
-------
statewide watershed management approach achieves this temporal focus through watershed management
cycles. A management cycle has three features that create an orderly system for coordinating and
regularly evaluating resource protection activities: 1) a specified time period for completing all elements
of the management cycle; 2) a sequence for addressing basins to balance the workload from year to year;
and 3) a schedule of management activities for each basin.
At least 18 states are now developing or implementing a framework to synchronize monitoring,
assessment, NPDES permitting, and other activities within geographic management units. The scope,
complexity, and maturity of these programs vary from state to state. EPA's Office of Water is working
with EPA regional offices to find ways to support statewide watershed management in other states,
including facilitation support to develop watershed frameworks, technical support for watershed projects,
and training for state staff and management.
¦ Facilitation Support: In 1995 and 1996, EPA's Office of Water provided facilitation support for
Alaska, Arizona, California, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Montana and Utah. Facilitation provides
an expert in watershed protection to help participants learn how adoption of a watershed-based
program may help them better organize and satisfy their multiple water quality management
requirements and goals. These projects involve a wide variety of stakeholders and often include
representatives from federal, state, local, and tribal agencies, and from industry and environmental
groups.
¦ Water Quality Cooperative Agreements: Since fiscal year 1994, EPA's guidance for awarding
cooperative agreements has emphasized training, demonstration, or experimental projects that
would lead to the development or implementation of statewide watershed management
approaches. The NPDES Watershed Strategy provides the framework for the project selection
criteria.
¦ Training Support: In 1995, EPA began offering the Statewide Watershed Management two-day
course. The course reviews the basics of designing and implementing a statewide watershed
management framework and was offered in four cities across the country. This course provides
the first component of a Watershed Academy curriculum, currently under development by the
Office of Water. The curriculum will include basic training about watershed management in the
context of decision-making at the local, state, regional, and federal levels as well as a series of
more specialized courses on analytic and management tools for watershed management.
Integrating Program Functions
Integrating the NPDES program functions into a watershed management approach is critical to
successfully managing the program within the context of limited resources and spatially varying
environmental impacts and priorities. The Office of Water is now pursuing this objective through both
the baseline NPDES program and current initiatives to address urban wet weather pollution sources such
as storm water and combined sewer overflows (CSOs).
-------
Baseline NPDES Program
Traditionally, the NPDES program has addressed individual dischargers in isolation, usually in response
to a permit application or required inspection. This method of operating makes it difficult to place
individual discharger activities and impacts in a larger context and distinguish priorities for program
resource allocations. As a result, most large point source dischargers receive the attention of permitting
authorities (EPA and states) regardless of their environmental significance, while smaller, though not
necessarily insignificant, point sources and many nonpoint sources receive little attention. In addition,
addressing dischargers within a watershed at different times often results in inconsistent management
decisions.
Understanding the relationship of point source discharges to other watershed characteristics offers
opportunities for more efficient and environmentally focused program management. For example, a
permitting authority can organize permit issuance so that all permits within a watershed expire and are
reissued at roughly the same time, thus allowing for more consistent and equitable permit requirements
among dischargers. Also, permit requirements can be developed in the context of basin plans that
consider a range of management options to achieve water quality objectives. The permitting authority
may then place increased emphasis and resources on discharges with the greatest environmental impact
and decrease emphasis on those with low impact.
For example, by addressing all NPDES facilities within a basin at the same time, a permitting authority
can decide to place more stringent controls on those discharges that have the greatest impact on surface
waters. In addition, a state has the opportunity to consider other controls on nonpoint sources as a way to
reduce the need for placing more stringent limits on NPDES facilities. Finally, this process allows states
to combine the information collection aspects of permits with ambient monitoring, thus providing a more
comprehensive picture of surface water quality.
The watershed approach to permitting also opens the door for effluent trading within the context of a
total maximum daily load (TMDL) of a pollutant to a waterbody that will still maintain water quality
standards. EPA issued a Trading Policy Statement in January 1996 which supports and promotes effluent
trading within watersheds to achieve water quality objectives, including water quality standards, to the
extent authorized by the Clean Water Act and implementing regulations. EPA is currently developing a
framework for watershed-based effluent trading, as well as information exchange workshops, and limited
technical assistance for trading projects in specific areas.
Integrating Urban Wet Weather Initiatives
Just as the baseline NPDES program at the federal and state levels has tended to address individual
sources or types of sources in isolation, municipalities often address storm water management, the
operation of sewage collection systems, and the operation of wastewater treatment plants separately,
despite the common issues that may cut across these functions and the benefits that may be obtained by
-------
addressing them all through an integrated approach. In recognition of the need for a comprehensive
approach to urban wet weather discharges, EPA established in 1995 the Urban Wet Weather Flows
Advisory Committee under the Federal Advisory Committee Act to develop recommendations to
coordinate the implementation of urban, municipal wet weather water pollution control programs. EPA's
Urban Wet Weather Flows Advisory Committee is developing recommendations on how to address the
water quality impacts associated with urban wet weather discharges on a watershed basis.
Watershed stakeholders in urban areas face many challenges in addressing water pollution sources,
particularly those sources which result from rainfall and snowmelt. In any given urban area wet weather
sources may include municipal and industrial storm water discharges; sanitary sewer overflows (SSOs),
which occur when the volume of flows in a separate municipal sanitary sewer exceeds its capacity due to,
among other things, unintentional inflow and infiltration of storm water; and CSOs, which occur during
wet weather events in some cities that have combined sanitary and storm sewers (these are known as
combined sewer systems). Urban wet weather discharges, such as storm water, SSOs, and CSOs should
be addressed in a coordinated and comprehensive fashion in order to reduce the threat to water quality,
reduce pollution control costs, and provide state and local governments with greater flexibility to solve
wet weather problems. Urban areas may also be impacted by other wet weather sources, such as
agricultural runoff, and runoff from active, inactive or abandoned mines; hydro modification; and high
flow conditions. Among the urban watershed-related issues that the Committee is considering are:
¦ Intra- and Intergovernmental Coordination: Since watersheds do not generally follow
jurisdictional boundaries, a watershed approach both encourages and necessitates
intergovernmental partnerships as well as partnerships among the various levels of government
and other stakeholders. Effective federal, state, and local partnerships draw upon all relevant
resources to facilitate negotiation among local stakeholders to evaluate and identify local
priorities and the appropriate roles of all parties and to coordinate the funding, planning, and
implementation activities necessary to control wet weather discharges. Partnerships are also
necessary within urban areas, where wastewater treatment facilities, sewer collection systems, and
storm water programs are often administered by different departments.
¦ Flexibility: Flexibility would include allowing a phased approach to implementation of wet
weather discharge controls. For an urban watershed approach to be most effective, federal, state,
and local stakeholders would work to reduce and eliminate the institutional and regulatory barriers
to addressing wet weather discharges in a coordinated and comprehensive manner, including the
identification of sensitive areas, monitoring, and watershed assessment. Additional flexibility can
be achieved through the use of non-regulatory tools, including pollution prevention and incentive-
based mechanisms, to address the impacts of wet weather flows.
¦ Performance and Accountability: The public and others should have the opportunity to understand
the benefits for which they are paying. Ideally, urban watershed stakeholders work from a
common information base to achieve their common objectives. Programmatic-based management
which deals with individual discharges or specific categories of pollutant sources is not conducive
to measuring performance in terms of improved water quality in a watershed in an expeditious
-------
manner. Monitoring (accompanied by modeling in appropriate cases) is necessary to identify the
hydraulic and pollutant characteristics of wet weather discharges; assess their impact on receiving
waters; assess the effectiveness of existing controls; predict the effectiveness of additional control
options; provide data to support the development of allowable pollutant loadings for the receiving
water; and measure compliance with permit conditions. Opportunities exist to coordinate
monitoring guidance and program requirements to ensure that monitoring addresses impacts on a
watershed basis and in the most cost-effective way, as well as to establish a clear set of
monitoring priorities for all wet weather source categories.
Summary
The NPDES program, rather than focusing only on additional or more stringent controls, is moving
toward integrating the program within watersheds to better target controls of those sources causing water
quality impairment. EPA will continue to integrate NPDES programs into the watershed protection
approach by supporting development of statewide watershed protection frameworks in partnership with
states and tribes, by allowing resources dedicated to developing permits to vary depending on
environmental impacts of each source, and by addressing urban
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Stakeholder Issues for the Watershed Science
Institute of the Natural Resources Conservation
Service
Lyn Townsend, Forest Ecologist
Carolyn Adams, Director
USDA-NRCS, Watershed Science Institute, Seattle, WA
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Introduction
The Natural Resources Conservation Service or NRCS, formerly known as the Soil Conservation
Service, is the federal agency in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) that works hand-in-hand
with the American people to conserve natural resources on private lands. During 1995 and 1996, the
agency was reinvented under the provisions of the USDA Reorganization Act of 1994 and the
requirements of the Government Performance and Regulations Act.
NRCS's initiatives are designed to assure the free flow of information and expertise to ranchers, farmers
and others who work the 70 percent of American land in private hands. The agency hopes to build more
flexibility and practicality into its traditional voluntary efforts. As NRCS assists landowners in
developing conservation plans for their property, the entire operating unit is considered including
cropland, pasture land and forest land as well as related resources such as water and wildlife. The agency
is also increasing its emphasis on ecosystem and watershed resource management and assistance
(Johnson, 1996).
In 1995, the NRCS created the Watershed Science Institute (WSI) to accelerate the development of
"ecosystem-based assistance" technology at the watershed level and to assist with incorporating
ecological principles into the agency planning process for farms and ranches. The institute is charged
with the goal of working with partners to expedite the identification, development and transfer of such
-------
technologies for use in the watershed and farm-level conservation programs within the NRCS.
To accomplish these objectives, the Institute was faced with identifying and defining the technologies of
ecosystem-based assistance at the watershed level, implementing recommended processes to integrate
ecological principles and concerns at the field level, and developing mechanisms to transfer technologies
to appropriate offices in a relevant fasion and in context with agency protocol. Although these tasks
appear to be straight-forward, the actual prescription for producing and transferring relevant and in-
context technology "products" proved to be a challenging assignment.
This paper describes the institute's early and close collaboration with stakeholders and customers to:
¦ determine topics of importance,
¦ identify major activities and functional areas,
¦ identify relevant technical products and services,
¦ listen to opinions on how to conduct business and fine-tune activities, and
¦ insure a high level of ownership of products.
Pre-Workshop Questionnaire Regarding the Watershed Science
Institute
In August 1995, a questionnaire regarding the Watershed Science Institute's roles and responsibilities
was distributed within the NRCS to eighteen State Conservationists, two Regional Conservationists and
National Headquarters (NHQ) Division Directors. Each individual who received the questionnaire was
asked to distribute it to five more people including field staff. One hundred and two responses were
received and a summary produced (Table 1). The questionnaire was considered a preliminary
investigation to help in preparing for a later strategic planning workshop.
Table 1. Questionnaire Summary.
Question:
Number of items and l op 4 items based on the average of
ranking categories: rankings:
-------
1. Which of the
following topics do
you think would be
important for
attendees to address
at a strategic
planning workshop
for the WSI?
Items = 11 topics.
Ranking Categories were
Very Important,
Important, Not too
Important, and
Unimportant.
1. Technology Transfer.
2. Product relevancy at the Field Office
Level.
3. Product relevancy at the State Office
Level.
4. Product timeliness
(Note: Field Office and State Office refer to
administrative levels within the NRCS. A
Field Office staff includes specialists who
work directly with the landowners of one to
several or counties other local subdivision.)
2. Which of the
following products
from the WSI would
be important to you
and the work you
do?
Items = 11 products.
Ranking Categories were
Very Important,
Important, Not too
Important, and
Unimportant.
1. Guidance on inventory methods and
the use of satellite or photo imagery
in assessing ecosystem health.
2. Guidance on sustainable agriculture
management approaches.
3. Image processing and visualization
tools to assist planning.
4. New conservation products.
3. Which of the
following services
from the WSI would
be important to you
and the work you
do?
Items = 11 services
Ranking Categories were
Very Important,
Important, Not too
Important, and
Unimportant.
1. Be effective in producing and
delivering technology in a timely
manner
2. Develop guidance documents and
technology in a form that is usable to
the field with little or no
modification.
3. Develop materials and provide
instructors to train regional
technology teams and consortia in
innovative technology.
4. Develop a unified process for NRCS
watershed planning.
-------
4. Given the name
Items = 8 Criteria.
1. Produce technology that include
"watershed science,"
Ranking Categories were
humans as an integral part of
what should the
Strongly Agree, Agree,
ecosystems.
Institute be doing?
Disagree, and Strongly
2. Promote technology that seeks to

Disagree.
balance diverse objectives rather

than a preference for the natural.

3. Produce technology for a wide range

of spatial scales, including regions,

watersheds, and ecoregions.

4. Address urban watershed or

ecosystem issues.
The questionnaire was not a scientific-based survey. However, State and Regional Conservationists and
NHQ Directors are prominent stakeholders vested in the successful functioning of the Watershed Science
Institute. Their responses carry significant weight in formulating the Institute's work activities. The
additional 70 or so responses from other questionnaire participants provided further insight from a group
representing a cross-section of the agency. The aggregation of these responses gave an excellent (albeit
general), preliminary determination of topics, products and services of importance and some definitive
functional criteria.
Another value of the questionnaire was that over one hundred stakeholders and potential customers of the
Institute were asked to personally participate in "start up" activities. The sense of ownership this fostered
cannot be underestimated. Ownership necessarily begins at the personal level. It involves an alignment of
values between the individual and the group(s) with which they become involved. The questionnaire was
an offering that such an alignment was in the making.
Strategic Planning Workshop of Stakeholders, Customers and
Institute Scientists
In November 1995, the Watershed Science Institute hosted a Strategic Planning Workshop of
stakeholders, customers, institute scientists and "external" scientists from partner organizations. NRCS
attendees included 25 participants from State Offices, 15 scientists from Institutes (7 from WSI), 10
participants from Field Offices (or offices beneath the State Office level), 9 participants from NHQ
(including Technical Centers), and 2 participants from Regional Offices. There were 3 scientists from
partner groups.
The workshop consisted of a number of small-group breakout sessions. These sessions were task-
oriented to produce a number of outcomes: (1) criteria for effective technology transfer, (2) identification
of short and long-term products, (3) process for developing products, and (4) methods to increase
efficiency of technology transfer and communication to field, state and regional offices.
-------
Criteria for Effective Technology Transfer
Participants were divided according to regional representation and generated a list of 8 criteria: (1)
applicable to the field, (2) timely, (3) high quality, (4) packaged for end-user, (5) deliverable, i.e.,
delivery of product is planned and coordinated beforehand, (6) designed with a feedback loop, (7)
involves key partners, and (8) available in a wide variety of appropriate media.
identification of Short and Long-term Products
Participants then developed ideas for needed products. Ideas were categorized into development cycles of
short-term, i.e., 1-2 years, and long-term, i.e., 3-5 years:
Short-term
¦ Protocol for identifying problems at varying landscape scales.
¦ Protocol for assessing cumulative impacts of changing land use and on-going practices.
¦ Conservation practice guidelines.
¦ Ecosystem-based planning guidelines.
¦ Watershed evaluation techniques.
¦ Centralized data base models, procedures and techniques.
¦ Water quality and quantity problem and effects identification.
¦ Socially acceptable data gathering methods.
¦ Summarization and distribution of unique and current watershed products and processes.
¦ Models for dam overtopping and breach evaluations.
¦ Referral services.
¦ Maintain and enhance existing models related to watershed science.
¦ Guidance on inventory methods.
-------
¦ Process for literature searches on Internet.
Long-term
¦ Procedures for watershed evaluation.
¦ Protocol for bringing local partners into the watershed evaluation process.
¦ Alternatives for nutrient management.
¦ Develop and release of new technology.
¦ User-friendly watershed-scale models.
¦ Coordinate federal agency planning processes.
¦ Evaluation of habitat diversity and placement in the landscape.
¦ Reinforce use of ecosystem-based assistance.
¦ Training for watershed planning.
¦ Technology transfer workshops.
Process for Developing Products
Workshop attendees felt strongly that the process for developing products must include a number of
partners and customers. Each partner and customer group bring unique attributes and qualities necessary
for the creation of meaningful products.
Academic and Governmental. These external partners can broaden the base for generating ideas,
identifying processes, setting priorities and helping to transfer and market individual products.
Landowners. As a customer group, landowners bring "real conditions" to the planning table and help
establish how products must be implemented at the grass-roots level.
State Office. This internal partner has a wealth of built-in procedures and priority-setting techniques to
act as a clearing house for technology development ideas from the field. Such ideas can be handed off to
the Institute with a higher degree of confidence that products which result will be relevant and
meaningful to a greater number of field clients. State Offices, for some products, may be both a partner
and a customer of the Institute.
-------
Field Office. As the primary customer group, Field Offices need a more direct pathway to reach the
Institute with their ideas. Granted such ideas for needed technology products and tools may be very local
or unique, the Institute can aggregate inputs and determine commonality of needs, i.e., repeated demands
for a particular product elevate the priority for start-up of that product. Additionally, using Field Office
personnel to develop products brings a perspective that would otherwise be lacking.
Regional Office. Agency reinvention subdivided the nation into 6 administrative subdivisions each with a
Regional Office. Each office is an internal partner responsible for developing regional and state strategic
plans for allocating staff, resources and funds. Without close communication between Regional Offices
and the Institute, product marketing and transfer can "disconnect" at a variety of junctures between the
Institute, State Offices and Field Offices.
Methods to Increase Efficiency of Technology Transfer and
Communication
Participants were divided according to stakeholder groups and assessed current and future needs for
methods and equipment essential for increasing efficiency of networking and technology transfer.
Groups included Field Offices, State Offices, Regional Offices and Sub-regional Technology Teams.
All groups had an in-common desire for up-to-date and modern communication techniques: E-mail,
Internet access, teleconferencing, voice-messaging and the latest versions of computer hardware and
software. The groups did not reach consensus on a standard or universal procedure for technology
transfer or communication. Indeed, all groups expressed the importance of lateral and flexible
communication among all levels of the organization.
Next Steps
By early and close collaboration with stakeholders and customers, the Watershed Science Institute was
able to determine important and relevant topics, identify major activity and functional areas, identify
relevant technical products and services, and integrate recommendations on how to conduct the business
of technology development and transfer. Also, by implementing the questionnaire and the strategic
planning workshop (which entailed numerous phone calls, preparation meetings, and voice messages),
the Institute fostered a high degree of partner and customer ownership.
The next steps will involve bringing the "general" to the "specific" and distributing product starts to
appropriate Institute staff members. The 7 scientists of the Institute staff will face the challenging tasks
of continuing the collaboration process, maintaining stakeholder and customer ownership, reaching the
greatest number of customers with relevant products, and sustaining a presence and identity in an agency
with over 12,000 employees.
-------
References
Johnson, P.W. (1996) The Natural Resources Conservation Service: Changing to Meet the Future.
Journal of Forestry, 94-1:12-16.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Role of the U.S. Geological Survey in Water-
Resource Planning in Kansas
Kyle E. Juracek, Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey, Lawrence, KS
Thomas C. Stiles, Assistant Director
Kansas Water Office, Topeka, KS
Abstract
As Kansas' water-resources planning agency, the Kansas Water Office coordinates the management,
conservation, and development of the state's water resources through the Kansas Water Plan. Within the
state, 12 major river basins have been established as geographic planning areas within which priority
water-resources issues are identified and addressed. Through its Federal-State Cooperative Program, the
U.S. Geological Survey provides information that not only assists state agencies in implementing the
Kansas Water Plan but also guides subsequent policy development and management strategies by the
state.
Introduction
Water supplies in Kansas consist of a complex, interrelated system of ground- and surface-water
resources. In western Kansas, water demands are satisfied almost exclusively by ground water, whereas
in eastern areas many demands are met through diversions from rivers and reservoirs. Water-resource
planning is a challenging task given (1) the dynamic nature of water-resource quantity and quality as
affected by various natural and anthropogenic factors, and (2) the multitude of environmental, political,
economic, and social issues that must be considered in the attempt to achieve balanced approaches and
actions. In Kansas, the major river basins provide the geographic framework within which the Kansas
Water Office (KWO) develops and implements integrated water-resource plans.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
Water-Resource Planning in Kansas
The Kansas Water Plan
The Kansas Water Plan is the comprehensive document used to establish state water policy on issues of
management, quality, conservation, and development. Administered by KWO, the Plan serves as the
framework for coordination of state programs in managing Kansas water resources. There are two
components of the Kansas Water Plan-state Water Policy sections and Basin Plan sections. The Water
Policy sections contain specific subsections that describe water issues, options for dealing with those
issues, and policy recommendations from a statewide perspective. These subsections also outline the
legislative, administrative and financial requirements, and timeframe needed for implementing the
policies.
Basin Plan sections provide guidelines for directing state programs toward basin-specific issues. Basin
Plans are in place for each of the 12 major river basins in the state (Figure 1). Each Basin Plan has
subsections addressing water supply, water quality, flooding, fish and wildlife, recreation, and
environmental protection. Typically, these guidelines and their implementation form the basis of agency
budget requests each fiscal year. With the advent of the State Water Plan Fund, an annual $16 million
fund of water user fees and fund transfers, the implementation of the priority basin guidelines carries
significant weight within each of the water agencies. This implementation process can draw on state-
federal partnerships to help carry out state programs.
Upper Republican Missouri
Karis-;
jV Republican
^ Solomon LX Kansas-Lower
«, i v.
V. s
SmofcyHill-Saline )
Upper ATtansas y

r tferiasDes
Neosho ¦ Ci,gnes
-s 'W-r- '?
Cimarron
s \
/ Lower Miansas Walnut' £ ^ 1
*•, ; Verdigris
Figure 1. The 12 major river basins in Kansas.
The Planning Process
The Kansas water-planning process has taken place annually during the last decade. The process is the
critical means by which KWO coordinates proposed policy and programs among the three levels of
government, interest groups, and the general public. The process attempts to develop final policies such
that implementing agencies may consider those policies as they plan programs and draft budgets for the
next fiscal year. KWO uses basin advisory committees to develop appropriate basin guidelines, establish
-------
priority issues, and debate statewide policy. Input on policies and guidelines also is solicited from the
public and interested parties.
The Kansas Water Authority approves all drafts of Water Policy and Basin Plan sections and authorizes
their release for public meetings or hearings. The Authority also develops an annual implementation plan
that moves beyond the guidance of the Kansas Water Plan and suggests to the state water agencies
specific issues they need to direct their programs toward as well as the emphasis each program should
take within the basins. Some of the more prominent issues in recent years have included river and
reservoir management, flood management, contamination remediation, water conservation, wetland and
riparian area protection, nonpoint-source pollution, water-use efficiency, ground-water declines, water
supply and demand, water quality, and river recreation.
The State-Federal Partnership
State Perspective
In order to implement the current and guide the future development of the Kansas Water Plan, hydrologic
data and investigations are needed to provide guidance toward effective water management. Through the
Federal-State Cooperative Program (described below), KWO is able to satisfy many of its information
and research needs through cooperative efforts with the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). The
information gained assists KWO in better understanding the hydrologic system being managed, provides
long-term assessment of hydrologic-system response to administrative actions, and assists in targeting
state resources to priority issues and areas. Practical benefits to KWO include resource sharing in terms
of funding, expertise, field personnel, and equipment. Another advantage is that information provided by
USGS is third party and objective.
Of particular importance is the information provided by the USGS automated streamflow-gaging station
network. Streamflow data can be accessed and utilized in real-time decisions. In a state which manages
water through the prior appropriation doctrine, such data are essential. Water-rights management,
including management of instream flows, begins with an assessment of available flow in the river.
Management of water releases from reservoirs to maintain adequate flows in the receiving river or to
meet downstream demands also depends on real-time information.
Federal Perspective
As part of its mission, USGS provides hydrologic information needed by other agencies for the best use
and management of the nation's water resources. To accomplish its mission, USGS collects several types
of hydrologic data and conducts a variety of hydrologic investigations that address water-resource issues
of national, regional, and(or) state importance. Types of hydrologic data collected include stream
discharge, ground-water levels, and water quality. Examples of topics addressed in studies include water
availability, water quality, water use, surface-water/ground-water interaction, aquifer properties, and
-------
flooding. The cooperative relation that supports the gaging network is an excellent example of how
diverse national and state interests may be satisfied by a common program.
USGS is responsive to KWO's needs while maintaining the perspective of what is important to the nation
as a whole. The results of the cooperative efforts between KWO and USGS are useful beyond a specific
water-resource issue.
The Federal-State Cooperative Program
Local, regional, state, and federal agencies often have common responsibilities in assessing water
resources and in finding solutions to water-related problems. To provide an avenue for addressing such
mutual interests, USGS established the Federal-State Cooperative Program in 1905. The primary
objectives of the Cooperative Program are to: (1) systematically collect data needed for the ongoing
determination and evaluation of the quantity, quality, and use of water resources in the United States, and
(2) assess the availability and the physical, chemical, and biological characteristics of surface and ground
water through analytical and interpretive investigations. Studies undertaken through the Cooperative
Program are set up as joint-funding agreements (JFAs) between USGS and regional, state, and(or) local
agencies. Under a JFA, most of the work is performed by USGS, with at least 50 percent of the funds
provided by the cooperating agency. The Cooperative Program is used extensively to conduct studies
important to the nation and the State of Kansas.
USGS Activities
Data Collection
In cooperation with KWO and several other agencies, USGS systematically collects data from a
statewide network of 166 automated streamflow-gaging stations in Kansas (Figure 2). Real-time data are
available from 152 of the stations via satellite, and 22 stations are accessible via telephone for immediate
retrieval of current streamflow information. The KWO uses USGS streamflow data to address a variety
of issues including: water-supply availability, water quality, water conservation, reservoir management,
flood management, minimum desirable streamflows, and the protection of wetland and riparian areas.
-------
EXPLANATION
* Continuous-record stream How gaging station
Figure 2. Network of automated U.S. Geological Survey stream flow-gaging stations in Kansas.
Another example of interagency cooperation is the evaluation of annual water-use data collected by the
Kansas Department of Agriculture's Division of Water Resources. Through the Cooperative Program,
USGS works with KWO to provide quality assurance of reported data for the two largest categories of
water use in Kansas-irrigation and municipal. KWO uses the data to document annual water use, assess
water-use efficiency, and target water conservation planning efforts for individual irrigators and
municipalities.
Recent Cooperative Investigations With KWO
Water quality was the primary concern in a study to determine the effects of the Arkansas River on the
adjacent Equus Beds aquifer, which is a major source of water for irrigation and municipal supplies in
the Wichita area of south-central Kansas. Extensive use of the aquifer has decreased ground-water levels
as much as 30 feet and caused increased recharge from the Arkansas River. Large chloride
concentrations in the river have the potential to degrade water quality in the aquifer. USGS developed a
ground-water flow model for use in understanding the flow system and the water-quality profile between
the river and the aquifer. KWO will use the results of this study to develop and implement water
management strategies to minimize undesirable effects of the river on the aquifer.
A study to evaluate the effect of pumping municipal wells on flow in the Republican River was
conducted by USGS at Junction City in northeast Kansas. Quantification of the amount of river water
infiltrating into the aquifer to satisfy well-field demand was needed by KWO to optimize release
strategies for an upstream reservoir. A ground-water flow model was developed and used to simulate the
effects of municipal pumping on flow in the river.
A series of digital maps of the major aquifers in Kansas is being developed by USGS and the Kansas
Geological Survey through a cooperative agreement with KWO. The digital maps provide information on
the geographic extent of each aquifer, altitude of the land surface, altitude of the top and bottom of each
aquifer, and the potentiometric surface (i.e., altitude of the water table). Together, the digital maps will
-------
provide readily accessible aquifer information that is directly applicable to water-resources management
and research activities within the state.
Because Kansas water law requires that water obtained from reservoirs be purchased at the release point
rather than the point of diversion, potential water purchasers need to know how much water will be lost
during transit in the channel from the release point to the point of diversion. To address this issue, a study
was conducted to determine transit losses (or gains) and traveltimes for reservoir releases during drought
conditions along the Neosho River in east-central Kansas. A streamflow-routing model was used to
simulate transit losses (or gains) and travel times for selected reservoir-release volumes and durations.
The information resulting from the simulations assisted KWO in determining the required amount of
water released from a reservoir to satisfy the downstream demands.
The Neosho River is presently the focus of considerable activity. USGS is involved in concurrent
investigations that are addressing the issues of flooding and channel stability. Progress to date includes
completion of a study to characterize high flows and scour and deposition trends, and completion of a
digital inventory of stream obstructions (e.g., levees, low-flow dams, elevated roadbeds). These results,
along with future studies, will assist KWO in developing and implementing a long-term management
plan for the Neosho River Basin.
Summary
Cooperative efforts between state agencies and USGS have made a substantial contribution to water-
resource planning in Kansas. Through hydrologic data collection and studies, USGS has provided
information that assists state agencies in better understanding the hydrologic system being managed and
in targeting state resources on priority issues and areas. KWO relies on USGS to provide real-time data
on hydrologic conditions that are essential for a variety of activities including water-rights and reservoir
management, and flood monitoring. The assessment of water-use patterns assists KWO in water
conservation planning. Furthermore, USGS studies of such topics as stream-aquifer interaction, channel
stability, and flow conveyance provide information that allows the state to adjust existing policies and
programs to most effectively manage and use the state's water resources. The partnership has benefited
the state and the nation in several ways, including resource sharing, knowledge gained, and improved
intergovernmental agency relations.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Procedures for Indexing Monthly NPS Pollution
Loads from Agricultural and Urban Fringe
Watersheds
Gene Yagow, Research Associate
Biological Systems Engineering Dept., Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA
Vernon Shanholtz, President
MapTech Inc., Blacksburg, VA
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
Nonpoint source (NPS) pollution is the leading cause of surface water degradation in the United States,
affecting over two-thirds of the nation's river basins. NPS pollution from agricultural activities
contributed to the impairment of 72% of the impaired stream miles reported by the 48 states reporting
sources in EPA's 1992 Report to Congress (EPA, 1994). While NPS assessment and management
programs now complement point source management programs in all U.S. states and territories, effective
and standardized procedures for assessment are still in the development stage. Program managers,
however, are held accountable for assessing the current degree of pollution, and for progress being made
in its reduction. Assessment is complicated by the very nature of NPS pollution, which is not definable by
a single parameter. One means of assessing an entity subject to measurement with of a variety of
parameters is with an index. Water quality agencies began using indexes starting around 1965 to rate the
quality of water in streams for a variety of chemical, physical, biological and visual parameters. In the
-------
United States, most states use some type of water quality index to assess trophic status, a measure of
pollutant input to lakes, as a basis for grant selection under the Clean Lakes Program (EPA, 1994). An
index is a unitless number which ascribes various qualities to an aggregate set of measured parameters.
Water quality indexes generally consist of sub-index scores assigned to each parameter by comparing its
measurement with a parameter-specific rating curve, optionally weighted, and combined into the final
index. NPS pollutant indexes are relatively new in comparison with water quality indexes, and are
distinctly different from them in several ways. First, NPS parameters are measured in terms of pollutant
loading rather than in terms of concentrations. Second, the procedures used to arrive at a final NPS index
are not generally based on rating curves and are more concerned with rank order than with comparison to
quantitative criteria. The procedures presented in this paper are proposed as a means to create a NPS
pollution index with a more quantitative basis than current ranking procedures.
Two basic changes are proposed as the basis for a newly formulated NPS pollution index: a change in the
unit of measurement, and a change in the time period of assessment. NPS pollution is generally reported
as annual loads in units of kg/ha or its equivalent, and NPS indexes are consistently based on these units.
Although the annual kg/ha unit is useful in comparing effects of differing landuses, it does not lend itself
for use in establishing a fixed-scale index, because it does not differentiate seasonal or annual variations
in runoff, the primary factor behind NPS pollution. Furthermore, without standards or criteria as a basis
for a quantitative relationship between index values and parameter loads, acceptability or meaning of
index values is difficult to establish, except in a relative sense. A different unit of measure, kg/ha-mm, is
proposed to overcome some of these obstacles. While not a new term, kg/ha-mm is less frequently used in
assessing load and has not been used to-date in published NPS indexes. The kg/ha-mm unit has some
attributes which make it desirable for use with an index. For one thing, it normalizes load with respect to
watershed area and runoff depth, making it equivalent to long-term concentration in units of ppm.
Although there are no established standards or criteria related to watershed loadings of nutrients and
sediment, ground water and lake classification represent two related waterbody categories whose
measurements more closely resemble long-term concentrations, and for which some standards and criteria
are available. These can serve as an interim basis for the development of rating curves that relate sub-
index values to individual NPS pollutant loads. The base time period chosen for this unit is the month in
order to allow seasonal variation to manifest itself, and to be comparable with generally available
monitored data.
Index Structure
Procedures for developing a NPS pollutant index based on the kg/ha-mm unit have been created, which
incorporate monthly loads of four modeled NPS pollutant parameters: total nitrogen (N), total phosphorus
(P), sediment, and chemical oxygen demand (COD). These parameters were chosen to represent the major
expected NPS pollutants in agricultural and rural residential watersheds, and their form was chosen with
the monthly basis in mind. The NPS indexing procedures follow the general form outlined previously for
water quality indexes: rating curves based on criteria or standards to score individual pollutants, optional
weighting of individual pollutants, and aggregation into a final index value. The criteria in Table 1 was
chosen subjectively from various sources to illustrate possible values and sources for use in defining low
(1), moderate (5), and high (9) sub-index values for each of the four chosen parameters. Other criteria,
-------
with a long-term basis, can be substituted, if more applicable to a specific situation. Because of a lack of
specific data on COD, BOD criteria were used along with the assumption of a decreasing COD:BOD ratio
with increasing load.
An open-ended index scale has been chosen for each of the four parameters as a basis for individual
parameter log-normal rating curves, as illustrated for total nitrogen in Figure 1. Rating curves are used to
score each monthly pollutant parameter load and assign a sub-index (SI) value. The index (I) is then
calculated as:
where w is an optional weighting factor. The developed procedures recognize the need for flexibility in
configuring an indexing protocol, because of variable site conditions, variable program requirements, and
local data availability. The user is provided the following options in configuring the NPS pollution index
using these procedures (default values are shown in parentheses):
¦ choice of 3 sub-index scale values, to represent the majority of the scale range (1,5,9),
¦ choice of parameter values corresponding to the sub-index values for each parameter (see Table 1),
¦ choice of rating curve shape: linear, segmented linear, log-normal and segmented log-normal; (log-
normal), and
¦ choice of relative weights (equal weighting).
Linear and log-normal curves are based only on the values provided corresponding to sub-index values 1
and 9, while both of the segmented curve shapes use all three values.
Table 1. Rating curve parameter and sub-index values.

Source
Value
Sub-Index

(mg/L)
Value
Total Nitrogen

Lake Tahoe Standard
Briggs and Ficke, 1977
0.24
1
Potomac Embayment POTW effluent monthly
standard
VWCB, 1990
1
5
Severe eutrophication problem threshold
Mills et al., 1982
9.2
9
Total Phosphorus

Proposed oligotrophic classification threshold
Reckhow, et al., 1980
0.01
1
Chickahominy watershed monthly standard
VWCB, 1990
0.1
5
Nutirent Enriched Waters monthly standard
DEQ, 1994
2.0
9
-------
Sediment

Beginning sedimentation problem threshold (SS)
Mills et al., 1982
10
1
Probable sedimentation problem threshold (SS)
Mills et al., 1982
100
9
COD (BOD*COD:BOD Ratio)

Rappahannock River/Lake Tahoe standard:
1 mg/L * 6:1
VWCB, 1990
6
1
Chickahominy watershed standard:
6 mg/L *5:1
VWCB, 1990
30
5
Minnesota state standard:
25mg/L * 4:1
Young et al., 1982
100
9
Modeling Monthly Loads
The indexing procedures were designed to utilize model output from a cell-based water quality model and
to interface with a raster-based geographic information system (GIS), in order to evaluate monthly loads
at all points within a watershed, as well as at the outlet.
AGNPS Model
The Agricultural Nonpoint Source (AGNPS) model was developed at USDA-ARS (Young et al., 1987) as
a single-event watershed model for evaluation of alternative agricultural management scenarios. AGNPS
is a grid-based model, whose spatial variability is a function of cell size. AGNPS simulates loads of total
and soluble N and P, soluble COD, erosion, sediment, and runoff. The latest AGNPS model, version 5.00,
was used to model NPS pollutant loads, which are aggregated for monthly load estimates. The model is
designed for watersheds where overland flow dominates, since channel processes are not considered,
except for decay of soluble pollutants during transport in stream channels. AGNPS 5.00 has many
enhancements over previous versions, such as improved sediment detachment and transport, variable flow
rates throughout a storm through the use of a triangular hydrograph, and its use of extended memory
compilers to eliminate the previous 1900 cell limit. Additionally, many soil nutrient parameters which
were treated as black-box constants in the 3.65 version, are now made accessible for user modification.
GIS Interface
GIS are tools to collect, store, manage and display spatially varying data. GIS are useful in reducing
manual data input requirements when linked with distributed parameter models. Use of GIS data further
simplifies debugging of model input files, interpretation of output files, and creation of alternative
scenarios. AGNPS 5.00 File Builder is a GIS utility for creating input files to the AGNPS model, versions
4.03 and 5.00 (Yagow and Shanholtz, 1995). File Builder was developed as a component within the
existing PC-VirGIS geographic information system (Shanholtz, 1995), with support from the Virginia
-------
Division of Soil and Water Conservation. File Builder facilitates user input of required data through a
menu and prompt-driven interface. While AGNPS comes with a user-friendly spreadsheet editor interface
to facilitate user input, a minimum of 22 parameters must be specified for each cell, a daunting and time-
consuming task for large watersheds. By accessing GIS data layers and relational attribute tables,
repetitive user input is minimized, while spatial variability is enhanced and consistently characterized,
making it feasible to parameterize watersheds in the range of 10,000 to 30,000 cells.
Uncertainty Analysis
A further procedure, based on the observations of Haan and Schulze (1987), was used to estimate the
uncertainty associated with index values classified as having average antecedent moisture conditions
(AMC II) on a study watershed. The 6,500 ha (14,621 cells) Bull Run Watershed in northern Virginia is
being modeled to test model response using the expanded capabilities of AGNPS 5.00, and to illustrate
the indexing and uncertainty procedures. Four monthly segments from a 15-year monitored period of
record were identified where 6 consecutive storms met AMC II conditions in each segment. Loads are
being modeled for all storms and aggregated by monthly segment, for each of the three moisture
conditions. The loads at AMC I and III can then be used to approximate the 80% confidence level of the
loads generated under AMC II conditions.
Summary
A rationale and procedures have been developed for creating a NPS pollutant index from four pollutants
using the monthly kg/ha-mm unit. Flexibility is provided within the procedures for setting the index scale
range, for defining points to use within the rating curve for each pollutant, for defining the rating curve
shape, and for assigning relative weights to each pollutant. The index can be used together with a
statistical procedure to approximate the uncertainty of aggregate loading from consecutive AMC II
storms.
References
Briggs, J. C. and J. F. Ficke. (1977) Quality of rivers of the United States, 1975 water yearbased
on the National Stream Quality Accounting Network (NASQAN). USGS Open-File Report 78-
200.
EPA. (1994) National water quality inventory: 1992 report to Congress. EPA 841-R-94-001. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Washington, D.C.
DEQ. (1994) Virginia water quality assessment for 1994. 305(b) report to EPA and Congress.
Information Bulletin #597. Virginia Department of Environmental Quality. Richmond, Virginia.
Haan, C. T. and R. E. Schulze. (1987) Return period flow prediction with uncertain parameters.
-------
Trans. ASAE 30(3): 665 - 669.
Mills, W. B., D. B. Porcella, M. J. Ungs, S. A. Gherini, K. V. Summers, Lingfung Mok, G. L.
Rupp, G. L. Bowie and D. A. Haith. (1982) Water quality assessment: A screening procedure for
toxic and conventional pollutants Part 1. EPA 600/6-82-004a. U. S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Athens, Georgia.
Reckhow, K. H., M. N. Beaulac and J. T. Simpson. (1980) Modeling phosphorus loading and lake
response under uncertainty: A manual and compilation of export coefficients. EPA 440/5-80-011.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water Regulations and Standards. Washington,
DC.
Shanholtz, V. O. (1995) PC-VirGIS functionality. File Report. MapTech, Inc. Blacksburg,
Virginia.
VWCB. (1990) Water quality standards: text of regulations. VR680-21-00. Commonwealth of
Virginia, Virginia Water Control Board, Richmond, Virginia.
Yagow, G. and V. Shanholtz. (1995) PC-VirGIS / AGNPS File Builder: Draft Documentation. A
report to the Virginia Division of Soil and Water Conservation.
Young, R. A., M. A. Otterby and A. Roos. (1982) An evaluation system to rate feedlot pollution
potential. ARM-NC-17. Agricultural Reviews and Manuals. ARS-USDA. Peoria, Illinois.
Abbreviations Used
AGNPS Agricultural NonPoint Source pollution model.
AMC antecedent moisture condition:
I=dry, II=average, and III=wet.
BOD biological oxygen demand.
GIS geographic information system.
NPS nonpoint source.
PC-VirGIS the personal computer-based Virginia Geographic Information System.
SS suspended sediment.
-------
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Dynamic Programming Approach to Storm Water
Management Systems Design
Kum Sung Wong, Water Resources Engineer
Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD
Karen Schaeffer, Civil Engineer
Jim George, Water Resources Engineer
Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD
Tom Tapley, Water Resources Engineer
Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD
Conventionally, most storm water detention ponds are designed individually without considering the
integrated flow and pollutant load effects of all the ponds within the watershed. Such design approach is
haphazard at best. Thus, it is possible that a system of ponds designed individually may actually
exacerbate potential flood hazards while not meeting the predefined water quality goal. To understand
the combined effect of a system of detention ponds on the watershed in terms of water quality and flood
hazards control, a holistic design algorithm using techniques in operations research is usually needed.
These design algorithms are usually so complex that they are best implemented by computer programs.
Only a computer-based numerical model can handle the enormous amount of computations necessary to
select the best system of ponds from tens of thousands of competing systems. Furthermore, a computer-
driven design heuristic based on operations research methodology has the unique advantage of allowing
water resources planners to rapidly come up with many optimal design alternatives based on different
combinations of design variables and cost factors. These computer based algorithms are usually flexible
enough to handle a great variety of watershed characteristics, meteorological conditions, land use
patterns, and detention basin designs.
-------
In the design algorithm, two major inputs are hydrographs and pollutographs of the subwatersheds,
which are generated by the P8 Urban Catchment Model. P8 consists primarily of algorithms derived from
other tested urban hydrologic models like SWMM, HSPF, and TR-20. The model simulates a number of
best management practices (BMPs), and simulations are driven by continuous hourly rainfall time series.
Two variables are needed for input to P8. The first is percent imperviousness, and the second, runoff
curve number (RCN). To calculate the percent imperviousness of a subcatchment, all the subcatchments
of a watershed are first delineated, and then superimposed on a land use map of the watershed. The
percentage of each type of land use within each subcatchment is then estimated from the map. Each
percentage of land use is then multiplied by a fraction of imperviousness associated with the
corresponding land use, and the products totaled to equal the average imperviousness of a subcatchment.
This process is repeated for each subcatchment.
To calculate the runoff curve number, SCS soil survey maps can be used to estimate the percentage of
each soil type in a subcatchment. Each soil type has a corresponding hydrologic soil group (HSG): A, B,
C, or D. For each land use at each hydrologic condition, there are four HSGs associated with it, and for
each HSG there is a corresponding runoff curve number. A weighted-average runoff curve number is
then computed for each subcatchment. The device name, curve number, and percent imperviousness are
then input into the P8 model to find the hydrograph and pollutograph of a subcatchment.
The system constraints are allowable peak flow, minimum pollutant removal rate, and minimum pond
volumes. If peak flow rates exceed the maximum allowable rate, channel erosions may occur. Minimum
pollutant removal rate is imposed at each pond location to ensure that only those pond sizes that meet the
minimum pollutant removal requirement will be considered in the dynamic programming selection
process. The last system constraint simply states that no retrofit will result in a pond being smaller than
its original, pre-retrofit size.
The Muskingum river routing method, a hydrologic technique founded upon the equation of continuity,
is used throughout the program to route flood hydrographs from ponds to ponds. In applying the
Muskingum routing method, a value of 0.5 is assigned to "k", the storage time constant for a river reach.
The weighting factor "x" is assigned a value of 0.25, while the routing time interval delta t is assigned a
value of 0.34.
Hydrographs are routed through each detention pond using the storage indication method, which is a
hydrologic reservoir routing technique. The pond routing subroutine follows the following procedure
when implementing the storage indication method of reservoir routing:
1. Open the inflow hydrograph file for the corresponding detention basin location.
2. Develop an elevation-storage curve and an elevation-discharge curve for the structure.
3. Select a routing interval, prepare the working curve, and do the routing using the curve.
-------
Pollutant removal rate of each detention pond is computed by reference to a curve found in Controlling
Urban Runoff, A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing Urban BMPs published by the
Department of Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments. This curve
shows the relationship between VB/VR and sediment removal percentage, where VB is volume of basin
and VR is volume of runoff from mean storm. The mean storm is defined as one having a duration of six
hours and an intensity of 0.07 inches per hour.
The physical arrangement of a system of detention basins in a watershed can be represented
schematically by the so-called iso-drainage lines (IDLs). IDLs are drawn starting at the most downstream
pond location and proceeding upstream stage by stage. They are numbered starting from the most
upstream location and proceeding stage by stage to the most downstream. The number of IDLs is the
same as the number of stages, and is denoted by the letter i. The pond within an IDL is denoted by the
letter j. Thus the subscript "ij" identifies the coordinate of a candidate pond within a system of detention
basins.
Dynamic programming (DP) is an extremely versatile and powerful optimizing technique. Problems
amenable to DP solutions are those divisible into spatial or temporal stages. Associated with each stage
and location (in space or time) is a finite number of discrete state variables which describe the state of the
system. Each state variable is divisible into discreet values, and each combination of these discreet values
is a state vector which defines the state of the system. A set of all possible state vectors represents a state
space. Associated with each state vector is a cost or benefit (depending on the problem formulation)
referred to as the return cost or return benefit of the system.
Central to DP is a partial objective function (POF) which is solved recursively starting at the most
upstream IDL, and then proceeding downstream, stage by stage and pond by pond, until the last pond at
the last stage is evaluated. The partial objective function for a serial system of detention basin is
expressed as
Fu (Sijt ) = Min [ R.. ( sijt - Dijt) + Fi., j (S,., j) ]
F- (S- - J
where i is the stage number, j the basin number, and k the state vector. u 1 * * is the partial
objective function, which is the minimum cost of the partial system comprising of the current basin and
R-- f S-- , D-- J
all basins from previous stages which are connected to it. 1' 1' * ' 1 J * is the return cost,
F- ¦ ( S- - J
which is the cost of the current basin at a state denoted by state vector k. 1"1' 1 1"1' J
represents the optimal subpolicy cost, which is the minimum cost of the upstream system of basins which
is connected to the current pond. The sum of the return cost and optimal subpolicy cost is evaluated for
each state vector k and the lowest cost option becomes the optimal subpolicy cost of the current basin,
and this cost will be used in the next-stage recursive solution of the partial objective function.
-------
For a nonserial system of interconnecting detention basins, the partial objective function is written as
where b is the number of upstream basins immediately connected to the current basin. In essence, for
each state vector of the current basin, the optimal subpolicy costs of all upstream basins which are
immediately connected to the current basin is summed and the total added to the return cost of the current
basin to form the current basin's subpolicy cost. This set of subpolicy costs is then evaluated to find the
minimum subpolicy cost, which becomes the optimal subpolicy cost of the current pond.
When applying the design algorithm to the Marley Creek watershed, the maximum basin width is used as
a state variable. This variable and other input parameters are used to derive the elevation-discharge and
elevation-storage relationships, and a working curve is derived based on these two curves. A
subcatchment's inflow hydrograph is then combined with the upstream inflow hydrograph (which has
been routed through the connecting open channel) and together they are routed through the detention
pond using the working curve. The resulting outflow hydrograph is then evaluated to see if the peak flow
exceeds the stipulated constraint. Only those candidate basins whose resulting outflow hydrographs meet
the peak flow requirement and other constraints will be admitted to the next-stage DP selection process.
The cost associated with a particular state vector can be determined from the pond volume associated
with that vector, using a set of linear regression cost functions. Each state vector which yields a routed
outflow hydrograph that violates the system constraints will be eliminated from the state space for a
given pond location. The cost associated with a feasible state vector is then added to the optimal
subpolicy cost to form the subpolicy cost of the current pond. When all vectors within the state space has
been evaluated, the lowest-cost option becomes the optimal subpolicy cost of the current pond. This DP
algorithm is repeated stage by stage and pond by pond until the last pond is evaluated. A trace back is
then performed to identify the optimal pond type for each pond location and the associated cost.
Once the trace back is completed, the pollutant removal efficiency of each detention basin in the optimal
system is evaluated, after which the inflow pollutographs are "routed" through the system. The program
will then compare the total pollutant load at the watershed outlet with the predefined pollutant cap to see
if the watershed's water quality goal is met.
To examine its overall characteristics and potential, the design algorithm is applied to the Marley Creek
urban watershed in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. The watershed lies within the Atlantic Coastal
Plain, and comprises 8784 acres of mostly medium-density residential areas. Because most of the
watershed were developed before the adoption of storm water management regulations, many developed
areas in the watershed have no storm water BMPs. Consequently, uncontrolled runoffs have led to
increased level of nonpoint source pollution.
b
(2)
-------
The Marley Creek watershed can be divided into twelve sub water sheds. However, for the purpose of this
study, only subwatersheds 1 and 2 were used in the dynamic programming design. These two
subwatersheds were further delineated into 22 subcatchments using technical reports prepared by
Greenhorne and O'Mara, maps of Anne Arundel County, and topographic maps of the Marley Creek
watershed. Using the P8 Urban Catchment Model, a hydrograph and pollutograph were generated for
each subcatchment. Only one pollutant was considered for this study total suspended solids.
The design objective was to find the lowest-cost system of detention ponds that would meet the
stipulated water quality and peak flow conditions. A peak flow constraint of 20 cfs was imposed for each
candidate detention pond. Additionally, a 40% pollutant reduction constraint was imposed at the
watershed outlet. This was achieved by imposing a minimum pollutant removal rate of 43% at each
detention pond site. In practice, the minimum removal rate can only be determined by trial and error. It is
obtained when the predefined water quality goal at the watershed outlet is just achieved.
For this study, the state variable used in the DP design algorithm was maximum basin width. This
variable was discretized into nine different values (50, 60, 70, 80, 90, 100, 110, 120, 190). The total
number of possible designs (state vectors) for each pond location is therefore nine. The results of the DP
design is shown in Table 1 below.
Table 1. Dynamic programming results
Stage iPond Best Pond Type lOptimal System Cost
1
1
5
123,843
2
1
6
255,381
2
2
2
105,618
2
3
1
101,163
2
4
5
123,843
3
1
0
255,381
3
2
9
237,243
3
3
0
0
3
4
2
312,399
3
5
0
123,843
4
1
0
492,624
4
2
0
436,242
4
3
9
237,243
4
4
3
110,883
5
1
7
140,043
-------
5
r
2
0
928,866
5
3
9
585,369
6
1
0
1,068,909
6
2
9
822,612
7
1
0
0
7
2
0
1,068,909
7
3
0
822,612
8
1
0
1,891,521 (Total system cost)
References
Ormsbee, L. E., Houck, M. H., and Delleur, J. W. (1987). "Design of Dual-Purpose Detention
Systems Using Dynamic Programming." Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management,
ASCE, 113(4), 471-484.
Mays, L. W., and Bedient, P. B. (1982). "Model for Optimal Size and Location of Detention."
Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management Division, ASCE, 108(WR3), 270-285.
Bennett, M. S., and Mays, L. W. (1985). "Optimal Design of Detention and Drainage Channel
Systems." Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, ASCE, 111(1), 99-112.
Taur, C. K., Toth, G., Oswald, G. E., and Mays, L. W. (1987). "Austin Detention Basin
Optimization Model." Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, 113(7), 860-878.
Walker, W. W., (1990). P8 Urban Catchment Model: Program Documentation, Version 1.1,
Narragansett Bay Project, Providence, Rhode Island.
Karouna, N. K., (1992). A Preliminary Assessment of Selected Urban Retrofit BMP, Dept of
Environmental Programs, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C.
Schaffer, K., (1994). Marley Creek Project, Summary of Development, Maryland Department of
the Environment, Baltimore, Maryland.
Marley Creek Watershed Assessment, Phase 2, Final Watershed Assessment Report, July 1992,
Greenhorne & O'Mara, Inc., 9001 Edmonston Rd., Greenbelt, Maryland 20770.
Schueler, T. R., (1987). Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and
Designing Urban BMPs, The Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington,
-------
D.C.
Storm Water Management: Pond Design & Construction Manual, December 1987, Maryland
Association of Soil Conservation Districts, Maryland.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Modeling Nutrients From The Minnesota River
Watershed
Avinash S. Patwardhan, Senior Hydrologist
Ronald M. Jacobson, Senior Engineer
Wayne P. Anderson, Principal Engineer
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN
Anthony S. Donigian, Jr., President and Principal Engineer
AQUA TERRA Consultants, Mountain View, CA
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
The Minnesota River (Figure 1), which originates at the Minnesota-South Dakota border, flows 533 km
through some of the richest agricultural land in Minnesota, to the confluence of the Mississippi River in
the Minneapolis/St. Paul area. The watershed includes all, or part, of 37 counties in Minnesota, and about
92% of the land use is dedicated to agriculture production activities. Nonpoint pollution entering the river
contributes to water quality degradation and violations of standards through out the entire basin and
especially in the lower reaches. The parameters most often violated in the lower reaches are dissolved
oxygen, unionized ammonia, fecal coliform bacteria, and turbidity. The Minnesota River Basin is
composed of approximately twelve major tributaries. These tributaries each drain on the average about
3,584 square km.
-------
A Waste Load Allocation study for the Lower Minnesota River determined that a 40% reduction in
organic BOD in the Minnesota River at Shakopee is necessary to meet water quality limits in the lower
Minnesota during critical conditions. To determine the feasibility of reaching the 40% reduction in
organic BOD a detailed modeling analysis was necessary. The objectives of the modeling study for the
Minnesota River consist of (1) quantifying atmospheric, point, and nonpoint source contributions (by
land use category); and (2) quantifying pollutant contributions by tributary subwatershed for targeting
priority areas for clean-up and remediation. Complete details of the Minnesota River Assessment Project
can be obtained from MPCA (1994).
This paper describes the application of U.S. EPA Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF)
(Bicknell et al., 1993) to the LeSueur River watershed located in the southeast portion of the Minnesota
River basin. The paper also discusses: (1) the procedure used in discretizing the watershed; (2) presents a
brief overview of the LeSueur calibration results; (3) presents the effect of selected best management
practices for reducing nutrient loads; and (4) briefly narrates how the modeling approach will be used in
quantifying nutrient loads in the remaining subwatersheds within the Minnesota River basin.
The HSPF model was selected for use in this study because it is unique in its capabilities of linking
detailed simulation of soil processes, runoff contributions from surface and subsurface components, and
complete in-stream water quality modeling to allow comprehensive watershed scale modeling and
assessment. The watershed processes simulated consisted of sediment erosion, soil temperatures, and
nitrogen and phosphorus runoff. The in-stream module receives loadings from the watershed and then
simulates complete water quality conditions in the stream channel, including water temperature, sediment
transport, dissolved oxygen (DO), biological oxygen demand (BOD), nitrogen and phosphorus species,
and selected algal species. Complete details on HSPF can be found in the Release No. 10 HSPF User
Manual (Bicknell et al., 1993).
Basin Segmentation
The availability of meteorologic data is critical to models, such as HSPF, that use continuous time series
to drive the simulation of hydrologic responses in watersheds. Normal annual precipitation totals exhibit
a strong gradient across Minnesota, increasing from the northwest to the southeast. Average temperatures
do not significantly vary over the basin. To account for the observed spatial variability in meteorologic
conditions in the model, the basin was divided into 38 meteorologic zones, each representing a Thiessen
polygon constructed around a network of long-term weather reporting stations. The area represented by
each weather station averaged 993 sq km.
Land segmentation goals for the model are to depict the watersheds in such a way that the hydrologic
integrity is maintained and the spatial variability in the basin characteristics is captured. Each distinct
land segment in the model is assumed to produce a more-or-less homogeneous hydrologic and water
quality response to a given set of meteorologic conditions. Such watershed segmentation requires spatial
analyses of basin characteristics affecting runoff. An essential tool for this process is a geographical
information system (GIS) to provide a means to visualize and to statistically analyze large amounts of
-------
geographically referenced data. For this project, we used a GIS program called EPPL7, which was
developed by the Minnesota Land Management Information Center (LMIC, 1992). EPPL7 was used to
analyze Minnesota environmental and natural resources data coverage's compiled by LMIC. These 100
meter, raster based data coverage's employ a 40 acre parcel as the basic data collection and interpretation
unit. Some of the more useful data coverages included: land use/land cover, soil landscape units, slope,
major/minor watershed boundaries, county boundaries, and soil atlas interpretations (e.g. drainage class,
hydrologic group, erodibility constant).
The Minnesota River basin is segmented into 12 areas representing the major tributary watersheds.
Hydrologic integrity of existing drainage divides was maintained to facilitate flow routing and
computation of pollutant loads at watershed outlets. Using spatial analyzes of the LMIC data coverages,
the individual tributary watersheds were further sub-segmented to represent their unique hydrologic
characteristics.
HSPF Model Application to the LeSueur River Watershed
The LeSueur River watershed area is approximately 285,518 ha, two tributaries namely the Maple and
Cobb river drain into the LeSueur River. For modeling purpose the watershed was segmented into ten
smaller sub water sheds. Within each subwatershed tributary area the land area is further divided into six
PERLNDs (Pervious Land Segments) and one IMPLND (Impervious Land Segments) categories. The
simulated PERLND categories consisted of Forest, Conventional Till Cropland, Conservation (Low) Till
(30% residue cover) Cropland, Pasture, Urban, Marsh/Wetland, and Manure Application Area. The
IMPLND land use consists of the impervious portion of the Urban/Residential area.
In order to evaluate the impacts of proposed best management practices, base conditions were established
in terms of current practices using a representative long term meteorological record for simulation and
comparison. Base conditions were defined in terms of 1986-1992 land use, cropping, tillage,
manure/fertilizer application, and management practices so that changes to these characteristics could be
identified and their impacts evaluated. Under the base condition only 3% of the cropland in the LeSueur
Basin was under conservation tillage (minimum 30% residue cover maintained on the field). For the
Manure Application area it was assumed that only 25% of recommended application area actually
received manure application. The alternatives analyzed consist of (1) increasing conservation tillage
acres to 27% (transect survey acreage's), 50%, 100% of the row crop area; (2) application of the animal
manure to 95% of the recommended area; and (3) a 66% reduction of Phosphorus load from point
sources.
LeSueur River stream channels and its tributaries are the major pathways by which pollutants are
transported from the watershed. Characterization of the channel system was based on measured channel
cross section data, changes in channel geometry, and bankfull flow travel times. Accurate
characterization is needed to provide a sound basis for routing streamflow, sediment, and water quality
constituents through the channel system in order to reproduce field data and measurements. Comparison
of the simulated routed streamflow results with measured streamflow data, as part of the calibration
-------
process, allows us to evaluate the adequacy of the representation of the channel system by HSPF. A total
of 10 channel reaches are used to represent the movement of runoff and associated constituents through
the main stream channel and its tributaries. The stream reaches range in length from 10 to 102 km, with
an average length of 52 km and average drainage area of 282 square km.
Simulation Results
The HSPF model was calibrated for the base conditions for hydrology, sediment, and water quality
parameters. Details on the HSPF model application along with the calibration results can be obtained
from Patwardhan et al., 1996. The following conclusions were drawn from the initial calibration results
obtained under the baseline conditions:
1. The hydrology calibration resulted in well simulated flow volumes, the daily flow timeseries
generally showed good agreement, and the flow frequency curves match well.
2. In-stream sediment concentrations showed fair agreement with the limited observed data.
3. Water temperature and dissolved oxygen simulations were quite good, and tracked the limited
observed data well.
4. The BOD simulations were reasonable as the peaks were in the general range of observed data,
and appeared to be associated with runoff events.
5. Both the N03 and Organic N simulations were very good, and the NH3 simulations fair. The
loadings for these constituents were in the expected range.
6. The Organic P is reasonably simulated, and P04 concentrations are in the proper range for the
period of August 89 to March 1990, further work for the other periods.
7. The benthic algae simulation look reasonable, and is consistent with previous simulations, but
there is little or no data for confirmation.
8. The Total Organic Carbon simulations look good and consistent with the data.
Further work to improve the calibration is continuing as we gain additional experience with simulations
in the other subwatersheds of the Minnesota River watershed.
Simulation of Alternative Scenarios
The objective of this portion is to demonstrate how the HSPF model could be used to evaluate the
impacts of best management practices (BMPs) on water quality. After calibrating the model for the
-------
baseline conditions, we analyzed best management practices to reduce nutrient loads to the LeSueur
River. Figure 2 depicts the total phosphorus loads obtained from the analyses of various BMPs. The
loads shown in the figure are for baseline conditions (3% low till), transect survey (27% low till), 50%
low till, 100% low till, and for complete adoption which refers to 100% low till practices in the
watershed along with application of animal manure to 95% of the recommended area and reducing the
point source phosphorus concentrations from 3 mg/1 to 1 mg/1.
Residue management scenarios on 27%, 50%, 100% of the row crop acreage's, and complete adoption
scenario resulted in a four percent, fourteen percent, twenty percent, and fifty five percent reduction is
phosphorus load to the LeSueur River respectively as compared to the baseline loads. An increase in
conservation acres to 27% resulted in a seven percent decrease in sediment load, while adoption rates of
50% and 100% resulted in 24 percent and 50% reduction respectively. The above scenarios were
developed to demonstrate how a model of the LeSueur River watershed can be used to evaluate best
management practices for reducing nutrient loads to receiving waters.
Future Directions
The HSPF model is currently being applied for estimating nutrient loads from the remaining eleven
subwatersheds within the Minnesota River watershed. After the loads from all the subwatersheds are
estimated we will prioritize watersheds for the implementation of best management practices. The best
management practices will be recommended for the subwatersheds which deliver the largest nutrient load
to the Minnesota. Future plans are to continue the development of the Minnesota River watershed model,
including parameter sensitivity analysis and verification of current model parameters with an
independent period of observed data. Current recommendations and planned improvements in the
modeling activity for the next several years consist of modeling surface and sub-surface drain tiles,
modeling the wetlands with the newly implemented HSPF wetland module, and a detailed application of
HSPF-AGCHEM module to simulate the mass balance, fate, and transport of nutrients through the
watershed.
References
Bicknell, B.R, J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle, Jr., A.S. Donigian, Jr., and R.C. Johanson. 1993.
Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN, User's Manual for Release 10, EPA/600/R-93/174,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, Athens, GA.
LMIC, 1992. Environmental Planning and Programming Language Version 7 (EPPL7), Release
2.1 User's Guide. Land Management Information Center (LMIC), Minnesota State Planning
Agency, 330 Centennial Bldg, St. Paul, MN.
MPCA, 1994. Minnesota River Assessment Project Report, Volume 1, Workplan and Project
Summary. Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. St. Paul, MN.
-------
Patwardhan, A.S., R.M. Jacobson, A.S. Donigian, Jr., and R.V. Chinnaswamy 1996. HSPF Model
Application to the LeSueur Watershed Preliminary Findings and Recommendations (In
Progress). Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. St. Paul, MN.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Managing Watershed Data with the USEPA Reach
File
Thomas G. Dewald, Spatial Data Integration Coordinator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Sue Ann Hanson, Director of Scientific Applications
Lucinda D. McKay, President
Horizon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA
William D. Wheaton, GIS Program Manager
Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
A key component of watershed assessment is the effective organization and management of watershed
information. The US Environmental Protection Agency's (USEPA) Reach Files are tools expressly
designed to provide a consistent national framework for managing watershed data. The Reach Files are a
set of hydrographic databases of the surface waters of the United States. The files consists of a collection
of surface water features (e.g. streams, lakes, reservoirs, and estuaries) each of which is described both
by a set of attributes and a spatial representation. Two essential characteristics of the Reach File are
Reach Codes and navigation attributes. The Files also contain names for major rivers and many other
-------
streams and lakes.
The Reach Code is the unique identifier which is assigned to each surface water feature in the Reach
File. Using the Reach Code, all types of attributes may be associated with specific locations on features.
The Reach Code can provide the common link for water quality related data from diverse sources.
The Reach Files' navigation attributes define the connected stream network. These attributes provide
connectivity regardless of the presence or absence of topologic continuity of the network's spatial
representation. An additional benefit is the flow direction inherent in the navigation attributes. These
attributes enable the Reach Files to provide hydrologic ordering (the upstream or downstream sequence
of events or conditions encountered in the stream network) as well as network navigation proceeding
either upstream or downstream. Traversal around and through open waters (e.g. wide rivers, lakes, and
reservoirs) is also supported.
Background
The first Reach File was conceived in the 1970s with a proof-of-concept file, known as Reach File
Version 1.0A or RF1A, completed in 1975. The first full implementation, referred to as RF1, was
completed in 1982. RF1 was created from scanned 1:500,000 scale National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA) maps and consisted of approximately 68,000 features comprising 650,000 miles
of stream. RF1 still supports broad-based national applications. During 1987/88, the Feature File of the
US Geological Survey's (USGS) Geographic Names Information System (GNIS) was used to add one
new level of streams to RF1. The resulting file, known as RF2, contained 170,000 features. Development
of the latest Reach File, RF3, began in 1989 and has produced, to date, a preliminary version known as
RF3-Alpha. The RF3 production process involves the overlay of the RF2 file, the GNIS II Feature File,
and the USGS 1988 l:100,000-scale Digital Line Graph Version 3 (DLG3) hydrography. RF3-Alpha
contains nearly 3,300,000 individual hydrographic features and over 93,000,000 coordinate points.
The Reach Files reside on the USEPA's IBM mainframe computer located in Research Triangle Park,
North Carolina. Standard procedures have been developed to extract all or parts of the Reach Files for
use on personal computers (PCs) and UNIX workstations with a variety of custom and commercial
software including Geographic Information Systems (GIS). The remainder of this paper describes a
selection of Reach File applications highlighting various ways the files have been used to facilitate the
management and analysis of water quality information on a watershed basis.
Reach File Application Highlights
One of the primary objectives for developing the Reach File was to provide a common framework for
interrelating data contained in the many USEPA environmental databases. By linking data using Reach
Codes and other data provided by the Reach Files, it is possible to co-analyze data occurring in many
files, and to enrich that analysis by associating information from upstream and downstream. For
example, pollutant discharges, described in the USEPA's Permit Compliance System, may be related to
-------
downstream domestic water supply intakes, stored in the USEPA's drinking water system, and these data
may be related to upstream and downstream water quality monitoring data, from the USEPA's STORET
water quality system. Prior to the existence of the Reach Files, it was impossible to co-analyze these and
other data because they were collected by separate organizations without a common integrating
framework.
The Reach Code is the unique surface water feature identifier that provides the common nomenclature
for integrating water quality data. Any database that links its attributes to Reach Codes can be combined
with any other database containing Reach Codes, thus establishing the upstream and downstream
relationships of these data to one another. Collections of water quality information related to monitoring,
drinking water supplies, permitted dischargers, and dams have been indexed to RF1 and RF3-Alpha. In
addition, flow estimates, e.g., 7-day 10-year low flow, for the reaches defined within RF1 have been
computed to facilitate pollutant modeling.
Spatial analysis and display applications have been developed to retrieve data from these mainframe
databases during upstream and downstream navigation of the Reach Files. For example, during the mid-
1980s, the RF1 was the basis for a national water quality modeling effort. Using RF1 navigation
attributes, pollutants were routed down every stream in RF1 and an estimate for in-stream water quality
was computed for every feature. This application developed relative water quality impact rankings for
municipal treatment facilities throughout the United States. Another example of a mainframe-based
Reach File application is the Environmental Data Display Manager (EDDM) which resides on and is
accessible to users of the USEPA mainframe (Samuels et al 1991). EDDM provides easy access to
several of the USEPA databases mentioned above, as well as automated analyses and reports including
data, graphics, images, and text in formats that can be used by numerous output devices, software
packages, and other computer platforms.
In addition, numerous USEPA programs and offices have found the Reach Files useful for simply
cataloging and categorizing the water resources within the nation and at the state level. The USEPA's
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP) used RF3-Alpha to define a monitoring
framework for lakes throughout the US and the Office of Water currently uses RF3-Alpha to estimate the
Total Waters for each state.
Reach Codes can be combined into expressions that define watersheds or surface water study areas.
Reach expressions are a shorthand means of identifying subsets of the Reach Files ranging from part of a
single reach to all of the hydrologically-connected reaches comprising a large watershed. All of the
reaches upstream or downstream from a single location, with or without tributary reaches, can be
described within a reach expression. A reach expression may also consist of a polygon which defines the
features of interest to be those within the polygon boundaries. Since RF3-Alpha contains the historical
origin of each feature, filtering can be applied to reach expressions to include or exclude those features
identified within RF1, RF2 or RF3. Combining reach expressions with other Reach File attributes, in this
manner, provides a powerful meta-language for defining nearly any combination of features. Reach
expressions have been put to use in the identification of state priority waterbodies for the Waterbody
System, in compliance with section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act. Both RF2 and RF3-Alpha have been
-------
used successfully to describe the 305(b) waterbodies using reach expressions. The Reach File indexing
software, known as PCRF3, provides a convenient and easy-to-use method for building reach
expressions in a PC-based graphical environment. These capabilities have also been implemented using
GIS technology via route systems and dynamic segmentation.
The Reach Files were designed and created prior to the relatively recent growth in GIS technologies.
However, the Reach Files, particularly RF3-Alpha, have proven to be very useful in the GIS
environment. Much of the Reach Files' value can be attributed to several unique characteristics of the
data:
¦ Since Reach File hydrologic connectivity is carried in it's attributes, it maintains connectivity
where topologic discontinuity exists in the original data sources.
¦ Reach File coordinates have been consistently ordered from downstream to upstream.
¦ The Reach File contains names for major rivers and many other streams and lakes.
To support access to RF3-Alpha data for use within GIS applications, procedures exist on the USEPA
IBM mainframe to produce several export formats that can be imported into various PC and UNIX-based
GIS environments.
Several demonstrations of the usability of the Reach File and its navigation attributes have been
developed in a GIS. A spill contingency application developed by the USEPA laboratory located in Las
Vegas, Nevada demonstrated hydrologic routing upstream and downstream, locating and highlighting
water intakes and discharge points that could be potentially impacted by a toxic spill.
Since 1988 individual States have been using a PC-based database program supported by the USEPA
Office of Water, called the Waterbody System (WBS), to enter and manage assessment information
related to their State's waters. The WBS provides States with a mechanism for maintaining consistent
water quality assessment information and reporting that information as required under section 305(b) of
the Clean Water Act. Over the last two years waterbodies defined by States have been geo-referenced to
RF3-Alpha in a GIS environment (Clifford, et al., 1994). The result of this process is the ability to
display, query, map and analyze water quality assessment information from WBS. It also provides
USEPA with a mechanism for aggregating and managing states' data in a consistent nationwide database
of water quality assessments. Figure 1 illustrates the link between WBS assessment data and geo-
referenced waterbodies tied to RF3-Alpha.
For the State of North Carolina, a demonstration project illustrating the usefulness of RF3-Alpha's
network routing structure was completed in 1995. The goal of the project was to code all non-classified
stream reaches with the use classification of the closest downstream segment. Using RF3-Alpha's
network connectivity, a simple program was written to route upstream through the network. As each
reach was traversed, the program checked to determine whether or not it already had a use classification.
-------
If the reach did not have a use classification, it was given the same use classification as the closest
downstream reach in the network.
Another interesting GIS application employing RF3-Alpha was the Rouge River National Wet Weather
Demonstration Program (Westman et al 1994). The RF3-Alpha data was combined with a dynamic
segmentation data model to create a spatial data structure to better manage the Rouge River watershed.
The data structure is designed to allow for the integration of a broad spectrum of information pertaining
to watershed water quality. It supports both hydraulic and hydrologic network analyses and provides a
spatial indexing system for the many different types of data collected by the project. The Rouge River
Project data model operates in both the desktop (PC) and workstation (UNIX) environments.
What's Next?
USGS and USEPA are teaming to complete RF3 during 1996 (EPA 1994). This collaborative effort to
embed the RF3 network and associated attributes within the next release of the USGS's DLG product,
known as DLG-F, positions the agencies for shared maintenance including the incorporation of higher
resolution hydrography from state and local sources.
References
EPA, December 1994, EPA Reach File Version 3.0 Alpha Release (RF3-Alpha) Technical
Reference, Office of Water, US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
Clifford, J., W.D. Wheaton, and R.J. Curry, September 1994, "EPA's Reach Indexing Project -
Using GIS to Improve Water Quality Assessment", presented at CERI Conference on Solving
Environmental Problems Using GIS, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Horn, C.R., S.A. Hanson, and L.D. McKay, May 1994, History of the US EPA's River Reach File:
A National Hydrographic Database Available for ARC/INFO Applications, Paper 275, Presented
at The ESRI User Conference.
Westman, J.A. and B.O. Parks, May 1994, Applications of Dynamic Segmentation for
Development of a Spatial Data Structure the Rouge River, Presented at The ESRI User
Conference.
Hanson, S.A. and M. Scott, March 1993, Implementation of the River Reach Code for the Bureau
of Land Management Anchorage Districts Automated 1:63,360 Hydrography Files, Presented at
the 28th Annual Alaska Surveying and Mapping Conference.
Samuels, W.B., P.L. Taylor, P.B. Evenhouse, T.R. Bondelid, P.C. Eggers, and S.A. Hanson,
December 1991, The Environmental Data Display Manager: A Tool for Water Quality Data
-------
Integration, Paper No. 91074 of Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 27, No. 6.
Dulaney, R.X., M. Olsen, and J. Clifford, Using the EPA RF3 Database to Facilitate Mandated
Water Quality Reporting.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Stream Water-Quality Data from Selected U.S.
Geological Survey National Monitoring Networks
on CD-ROM
Richard B. Alexander
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Terry L. Schertz and Amy S. Ludtke
U.S. Geological Survey, Lakewood, CO
Kathy K. Fitzgerald
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Larry I. Briel
U.S. Geological Survey, Richmond, VA
Introduction
Stream water-quality data from two U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) national monitoring networks, the
Hydrologic Benchmark network and the National Stream Quality Accounting network (NASQAN), are
now available on CD-ROM. These networks provide some of the best available data for quantifying
changes in the water quality of major U.S. streams during the past 20 to 30 years, estimating the rates of
chemical flux from major continental watersheds of the United States, and investigating relations
between water quality and streamflow as well as relations of water quality to watershed characteristics
and pollution sources. Examples of these applications of national network data include Smith et al.
(1987), Lettenmaier et al. (1991), Smith et al. (1993), and Alexander et al. (in press). During the period
-------
of operation, the networks have included a total of 673 monitoring stations in watersheds representing a
wide range of climatic and land cover characteristics. A maximum of about 85 physical, chemical, and
biological properties have been analyzed during more than 60,000 site visits using relatively consistent
sampling and analytical methods. The water-quality data reflect sampling over a wide range of
streamflow conditions. USGS quality-assurance (QA) information on network operations, method
changes, known and suspected data-quality problems, and laboratory measurement error complements
the network environmental data. This QA information assists in the proper use of the environmental data,
and has been used to systematically assess the accuracy of the environmental measurements (see for
example, Alexander et al., 1993). In the following sections, we describe the characteristics of the national
networks, the quality-assurance information associated with the network data, and the contents and
organization of the data presented on CD-ROM.
National Stream Water-Quality Network Characteristics
The selected data published on CD-ROM for the two USGS national stream water-quality networks span
the time period from the beginning of network sampling through early 1994. NASQAN began operation
in 1973 in response to federal and state needs for more systematically-collected information on the
quality of the nation's rivers. Data collection occurred during a period when significant environmental
legislation was being implemented, most notably the Clean Water Act of 1972 and its subsequent
amendments. The primary objectives of the NASQAN program were (1) to measure the quantity and
quality of stream water exiting major watersheds of the United States, (2) to describe spatial variability in
stream water quality, and (3) to detect long-term changes in stream water quality (Ficke and Hawkinson,
1975). Using the Water Resources Council (WRC) hierarchial classification of hydrologic drainage
basins of the United States (Seaber et al., 1987), NASQAN stations were located at the outlets of most of
the WRC's 352 accounting units. This provided equitable geographic coverage of major U.S. rivers, and,
in particular, addressed the goal of accounting for a sizeable fraction of the chemical mass and water
transported from the continent and its major interior watersheds. The watersheds range in area from less
than 100 square miles to tens of thousands of square miles with a median drainage area of about 5,000
square miles.
NASQAN began operation in January, 1973 with 51 stations. An additional 50 stations were added in
1974, with significant expansion occurring in 1975 as the network grew to 345 stations. A total of 612
stations have been monitored since the creation of the network with the largest number of stations in
operation in any single year being 513 stations in 1980. The number of sites was relatively constant at
about 500 from 1980 to 1985. In 1986, a major review of NASQAN led to the elimination of 90 stations
that were either located downstream of major reservoirs, located in close proximity to other stations on
the mainstem of large rivers, or experiencing sampling problems. Thirty-one sites were also added to the
network in 1986 to give a total of about 408 sites. After 1986, budgetary constraints led to steady
declines in the number of sites to about 280 in 1994. The number of stations was sharply reduced in 1995
to 142. In 1996, the network was reduced to 31 stations in the Mississippi, Columbia, Colorado, and Rio
Grande River Basins and seven stations in major coastal drainages of the United States to accomodate
more intensive sampling at each site.
-------
The Hydrologic Benchmark network began operation in the early 1960s, and has included stations in 64
relatively undisturbed watersheds in 37 states. In any given year, the network has typically consisted of
50 to 57 stations. The watersheds range in area from two to 4,000 square miles with a median drainage
area of 57 square miles. The network's purpose is to provide a standard base of hydrologic data from
minimally disturbed watersheds that could be used to accurately investigate naturally-induced changes in
streamflow and water quality (Cobb and Biesecker, 1971). Many of the monitoring stations were located
in national parks, wilderness areas, State parks, national forests, and specially-protected areas set aside
for scientific investigations. A few stations were located in moderately disturbed watersheds (e.g.,
agriculture, logging) in cases where land use was not expected to change radically. The network has
provided excellent opportunities to investigate the effects of atmospherically-derived pollutants on
stream water quality (especially sulfate and nitrogen) independent of the effects of culturally-derived
land disturbances common to most watersheds (e.g., Smith and Alexander, 1986). A survey of the
network was conducted in the early 1990s to evaluate the integrity of each watershed with respect to the
original network objectives. This included assessments of the effects of geologically- and
atmospherically-derived substances such as sulfur on stream chemistry as well as inventories of land use
practices in the watersheds. The survey led to the elimination of six stations and the addition of two sites
in 1993 and 1994 as described in documents included on the CD-ROM.
Water-quality measurements from the two networks have included a comprehensive set of approximately
85 physical, chemical, and biological properties. Sixty-two water properties are included in the published
data on CD-ROM (see Table 1). Instantaneous measurements of streamflow coincident with the time of
water-quality sampling are routinely available. In addition, values of daily mean streamflow are available
for most network stations, and can be used to calculate chemical loads. Radiochemical measurements
have been sampled since the mid 1970s at a subnetwork of about 50 NASQAN stations and at all
Benchmark stations. Most of the biological constituents were monitored prior to 1982, although fecal
bacteria have been monitored in both networks throughout their period of operation. Total recoverable
analyses of trace metals on whole water samples were discontinued in 1982 due to budget reductions.
Selected dissolved trace metals including arsenic, beryllium, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury,
and zinc were discontinued in 1992 because of concerns about sample contamination (Windom et al.,
1991). USGS investigations of trace metal contamination of samples led to the implementation of a new
sample collection and processing protocol for low-level inorganic analyses in 1994 (Horowitz et al.,
1994). The results of these investigations and related documents are provided on the CD-ROM to assist
in the proper use of trace metal data collected prior to 1992. Organic pesticides were measured at about
160 NASQAN stations from 1975 to 1982. These data are not included on the CD-ROM, but have been
previously summarized by the USGS (Gilliom et al., 1985).
Laboratory analyses of water properties have typically been made on dissolved (0.45 micron filtration)
and whole water (total, unfiltered) samples for national network stations (Ficke and Hawkinson, 1975).
All network samples were collected from the water column using depth- and width-integrated techniques
(Edwards and Glysson, 1988) with the exception of pesticide monitoring which also included sampling
and analysis of bed sediment.
-------
Water-quality samples have been collected from the two networks according to fixed time intervals
ranging from monthly to yearly, depending on the constitutent and year (see Table 1). Prior to 1983,
monthly samples were collected at nearly all NASQAN stations and at 34 of the approximately 50
Benchmark stations. In response to budgetary constraints, reductions occurred in sampling frequency at
virtually all stations after 1982. From 1983 to 1994, slightly more NASQAN stations were sampled
bimonthly than quarterly, whereas most Benchmark stations (about 80 percent) were sampled quarterly
with the remaining sites sampled on a bimonthly basis. Beginning in 1996, all Benchmark stations are
scheduled to be sampled only twice a year.
Table 1.
Water Properties and approximate sampling frequencies for U.S. Geological Survey
national water-quality network data on CD-ROM.
Water Properties
Frequencies*
(samples/year)
Physical Measurements

• Temperature, specific conductance (field and lab), dissolved oxygen,
pH (field and lab), suspended sediment, turbidity, instantaneous
streamflow
2-12
• Streamflow, daily mean
365
Major Dissolved Substances

• Calcium, chloride, magnesium, potassium, silica, sodium, sulfat e ,
fluoride, dissolved solids, hardness, alkalinity, bicarbonate, and
carbonate
2-12
Nutrients and Carbon (dissolved, total)

• Ammonia, nitrite, nitrate+nitrite, ammonia+organic nitrogen, and
phosphorus
4 to 12
• Organic Carbon (includes suspended also)
4 to 8
Radiochemicals

• Gross alpha and beta, radium-226, tritium, uranium
1 or 2
-------
Biological Measurements
• Fecal coliform and streptococci
4 to 12
• Periphyton (chlorophyll A and B), periphyton biomass
4
• Phytoplankton (chlorophyll A and B), phytoplankton (total)
7 to 12
Inorganic Trace Elements (Dissolved, total)

• Aluminum, arsenic, barium, beryllium, boron, cadmium, cadmium,
chromium, cobalt, copper, iron, lead, lithium, manganese, mercury,
molybdenum, nickel, selenium, silver, strontium, vanadium, and zinc
4
*The range of sample frequencies for any contituent group reflect differences in frequency
among the two networks, changes in frequency with time, and differences among stations
within a single network. See the text for a discussion of temporal changes in sampling
frequency.
Quality-Assurance of National Water-Quality Network Data
The national network programs have benefited from the use of a variety of USGS quality-assurance
practices for ensuring the accuracy of water-quality measurements. These practices have included the use
of standard methods of sample collection, processing, and analysis, independent evaluations of USGS
laboratory methods using standard reference water samples, and regular training and evaluation of
personnel (Friedman, 1993). A bibliography with references to USGS documentation of standard field
and laboratory methods is provided on the CD-ROM. In addition, a collection of the most relevant
internal USGS memoranda describing network operations, changes in methods, and quality-assurance
problems related to field and laboratory methods are included on the CD-ROM to assist in the proper use
and interpretation of network monitoring data. Summaries of these memoranda and the most significant
method changes and data-quality concerns are also included to assist data users.
National network samples have been routinely analyzed in one or more USGS operated laboratories. In
addition to internal USGS laboratory quality-assurance evaluations, the USGS has operated since 1981
an independent, external program of laboratory quality assurance called the Blind Sample Program (BSP;
see for example, Maloney et al., 1994). In this program, USGS laboratories process and analyze regularly
submitted standard reference water samples (i.e., spiked, natural filtered surface waters) having "known"
chemical concentrations determined as the statistical median of analyses from as many as 150
laboratories (Schroder et al., 1980). Laboratory measurements of reference samples for a wide range of
chemical concentrations are used to estimate the measurement error (i.e., bias and precision) associated
with laboratory analyses of environmental samples. The CD-ROM includes selected BSP data on
-------
measurement bias and precision for the period 1986 to 1994 for nutrients, major dissolved ions, and
inorganic trace elements. Additional details of the BSP data appear in a report included on the CD-ROM.
This report also discusses the various ways of using BSP data to assess the accuracy of the national
network environmental data.
CD-ROM Contents and Organization
The CD-ROM presents all water-quality and ancillary data in an ASCII format. The water-quality and
streamflow ASCII files are organized by the 21 major hydrologic regions (Seaber et al., 1987). Within
each region, as many as 11 data files are available for each network station. These files include a daily
streamflow file and as many as 10 separate water-quality files arranged by constituent classes (e.g.,
nutrients, major dissolved ions). An ASCII file of station attributes includes station number, station
name, watershed name, latitude, longitude, hydrologic unit code (HUC), state, county, and the population
and land cover characteristics for the hydrologic unit containing the station. The BSP data on
measurement bias and precision are presented in two separate ASCII data files. Quality-assurance
information on network operations, significant method changes, and data-quality concerns is provided in
chronologically- and constituent-ordered ASCII files.
DOS-PC search and retrieval software supports logical data queries of station-attribute, water-quality,
and BSP data. The software accesses national data files containing the data for all stations. Water-quality
data may be queried by station, date, station attributes, and water-quality constituent and its value. BSP
data may be queried by date, constituent type, and constituent values of bias and precision. The software
allows user-selected variables and data records to be output in a variety of formats for subsequent use in
other software packages including statistical analysis and geographic information systems.
References
Alexander, R.B., Murdock, P.S., and Smith, R.A. (in press) Streamflow induced variations in
nitrate flux in tributaries to the Atlantic coastal zone. Biogeochemistry.
Alexander, R.B., Smith, R.A., and Schwarz, G.E. (1993) Correction of stream quality trends for
the effects of laboratory measurement bias. Water Resources Research, v. 29. pp. 3821-3833.
Cobb, E.D. and Biesecker, J.E. (1971) The national hydrologic bench-mark network. U.S.
Geological Survey Circular, no. 460-D.
Edwards, T.K. and Glysson, G.D. (1988) Field methods for measurement of fluvial sediment.
U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report. 86-531.
Ficke, J.F. and Hawkinson, R.O. (1975) The national stream quality accounting network
(NASQAN) Some questions and answers. U.S. Geological Survey Circular 719.
-------
Friedman, L.C. (1993) Assuring the reliability of water-quality data, in USGS. National water
summary 1990-9 lHydrologic events and stream water quality. U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Supply paper 2400. Compiled by R.W. Paulson, E.B. Chase, J.S. Williams, D.W. Moody.
Gilliom, R.J., Alexander, R.B., and Smith, R.A. (1985) Pesticides in the nation's rivers, 1975-
1980, and implications for future monitoring. U.S. Geological Survey Water Supply paper 2271.
Horowitz, A.J., Demas, G.R., and Fitzgerald, K.K. (1994) U.S. Geological Survey protocol for the
collection and processing of surface-water samples for the subsequent determination of inorganic
constituents in filtered water. U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report. 94-539.
Lettenmaier, D.P., Hooper, E.R., Wagoner, C., and Faris, K.B. (1991) Trends in stream quality in
the continental United States, 1978-1987. Water Resources Research, v. 27. pp. 327-339.
Maloney, T.J., Ludtke, A.S., and Krizman, T.L. (1994) Quality-assurance results for routine water
analysis in U.S. Geological Survey laboratories, water year 1991. U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Resources Investigations Report. 94-4046.
Schroder, L.G., Fishman, M.J., Friedman, L.C., and Darlington, G.W. (1980) The use of standard
reference water samples by the U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Geological Survey Open File
Report. 80-738.
Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P., and Knapp, G.L. (1987) Hydrologic unit maps. U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294.
Smith, R.A. and Alexander, R.B. (1986) Correlations between stream sulphate and regional S02
emissions. Nature, v. 322. pp. 722-724.
Smith, R.A., Alexander, R.B., and Lanfear, K.J. (1993) Stream water quality in the conterminous
United States Status and trends of selected indicators during the 1980's. in USGS. National water
summary 1990-9l Hydrologic events and stream water quality. U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Supply paper 2400. Compiled by R.W. Paulson, E.B. Chase, J.S. Williams, D.W. Moody.
Smith, R.A., Alexander, R.B., and Wolman, M.G. (1987) Water quality trends in the nation's
rivers. Science, v. 235. pp. 1607-1615.
Windom, H.L., Byrd, J.T., Smith, R.G., and Huan, F. (1991) Inadequacy of NASQAN data for
assessing metal trends in the nation's rivers. Environmental Science and Technology, v. 25, pp.
1137-1142.
-------
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The National Water Information System-A Tool for
Managing Hydrologic Data
John C. Briggs
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Alan M. Lumb,
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is in the final phases of the development of a new hydrologic
database system called the National Water Information System-II (NWIS-II). NWIS-II is a distributed,
UNIX1-based, Ingres relational data base that will manage the hydrologic data collected by USGS
offices, located in the 50 states and Puerto Rico, as well as data collected at major program offices in
Regional centers. The system will be installed on up to 70 sites.
NWIS-II integrates two types of hydrologic data, discrete and time-series, into a single data base.
Discrete data are those collected periodically, such as water-quality analyses, field measurements of
ground-water levels and surface-water flows, information about data collection sites, and well
information. Time-series data are collected and recorded by instruments either on a continuous basis or
an event-driven basis, such as hourly stage or water-level measurements, water-quality monitor records,
and rainfall records. These data are then processed to provide results such as stream discharge calculated
from the stage data.
The NWIS-II system provides major improvements over existing systems including:
¦ All hydrologic data integrated into one data base.
¦ Capability of storing additional types of metadata, information about a measurement or analysis.
-------
¦ Use of a graphical user interface with extensive on-line reference lists.
¦ Integration of a geographical information system with the data base.
¦ Separation of applications for analyzing data from the data base system.
Replacement of Existing Systems
NWIS-II will replace two aging hydrologic data systems. NWIS-I is a minicomputer-based system
distributed in 40 locations and provides local data processing capability to the USGS District Offices.
Once the data are processed locally, they are uploaded to the Water Data Storage and Retrieval System
(WATSTORE), a mainframe-based system maintained in Reston, Virginia. WATSTORE was designed
in the late 1960s to provide data processing for District offices as well as a National data base. It has had
only minor software upgrades and limited increases in the types of data that may be stored within the
system. NWIS-I provided local data processing capability but processed and stored the same limited
types of data as WATSTORE.
Both WATSTORE and NWIS-I store time-series and discrete data in separate data files only loosely
integrated through yet another data file containing site information. Users wanting to retrieve and work
simultaneously with data from the various data files were frustrated by the complexity required to bring
the data together.
Storage of Metadata
NWIS-II marks a major improvement in the amount and quality of information about a measurement or
an analysis that can be stored. Commonly called metadata, this information includes the who, what, why,
when, and how of data collection and analyses. Metadata increases the value of data for reuse. The
original collectors of data selected techniques that met the needs of their intended use of the data. In
some cases, subsequent users of that data are unable to determine what methods were used to collect or
analyze the data and what accuracy was associated with the data. These factors can determine whether
use of the data would be appropriate for a new study. By storing the metadata with the actual data results,
future users of the data can make more accurate assessments of its appropriateness to their needs.
As an example of this increased ability to store metadata, consider a typical visit to a site on a river to
collect water-quality samples. At the site, samples are routinely collected at two locations, 100 yards
downstream from the gaging station at a site suitable for sampling by wading at low flow and 2000 yards
upstream at a bridge for sampling at higher flow. Table 1 shows some examples of the additional data
and metadata that may be stored in NWIS-II.
-------
Table 1. Examples of metadata storage capability in
WATSTORE/NWIS-I and NWIS-II.
Datatype WATSTORE/NWIS-I NWIS-II
Sample location
Gage house location only.
Description of location where
samples were collected.
Sample method
Occasionally stored as a fixed value
code.
Procedure identified along with
specific time, persons sampling,
and comments to describe any
deviations from standard
procedures.
Sample preparation
No information stored.
Complete information including
how composited, split, filtered,
treated , and shipped. Individual
samples can be traced back to
sample method and location.
Measurement or analysis
Result value with a method code
specific to each laboratory.
Result value, procedure used to
make measurement or analysis,
rerun values if any, date and time
of the measurement or analysis.
Each result can be traced back to
an individual sample. Each
procedure can be tracked to a
bibliographic citation
Graphical User Interface
NWIS-II provides a graphical-user interface under the X Window System for data entry and retrieval and
includes extensive reference lists. Users of the system specified that the system should be easy to use and
intuitive for the user. Accessing the reference lists from the graphical-user interface should simplify or
eliminate the need for users to memorize codes and instead allow them to pick from lists of easily
understood information. The NWIS-II system uses 266 reference tables, 18 of which will be maintained
locally; the remainder will be maintained nationally.
In processing time-series data, the graphical-user interface leads the user through the steps required to
convert stream stages to the additional products of streamflow information. The system keeps track of the
steps the user has taken in the process and leads the user to the appropriate next step.
One major advantage of using the graphical-user interface rather than a character-based interface is that
time-series data are easily viewed and edited graphically on the screen. For example, periods of missing
-------
streamflow or water-level records can be estimated by superimposing the hydrograph from another site
and tracing the portion that must be estimated. Hydra, as this portion of NWIS-II is called, gives the user
the ability to quickly view and, if necessary, edit data on screen.
Geographic Information System
A geographic information system (GIS) is an integral part of the NWIS-II system. GIS can be used to
establish or verify the location information of a data site. On the basis of available data coverages,
information such as county, hydrologic unit, river reach, geologic unit, land use, and congressional
district can be automatically entered into the data base. Well data from different sources often will have
slightly different location information. The GIS system notifies users if there is an existing site close to
one being established. This allows the user to determine if the data are for two separate sites or are
actually from the same site.
GIS has increased the flexibility of selecting sites for retrieval of data. Without GIS, users are limited to
spatial searches tied to political units stored in the data base, such as counties or within polygons or
circles. GIS allows the user to specify far more complex retrieval specifications based on the spatial data
layers available. For example, with GIS it is possible to select data for wells located within 1500 meters
of a stream reach or data for surface-water sites located in forested areas.
Using GIS to display sites with data meeting specified criteria gives the hydrologist an additional
interpretive tool or a quality-assurance tool. For example, in a given aquifer, wells that exceed user-
supplied criteria could show a pattern of contamination from a point source.
Interpretive Applications Separated from Data Processing
Applications for interpretation of data are limited within the NWIS-II system. Applications focus on data
entry and verification, processing time-series data such as converting continuous stage data to daily
maximum, minimum, and mean discharge values, and output of data into reports or machine-readable
format. This change from the older NWIS-I and WATSTORE systems reflects the growth of readily
available commercial software, including spreadsheets and statistical packages. NWIS-II produces output
easily imported into these applications.
Other specialized hydrologic application programs that can be used to analyze, review, display, or
synthesize data (as in a model) are external to the NWIS-II system. A separate group within the USGS,
the Hydrologic Analysis Support Section (HASS), writes, maintains, enhances, and distributes USGS-
developed models and application programs. NWIS-II will produce output that can be easily imported
into the HASS programs.
Selected References
-------
Edwards, M.D., Putnam, A.L., and Hutchison, N.E., 1987, Conceptual Design for the National
Water Information System: U.S. Geological Survey Bulletin 1792, 22 p.
Mathey, S.B., ed, 1991, System requirements specification for the U.S. Geological Survey's
National Water Information System II: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 91-525, 622 p.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Boundaries and Digital Elevation Model
of Oklahoma Derived from 1:100,000-Scale Digital
Topographic Maps
Joel R. Cederstrand, Geographer
Alan Rea, Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey, Oklahoma City, OK
Introduction
Good quality digital drainage-basin, or hydrologic-unit maps are needed to support many water-resource
related activities, such as watershed-based planning for Oklahoma. Automated tools to support
delineation of a drainage basin above any point also are needed for activities such as processing surface-
water withdrawal permits and engineering designs of bridges, culverts, and other structures. Standardized
hydrologic-unit maps and digital topographic data sets have been developed to meet these needs.
Prior to the development of data sets described in this report, the most detailed digital basin maps
available on a statewide basis were the nationally-standardized cataloging units that are designated with 8-
digit hydrologic-unit codes derived from 1:250,000-scale maps (Steeves and Nebert, 1994). The
cataloging units were developed as part of a nationally uniform hierarchical system organized by the U.S.
Water Resources Council in the mid-1970's. The system divides the country into regions, subregions,
accounting units, and cataloging units. A hierarchical code consisting of two digits for each level is used
to identify units. Eight-digit cataloging units average 450,000 acres in size (Seaber et al., 1987). The U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly known as the Soil
Conservation Service (SCS), further divided cataloging units into subunits with 11-digit hydrologic-unit
codes in Oklahoma. Unlike the hydrologic units of higher levels, many of the NRCS subunits were
delineated along project or administrative boundaries rather than hydrologic divides.
-------
The availability of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and digital data sets made it possible to
automate the watershed-delineation process using Digital Elevation Models (DEM's). However, many of
the existing DEM's were derived from old, inaccurate topographic data using outdated techniques of data
conversion. Many DEM's were created using older methods that introduced systematic errors into the
DEM's. Additionally, l:100,000-scale hypsography (land-surface point elevation and contours) and
hydrography data in Digital Line Graph (DLG) format became available for the entire state in early 1995.
New GIS algorithms were available, allowing the use of the DLG data to produce a statewide DEM and
watershed map of better quality than previously available.
Approach
The ANUDEM1 software package, version 4.4, developed by Michael Hutchinson at Australian National
University was used to make a statewide DEM with a horizontal grid-cell resolution of 60 meters. Four
types of input data were used for the production of the DEM: both contour-line and point hypsography,
hydrography, and depressions extracted from the hypsography data. After processing with ANUDEM,
further processing was done to remove all depressions except a few large depressions. Watershed outlet
points were selected and watersheds were delineated using an automated process, followed by interactive
editing of the watershed boundaries.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) l:100,000-scale Digital Line Graph (DLG) files were used for input
hypsography data. The DLG files were converted into ARC/INFO coverage format and elevations were
associated with the contours and points.
ANUDEM retains depressions specified by the user. ANUDEM requires that a depression be represented
by a point within the depression. Small depressions those less than 3 cells wide at the widest are likely to
be smoothed over by the gridding algorithm, so only depressions larger than this were specified for
retention. The elevations associated with these points were set to the elevation of the surrounding
depression contours minus half of the contour interval.
The l:100,000-scale hydrography data were acquired in the form of ARC/INFO data sets. When acquired,
these data had been separated into hydrologic cataloging units but were later appended into one data set.
These data were an early release of the River-Reach File (RF-3) distributed by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA). Cataloging units that included any part of Oklahoma were processed.
Four significant problems in the RF-3 were corrected before use in ANUDEM. 1. Many small
waterbodies and streams that were not connected to the main stream network were eliminated. 2.
Centerlines were generated for all large lakes, wide streams, and other waterbodies. The polygons
forming the waterbodies were removed. 3. ANUDEM requires that all hydrographic lines point
downstream, so all lines pointing upstream were flipped. 4. The RF-3 data were incorrect in several
places. Large parts of several rivers and lakes were missing and two streams were incorrectly connected at
their headwaters. Also, the stream segments in an area covering one 7.5-minute quadrangle were shifted
approximately one kilometer to the west. Corrections were made using data extracted from the USGS
-------
1:100,000-scale hydrography DLG's.
The ANUDEM software is based on an algorithm that produces a hydrologically-conditioned DEM by
interpolating elevations using hypsography and hydrography data. It uses a method of drainage
enforcement to remove erroneous depressions from the DEM. The drainage enforcement algorithm
"significantly increase[s] the accuracy, especially in terms of their drainage properties, of digital elevation
models" (Hutchinson, 1989). This algorithm removes depressions only when drainage conditions
contradict input elevation data by less than a user-specified tolerance. The interpolation method is
implemented by fitting a thin-plate spline to the data, conditioned by a surface-specific roughness penalty
(Hutchinson, 1989). Four user-specified tolerances are used to control how the data are interpolated. The
tolerances were set as suggested in the software documentation, based on the contour interval of the
USGS quadrangle maps being processed.
The state could not be processed at one time because of computer storage limitations and contour interval
differences. When available, data from quadrangles adjacent to the state boundary were used. Different
tolerances were used for each processing block according to the contour interval. The processing blocks
overlapped, in most cases, by 12 kilometers on each side. All input hypsography and hydrography data
were appended and trimmed to cover the areas for each processing block. After ANUDEM processing, 6
kilometers were trimmed from the overlapping edges of each processing block, to avoid problems
introduced by interpolations near the edges of the input data sets. The elevations in the remaining
overlapping areas were averaged together using a distance-weighted method. Using the ARC/INFO GRID
function MOSAIC (ESRI, 1994), the processing blocks were combined to create two DEMs: one for the
Oklahoma panhandle and the other for the rest of the state.
The combined DEM's resulting from ANUDEM processing contained numerous depressions that had not
been removed by the drainage-enforcement algorithm using the specified tolerances. Because the
presence of many small depressions would complicate the process of watershed delineation and because
most depressions in DEM's are errors resulting from the representation of the surface in raster form
(Jenson and Domingue, 1988 and Hutchinson, 1989), the DEM's were processed using the ARC/INFO
command FILL in the GRID module, an implementation of the approach outlined by Jenson and
Domingue (1988). The FILL command fills depressions to their pour points that are the minimum
elevations along the drainage basin boundaries of the depressions. The identification and removal of
depressions is an iterative process. Filling a depression may create new depressions along its boundaries
that will be filled in the next iteration (ESRI, 1994). In order to retain large depressions such as playa
lakes, cells with values of nodata were entered at the centers of depressions larger than 3 cells wide shown
by depression contours on the 1:100,000-scale USGS topographic quadrangles. Areas draining into cells
with a value of nodata were not filled by this procedure. After the FILL procedure, the original elevations
were replaced into the cells that had been set to nodata.
The two filled DEM's were trimmed to have a 12-kilometer overlap. They were combined using the
MOSAIC function to create a seamless statewide DEM with floating-point elevations in meters. The
direction of steepest descent for each cell (flow direction) was computed from the statewide floating-point
DEM. To save disk space, the DEM elevations were rounded to the nearest meter after calculation of flow
-------
directions.
A statewide grid of accumulated flow was generated from the flow-direction grid. Accumulated flow is
the number of cells flowing into each cell in the output grid. Cells with high accumulated flow values may
be used to identify stream channels. Cells with accumulated flow values of zero are local topographic
highs and can be used to identify ridges and drainage basin boundaries. To save disk space, the
accumulated flow data were reclassified to five categories.
Watershed boundaries were derived from the flow-direction data set using automated procedures (Jenson
and Domingue, 1988). The flow-accumulation data set was used in the selection of watershed pour points
or outlets. Outlets were selected at stream confluences in cells with high accumulated flow. Some errors
were observed when the boundaries derived from the DEM were compared with the 1:100,000-scale
contours and streams. The boundaries were revised so that the watershed boundaries would be consistent
with the contours and streams from 1:100,000-scale quadrangle maps. Errors were corrected interactively
using the ARCEDIT module of ARC/INFO. Watershed delineation was done using the two separately
filled DEM's, one for the panhandle, the other for the rest of the state. The two data sets of watershed
boundaries were combined after the necessary revisions were made, then hydrologic-unit codes were
added. Eleven-digit watershed codes were assigned following guidelines established in USDA National
Instruction 170-304 (USDA, 1995). The first 8 digits of the 11 -digit codes match the nationally-
standardized system of hydrologic cataloging units. The last three digits generally begin at 010 and
increase by ten for each watershed downstream within a cataloging unit. The watershed boundaries were
trimmed to the state boundary and inserted into 1:250,000-scale 8-digit cataloging-unit boundaries for the
rest of the Arkansas, Red, and White River basins.
Several closed basins not draining into the main stream network resulted from the retention of large
depressions. Boundaries of these closed basins, known as noncontributing drainage areas, are provided as
a separate data set.
Results
The project described in this report resulted in the production of a seamless hydrologically-conditioned
statewide DEM of Oklahoma with a horizontal grid-cell resolution of 60 meters. The DEM is well suited
for automated watershed delineation. Because the centerlined stream network was used in the creation of
the DEM rather than water-body polygons, the DEM is not flat in the areas covered by water. In some
cases, contours of the land surface before construction of reservoirs were included in the DLGs and were
used with ANUDEM. Because these input data were used, DEM elevations in areas covered by water are
not reliable. Four grid data sets and three vector data sets resulted from this project. The four grid data
sets prepared are the hydrologically conditioned DEM of Oklahoma, the flow-direction data set, the
reclassified flow-accumulation data set, and the shaded-relief data set derived from the statewide DEM.
The three vector data sets prepared are the watershed boundaries for Oklahoma with hydrologic
cataloging units outside Oklahoma, noncontributing drainage areas, and the downstream-directed stream
centerline network used in the generation of the DEM. The statewide data set of watershed boundaries
consists of 11-digit subdivisions of the nationally-standardized 8-digit cataloging units. The watershed
-------
map has been edited to be consistent with the contours and streams shown on USGS 1:100,000-scale
quadrangle maps. A shaded-relief data set was created by using the HILLSHADE function of the GRID
module of ARC/INFO Version 7.0.2 (ESRI, 1994) on the statewide floating-point DEM.
References
Environmental Systems Research Institute, Inc. (ESRI). (1994) GRID Command References,
ARC/INFO Version 7.0.2 ArcDoc, Redlands, CA. [On-line documentation]
Hutchinson, M. F. (1989) A new procedure for gridding elevation and stream data with automatic
removal of spurious pits: Journal of Hydrology, v.106, p. 211-232.
Jenson, S.K. and Domingue, J.O. (1988) Software tools to extract topographic structure from
digital elevation data for geographic information system analysis: Photogrammetric Engineering
and Remote Sensing, v. 54, no. 11, p. 1593-1600.
Seaber, P.R., Kapinos, F.P. and Knapp, G.L. (1987) Hydrologic unit maps: U.S. Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper 2294.
Steeves P. and Nebert, D. (1994) Hydrologic-unit maps of the conterminous United States: U.S.
Geological Survey.
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. (1995) Mapping and digitizing watershed and
subwatershed hydrologic unit boundaries (Working Draft, June 1995), National Instruction 170-
304.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now
outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official
positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Best Management Practices: Cost-Effective Solutions to
Protect Maine's Water Quality
Kevin Feuka, P.E., Project Manager
Dufresne-Henry, Inc., Portland, ME
Sherry Hanson, Local Government Coordinator
Casco Bay Estuary Project, Portland, ME
Nonpoint source pollution is a major contributor to water quality degradation in the lakes, rivers, streams, and coastal waters of
Maine. Concerns about the impacts of storm water runoff from urban, suburban, agricultural, and timber harvesting areas have
prompted several Maine regulatory agencies to develop manuals describing best management practices (BMPs) and to require
their use on construction activities licensed by the Maine Department of Environmental Protection.
While some development projects require state permits, the majority require only municipal review and permitting under locally-
adopted land use ordinances. Most ordinances do not have specific performance standards for erosion control or storm water
quality management and do not require the use of BMPs.
In 1990, Casco Bay, an estuary located in the most populous southern region of Maine, was designated as an estuary of national
significance and included in the National Estuary Program. Impacts from the increased volume of polluted storm water runoff
caused by the rapid pace of suburban development in the watershed are a priority concern for the future health of Casco Bay.
Increasing the use of BMPs in all land use activities has been identified as an effective tool for reducing these impacts while
accommodating future growth.
Interviews with local elected officials and the volunteer planning boards which are responsible for reviewing and approving
local land use permits revealed a limited understanding of BMPs. In addition, both groups expressed concerns about the
additional costs that may be imposed on developers and residents if these techniques were required for local development.
The Casco Bay Estuary Project (CBEP) determined that information about the use of BMPs in a range of Maine development
projects and evidence that these practices could be cost effective for both municipalities and property owners would be useful in
promoting a wider acceptance of BMPs by municipal officials.
The CBEP selected Dufresne-Henry, Inc. (consulting engineers), Timson & Peters, Inc. (environmental services), and Walnut
Hill Graphics (graphics design and layout) to develop a product which would:
¦ Educate municipal officials and the public about BMPs and the range of techniques available; and
-------
¦ Demonstrate that BMPs are cost-effective.
The project team which included the CBEP identified three tasks to meet the project objectives:
¦ Research existing studies that document the cost effectiveness of BMPs.
¦ Research and document case studies, preferably in Maine, that highlight the cost-effective use of BMPs in various types
of land use activities.
¦ Develop a booklet documenting the case studies in an attractive format suitable for public distribution.
Research of Existing Studies
Research for existing studies that document the comparison of BMP installation costs to the costs incurred to maintain or repair
a site where no BMPs were used was unsuccessful. The majority of studies reviewed provided the following types of
information:
¦ An estimate of the pollutant removal efficiency associated with various BMPs.
¦ A conceptual discussion of comparative costs associated with various BMPs that achieve similar water quality
protection.
A bibliography with annotations of the relevant sources is included as an appendix to the project's final report which is available
from the authors of this paper.
Case Study Selection
Municipal, regional, and state agencies were consulted in developing a comprehensive list of potential projects to be reviewed
for successfully implemented BMPs and analyzed for the cost-effectivness of the BMPs.
The sites selected reflect the range of land-use categories found throughout the Casco Bay watershed including:
¦ Residential
¦ Commercial
¦ Timber harvesting
¦ Roadways
¦ Agricultural
In documenting the nine case study sites, it became apparent to the project team that in most cases, a direct cost/benefit ratio
was not obtainable. Therefore, the test for cost effectiveness was one of the following:
¦ The BMP cost was low compared to the costs of conventional construction practices.
¦ The BMP cost was small when compared to the overall project cost.
¦ The BMP provided additional aesthetic benefits that cannot be easily assigned a dollar value.
-------
Following is a profile of one project from each land-use category.
Residential
During the past twenty years, Maine has experienced significant growth in the number of single-family, year-round homes
around many lakes. Residents around China Lake have witnessed regular algal blooms as a result of phosphorus loading from
residential and agricultural activities in the watershed. One concerned couple incorporated two BMPs into the design for an
addition to their lakeside home to reduce the impact of stormwater runoff from the additional impervious surface:
¦ Infiltration trenches with filter fabric and crushed stone were placed along the drip line of the house instead of the
traditional gutters and downspouts.
¦ A vegetative buffer of shrubs and wildflowers was planted along the top of the shoreline bank.
The traditional approach of gutters and downspouts was estimated to cost $800, slightly more than the infiltration trenches and
vegetative buffer which cost approximately $750. The owners were pleased that the infiltration trenches and buffer allow the
subsurface soils and vegetation to absorb the phosphorus.
Commercial
L.L. Bean, Inc. of Freeport, Maine recently completed construction of a major expansion which included a 7.5 acre building and
6.0 acres of paved roadways and parking lots. The company's consulting engineers designed stormwater management systems
to regulate storm water runoff in each of the two primary watersheds draining the site. Each system included:
¦ A water quality pond to treat the "first flush."
¦ A detention pond to regulate the discharge rate to the receiving stream.
The approximate cost for grading, stabilization, vegetation, and piping associated with both 23,000 cubic feet water quality
ponds was $20,000. The site work cost for the entire site including earthwork, erosion control, structural fill, detention ponds,
paving, curbing, landscaping, and lighting was $2,000,000, while the total project cost, including building construction, was
$11,000,000. The $20,000 cost of the water quality ponds represented less than 0.2 percent of the total project cost,
$11,000,000.
Timber Harvesting
A Soil and Water Conservation District maintains approximately 126 acres in southern Maine to demonstrate proper forestry
management. The heavy machinery traffic typically associated with silvicultural practices causes erosion by disturbing low-
lying, vegetative cover. Because most erosion problems result from the road systems built into the forest to collect the product,
the District included BMPs designed to minimize soil loss from truck traffic over unpaved roads. The BMPs include:
¦ A gate to prevent unauthorized traffic.
¦ A landing, or central staging area for the storage and transport of timber.
¦ Stone fords and fabric crossings that provide strength for truck crossings, allow water drainage, and trap sediment.
¦ Water bars and broad-based drainage dips that provide frequent points from which water can drain.
-------
¦ Vegetative ground cover to stabilize the soils.
The total cost to install the BMPs along the 1,700 linear feet of roadway was $2,815. The cost effectiveness was determined by
comparing the cost of the BMP installation to the annual road maintenance costs of $3,000 for a similarly sized roadway with
no BMPs in another town.
Agricultural
The University of Suthern Maine operates a working beef cattle farm in Freeport. Dedicated to research and education on
agriculture and proper resource management, the facility is supported by its retail beef sales. The property abuts Casco Bay and
has highly erosive soils that are easily washed into the Bay if not managed with proper conservation practices.
The facility adopted rotational grazing and an in-paddock livestock watering system to minimize the potential for erosion.
Rotational grazing divides a large parcel into smaller paddocks which are grazed one at a time, for a sufficient duration to
harvest the existing forage while not allowing consumption of new growth. Water is provided to each paddock helping to
prevent erosion by reducing vegetation loss as animals travel to watering locations. It also prevents manure from being
concentrated in one central location allowing it to be more easily absorbed into the paddock areas.
The benefits of rotational grazing are documented in a study from another local farm. These include:
¦ Increased value of the pasture in the number of animal days it supports.
¦ Savings in feed supplements and labor costs to provide feed.
¦ Improved quantity and quality of milk production.
That study documented $3.70 in benefits for every $1.00 invested in the BMPs.
Roadways
A steep, gravel road along Thompson Lake in Poland, Maine serves both seasonal and year-round residences. Each spring, the
town's road crew had to repair storm water damage to the road by replacing lost gravel and regrading the surface. Local
residents claim that the erosion was contributing to siltation and sandbars in the Lake forcing a local boat launch to be closed.
The town worked with the local Soil and Water Conservation District to incorporate several BMPs:
¦ Ditch stabilization to prevent erosion by protecting exposed soils with vegetation or stone.
¦ Intermediate ditch turnouts and culverts to divert runoff to avoid overloading ditches.
¦ Level-lip spreaders to disperse concentrated storm water flow across wide, vegetated areas.
A ten-year payback period was estimated in comparing the $20,000 capital BMP cost to the $2,000 annual maintenance costs.
Avoided "costs" include the continued deterioration of recreational uses and the possibility of lowered property values.
Case Study Booklet
The third project task was the creation of an attractive, nontechnical case study booklet which would appeal to municipal
officials and the general public. The booklet, BMPs: Cost-Effective Solutions to Protect Maine's Water Quality, is a marketing
tool for BMPs. For each of the nine case study sites, it offers a brief problem description, a simple explanation of the BMP
-------
solution, a cost-effectiveness analysis, and a testimonial from the property owner. The graphic layout is informal, easy to read,
and avoids technical jargon wherever possible. A sample graphic from the booklet is included as Figure 1.
BMP:
Cost Analysis:
Alternative:
$75 O

Wildf lower
, Duffer
Trench —

Figure 1. Sample cost analysis graphic.
The booklet has been well received by municipal boards and will be used more extensively in several municipal technical
assistance programs scheduled for winter/spring 1996.
References
Casco Bay Estuary Project (1995) BMPs: Cost-Effective Solutions to Protect Maine's Water Quality.
Dufresne-Henry, Inc. (1995) Final Report on An Analysis of the Cost Effectiveness of Best Management Practices.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The StormTreat System Used as a Storm Water
Best Management Practice
Lisa A. Allard, Project Engineer
Edward Graham, Ph. D., P.E.
Parsons Engineering Science, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Winfried Platz, P.E.
Rick Carr
StormTreat Systems, Inc., Hyannis, MA
James Wheeler, P.E.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
The STORMTREATTM System (STS), developed in 1994, is a storm water treatment technology
consisting of a series of sedimentation chambers and constructed wetlands which are contained within a
modular, 2.9-meter diameter recycled-polyethylene tank, as shown in Figure 1. Influent is piped into the
sedimentation chambers where pollutant removal processes such as sedimentation and filtration occur.
Storm water is conveyed from the sedimentation chambers to a fringing constructed wetland where it is
retained for five to ten days prior to discharge. Unlike most constructed wetlands for storm water
treatment, the storm water is conveyed into the subsurface of the wetland and through the root zone. It is
within the root zone that greater pollutant attenuation occurs through processes such as filtration,
adsorption, and biochemical reactions.
-------
Current Status
The first STS was installed in Kingston, Massachusetts (MA) and has been operational since November
1994. The need for a storm water treatment system in this area became evident as increased bacteria
levels caused the closing of shellfish beds in the Jones River. Additional systems were installed in 1995
in the City of Gloucester, MA, the Town of Harwich, MA, and the Town of Waltham, MA. Two systems
were installed in November 1995 in Gloucester to help mitigate impacts to the downstream shellfish beds
which had been identified as having high counts of fecal coliform bacteria. The system installed in
Harwich in November 1995 treats polluted runoff from the town landing prior to discharge to Wychmere
Harbor, a scenic boating harbor on Cape Cod. A system was also installed at GTE in Waltham in October
1995. The industrial complex is located in a sensitive watershed. The system collects rooftop runoff and
runoff from a parking lot. If these installed systems prove to be cost effective, there are additional needs
in Massachusetts where 40 percent of the shellfish beds have been closed due to high levels of metals and
bacteria.
The STS has applications in wide range of settings. The system's size and modular configuration make it
adaptable to a wide range of site constraints and watershed sizes. Designers of the system indicate that
the system can be used to treat runoff from highways, parking lots, airports, marinas, and commercial,
industrial, and residential areas. The STS is an appropriate storm water treatment technology for both
coastal and inland areas. The manufacturers of the system indicate that the STS could be used throughout
the US, with only minor modifications to the system to make it effective in that geographical area.
Applications
Performance
Preliminary monitoring results from four sets of
samples collected in November 1994, December
1994, and February 1995 indicate removal rates of
94 percent for total coliform bacteria, 83 percent for
fecal coliform bacteria, 95 percent for total
suspended solids, and 90 percent for total petroleum
hydrocarbons, as shown in Table 1. Preliminary
nutrient removal rates have been determined to be
44 percent for total dissolved nitrogen, 89 percent
for total phosphorus (TP), and 32 percent for
orthophosphorus. Total nitrogen (TN) performance
data are not available at this time; however, the
manufacturer of the system indicates that they
should be high based on the results of other wetland
systems where particulates, and therefore TN, are
Orthophophorus
Total Dissolved Nitrogen
Total Phosphorus
Chemical Oxygen Demand
Total Coliform Bacteria
Fecal Coliform Bacteria
Total Suspended Solids
Pollutant
Table 1. STORMTREAT(TM) Monitoring
Results.
Percentage
Removed
94
83
95
75
44
89
32
-------
removed. Removal rates are anticipated to increase
as the wetland vegetation becomes more established
and during warmer months. The pollutant removal
rates achieved by the system for other pollutants are
as follows: 65 percent for lead, 98 percent for
chromium, and 90 percent for zinc.
Design Criteria
The STS is a modular, 2.9-meter diameter recycled-polyethylene tank containing a series of
sedimentation chambers and constructed wetlands. The sedimentation chambers are in the inner ring of
the tank, which has a diameter of nearly 1.7 meters. The 2.9 meter diameter outer ring, which surrounds
the sedimentation chambers, contains the wetland. The tank walls and bulkheads, which separate the
sedimentation chambers, have a height of 1.2 meters.
Flow enters the STS unit by connecting to existing catch basins with PVC piping. Influent is conveyed
through the PVC piping to the first of six internal sedimentation chambers. The 10.2 cm diameter inlet
pipe is covered with a burlap sack that traps larger particles and debris. Synthetic screens and woven
geotextiles placed within the bulkheads filter the flow as it passes into the succeeding chamber. Flow is
conveyed through larger mesh sizes in the first series of sedimentation chambers, followed by smaller
mesh sizes in the remaining sedimentation chambers. In addition to the filter screens, skimmers have
been installed in the tanks. Skimmers replace the previously used screens and combination of screens and
skimmers. The screens and skimmers perform the same pollutant removal mechanism; however, the
screens require more maintenance than the skimmers.
The skimmers float on the water surface within each chamber and have an opening 15.2 cm below the
surface through which flow is conveyed to the following tank. The skimmers prevent sediment from
being conveyed to the subsequent chamber. Sediments which collect in the bottom of the chamber
remain in that chamber until the unit is maintained. The bulkhead separating the last two sedimentation
chambers is fitted with an inverted elbow which traps oil and grease within the fifth chamber. The elbow
is located approximately 25.4 cm from the chamber bottom.
Flow is conveyed from the last sedimentation chamber through four, 10.2 cm diameter, PVC, slotted
outlet pipes into the wetland portion of the STS. Storm water flows subsurface through the length of the
wetland, which has a length of 7 meters, width of 0.7 meters, and contains 0.9 meters of gravel and sand.
The types of gravel used at the Kingston facility are rice stone (0.6 cm ) and bluestone (1 cm). The
weight of the gravel provides the force that counteracts the buoyancy forces that would be present at a
high water table site. The wetland has approximate storage capacity of 2,880 liters. The entire system has
a capacity of 5,260 liters.
Vegetation within the wetland will vary depending on the local, naturally occurring wetland vegetation
and the maximum expected root depth of the plant. Bulrush and burreeds have been used in
Total Petroleum ^
Hydrocarbons
Lead 65
Chromium 98
Zinc 90
-------
Massachusetts and have maximum root depths of 0.8 and 0.6 meters, respectively (EPA, 1993). Mature
vegetation should have roots that extend into the permanent 15.2 cm of water in the bottom of the tank.
Insufficient root depth may result in a lack of water supply to the plants during the periods between storm
events.
Effluent from the wetland is discharged through a 5.1 cm diameter pipe that is controlled by a valve.
Flow rates and holding times can be varied by manipulating the outlet control valve. At the Kingston
facility, the control valve is adjusted to provide for a recommended discharge rate of 0.8 1/min. and a 5-
day holding time in the wetland. The valve has an added benefit that in the event of an upstream toxic
spill the valve can be closed and the pollutants will be trapped in the STS.
Tanks are available in one size but multiple tanks can be installed at a site to capture the volume of
runoff from the site. The size of the tank was selected so that the prefabricated tanks could be transported
without requiring conformance to oversized load regulations. The determination of the number of tanks
needed for a site is based on three factors:
¦ Area of impervious drainage surfaces.
¦ Design storm to be treated.
¦ Detention storage prior to the STS tanks.
To capture and treat the first 0.6 cm of runoff from 0.4 hectares of a completely impervious drainage
area, the designers of the system estimate that two tanks would be required when preliminary detention is
provided and five tanks when it is not. For a design storm of 1.3 cm, four tanks are required with
preliminary detention and ten tanks without preliminary detention. Preliminary detention may be
provided in the drainage pipes and catch basins which convey flow to the STS. In some instances,
settling tanks may be located upstream that detain the runoff. A typical site would require 9.3 m3 per
tank, which includes sufficient space for the tank and access to the tank for maintenance.
Maintenance
Anticipated maintenance of the STS is minimal. The system should be observed at least once a year to be
sure that it is operating effectively. At that time the burlap sack that covers the influent line should be
removed and replaced. If the system installed uses filters, these should be removed, cleaned, and
reinstalled. Sediment should be removed from the system once every 2 to 3 years, unless the system has
higher than normal sediment loads. After six months of operation the unit installed in Kingston, MA was
found to have 5.1 cm of accumulated sediment. The sediment can be pumped from the tank by septic
haulers or by maintenance personnel responsible for sediment removal from catchbasins. It is not
anticipated that the sediment will be toxic and may be safely landfilled. However, sediment toxicity will
depend on the activities in the contributing drainage area and testing of the sediment may be required to
determine if it should be considered hazardous.
Costs
-------
The STS is a prefabricated unit that is easily installed in most locations. Installation time for a normal
site (i.e., bedrock not encountered) is approximately four man-days. This time includes both site
preparation and installation. The estimated cost for one installed tank is $3,600 to $4,000, which includes
the site work, tank, skimmers, gravel, wetland plants, external PVC piping, and installation by the
manufacturer. Costs of systems that have been installed or are planned for installation have been lower
that the estimated costs due to the municipalities providing the site preparation at no charge. The higher
end of the cost range may be encountered if complications with site preparation occur. Capital and
installation costs decrease as the number of units on a site increases. The cost for an installed system
consisting of four tanks is approximately $15,000. The four tank system would effectively treat a 0.4
hectares, completely impervious drainage area with preliminary detention designed to capture the first
1.3 cm of runoff.
The estimated maintenance cost for removal of sediment from one tank ranges from $100 to $150. This
cost is incurred every two to three years when sediment removal is necessary. Costs have not been
determined for an annual site inspection and removing any debris and leaves from the wetland area.
However, these costs should be minimal (i.e., one day of labor for one person).
Environmental Impacts
Systems have been installed in Massachusetts due to the increased bacteria levels resulting in the closing
of shellfish beds. Regulators and environmental groups in Massachusetts are concerned over the closing
of 40 percent of the shellfish beds in the state and are utilizing storm water management practices,
including the STS, to improve the water quality in the downstream beds. The STS also protects the
groundwater by removing pollutants prior to infiltration. The STS has shown high TPH, TP, metals, and
suspended solids removal rates, which improves water quality. An additional benefit of the STS is the
system's spill containment feature which results in capture of a release, and therefore, lessens the impact
from the spill on the environment.
References
StormTreat Systems, Inc., date unknown. Technical Data for STORMTREATTM System.
Barnstable, Massachusetts (relocated to Hyannis, MA).
StormTreat Systems, Inc., 1995. STORMTREATTM Systems Newsletter. Barnstable,
Massachusetts (relocated to Hyannis, MA).
Horsley, Scott W. and Winfried Platz, January 4, 1995. Progress Report: Water Quality
Monitoring at Elm Street Facility, Barnstable, Massachusetts (relocated to Hyannis, MA).
Horsley, Scott W., June 15, 1995. The STORMTREATTM System ANew Technology for
-------
Treating Storm Water.
Horsley & Witten, Inc., 1995. Fact SheetModeling of Water Flow Through the
STORMTREATTM System.
EPA, July 1993. Subsurface Flow Constructed Wetlands for Wastewater Treatment: A
Technology Assessment. EPA 832-R-93-001.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Source Identification and Control for
Heavy Metals
Louis J. Armstrong
Peter Mangarella, Ph.D., P.E.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Oakland CA
Janet Corsale
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Portland, OR
This paper describes work performed to identify significant pollution sources and potential controls in
the urbanized watershed of the Santa Clara Valley, a 360 square mile area that contains approximately
1.4 million people. The work was conducted by the Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution
Control Program, a consortium of 15 municipal agencies in the Santa Clara Valley, in response to
NPDES storm water and total maximum daily load (TMDL) regulatory requirements.
The paper describes the process by which water quality monitoring, modeling results, and ecological data
were evaluated to prioritize metals of concern discharged from the watershed into South San Francisco
Bay, a water quality limited water body. The metals of concern were the 304(1) listed metals which
consisted of cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, mercury, nickel, silver, and zinc.
Sources of metals were organized into five source classes: atmospheric emissions, automotive, industrial,
residential, and water supply. Within each of these classes, source activities were identified. For each
source activity, a "pathway diagram" was developed which described how pollutants could enter the
storm drain system. Local and national data were then analyzed to estimate the percentage of the mean
annual nonpoint source load to south San Francisco Bay associated with each source. A prioritization of
sources for each metal was then conducted based on the relative contribution of each source. A major
source of copper was identified as brake pad wear, and a subsequent study was conducted to evaluate the
-------
amount of copper contained in various types of brake pads.
Based on the prioritization of sources, a control program was developed that consisted of 26 specific
control measures. One of the more striking results of the source identification is that most of the major
sources are regulated under other environmental regulations (e.g., the Clean Air Act) or other local
jurisdictions and regulatory agencies. Successful implementation of controls therefore requires active
coordination with other jurisdictions and regulatory agencies.
Prior Work Relevant To Source Identification
The Santa Clara Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program has been conducting monitoring and
modeling studies for several years which in part have been directed at identifying sources of nonpoint
source pollution. In general, these studies were designed to identify fairly broad classes of sources (i.e.,
as associated with different land-use types) rather than specific individual sources within a given land-
use area.
Since 1987, wet- and dry-weather runoff sampling and flow measurements have been conducted as part
of a comprehensive monitoring program at various stations throughout the Santa Clara Valley. Water
samples have been analyzed for a broad range of water quality parameters and toxicity. Sediment
samples have also been analyzed. The resulting data have been reported in a series of documents
provided to the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board as part of the permit
application and subsequent annual. The purpose of these studies included problem identification,
development of control measures, compliance evaluation, and broad scale source identification.
Approach for Identification of Sources
A step-by-step approach was used for identifying important sources, identifying controls, and developing
a strategy for targeting controls for specific sources and specific pollutants. The specific steps taken
were:
¦ Select Target Metals
¦ Select Source Classes (including conducting a literature review, identifing representative source
classes, selecting categories, and selecting sources and pathways)
¦ Prioritize Sources
¦ Develop Source Control Measures
Selection Of Target Metals
To select which metals are possibly causing adverse impacts in streams serving as tributaries to the
Lower South San Francisco Bay, monitoring data and toxicity identification evaluation (TIE) were
reviewed for evidence of metal toxicity. Based on this review, copper and mercury were selected as first-
-------
tier priority metals, with nickel, lead, and zinc selected as second-tier metals for implementation of
control strategies. The remaining 304(l)-listed metals (cadmium, chromium, silver) were identified as
third-tier implementation metals based on lack of water quality exceedances or low concentrations in
storm water as compared to other sources.
Selection Of Source Classes
Pollutant sources have been organized into five classes of sources. Individual sources have been grouped
into land-use classes or area-wide source classes. The term land-use sources refers to activities that are
principally associated with a specific land use (e.g., illegal dumping/disposal of household products is a
residential source). The term area-wide sources refers to activities that tend to cut across geographic lines
or are associated with mobile sources (e.g., automotive emissions). The source classes chosen are as
follows.
Source Class A: Atmospheric Emissions
These are emissions from stationary point sources (e.g., industrial and commercial) and mobile sources
(e.g., tail-pipe emissions from cars and trucks) that indirectly contribute to runoff pollution by affecting
the quality of rainfall and dryfall.
Source Class B: Automotive
These are sources associated with the maintenance and operation of automobiles and trucks, exclusive of
their respective tail-pipe emissions (which are covered in the Source Class A category). This class
specifically addresses wear and tear (e.g., brake pads and tires) and spills and leaks of automotive fluids
(e.g., motor oil).
Source Class C: Industrial
These are sources associated with runoff from industrial facilities which expose chemicals to rainfall
through such activities as processing, materials handling and storage, and maintenance. Class C sources
do not include the area-wide sources (e.g., industrial or mobile emissions) which are covered in Source
Class A or the automotive/trucking sources which are covered in Source Class B. These sources will not
be discussed in this paper.
Source Class I): Residential
These are sources associated with residential activities or construction products used in home building.
Class D sources do not include area-wide sources associated with atmospheric emissions and automotive.
Examples of the sources considered in this source class include: household products, wood preservatives,
pesticides, algicides, fertilizers, paints, erosion, and corrosion of downspouts and gutters.
Source Class E: Water Supply
These are sources associated with that portion of the potable water supply which ultimately enters the
South San Francisco Bay through the storm drain system. Sources of pollutants are associated with
chemical additives (e.g. corrosion inhibitors and algae suppression inhibitors) and corrosion products.
-------
Screening And Prioritization Of Metal Sources
Annual metal loads contributing to urban runoff were estimated for the following classifications of
sources: atmospheric emissions, automotive, residential, and water supply.
First, the percentage of the total mean annual load of each metal contributed by a specific source
(aggregated across the Santa Clara Valley) was estimated. Next, a priority was assigned to that source for
that metal based on the percentage of the total mean annual load of that metal contributed by the source.
Ranges for each priority are shown below:
Priority Definition
1. The source is believed to contribute more than 10 percent of the total mean annual load for
the metal under consideration.
2. The source is believed to contribute from 1 to 10 percent of the total mean annual load for the
metal under consideration.
3. The source is believed to contribute less than 1 percent of the total mean annual load for the
metal under consideration.
NE Not evaluated (due to insufficient data or because the source is not known to contribute the
given metal to storm water).
For example, tail-pipe emissions of mercury from diesel-fueled vehicles would be assigned a priority of 1
(i.e., the highest) because these emissions are believed to contribute more than 10 percent of the total
mean annual load. These estimates of annual load are order-of-magnitude estimates and, as such,
priorities based on these estimates are subject to some uncertainty. However, this method is systematic
and produces reproducible results.
Finally, an overall priority was assigned to each source. The process of assigning the overall priority
weighted critical metals (mercury and copper) more heavily than the other metals of concern, as shown
below:
Overaii Priority Definition
1. First priority, at least one critical metal assigned a priority of 1.
2. Second priority, at least one metal of concern assigned a priority of 1 or one critical metal
assigned a priority of 2.
-------
3. Third priority, no critical metal assigned a priority of 1 or 2 and no metal of concern assigned
a priority of 1.
For example, tail-pipe emissions would be assigned an overall priority of 1, because at least one critical
metal (e.g.., mercury) was assigned a priority of 1.
Metal Sources Matrix
The results of the prioritization are shown in Table 1. Priority group 1 sources include tail-pipe emissions
from diesel-fueled and unleaded-fueled vehicles, wet and dry deposition and brake pad wear. Using the
information from this study, as summarized in Table 1, a list of Source Control Measure that would focus
on priority sources was developed. Priority group 1 sources were a primary focus of the Source Control
Measures. An additional study on brake pad contributions was also performed to help better understand
this source.
Table 1. Metal Sources - Assigned Priority
Priority for Specific Metals (B)
Identified Sources
Cu
Hg
Cd
Ni
Ag
Zn
Pb
Cr
Overall Priority (A)
AIR POLLUTION

Stationary
3
3
3
3
NE
3
3
3
3
Diesel-fueled vehicle
1
1
3
3
1
2
1
2
1
exhaust
Unleaded-fueled vehicle
3
1
NE
2
3
2
2
3
1
exhaust
Wet deposition & dry deposition
1
1*
1
2
NE
1
1
1
1
AUTOMOTIVE

Coolant-leaks
3
NE
NE
3
NE
3
3
NE
3
Coolant-dumping
3
NE
NE
3
NE
3
3
NE
3
Oil-leaks
3
NE
NE
3
NE
3
3
NE
3
Oil-dumping
3
NE
NE
3
NE
2
3
NE
3
Tirewear
NE NE
1
NE NE
1
NE
NE
2
Brake-pad wear
1
NE
NE NE NE NE NE
NE
1
RESIDENTIAL

Paints
3
2
3
NE NE
3
NE
3
2
WATER SUPPLY
-------
Source Water
Corrosion inhibitors
Corrosion of plumbing
Copper sulfate algicide
2 NE 1 2 NE 3 3 2
33333323
23333333
33333333
2
3
2
3
Legend for assignment of Overall Priority (A)
• 1- First-priority source, at least one critical metal (Hg or Cu) assigned a priority of 1
• 2- Second-priority source, at least one non-critical metal assigned a priority of 1 or critical
metal assigned a priority of 2
• 3- Third priority source
• NE- Not Evaluated
Legendfor Priority Assigned to Specific Metals (B)
• 1- Greater than 10% of the total load
• 2- 1 - 10% of the total load
• 3- Less than 1% of the total load
• NE- Not Evaluated
* Based on limited data from Knoxville, TN
References
Woodward-Clyde Consultants. (1992) Source Identification and Control Report. Santa Clara
Valley Nonpoint Source Pollution Control Program.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed '96
Contents - Sessions 41 - 60
[Session 411 \Session 421 fSession 431 fSession 441 \Session 451
[Session 461 \Session 471 fSession 481 fSession 491 \Session 501
[Session 511 \Session 521 fSession 531 fSession 541 \Session 551
[Session 561 \Session 571 fSession 581 fSession 591 \Session 601
SESSION 41
Emerging Trends and Future Issues
Bruce C. Moore
River Operations
V. LeGrand Neilson
Native Americans and the Colorado River
Kib Jacobson
Management Strategies and Processes
—r——
ffV 4 <3i, i
!-r' V
469
472
475
478
William E. Rinne
-------
SESSION 42
488
491
495
Restoration On a Series of Scales: Genetic to Landscape, Local to International 481
Brian D. Winter
Russian River Resource Enhancement Plan 483
Laurel Marcus, Karen Gaffney, Joan Florsheim
Interagency Stream Corridor Restoration Handbook 486
Ronald W. Tuttle, Don Brady
SESSION 43
Reservoir Watershed Protection: Staff and Curriculum Development for Drinking
Water Source Protection — A Collaborative Environmental Education Project
Glenn M. Swiston, Ron Barnes, Brad Yoke, Jack Anderson
Watershed Education and Watershed Management: Using the River as an
Interdisciplinary Teaching Tool
MarkK. Mitchell, James L. Graham
Plugging People Into The Watershed Team Approach: The Community Watershed
Project
John Hermsmeier, Andrea Trank, David Hirschman
CREEC: A Central Oregon Partnership Focused on Watershed Education and
Restoration
Dean Grover, David A. Nolte
SESSION 44
Financing National Estuary Program Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans: How to Identify and Implement Alternative Financing 501
Mechanisms
Tamar Henkin, Jennifer Mayer
Funding Mechanisms for a Watershed Management Program 505
Fernando Pasquel, Rich Brawley, Oscar Guzman, Madan Mohan
Financing Priority Watershed Projects with the State Revolving Fund 508
Nikos D. Singelis
The Fox Wolf Initiative 511
498
-------
Sanjay Syal
SESSION 45
The Hackensack Meadowlands Special Area Management Plan (SAMP): Using a
Watershed Approach to Achieve Integrated Environmental Protection
Mary Anne Thiesing, Robert W. Hargrove
Watershed Strategy: Managing a Most Valuable Resource
James P. Rhodes
Coastal America: A Partnership Paradigm for Protecting and Restoring Ecosystem
and Watersheds
Virginia Tippie, Gail Updegraff
SESSION 46
New York City's Watershed Protection Program
Michael A. Principe
Objectives and Examples from a Comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring
Program
Karen Moore
The NYC Water Quality Division Geographical Information System (GIS) and Its
Applications for The Watershed Management
Yuri Gorokhovich
Monitoring for Cryptosporidium spp. And Giardia spp. And Human Enteric
Viruses in the Watersheds of the New York City Water Supply System
David A. Stern
The Kensico Watershed Study 1993-1995 536
B.R. Klett, D.F. Parkhurst, F.R. Gaines
SESSION 47
Watershed Planning: Evaluating Investments in Nonmonetary Resources 539
Kenneth Orth, William Hansen, Ridgley Robinson
Resource Significance in Environmental Project Planning 543
Darrell Nolton, Amy Doll
518
522
525
528
530
533
-------
Linking Environmental Project Outputs and Social Benefits: Bringing Economics,
Ecology and Psychology Together
Gerald D. Stedge, Timothy Feather
Customizing Corps Planning for Environmental Restoration: An Evaluation
Framework
Timothy D. Feather, JoyMuncy
SESSION 48
Septic System Impacts for the Indian River Lagoon, Florida 554
Scott W. Horsley, Daniel Santos, Derek Busby
Conducting Wasteload Allocations in a Watershed Framework: Real World
556
Problems and Solutions
David W. Dilks, Kathryn A. Sweet
Nonpoint Source Management System Software: A Tool for Tracking Water
Quality and Land Treatment
Steven A. Dressing, Jennifer Hill
SESSION 49
Watershed LOJIC — A Logical Approach to Stormwater Management and
Permitting
Robert F. Smith, Jr., Steven C. McKinley
City of Los Angeles — Stormwater Information Management System 567
Blake Murillo, Wing Tarn, Gail Boyd
Spatial Modeling of Aquatic Biocriteria Relative to Riparian and Upland
Characteristics
Leslie A. Zucker, Dale A. White
SESSION 50
Improved Enforcement — Valuable Tool for Watershed Protection — A Local
Perspective
Susan Alexander
Development of the Use Restoration Waters Program
575
579
-------
John H. Hartig, Michael A. Zarull, Thomas M. Heidtke, Hemang Shah
The National Water Quality Initiative: Lessons Learned From the Water Quality
Demonstration Project-East River
Robin Shepard, Christine Finlayson
SESSION 52
Columbia River Basin Model Watersheds ~ Bonneville Power Administration's
583
587
Annette Lucas, Elizabeth McGee, Brian Bledsoe, Lin Xu
Optimal Trading Between Point and Nonpoint Sources of Phosphorus in the
Chatfield Basin, Colorado
Keith Little, Bruce Zander
Opportunities and Obstacles in Watershed-Based Regulatory Programs: The
Stormwater Initiative in Massachusetts
Pamela D. Harvey
SESSION 51
Indicators of International Progress 590
Ethan T. Smith, Martin P. Bratzel
Lake Superior Binational Program: An Ecosystem Approach to Protection of Lake
Superior Through Development of a Lakewide Management Plan
Nancy Larson, Sharon Thorns, John Craig, Ian Smith, Carri Lohse-Hanson
Great Lakes Remedial Actions Plans: Toward Ecosystem-Based Management of
Watersheds
594
597
600
603
Implementation Role
Mark A. Shaw
Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program "Partnership for Success 607
Patty Perry
Endangered Salmon, Turning Emotions Into Action 609
Ralph Swift
Pataha Creek, Its Changing Ways 613
Duane Bartels
Accepting Challenges to Develop a Model Watershed Plan for the Tucannon River 615
Art Sunderland
-------
Asotin Creek Model Watershed
Angela Fields
618
SESSION 53
Building Partnerships — A Case Study of the Umatilla River Watershed 621
Ann Beier, Luise Langheinrich
Enabling Interdisciplinary Analysis 624
Leslie M. Reid
Town-Wide Watershed Protection: Identifying and Involving Public and Private
Stakeholders
Michael J. Toohill, Maren A. Toohill, Terry Bastion, Lida Jenney, Scott Stimpson
SESSION 54
635
Practical Approaches to Assessing Costs and Benefits: Urban Erosion and Sediment
Control as a Case Study
Jim George
A Conjoint Analysis of Water Quality Enhancements and Degradations in a
Western Pennsylvania Watershed
Brian P. Griner, Stephen C. Farber
The Value of River Protections in Vermont 639
Kari Dolan, Alphonse Gilbert, Lesley Frymier, Christina Mitchell
SESSION 55
Characterization of Causes to Changes to Freshwater Inflow for 29 Gulf of Mexico
Estuaries
642
Miranda D. Harris, Susan E. Holliday, S. Paul Orlando, C. John Klein
Opening More Gulf of Mexico Shellfish Waters for Safe Harvest: Using a Strategic
Assessment Approach to Target Restoration Efforts and Build Watershed 646
Partnerships
Dan Farrow, Thomas L. Herrington, Frederick Kopfler
Ambient Environmental Conditions, Pollutant Loads, and Waste Assimilative
Capacities in the Patapsco and Back Rivers Watershed, Maryland, USA
650
-------
Dennis T. Logan, Robert L. Dwyer, Fred Jacobs, John Maynes, Narendra Panday,
Robert Mohr
SESSION 56
Can a Community Based Watershed Plan Help Ensure Safe Drinking Water? 653
Mary S. Wu, David E. Rathke, Rose Skinner
A GIS-Based Watershed Survey Used To Develop Protection Strategies For
Elsinore Valley's Drinking Water Source
John E. Hoagland, Richard A. Masters, Paul Wallace
Watershed Management: The First Barrier in a Multi-Barrier Treatment Scheme
at Lake Tahoe
Perri Standish-Lee, Dan St. John
A Watershed Management Plan: Steps to Protect Your Water Supply 664
Michelle Miller
SESSION 57
A Workshop on a Technique for Assessing Stream Habitat Structure for Nonpoint-
Source Evaluations
Michael T. Barbour, James B. Stribling
The Response of Stream Macroinvertebrates and Water Quality to Varying
Degrees of Watershed Suburbanization in Northern Virginia
R. Christian Jones, Thomas Grizzard, Robert E. Cooper
Determining Ecological Quality Within a Watershed 671
Jerry Diamond
Maryland Biological Stream Survey: Developing Estimates of Watershed Condition 678
Mark T. Southerland, Jon H. Volstad, Stephen B. Weisberg, Paul F. Kazyak, Ronald J.
Klauda
SESSION 58
The Gulf of Maine Land-Based Pollution Sources Inventory: Lessons Learned in
Building and Using a Tool for Regional Watershed Management
Percy Pacheco, Dan Farrow, Pat Scott, Ranjan Muttiah, David Keeley, David Hartman
681
-------
Modeling Nitrogen Cycling and Export in Forested Systems at the Watershed Scale 685
Brian R. Bicknell, Thomas H. Jobes, Anthony S. Donigian, Jr., Carolyn T. Hunsaker,
Thomas O. Barnwell, Jr.
SESSION 59
GIS Watershed Assessment Model for Suwannee River Basin 692
Del B. Bottcher, Jeffrey G. Hiscock
Geographic Information Systems for Water Quality: Examples from the Little Bear
River and Otter Creek, UT
Michael O'Neill, Frank Dougher, Michael Allred, Verl Bagley
Using a Geographic Information System to Identify the Chesapeake Bay
699
Watershed's Strategic Agricultural Land: Why is it Necessary and How is it Done?
Jill Schwartz
SESSION 60
Implementing a Watershed Management Program Using GIS 702
Fernando Pasquel, Madan Mohan, Paul DeBarry
Implementing Watershed Protection Projects Using Principles of Marketing 704
Thomas J. Makowski, Rover Fredrickson
Building Capacity For BMP Compliance: An Applied Behavioral Analysis 707
Robert G. Paterson
Maryland's Tributary Strategies: Statewide Nutrient Reduction Through a
Watershed Approach
Lauren Wenzel, Roger Banting, Danielle Lucid
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Emerging Trends and Future Issues
Bruce C. Moore, Manager
Resources Management Division Upper Colorado Region
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT
Introduction
Previous papers concerning "Changing Management of the Colorado River" have provided an overview
of the Colorado River Basin, its development for flood control, water supply and power generation, the
legal framework or "Law of the River" that guides operations and use of the Colorado River, discussed
river operations and the processes such as the annual operating plan and long-term operating criteria, and
identified more recent issues and needs voiced by environmental, Native American, and other public
interests that relate to use and management of the Colorado River. This paper will describe and discuss
some of the key emerging and future management challenges facing the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) as a prominent player in the resolution of water management issues on the Colorado and
offer possible ways to meet these challenges.
Development and management of the Colorado River during this century has been based primarily on
activities that would help meet beneficial consumptive use needs by implementing actions associated
with taming the Colorado River and providing reliable and adequate water supplies for large irrigation
and municipal and industrial projects in the arid West. As a result, the Colorado River Basin is dotted
with large dams and associated reservoirs, diversion dams, and distribution systems and is often
described as the most closely regulated and controlled river in the United States. Likewise, development
of the legal framework or "Law of the River" that divided and established water apportionments among
the Basin States, and determined the kinds and priorities of use, was also based on beneficial
consumptive use.
The results of actions to complete extensive water development projects and a legal framework for
-------
operating the Colorado were extremely successful in meeting the needs of a developing West. Power
generation, while typically being given a priority of "incidental to other uses" has none the less been a
major factor in Colorado River management because of its role in providing revenues for funding the
construction and operation of dams and because of its direct effect on downstream river flows. The
integration of these uses have been refined over many years by working with public needs toward
acceptable solutions.
So why is the management of the Colorado River System faced with a need to change? Two reasons:
increasing consumptive uses such as municipal and industrial are competing with irrigated agriculture;
and nonconsumptive environmental and recreational uses are competing with existing and new
consumptive uses. While the Colorado River is over-allocated by some accounts, there exist many
unused entitlements such as the under-developed Upper Basin and partially quantified Native American
water rights. One of the key conflicts of the river is that all of the "allocation amounts" depend on
consumptive uses and many of the more contemporary needs are in-stream flows for the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) compliance, other fish, recreation, or esthetic uses. At the heart of the current debate
is the hope that there are additional water supplies to meet future consumptive uses and some parties may
be willing to test the law to see if those supplies can be delivered for their use within the existing law.
Further, in 1922, Compact negotiators divided the Colorado River based on an estimated water supply of
18 MAF/yr, while current estimates of average annual flow are closer to 15 MAF/yr. This in itself will
continue to present a greater challenge to meet all demands as the Upper Colorado River Basin develops
its consumptive use allocation.
The concerns and requests to manage the Colorado River to protect and/or benefit these numerous uses
cause the setting to become more complex, contentious, and make "business as usual" a thing of the past.
The following sections focus on specific and key issues that characterize the nature and magnitude of the
challenge facing agencies and managers of the Colorado River and its resources.
Water Marketing and Water Exchanges
As previously mentioned, the waters of the Colorado River are fully-allocated and, in fact, the Colorado
River is over-allocated based on estimates of the average annual water supply. The demand for water for
beneficial consumptive use is rapidly reaching the annual apportioned supply in the Lower Colorado
River Basin.
To further complicate this, use within the three Lower Basin states differs significantly. Consumptive use
within California has exceeded its apportionment for several years because of under utilization in
Arizona and Nevada. Nevada, which was apportioned much less water (0.3 MAF) than either Arizona
(2.8 MAF) or California (4.4 MAF), projects that it will run out of Colorado River water soon after the
turn of the century because of explosive growth in southern Nevada. Arizona, on the other hand,
currently has a significant unused apportionment because of less than expected agricultural use of water
from the Central Arizona Project.
-------
To satisfy the Lower Basin needs, some have been focusing on the unused allocation in the Upper Basin.
The Upper Basin has developed the use of its water supplies much more slowly. In fact, current
projections don't show full utilization until at least the year 2060. Only New Mexico is near its entitled
use. Future population growth in Western Colorado and Utah is the likely source of increased use in
these two states, while Wyoming has limited potential for additional use.
One state, Utah, has been entertaining the thought of leasing some of their unused entitlement, but many
are concerned that this approach could some day result in the loss of its water right under the traditional
western water law theory of "use it or lose it." This type of water marketing has been termed by some as
"water flowing toward money." Water is truly as valuable as gold to these Western states.
So what does the future hold in terms of marketing and exchanges? The current and likely future federal
position is to encourage voluntary water marketing through transfers on both an inter- and intra-state
basis. Needs of the more populous states are now forcing the Secretary of the Interior to consider creative
marketing and exchanges to meet contemporary needs.
Intra-state transfers offer good potential to meet changing demands for use such as exist in California.
For example, Southern California (including the greater Los Angeles and San Diego areas) depends on
water from Northern California through the State Water Project, Owens Valley, and the Colorado River.
Likewise, exports out of the Colorado Basin furnish major areas in Colorado and Utah with municipal
and irrigation supplies.
Agricultural use dominates current use of Colorado River water and accounts for more than 80 percent of
consumptive use. Discussions and proposals have periodically surfaced and likely will continue in the
future to transfer high priority water allocated to California agricultural areas such as the Imperial Valley
to Southern California urban areas through existing or new aqueducts by changing the point of diversion
of Colorado River water. The urban areas would, in turn, fund water conservation improvements that
would result in water savings and more efficient use in the Imperial Valley and possibly sustain current
agricultural uses.
Another challenge in doing this is to assess and protect environmental values and needs such as wetlands
and river habitats along the Colorado that might be impacted because of changes in points of diversions.
Environmental groups are keenly interested in this aspect of any exchange.
In summary, many believe the goal of successful intra-state water marketing or transfers is to keep
traditional consumptive uses whole while providing additional supplies for urban purposes. However, it
is more likely that some existing uses will be reduced in the future as demands for new uses increase.
Public demands and opinion play an important role in shaping policies which govern such transfers of
water. Each of the states will face this issue as urbanization continues.
Inter-state marketing between the basins has been a controversial issue for many years. Many view it as
being prohibited by the 1922 Colorado River Compact. Federal approval of such proposals would likely
-------
depend on unanimous support by the Basin States.
Inter-state marketing or transfer of unused apportionments presents a more difficult challenge because of
the fear by all Basin States that such arrangements may lead to a permanent loss of their entitlements to
use Colorado River water. One approach that may work and is looked favorably upon by Reclamation in
the Lower Basin is to bank unused annual apportionments in reservoirs such as Lake Mead and then
market this water to other Basin States on an interim basis. The details under which such arrangements
would be governed are very contentious and presently not resolved.
Modification of Dam and River Operations to Meet Environmental
and Other Nontraditional Uses
The emergence of demands to modify or reoperate and manage the major facilities such as the Glen
Canyon and Hoover Dam and powerplants to meet "public good" uses, such as environmental and
recreational uses, is likely to continue to grow in significance in future actions along the Colorado River.
The previous papers have discussed processes that involve consideration of endangered species and
associated critical habitat in planning for future management of the Colorado River.
Unless significant future changes occur in the "Law of the River," the most typical approach will be to
refine operations to better meet these needs. For example, the annual operating plan is generally based on
projected water needs from downstream uses, existing water supply in reservoirs, and projected runoffs
from basin snowpack. Actual monthly schedules are developed by seeking a balance of the benefits to
the various authorized project uses. Dams and hydroelectric facilities in turn are operated to meet water
orders and integrate power generation and marketing potential. The actual schedules for release through
Colorado River dams has been, or could be, modified; however, this will impact power generation and
marketing.
Tradeoffs such as these have already occurred for specific reasons such as beach building, recovery of
endangered species, special recreation events, or emergency needs below Flaming Gorge, Aspinall,
Navajo, Glen Canyon, and Hoover Dams. The major impact of such tradeoffs has been to power uses,
although this could also impact the water users because of the use of power revenues to fund, construct,
and operate the dams on the Colorado River.
The ESA has played a major role in changing historic operational practices. It has forced the evaluation
of the operation of virtually every reservoir in the Basin, which is having potential impacts on most of
the other project functions for which those reservoirs were built. Conflicts are rapidly rising among those
wishing to store and release water for consumptive use, those interested in flood control and the
operation of reservoirs for the benefit of endangered species. The most prominent philosophy seems to be
that of restoring "natural hydrographs," the elimination of which was one of the purposes and outcomes
of the building and operation of reservoirs.
Some fear that the strong language of the ESA could overrule any attempt to achieve a balance between
-------
uses. Despite this possibility, Reclamation has sought solutions which attempt to achieve the purposes of
the ESA while continuing to meet the needs of the other uses. Recovery implementation programs serve
as a mechanism to bring all parties to the table for discussions and planning to achieve this goal. Sound
biological determinations and trust to find long-term solutions seem to be the key methods for best
implementing the ESA as currently written.
Native American Resources and Water Rights
The issue of the Native Americans pursuing and utilizing their water rights could be an exciting one in
the future. The Native Americans living in the basin have long contended that their ancestors were not at
the barginning table when such important agreements as the upper and lower basin compacts were
negotiated. As such they do not feel as compelled to abide by their outcomes. Some suggest that all of
their entitlements are outside the agreements. In contrast, many non-Indian parties feel that the interests
of the Indians were represented by the federal government under the trust responsibilities outlined in
treaties. For example a scenario could develop where a tribe and a water entity within a basin state agree
the tribe will deliver a quantity of water to them for a fee and the only way the tribe has of conveying the
water is through federal facilities. The tribe in turn requests the Secretary of the Interior to help deliver
the water. The Department of the Interior would feel compelled to assist the tribes through trust
responsibilities and their soverign status. The outcome may be a "protracted litigation process."
Many positive strides have been made by including Native Americans in discussions on Colorado River
issues in the basin. They have become full partners in decision-making processes as evidenced by efforts
like Glen Canyon EIS. A very large part of the solution and a challenge in the future will be to increase
participation , to the extent possible, by Native Americans in all process so all parties can continue to
understand each others needs. It will only be through dialogue that barriers and misconceptions can be
removed to allow meaningful compromise.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
River Operations
V. LeGrand Neilson, Office Director
Colorado River Water and Power Management Office
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Introduction
The Colorado River watershed drains about 250,000 square miles, and runs about 1,400 miles from its
headwaters in Colorado to its mouth in the Sea of Cortez. The average annual virgin flow is about 15
million acre-feet of water measured at Lees Ferry. The water is delivered to about 1.4 million acres of
agricultural land in the United States and Mexico, and to 20 million people for municipal and industrial
use in the United States. The annual gross power generation from Reclamation dams on the Colorado
River is approximately 10 million megawatt hours. Annual usage is apportioned as follows: 7.5 MAF to
the Upper Basin; 7.5 MAF to the Lower Basin; and 1.5 MAF to Mexico.
The development of the Colorado River has resulted in its being one of the most controlled river systems
in North America. Construction of major dams with power and water delivery systems by the U.S.
Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) began early in the twentieth century. The management of these
facilities and systems has been assigned by federal laws to Reclamation. These management activities
consist of developing and administering water and power contracts, allocating supplies for and balancing
the numerous uses of project water, and facility development, operation, and maintenance.
The operation of the Colorado River is governed by a system of laws, compacts, contracts and
international treaties collectively termed the "law of the river." This system was developed to
accommodate the development of the southwestern United States and Mexico. The usual conflicts over
the water of the West are reflected in the history of this system, as is the farsightedness of the early
political leaders. Even so, the system must remain responsive to needs of western development which
have exceeded the vision of even the most farsighted pioneers. Fortunately, the river system can meet
-------
some of these increasing and competing needs through the application of technological advances. Further
accommodation must occur through creative management strategies that comport with the "law of the
river."
The recent developments and improvements in the operation of the Colorado River system stem from a
desire to provide the public with the greatest overall benefit from the watershed. Recent improvements in
the management of the river fall into the broad categories of (1) improved operational modeling tools, (2)
an expanded decision-making process, and (3) implementation of management techniques to increase
total overall benefits from the water projects on the Colorado River.
Improved Operational Modeling Tools
State of the art data acquisition and processing systems allow more numerous and complicated analyses
of system operation scenarios. Decisions based on such analyses tend to be better informed, with greater
attention paid to the myriad array of operational strategies and risks. Better understanding of these risks
allows us to keep the public better informed regarding operations. The following are some initiatives
which are playing key roles in our improvement process.
Decision Support Systems for Water Resources Management
The Lower and Upper Colorado Regions are participating in a joint program to develop decision support
systems (DSS) for water resources management of the Colorado River. The program includes the
development and implementation of a suite of models and databases. All products are being developed to
be as generic as possible to allow for future use by other Reclamation regions and area offices. The DSS
will present a consistent view of the historical, current, and projected state of the river system through a
graphical user interface.
Reclamation, once primarily a water project construction agency, is now focused on the effective
management of water resources to meet multiple objectives. These management decisions tend to be
complex, with sometimes uncertain consequences and with significant long-lasting impacts. These
decisions require flexible, comprehensive decision support tools that display timely and accurate
information to water managers. To meet these objectives, we have developed a product to accomplish the
following major tasks:
¦ Develop a general-purpose modeling framework.
¦ Interactive model building and editing.
¦ Interactive selection of object behavior (from a library of behaviors).
¦ Interactive constraint and operating policy specification and modification.
-------
¦ Interactive time step and time horizon selection.
¦ Interactive model control selection.
¦ Water quality modeling (including temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity).
This product, the Power and Reservoir Systems Model, is currently under the last stages of development
at the University of Colorado's Center for Advanced Decision Support for Water and Environmental
Systems. This product is currently installed in the regional offices and at Hoover Dam and is being tested
as part of the product development. The development is funded by Reclamation, the Tennessee Valley
Authority, and the Electric Power Research Institute.
Geographic Information Systems
Within the last 3 years, both the Upper and Lower Colorado Regions have improved technically by
adding Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and Remote Sensing (RS) expertise in support of
Reclamation's role in managing natural and cultural resources. The GIS and RS teams are applying
geospatial information, applications, and analyses to areas of the entire Colorado River Basin.
Current GIS technology is presently being applied toward accurate land inventories, consumptive use
determination, archaeological recordation, and fisheries improvement programs. Applications using these
technologies are available for other program areas such as environment, water conservation, hazardous
waste-site characterization, engineering support, and geology.
Lower Colorado River Accounting System
A further example of GIS and RS applications in the Lower Colorado Region is their support of the
Lower Colorado River Accounting System (LCRAS) program. The LCRAS program is being developed
to account for water use on the lower Colorado River using a hydrologic model and acoustic velocity
meter gauging systems. As implemented by the LCRAS model, cost-effective techniques using RS and
GIS technologies have been used to analyze satellite data for the purpose of classifying and mapping
agricultural lands, riparian communities, and open water surfaces. Results of Reclamation's satellite
image analyses provide cost-effective and readily available estimates of water use which are expected to
be more accurate than past assessments. The results of LCRAS and the GIS/RS inputs to the LCRAS
model are now being evaluated by comparing them to the results of our traditional accounting
methodology, utilizing 1995 data.
Expanded Decision-Making Process
As public interest in the operation of the Colorado River system has increased, Reclamation has paid
-------
increased attention to the process by which operational decisions are made. More open public forums
have been established throughout the basin to allow interested public parties to comment on proposed
decisions. These forums include both the preparation of Annual Operating Plans (AOP) for each
reservoir and the upcoming review of the Operating Criteria for the Colorado River system.
Annual Operating Plans
Each of the mainstem reservoirs in the Upper Basin, along with the Lake Powell to Lake Havasu series
of dams, have public meetings associated with the preparation of their AOP's. While Reclamation retains
the role of the decision-maker on behalf of the Secretary of the Interior, comments received at these
meetings significantly expand our understanding of public concerns.
In the case of the Upper Basin reservoirs, public meetings are usually held three or four times each year.
Information is provided to attendees outlining the expected operation, particularly for the following few
months when the reservoir operation is more accurately known. Research requests for specific dam
releases often play an important role in determining future operations.
Review of the Operating Criteria for Colorado River System
Reservoirs
The Criteria used in the operation of Colorado River reservoirs were prepared in 1970 as a result of the
1968 Colorado River Basin Project Act. Both the Act and the Criteria specify periodic reviews of the
Criteria to ensure that they accurately reflect existing laws and meet the needs of the public throughout
the basin.
Such a review is just now commencing. A federal register notice announcing the review has been issued
and a series of public meetings will be held this year to collect public opinion regarding the criteria.
Computer modeling will analyze the impacts of possible changes to the criteria and National
Environmental Policy Act compliance will be conducted on any proposed action.
Increased Total Benefits From Colorado River Reservoir System
Projects
As population numbers and public use of the river system increases in the West, and as habitat needs for
endangered species emerge, existing water supplies are being stretched and competition for use of the
water is heightened. Successful resolution will require more efficient and innovative water use
arrangements, as well as continued attention to in-stream flows and riparian uses.
Water Banking and Water Marketing
-------
Reclamation is working with the Lower Basin States and the Colorado River Indian Tribes to develop
water banking and water marketing procedures to encourage extraordinary water conservation measures
and to enable water to move from lower to higher valued uses. Entitlement holders who conserve and
bank water may market banked water that is not needed for their future use.
Voluntary Water Transfers
Reclamation has authorized voluntary arrangements whereby entitlement holders may transfer, lease,
exchange, or market water on an intrastate basis under certain conditions to promote more efficient use
of Colorado River water. Discussions are under way in an attempt to identify and adopt criteria which
would allow such transactions to occur on an interstate basis. Review of proposed transfers, leases,
exchanges, and marketing transactions includes consideration of relevant law, potential impacts on other
entitlement holders, mitigation of third-party impacts, and comments from interested parties.
As water use has increased, surplus/shortage strategies providing various levels of drought protection, in
conjunction with the accompanying power pool and flood protection analyses, have been developed and
provided to the entities with water entitlements. Negotiations are continuing among the water users to
arrive at any mutually acceptable adjustments.
Water Conservation
Water Conservation is a key element in improving the management of Colorado River water resources.
Water use applications are now more efficient and management practices have been developed to
moderate growing water demands, conserve energy, improve the quality of water, and protect associated
recreational and environmental benefits. The two regions have developed conservation strategies to
improve the management and efficiency of surface and ground water use and increase water reclamation
and reuse practices.
The Water Conservation and Advisory Centers in Salt Lake City, Utah, and Boulder City, Nevada, are
the focal points of this water conservation program. The Centers are helping and/or encouraging water
users to develop and implement conservation programs by providing:
¦ Technical assistance.
¦ Information dissemination and education.
¦ Technology development and transfer.
¦ Training for water system managers and operators.
¦ Financial partnerships.
-------
Improvement of Reclamation facilities.
Hydropower
The Boulder Canyon Act of 1928 set the stage for the construction of Hoover Dam and Power Plant. The
original nameplate rating for the power plant was 1,340 megawatts. Beginning in 1981, and substantially
complete in 1995, an uprating program for the power plant resulted in a present nameplate capacity of
2,074 megawatts, for an increase of 734 megawatts. Similar uprating programs have been performed at
Flaming Gorge, Aspinall, and Glen Canyon power plants.
Summary
Reclamation has made significant progress in introducing both technical and institutional changes which
have made, and are expected to continue to make, the operation of the Colorado River System more
effective and efficient. These changes will facilitate the enjoyment of greater benefits from the system by
its multitude of beneficiaries, both present and in the future.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Native Americans and the Colorado River
Kib Jacobson, Native American Affairs Program Manager
Upper Colorado Region
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Salt Lake City, UT
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Introduction
There are many Native American issues in the management of the Colorado River System that could be
discussed, but due to the limited time and space they cannot all be dealt with here. This paper will
discuss two of the more critical Native American issues and their impact on the Colorado River System.
The issues to be discussed are (1) the settlement of Native American reserved water rights claims within
the Colorado River System and (2) the involvement of Native Americans in the management of the
Colorado River System.
Native American Reserved Water Rights Claims
Western Water Law
To fully understand the magnitude of the impact of the Native American reserved water rights claims on
the Colorado River System, an understanding of Western water law is needed. Western water law began
with the early miners in the West who needed water for mining operations located far from natural water
sources. Diversion structures and water delivery systems were built to divert water from the streams and
to deliver it to the location of the mining operation. The "first in time, first in right" use of water was
looked upon with the same validity as the miners' "first in time, first in right" establishment of mining
claims. The doctrine of "prior appropriation" by which Western states govern most surface water rights
grew from this tradition. A state water right with a priority date is granted to appropriate surface waters
with the understanding that the right provides permanent access to the water source as long as the water
-------
is put to "beneficial use" on a regular basis. The priority date determines who receives water in times of
shortage, senior rights are satisfied fully before junior appropriators receive water. The prior
appropriation doctrine has promoted westward expansion and development by allowing diversion of
stream flows for use in economic enterprises away from the stream. This led to the full appropriation of
surface water supplies in much of the arid West (Water Council, 1984) (Checchio and Colby, 1993).
Prior appropriation doctrine differs from "riparian doctrine" used in most of the Eastern states. The
fundamental principle of the riparian doctrine is that the owner of land bordering a water body acquires
certain rights to use the water. Each landowner bordering a water body may make reasonable use of the
water on the same land if the use does not interfere with reasonable uses of other riparians. The riparian
doctrine was thought to be impractical for the arid region beyond the one-hundredth meridian (a line
running south through the middle of North Dakota into Texas). A system that limited rights to owners of
land bordering a stream and water use to the watershed of origin would have stifled development in the
West. Thus, the prior appropriation doctrine responded to early Western needs by basing water rights on
the "first in time, first in right" principle. Today, water jurisdictions in America can be grouped roughly
into three doctrines of water law: riparian, prior appropriation, and hybrids of the two (Getches, 1990).
In the 1800s, many Western Indian tribes gave up most of their lands and agreed to settle on reservations
set aside by the U.S. government as permanent homelands for the tribal people. Unfortunately, when the
Indian reservations were established, Congress did not include provisions establishing Indian water rights
for the reservations. The lack of clearly-established Indian water rights led the Supreme Court in Winters
versus United States to hold that when reservations were established, Congress implicitly reserved, along
with the land, sufficient water to fulfill the purposes of the reservations. The Court also recognized these
rights as having a priority date coinciding with the date the reservation was established. Thus, the
Winters doctrine, or the Indian "reserved water rights" doctrine was born (Water Council, 1984)
(Checchio and Colby, 1993).
Most Indian reservations were established prior to extensive non-Indian settlement of Western lands
making the reservation's reserved water right senior in most cases. For years these senior rights have had
little practical value to tribes, and unexercised reserved water rights posed little threat to existing non-
Indian water uses. However, in recent years, interest in Indian reserved water rights has been on the rise.
There are many reasons for this rise in interest. First, many water basins are now fully, if not overly,
appropriated and the demand for water continues to increase thus making senior water rights in the
basins, the most reliable water right, very valuable; second, substantive federal assistance has been made
available to tribes to assert their reserved water rights claims and to develop their reserved water rights.
The early priority date and the quantifying of the Indian reserved water rights has placed a cloud of
uncertainty over many prior appropriation water rights previously perfected under state law.
Colorado River System
Table 1 illustrates, by state, the number of tribes, reservation acres, irrigated acres, and potential reserved
water rights claims within the Colorado River System.
-------
Table 1. Potential Indian reserved water rights claims.*
, [No. of |_ ... (Presently (Potentially i„, .
State L_ Reservation Acres L . , , . L . , , . Claims Acre-
Tribes Irrigated Acres Irrigated Acres _ ,,
Feet/year
Arizona
20
19,808,057
188,410
6,516,208
31,273,343
California
35
355,683
12,801
37,164
191,329
Colorado
2
755,400
10,200
93,000
86,390
Nevada
3
79,711
1,802
2,340
38,695
Utah
4
2,309,639
66,066
138,080
513,853
Total
64
23,308,490
279,279
6,786,792
32,103,511
* Most information comes from the Western States Water Council Report, 1984; however, some of the information was
incomplete and estimates were made. The accuracy of the numbers is not crucial here because the intent is to simply
show the magnitude of the number of acre-feet of water of potential Indian reserved water rights claims.
The reserved water rights claims of the tribes in the Colorado River System total an estimated 32 million
acre-feet. The Colorado River System is over appropriated and as the tribes begin to assert their reserved
water rights claims and develop these rights, the impacts will be felt throughout the Colorado River
System. Water users' prior appropriation water rights will become so junior that they will be of little or
no value. Also, the tribes could become the largest water right holders and perhaps some of the largest
water brokers in the system.
Native American Involvement in the Management of the Colorado
River System
In the past, Native American concerns and issues have been given limited consideration in the
management of the Colorado River System and they have not had much say in the management decisions
of the Colorado River System. However, in recent years the Native Americans have taken a more
proactive role letting their concerns be known. Their presence in the management of the Colorado River
System will be felt even more in the years to come. A good example of how the Native Americans can
provide input in the management decisions of the Colorado River System is happening with the Glen
Canyon Dam operations.
Glen Canyon Dam Operations
Glen Canyon Dam is located on the Colorado River about 13 miles downstream from the Utah-Arizona
State line and about 15 miles upstream from Lee's Ferry. The power plant at Glen Canyon Dam has
historically been used primarily for peaking power generation. The fluctuating releases associated with
peaking power operations caused concern among state, federal, and tribal resource management agencies
-------
because of the impact on natural, historical and, cultural resources downstream through the Glen Canyon
Recreation Area and the Grand Canyon National Park. In December 1982, Reclamation initiated the
multi-agency Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) to respond to the concerns. The GCES lead to
the preparation of the Operation of Glen Canyon Dam Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) filed with
the Environmental Protection Agency in March 1995. The Record of Decision (ROD), to be issued by
the Secretary of the Interior, is pending. Reclamation was the lead agency in preparing the EIS and
cooperating agencies were federal and state agencies, and the Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe, Navajo
Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, and the Southern Paiute Consortium
representing the Kaibab Paiute Tribe and Shivwits Paiute Tribe. (GCEIS 1995)
Representatives from the Hopi and Hualapai Tribes and the Navajo Nation served on the EIS team. The
preparation of the EIS required close cooperation among the cooperating agencies, the interagency EIS
team, and GCES. The road to the Final EIS was not smooth nor without many seemingly insurmountable
obstacles. However, through much effort and cooperation, an EIS was produced that all cooperating
agencies could abide by. The cooperating agency process has been considered a great model of how
diverse interests and objectives can be brought together in a spirit of unity. The process provided a forum
for the first time where the Native American's concerns and objectives on the Colorado River System
were heard and responded to.
Adaptive Management. The completion of the Glen Canyon Dam EIS process will result in a decision
by the Secretary on the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam . It is intended that the ROD will initiate a
process of "adaptive management," whereby the effects of dam operations on downstream resources
would be assessed and the results of those resource assessments will form the basis for future
modifications of dam operation. Many uncertainties still exist regarding the downstream impacts of water
releases from Glen Canyon Dam. The Secretary, or his designee, will develop through a group call the
Adaptive Management Work Group, as appropriate, modifications to operating criteria or other
management actions in consultation with interested parties. Consultation would be maintained with
appropriate federal and state agencies and Havasupai, Hopi, Hualapai, and San Juan Southern Paiute
Tribes, and Navajo Nation, Pueblo of Zuni, and Southern Paiute Consortium. (GCEIS 1995)
Management Responsibilities of Natural and Cultural Resources. Management objectives of Indian
Tribes with interest in Glen and Grand Canyons (Havasupai, Hopi, Paiute, Hualapai, Navajo, and Zuni)
are the preservation of the canyon's natural and cultural resources to maintain their values to the tribes.
Many sites located on federal lands have cultural, ancestral, and spiritual significance to Native
Americans and these ties must be considered in federal decision-making in the Colorado River System
(GCEIS 1995).
7-10 Committee. The Colorado River System lies within the seven Western states of Wyoming,
Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, Nevada, and California. These states are referred to as the "seven
basin states." Representatives of the states meet on a regular basis to discuss management of the
Colorado River System. In March 1993, this working group was expanded to include representatives
from ten of the tribes within the Colorado River System. The tribes are the Jicarilla Apache,
Chemehuevi, Colorado River, Navajo, Cocopah, Fort Mohave, Uintah & Ouray Ute, Southern Ute, Ute
-------
Mountain Ute, and Quechan. The current activity of the 7-10 committee is to address water shortages and
distribution in the lower portions of the Colorado River System where a majority of the tribes reside.
Some tribes have indicated an interest in water marketing and are evaluating their marketable resources.
The committee is another example of how the Native Americans have become involved, to have their
concerns and issues heard, and to provide input into the management of the Colorado River System.
Summary
The Colorado River System is the home to many Native Americans whose heritage goes back centuries
before the European settlers arrived on the shores of America. The Native Americans have many natural
and cultural resources that need to be managed to benefit future generations of Native Americans. The
Native Americans are now, and rightly so, stepping forward and taking the reins of responsibility for
their resource management. The U.S. Government, as trustee for the tribes, should support and assist the
tribes as they take control of their resources and their destiny. The most important natural resource in the
Colorado River System is water. The Native Americans have potential rights to millions and millions of
acre-feet in the System and as they exercise these rights, the impact will be felt. As we head into the
twenty-first century, the demands for water will increase dramatically in the Colorado River System. The
finite amount of water available in the Colorado River System will be highly sought after and water
courts could be kept very busy. Our financial resources and time should not be tied up in court battles
lasting decades over water rights, but rather, working cooperatively to manage the Colorado River
System to benefit all rightful water users. In order to achieve that goal, the Native Americans, having
senior water rights and, collectively, being one of the largest water rights holders must become more
involved in the management of the System. Their impact will be felt one way or another, why not in a
spirit of cooperation where time and resources can be used effectively to benefit the most.
References
The University of Arizona. (1993) Indian water rights. E. Checchio and B.C. Colby.
Western States Water Council. (1984) Indian water rights in the west A study prepared for the
Western Governors' Association. Governor George R. Ariyoshi, Chairman.
West Publishing Co. (1990) Water law in a nut shell, 2d edit. D.H. Getches.
USDOI. (1995) Operation of glen canyon dam final environmental impact statement. U.S.
Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Management Strategies and Processes
William E. Rinne, Director
Resource Management and Technical Services Office
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation, Boulder City, NV
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
The strategies and processes used by the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (Reclamation) to meet its
responsibilities in managing contemporary and future use of the Colorado River and its resources are
undergoing significant change. Much of this change is tied to, and results from, changing public values
and interests, as well as demands for active involvement in deciding how to manage the Colorado River.
A key challenge for a water resource management agency such as Reclamation is how to balance the
traditional and legally-mandated uses such as flood control, water supply, and power generation with the
"nontraditional" but contemporary and growing interests in environmental, Native American,
recreational, and other values and uses associated with the Colorado River.
Common themes, regardless of the process and strategies used, include a requirement for extensive and
continual coordination and consultation with diverse and often competing interest groups at all levels of
government and the general public; an emphasis on open, transparent public processes that use a
consensus approach to problem solving; an expectation that the processes will likely result in significant
increases in both time and funding to complete the necessary studies, planning and final agreements or
decisions to implement actions; the importance of approaching issues in a holistic manner relative to the
resources, interests and scope; and the fact that many actions will be triggered by the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Endangered Species Act, or other environmental statutes or
legislation.
This paper describes just two of the many examples that Reclamation uses in approaching management
issues in their attempt to address the needs of various users and stakeholders in the Colorado River Basin
(1) issues around the operation of the Glen Canyon Dam and (2) The Lower Colorado River Multiple
Species Conservation Program.
-------
Glen Canyon Dam Operations
The Glen Canyon Dam is an example of a project that was completed before enactment of NEPA in
1970. Beginning in the early 1980s, Reclamation began extensive scientific data gathering to begin to
assess the impacts of the operation of the dam on downstream resources. On July 27, 1989, the Secretary
of the Interior directed Reclamation to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to evaluate the
operations of Glen Canyon Dam. The EIS process involved extensive public involvement activities and a
complex Cooperating Agencies forum. The NEPA process extended over 6 years, culminating a in a
Final EIS filed with the Environmental Protection Agency in March 1995. A requirement of the Final
EIS is the use of an adaptive management process to review monitoring and research results and make
recommendations to the Secretary of the Interior on operational changes at the dam. A Record of
Decision is expected in late 1996.
The Glen Canyon Dam was completed by Reclamation in 1963 as a part of the Colorado River Storage
Project (CRSP) and being pre-NEPA, no EIS was filed for its construction or operation. Likewise, the
purposes under the 1968 CRSP Act were: regulating the flow of the Colorado River; controlling floods;
improving navigation; providing for the storage and delivery of the waters of the Colordao River for
reclamation of lands, including supplemental water supplies, and for municipal, industrial, and other
beneficial purposes; improving water quality; providing for basic public outdoor recreation facilities;
improving conditions for fish and wildlife, and the generation and sale of electrical power as an
incidental purpose. Glen Canyon Dam preserved the possibility for the states of the Upper Colorado
River Basin to utilize the apportionments made to them under the Colorado River and Upper Colorado
River Basin Compacts. Under CRSP, power generation is incidental to other purposes and the
powerplant at Glen Canyon Dam was primarily used for peaking power. As a result, the Colorado River
below Glen Canyon Dam, which flows through the Grand Canyon, experienced daily fluctuating releases
associated with peaking power operations.
Over time, other federal, state, and tribal resource management agencies, fishing and rafting interests,
and environmental groups voiced concerns about the detrimental effects on downstream environmental
resources. These groups expressed forceful concerns in the late 1970s when Reclamation completed
studies at Glen Canyon Dam to increase peaking power generation.
In 1982, Reclamation initiated the multi-agency Glen Canyon Environmental Studies (GCES) to respond
to these concerns and develop scientific information on the effects. The effort entailed two phases: Phase
I focused on gathering initial data about the resources and was completed in 1988; Phase II, initiated in
mid-1988, gathered additional information on specific operation elements. In 1989, in response to
continued public concerns about operations at Glen Canyon Dam, the Secretary of the Interior directed
Reclamation to prepare an EIS to reevaluate Glen Canyon Dam operations. The purpose was to evaluate
specific options that could be implemented to minimize, consistent with law, adverse impacts on
downstream environmental and cultural resources, as well as Native American interests in Glen and
Grand Canyons. The GCES formed the basis for the impact assessment of the EIS and were funded from
power revenues. The total cost to-date for all the studies work and preparation of the EIS documents is
-------
approximately $70 million.
Reclamation was designated the lead agency for preparing the EIS, with the Bureau of Indian Affairs,
National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Western Area Power
Administration (Western), Arizona Game and Fish Department (AGFD), Hopi Tribe, Hualapai Tribe,
Navajo Nation, San Juan Southern Paiute Tribe, Southern Paiute Consortium, and the Zuni Pueblo
serving as cooperating agencies. In addition, Reclamation, NPS, FWS, Western, U.S. Geological Survey,
AGFD, Hopi and Hualapai Tribes, Navajo Nation, and a tribe consultant served on an interdisciplinary
EIS team to formulate alternatives. The lead and cooperating agencies met frequently and included open
meetings where interests from throughout the basin could attend and participate, and all who participated
worked to gain consensus on all aspects of the EIS.
The final EIS for Operation of Glen Canyon Dam was filed in March 1995 and a Record of Decision is
expected in late 1996. Reclamation initiated extensive public involvement during the scoping and review
process by holding public meetings and distribution of newsletters. Over 17,000 written and oral
comments were received during the scoping process. Reclamation later sent a newsletter with a summary
of preliminary alternatives to about 20,000 addresses.
The preferred alternative selected by Reclamation and the cooperating agencies was the Modified Low
Fluctuating Flow Alternative, which would restrict peak releases, limit minimum releases diurnally, and
the rate of change in releases on an hourly basis. Another key component of the proposed alternative is
the establishment of an adaptive management program that includes long-term monitoring and research
features. The adaptive management program would allow Reclamation and other interests to obtain
information that would be used to follow, evaluate, and make appropriate recommendations on the
operations of Glen Canyon Dam.
The Operation of Glen Canyon Dam may appear to be normal and nothing new because it was centered
around NEPA. However, NEPA is normally triggered because a federal agency is proposing a "Major
Federal Action." In this case, NEPA was triggered as a result of concerns about the ongoing operational
impacts to the downstream resources of the Glen Canyon Dam. Furthermore, the issues of primary
concern were related to uses not traditionally at the forefront in the CRSP, (e.g., fishing, rafting,
endangered species, and Native American cultural resources) but indicative of the changing demand to
consider other things besides water and power uses.
Lower Colorado River Multiple Species Conservation Program
This example illustrates an approach that is primarily driven by actions under the Endangered Species
Act (ESA) that apply to federal (section 7) and nonfederal (section 10) interests. Although it differs from
the previous example in this respect, it is similar in demonstrating the growing influence and importance
of environmental issues on current and future management of the Colorado River for traditional and
legally well-grounded uses such as water supply and power generation.
-------
The Lower Colorado River Multiple Species Conservation Program (LCRMSCP) was formally initiated
in August of 1995, in the Lower Colorado River Basin (Lees Ferry to the international border with
Mexico) under the sponsorship of the three lower Colorado River Basin States (Basin States) of Arizona,
California, and Nevada, and the Department of the Interior (DOI). The stated goals of the program are to
accommodate current and future water diversions and power production on the Lower Colorado River,
while working toward the recovery of endangered and threatened species, conservation of critical habitat,
and reducing the likelihood of additional species being listed under the ESA.
The primary catalyst for this initiative was the listing of Critical Habitat for Big River Fishes of the
Colorado River System in March of 1994. This action galvanized the water and power interests of the
Basin States to seek an optimum way to become involved in current and future manage of endangered
species resources in the Lower Colorado River Basin and, in particular, the impact of potential
management actions on ongoing and future water and power operations. The Basin States were
concerned that traditional uses might be jeopardized in favor of endangered species and wanted a place at
the negotiating table. Through a contracted study, the States determined that some type of modified
Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) as provided for under section 10 of the ESA was their best approach.
The States initiated dialog with the FWS and executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) which
established a cooperative forum and approach to discuss and plan for such matters.
The listing of critical habitat also had an immediate impact on Reclamation's operations on the Colorado
River. In a separate action, Reclamation initiated informal section 7 consultation with the FWS to assess
the effects of operations of the Colorado River from Hoover Dam and Lake Mead to the Southern
international boundary with Mexico on critical habitat and recently-listed species. Normally,
Reclamation, like most federal agencies, would prepare a Biological Assessment (BA), determine effect,
and then either conclude or initiate formal consultation with the FWS. This process is federal agency to
federal agency and generally limits or excludes the public unless they are an "applicant." However, given
the extensive interest and desire to participate by the States and environmental groups, Reclamation
decided to open its process and hold public meetings, provide periodic information updates, and invite
review and comment on the draft BA.
It soon became apparent that because of the resources required to participate in both processes; scope of
the effort, complexity and sensitivity of the issues, relationship of Reclamation's actions to those being
considered by the States in their HCP, and the common stakeholder and interest base, that it might be
more effective to combine these efforts.
After further coordination with the FWS, Reclamation decided to continue consulting informally and to
put its major effort into the LCRMSCP over a 3-year period to develop (1) a long-term (50 year)
conservation program for conservation of listed and sensitive (federal and state) species and their habitat
while accommodating current and future operations and activities on the mainstream of the Colorado
River in the lower basin and (2) identify and implement interim conservation measures that provided
immediate protection and conservation for selected endangered species and associated critical habitat
over this same period.
-------
The undertaking is very significant in that it includes about 600 miles of the Colorado River in the lower
basin, including developing an umbrella conservation plan (modified HCP) for about 100 species of
plants and animals that occur in both aquatic and riparian habitats, involves 50-50 cost sharing of a
minimum of $1.5 million a year during the 3-year program-development phase, and will provide a
framework to use in completing section 7 and section 10 consultations upon completion of the
LCRMSCP.
Several issues have been raised by environmental interests about this process, including whether the
MOA violates the ESA by being predecisional under section 7 of the ESA; that the program subordinates
species/habitat needs to the more traditional water and power uses based on order of wording in the
MOA; that Reclamation is in violation of the ESA by continuing informal consultation and should enter
into formal consultation because of an obvious "may effect" determination on its operations; how to
identify, measure, and ensure "sufficient progress" that provides regulatory insurance under the ESA
during the 3 years of program development; and that environmental interests have not been brought to
the table soon enough under the States/DOI LCRMSCP concept.
These, and other issues concerning management of federal and state funding sources are currently under
consideration within the LCRMSCP Steering Committee. This process, like the previous one, clearly
highlights the challenges that exist because of the conflicts between traditional management emphasis on
flood control, water, and power objectives and the rising demands for environmental, Native American,
and recreation needs to be accommodated on the Colorado River.
Reclamation's strategies and management processes for the Colorado River Basin continue to evolve and
change, but will clearly focus on actions and innovations that emphasize consensus-building, achieving
balanced use of limited and competing resources, seeking and providing for open public participation,
and shall include adaptive management and holistic approaches of both the watershed and resources.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Restoration On a Series of Scales: Genetic to
Landscape, Local to International
Brian D. Winter
Olympic National Park, Port Angeles, WA
Introduction
Elwha Dam was constructed on the Elwha River, Washington from 1910-1912, 7.9 km (4.9 m) above the
river mouth. It cuts off access to over 113 km (70 m) of mainstem and tributary habitat for 10 runs of
anadromous fish. Despite a state law requiring fish passage at obstructions on salmon bearing streams,
passage measures were not provided and salmon and trout have been restricted to the lower 7.9 km to
this day. The Glines Canyon Project was built from 1925-1927 about 13 km (8 m) upstream.
Sediment has been trapped within each reservoir. Deltas, composed mostly of coarse sediment (sand,
gravel and cobble), have developed at the heads of the reservoirs. The Lake Mills delta is up to 21 m (70
ft) thick (FERC 1993). Fine material (silt and clay) is more evenly distributed along the reservoir bottom,
with an average thickness of 3.7 m (12 ft). Because Glines Canyon Dam blocked the flow of material,
there is much less sediment trapped in Lake Aldwell. Without coarse material, the river substrate below
the dams has armored, depriving fish of the gravel needed for spawning (NPS 1995).
The reservoirs store solar radiation, causing a 2-4oC (3.6-7.2oF) increase in stream temperatures below
Elwha Dam in the late summer and early fall (FERC 1993). High water temperatures increase fish stress
and exacerbate fish diseases; two thirds of the returning chinook salmon in 1992 died prior to spawning
(DOI et al. 1994). The reservoirs also trap a portion of the nutrients and large woody debris that move
downstream, reducing aquatic productivity (NPS 1995). Wildlife and the ecosystem have been impacted
by the inundation of floodplain areas and the loss of nutrients that decomposing salmon carcasses
provide; the ecosystem within the park has been deprived of over 800,000 pounds of carcass biomass
annually (DOI et al. 1994).
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
In 1968 and 1973, the owner filed license applications for the Elwha and Glines Canyon projects,
respectively. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing process did not begin in
earnest until the early to mid-1980s, when dam removal was proposed to mitigate the adverse impacts of
the dams.
By 1991, it became obvious that years of litigation would ensue whether FERC attempted to license the
dams or order their removal. The Elwha River Ecosystem and Fisheries Restoration Act (P.L. 102-495)
was negotiated by Congressional staffers and signed into law by President Bush in 1992. The Elwha Act
protects the interests of the dams' owner and operator, Tribe, municipal and industrial water users, and
environmental groups. It also sets the standard of "full restoration of the Elwha River ecosystem and
native anadromous fisheries" and gives the Secretary of the Interior the authority to acquire and remove
the dams to meet this goal. The Congress maintains authority over the project through the appropriations
process. Interior released a final environmental impact statement (NPS 1995) in September 1995 that
recommends dam removal.
Study Area
The Elwha is the fourth largest river on the Olympic Peninsula. It is 72 km (45 m) long and drains a
basin of 831 km2 (321 m2). Stream flow averages 42.7 cms (1,507 cfs) and supplies water to municipal
and industrial users in Port Angeles (DOI et al. 1994). The river historically supported coho, pink, chum,
sockeye and spring and summer/fall runs of chinook salmon, winter- and summer-run steelhead trout,
searun cutthroat trout and char. The basin is dominated by western hemlock and Douglas fir forests,
which support a wide variety of mammals, amphibians, reptiles, and birds (NPS 1995).
Elwha Dam is a concrete and earth fill structure that is approximately 32 m (105 ft) high and 137 m (450
ft) wide. It impounds 4 km (2.5 m) long Lake Aldwell. Glines Canyon Dam is a single arch concrete dam
that is 64 m (210 ft) high and varies in width from 17 m (55 ft) at its base to 82 m (270 ft) at its crest
(DOI et al. 1994). Glines Canyon Dam impounds 4.5 km (2.8 m) long Lake Mills. Glines Canyon Dam
lies within Olympic National Park, while the Elwha Dam is downstream of the park boundary.
Dam Removal and Sediment Management
Options for removing the dams vary in river diversion methods to allow demolition in the dry. River
diversion at Elwha Dam would be done by excavating a channel through bedrock underlying the north
abutment and constructing a temporary coffer dam to direct the river to the channel. Following dam
removal, this channel would be filled and graded to match the surrounding landscape. Demolition of
Glines Canyon Dam can be accomplished without diverting the river. Gated notches would be
constructed at progressively lower levels in the dam to pass the river, as layer after layer of the concrete
structure is removed.
-------
The two reservoirs contain an estimated 16 million cubic yards of sediment. Two options for sediment
management have been extensively studied. The first option would allow natural erosion of the fine and
coarse material, while the second would slurry much of the silt and clay to the Strait of Juan de Fuca
while allowing the coarse material in the deltas to erode naturally. Only about half of the sediment would
exit the reservoir areas in either case (Randle and Lyons 1995).
Natural erosion would provide the quickest physical recovery of the river, but it would result in high
suspended sediment levels, impacting water users and aquatic resources. Dredging fine sediments to the
Strait would minimize impacts to water quality, while erosion of the deltas would allow the bedload to
replenish the lower river. Regardless, the Elwha Act requires the protection of water users prior to
initiating dam removal. Protection may include new well systems, water treatment facilities, or other
measures (DOI et al. 1994). Impacts to remaining anadromous fish stocks could be partially mitigated by
removing fish to clean water sources (e.g., hatcheries, tributaries, the upper river) prior to and during
dam removal.
Loss of the reservoirs would eliminate some resident fish and waterfowl habitat, although restoration of
the ecosystem and anadromous fish would largely mitigate these losses. At least nine of the ten
anadromous fish stocks affected could be restored; only sockeye salmon is in doubt because of a
potential lack of broodstock (NPS 1995). Over 380,000 salmon and steelhead could be produced within
20 to 25 years (FERC 1993). Wildlife species would benefit from restoration of anadromous fish and the
food these fish represent, and from recovery of 289 hectares (715 acres) of inundated terrestrial habitat
(NPS 1995). Heating of reservoir waters would be eliminated, and the natural transport of sediments,
nutrients, and woody debris would be restored.
Conclusions
Management reduces biodiversity through simplification and fragmentation, while human population
increases diminish and degrade habitat (Winter and Hughes 1995). Through the relatively simple act of
dam removal, all levels of the biodiversity hierarchy (e.g., genetic, species, ecosystem, landscape) within
the Elwha basin can be restored. Deconstruction jobs and tourism would benefit the local community,
monitoring ecosystem recovery would assist restoration planning nationally, and restored fish would be
harvested internationally.
Restoration efforts on smaller scales may not prevent the fragmentation and loss of native ecosystems.
When fully implemented, Elwha River restoration will demonstrate the capacity of a large river system
and fisheries to return to natural processes on many biological and ecological levels.
References
DOI (Department of the Interior), Department of Commerce, and Lower Elwha S'Klallam Tribe.
1994. The Elwha Report. Restoration of the Elwha River Ecosystem and Native Anadromous
Fisheries. U.S. Gov. Print. Office: 1994-590-269.
-------
FERC (Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). 1993. Draft Staff Report, Glines Canyon (FERC
No. 588) and Elwha (FERC No. 2683) Hydroelectric Projects, Washington.
NPS (National Park Service). 1995. Elwha River Ecosystem Restoration, Final Environmental
Impact Statement.
Randle, T.J. and Lyons, J.K. 1995. Elwha River restoration and sediment management. Paper
submitted to U.S. Committee on Large Dams. Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colorado.
Winter, B.D. and Hughes, R.M. 1995. AFS draft position statement: biodiversity. Fisheries
20(4):20-26.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Russian River Resource Enhancement Plan
Laurel Marcus, Project Director
California State Coastal Conservancy
Karen Gaffney, Project Manager
Circuit Rider Productions Inc.
Joan Florsheim, Senior Associate
Philip Williams and Associates, San Francisco, CA
The Russian River in Sonoma and Mendocino Counties is a typical California river system. The river
basin has been developed as a water supply through the damming of the main stem and tributaries; its
floodplain forests have been reclaimed for agricultural lands; its channel and its floodplains have been
mined extensively for gravel; and revetment works of all varieties have been installed to stabilize the
river banks. All these changes have altered the river's riparian ecosystem and its fishery. Since 1940 over
forty percent of the riparian forest has been lost; the once world famous steelhead fishery of the Russian
River is in severe decline. The Russian River Resource Enhancement Plan takes both a science-based
approach to restoring the riparian ecosystem and a community-based planning approach to inform the
public about the river and revise management practices.
Restoring the Balance
It is not possible to restore either the riparian or the aquatic ecosystem of any river without documenting
long term geomorphic and hydrologic trends in the river system and formulating measures to rebalance
these features. The riparian plant species which inhabit California rivers are uniquely adapted to the
drought and flood cycles of the pre-development landscape. The fresh deposits of sediment left on a river
bar following a flood are colonized by the pioneer plant species- willow and cottonwood. These species
-------
are adapted to withstand the mechanical effects and inundation of flood flows along the active channel.
For the thousands of willow and cottonwood seedlings which germinate in such settings only a few will
survive the drought of the summer. In turn as sediment is caught in these willow groves, their elevation
and relationship to the active channel changes. Over the years the pioneer plants on the low elevation bar
give way to higher elevation bars and eventually higher terraces with corresponding changes in plant
species. The upper terrace species include oak, ash, bay laurel and others which grow where floods are
less frequent and the mature stage of the habitat can develop. Through its response and adaptation to the
physical dynamics of the river system, the riparian ecosystem will include a continuum of successional
stages.
This complexity of plants reflects the complexity of the physical river and the pattern, density and
structure in this ecosystem changes episodically as large floods and long droughts occur. The mature
habitat is marked by a high diversity of over and understory plants with no single dominant species. This
mature stage is occasionally scoured through channel migration and bank erosion and contributes large
woody debris to the river channel. This debris is part of the complexity of aquatic habitats and important
for salmon and steelhead trout. As the bank is eroded, the new sediment is sent downstream and deposits
on a river bar thus starting the cycle anew. The balance in the river system between sediment supply and
flood flows produce this everchanging riparian ecosystem and the many microhabitats available to
wildlife.
The Russian River Enhancement Plan through extensive study of the hydrology, geomorphology, and
riparian biology has documented the changes that modern development has brought to the river and the
function of the riparian ecosystem. Two large reservoirs alter the hydrologic regime lowering the crest of
floods but prolonging the release of floodflows long after the storm has passed. These prolonged flows
saturate river banks increasing the likelihood of bank failure and adding to the instability of the system.
The reservoirs are also the primary water supply for over 500,000 residents in three counties. Water is
released from the reservoirs down the river channel throughout the year. Formerly the river dried up and
a near surface groundwater aquifer supplied riparian forest and deep shaded pools were summer refuge to
the salmon. The river now flows year round and is dominated by warm water fish species which prey on
juvenile salmon and trout.
The reservoirs also significantly reduce the sediment supply in the river causing the river to cannibalize
its bed and banks. Following the reduction of flood peaks through construction of the dams, farmers were
encouraged to reclaim the floodplains for agricultural use. The mature riparian forest was cut down and
replaced by orchards and vineyards. The river channel was narrowed and straightened and its flow
velocities greatly increased. Industrial gravel mining, particularly in the Middle Reach of the river, has
removed millions of tons of material from both the active channel and the floodplain terrace. The river's
present sediment transport processes will not be able to replace this loss in the near future.
Further complicating any attempt to restore the Russian River are the presence of nine very large and
deep gravel extraction pits along the river's edge in the Middle Reach. The bottom of these pits range
from 50 to 80 feet below the thalweg (lowest point) in the river channel. Unconsolidated alluvium
separates the deep pits from the river channel. This separator averages 50 to 100 feet in width and is
-------
made of the sediments that the river has been moving through the river system for many thousands of
years. The pits pose a hazard in which the river channel will over time meander and migrate into these
deep holes and cause massive channel downcutting and bank erosion. When this event occurs it would
significantly affect agricultural land, riparian forest and river habitats and likely cause a permanent loss
of aquifer storage and water supply.
The cumulative effect of these developments on the Russian River has been a change to a highly incised,
downcutting river channel where riparian forest is confined to a narrow strip of the river's bed and banks.
The floodplain which once supported the mature forest is now 20 to 25 feet above the active channel and
is isolated from summer water levels. This now isolated, or abandoned, floodplain no longer has the
physical features to reestablish riparian forest even if all current human uses were removed. The river
channel is very unstable due to the imbalance between the sediment supply and the river's flood flows.
Bank heights of twenty to thirty feet are common and bank erosion continues to take out the remaining
mature forest. Riprap often replaces vegetation on the river banks. Increased water velocities, resulting
from the narrowing and straightening of the channel, scour out pioneer seedlings. The loss of the mature
riparian forest and the inability of the pioneer species to reestablish will eventually cause the loss of the
riparian ecosystem along the Russian River. Under the present physical conditions no amount of planting
of trees or other restoration work will be successful until the physical conditions are brought back into
balance. The enhancement plan address this issue.
One of the primary features of the Russian River system that needs to be changed to achieve a more
stable river system and a sustainable habitat is the allowance for an adequate meander corridor for the
river. The meander corridor or the streamway must be wide enough to accommodate the natural sinuosity
and amplitude of the river channel. As part of restoring the meander corridor, a new low-elevation
floodplain would be created to replace the now isolated terrace area and allow for the development of
riparian forest. This wider meander corridor would help slow water velocities and allow for revegetation
processes to occur, as well as reduce the rate of channel incision and its negative effects on groundwater
supplies and bank erosion.
In areas of the river where the floodplain is dominated by agriculture this meander corridor would
represent a modest widening of the river area and would be constructed over many years as landowners
experience bank problems. Particularly below the large dams, channel downcutting creates a need for
continual bank repairs. These repair projects can be expensive for the farmers and future attempts to keep
the river in a confined narrow channel will be less and less successful as the channel continues to incise
in response to the dam's effect on sediment supply.
In the Middle Reach, the need to reduce the hazard posed by the deep gravel extraction pits could be
combined with the restoration of a meander corridor and the riparian ecosystem. This alternative would
require the construction of a large barrier through the pits to restrict the river from changing course into
the pits. The area adjacent to the river channel would be refilled and restored to the river corridor as a
low elevation floodplain. Both these concepts address the need to balance the large scale physical
processes of the Russian River in order to have a sustainable riparian ecosystem.
-------
Public Involvement
As part of carrying out the enhancement plan, the project directors convened two advisory committees,
one for each of the two counties. The membership of the committee was restricted to established,
incorporated groups with a direct interest in the river. A broad range of organizations were included with
a special emphasis placed on including private landowners and limiting government agencies to the
essential few. This decision was based on the fact that over 95% of the land in the Russian River
watershed is privately owned and the plan had to address the concerns of landowners. The initial focus of
the committee meetings was to establish an understanding of the science of the river including
geomorphic and hydrologic elements. As we explained how the river's functions had changed, it became
clear how many of the interest groups derive negative effects from the present problems. Throughout the
planning process there have been lawsuits going on between members of the committee, mostly
regarding the gravel mining in the Middle Reach. The project directors have had to establish ground rules
and constantly focus the committee on the river rather than each other to avoid confrontation and to
allow progress on the plan. After many meetings the Sonoma County committee has approved a set of
alternatives which focus on the stabilization of the gravel pits and restoration of a meander corridor for
the river.
Conclusion
Many of the problems on the Russian River arise from an engineering based approach to rivers which has
dominated California for the past fifty years. Through the construction of dams and flood control projects
our society has created a myth that we can control rivers. The enhancement plan for the Russian River
addresses the need to change this myth and look for ways to restore watersheds. In contrast to the
standard approach of riprapping or other means to " keep the river in its place" the plan endorses the
concept of giving the river the room it needs to allow for a balance to exist in the system. The recreation
of this balance, achieved on the Russian River through the creation of a meander corridor, benefits water
users, farmers and the natural ecosystem as well. It will never be possible for most of California's rivers
to return to their pre-settlement condition but restoring a physical balance can enhance the natural and the
developed uses of the overall system.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Interagency Stream Corridor Restoration Handbook
Ronald W. Tuttle, National Landscape Architect
USD A, Natural Resources Conservation Service, Washington, DC
Don Brady, Chief, Watershed Branch
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Introduction
The United States has approximately 3.5 million miles of rivers. The 1992 National Water Quality
Inventory, required under section 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, assessed and rated water quality in 642,
881 miles of these streams. The report stated that 56% of the miles assessed fully supported multiple uses
such as drinking water supply, fish and wildlife habitat, recreation, flood prevention, and erosion control.
The remaining 44% were degraded by human encroachment or pollutants such as sediment, nutrients,
and pesticides to the point that they are unable to support multiple uses.
Recognition of the value of stream corridors has come with the understanding of what has been lost
through uninformed or misguided actions on many streams and the watersheds that nourish them. Interest
in restoring stream corridors is expanding nationally and internationally, as indicated by increasing
numbers of case studies, published papers, technology exchanges, research projects and symposia.
Stream corridors are increasingly recognized as critical ecosystems supporting interdependent functions
and values.
In November 1994, representatives of a number of Federal agencies met to discuss the need to update
and improve existing guidance and manuals describing techniques for stream corridor restoration. They
agreed that:
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
¦ The scientific and technical understanding of stream corridor restoration continues to grow.
¦ Stream corridor restoration, water quality and general ecosystem health are inextricably linked.
¦ Federal agencies are engaging in increasing numbers of watershed-based restoration projects,
many of which involve multiple agencies and others.
¦ Federal agency resources can be utilized more effectively when coordinated; and
¦ Common scientific knowledge and technical approaches promote increased environmental
effectiveness and cooperation between parties to enhance outreach and education of resource
managers, private landowners, and practitioners.
With this in mind, fourteen Federal agencies, in an unprecedented cooperative effort, are now developing
a handbook of stream corridor restoration planning and design technology to serve as a common
reference for field level resource managers and technical specialists of the participating agencies, others
and the general public.
These Federal agencies are:
¦ U.S.Department of Agriculture
¦ Agricultural Research Service
¦ Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service
¦ Forest Service
¦ Natural Resources Conservation Service
¦ U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
¦ Tennessee Valley Authority
¦ Federal Emergency Management Agency
¦ U.S. Department of Defense
¦ Army Corps of Engineers
¦ U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development
¦ U.S. Department of Interior
¦ Bureau of Land Management
¦ Bureau of Reclamation
¦ Fish and Wildlife Service
-------
¦ National Biological Service
¦ National Park Service
Product and Approach
The handbook, to be entitled Stream Corridor Restoration Handbook, will offer a scientific perspective
and emphasize least intrusive solutions that are ecologically derived and self sustaining. It will provide a
general strategy for assessing problems; planning solutions; describing stream corridor functions,
resources, and values; balancing structural and non-structural solutions; and encouraging innovation.
Initial publication and distribution of the document will be sponsored through an ongoing interagency
cooperative effort. The working outline for the handbook includes the following chapters plus
appendices, references and a glossary:
Chapter 1: Introduction
Introduces and defines stream corridor restoration in the context of physical, chemical, and biological
processes that produce stream corridor systems. Describes the national scope of the restoration
technology contained in the handbook and limits its applicability to corridors associated with streams and
rivers that are not typically navigable by barges. The principles and techniques are presented as
applicable throughout the landscape continuum, from urban to rural.
Chapter 2: Stream Corridor Structure and Function
Lays the foundation for understanding the physical, chemical and biological characteristics of stream
corridors. The interrelationships between the landscape, watershed, stream corridor, and stream reach are
discussed. Introduces landscape ecology as a means to comprehend and envision stream corridors as
ecosystems within the context of larger landscapes. Describes the structure and functions of stream
corridors and characterizes the hydrologic, geomorphic, chemical, and biological processes that shape
them. Presents associated soils, flora, fauna; the concept of disturbance in stream corridor ecosystems;
and indices for evaluating quality.
Chapter 3: Planning
Offers a general planning process and common vision of project objectives and components for
successful stream corridor restoration. Provides a realistic methodology for analyzing alternatives and
sets the stage for practical, cost-effective restoration projects. Includes existing resource conditions,
surrounding land uses, competing demands, spatial relationships, and objectives across a range of scales
as prerequisites of effective planning.
Chapter 4: Design
-------
Focuses on the selection and design of appropriate stream corridor characteristics. Geomorphic and
hydrologic analyses are used to assess stream stability. Reviews soil bioengineering, riparian restoration,
land management practices, and other methods to promote streambank, floodplain, and upland stability.
Offers informal design, desktop design and modeling as three increasingly complex design approaches.
Describes levels of restoration effort ranging from simply eliminating the cause(s) of stream impairment
and waiting for the natural healing processes to work, to extensive restoration work including channel
reconstruction and revegetation.
Chapter 5: Implementation
Describes the resources and sequence of activities that are necessary to successfully construct restoration
practices and systems. Discusses division of responsibilities, construction planning natural system
requirements, construction planning logistics, site preparation, site construction, labor and resource
costs, and characteristics common to every successful restoration project.
Chapter 6: Performance Evaluation
Provides a general approach for monitoring whether the restoration project is achieving the specific goals
identified during planning. Offers a conceptual framework for evaluating restoration and reporting
lessons learned, including monitoring techniques.
Chapter 7: Maintenance and Management
Discusses adaptive management and maintenance to achieve project longevity. Describes special urban
and rural considerations, including measures to protect restored areas.
Conclusion
The participating agencies are dedicated to improving the science and application of stream corridor
restoration technology and transferring the related techniques and approaches to all interested parties.
Cooperative development of this handbook will enhance and encourage the sharing of expertise,
resources, and facilities; make more efficient use of funds; and provide consistent information on stream
corridor restoration. In addition, a cooperative effort will increase the availability of information to those
restoring stream corridors and to the public in general. The handbook is scheduled to be published and
distributed early in 1997.
References
Forman, R.T.T. and M. Godron. 1986. Landscape ecology. John Wiley and Sons, NY.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Reservoir Watershed Protection: Staff and
Curriculum Development for Drinking Water Source
Protection_A Collaborative Environmental
Education Project
Glenn M. Swiston, Teacher/Naturalist
Baltimore County Public Schools, Towson, MD
Ron Barnes, Science Supervisor
Baltimore County Public Schools, Towson, MD
Brad Yohe, Science Supervisor
Carroll County Public Schools, Westminster, MD
Jack Anderson, Manager, Special Projects
Baltimore Metropolitan Council, Baltimore, MD
This paper describes a collaborative environmental education project by Baltimore and Carroll Public
Schools, the Reservoir Watershed Protection Program for metropolitan Baltimore, and the Baltimore
Metropolitan Council. Its goals are to develop a reservoir watershed protection curriculum that meets
state and county educational outcomes, train a corps of teachers in both school systems in its use,
encourage a sense of environmental stewardship for the watersheds by students, and use the curriculum
in middle and/or high schools in Baltimore and Carroll Counties, Maryland.
Reservoir Watersheds
-------
Water from three large reservoirsLoch Raven, Prettyboy, and Liberty is the primary source of drinking
water for over 1.6 million customers in Baltimore City, and Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Carroll, Harford,
and Howard Counties. Baltimore City owns the reservoirs and treatment systems and is responsible for
the quality of water delivered to customers. Reservoir watersheds span large portions of Baltimore and
Carroll Counties. Loch Raven, a 23-billion-gallon reservoir north of Towson, Maryland, has a 223-
square-mile drainage area mostly within Baltimore County, but also in a large area in northeastern
Carroll County. (See Figure 1.) Prettyboy, a 20-billion-gallon upstream reservoir in northern Baltimore
County, drains an 80-square-mile area in both Baltimore and Carroll Counties. Liberty, a 43-billion-
gallon reservoir along the boundary between Baltimore and Carroll Counties, drains a 164-square-mile
area mostly in Carroll County, but also in a large portion of Baltimore County.
fZ-msyi'v-Tt-iz
Figure 1. Public and Private Educational Facilities and Reservoir Watersheds.
All three reservoirs were found in the early 1970s to be in various states of eutrophication. Phosphorus
from sewage treatment plants, agriculture, and urban development was causing excessive growth of
algae. Algal blooms were causing problems in the water supply treatment plant and were adversely
affecting the taste and odor of drinking water. These concerns led to the Reservoir Watershed
Management Agreement among Baltimore City, Baltimore and Carroll Counties, the Maryland
Departments of Agriculture and the Environment, the Baltimore Metropolitan Council, and Soil
Conservation Districts in the watersheds. The Agreement put in place a Reservoir Watershed Protection
Program and an Action Strategy. There has been much progress in controlling point sources of pollution
in the watersheds. While measures to control nonpoint pollution have also been implemented, concern
-------
has grown over the diffuse nature and sources of these nonpoint pollutants. A key action item in the
Protection Strategy is to increase public awareness and to motivate people to practice pollution
prevention.
Approximately 60,000 households live within the watersheds. Over 120,000 students attend public
schools in Baltimore and Carroll Counties. Virtually all homes within Baltimore County's Metropolitan
District receive treated public drinking water from the reservoirs. Liberty Reservoir water is used in
southeastern Carroll County. Many students both live and attend schools located in the watersheds. Other
students live in the watersheds but attend schools outside the watersheds. Others attend schools in the
watersheds though they live elsewhere. Public school curricula apply throughout each county. The
Reservoir Watershed Protection curriculum is used throughout each county.
An Environmental Education Partnership
This project is an environmental education partnership of Baltimore County Public Schools, Carroll
County Public Schools, the Reservoir Watershed Protection Program, and the Baltimore Metropolitan
Council. We are grateful for funding assistance provided by EPA's Environmental Education Program,
and for supplemental funding by the Chesapeake Bay Trust for equipment needed to implement the
monitoring and research component of this project. Our curriculum draws upon the volunteer stream
monitoring program of Maryland Save Our Streams (SOS).
The project was closely related to parallel public awareness efforts sponsored by the Reservoir
Watershed Protection Program and recommended in the Public Awareness Marketing Plan for the
Reservoir Watershed Protection Program prepared by SOS under contract with the Baltimore
Metropolitan Council. In collaboration with SOS, a series of reservoir watershed protection workshops
was offered for the general public. Workshops featured displays, resource materials including a reservoir
watershed "personal action plan" brochure, and presentations by participating organizations. Another
important part of the public awareness effort was a survey of households in the watersheds done by the
Schaefer Center for Public Policy. The results of the survey assisted the environmental education project
in determining watershed residents' awareness of the reservoir watersheds and their perception of the
quality of the water in lakes and streams in their communities. The survey revealed significant gaps in
public knowledge and information. Several years from now a post-campaign survey will be taken to help
evaluate the effectiveness of the campaign and offer further insights as to curriculum development needs.
Baltimore and Carroll County Public Schools have excellent environmental education programs. Student
exposure to the ecology of lakes and reservoirs, watersheds, and knowledge and appreciation of where
drinking water comes from was limited, however. This project enabled Baltimore and Carroll County
Public Schools to fill this gap and to enhance environmental educational teachers' skills through
workshops and curriculum development. The project also increased state and local government capacity
to deliver environmental education. It established a new environmental partnership.
This is a two-year effort. During the first year, a team of six (6) environmental educators from the two
-------
school systems was selected along with an enviornmental education consultant. In an intensive week-
long summer workshop they reviewed current K-12 environmental education curricula, and enhanced it
by adding components that address reservoir/lake ecology, watersheds, public water supplies, and
reservoir protection. The curriculum they developed was comprehensive. It integrated knowledge of
reservoirs and watersheds with environmental science, social science and community issues, and
personal stewardship. In addition to classroom teaching activities, the curriculum includes field trips to
reservoir sites for personal study, research and observation. The new curriculum components were field
tested during the following school year in the six home schools of the environmental educators. After
applying the program in their own schools, the team met during the following summer to evaluate
experiences, reshape outcomes and modify curriculum components as necessary and appropriate. This
summer workshop also included staff development for additional teachers. The "teacher-trainers" have
become resource persons and trainers of educators throughout the school systems.
The Reservoir Technical Group of water quality staff from organizations participating in the Reservoir
Watershed Protection Program met with the teachers and consultant. They provided resource materials
and special insights about water quality management programs in the watersheds served by the school
districts. A meeting of the Reservoir Technical Group with local government staff responsible for public
outreach helped coordinate this effort with those of other organizations.
Results
The existing outstanding environmental education programs in these two school systems assured a
successful outcome for this project. Experienced and motivated teachers and administrative personnel
were selected by the county science supervisors. The size of these two school systems made the per-
student cost of developing the curriculum very low. This project has closed gaps in the current
environmental education programs in Baltimore and Carroll Counties by improving teaching skills. It
increased the capacity of state, regional and local organizations to help develop and deliver
environmental education in a collaborative style. It facilitated a partnership among the two local school
systems, participating organizations in the Reservoir Watershed Protection Program, and the Baltimore
Metropolitan Council.
Local governments and other governmental organizations participating in the project have learned more
about environmental education in the two school systems. Through this project they have had an
opportunity to suggest points for inclusion in environmental education curricula relating to reservoir
watershed protection. This project offers an excellent model for building governmental capacity to
deliver environmental education. The audience reached by this project includes public school
environmental educators and their students in Baltimore and Carroll Counties. Because a student is part
of a household, other family members have become aware of these issues.
As a result of this project, a corps of "teacher-trainers" skilled in teaching about reservoirs, drinking
water supplies and watersheds are available as resource persons and staff development specialists. Each
teacher is adapting the curriculum guides in unique and creative ways, ranging from classroom models to
-------
a comprehensive interdisciplinary focus on reservoir streams and watersheds involving student "service
hours" for participating students. Students are gaining an appreciation of these issues through hands-on
experiences at the reservoirs, critical thinking, and problem-solving skill development. The reservoir
watersheds are providing a living laboratory for students and teachers in their home communities.
Self-evaluation is an important part of this project. Key criteria used to evaluate the project include: Do
students gain an understanding of the ecology of lakes/reservoirs and their watersheds? Do students gain
an understanding of public water supply systems? Do students become more aware of the linkages
between what they do in their everyday lives and the quality of the waters that feed into our sources of
public drinking water? The inclusion of reservoir watershed protection and related science and
stewardship in the ongoing environmental education programs of Baltimore County Public Schools and
Carroll County Public Schools has been accomplished.
Tips for Other Organizations Considering Similar Environmental
Educational Efforts
Start your process by contacting the science advisors in your school districts. They know their current
curricula and the state's environmental educational requirements. They know about funding for
environmental education. And they know the teachers within their areas of responsibility. Also contact
the environmental education coordinator at the state department of education. He or she can fill you in on
relevant statewide programs and offer some good advice. Form alliances with other organizations
seeking similar goals, especially the source water protection program in your community. They know the
importance of public awareness and education in preventing pollution within watersheds. Don't try to
reinvent the wheel! Take advantage of the rich body of environmental educational materials that is
already available. While these materials can save you time and energy, they are no substitute for
specifically designed curriculum guides that focus on specific resources and suggest site-specific field
activities. Include field experiences for students. And finally, play a supportive role for teachers and
administrators by providing resources, contacts, and encouragement.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Education and Watershed Management:
Using the River as an Interdisciplinary Teaching
Tool
Mark K. Mitchell, Education Director
James L. Graham, Executive Director
Friends of the Rouge, Detroit, MI
Introduction
Aldo Leopold once wrote: "A river is its watershed". Those words ring even more true today as
watershed management is moving from the end-of-pipe solutions that so often characterized point source
problems to remedies and strategies designed to reduce nonpoint source pollution. Erosion and
sedimentation, persistent toxic contamination, and polluted stormwater runoff are the problems of the
day. These problems, and their potential solutions, require a greater degree of institutional cooperation
than ever before, and a high degree of public understanding and support. To significantly reduce polluted
stormwater runoff, for example, requires an active change in the way people conduct their daily lives.
This kind of shift in thinking requires education about issues, but also a sense of concern for the river.
The intent of this paper is to describe the Rouge Education Project (REP), a school-based watershed
education program in Detroit and its relationship to the Rouge River National Wet Weather
Demonstration Project. The authors' contend that the solution to these more diffuse watershed problems
rests heavily on public participation and public support-a school-based watershed education program is a
very effective approach.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Historical Setting
-------
Abandoned automobiles, discarded shopping carts, eroded river banks, raw sewage, and toxic-laden
sediments defined the Rouge River in 1985. It was in this year that the International Joint Commission
designated the Rouge River an Area of Concern. One of 42 Areas of Concern around the Great Lakes
Basin at that time. This designation led to the development of a cleanup plan, or Remedial Action Plan
(RAP) to restore beneficial uses to the Rouge River.
Remedial Action Plans follow three stages: (1) problem identification and description of causes, (2)
identification and implementation of remedial actions, and (3) evaluation of remedial actions and
restoration of beneficial uses. Throughout this process, public involvement and education were
recognized as essential to the future success and sustainability of remedial efforts. This recognition led to
the birth of Friends of the Rouge in 1986, a nonprofit group committed to the restoration and stewardship
of the Rouge River. Friends of the Rouge has become a driving force for public participation and
education within the Rouge River watershed through two major efforts: Rouge Rescue, a river clean-up
and restoration effort that attracts more than 2,500 volunteers annually, and the Rouge Education Project.
The Rouge Education Project
The REP is a school-based watershed education program. The goal of the Rouge River Education Project
is to develop a citizenry in the Rouge River basin that is aware and concerned about the river. To
accomplish this goal, several objectives need to be met.
¦ To link diverse schools and communities together-rural, suburban, and city through the common
thread of the Rouge River.
¦ To provide a watershed focus and watershed-wide analysis.
¦ To increase student problem-solving skills.
¦ To encourage an interdisciplinary focus (science, language arts, mathematics, visual arts, social
studies).
¦ To promote student empowerment and action-taking.
The educational model fostered by the REP focuses strongly on the watershed as a hydrologic feature,
but also as a teaching tool. Schools sample from many different points along the watershed, and share
information and water quality data through a computer network. This network provides to students (and
by extension their families) a picture of water quality throughout the watershed. Where are the problem
areas, and why? What is upstream from my site? What is downstream from my site? Where is water
quality good and why? The why, what, and where questions lead students and teachers to potential
sources of pollution, or of protection. They also lead schools to community people who may have
answers; these could be agency people, business people, or university people. The foundation of the REP
is this network, both among schools and as schools reaching out to their communities.
-------
Watersheds are inherently interdisciplinary-they are crucibles of human activity. Social, economic, and
political concerns are played out in land use decisions, and in decisions that affect water quality and
quantity. When students and teachers begin to look at watersheds in this way they are taking an
ecosystem approach which is the backbone of the RAP process. Watershed related problems: polluted
stormwater runoff, combined sewer overflows, and toxic contamination of sediments require effective
problem solvers who combine a technical understanding of the problem with the skills to work
effectively with others. In order to build an effective citizenry in the Rouge watershed, these
understandings and skills need to be nurtured.
This year, at least 100 schools (K-12), nearly 200 teachers, and over 9,000 students will participate in the
REP. But what does participation mean? For elementary students and their teachers it means measuring
dissolved oxygen, BOD, temperature, turbidity, and pH; collecting and indexing benthic
macroinvertebrates; and, conducting aesthetic surveys of the river. For middle school and high school
students and teachers participation means measuring nine water quality tests that make up the National
Sanitation Foundation's Water Quality Index (NSF, WQI): dissolved oxygen, fecal coliform (and e-coli)
bacteria, pH, BOD, Temperature, Nitrates-Nitrogen, Total Phosphorus, Turbidity, and Total Solids
(Mitchell and Stapp, 1996). In addition, these grades also sample for benthic macroinvertebrates and
apply diversity and tolerance indices. Aesthetic surveys are part of all grades. See Figure 1 for an
example of the sequence of science activities from elementary through high school.
Watershed Education
G rades
9-12 aesthetic monitoring * macroinvertehrate sampling/indices topographic
maps, aerial photos, satellite images * (.IS, Arc View NFS, WQI * stream
velocity and discharge
6-8 aesthetic monitoring * macroinvertehrate sampling/indices *•' topographic
maps/acril photos \Sl ,\\ OI - stream velocity and discharge
K-5 aesthetic monitoring * macroinvertehrate sampling/indices - dissolved
oxygen, pi I, BOI)-5,temperature, turhidity - stream velocity
Figure 1. Sequence of science activities in the REP, elementary through high school.
Although the core monitoring program occurs in May, teacher and student training occurs throughout the
school year. Education staff and experienced teachers lead computer networking workshops, a
GIS/remote sensing workshop, a bus tour of part of the watershed, and water quality monitoring
-------
workshops. Along with teacher training, classes are held at local universities to train students to become
resource assistants to new teachers to the program. These trained university students work for two weeks
every day at schools during the core monitoring effort.
The culmination of the REP each year is the Rouge Student Congress. Student representatives from
participating schools and their teachers come to exhibit their art work, displays, or projects; share water
quality data; and, perform songs or theater. It is a significant forum for bringing schools together with
decision-makers. The Student Congress also is a way to highlight connection to the larger Rouge River
National Wet Weather Demonstration Project.
The Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project
In 1992, Wayne County received a large EPA demonstration grant to study the impact of wet weather
flows on water quality, to design alternative methods of removing contaminants from stormwater, and to
evaluate the most efficient suite of methods for control of wet weather pollution. There are nine program
elements: GIS development, data collection and field work, water quality sampling, computer modeling,
nonpoint source BMP's, combined sewer overflow evaluation, financial/institutional analysis, and public
involvement and education. Since 1992, the Rouge Education Project has been funded through the
Demonstration Project under Public Involvement and Education.
Currently, the Demonstration Project is in the implementation phase. There are 17 major construction
projects underway in the watershed including the: construction of huge retention/treatment basins,
separation of combined sewers, and development of wetlands to store and treat stormwater. Evaluation of
the effectiveness of these remedies is a next major step in the process. The focus increasingly is on
specific projects at the community or sub-watershed level. Within communities, significant
improvements to stormwater quality can be made over time through the combined efforts of thousands of
individuals. Such improvements flow from an educated and concerned public.
How do you build a critical mass of people who will continue to push for improvements in water quality?
How do you change the way that people interact with their environment-to become more
environmentally responsible? How do you avert future water quality problems long after these large
projects have left the scene? Answers to these questions lie in a comprehensive education program aimed
at both schools and communities. The Rouge Education Project provides a strong foundation upon which
to build adult and community educational initiatives.
The Friends of the Rouge and the Demonstration Project are working together on several projects that
will build sustainability. Students and community citizens will soon play a greater role in data collection
through adoption of aesthetic monitoring and through broader use of the NSF, WQI. This data collection
serves two purposes: it gets people involved and it generates data that can reveal long-term trends in
water quality. Selected schools in the REP will be working more closely with their communities through
a GIS program using ArcView 2.1 to study land use in communities and to help in local planning efforts.
They are also participating in an Adopt-a-Stream Project in which community groups monitor the river,
-------
undertake stream restoration projects, and improve wildlife habitat.
What Have We Learned About Watershed Education?
School-based watershed education programs must coexist within two worlds: the world of education and
the institutional structure of schools, and the world of community in which most of the activity occurs.
The constraints posed by schools sometimes conflict with the needs of the broader community. For
example, student monitoring would be most helpful to the community if it were conducted at least
monthly, but because of financial constraints in schools and an overflowing curriculum, schools are
fortunate to sample twice a year.
¦ It is essential to foster administrative and school district support for the project from the
beginning.
Sustainability is a popular word these days. In the context of school-based education programs it means
institutionalization of student watershed education within the curriculum, but it also means building
partnerships in the community and generating a stable, local funding base.
¦ Work with curriculum coordinators and educational initiatives to build credibility for watershed
education programs and infusion of these programs within the curriculum.
Build partnerships with community groups and institutions that can help enrich the program
(Figure 2).
-------
Lrlobal ElK-BLf
EU,.ilO TiTTMTTto 1
EjIiJIitLOll
HatVsrnl
kctitulioml
Fnacdr
EJetioit ifcistEaCardai
Cimbiool Institute of Sdanca
Micbigm Stile Uiir.^KiV
United Wiy C o iummitp'
Sar/iG*
Uiiivaitfily of MLchdgiif
D6:iib:>m
Oitkiii Community Collage
Illld HlitLu liil Tri TT- it
L'OIHlli* Sluli
Friends of tin?
Rcn^re
Fjinjge Education
Project
Rouga Emi Nitioiid Wat
Waitlfii DamoictritiiOii
Project
Wiyiu CoubV
Eir.iiLiiimEiijlil
Protection Agamy
Coipoiite aid
Fu injiitLij n Friatdf!
Ce I±±Li 1 Mo to I*
HippjldaliO
DattoitEdiion
FijiitditLon
ulill lj ItllllLGi 1
Tr.TT.-1T|-|TlTTWlt:< 1
Coi*uHms:
IyChlljllO giiui
TnTii-VjJ. o 11 Fu1 < l~i i i >i
ANR Pipaliiti
Figure 2. The RoLge Educstion Project and its Friencfe
How do we know we are meeting our objectives? Are we enhancing problem solving skills? Are we
contributing to increased understanding of the watershed? These are questions tied to both program
assessment (how are we doing as a program) and to educational assessment (are students meeting
educational objectives related to this program?)
¦ Build systemic forms of assessment into the program-both program assessment and educational
assessment.
¦ Align the activities and curriculum of the program with state and district educational objectives.
¦ Work with scientists, agency people, and communities to design the program to meet some of
their monitoring needs.
Are there forms of monitoring that schools could realistically undertake that would contribute to the
-------
broader data collection efforts of watershed management? What water quality information is lacking, or
that cannot be collected by underfunded state agencies?
¦ Seek to collaborate with watershed management groups by contributing to gaps in understanding
of the watershed.
These lessons can be put to work to build viable watershed education programs that will help make
possible the ambitious goals of watershed management programs. A river and its watershed are too
complex and diverse for any one group or agency to effectively manage; it takes all of us. School-based
watershed education programs have effectively worked to build broad public support and active
participation to restore and protect watersheds throughout the United States.
References
Mitchell, Mark K. and William B. Stapp. (1996) Field Manual for Water Quality Monitoring: An
Environmental Education Program for Schools. Thomson-Shore, Inc.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Plugging People Into The Watershed Team
Approach: The Community Watershed Project
John Hermsmeier, Program Director; Andrea Trank, Projects Director
Environmental Education Center at Miller School, Charlottesville, VA
David Hirschman, Charlottesville/Albemarle County Water Resources
Manager
County of Albemarle Engineering Department, Charlottesville, VA
Scenario: a citizen notices that the stream that flows through the neighborhood is chronically clogged
with trash, has loads of sediment in it, or has an oily sheen, and wants to "do something" to help the
stream. The citizen calls a local or state environmental office, offering assistance, and is told "urban
streams are just like that" or "go pick up the trash." Discouraged, the citizen is led to believe that there is
little that can be done, and she or he must be the only one concerned about the stream.
The lost energies of these citizens are a great opportunity cost for the health of our streams. Many of the
people who receive these types of calls routinely have longed for a way to "plug" people in to make use
of their concern and energy in a constructive way. But where and how do we plug them in?
The Environmental Education Center at Miller School (EEC) has teamed with local government agencies
in the Charlottesville/Albemarle County region of Virginia to create a framework of Watershed Teams,
known as the Community Watershed Project (CWP). The CWP was initiated as part of an EPA section
319 nonpoint source grant.
The unique characteristics of the watershed teams include the following:
¦ Each team focuses intensely on a local watershed (several square miles) where actions can be
-------
directed and results accomplished.
¦ Schools function as the hub of each watershed team. Each participating school has a liaison to the
project and equipment, such as storm drain stencils and kick-seine nets.
¦ Interested citizens can plug in through their local school to participate in stream monitoring and
other watershed activities. Neighborhood associations are also being encouraged to "plug in."
¦ Computer technology is being adapted for the project; watershed teams will soon be sharing
stream data on the Internet.
The various components of the Community Watershed Project are outlined below.
Community Watershed Map
The first step in actualizing the watershed team approach was to identify individual watersheds that made
sense from an organizing and management standpoint. These watersheds could not be too big so that
organizing became cumbersome, or too small so as to lack critical mass. The City of Charlottesville and
Albemarle County were mapped into thirty-one "home watersheds" assumed to be of appropriate size.
All schools in the region were added to the map to conceptualize the potential for school-based
watershed teams.
Teacher Workshops
During 1994 and 1995, teacher workshops were held to initiate the project by training teachers in stream
monitoring, storm drain stenciling, watershed mapping, and other skills. Teachers attending the
workshops represented about half of the thirty-one home watersheds. The teachers divided into
watershed groups and began the process of developing watershed-based action plans. The watersheds
represent vastly different land uses, from ultra-urban to rural, and team efforts must reflect these varying
watershed realities.
Recent workshops built upon this foundation by providing teachers with practical guidelines for
designing projects to improve water quality on and near their school property, and by introducing
supporting curricula, such as Project Wet.
Student Water Congress
Now that many teachers have been trained through the CWP and conducted activities in their classrooms,
it is time to draw together the students that form the core of the newly-assembled watershed teams. This
will be accomplished through a Student Water Congress. The Congress will involve middle and high
school students from across the Thomas Jefferson Soil and Water Conservation District (TJSWCD) on
-------
Earth Day, 1996, in conjunction with the District's Envirothon Competition. Delegates will prepare for
the Congress by identifying and researching issues that affect water quality in the watersheds right where
they live and go to school.
The Student Water Congress is a critical stage in the development of the EEC's Community Watershed
Project. Now that the framework for the Community Watershed Project has been established, it is time to
systematically build each watershed-based, school-led team so that it can begin to function as a self-
supporting unit. The Student Water Congress, along with associated preparation and follow-up activities,
will help build this watershed team structure and also provide a mechanism for connecting each team to
the others throughout the TJSWCD. By focusing education and restoration projects on each particular
watershed, students and fellow watershed residents can pursue the enormous task of restoring the
Chesapeake Bay at a scale where they can make a difference and document results.
On the day of the Student Water Congress, delegates will make presentations about their home
watershed, including the following:
¦ A map showing the home watershed location in relation to other community watersheds.
¦ How upper watersheds affect downstream water resources.
¦ Current water quality of their streams as determined through SOS monitoring and research of
existing data.
¦ Stream discharge.
¦ Recreational uses of their streams, including fishing, boating, swimming or simply kids playing in
the creek.
¦ Land uses in the watershed and proposed land use changes.
¦ Ideas for action projects, such as streambank stabilization, clean-ups, and BMP implementation.
¦ Current and potential stewardship partners (each team is asked to bring a community member).
¦ Decisionmakers and agencies that affect water quality and habitat.
¦ Oral histories from long-time residents.
Suggestions for a region-wide theme or project to be taken back to each home watershed for local
implementation.
-------
¦ A logo design for the home watershed that can be placed on t-shirts, publicity, bridges, and storm
drains.
The Student Water Congress provides a mechanism for students and citizens to address the Chesapeake
Bay right where they live. Although the entire soil and water conservation district comprises only a few
percent of the Chesapeake watershed, and the dozens of subwatersheds identified within the district are
fractions of that percentage, the power of a local, watershed-based, school-led approach to restoring the
Bay is that it breaks down the task to a point where it can actually be accomplished. A successful Student
Water Congress is the beginning to ultimately engaging neighborhood associations, businesses, civic
groups, government leaders and all other community structures in the Community Watershed Project.
World-Wide Web Stream Study Unit
EEC staff worked with the University of Virginia faculty and students to develop a web-based stream
study designed to prepare students for macroinvertebrate (SOS) sampling in the field. The computer
network provides a technological component to our CWP by making it possible for watershed teams to
create home pages about their watershed and school and to share data on the web with other teams.
Kellytown Habitat Project
The CWP took on a new hue with the Kellytown Habitat Project, which is a collaborative effort between
the EEC, the City, a neighborhood association, the University of Virginia School of Architecture, a local
developer, and technical people from various agencies. This team is developing a highly participatory
process whereby a land development project will incorporate a habitat area along a stream and innovative
design features to enhance the habitat and water quality.
The stream that runs through the project site, Kelly's Creek, provides a physical connection between our
CWP and habitat protection projects, and has been a focal point for student interest from nearby schools.
Our approach is to use the CWP home watershed map as a framework for spinoff projects, such as
habitat protection. Watershed teams that monitor and identify with particular streams can also apply their
energy and expertise to other environmental considerations, such as habitat protection, within the natural
boundaries defined by the watershed.
Can the Community Watershed Project Succeed?
Teachers and others in the community have responded quite favorably to a watershed approach that
minimizes the importance of such matters as what school system one belongs to. Neighborhood
associations have also expressed keen interest in the project.
A chief obstacle to full implementation of the CWP is the enormity of work associated with creating a
totally new way of organizing people and their environmental interest. We are finding that each
-------
individual team needs some prodding and follow-up to make the watershed glue stick. In general, people
are not accustomed to identifying with a watershed as they would with a neighborhood, jurisdiction, or
other type of community. However, when the rain falls, the "members" of a watershed are tied together,
whether they recognize that fact or not.
Also, it is difficult to secure the funding necessary to meet the community's interest that is just sitting
there waiting to be tapped. When funding is spread over the entire watershed network, it is used to
organize and build the CWP framework, but this does not guarantee the permanence of each team.
Funding is needed at the micro-level, at least initially, but is hard to obtain from outside sources because
of the small-scale nature of the projects.
Visions of the Community Watershed Project
Given the obstacles outlined above, we remain sanguine about the potential inherent in the Community
Watershed Project. Public and private agencies have converged on this theme of watershed teams and
local action. In order to succeed, we must remain focused on and be guided by our visions for the project.
These include:
¦ Well-organized watershed-based teams will serve as stewards of the total environment in each
watershed.
¦ The natural linkage between small-scale watershed teams will create the means for watershed
protection on an increasingly larger scale, until resources the size of the Chesapeake Bay can be
addressed realistically.
¦ The reorganization of a community's approach to its environment based on natural, rather than
arbitrary political boundaries, will lead to comprehensive solutions that involve people from all
sectors of the community.
¦ The energies and talents of interested individuals and organizations will be effectively "plugged-
in" to an ongoing and ever-expanding network of watershed teams.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
CREEC: A Central Oregon Partnership Focused on
Watershed Education and Restoration
Dean Grover
Forest Fisheries Biologist, Ochoco National Forest, Prineville, OR
David A. Nolte
Bring Back the Natives Project Coordinator, Trout Unlimited, Redmond, OR
Introduction
The acronym CREEC stands for Crooked River Ecosystem Education Council. CREEC is a watershed
restoration and education partnership located in the Crooked River watershed, a tributary to the
Deschutes River in Central Oregon. Major partners in this effort include; the Crook County School
District (CCSD), the Ochoco National Forest (USFS), the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
(ODFW), the Ochoco Chapter of Trout Unlimited (TU), the Prineville District of the Bureau of Land
Management (BLM), and the Oregon Water Resources Department. Many other partners have also
played significant roles in individual activities. CREEC's Mission Statement is:
"Provide watershed-based educational curriculum for the Crook County School District that
covers classroom lessons, field studies and work experience environments for all students as well
as yearly, renewable watershed rehabilitation projects designed to enhance the Crooked River
Basin and increase public awareness of the watershed's importance."
Although restoration of the Crooked River watershed is clearly one of the primary goals of CREEC, this
paper will focus solely on the educational goals of the partnership. The Crooked River watershed is
located near the geographic center of Oregon. Prineville is the population center and county seat. Primary
industries include ranching and wood products manufacturing. As with many other areas in the rural
-------
west, water quality and fisheries habitat have declined in the Crooked River basin in the past 150 years.
Dams, road building, logging, livestock grazing, uncontrolled recreational use and irrigation have been
the primary causal agents in this decline. As a result, streams that used to be major producers of
anadromous fish such as spring chinook salmon and summer steelhead now contain only non-game fish
or introduced warm water species such as smallmouth bass. Populations of redband rainbow trout
(Oncorynchus mykiss), the primary native coldwater gamefish in the basin, are fragmented and restricted
to headwater areas where relatively good habitat conditions remain.
The central idea for CREEC began to take shape in 1989. That year, concern over watershed conditions
and the status of the fishery resource led several local people to form the Ochoco Chapter of Trout
Unlimited. In 1991, as part of a Statewide series sponsored by the Oregon Rivers Council, a Crooked
River Watershed symposium was held in Prineville. Although there was little agreement among the
disparate groups that attended the symposium, this event was a milestone because it was the first-ever
attempt at bringing together all of the entities and individuals that had a stake in management of the
watershed.
Also in 1991, TU chapter members began working with local teachers and agencies towards the goal of
educating students about watershed conditions and processes. In 1992, members wrote their first grant to
the Governors Watershed Enhancement Board (GWEB) to obtain funds to begin implementing a
watershed curriculum in local schools. The grant was denied due to what GWEB perceived as a lack of
local support for the program. In May of 1992 Trout Unlimited, in cooperation with the USFS and BLM,
arranged a tour of the watershed for the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation (NFWF). The Foundation
is based in Washington DC and matches federal money to private donations through a program called
"Bring Back the Natives". As a result of this tour, the Chapter got its first grant for what was to later be
known as CREEC. This grant money went to the Crook County School District to help fund a
greenhouse on school grounds with the understanding that some of the space in the greenhouse would be
used to cultivate native riparian plants that would eventually be outplanted back into the watershed at
restoration sites. This was a significant step for the partnership. By being able to present a check for
$5,000 to the school for educational purposes, the program attained legitimacy in the eyes of the school
board and community. Since that time the partnership has grown substantially. The annual budget for
CREEC has averaged between $60,000 and $120,000 for the past three years. This money is obtained
through agency contributions, NFWF matching funds, grants and donations. The program reaches
approximately 2,000 students per year annually in a county whose total population is 14,500 people.
A second fortuitous circumstance that helped CREEC gain momentum was the passage of the Oregon
21st Century Education Act. This landmark legislation radically altered the way the public school system
in Oregon was to be operated. Key aspects of the Act included more emphasis on developing
partnerships between school districts and local agencies and business, as well as development of
curricula for at least six broad occupational categories that students could choose to pursue to achieve the
Certificate of Advanced Mastery needed to graduate. One of the six occupational categories identified in
the Act is Natural Resources. As an existing partnership with a focus towards watershed management,
CREEC was ideally positioned to help the Crook County School District meet the requirements of this
new legislation.
-------
From the outset CREEC was proposed as a long-term effort with a minimum lifespan of ten years. Over
the past three years the partnership has evolved from a loosely organized collection of agency and
volunteer group representatives to a more formal organization with a coordinator and both educational
and technical committees. Meetings are held monthly with attendance by representatives of member
agencies, groups, teachers and students. Notes of the meetings are kept and distributed to members.
Meetings are a combination of general information sharing and business. Decisions are made on such
items as; buying equipment, teacher inservice, curriculum development and funding of educational
efforts such as sponsoring field trips, sending teachers to watershed training sessions, and supporting
restoration projects.
Examples of CREEC Activities
The Fish-Fest
The Fish-Fest was instrumental at developing support in local elementary schools for CREEC activities.
Held in the Ochoco Creek Park, 1,200 students in grades K-3 attend. Students rotate through a series of
nine to ten stations sponsored by local agencies. At these stations they learn about the local fishery
resource and watershed and riparian concepts. Example of stations include Native American storytelling
inside the salmon tent, costume parades, fish arts and crafts and the salmon life cycle game. Each
classroom also has to provide one parent for every five students attending. This provides a great
opportunity to educate adults as well as kids. The Fish-Fest has been a tremendous success and expands
each year with new partners and stations. This activity has proven to be one of the most valuable projects
that CREEC is involved in because it is a highly visible example to the community of what the
partnership can produce.
The Student Intern Program
The Intern program comes very close to satisfying part of the Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM)
requirements identified in the Oregon 21 st Century Education Act. Students must meet a minimum GPA
of 3.0 to apply for the program and are interviewed for available paid positions. Those selected collect
data for a small research project identified by the cooperators. Following the fieldwork, the students are
required to complete a technical report and make a formal presentation of the results of their study. This
program was begun in 1994 with two students. With the addition of several new partners,by 1995 a total
of eight students were sponsored by the program.
Ochoco Creek Instream Classroom
The Crook County School District is fortunate to have a stream running through school property. Ochoco
Creek has been the focus of many CREEC activities including habitat improvement projects, riparian
plantings, stream cleanups and discussion of stream dynamics. In addition, a stream gauge and weather
-------
station have been set up along the creek. These sites are being monitored by students from the high
school and elementary school respectively.
CREEC Fair
A major portion of the partnership's budget in the first two years was used to purchase equipment.
Equipment included CD ROM drives, videodisc, thermographs, current meters, water chemistry kits,
Global Positioning Satellite units, and much more. We found initially that use of this equipment was
surprisingly limited. Many teachers were either unaware of what was available or had no idea where it
was stored even though equipment lists and locations were circulated among the teachers. The CREEC
Fair was organized to show the teachers what was available and how it could be used in their classrooms.
Held on a teacher in-service day, all teachers were invited to the middles school cafeteria where agency
personnel demonstrated the equipment and described its uses.
Stearns Diversion Fish Salvage
Each Fall, teachers and students help State Fisheries Biologists by electroshocking rainbow trout and
whitefish out of the major irrigation canal in the Crooked River drainage and placing them back in the
river after irrigation season. Several thousand fish are annually saved in this effort. Students learn
valuable fisheries management techniques and conservation ethics.
In addition to these programs CREEC has also been instrumental in facilitating more traditional types of
educational activities. This would include arranging Resource Specialists to speak in classrooms, funding
bus transportation for field trips, subsidizing vocational arts construction projects that benefit CREEC
activities, and funding substitute teachers when needed to cover a teacher absent for a CREEC sponsored
activity.
A new project for 1996 involves restoration of black cottonwood trees in the watershed. This once
widespread riparian tree species is almost extirpated in many parts of Central Oregon. The Forest Service
and BLM are currently propagating cuttings from many remnant clones on public land in two seed
orchards as a means of saving the historic genetic material. This year Silviculturists and Ecologists from
the Forest Service will give several lectures on the importance and management of black cottonwood to
the High School Horticulture class. Following that, students from the class will assist USFS and BLM
personnel in taking cuttings from the seedbed, preparing cages to protect plantings and planting the
cuttings out in floodplains on public land. A smaller group of students will monitor survival of the
plantings.
Elements of Success
The CREEC partnership has experienced a lot of success in a relatively short period of time. By all
accounts we have one of the most successful educational partnerships in the State of Oregon. All this
-------
occurred in an underfunded, rural school district. Looking back it seems like there were several key
elements that helped CREEC become a success. These elements are summarized below:
1. Partners took advantage of "Windows of Opportunities". There was a convergence of events (the
watershed conference, NF WF tour and grant, passage of the 21 st Century Schools Act) that
CREEC was able to use as a springboard to success. People were organized and committed
enough to the process to take advantage of the opportunities that were presented. We also turned
the fiscal condition of the school district to our advantage when we were able to show that
CREEC support could increase the number of opportunities available to students.
2. Key partners were committed to succeeding. As with most fledgling partnerships, a relatively
small group of people did most of the work in getting CREEC off the ground. These people were
supported by the agencies and organizations they worked for and were allowed to devote enough
of their time and energy to keep the partnership moving ahead.
3. Accountability was built into the process. This applies to both financial matters and subtask
completion. CREEC is run like a business. We carefully track and best utilize all of our resources.
It is also important to fulfill obligations for projects and follow through on to completion. The
quickest way to kill a program like this is to make grandiose promises to your partners and fail to
meet their expectations. To this end, each person responsible for a subtask is required to fill out a
completion form and return it to the project coordinator. A report to the CREEC committee is also
required.
4. Marketing is emphasized. This has helped us stay in the funding loop both from an agency
perspective in terms of staying competitive for Challenge Cost Share funds and also in our
applications for various grants.
5. The importance of outreach and expansion is recognized. One of the keys to continued success is
to branch out both in the schools and in the community. To date a relatively small number of
people have been responsible for most of the subtasks that have been completed. Because of this it
has been primarily single resource (fisheries) oriented. To avoid over-utilizing these people and in
order to achieve a multi-disciplinary approach we need to involve other people to share the
workload and the reward involved in working with the schools. That is why the two new subtasks
for 1996 (Black Cottonwood Study and Prescribed Fire Ecology) are targeted for leadership by
foresters and fire personnel. The same effort needs to happen at the schools. Although there are a
lot of opportunities available, most teachers do not seem to make use of them. CREEC needs to
do a better job of outreach and facilitating connections between agency representatives and
teachers for specific projects.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Financing National Estuary Program
Comprehensive Conservation and Management
Plans: How to Identify and Implement Alternative
Financing Mechanisms
Tamar Henkin, Project Manager
Jennifer Mayer, Associate
Apogee Research, Inc., Bethesda, MD
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Under EPA's National Estuary Program (NEP), Management Conferences around the country have
prepared Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plans (CCMPs) to protect and restore natural
resources in their estuaries. A key element of these plans is a funding strategy that identifies appropriate
revenue-generating mechanisms to fund actions called for in CCMPs. To create this funding strategy,
NEPs must first use cost estimation techniques such as workload analysis and categorical cost estimation
to quantify the type and extent of present and future costs associated with the CCMPs. Programs can then
select from a wide range of alternative financing mechanisms (AFMs) ranging from more traditional
mechanismssuch as fees, taxes, grants, debt instruments, and voluntary donations to more innovative
mechanismssuch as economic incentives, public-private partnerships, and others. In addition, programs
must ensure that revenues from AFMs are expended to implement CCMP actions.
This paper first describes several techniques to identify and evaluate costs associated with CCMP
actions. It then outlines a process for identifying funding alternatives that Apogee has developed in
working with over a dozen NEPs and watershed management programs. The paper also reviews the use
-------
of benefits assessment in the financial planning process. Finally, the use of institutional mechanisms
(such as nonprofit organizations) to raise and manage funds for CCMP implementation is discussed.
Cost Estimation and Financial Planning Techniques
NEPs need to identify the type and amount of present and future costs associated with CCMP
implementation. Costs must be estimated both by dollar amount and by when the expenditures will need
to be made. For example, some CCMP actions involve capital costs that require raising large sums over a
relatively short period of time, while other actions involve ongoing operating costs continuing over a
period of years. In looking at expenditures that will occur over time, NEPs should consider allowing for
the effects of inflation as well as potential economic or fiscal changes.
Various financial management techniques can assist NEPs in identifying the types and extent of CCMP-
related costs. For example, local governments typically use capital budgeting to assist in identifying
capital costs to implement CCMP-related actions, such as storm water improvements. Capital budgets are
long-term financial plans that account for construction and upkeep of physical facilities owned by public
entities. Where these capital budgets have been developed, NEPs can identify incremental capital
improvements that relate to implementing CCMP recommendations.
Another technique that has assisted NEPs in estimating operating costs is workload analysis. Workload
analyses detail costs of carrying out particular programs or activities. Using readily available measures
such as numbers of permits or dischargers, estimates of time required to perform types of work in
question, and estimated salary costs for an average full-time-equivalent (FTE), a program can estimate
the costs of permitting and other labor-intensive activities.
A final technique is the use of categorical cost estimates. A categorical cost is a specific cost estimate
(i.e., a price tag) that is assigned to a particular action each time it appears as a strategy implementation
step. While categorical cost estimates may over- or underestimate a particular activity, these differences
are assumed to average out as the costs of objectives are tallied. For example, Apogee assisted the
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program (GBNEP) in developing cost estimates for inclusion in the
Galveston Bay CCMP. Apogee identified groups of common actions among the several hundred CCMP
implementation steps (e.g., regulation, education, legislation). For each category of common actions,
categorical cost estimates were developed, and were used to generate portions of the total CCMP cost
estimate.
Development of Initial Funding Inventories for Estuary Programs
Most NEPs identify potential AFMs through a scoping process that may involve workshops, public
meetings, or seminars. These events can identify current funding sources, bring forth any innovative
ideas that estuary managers or nonprofits may have, and educate both Management Conference members
and the public on the financial planning process. For example, for the Albemarle-Pamlico Estuarine
-------
Study, EPA funded a pilot financial workshop that introduced estuary managers to basic concepts of
financial planning. In the Indian River Lagoon, Apogee and the IRLNEP Program Office conducted a
series of workshops with members of the Finance and Implementation Task Force, scoping out potential
AFMs and working with committee members on the financial planning process.
In addition, a number of guidebooks exist to help NEPs identify potential AFMs. The EPA Office of
Water publication, Financing Marine and Estuarine Programs: A Guide to Resources (September 1988)
is a good starting point. The Compendium of Alternative Financing Mechanisms produced by the EPA's
State Capacity Task Force (revised January, 1996) is another general resource. These and other materials
can be used to create an inventory of potential AFMs.
Planning Tools for AFM Evaluation
Once a preliminary list of AFMs is developed, it must be matched to the needs identified in the CCMP.
Although the final matching exercise occurs with development of the funding strategy, the basis for it is
developed in the funding inventory. Preliminary evaluations of AFMs can be used to narrow a broader
list to a manageable size for use in development of the funding strategy. These preliminary evaluations
include consideration of the following issues:
¦ What costs (both type and extent) will be incurred to implement specific CCMP actions;
¦ Whether a proposed AFM will generate enough revenue to cover these costs;
¦ Whether an AFM is legal under existing state and local laws;
¦ What its likely economic impacts will be;
¦ Whether it has any equity effects (i.e., charges polluters or beneficiaries fairly);
¦ How difficult it will be to administer; and
¦ Whether it will be politically acceptable.
Clearly, complete evaluation of any one of these aspects could involve expenditure of significant NEP
resources. For example, a full economic impact study of a proposed tax increase could cost hundreds of
thousands of dollars. While financial planning is critical to the success of any NEP, it is also important to
develop a workable funding strategy with minimum expenditure of estuary resources. Customized
finance evaluation and prioritization tools can help narrow options effectively and rapidly.
For example, in the Indian River Lagoon, three planning tools were created to guide decision makers
through the financial planning process:
-------
¦ Financing Option Profiles;
¦ Financing Option Comparison Matrices; and
¦ Financing Option/Management Action Matrices.
Financing Option Profiles
Financing option profiles provide preliminary descriptions of potential AFMs, including projected
revenues, institutional and fund management requirements, and advantages and limitations. The profiles
also can be coded by administering agency (e.g., state environmental agency, local department of public
works) for easy reference.
Financing Options Comparison Matrices
Once preliminary information about each AFM is collected in profiles, the next step is to develop
evaluative criteria that can be used to compare across funding options. These criteria will vary from NEP
to NEP, but may include many of the issues covered in the profiles, including annual revenues, nature of
revenue flow, administrative ease, economic impact, and so forth. Some of the criteria will be
quantitative (e.g., minimum revenues needed) while others will be descriptive (e.g., administrative ease).
In the development of the Indian River Lagoon funding plan, these criteria were developed through
workshops with NEP stakeholders. Once developed, the criteria can be applied against the potential
AFMs in an iterative process. (See Exhibit 1 for a segment of a comparison matrix).
Financing Options/Management Action Matrices
Once funding options are evaluated on their own merits, they can be matched with particular CCMP
actions. An NEP may choose to require that a financing option that will be used for a particular action
primarily generate funds from either those that contributed to causing the problem that the action seeks to
remedy, or from beneficiaries of the action. For example, developers might be required to participate in a
wetlands mitigation bank that would mitigate development impacts on wetlands.
Together ,these decision tools help guide the process of identifying funding options and linking these
options to required actions in a systematic approach. This methodology allows NEP managers to draw on
experience with other NEP programs as well as incorporate local circumstances through workshops with
stakeholders and the public.
Benefits Assessment
Financial plans work best when they (1) demonstrate that all constituencies are paying a "fair share" and
-------
(2) the benefits of CCMP actions are worth their costs. Most NEPs do the first step very well. But few
estuaries pursue the second critical step: estimation of the benefits of CCMP implementation. Since
estuaries are by definition coastal areas, and coastal economies are inextricably linked to healthy
ecosystems, benefits estimation can be a powerful tool to demonstrate the merits of investment in
resource restoration and/or protection. In the Indian River Lagoon, for example, incremental costs of
CCMP implementation were estimated at less than $20 million per year. The Lagoon, on the other hand,
was conservatively estimated to generate more than $800 million per year in value to the five-county area
comprising its drainage basin. Clearly, even a small loss in value associated with degradation could
jeopardize the strength of local economies, thus pointing to the importance of the implementation of
CCMP actions.
Institutions for AFM Implementation
A final and crucial aspect to development of an NEP funding strategy is the role of institutions.
Institutions can facilitate financing and implementation of estuary projects and programs. They can range
from dedicated trust funds to organizations that directly facilitate implementation of AFMs selected.
Institutional mechanisms also can facilitate or enable strategies that will reduce costs or increase
revenues.
Institution as a Focal Point
The creation of an estuary-related institution can be particularly useful for serving as a focal point for the
ecosystem that is being protected. The founding of an institution creates an identity for the ecosystem,
which is critical to inspiring changes in polluting behavior. For example, creation of the Chesapeake Bay
Program helped to bring the concept of an ecosystem to the general public; and provided an image to
consider when thinking about pollution prevention, financing and other issues.
Pooling Funds
Institutions also can attract and pool funds from multiple sources and draw contributions from
nontraditional sources (e.g., private funds, voluntary contributions, etc). Separation of funds from the
local or state general funds can protect pooled revenues from the annual appropriations procedures.
Finally, when funds can be carried over from year to year, revenues are not necessarily subject to spend-
down requirements imposed on existing government entities.
Other Institutional Advantages
Because they can span several geographic areas, estuary management institutions can achieve economies
of scale in administration, project scope and costs, and fundraising. The structure of institutions also can
provide independence from state and federal regulatory agencies, providing some autonomy in program
administration. Institutions also can foster coordination between different levels of government,
-------
especially if the institution is structured to span several levels of government, thus providing a link
between various parties and a focal point for activities and responsibilities. Depending on design, charter,
and powers, an estuary management institution also can be used to ensure that revenues from AFMs will
be spent on CCMP implementation.
Conclusion
This paper describes only a few of the many steps required in creating a financing strategy for a CCMP.
More information on financing for NEPs and for environmental programs in general is available through
the EPA's Environmental Financial Advisory Board (EFAB) and its publications, as well as EPA's
Environmental Financing Information Network (EFIN). In addition, NEPs are advised to look to the
experience of other NEPs that have already been through the stages of funding inventory and funding
strategy development.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Funding Mechanisms for a Watershed Management
Program
Fernando Pasquel, Senior Water Resources Engineer
Rich Brawley, Water Resources Engineer
CH2M HILL, Reston, VA
Oscar Guzman, Watershed Management Division Chief
Madan Mohan, Engineer III
Watershed Management Division, Department of Public Works, Prince William
County, VA
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
This paper describes the mechanisms used by Prince William County, Virginia, to fund the county's
Watershed Management Program. The mechanisms described include a county wide storm water
management fee, development fees, and grants and cooperative agreements. The Watershed Management
Program is responsible for enhancing water quality, monitoring air and water quality, and protecting
properties and the public from flooding.
Recent federal and state regulations require municipalities to control not only storm water quantity but
also storm water quality. The EPA National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm
water program, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation Act, and the Virginia Storm Water Management Act
require treatment of storm water and control of non-point source pollution for existing and new
development.
Storm Water Management Fee
Recognizing the costs impacts of the above mentioned regulations, the Virginia General Assembly
-------
provided a new funding mechanism for localities, the storm water utility. Section 15.1-292.4 of the Code
of Virginia allows local governments to implement service charges to finance storm water related
activities.
The Watershed Management Program in Prince William County was funded by the General Fund up to
1994. However, funding levels changed from year to year depending on the needs of other county
programs. A reliable and equitable source of funding was needed in order to meet stringent regulations
and local needs of the county's watersheds and storm water management system.
The Prince William County Board of County Supervisors established a Storm Water Management Fee
(storm water utility) in March of 1994. Residential property owners pay $1.50 per month for detached
single family homes. Townhouse and condominium owners pay $1.13 per month. Non-residential
property owners pay $0.73 per one thousand square feet of impervious area. Fee adjustments or credits
are available for non-residential properties.
Some of the activities funded by the storm water management fee include control of storm water runoff,
restoration of streams, maintenance and repair of drainage systems (the county maintains approximately
130 miles of drainage systems and 250 storm water management facilities), construction of projects to
minimize flood hazards and non-point source pollution, water quality monitoring, and completion of 32
watershed management plans. These plans consist of hydrologic and hydraulic models, water quality
analysis, environmental resources inventories, and pollution prevention activities. The pollution
prevention activities are carried out in coordination with the Prince William Soil and Water Conservation
District and Virginia Tech's Cooperative Extension Service.
Informational Workshops
Several workshops were organized for county staff during 1992 and 1993. The purpose of the workshops
was to "educate" staff on the benefits and options available to fund watershed management activities, and
to identify concerns and issues that needed to be resolved before establishing the storm water
management fee. The workshops were also used to identify individuals in the different county
departments, Finance, Management and Budget, Technology and Support Services, and the Office of the
County Attorney, that will be involved with the implementation of the storm water management fee.
Feasibility Study
In February 1993, a feasibility study was prepared for the Board of County Supervisors. The feasibility
study presented the following information:
¦ The funding requirements of the proposed storm water management program included capital
improvement projects, maintenance activities, engineering activities, and funds needed for the
preparation of the NPDES permit applications.
¦ The rate structure defined a base unit as the typical single family residential property. A pilot
-------
study was completed to determine the size of the base unit. A range of potential revenues were
provided based on different rates for the base unit.
¦ Several billing system options that were analyzed. The study recommended to include the storm
water fee in the real estate billing system.
¦ Recommendations for implementation of the storm water utility.
The Board of County Supervisors accepted the recommendations of the study on July of 1993 and
directed staff to proceed with implementation.
Development of Administrative Policies
The following administrative policies were developed during the implementation of the storm water
utility:
Base Unit. The base unit is the total impervious area of a typical single family residential property in the
county. The base unit in the county equals 2,059 square feet.
Base Rate. The base rate is the monthly storm water management fee charged on a base unit, and is
established by the Board of County Supervisors by resolution.
Rate Structure. For purposes of determining storm water management fees, all properties within the
county are classified as developed residential property, developed non-residential property, or
undeveloped property.
Single family detached residential properties are charged the base rate for each dwelling unit, regardless
of the size of the parcel or improvements. Townhouses, apartments and condominiums will be charged a
flat rate of seventy-five percent of the base rate.
The monthly fee for developed non-residential property is the base rate multiplied by the numerical
factor obtained by dividing the total impervious area of the property by one base unit.
Undeveloped property is exempt from the fee. Properties owned by federal, state, or local government
agencies are also exempt when those agencies own and provide for maintenance of the storm water
management system.
Owners of agricultural croplands are not charged a fee. Agricultural properties are currently required to
develop water quality plans and resource conservation plans in order to comply with the Chesapeake Bay
Preservation Act and the Farm Bill.
Fee Adjustments. Developed non-residential property where storm water management is provided by the
owner on-site, and where the owner has entered into an appropriate storm water maintenance agreement
-------
with the county, may be eligible for fee adjustment, in proportion to the level of storm water
management controls on the site. Non-residential property owners are also eligible for fee adjustments by
participating in pollution prevention or storm water quality protection programs. Such programs include
an adopt-a-pond program, volunteer lawn program, adopt-a-stream program, etc. The maximum fee
adjustment is limited to fifty percent of the fee.
Maintenance Policy. The maintenance policy states that the county maintains all drainage systems and
storm water management facilities in residential areas. The county is also responsible for maintenance of
detention (dry) storm water management facilities in non-residential properties. Non-residential property
owners are responsible for maintenance of drainage systems and storm water management facilities,
other than dry ponds.
Storm Water Assessment (SWA) System
The SWA system is a client/server application designed to calculate storm water utility revenues and
assist users in answering customer questions related to fee basis.
The County's Geographic Information System (GIS) was used to calculate the impervious area of each
developed parcel within the county and to develop the base unit. The Real Estate Assessment System
provided information on account numbers, owner names and addresses, property addresses, and land use.
The SWA system "ties" all these systems together and generates a storm water management fee for each
owner. The SWA system provides the following functions:
¦ Import customer information from the Real Estate Assessment System.
¦ Import impervious area data for each parcel from the County's GIS.
¦ Calculate storm water management fees for each parcel.
¦ Export fee data to the Real Estate Assessment System for billing and collection.
¦ Provide a means for Watershed Management staff to respond to customer inquiries regarding the
basis for fees billed.
¦ Provide reconciliation reports to the County Cashier.
¦ Provide billing Summary Reports.
Public Information
Keeping the public informed of the process of establishing a storm water utility and obtaining feedback
on the different policy issues are important components of a successful implementation. The public
information "campaign" extended throughout the duration of the project.
Newspaper articles and cable television news releases were some of the most cost-effective techniques
used to keep the public informed. Feedback on policy issues was obtained through numerous meetings
with different interest groups.
-------
On March 15, 1994, an ordinance was adopted by the Board of County supervisors establishing the
Storm Water Management Fee and adopting the aforementioned policies.
Development Fees
Development fees are used to fund development related activities of the Department of Public Works
(transportation and watershed management activities) and the Office of Planning.
Development fees are collected when a plan is submitted to the county for review. The fee is based on
the size of the development and the complexity of the drainage system. These fees are used to fund plan
review activities and administrative requirements. Staff of the Watershed Management Program reviews
plans for compliance with the county's environmental ordinances and regulations. These ordinances and
regulations address design of drainage systems, flood plain management requirements, erosion and
sediment control requirements, Chesapeake Bay protection requirements, design of storm water
management facilities, buffers and tree preservation requirements, and wetlands requirements.
Once a plan is approved, and the developer "pulls" a land development permit, additional fees are
collected. These fees are used to fund inspection of storm water management facilities and drainage
systems, and enforcement of erosion and sediment control regulations. Inspections of drainage systems
and storm water management facilities after the development is completed are funded by the Storm
Water Management Fee.
When a storm water management facility is not feasible on a development site or when a storm water
management waiver is obtained by a developer, a storm water management pro-rata share is paid by the
developer. The pro-rata share is based on the impervious area of the site and the proposed land use type.
The pro-rata share funds are maintained in accounts for each of the ten major watersheds. The funds have
to be used in the watershed where the development project was located. These funds are used for projects
that have watershed-wide benefits.
Grants and Cooperative Agreements
The funds collected through storm water management fees and development fees are used to fund the
operations of the Watershed Management Program and program specific projects. Grants and
cooperative agreements with state and federal agencies and private entities are used to complement these
revenue sources by funding special projects or activities.
Examples of these type of special projects include water quality monitoring with the USGS, stream and
wetlands restoration with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and the construction of a sediment forebay
to protect a local lake in coordination with the Lake Montclair Property Owners Association. In addition,
Prince William County is participating in the development and implementation of an innovative
-------
watershed management project with EPA, other federal and state agencies, and local universities.
Summary
Identifying innovative sources of funding is becoming a necessary activity for local governments. The
tree funding mechanisms described above provide Prince William County with a reliable source of
funding to protect its water resources and to comply with state and federal regulations.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Financing Priority Watershed Projects with the
State Revolving Fund
Nikos D. Singelis, Senior Program Analyst
Office of Water
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, DC
Introduction and Overview
SRF Loan Program Features
The SRF program was created in 1987 to replace
and improve upon the foundation laid by the
Construction Grants program which existed from
1972 through 1990. Congress' primary objective in
creating the SRF program was to establish
permanent sources of financing for surface water-
related infrastructure projects in each of the 50
states and Puerto Rico. (The Administration has
proposed setting up a separate SRF to address
drinking water needs.) By moving from a grant
program to a loan program, the federal government
could provide initial capitalization funds to set up
these new revolving funds and reduce its day-to-day
role in infrastructure financing. Another goal of this
new program was to expand the uses of these funds far beyond municipal wastewater systems (which
were the primary recipients of the Construction Grants program) to include virtually all surface water-
related infrastructure projects. Under the SRF program, loans can be made for a wide variety of nonpoint
source, estuary, stormwater and other projects that are intended to benefit the nation's surface and ground
Interest Rate: 0% to Market Rate
Repayment Period: Up to 20 years
Adjustable-rate loans, stepped payments,
balloon pyaments allowed at state
discretion
Loans cover 100% of eligible costs
Repayment begins one year after project
startup
Loans available for wastewater, nonpoint
source, and estuary projects
-------
water resources. The SRF program currently has in excess of $17 billion in assets and provides below-
market loans to communities and individuals for up to twenty years.
Meeting Today's Water Quality Needs
In the 1970s, discharges from municipal wastewater systems were one of the major sources of the serious
pollution problems threatening the nation's water resources. In response, Congress created the
Construction Grants program to assist municipalities in addressing these threats to human health and the
environment. After nearly 20 years and a federal investment of more than $60 billion, most of these large-
scale threats to water quality have been successfully dealt with. As a result of this progress, the challenges
ahead are very different from those of the past. Today most of our pollution problems are caused by
literally millions of diffuse sources that are difficult to identify and often beyond the scope of our existing
regulatory authorities.
During the first few years of the SRF program, the
vast majority of assistance was provided for
municipal wastewater projects. In response to the
changing nature of water quality problems, the SRF
has begun to devote an increasing volume of loans
to nonpoint source and other water quality projects.
However, because of the program's history and
connection with the Construction Grants program,
many potential customers are unaware that the SRF
could serve as a source of funding for such projects.
The SRF can fund both ground and surface water
projects. It can fund stormwater projects in urban, suburban, and, in some cases, industrial or commercial
settings. Nonpoint source projects may include virtually any project or type of project that a state has
identified in its nonpoint source management plan, including projects to correct runoff from agricultural
land and feedlots, conservation tillage and other projects to address soil erosion, development of
streambank buffer zones, as well as wetlands protection and restoration. Estuary management projects
may include any of the above and also such projects as fish restocking, wildlife habitat restoration,
marine sewage pump-out facilities, and many others.
|SRF Investment ($ billion)
Federal SRF Investment (FY 88-96)
Required State Match
Proceeds from Leveraging (bonds)
Additional
Bond Reserve Funds
Amount Available for Loans
$11.4
$2.3
$ 5.2
$ .6
($ 2.3)
$17.2
-------
Leading Causes of Pollution
Rivers J Lakes | Kstuaries
Agriculture Agriculture Municipal
Municipal Urban Runoff/ Urban Runoff/
Stormwater Stormwater
Urban Runoff/ Hydro/Habitat Agriculture
Stormwater Modification
Mining Municipal
Connecting the SRF to the Watershed Approach
EPA's Office of Water instituted the watershed approach around 1989 in recognition of the changing
nature of the threats to our nation's water resources. While water quality has improved dramatically, our
work is far from complete. Our pollution abatement work of the past has uncovered a completely new
range of problems in need of attention. As was mentioned earlier, we must now contend with millions of
diffuse sources of pollution. No longer are we faced with the challenge of massive discharges from
relatively few pipes. Today, the sources are small, subtle, and often intermittent and come from nearly
every aspect of society. We must concern ourselves with such problems as runoff from agricultural and
urban land, short and long-range atmospheric deposition, and habitat alteration and destruction from all
sorts of land use activities. Further, the mix of pollution sources affecting one river is probably
significantly different from those affecting a nearby lake and completely different from those impairing a
distant estuary. Clearly our national, one-size-fits-all tools are no longer entirely appropriate for the job
ahead.
In recognition of the trends and changes, the watershed approach was developed to reorient our CWA
programs to develop the appropriate solutions for the specific problems being faced by a particular river,
stream, lake, coastal area or more simply a watershed. Further, the concept of watershed planning
recognizes that regulatory tools alone will not be enough to meet these challenges. In this new paradigm,
traditional tools need to be combined with newer non-regulatory tools to fashion solutions in the quickest
and most cost-effective manner possible. Within this context, SRF loans are valuable and effective tools.
SRF loans can be used to reach and address sources of pollution beyond the reach of our traditional
regulatory framework. Because the SRF offers substantial subsidies over commercial sources of
financing, the strategic targeting of SRF loans may allow many new organizations and individuals to
participate in protecting their local water resources.
SRF Funding Framework Options
Over the first seven years of the State Revolving Fund program, state interest and innovation in
addressing and funding projects to address nonpoint sources of pollution have increased substantially. As
-------
the program moves toward funding a greater variety of projects, including nonpoint source, estuary
management, as well as traditional point source projects, the SRFwith its substantial but still limited
resources will need to ensure that it has the ability to direct its funds to the highest priority projects. In
setting priorities for funding, the 51 SRF programs must consider a set of complex objectives which are
sometimes in conflict and include maximizing environmental (public health and ecological) benefits and
providing assistance to recipients most in need of assistance (small and disadvantaged communities). The
SRF must also survive financially, therefore, SRF managers must carefully manage financial risk to
ensure the long-term fiscal health of their funds.
Under the current framework of legislation,
regulations, and policies both at the federal and
state level, the 51 SRF programs have planning
procedures adequate to successfully direct funds to
traditional wastewater projects. The current
procedures generally allow states to successfully
identify relatively important wastewater projects
and then to select relatively low-risk projects from
among those priorities. Each state undertakes an
annual planning cycle for its SRF funds. This
process includes consideration and selection of
wastewater projects from the state's project priority
list, and may also include consideration and
selection of projects or activities from the state's
nonpoint source and estuary management plans. States develop annual Intended Use Plans in which they
gather together information on a list of potential projects and solicit input from interested parties and the
public in general. After completion of this process, loans are made to applicants.
As the universe of potential loan applicants expands to include a wide variety of nonpoint source and
estuary projects (farmers, conservation groups, citizen action groups, gas stations, landfills, businesses,
etc.), the need to effectively evaluate the potential environmental importance as well as the financial risk
of projects increases and grows in complexity. The planning and priority setting procedures in place in
many of the 51 SRF programs were not designed to determine priorities from a greatly expanded universe
of potential projects that includes nonpoint source and estuary activities. EPA believes that improvements
must be made to these procedures to ensure that SRF funds continue to be directed to the highest priority
projects without jeopardizing the long-term health of the program.
Based on these concerns, EPA has engaged in a policy setting dialogue with the states, as co-regulators.
Accordingly, state and federal representatives have been meeting since June 1995 with the goal of
reaching a consensus on a policy framework. Currently, that process is nearing completion and should
result in a guidance document that includes two related options. These options suggest ways that states
can evaluate current environmental priorities and develop a list of priority projects or geographically-
specific activities (including wastewater, nonpoint source and estuary) appropriate for SRF funding.
EPA's preferred option is for the creation of integrated priority setting systems that establish relative
SRF Loan Savings
Approximate
savings with SRF
twenty-year loan
Typical municipal 7.5%
borrowing
rate in commercial
market
Average SRF Rate 3.0% 30%
Lowest SRF Rate 0.0% 50%
-------
priority among wastewater, nonpoint source, and estuary projects according to states' environmental
priorities. The second option is a "goals" approach in which states assess their water quality problems,
determine overarching priorities, and finally set broad funding goals for the SRF based on this
information. Both options are intended to enhance states' planning and priority setting efforts and to
utilize existing sources of information. Decision making for the SRF program will remain entirely a state
responsibility. Over the longer term, these options are intended to help states make the transition toward
full watershed planning and priority setting.
This policy is intended to come on line over the next two years. In the interim, EPA plans to offer a wide
variety of training and other forms of assistance to the states and interested parties to further the
implementation and adoption of these principles. EPA plans to sponsor a series of workshops and is also
offering funding for state pilot projects to develop and implement the planning and priority setting
aspects of this policy. Further, EPA plans to work with interested organizations to develop training and
educational opportunities over the next several years.
These efforts, including implementation of this policy, are designed to help states integrate the SRF
program into their overall efforts to protect and enhance water quality and provide them with the tools
necessary to effectively target SRF resources to their highest priority water quality problems. The success
of this effort hinges upon cooperation among all parts of the water program including point source,
nonpoint source, estuary, and watershed programs. It also requires open and meaningful participation by
the interested public. It is our hope that these efforts will serve as a catalyst for state water programs to
work together to improve the planning and priority setting aspects of their SRF programs and to foster
greater public input and participation.
For additional information contact the State Revolving Fund Branch of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, 401 M St. SW, Mail code 4204, Washington, D.C. 20460 or contact Cleora Scott,
Sheila Hoover, orNikos Singelis at (202) 260-7359.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Fox Wolf Initiative
Sanjay Syal, Water Resources Engineer
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Madison, WI
Background
The Fox-Wolf Basin and Lower Green Bay are heritage resources of regional and international
significance and are an integral part of the Great Lakes ecosystem. The Fox-Wolf Basin encompasses a
land drainage area of 6600 square miles and makes up approximately 40% of Wisconsin's Lake Michigan
drainage basin. The Fox and Wolf Rivers, Winnebago Pool Lakes, and Lower Green Bay have suffered a
decline in water quality and living resources as a result of pollution and habitat loss. Lower Green Bay
has been identified as an Area of Concern by the International Joint Commission on Great Lakes. Basin
plans, the Green Bay Remedial Action Plan and the Lake Winnebago Comprehensive Management Plan
list sediments (TSS) and phosphorus (P) as the two most pervasive pollutants threatening the integrity of
the Fox-Wolf System. These plans have specific recommendations for the reduction of suspended solids
and phosphorus loads to Lake Winnebago and Green Bay by 30% and 50% respectively.
Northeast Wisconsin legislators, industry, environmental groups and citizens at large in the basin are
concerned about the fate of this ecosystem. They would like to see a priority action on a large-scale
geographic basis to meet the objectives set by these plans. The Fox-Wolf Initiative was developed in
response to public demands for clean water in the Fox-Wolf Basin. The Initiative provides a long range
framework for integrating existing Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) programs with
other agencies, local governments, and public and private sector interests. It will guide water quality
restoration and protection efforts in the Fox-Wolf Basin over the next two decades and will serve as a
pilot for the nonpoint pollution abatement efforts in various basins in the state. This paper discusses the
guiding principles and implementation elements for the Fox-Wolf Initiative.
Nonpoint Pollutant Sources
-------
Fox-Wolf Basin 2000, a nonprofit organization in the basin, hired an analysis team (consisting of
engineers, economists and a number of professors at the University of Wisconsin, Green Bay as
consultants) to quantify various sources of nonpoint source pollution and their relative contributions to
Lake Winnebago and Green Bay. The team has estimated the TSS & P loads from all 40 watersheds in
the study area using the SWRRBwq (Simulator for Water Resources in Rural Basin-Water Quality)
model. The model predicted nonpoint pollutant loadings based on soils, topography, and typical cropping
practices. It estimated that point and nonpoint sources of pollution deliver more than 1.5 million tons of
total suspended solids and more than 2.6 million pounds of phosphorus into the waters of the Fox-Wolf
Basin. Agricultural sources accounted for 92% of the suspended solids and 83% of the phosphorus. By
the time the waters reach Green Bay, agricultural sources represent 89% of the suspended solids and 74%
of the phosphorus. The team has also estimated that the costs of controlling TSS and P from agricultural
sources are much smaller than the costs for urban areas and municipal and industrial sources.
The modeling clearly indicates that agricultural nonpoint sources of pollution are the primary cause of
water quality degradation in the basin and provided an opportunity for WDNR to make pollutant
allocation decisions on a geographic basis. The Fox-Wolf Initiative therefore focusses on providing the
greatest abatement of and protection from agricultural nonpoint source pollution. However, other
pollution abatement efforts such as stream bank restoration, point source phosphorus control, and urban
nonpoint source pollution abatement will also continue in order to maintain a balanced approach to water
quality management.
Guiding Principles and Objectives
Four principles served to guide the development of the Initiative. These principles are:
¦ Restoring and protecting the health of the aquatic ecosystem will benefit the people of Wisconsin
and the fish and wildlife of Green Bay, the Winnebago Pool lakes, and their tributary lakes,
streams, and rivers.
¦ The WDNR cannot, through unilateral action, adequately restore or protect the waters of the
Basin.
¦ County and municipal governments, conservation groups, the public, and state and federal
agencies must cooperate to restore and protect the waters of the Fox-Wolf Basin.
¦ Whenever possible outside funding sources will be sought to help meet the financial needs of the
Initiative.
The Objectives of the Initiative are grouped into Restoration and Protection categories:
Restoration Objectives
-------
¦ Improve the recreational attractiveness of lakes and streams for swimming, boating, and fishing by
improving water clarity and reducing sediment deposition.
¦ Promote the establishment of rooted aquatic vegetation which favors balanced game fish and
forage fish populations.
¦ Improve ecosystem biodiversity by creating diverse habitats for fish and wildlife.
¦ Stabilize eroding streambanks while improving fish and wildlife habitat.
Protection Objectives
m Promote individual and collective awareness of the relationship between land management
decisions and nonpoint source water quality impacts.
¦ Promote the adoption of ordinances, policies, and programs which reduce nonpoint source
pollution and improve fish and wildlife habitat.
¦ Create and preserve vegetative buffer zones along streambanks to reduce the direct discharge of
polluted runoff into lakes, streams, and rivers while preserving fish and wildlife habitat.
¦ Continually assess the progress of the Initiative as it is being implemented through surveys,
monitoring, and modelling, so that necessary changes can be identified and implemented as needs
require.
Implementation Elements
The major categories of recommended action divide into four "implementation elements". Each element
is achievable through the implementation of specific tasks. The tasks are manageable, single focus,
activities to be carried out individually or cooperatively by agencies, governments, and organizations.
The four Implementation Elements are:
1. Reduction of Total Suspended Solids and Phosphorus
The key to improving the water bodies of the Fox-Wolf Basin lies in controlling suspended solids and
phosphorus which cloud the water and degrade aquatic habitat. Agricultural nonpoint source pollution is
the primary source of these pollutants in the basin.
Wisconsin's Nonpoint Source Pollution Abatement Program is the most significant program operated by
-------
the WDNR and Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection for the control of nonpoint
sources of pollution throughout the state. A number of watersheds are selected each year as priority
watersheds (PWS) and funds are provided for the cost sharing of best management practices to control
various nonpoint source pollutants such as nutrients, suspended solids and heavy metals. The Initiative
has identified an accelerated selection of 18 watersheds as Priority Watershed projects over the next five
biennia in the Fox-Wolf Basin. Achieving a high level of runoff control through Priority Watershed
projects will improve local water resource conditions and will meet the nonpoint reduction goals of the
entire basin.
Acre for acre, construction sites produce more sediment runoff than any other land use. In order to reduce
this pollution source, the Initiative recommends the development of a well coordinated, comprehensive
construction site erosion control program to reduce sediment delivery from construction sites. This
activity will facilitate the development of local funding strategies to finance ordinance administration and
will include work with local technical schools and colleges to develop course curriculum on erosion
control in appropriate career fields.
Storm water runoff from urban and urbanizing areas is another important nonpoint pollution source. The
Initiative seeks to ensure comprehensive stormwater management planning and control throughout the
basin. This will be accomplished through local adoption of stormwater ordinances consistent with the
state model ordinance. Areas will be identified which have complex runoff issues requiring development
of and implementation of detailed watershed-based stormwater management plans. This task will be
accomplished by working cooperatively with regional planning commissions, local governments, and
private sector consultants.
2. Restoration and Protection of Riparian Habitat
This element will result in the restoration and/or protection of thousands of acres of wetland, grassland,
lake shore, and streambank habitat through the establishment of permanent vegetative buffer zones along
water courses. It will improve water quality by reducing erosion and filtering upland runoff. Fish and
wildlife populations will benefit from the creation, restoration, and protection of riparian habitat.
Within the Fox-Wolf Basin are many miles of shore land habitat approved for voluntary acquisition or
easements through WDNR's Fish Management and Wildlife Management programs. These lands occur
along the Wolf, Embarrass, and Red rivers and a number of other rivers and streams. Lands that are
acquired or eased are maintained in vegetative cover to reduce erosion, provide filtering of upland runoff,
and provide fish and wildlife habitat. This is a very valuable tool that will protect and rehabilitate stream
segments threatened by agricultural nonpoint pollution sources. A concerted effort to pursue these lands
will be accomplished by possibly the shifting of acquisition priorities from other areas in the state to the
Fox-Wolf Basin.
Wetland and grassland restoration projects are important to water quality by reducing soil and nutrient
delivery to water bodies. They also provide valuable habitat and aid in flood control. The Initiative
-------
recommends an annual goal of creating 30 wetland basins and restoration of 500 acres of grassland
habitat.
It is important to continually seek to identify and evaluate stream segments for possible inclusion in
department habitat restoration and protection programs. This task can be accomplished by existing staff,
but a concerted effort to identify and evaluate potential sites will require a shift in priorities to the Fox-
Wolf Basin. In addition, an element of the Priority Watershed program that has not yet been fully utilized
is the reduction of nonpoint source pollution through better integration with Wildlife Management habitat
protection and enhancement programs. Through an integrated effort both programs would benefit.
Wildlife enhancement and protection will be more fully addressed on farms participating in the program
while at the same time providing water quality protection.
3. Modelling, Assessment, and Data Management
Accurately determining existing and future water quality, biological, and habitat conditions and
integrating land use information is essential for managing and determining the success of the Initiative.
This element will define nonpoint source pollution loads, help evaluate the success of reducing nonpoint
source pollution, identify additional nonpoint source pollution hotspots, and help establish pollutant
reduction goals in Priority Watershed projects.
An essential element of a water quality initiative of this scope must include appropriate water quality
monitoring. Monitoring data will be used to gauge the success of the Initiative by determining water
quality at certain points in the basin to identify changes through time. It will serve as a means of
documenting the level of pollutant reduction achieved. Monitoring will require the establishment of fixed-
site trend monitoring stations at appropriate locations in the basin. Monitoring would determine
temperature, dissolved oxygen, biochemical oxygen demand, phosphorus, total suspended solids, various
nitrogen compounds, and possibly other parameters such as pesticide concentrations.
A geographic information system provides a means to map and create map overlays of various features of
the land and land use information. For instance GIS can be used to overlay agricultural land use, well
locations, and streams on maps showing municipal boundaries. It is a tool which is extremely valuable for
integrating environmental data sets with land use information. It is proposed that appropriate GIS
information layers be developed for the Fox-Wolf Basin to improve land management decision making
capabilities of the department and local governments.
4. Public Information and Education
Support and cooperation of the general public, local units of government, and various clubs,
organizations, and groups is essential for the success of the Initiative. A host of opportunities for active
involvement by this diverse group will be identified as the initiative is implemented. This element will
help foster an understanding and sense of responsibility for water quality management at the local level. It
will result in wise land use management decisions which will reduce current nonpoint source pollution
-------
loading and protect waters from the threat of future nonpoint impacts.
A Citizen participation program will be developed for the Initiative. It's implementation will be critical
for the success or the Initiative. The goal of citizen participation in this effort is to help all parties
concerned reach an effective agreement on a course of action. A complete citizen participation plan for
the Fox-Wolf Initiative will include the following major steps and concepts:
¦ Using meetings, surveys and other techniques to learn how citizens understand the problem.
¦ Preparing a public information program that will explain the agency's view of the problem.
¦ Cooperating with a regional or watershed coalition of governments and interest groups, possibly
made up of sub-regional coalitions, who will work together on the development of a plan.
¦ A process of consensus and negotiation, reached through the coalition/s, that will form a
substantial, effective agreement on what to do.
¦ Involvement of interested parties throughout plan implementation.
It is important that local communities participate in the Initiative as willing partners in nonpoint pollution
abatement. It is proposed that a concerted effort be put into establishing a positive cooperative
relationship between the department and local governments. Through this relationship it will be possible
to encourage communities to voluntarily adopt ordinances, policies, and programs to substantially reduce
nonpoint source pollution.
Timeline
The initiative is scheduled to occur over the next 20 years, starting with the 1995-1997 Biennium and
concluding with the completion of the last Priority Watershed project in the year 2017. The ultimate
success of the Initiative depends upon developing strong partnerships with local governments, user
groups, regional planning commissions, and state and federal agencies, along with a strong commitment
from the state government.
Through the support and cooperation of all parties concerned, the Fox-Wolf Initiative represents the best
hope for a new beginning; the best hope for restoring and protecting the aquatic resources of the Fox-
Wolf Basin for the people of Wisconsin.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Hackensack Meadowlands Special Area
Management Plan (SAMP): Using a Watershed
Approach to Achieve Integrated Environmental
Protection
Mary Anne Thiesing, Robert W. Hargrove
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region II, New York, NY
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
The Hackensack Meadowlands District (District) is a 32 square mile area located in northeastern New
Jersey, in Bergen and Hudson Counties. The District comprises all or parts of fourteen municipalities,
and is located approximately five miles west of midtown Manhattan and about six miles north of the Port
of Newark. The District currently contains approximately 8,500 acres of wetlands, and 11,000 acres of
upland, or about half of the historic wetland area, and comprises much of the lower watershed of the
Hackensack River. Most of the upland areas are developed, and host primarily industrial, institutional,
and commercial land uses.
The District originally contained approximately 17,000 acres of wetlands, including large areas of
swamp dominated by Atlantic white cedar, Chamaecyperis thyoides. Over time, much of the wetland
area was drained, diked, and ditched for agriculture and/or mosquito control. Hydrologic alterations
occurred as the result of tide gate installation on many of the creeks, and upstream impoundment of the
Hackensack River for water supply purposes. This latter influence resulted in salt intrusion to the lower
Hackensack, which destroyed the remaining white cedar stands and many of the associated plant species.
Today, the Meadowlands is dominated almost completely by large, nearly monotypic stands of the
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
common reed Phragmites australis.
In addition to the landscape alterations, the Meadowlands has been the recipient of gross pollution in the
form of extensive landfills and unregulated solid waste dumping, wastewater discharges, sewer
discharges from two counties, and haphazard filling for development. This has resulted in degradation
and loss of some of the most significant tidal wetlands in the Metropolitan region. The District currently
contains approximately 1,200 acres of unclosed landfills, which discharge an estimated 650 to 800
million gallons of leachate into the District's wetlands and waterways each year (HMDC, pers. Comm.;
Clinton Bogert Associates, 1990). In addition, there are over 200 known or suspected hazardous waste
sites, including three Superfund sites, as well as numerous combined sewer overflows, which cause
ongoing and cumulative degradation of the District's environment.
In spite of these various losses and degradation, however, the Meadowlands is one of only two remaining
large tracts of estuarine wetlands, and also of open space in the N. Y. metropolitan area. Because habitat
in the New York metropolitan region is scarce, the position of the Meadowlands in the landscape makes
it highly valuable to fish and wildlife, particularly to migrating birds. Over 260 bird species are known to
use the Meadowlands wetlands for some portion of their life history; at least 60 species nest there (EPA,
1989), and it is highly valuable as overwintering habitat for a number of waterfowl and raptor species
(EPA, 1992). In addition, the Meadowlands supports reptile and commercially harvested mammals. The
Hackensack River, although closed to fishing for human consumption, provides habitat for a number of
estuarine and freshwater fishes. Consequently, the District still provides important habitat functions
despite its existing pollution problems.
Land use management within the District occurs at a regional level. The Hackensack Meadowlands
Development Commission (HMDC) is the Regional Zoning and Planning Authority for the District, as
well as Regional Solid Waste Management authority within the District. The HMDC has a unique
environmental mandate combined with these other powers, and is statutorily directed to provide for,
"orderly, comprehensive development" in the District, while ensuring "special protection from air and
water pollution" and recognizing "the necessity to consider the ecological factors constituting the
environment of the Meadowlands and the need to preserve the delicate balance of nature" within the
District (N.J.S.A. 13:17-1). The proximity of the District to both New York City and to the Port of
Newark, combined with the presence of a major highway, freight rail and commuter rail lines through the
District and the general scarcity of land in the New York metropolitan region, have led to increasing
development pressure on the District's remaining wetlands, of which between 60 and 75 percent are
privately owned.
In 1972, the HMDC introduced the first Master Plan for the District, which called for the placement of
fill in about 2,600 acres of the District's remaining wetlands for development. This Master Plan was
developed prior to the Clean Water Act (CWA), and consequently was out of compliance with the CWA
from its inception. Over the last twenty years, this has led to conflicts between developers, who seek to
develop within the District according to the Master Plan, and regulators, who must make decisions on
applications by developers for permits to fill wetlands. This case-by-case method of evaluation was
fraught with conflict and delay. It caused great uncertainty and extensive time delays for those applicants
-------
seeking permits for development which required wetland fill. Furthermore, it limited the ability of the
agencies to evaluate the District as a system when making decisions, and thus did not ensure the best
protection for the District's significant aquatic resources.
In order to better evaluate the District's wetlands as a whole, and to provide guidance for decision making
on Federal 404 permits, the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the New York District Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps), the HMDC, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), the New Jersey
Department of Environmental Protection (NJDEP), and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
undertook a joint effort to collect data to develop an Advanced Identification (AVID) of the
Meadowlands. The agencies evaluated 92% of the District's wetlands, using the Wetland Evaluation
Technique (WET). The final AVID, which became effective on December 10, 1992, designated
approximately 88% of the District's wetlands as generally unsuitable for fill, between 2-3% of the
wetlands as potentially suitable for fill, and approximately 9% of the wetlands in the District as
indeterminate. It provided greater certainty to the regulated public, as well as better information for the
purposes of decision-making on the part of the Federal agencies. However, the AVID alone was still
unable to resolve the conflicts between the District's existing Master Plan and the requirements of
Section 404 of the CWA. It furthermore could not address potential solutions to the ongoing degradation
of the District's wetlands and waterways from uncontrolled pollutant sources. Since the District was
under ever-increasing development pressure, the need to resolve the conflicts between the existing
Master Plan and Section 404 of the CWA, as well as other Federal statutes, was imperative.
In 1988, the HMDC was undertaking revisions to its existing Master Plan, and expressed a desire to work
in concert with the State and Federal agencies which had jurisdiction over wetlands in the District. In
consequence of this, EPA, the Corps, and NJDEP entered in 1988 with the HMDC into a Memorandum
of Understanding (MOU) to prepare a Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) for the District. A SAMP
is defined in the 1980 amendments to the Coastal Zone Management Act as a "comprehensive plan
providing for natural resource protection and reasonable coastal-dependent economic growth, containing
a detailed and comprehensive statement of policies, standards and criteria to guide public and private
uses of lands and waters; and mechanisms for timely implementation in specific geographical areas
within the coastal zone". Corps regulatory guidance specifies that, in order for the development of a
SAMP to be considered appropriate, the area under consideration must be environmentally sensitive and
under strong development pressure. In addition, the development of a SAMP requires a local sponsor,
since the Federal government does not have the authority to perform local land use planning, and
requires public coordination. Finally, the SAMP must result in a set of definitive regulatory products.
The SAMP, as specified in the MOU, will be a comprehensive plan providing for natural resource
protection and reasonable economic growth in the District, including preservation, restoration, and
enhancement of the District's natural resources. The SAMP will also foster compliance of future
development with applicable environmental laws and regulations, including the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. As part of this, the parties to the MOU agreed that the final SAMP would result in
no net loss of wetland functions and values within the District. Because the preparation of a SAMP was
considered by EPA and the Corps to be an action which could have potentially significant consequences
on matters under their jurisdiction, the agencies committed in the MOU to prepare an Environmental
-------
Impact Statement (EIS) on the SAMP. EPA and the Corps are co-lead agencies in the preparation of the
SAMP EIS. The Draft EIS was issued on July 21, 1995, and public comments were received until
December 1, 1995. The plan is currently being examined and modified where appropriate in response to
the comments received.
Development of the SAMP
Public Coordination
Because the Corps guidance on SAMPs requires public participation, a Citizens' Advisory Committee
(CAC) was established from among the different groups of stakeholders in the SAMP, in order to assist
in identifying issues and to provide ongoing review and comment as the EIS and the SAMP products
were developed. The CAC comprises twenty members, drawn equally from public interest groups
(including environmental groups), developers, public officials (including municipal, county, and federal
elected officials) and private citizens. The CAC has met several times a year, as documents or products
have been generated for review. In addition, public participation was sought at three scoping meetings
held for the EIS, and also at a public meeting held in March, 1992. Public comments were incorporated
in the DEIS, or otherwise addressed by providing summaries of responses to comments in separate
documents. As the components of the DEIS were developed, they were made available to the public by
placing the documents in each of five designated repositories. Additional comments have been sought
through public hearings and submissions on the EIS.
Preparation of the SAMP
The SAMP was developed in the following sequence: (1.) Definition of the District's needs; (2.)
Assessment of the existing wetland functions of the District, and preparation of a map which compared
the relative functions of the wetlands with one another; (3.) Development of alternative land-use
configurations which would meet the District's projected growth needs and analysis of their impacts; (4.)
Establishment of the preferred alternative; (5.) Development of mechanisms to mitigate unavoidable
environmental impacts; (6.) Development of products and processes by which the SAMP will be
implemented.
The statement of the District's needs was developed by the HMDC in its role as local sponsor for the
SAMP, and is included in the SAMP EIS. The needs of the District include two major categories:
environmental needs, which include remediation, habitat enhancement and habitat preservation, and
development needs, which include residential, commercial, office, industrial, and
transportation/infrastructure. This identification of needs arose from the HMDC's unique statutory
mandate, and has allowed comprehensive environmental goals to be fully integrated into the land use
planning process, rather than being considered in isolation, which is ordinarily the case. The
environmental needs of the District, are presented in the SAMP EIS, and a plan for addressing them over
the 20-year life of the SAMP is detailed in the Environmental Improvement Program (EIP) which was
-------
prepared by the HMDC. The cost of providing for the District's environmental needs, which amounts to
approximately 875 million dollars, is shown by category in Figure 1. Approximately 560 million dollars
of these costs are not currently funded, and only about 14% of these costs have the potential to be funded
from existing programs (HMDC, 1995). Therefore, it would be necessary to provide approximately 480
million dollars to fund these environmental needs. The EIP proposes to address this funding shortfall by
a combination of utilizing all existing Federal and State programs as potential funding sources, using a
Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) system, and finally, an environmental assessment to be placed on
existing and new development to fund the bulk of the improvements. The breakdown of the estimated
funding to be derived from these sources is shown in Figure 2.
The development needs of the District were developed by projecting estimates of what the District's
share of the regional need for growth would be. Since the SAMP will be a 20-year plan, the projections,
which were derived from a number of different sources, were based on the amount of regional growth
that the District would absorb over the twenty year time period, when taking into consideration the
growth which would be expected to occur in the remainder of the region. The District's needs were
accepted for use in preparation of the DEIS at the following values: 14,000 housing units; 18 million
square feet (MSF) of primary office space; 2.7 MSF of commercial space; and 16 MSF of
warehouse/secondary office space. 1
Following the definition of the District's development needs, six different land-use scenarios which
would accommodate the projected development were evaluated for impacts. These alternatives were:
upland, redevelopment, growth centers, highway corridors, dispersed development, out-of-district
development, and no-action, which in this case, was defined as a continuation of the existing Master
Plan. None of the alternatives by themselves was found to be acceptable; either it was incapable of
supporting all of the projected growth, or else it did not minimize the impacts to wetlands in an
acceptable manner. An additional land use alternative was therefore developed by maximizing upland
use, incorporating an out-of-district component, and including the lowest impact components of the other
alternatives, to the extent necessary to accommodate the projected growth. This alternative, when
subjected to detailed environmental evaluation, had the lowest impacts of any of the alternatives and was
accepted in the DEIS as the preferred alternative.
The complete proposed SAMP plan includes the following elements: (1.) A Land Use plan, based on the
Hybrid alternative, which fulfills the District's growth needs. The Draft plan proposed 2,200 acres of land
for development, of which 842 acres are wetlands. (2.) A compensatory mitigation program, which
would require the enhancement of over 3,400 acres of existing wetlands in the District, to ensure that no
net loss of wildlife habitat, water quality improvement functions, and social significance functions occurs
as a result of the proposed wetland loss. (3.) The Environmental Improvement Program, which would
provide approximately $875 million of pollution remediation, additional environmental enhancement,
and pollution prevention for the District. (4.) Permanent preservation, through zoning and deed
restrictions or conservation easements, of the remaining 7,700 acres of wetlands in the District not
proposed for development. (5.) A program of Transferable Development Rights (TDR), which will
provide a mechanism for financial compensation of property owners whose land is not proposed for
development.
-------
A variety of products are proposed to assist in implementing the SAMP, once the program has been
completed. The new Master Plan and the zoning regulations which implement it will be based on the
final SAMP, and will undergo an administrative rulemaking process required by the state. Once adopted,
the Master Plan will then be submitted to NOAA for review as a change to the New Jersey's Coastal
Zone Management Plan (CZMP). As part of the proposed changes in regulations, the aforementioned
TDR system is proposed. In addition, the review process for both Federal §404 permits and state permits
are proposed to be streamlined to allow for more expeditious review and processing of SAMP-consistent
projects. The Federal products include: (1.) a §404 regional general permit, applicable to specific sites
within the District where proposed fill is less than fifteen acres, and to transportation projects which
propose fill of less than one acre, and (2.) an abbreviated permit process (APP). The New Jersey state
permits would undergo review procedures concurrently with Federal applications, and these procedures
are designed to increase certainty while decreasing permit process time. Finally, a number of mitigation
banks are proposed for the District, which will also contribute to lowered permit processing time, as well
as provide opportunities for large-scale habitat improvement. The SAMP, therefore, in its final form, can
offer regulatory relief as well as achieving comprehensive protection and environmental improvement to
a significant portion of the Hackensack River watershed.
References
USEPA and USACE. (1995) Draft Environmental Impact Statement on the Special Area
Management Plan for the Hackensack Meadowlands District, NJ. Prepared for USEPA Region II
and USACE, NY District by Camp, Dresser and McKee Inc.
USEPA, Region II. (1989) Final Report: Functional assessment of wetlands in New Jersey's
Hackensack Meadowlands. Prepared for USEPA Region II by the Maguire Group, Inc.
. (1992) Site survey report: Ecological studies on the proposed Hartz Mountain
Development Corporation Villages at Mill Creek. Compiled by USEPA Region II and Gannet
Fleming, Inc.
. (1992) Basis for the Advanced Identification of Wetlands in New Jersey's
Hackensack Meadowlands. New York, NY.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Strategy: Managing a Most Valuable
Resource
James P. Rhodes, Senior Hydrogeologist
P.W. Grosser Consulting Engineer & Hydrogeologist, P.C.
Sayville, NY
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Introduction
In order to effectively manage a watershed, a strategy which deals with the watershed as a whole rather
than individual parts is crucial. A complete watershed strategy incorporates key issues of a particular
watershed and may involve the coordination of several different agencies. This approach was utilized in
the development of a watershed management plan prepared for the Water Authority of Great Neck North
(the Authority), which obtains its water from a limited sole source coastal aquifer system.
Background
The Authority serves public water to the area of the Great Neck Peninsula, Long Island, New York. The
total population serviced by the Authority is estimated to be 31,400, distributed among 7,900 service
accounts, in an area of approximately 6.4 square miles. To meet its current water demands, the Authority
currently pumps an average of 1,555 million gallons per year or 4.26 million gallons per day (MGD).
The hydrogeologic setting of the Great Neck Peninsula makes it susceptible to saltwater intrusion,
especially with significant pumpage stresses imposed over a relatively small area. Two (2) of the
Authority's ten (10) wells have been removed from service as a result of the detection of chloride
concentrations in excess of the current EPA Drinking Water Standard of 250 mg/1. The occurrence of
saltwater intrusion and the closure of wells has led to water quantity limitations, which need to be
addressed on a watershed level.
-------
Watershed Strategy
The development of a watershed strategy involved the coordination of a number of different agencies
including the USGS, local public works departments, public water suppliers, and independent
consultants. Information from these agencies involved the following:
¦ Characterization of the hydrogeology of the Authority's watershed,
¦ Water budget of the aquifer system comprising the Authority's watershed,
¦ Relationship of public supply well pumpage and chloride concentrations,
¦ Identification of saltwater wedges beneath the Great Neck Peninsula,
¦ Saltwater intrusion modeling and fate of saltwater wedges,
¦ Water conservation efforts.
Preparation of a Watershed Management Plan
Information from the various agencies made up separate components which were incorporated into the
watershed management plan prepared for the Authority. The plan assimilated the separate components
into a watershed approach designed to mitigate saltwater intrusion through the development of both short
and long term operating plans.
Hydrogeology of the Watershed
The hydrogeologic setting of the Great Neck Peninsula is complex and proves sensitive to pumpage
stresses primarily due to two highly confined aquifers which abut saltwater. The base of the
hydrogeologic setting consists of crystalline bedrock through which there is little or no groundwater
flow. The bedrock is overlain by a series of unconsolidated deposits.
Immediately overlying the bedrock is the Raritan formation of Late Cretaceous age which consists of the
Lloyd Aquifer confined by the Raritan Clay Member. The Raritan Clay, where it exists, isolates the
Lloyd Aquifer from impacts from the overlying aquifers and establishes a conduit from the Lloyd
Aquifer to the surrounding saltwater bodies. Currently, five of the Authority's wells are classified as
being screened in the Lloyd and approximately 50% of the Authority's total pumpage is from this aquifer.
The Magothy Aquifer is composed of Upper Cretaceous sediments that overlie the Raritan clay. The
lower portions of this aquifer exhibits semi-confined characteristics. In the Great Neck Peninsula area,
much of the Magothy has been extensively eroded by glacial action and has been completely removed in
-------
the northern extent of the Peninsula. Due to its higher hydraulic conductivity, the Magothy Aquifer is
more suitable for water supply than the Lloyd Aquifer, where adequate aquifer thicknesses can be found.
The remaining three active Authority wells are screened in the Magothy Aquifer.
The Port Washington Aquifer is a sequence of deposits of Pleistocene and/or late Cretaceous age that
underlie only the northernmost portions of the Great Neck Peninsula. These deposits form a distinct
hydrogeologic unit that rests upon bedrock and is overlain by a confining clay, the Port Washington
confining unit (Stumm, 1993). Two of the Authority's wells are screened in the Port Washington Aquifer
and have both been lost due to saltwater intrusion. This indicates that the aquifer is very sensitive to
pumpage with regard to saltwater and that most of the northern extents of the aquifer are already salty.
The Port Washington confining unit overlies the Port Washington and overlaps the adjacent Cretaceous
units. It appears that this confining unit thins out dramatically over the Magothy Aquifer. The Port
Washington confining unit confines the water in the underlying aquifers, but the variability of its
thickness permits local interchange of water with that of the adjacent aquifers.
The Upper Glacial Aquifer consists of deposits of late Pleistocene and Holocene age that overlie the
Magothy Aquifer and the Port Washington confining unit (Kilburn, 1979). The Upper Glacial Aquifer is
the water table aquifer on the Peninsula and transmits recharge to the underlying aquifers but is not being
utilized as a source of supply due to its proximity to the land surface and contamination.
Water Budget of the Aquifer System
The hydrogeology of the watershed was used to determine the Authority's water budget and permissive
sustained yield of associated aquifers. The water budget identified inflows and outflows from the
watershed for each aquifer in order to determine the bounds of the water resources and was calculated for
the Authority using published groundwater levels throughout the Great Neck Peninsula. Inflows are
limited to recharge over the entire area from rainfall and groundwater underflow across the southern
boundary of the Authority. Outflows are groundwater underflow to surface water, stream flow fed by
groundwater and water removed by pumpage. The water budget determined that the watersheds outflow
exceeds inflow, particularly in the lower confined aquifers. This is enhanced by the existence of the Port
Washington and Raritan Clay confining units which retard and prevent recharge from reaching the
underlying aquifers. Particularly vulnerable are the Lloyd and Port Washington Aquifers, which are
hydraulically connected and significantly confined. Resulting from this, is the displacement of freshwater
by saltwater from the surrounding bodies of water which is mostly taking place in the Port Washington
Aquifer and areas of the Lloyd Aquifer exposed to saltwater.
From the water budget, the permissive sustained yield for the aquifer system indicated that existing
Lloyd pumpage exceeded the calculated recharge resulting in saltwater intrusion. Conditions
significantly differ in the overlying aquifers, which are subject to direct recharge and greater underflow
from the south.
-------
Relationship of Public Supply Well Pumpage and Chloride
Concentrations
In order to determine the Authority wells most susceptible to saltwater intrusion, chloride concentrations
in the wells versus pumpage over time was studied. The study showed that, in general, both Magothy and
Lloyd screened wells showed increasing chloride levels with increased pumpage. The increasing chloride
levels in the Magothy wells was attributed to their increased utilization in an attempt to shift pumpage
out of the Lloyd and their proximity to surrounding surface water. As suspected, the relationship of
pumpage and increasing chloride concentrations was much more pronounced in the Lloyd screened
wells. Chloride concentrations were also considerably greater in these wells. Sensitivity to saltwater
intrusion was characteristic of location (proximity to surface water and Port Washington Aquifer) and the
general overdraft of the Lloyd. Wells where a strong relationship between chloride concentrations and
pumpage does not exist, are generally located in buffered central locations of the Great Neck Peninsula.
Identification of Saltwater Wedges Beneath the Great Neck Peninsula
The USGS in cooperation with the NCDPW conducted a groundwater quality project to identify
saltwater wedges beneath the Peninsula. As part of the project, the USGS and NCDPW installed
groundwater monitoring wells throughout the Peninsula. Core samples collected during drilling were
used to better define the local geology. Additionally, the monitoring wells installed were logged using
gamma radiation to better define the geology and focused electromagnetic-induction to delineate the
saltwater-freshwater interface. Results of the geophysical testing were correlated to core samples, filter
press samples and groundwater samples so that accurate assumptions related to saltwater intrusion were
obtained (Stumm, 1993). The USGS & NCDPW program identified two wedge-shaped areas of saltwater
in the northern part of Great Neck; one at the base of the Port Washington Aquifer in the extreme
northern tip of the Peninsula and the second at the base of the Lloyd Aquifer.
Saltwater Intrusion Modeling
Incorporating information obtained from their drilling project, the NCDPW performed, in conjunction
with Camp Dresser & McKee (CDM), saltwater intrusion modeling for the Great Neck Peninsula and its
relationship to Authority pumpage. The NCDPW groundwater model depicts both current and projected
positions of the saltwater interface as well as freshwater heads for the Lloyd Aquifer. Currently, the
model depicts significant cones of depression consisting of negative freshwater heads surrounding the
Authority's Lloyd wells under their typical operating conditions. The saltwater intrusion model
projections are approximate due to how the model interprets saltwater conditions (chloride
concentrations greater than 10,000 ppm) and transition conditions (chloride concentrations less than
1,000 ppm). Modeling focused on the redistribution of Lloyd pumpage to various locations further south
both within the Authority's service area and a neighboring water district less susceptible to saltwater
intrusion. Redistribution of pumpage to the neighboring water district was accomplished by the
projection of new well(s) screened in the Lloyd Aquifer. By redistributing pumpage of Lloyd wells most
-------
vulnerable to saltwater intrusion to existing wells within the Authority's boundaries, an attempt was made
to produce a pumpage scenario that mitigates saltwater intrusion. Consideration was also given to
avoiding corridors of low heads in the Lloyd Aquifer leading from the bays to the new wells.
General conclusions, based on the above model simulations, confirmed that public supply well pumping
out of the Lloyd Aquifer in the Authority's service area will lead to some degree of saltwater intrusion
and that pumpage should be shifted to aquifers where recharge rates exceed withdrawal rates. Additional
conclusions addressed locations of a new Lloyd public supply well which, according to modeling results,
would not be affected by saltwater intrusion before the year 2100 and a location beyond the impact of
saltwater intrusion. Redistribution of pumpage of existing Lloyd wells based on a priority basis
developed by CDM had insignificant effects on saltwater intrusion.
Water Conservation Efforts
In order to conserve water, numerous conservation efforts were undertaken by the Authority. To
discourage the overuse of water, a water conservation rate structure was adopted. Also adopted by the
Authority, in addition to lawn sprinkling regulations, were the use of raingauges and moisture sensors on
automatic sprinkler systems. Other conservation efforts include a pilot leak detection survey to locate
unaccounted for water due to leakage, water audits for the greatest water uses, and a retrofit program.
Assimilation of Components
The coordination of the above information made it possible to approach the Authority's problem on a
watershed level. Using this information, P.W. Grosser Consulting developed pumpage scenarios
designed to bracket various conditions ranging from restructuring the pumping of the Authority's existing
wells to locating up to 2.54 MGD off of the Great Neck Peninsula. The latter focused on replacing all
existing Lloyd pumpage located on the Peninsula. Pumpage scenarios were based on yearly water
pumpage data compiled by the Authority for the most recent 5 year period. The 5 year average pumpage
of the Authority is approximately 4.26 MGD, of which 2.54 MGD is from the Lloyd Aquifer. Currently,
the remaining pumpage is from the Magothy Aquifer.
A total of five pumpage scenarios were developed for modeling by NCDPW which were divided into
summer and winter average pumpages in order to represent typical annual water usage. On one side of
the spectrum, a pumpage scenario was developed using existing wells only. This scenario concentrated
on transferring the majority of pumpage to the Magothy Aquifer and attempts to provide an optimum
pumpage plan using the Authority's current capacity. The other side of the spectrum replaced all existing
Lloyd Pumpage from the Great Neck Peninsula (2.54 MGD) with proposed wells located off of the
Peninsula. This model scenario utilized wells screened in Magothy or reworked Magothy/Pliestocene
material. The remaining pumpage scenarios replaced varying amounts of Lloyd pumpage with wells
located off of the Peninsula, including pumpage equal to and two times the permissive sustained yield of
the Lloyd Aquifer. Additional pumpage needs were met by existing wells pumped on a priority basis.
-------
The results of the model simulations varied from continued saltwater intrusion and the impact of all
existing Lloyd wells by the year 2093 in the first scenario to no Lloyd wells being impacted. The latter
scenario represents all existing Lloyd pumpage shifted off of the Peninsula resulting in an actual retreat
of the saltwater interface of approximately 10 feet per year. As expected, results of the remaining
simulations varied between the above scenarios. If a particular well proved sensitive to pumpage in one
of these scenarios, causing it to be lost to saltwater intrusion, it was rerun with an alternate well. The
model results indicated particular wells that could be utilized for significant periods of time without
impact, as well as ones that were impacted with relatively low capacity pumping and influence of other
wells. Selected Lloyd pumpage on the Great Neck Peninsula at a rate equal to the approximate sustained
yield of the Lloyd Aquifer is possible if it is properly distributed among the existing Lloyd wells.
With the information gained from the modeling, both short and long term operating plans were
developed for the Authority. Short term operating plans include shifting pumpage from the Lloyd
Aquifer in an attempt to reduce the impact of saltwater intrusion. Due to mitigating factors such as
maintenance problems causing wells to be shut down, current actual well capacity, and system pressure
demands which cause certain wells to be pumped during peak times, it was best to provide a priority
basis for well pumpage rather then set a rigid pumpage guideline.
It was evident through the study of the hydrogeologic conditions existing beneath the Authority's service
area and the subsequent groundwater model results, that the development of new sources of supply
outside of the Authority's service area is necessary to preclude the loss of additional wells to saltwater
intrusion. The long term operating plan includes the development of new sources, screened in the
Magothy or reworked Magothy/Pliestocene material. These wells have to be pumped on a high priority
basis, with existing Magothy wells making up the bulk of the Authority's water demand. The plan
specifies, that once the proposed wells are installed and operating, Lloyd pumpage from the Great Neck
Peninsula should not exceed the permissive sustained yield at any given time.
Summary and Conclusions
The development of a watershed management plan for a limited coastal aquifer system impacted by
saltwater intrusion involved the coordination of a number of different agencies. It is the ability to utilize
large quantities of available information and resources at ones disposal that makes solving problems on a
watershed level possible.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Coastal America: A Partnership Paradigm for
Protecting and Restoring Ecosystems and
Watersheds
Virginia Tippie, Director
Gail Updegraff, Deputy Director
Coastal America, Silver Spring, MD
Introduction
The Coastal America partnership provides a process for dealing with coastal resource issues on a
watershed basis. The Coastal America process is structured to address the whole spectrum of activity and
resource use throughout a given watershed. The result of this process is corrective actions, such as
"shovel in the ground" projects at the local level. Traditional environmental protection activities that do
not consider the entire drainage area of a coastal region cannot successfully restore or protect a coastal
ecosystem from the impacts of region wide activities.
The purpose of Coastal America as stated in the interagency memorandum of understanding that
established the partnership, is to protect, preserve, and restore the Nation's coastal ecosystems through
regional activities that provide direct local watershed action. This innovative action-oriented initiative is
a true partnership process, not a program. The federal partners include those agencies with principal
responsibility for the stewardship of coastal resources, those with responsibility for infrastructure
development, and those whose activities impact coastal environments (Departments of Agriculture, Air
Force, Army, Commerce, Defense, Energy, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Navy,
Transportation, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Executive Office of the President). The
partnership integrates the capabilities and existing resources of the federal agencies with state, local and
non-governmental efforts to address specific problems, by sharing information, pooling resources and
combining management skills and technical expertise.
-------
The Coastal America collaborative problem-solving structure enables national policy issues to be
identified and resolved, regional strategies to be developed and local projects to be implemented. At the
national level, policy issues are addressed by a Principals Group comprised of Under Secretaries and
Assistant Secretaries, and a national team comprised of senior level representatives from the federal
partner agencies. At the regional level, interagency teams identify specific problems and geographic
areas of concern in an ecosystem/watershed context. At the local level, projects are implemented by
pooling resources and expertise.
National Level
At the national level, the Coastal America federal agencies have all supported or administered some type
of watershed protection or management planning. Often their efforts require active participation by a
range of parties with an interest in the resource issues being addressed. Coastal America provides a
framework for federal agencies to work as a team with state and local agencies, and non-governmental
organizations to resolve such issues. Resolution of a coastal resource issue may even involve modifying
policy. For example, to encourage beneficial use of dredge material for wetlands restoration, the
Principals introduced modifications to federal laws and policies. In the San Francisco Bay, this enabled
the use of clean dredge material from the Petaluma River and the Oakland Harbor to establish 350 acres
of salt marsh on diked agricultural land.
In addition to looking at issues preventing the partnership from addressing a concern, the Principals and
national team also develop consensus reports to promote a watershed management approach. An example
of a consensus report is "Toward a Watershed Approach: A Framework for Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration, Protection, and Management." This report on aquatic ecosystem protection and restoration
through watershed-based resource management approaches has two underlying themes. They are: (1)
aquatic ecosystems, which are intrinsically related to the hydro geologic characteristics of watersheds,
are most effectively addressed in a watershed context; and (2) truly comprehensive watershed approaches
can only succeed with the collaboration and cooperation of the full range of parties with jurisdiction
over, and interest in, the resources at stake. This holistic approach is central to the Coastal America
philosophy and ingrained at the regional and local levels. In fact, Coastal America's strength is the
creativity and wholeness of the projects that are developed within an ecosystem framework through its
collaborative partnership process.
Regional Level
Coastal America has nine regions that implement their efforts in a watershed context. Every region has a
team that consists of senior regional representatives of the partnership agencies. These teams are
designated Regional Implementation Teams (RITs). Each team establishes a process and a strategy for
achieving its coastal restoration and protection goals and objectives, based on the watershed approach.
All potential Coastal America projects in a region are introduced to the RIT by their lead agency: i.e.,
that agency on the RIT with the primary responsibility to assist other federal agencies; state, local and
-------
tribal governments; non-governmental organizations or the private sector in the implementation of the
watershed or sub-watershed project.
For example, the focus of the Northeast RIT is to examine the region's remaining significant ecosystems,
particularly the temperate coastal salt marsh and estuarine habitats, and to ensure their viability over the
next several decades. The Northeast regional team has concentrated on two problem areas identified for
priority action-the restoration of wetlands and mitigation of contaminated sediments in aquatic sites. The
other eight RITs operate in a similar manner with appropriate modifications in their process and
priorities. In the Southeast region, a leadership group of the regional principals provides guidance to the
members of the RIT. This leadership group is comprised of regional administrators who report to
national headquarters. It should also be noted that as the "front line" administrators of most pollution
control and coastal protection plans, several coastal states are now realigning their water quality
programs along watershed boundaries.
Local Level
Local project teams have been very effective at helping to restore watersheds. Individual, site specific
local projects are developed within a watershed/ecosystem framework and proposed to the Coastal
America regional teams. Each region maintains and regularly updates a working list of endorsed local
projects. Federal and non-federal resources and expertise are then pooled and leveraged for project
implementation. Specific projects within a watershed are integrated to provide a comprehensive
approach.
An example of this watershed approach is the Blackstone River Project in the Northeast. Recognizing
that the problems of the river are highly interrelated, the National Park Service, which manages this
National Heritage Corridor, requested that the Coastal America partnership provide assistance to its
watershed restoration efforts. The project integrates individual efforts such as shore stabilization,
contaminated sediment remediation, and mitigation of obstructions to anadromous fish passage to ensure
effective restoration of the river.
In the Southeast, we are restoring access to historic anadromous fish spawning habitat in the Albemarle-
Pamlico Sound watershed through the removal of dams and the construction of fish passages. Coastal
America partners are providing essential dollars and services for action. More importantly, the
partnership is facilitating an interagency consensus and establishing an institutional framework for future
cooperative efforts. Non-federal partners include the State of North Carolina's Environment, Health and
Natural Resources Department and Transportation Department; the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission; the Virginia Division of Game and Inland Fisheries; and the Virginia Council on the
Environment.
In the Northwest, federal and state agencies and the Port of Seattle have undertaken several habitat
restoration projects along the Duwamish River through the Coastal America partnership. This project in
Seattle, Washington, will increase the quantity and quality of habitat for fish and wildlife species, while
-------
allowing for assessment of various restoration techniques. The project has also increased our
understanding of habitat restoration in an urban watershed. The collaborative Coastal America process,
which includes the agencies with jurisdiction over infrastructure development and maintenance, has been
essential to the overall success of this restoration effort.
A final example of a local project effort is the Maumee Nonpoint Source Pilot Project which affects the
Great Lakes. This is a tri-state effort for a 6,586 square mile watershed. This demonstration project is
designed to determine the feasibility of prescriptive fertilizer application by farmers to reduce nonpoint
source pollution to Lake Erie. It is estimated that 65 percent of the phosphorus loading to the Maumee
River originates from runoff from over fertilized, unprotected cropland exposed to winter rains and
snows. Through this partnership effort, farmers in the watershed are now reducing fertilizer applications
and, thereby, minimizing nutrient runoff into the river.
Future Directions
The Coastal America partnership process encourages environmental restoration and protection while
enabling and enhancing economic development. This concept of sustainable development is now
incorporated in our national policies, regional plans, and local projects. At the national level, the 1994
Memorandum of Understanding commits the partners to a "national effort which is guided by the
concepts of ecosystem management and sustainable development." At the regional level, the strategies
developed by the regional teams identify specific problems and geographic areas of concern within the
context of sustainable development and ecosystem management objectives. At the local level, action-
oriented projects make these concepts a reality.
Recognizing that a watershed approach provides the most effective framework for aquatic ecosystem
restoration and protection, the Principals have directed the Partnership to focus on "activities that provide
direct local and watershed action." Since Coastal America includes the full spectrum of federal and state
natural resource and economic development agencies, local organizations, private industry and public
interest groups, the partnership can formulate comprehensive solutions in a system-wide context. It can
provide a collaborative problem solving process that brings the stakeholders to the table to resolve the
problems that threaten a watershed's aquatic resources.
The Coastal America partnership will continue to address many of the problems facing our Nation's
coastal environment from this new perspective. The future of our aquatic ecosystems and the fish and
wildlife that depend on them lies in integrated and collaborative decision-making on a watershed basis in
an ecosystem context. By these means we can protect and support clean, abundant habitats and water
resources, healthy ecosystems, and continued use of our waterways for our economic and environmental
benefit.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
New York City's Watershed Protection Program
Michael A. Principe, Deputy Director of the Bureau of Water Supply
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Corona, NY
Introduction
This paper is focused on exploring the accomplishments of the last decade in protecting in New York
City's watershed environment. The recent pace of program enhancement has been extremely rapid,
especially since work on the watershed program began (in 1988). Since then, DEP has received 3
filtration avoidance determinations, with a fourth to be issued shortly; been involved with 5 expert
panels; prepared 5 environmental impact statements, the Agency has been under the direction of three
different City Administrations, and has been through approximately 10 rewrites of the Watershed Rules
and Regulations. The Division of Drinking Water Quality Control has increased in staff from 60 to 280
people and its expense budget has increased 8-fold. It's been an dynamic period that can be characterized
by a number of significant accomplishments, and these will be described below in terms of two
components:
1. The evolution of the City's watershed protection program, and the basic technical concepts
underlying its design;
2. The formulation and key elements of the City's current watershed protection program, and some
of the recent accomplishments that have occurred as a result of recent City initiatives.
System Description
New York City's drinking water is renowned for its purity and good taste. The excellent quality of the
City's drinking water can be directly attributed to the size, configuration, and operational flexibility of the
system, coupled with the natural characteristics of the water supply watersheds. The City's water supply
is comprised of three systems, the Croton, the Catskill, and the Delaware. The watershed area of the three
-------
systems combined covers 2,000 square miles across eight counties and 60 towns. The system has a total
usable capacity, when full, of approximately 550 billion gallons stored in 19 reservoirs and three
controlled lakes.
Evolution of the Watershed Program
The evolution of the City's watershed program has been shaped by three items:
1. The influence of the Clean Water Act upon the formulation of City source water protection
initiatives,
2. The influence of the Safe Drinking Water Act upon the formulation of City source water
protection initiatives.
3. The City's adoption of the Ecosystem Approach to watershed management as the underlying
scientific concept behind it's current source water protection programs.
Clean Water Act
Earlier versions of the Act concentrated on the control of point source pollution. It was soon discovered
that the serious pollution threatening lakes and reservoirs arose from land areas of intense agricultural
and urban land use mainly from phosphorus, sediment, and pesticides. After 15 years of nonpoint
pollution planning, study, and problem identification, the Clean Water Act was revised in 1987 thus
containing provisions which moved to control nonpoint pollution, and take more of a watershed approach
toward water quality management.
Safe Drinking Water Act
Prior to the passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, previous versions of the Act
(1914, 1925, 1942, 1946, 1962, 1974) primarily focused on water quality standards measured at the tap.
The quality of untreated source water received little attention. The 1986 amendments, in particular the
Surface Water Treatment Rule, had a profound effect on source protection efforts. In fact, the SDWA
Amendments of 1986 were the motivating force behind many watershed protection initiatives
nationwide, including the City's. For the first time attention was being focused on the quality of drinking
water supply source waters.
Prior to the strengthening of the Clean Water Act in the late 1970's, the City, like many other water
suppliers, used chemical treatment, i.e, chlorine, and copper sulfate to maintain quality in its source
waters. The tightening of Clean Water Act standards greatly reduced the City ability to employ this
practice. Concern for the reservoir ecosystem was heightened, and chemical treatment had to be used
sparingly. This made it that much more important for the City to design and implement a watershed
protection program that focused on identifying and controlling the sources of pollution within its
watershed basins rather than the treatment of the effects of the pollution after it had already entered the
-------
water supply. It also made it more important for those managing the supply to have a better
understanding of the chemical, physical, and biological processes occurring in the reservoirs and their
drainage basins, particularly from an ecological perspective. The establishment of an ecosystem approach
to watershed water quality management became necessary.
Ecosystem Approach to Watershed Management
As such, based on work of Likens and Boorman which began in 1963 at the Hubbard Brook Watershed
in New Hampshire, DEP, in the early 1980's, employed a Watershed Approach which focused on water
quality management from a drainage basin perspective. This approach was based on the principle that
water quality assessments of lakes and reservoirs can best be accomplished when approached from a
watershed, or regional perspective. As such, DEP modified its traditional watershed monitoring program
from one which had focused primarily on water quality information collected at aqueduct and tunnel
influent and effluent points, and sewage treatment plant discharges, to a broader program including
limnological or reservoir, and hydrological or tributary data collection.
Elements of the Watershed Protection Program
To address the broader program, DEP greatly enhanced its monitoring efforts. All four of the City's
watershed monitoring laboratories were upgraded with state-of-the-art equipment at a capital cost of ten
million dollars. In addition, watershed staffing was greatly increased. And lastly, geographic information
system (GIS) was created to provide support in the various program areas.
After characterizing the reservoirs and their watersheds with baseline information, and identifying and
evaluating pollution sources, the City's watershed protection program was formulated. It consists of five
principal elements:
1. New watershed regulations and enforcement.
2. Capital improvements of sewage treatment plants.
3. Acquisition of sensitive watershed land.
4. Partnerships with watershed communities.
5. Research and surveillance of waterborne disease from source to tap, that are described below.
1. New Watershed Regulations and Enforcement
As a key element of New York City's protection effort, DEP revised and modernized the watershed
regulations of 1953. The new regulations have been designed to curb the loadings of phosphorus,
coliform bacteria, and other contaminants into the watersheds, and govern a range of activities in the
watershed, such as the design and siting of sewage treatment plants, septic systems, and stormwater
management facilities, as well as the construction of impervious surfaces, such as buildings and parking
lots. New surface water discharges from wastewater treatment plants will be prohibited within 60 day
-------
travel time to water supply intakes, or in coliform restricted basins, and a limited number of "pilot"
wastewater treatment plants may be built in phosphorus restricted basins in the next 5 years, provided a
3:1 phosphorus offset can be provided, and the plant can meet an effluent limit of 0.2 mg/1. A phosphorus
restricted basin is one in which the threshold concentration for phosphorus is being exceeded, and is thus
experiencing water quality degradation. In addition, the regulations require the installation of advanced
sewage treatment equipment on all discharges in the watershed.
2. Capital Improvements to Sewage Treatment Plants
Another significant component of DEP's program is the upgrading of all sewage treatment plants in the
watershed. Currently, 104 treatment facilities operate in the watershed with a total discharge of 10.9
million gallons a day. The City will move forward with its plan to spend 200 million dollars to upgrade
all nine City-owned upstate wastewater treatment plants. 50 million dollars will be spent to bring all
other public and private wastewater treatment plants in the watershed to tertiary treatment;and 240
million will be spent to upgrade City-owned facilities and dams in the watershed.
3. Land Acquisition Program
Land acquisition is another important element of the watershed protection program. Although the City's
watershed area spans 2000 square miles, the City currently owns only about 2% of that land, or 85,000
acres. The City will buy undeveloped land identified as most important to protect water quality. At the
conclusion of the program, it is anticipated NYC's land holdings in the watershed will triple. The City's
acquisition program will concentrate on watershed properties in close proximity to reservoir intakes, land
in flood plains and alongside rivers and streams, land containing wetlands and land with moderate slopes.
The City will commit 250 million dollars over 15 years to buy land in the Catskill and Delaware System
Watersheds, and 10 million dollars to purchase land in the Croton Watershed. The State will also
contribute funds to the acquisition effort.
4. Partnerships with Watershed Communities
To enhance the effectiveness of regulation, enforcement, and land acquisition, the City has worked
closely with interest groups and local, county, state, and federal officials to develop partnerships with
watershed communities.
The Watershed Agricultural Program is the first cooperative effort that has been implemented. Since
agriculture is important to watershed economies, DEP established a joint upstate/downstate task force to
study the problems of maintaining viable farms while reducing agricultural pollution. The task force
developed a program, known as Whole Farm Planning, which uses best management practices to prevent
or dramatically curtail pollution from each dairy or livestock farm. Phase I of the program established 10
pilot farms. In October 1994 the Watershed Agricultural Council commenced work under its 5-year,
$35.2 million Phase II program. Fifty new farms came into the program by the end of 1994, and as of
-------
October of 1995 160 farms have signed onto the program. Although it is a volunteer program, it is highly
likely that at least 85% of watershed farmers will be participating by the end of 1997.
In addition to the Watershed Agricultural Program, the recently announced watershed agreement of
November 1995, includes a series of innovative partnership programs designed to facilitate local
management in watershed communities and to promote environmentally sensible economic development.
The City will fund approximately 350 million dollars in water quality and partnership programs both east
and west of the Hudson River. Some notable aspects of the partnership program include: the formation of
a watershed partnership council, the establishment of a water quality investment program, and planned
partnership initiatives.
5. Research & Surveillance of Waterborne Disease from Source to
Tap
Pathogens, or disease causing organisms, are the driving force behind the Surface Water Treatment Rule.
Independently and in partnership with Cornell University and the New York State Department of Health,
DEP has developed a broad range of studies to investigate the source, transport and fate of pathogens in
the watershed. Specific studies include monitoring for viruses, Cryptosporidium and Giardia at farms,
sewage plants and watershed locations. Additionally, DEP and the New York City Dept. of Health have
established a disease surveillance unit that tracks the incidence of giardiasis and cryptosporidiosis in the
City. Preliminary findings suggest that incidence of such diseases is well below national averages and
causation does not appear to be related to City water.
Accomplishments
Although there have been many accomplishments over the last five years concerning the City's
Watershed Protection Program, two are considered to be highly significant. These are the Watershed
Agreement of November 1995 and the Kensico Water Pollution Control Plan.
The Watershed Agreement of November 1995
This agreement will help guarantee the superior quality of the City's drinking water into the next century.
Most significantly, the State will now issue the City a permit so it can more forward with its watershed
land purchases. The State will formally adopt the City's new watershed rules and regulations, and as
mentioned earlier the agreement provides a mechanism by which upstate and downstate stakeholders can
work together on mutually beneficial water pollution control programs. In addition, EPA has agreed to
extend the City's filtration waiver to December 1999.
The Kensico Reservoir Water Pollution Control Plan (Hillview)
Of all the water bodies in the City's watersheds, none is as important as the Kensico Reservoir in
-------
Westchester County. Ninety percent of all the water that flows to the City from the upstate watersheds
runs through this reservoir. An analysis of water quality data at Kensico Reservoir revealed peaks of
fecal coliform bacteria during the late fall early winter period. A two year study of the Kensico Basin
indicated that increased populations of waterfowl and ring-billed gulls were the cause of the seasonal
coliform problem. Because of the coliform concentrations and the risk of losing filtration avoidance, the
City bypassed Kensico Reservoir during the late fall and early winter of 1991, 1992, and 1993. In late
1993, the City implemented a waterfowl control program which was highly effective in reducing the
numbers of waterfowl and gulls, as a result the coliform bacteria numbers dropped as well. Accordingly,
the City has not bypassed Kensico Reservoir in 1994, and 1995, and compliance with the fecal coliform
criteria of the Surface Water Treatment Rule has been exceptional. A similar program was instituted at
Hillview Reservoir in Yonkers last summer, and was highly effective. Both the Kensico and Hillview
examples illustrate the importance of using applied research in developing pollution control strategies.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Objectives and Examples from a Comprehensive
Water Quality Monitoring Program
Karen Moore
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Shokan, NY
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
The water quality monitoring program of the New York City (NYC) water supply was designed to meet
multiple objectives. A comprehensive watershed-wide sampling program carried out by the NYC
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) provides data to meet both short-term and long-term
management needs. NYC's water supply is an unfiltered surface water supply that serves nine million
residents of NYC and nine upstate counties, and considerable effort and resources are devoted to the
protection and preservation of raw water quality. A large field and laboratory staff of 300 professionals is
committed to the task of ensuring that water sampling and analysis is carried out competently and
efficiently. A multidisciplinary approach is taken to meet the challenges of managing the vital resource
of the NYC water supply. Scientists in the fields of chemistry, limnology, hydrology, and microbiology
are among the professionals that contribute to the knowledge base that is used to make management
decisions.
Monitoring water quality in reservoirs and their watersheds is of critical importance in complying with
federal and state water quality criteria, and in documenting trends in water quality. A commitment to an
extensive monitoring program that not only targets meeting established standards, but provides
information on whether antidegradation goals are met has been expanded in recent years.
NYC water quality monitoring objectives include regulatory compliance monitoring, tracking and control
-------
of treatment processes, evaluation of the efficacy of watershed protection, characterization of ambient
conditions, identification and tracking of episodic problems, and identification of problems that may
potentially degrade overall water quality. Assessment of concerns such as eutrophication, along with
assessment of remedial measures used to improve water quality, are also addressed through water quality
monitoring. Data are also used in the development and validation of water quality models. Progressive
technologies, such as Geographic Information Systems (GIS) are used as tools in the modeling process
and in the characterization of water quality and associated landscape attributes such as soils and land use.
The total NYC water supply watershed area covers nearly 4970 km2 (1950 mi2) and encompasses 19
reservoirs and three controlled lakes. The watersheds that contribute to the source waters, Kensico and
New Croton Reservoirs, are divided into three systems: the Catskill, Delaware and Croton systems
(Figure 1). The Catskill system has two collecting reservoirs: the Ashokan and Schoharie Reservoirs,
which were completed in 1917 and 1927, respectively. The Catskill system has a maximum storage
capacity of 562x106m3 (148 billion gallons (BG)), and drains an area of 1443 km2 (555 mi2). The
Delaware system is the newest and largest of the three systems, and was completed in 1965. Its four
reservoirs include the Rondout (on-line in 1944), Neversink (1953), Pepacton (1955), and Cannonsville
(1965), which collectively store 1239xl06m3 (326 BG), and drain an area of 2569 km2 (988 mi2). The
Croton system is the oldest system, and supplies 10-15% of the annual water that is delivered to
distribution. The Croton system has 12 reservoirs and 3 controlled lakes that drain a total area of 932
km2 (375 mi2) and their collective capacity is approximately 330.6xl06m3 (87 BG).
Several internal DEP reports document the scope of water quality monitoring in the watersheds and
reservoirs preceding the distribution system (e.g., NYCDEP, 1993a and NYCDEP, 1993b). A separate
monitoring regime applies to the distribution system. The emphasis for this paper will be on the approach
to sampling in the watersheds prior to conveyance of water to the terminal source water reservoirs.
Compliance monitoring required under the Surface Water Treatment Rule of the Safe Drinking Water
Act and other regulatory monitoring, including the monitoring of wastewater treatment plants to
determine compliance with State Pollution Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permits is also
covered in these reports.
Inflows and outflows to all reservoirs are monitored, as well as multiple sites within reservoirs and
tributary streams. Some system-wide generalizations about hydrological monitoring are presented here to
exemplify NYC's watershed sampling strategies.
Watershed processes are dynamic, and it is therefore necessary to sample at a variety of scales, both in
space and time. An extensive sampling network is employed at fixed-frequency sampling intervals to
characterize annual and seasonal trends in stream water quality. Perennial streams that sustain base flows
throughout the year are sampled using periodic grab samples. Sanders et al. (1983) suggest that six
samples per year is a rough guideline for the minimum acceptable frequency for most purposes to
characterize water quality variables that have an annual cycle. Parameters that are routinely monitored in
perennial streams include: physical variables (alkalinity, turbidity, color, temperature, specific
conductance, dissolved oxygen; biological variables (total and fecal coliform bacteria; enteric viruses and
pathogens), water chemistry variables (nitrate-N, ammonia-N, total phosphorus, total organic carbon,
-------
silica, chloride, major cations and trace metals). A special effort by DEP to monitor pathogens is
presented by Stern (1996).
Extensive sampling is performed at a variety of scales to track specific problems such as turbidity. In the
Catskill system, a "synoptic" approach to evaluating turbidity has been taken, and over a three-year
period, over 10,000 grab samples were collected to develop a regional picture of turbidity. Concentration
of suspended solids was also determined in conjunction with stream discharge, to make estimates of
sediment loads feasible. Using this approach, and limiting sample analysis to two laboratory-derived
variables (turbidity and total suspended solids), a large area (over 500 mi2) was sampled to characterize
turbidity. Sampling intensity was greatest during Spring and Fall periods of peak runoff to identify any
sites with chronic turbidity problems.
Another form of sampling that is employed in watershed streams is intensive storm event monitoring.
Where the objective of water quality monitoring is to determine contaminant loadings to reservoirs,
storm hydrograph monitoring is essential. Although storm events represent a small percentage of the
time, they represent a greater proportion of the substance load, since concentration of many substances is
flow-dependent (Ward and Elliot, 1995). Samples are collected using automated samplers or as grab
samples, with synchronous flow measurements or records of stream stage used to determine
concentration-flow relationships. The method of sample collection is determined by the sampling
objectives and size of the study area. For example, in a study of nutrients and related water chemistry in
an agricultural watershed of the Delaware system, an automatic pump sampler was used to collect
samples at timed intervals during rain events of varying magnitudes and durations. These data were
collected over a one-year period for the purpose of validating estimates made using the Generalized
Watershed Loading Function (GWLF) model. In conjunction with turbidity studies in the Catskill
system, grab samples were collected throughout the storm hydrograph to further examine the patterns in
variability and subbasin response to storm events that exceed one-inch of rainfall. In this turbidity study,
three different approaches are used to monitor turbidity patterns: fixed frequency sampling; synoptic
surveys; and storm event sampling.
Sampling efforts in the watersheds contributing to the NYC water supply consist of a core of fixed
frequency sampling stations that have been maintained for many years. In some cases, the water
chemistry of the major inflows to the reservoirs have a period of record of 50 years or more, and in
recent years, a broader watershed-wide sampling network has been employed. Refinement of sampling
strategies began in 1985 and continue today to meet the objectives of detecting problems, documenting
change and variability, and providing a vigilant view of this vast and precious water resource.
References
New York City Department of Environmental Protection (NYCDEP). 1993a. Water Quality
Surveillance Monitoring. Division of Drinking Water Quality Control. Valhalla, NY.
. 1993b. New York City Drinking Water Quality Control 1992 Watershed Annual
-------
Report. Valhalla, NY.
Sanders, T.G., R.C. Ward, J.C. Loftis, T.D. Steele, D.D. Adrian, and V. Yevjevich. 1983. Design
of Networks for Monitoring Water Quality. Water Resources Publications. Highlands Ranch, CO.
Stern, D.A. 1996. Monitoring for Cryptosporidium spp., Giardia spp., and enteric viruses in the
Watersheds of the New York City Water Supply System. Proceedings of Watershed '96.
Ward, J.D. and W.J. Elliot [eds.]. 1995. Environmental Hydrology. CRC Press, Inc. Boca Raton,
FL.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The NYC Water Quality Division Geographical
Information System (GIS) and Its Applications for
The Watershed Management
Yuri Gorokhovich
GIS Group, DWQC, NYCDEP, Valhalla, NY
Introduction
A Geographical Information System (GIS) is a computerized system for storage, display and
manipulation of geographical data. One of the main advantages of the system is its ability to handle
different data formats and scales. Therefore a GIS can provide relatively easy access and extraction of
information, including map production and table generation. Within the Division of Water Quality
Control (DWQC), a GIS is being used for the two main tasks: water quality management strategy
development and map production routines. ARC/INFO software, developed by Environmental Systems
Research Institute (ESRI) is the primary software used. ARC/INFO allowes storage of GIS data and easy
acquisition of different data in various formats.
Database Development
Current data acquisition through GIS import/export capabilities has allowed gathering and storage of
such different data sets as scanned images, digital graphic files (DLG) from USGS and National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI), survey data, vector and raster data from other GIS packages as well as global
positioning system (GPS) data, that support both water quality management strategy development and
map production.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Data acquisition is an important part of building a GIS database. Within DWQC data development
-------
supports different projects and scientific research. There are three main scales of data: 250K, 100K and
24K. The most commonly used are 24K data because of the best available resolution and ability to match
United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangles (7.5 minutes quads). The whole New York City
watershed area is covered by 68 USGS quads and each quad can contain up to 20 megabytes of digital
data (excluding remote sensing data).
GIS data in ARC/INFO format are stored in one location on the main data server. This location is linked
with all workstations and shared across the network. This location consists of 11 thematic sub-directories
such as 'hydrology', 'soils', etc. All thematic subdirectories contain ARC/INFO GIS layers (coverages)
with corresponding metadata text files. Metadata files allow users to see necessary documentation for the
coverages. These files can be viewed through the file manager utilities, copied, imported into any
wordprocessing software or printed. Typical content of the metadata has information on the date of the
coverage creation, method, author, coordinate system, scale, database dictionary, etc.
All GIS data are managed by one person from the GIS group and can not be altered by other users. All
new data must pass strict quality control and accuracy assessment through developed customized tools.
These tools check topological errors (usually as a result of incorrect digitizing or data transformation)
and attribute errors in the database (missed values or wrong value types, i.e., numerical values vs.
characters).
Map Production
Map production is a vital part of the watershed management. Among the main mapping requirements is
standardization of display and hardcopy output of map features. The speed of the map production
depends on the database design. GIS allows storage of many attributes describing spatial features as is
necessary to satisfy the subsequent selection and symbolization process. Analytical maps were designed
to display results of the data analysis on the map as pie charts or bar diagrams. With a new product of
ESRI_Arcview2, this process became much easier. At the same time DWQC utilizes a customized
mapping interface named "MapMaker". This was developed by staff and is based on ARC/INFO macro-
language (AML). "MapMaker" is linked with the central GIS database and mainly used for production of
black and white maps for different reports. Both Arcview2 and "MapMaker" can be linked with other
customized applications and programs, developed in ARC/INFO.
The advantage of using customized map making tools for large organizations such as DWQC is an ability
to standardize map layouts and map symbols. Many employees with no experience in cartography are
able to automatically place labels and other map attributes on a layout without having to choose the
correct font, size or style. Maps produced this way look similar and are easily coordinated with other
maps for report production.
Water Quality Management
Water quality management strategies need to be developed and supported with environmental models.
-------
The basic factors involved include stream locations, landuse, soil, geology as well as climatic and water
quality parameters. The main role of GIS is integration of different layers of information for model input.
There are also built-in GIS functions which allow the user to model surfaces and create watershed
boundaries. Practical implementation of GIS for watershed management practices was done through the
Reckhow phosphorus loading model. This lumped parameter model was fully programmed within
ARC/INFO.
The Reckhow method to estimate the phosphorus loads is based on the concept that export coefficients
are transferable and that two watersheds in the same region and with similar landuse patterns and
geology will contribute the same loading of phosphorus per unit area. Estimates of the total annual mass
of phosphorus entering a reservoir or lake is obtained by identifying landuse, applying export
coefficients, then summing the annual phosphorus contribution for each nonpoint and point source within
the watershed. By changing the assumptions on landuse and export coefficients, it is possible to evaluate
the effects of future landuse changes on nutrient loadings, and subsequently water quality. The Reckhow
model utilizes export coefficients that are calculated from hydrological flow and stream nutrient
concentrations. Flow and concentration measurements are converted to total mass loadings. Mass
loadings are then divided by sub-basin areas to calculate export coefficients, therefore, it is necessary to
know the size of the area draining to the site. The GIS system allows automatic processing of the area
delineation. To accomplish this, elevation data were converted into the Digital Elevation Model (DEM).
Then the DEM file was converted into the raster grid containing information about the flow direction of
water along the surface of the land. When the location of a sampling site is entered into the GIS system,
the software automatically delineates the boundary of the area draining into that location.
The GIS data which are used for the Reckhow model currently exist in a vector format which means that
they are represented either by polygons, lines or points within ARCINFO vector format. ARCINFO has a
database module called INFO which provides the linkage between spatial objects and the database
containing information about them.
An interface was developed to link GIS datasets with equations that describe phosphorus loads. It allows
a user to display, calculate and modify parameters entered into the model to display different scenarios of
the future management. The interface was designed on the basis of "question-answer" communication. It
guides a user through all necessary steps.
Another GIS application was created to calculate reservoir volumes which are necessary for reservoir
modeling. Within the watershed area there are 19 reservoirs providing drinking water for New York City.
Bathymetry data were used for the analysis of reservoir volumes and modeling. Contour maps were
found and digitized for 13 reservoirs. This digital database was available for interpolation and digital
elevation models (DEM) were created. Using ARC/INFO GIS software and IBM Data Explorer
visualization tools, several customized applications were designed to provide information about
volumetric changes in the reservoirs associated with changes in surface elevation.
Environmental Rules and Regulations
-------
Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) which are part of the implementation of water quality
management, are fully supported by GIS. Different landuse and ownership data with natural features
such as streams, soils and lakes were merged to produce a set of maps showing potential scenarios
affected by new watershed rules and regulations. Moreover, GIS provided a basis for simulation of these
scenarios that resulted in certain buffer types and definitions of the landuse categories. In this particular
project the GIS allowed for the modeling and simulation of missing data, such as property boundaries,
that provided the necessary accuracy and capability to perform the analysis.
Landuse areas are essential input for a number of environmental models. At the time that the EIS was
conducted, there were no recent remote sensing landuse data available, so real estate property data
(available as point files) were used instead. In New York State these data are available through the New
York State Division of Equalization and Assessment (E&A). Since the E&A data provides only parcel
centroids and not actual parcel boundaries, it was necessary to create simulations of parcel areas in order
to obtain a spatial representation which would be useable for the various spatial analyses.
The simulation of parcel boundaries was accomplished through a method of interpolation called Thiessen
or Voronoy polygons, (or proximal regions). This method is used when data have been collected at
points, such as parcel centroids, and the analyst wishes to use area-based analytical techniques. The
method consists of generating lines that join nearest neighbor points, then bisecting those lines with
perpendicular mediators, and assembling the polygon edges using those lines. The whole procedure was
programmed within ARC/INFO macro language code. Once the polygons were created, contiguous land
uses were grouped together in clusters using the landuse code, extracted from the real estate attribute
tables associated with the point files.
A variable buffer is a spatial model that shows the limits around waterbodies and any other surface
hydrological features within which no subsurface sewage treatment system may be built.The variables
that change the shape of the buffer are soil types, soil hydraulic conductivity, slope or gradient of the
terrain and fixed distances around streams and waterbodies. The GIS was programmed with an algorithm
that created a variable buffer. This allowed comparison of experimental scenarios that included different
combinations of soil and slope conditions.
Under the Proposed Watershed Regulations minimum buffer distances are set such that no part of any
seepage unit or absorption field for a new subsurface sewage treatment system shall be located within
100 feet of a watercourse (stream) or wetland, or 300 feet of a reservoir or lake. By application of the
variable buffer model, these limiting distances were found to vary from 100 to 1800 feet according to site
specific soil and slope characteristics.
In order to analyse the impacts of the Draft Watershed Regulations on development, the amount of
existing vacant developable land in the watershed was determined using GIS. Projected growth for the
period 1990-2010 was allocated into the developable vacant land, in order to evaluate the impacts the
Draft Regulations would have on future growth. The developable land was defined as land that would be
left open for development after the exclusion of all lands that have the following conditions: i) NYSDEC
-------
designated wetlands, ii) slopes over 25%, iii) public land, iv) shallow soils, v) land within the impervious
surface limiting distance (100 ft. from watercourses and wetlands and 300 ft. from reservoirs, reservoir
stems and controlled lakes, vi) parcels that fell completely within or had less than 1/4 acre outside the
variable buffer for subsurface sewage discharge treatment systems, vii) clusters of less than one-half acre
in places that are not sewered because of existing standards concerning minimum lot sizes for septic
systems.
The GIS served as a framework to overlay the conditions mentioned above to produce maps showing
developable land polygons. The analysis was performed to establish a baseline for the year 2010 and
considering two ten years periods, 1990 to 2000 and 2000 to 2010, to determine potential displacement
of new development due to the limiting distances under the Proposed Watershed Regulations. Maps were
produced for the whole watershed area on mylars that could be used by planners in conjunction with
USGS quads.
Conclusions
GIS implementation in any organization requires three main components: i) GIS hardware and software;
ii) The need for spatial data analysis and visualisation and iii) trained personnel.
The most important component in GIS implementation is trained personnel that can solve hardware and
software problems and understand the basics of spatial analysis. The personnel should have geographical
background and understanding of general GIS capabilities regardless of the software type that is being
used.
Variety of GIS applications are succesfully developed by discussion and the working plans between GIS
specialists and project managers. The plans should have definite deadlines that consider the software
capabilities and GIS specialist's knowledge. Sometimes a preliminary demonstration of GIS capabilities
can highlight corrections to the plan and even change the scope of the project.
GIS activities are not limited only to map production; software capabilities allow for many different
complicated tasks such as modeling and visualization of natural and anthropogenically improved
phenomena.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although
the information provided here was accurate and current when first created,
it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent
official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Monitoring for Cryptosporidium spp. and Giardia spp.
and Human Enteric Viruses in the Watersheds of the
New York City Water Supply System
David A. Stern, Pathogen Program Supervisor
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Valhalla, NY
Introduction
The New York City Department of Environmental Protection's Pathogen Program routinely monitors over fifty
sites within the watersheds of the New York City water supply system for the presence and density of Giardia spp.
cysts, Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts, and enteric viruses. These sites are located at various influents and effluents
of the reservoirs, at discharge points of sub-watersheds with different land uses (urban, agricultural, undisturbed),
at sewage treatment plants and at areas believed to be affected by wildlife and wetlands (Figure 1). Most sites are
monitored on a monthly basis. Kensico Reservoir, the major source water reservoir, is monitored weekly. An
attempt is made to monitor at least one storm event per month. The overall objective of this monitoring is to
identify the origins, occurrence, density, transport, fate, distribution and control of pathogens within the New York
City water supply system.
-------
Schoharie
Reservoir

\
/X
\

/
k
Cannonsvilte
Reservoir
l
*„ J .rT
\
v
Neversmk
Reservoir
Pepaclon *
Remrwir

k /
Ashokun
Reservoir
JRimioM \
Reservoir \
/
i
i
-V >
Legend:
H Drainage Basins
Boundaries
2$*
Reservoir and Lakes
Ajqneducts
Scale 1 : 1000000
0 10 2C no
1 i \~ i i
*n
P S.
1 V
V

{
yVest BmackCj* £
^emrwirfrh h f
¦ ^
1 4F--
s W
- \,s
Croton Reservoir
* *J V

\A
*lt
f li
h Keimco
Reserwif
Figure 1. Sampling sites for Giardia spp. cysts and Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts in New York City
watersheds.
-------
Method of Water Quality Analysis
The procedure for the collection and analysis of samples for Giardia spp. cysts and Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts,
follows standard method P229 (ASTM 1992) with modifications to ensure a detection limit of less than one cyst
per one hundred Liters. This method requires a large sample volume (100-300 gallons) to be filtered at a slow rate
(1- gpm) through a yarn-wound, polypropylene filter with a nominal porosity of 1 .m. The filters are then washed
which elutes the trapped material from the filter fibers. Giardia cysts and Cryptosporidium oocysts are separated
from other particles by a series of floatation and centrifugal concentration steps. The sample concentrate is dried on
a microscope slide and then stained with fluorescent antibody reagents and examined for the presence of Giardia
cysts or Cryptosporidium oocysts under an epifluorescence microscope. Identification of presumptive Giardia cysts
or Cryptosporidium oocysts is based on characteristic fluorescence, shape and size. Presumptive cysts and oocysts
are further examined for internal structures by differential interference contrast (DIC) microscopy. Presumptive
Giardia cysts are considered confirmed if two or more internal morphological characteristics (i.e., nuclei, median
body and axoneme) are identified. Presumptive Cryptosporidium oocysts are considered confirmed if one to four
sporozoites are observed. DIC examination also allows false positives (or presumed) to be eliminated, if structures
not characteristic of Giardia cysts or Cryptosporidium oocysts are observed. An example of this includes
observations of choroplasts in a presumed cyst.
Water quality monitoring for human enteric viruses follows standard method 9510 (ASTM 1992). This method
also requires a large sample volume (100-200 gallons) to be filtered at a slow rate (1—2 gpm) through a
O.la.egative virus absorbent filter. Absorbed viruses are eluted from the filter, concentrated using a protein
precipitate procedure and than assayed for human enteroviruses using the Buffalo Green Monkey Kidney Cells
(BGM) culture test.
Results and Discussion
Virus Sampling
Collection and analyses of water quality samples for human enteric viruses has occurred over the past two years.
These samples are collected primarily at the source water reservoirs and at alternating sites throughout the
watershed. The results of this sampling indicate that viruses are rarely detected in the watershed. Of the 451
samples collected and analyzed, over 95% did not detect viruses. There was no identifiable pattern based on
location or season for these positive detections. Analysis of site or seasonal variability is difficult with such low
numbers of positive samples.
Overall Results for Giardia spp. cysts and Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts
Sampling
Between June 1992 and December 1995, a total of 1569 samples for Giardia spp. cysts and Cryptosporidium spp.
oocysts have been collected and analyzed. Table 1 provides a statistical summary of samples collected throughout
the watershed, at the effluents of Kensico Reservoir (the source water reservoir for the New York City water
supply), and at the effluent of several wastewater treatment plants.
Table 1. Statistical summary of data collected within the watershed fo the New York City water supply
between June 1992 and December 1995. Concentration values are repoted as Giardia spp. cysts or
-------
Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts per 100 Liters. Total values represent combined presumed and confirmed
values.
SITES
Pathogen
Less than
Number Percent Values=0
of Detection
Samples (%)
Less than values=detection
limit
Mean Max Mean Geo.Mean Max.
WATERSHED-
WIDE
Total
Giardia
1363
27.71
1.18
109.90
2.26
1.00
149.00

Confirmed
Giardia
1363
3.59
0.07
18.30
1.51
0.79
149.00

Total
Crypto.
1363
21.85
0.83
121.00
2.05
0.93
149.00

Confirmed
Crypto.
1363
3.81
0.10
29.25
1.53
0.80
149.00
KENSICO
RESERVOIR
EFFLUENTS
Total
Giardia
Confirmed
Giardia
Total
Crypto.
323
323
323
Confirmed
Crypto.
323
24.31
2.77
27.38
6.15
0.32 9.25
0.01 0.76
0.50
0.06
17.30
3.37
1.05
0.86
1.22
0.91
0.70
5.62
0.77
0.63
9.25
0.61
17.30
6.15
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT
PLANTS
Total
Giardia
Confirmed
Giardia
Total
Crypto.
Confirmed
Crypto.
206
206
206
206
45.71
17.14
20.00
5.14
307.58
39.15
6.37
1.01
1614.00
3600.0
184.6
61.6
319.00
60.95
29.04
24.83
12.53
6.72
5.92
5.25
1641.00
3600.00
512.00
512.00
An evaluation of watershed samples (all samples except those collected at wastewater treatment plants) indicates
that Giardia spp. cysts and Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts are infrequently detected in the watershed.
Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts are detected less frequently (found in about 20% of the samples) than Giardia spp.
-------
cysts which are found in about 30% of the samples. Confirmed detections of both pathogenic protozoans are found
even less frequently (less than 5% of the samples).
Sampling at Different Land Uses
Analysis of the data has also begun to indicate some discernible differences between sample sites. Cryptosporidium
spp. oocysts and Giardia spp. cysts are detected most often in the discharge of wastewater treatment plants,
followed by urban watersheds; agricultural watersheds; and then least detected in undisturbed watersheds. This
finding is further supported with data from two paired watersheds with higher detections of these pathogenic
protozoans at the exclusively agricultural watershed then its nearby undisturbed watershed.
Another discernible difference between sites that has been identified with sites that contain varying acreage of
wetland areas. Greater detection of Giardia spp. cysts and Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts was observed at stream
segments that contain smaller wetland areas in comparison to stream segments with larger wetland areas.
Sampling at Reservoirs
Water released from reservoirs generally have lower detections of Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts and Giardia spp.
cysts than the water entering the reservoir. This is best exemplified at Kensico Reservoir were the largest number
of reservoir influent and effluent samples have been collected. On average, Giardia spp. cysts were detected less at
the effluents of Kensico Reservoir than at the influents. Cryptosporidum spp. oocysts were detected slightly less at
the effluents when compared to the influents. A more pronounced reduction in detection of Cryptosporidum spp.
oocysts was observed at the effluents when considering only the percentage of detection of confirmed oocysts.
Overall, the water quality of Kensico Reservoir is quite high relative to the source water quality reported for other
water supplies (Archer 1995; LeChevallier et al., 1991; LeChevallier 1995; Ongerth 1989; Rose et al., 1991). The
arithmetic mean of total Giardia spp. cysts and Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts leaving Kensico Reservoir is less
than 0.6 cysts per 100 Liters
Storm Sampling
The concentration of cysts appear to be much greater during storm events than at base flow conditions. The results
of storm sampling at an urbanized stream indicates that the concentration of pathogens can be approximately two
to ten times higher during storms than the average levels sampled during base flow. However, the magnitude of
these increased concentrations may be exaggerated due to the lower volumes of water that were filtered and the
smaller portion of sample that can be examined in the laboratory. Less water is generally filtered during the storm
events because stormwater carries high levels of turbidity and suspended solids which causes the collection filters
to clog. Similarly, the additional solids in the sample produces a larger sample pellet to be analyzed Both these
factors can significantly alter the result of the calculation used to determine the concentration of a sample.
Conclusions
The occurrence of Giardia spp. cysts and Cryptosporidium spp. oocysts is infrequent within the New York City
water supply watershed. Some patterns between sampling sites are beginning to be identified and provide insight
on the occurrence, transport and fate of these pathogens. However, a large number of samples with positive
-------
detections is required before such patterns can be identified.
References
Archer, J. R., Ball JR., Standridge, J.H., Greb, SR., (1995). Cryptosporidum spp. Oocyst and Giardia spp.
Cyst Occurrence, Concentrations and Distribution in Wisconsin Waters. Madison, Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources.
ASTM (1992). Proposed Test Method for Giardia Cysts and Cryptosporidium Oocysts and Detection of
Enteric Viruses. Annual Book of ASTM Standards, Section 11 Water and Environmental Technology.
ASTM. Philadelphia, ASTM: 925-934 and 101-116.
LeChevallier, M. W., W. D. Norton, et al. (1991). "Occurrence of Giardia and Cryptosporidium spp. in
Surface Water Supplies." Applied and Environmental Microbiology AEMIDF 57(9): 2610-2616.
LeChevallier, M. W. , W. D. Norton (1995). "Giardia and Cryptosporidium in Raw and Finished Water."
American Water Works Association Journal 87(9): 54-68.
Ongerth, J. E. (1989). "Giardia Cyst Concentrations in River Water." Journal of the American Water Works
Association JAWWA5 81(9): 81-86.
Rose, J. B., C. P. Gerba, et al. (1991). "Survey of Potable Water Supplies for Cryptosporidium and Giardia."
Environmental Science and Technology ESTHAG 25(8): 1393-1400.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Kensico Watershed Study: 1993-1995
B.R. Klett
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, Sutton Park, Valhalla,
NY
D.F. Parkhurst
New York City Department of Environmental Protection, (currently Indiana
University)
F.R. Gaines
Roy F. Weston of New York, Inc. New York, NY
—f——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
/£-•+ - -vi,
Introduction
The water supply of the City of New York is one of the largest systems in the world, serving nine million
people with 1.4 to 1.8 billion gallons of water each day. The water is collected from an extensive system
of 19 reservoirs located in the Catskill Mountains and lower Hudson Valley. Normally, eighty to ninety
percent of the water supply is diverted by two aqueducts into the Kensico Reservoir where it resides for
approximately two to three weeks before being redirected into the City's distribution system.
The Kensico Reservoir, located in southern Westchester County, New York, plays an integral role in the
water supply system. The reservoir has an available storage capacity of 30 billion gallons, allowing for
storage of a large quantity of water in close proximity to the City's distribution system. Without Kensico
Reservoir the operators of the system would have a difficult time balancing large flows of water from
reservoirs located over 100 miles away from the distribution system. Kensico Reservoir also gives the
operators of the system the ability to mix water from two large sub-systems, the Catskill and Delaware.
-------
This has proven to be useful for ameliorating occasional water quality problems such as high turbidity
originating from only one of the systems. Finally, the reservoir serves to add additional residence time,
further enhancing water quality by increasing the settling of particulate matter and the die-off of
pathogens.
Water quality monitoring of Kensico Reservoir has revealed very few problems. However, with the
advent of the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1991 it became
apparent that fecal coliform levels in the reservoir were too high at times. Scientists at the New York
City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), the agency responsible for maintaining the City's
water supply, observed high fecal coliform concentrations in the reservoir during late autumn and early
winter. Fecal coliform concentrations are used by the SWTR as a surrogate measure for the levels of
pathogens in a water supply. Turbidity levels are also used by the SWTR as an important indicator of
water quality, and for this reason both fecal coliform and turbidity became the focus of many
investigations concerning Kensico Reservoir.
New York City's water supply system is currently unfiltered and in the early 1990's the DEP applied to
the Environmental Protection Agency for a filtration avoidance waiver for the Catskill and Delaware
systems. In anticipation of a filtration avoidance determination, in December of 1993 DEP contracted
with Roy F. Weston, Inc. (Weston) to help investigate some of the water quality questions concerning
Kensico Reservoir. The results of the joint investigation are summarized in the following paragraphs.
Investigations
Of primary concern to Kensico researchers was isolating the cause of seasonal elevations of fecal
coliform in the reservoir. The high numbers of migrating Canada Geese and gulls in autumn and early
winter that coincided with elevated fecal coliform concentrations led investigators to believe that birds
might be the cause of bacterial problems. Other possible sources considered were: 1. bacteria entering the
reservoir from upstate reservoirs via the aqueducts, 2. storm water flows from the local watershed, which
is 13.2 square miles in area and contains eight perennial and numerous intermittent streams, and 3.
bacteria entering the reservoir from groundwater.
In 1992, DEP initiated a long-term bird censusing program at Kensico Reservoir. This program indicated
immediately that the numbers of geese and gulls roosting on the reservoir, which could be as high as
several thousand per day, were unacceptable from a water quality standpoint. In December of 1993, a
bird harassment program was started with the goal of moving birds off of the reservoir, thereby reducing
the loading of bird fecal matter to the water column. The bird harassment program continued on a
seasonal basis in 1994 and 1995, resulting in a yearly reduction in geese and gull counts of
approximately 90% compared to pre-harassment counts. This reduction in bird numbers coincided with a
dramatic improvement in Kensico Reservoir fecal coliform concentrations. In the autumn of 1994 and
early winter of 1995 Kensico water never exceeded the SWTR standard of 20 CFU/lOOmL, as measured
in the aqueducts leaving the reservoir. This improvement contrasted sharply with previous years before
the bird harassment program. In 1991 through 1993 fecal coliform concentrations exceeded the limit so
-------
often in late autumn that Kensico Reservoir was periodically by-passed by operators, meaning that water
was sent directly from the Catskills to the distribution system.
The improvement in water quality gave strong circumstantial evidence indicating birds as a source of
fecal coliforms to the reservoir. This was supported by several other pieces of information. In addition to
the limnological and hydrological monitoring programs that DEP operates, a microbiological group was
formed to focus specifically on determining the sources of fecal coliforms. Using the various types of
phage present in fecal coliform bacteria, the microbiology group was able to implicate birds as the origin
of many of the fecal coliforms collected from the reservoir. The microbiologists also used serological
analysis and a comparison of fatty acids to help determine the origin of fecal coliforms. DEP also
developed a mathematical model using multiple regression to indicate that bird counts on the reservoir
had the most predictive power for determining fecal coliform concentrations in water leaving the
reservoir. Finally, consultants from Weston organized the information that DEP had collected regarding
fecal coliform loading to the reservoir so that it could be used to show that birds contribute the majority
of the fecal coliform load.
Concurrent with the investigation of birds as a source of fecal coliform were studies into the other
potential sources of fecal coliforms. These studies showed that storm water flows were the second most
problematic source of fecal coliforms. Kensico tributaries were monitored both on a routine basis and
during storm events for a variety of parameters including fecal coliform concentrations and turbidity. An
analysis of the load of fecal coliform entering the reservoir from stormwater showed that high
percentages of the total reservoir fecal coliform load could be delivered by stormwater to the reservoir in
short periods of time. In addition, some streams enter the reservoir in close proximity to the effluents,
effectively by-passing the reservoir's capacity to eliminate pathogens by settling or die-off. Stormwater
studies also included the use of the SWMM model by Weston to simulate tributary flows and loadings.
Finally, DEP is continuing investigations into the sources of stormwater fecal coliform. Among other
projects, this includes television inspection of the sewer pipes in the watershed.
Other sources of fecal coliform have not been shown to be a substantial factor in Kensico fecal coliform
levels. Although the load of fecal coliform entering the reservoir from the aqueducts is a large percentage
of the total load, the majority of these fecal coliforms are thought to die or settle before reaching the
effluents. This is supported by the lack of an apparent statistical relationship between fecal coliform
loads entering the reservoir and loads leaving the reservoir. Through a sub-contracting firm, Weston also
examined the hydrodynamics of the reservoir with two dye studies, and the results show that the
reservoir probably has enough residence time for many of the fecal coliforms to die or settle. A
hydrodynamic model was also developed that will be used as a tool for examining the fate of fecal
coliforms originating from the aqueducts.
Groundwater has not been shown to be a substantial source of fecal coliforms. Eighteen test wells were
drilled around Kensico Reservoir in 1994. A monitoring program has not found high concentrations of
fecal coliform in the wells, with the exception of two wells that are known to be in the vicinity of sources
of fecal coliform.
-------
Remediation
In addition to examining the sources of fecal coliforms to Kensico Reservoir, researchers have been
examining various methods of remediating water quality problems. Out of a variety of techniques for
improving water quality a plan was developed that includes four elements. The most important element
of the plan is the bird harassment program that was mentioned earlier. This involves noisemakers and
patrol boats and has already demonstrated its effectiveness.
The second most important element of the plan is the construction of stormwater Best Management
Practices (BMPs) and spill control devices. By reducing erosion and increasing the capacity for
pollutants to settle out of stormwaters these devices should reduce the load of pollutants that enter the
reservoir. Beginning in 1997 approximately 77 BMPs will be constructed in the Kensico watershed,
along with twelve spill control devices that will be placed along the eastern shore of the reservoir.
Proposed BMPs include: extended detention basins, outlet stilling basins, check dams, current deflectors,
and various streambank stabilization plans.
Another element of the remediation plan is the placement of a curtain wall in one of the reservoir's two
effluent coves. The purpose of the curtain wall is to deflect stormwater away from the effluent allowing
for more mixing and settling. The curtain wall was installed in the reservoir in 1995, and its effectiveness
has not yet been determined.
Finally, the last element in the program is periodic dredging of the sediments immediately in front of the
effluent buildings. This practice will be undertaken primarily as a maintenance measure, but it is hoped
that there may be the secondary benefit of an improvement in water quality.
Conclusion
Investigations into the water quality issues related to Kensico Reservoir have led to dramatic
improvements in the water supply of New York City. It is apparent that birds can be a substantial cause
of fecal coliform problems in drinking water supplies, and similarly, their control can help eliminate
those problems. Although there are many outstanding questions regarding the sources of pollutants to the
reservoir, much of the pollution control work has been completed and a plan has been developed that will
further improve the quality of Kensico water.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Planning: Evaluating Investments in
Nonmonetary Resources
Kenneth Orth, Community Plannerl
William Hansen, Economistl
Ridgley Robinson, Economistl
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
Our Nation's watersheds provide us with a wide variety of goods and services. Historically, watershed
management by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) and the other federal water agencies tended to
focus on flood damage reduction, navigation, water supply, recreation, hydropower, and other economic
development outputs. In this context, benefit-cost analysis has evolved as the established decision tool
for project evaluation in federal water programs. Benefit-cost analysis is well suited to planning for
traditional purposes, such as flood control, where both costs and benefits of management plans can be
accounted for in a common metric the dollar.
While many of the economic values of our watersheds have been successfully exploited, we have come
to realize that there are other watershed values which, although they cannot be measured in dollars, are
just as important to our Nation's health and welfare. These range from values of localized fish and
wildlife habitats to entire ecosystems. As a result, new legislative authorities provide the COE with
opportunities to pursue environmentally-oriented projects, which are afforded equal priority to traditional
-------
flood control and navigation projects in the COE budget. This paper presents a methodology for the
economic evaluation of alternative plans aimed at providing nonmonetary benefits, such as ecosystem
restoration plans.
Watershed Planning and Management: Costs and Benefits
Figure 1 provides a framework for discussing the different types of costs and benefits resulting from
watershed management plans. Tomorrow's balanced, or "sustainable," solutions will be found in the fresh
territory represented by Quadrant I. Here, multi-objective watershed management activities provide not
only traditional economic goods and services, but also beneficial effects to the ecosystem and other
values. Here we find solutions which, while not without costs, will produce net benefits both monetary
and nonmonetary.
Historically, watershed planning was focused on economic development; usually at the expense (albeit
unintended) of environmental and other values; such options fall in Quadrant II. Our presentation in this
paper will address a framework for evaluating solutions intended to produce ecosystem and other
nonmonetary benefits that have (again, some unintended) net economic costs; such solutions fall in
Quadrant IV.
When pursuing less traditional nonmonetary outputs, such as environmental restoration benefits, classic
benefit-cost analysis becomes less useful. While the costs of watershed improvements and management
plans can still be measured in dollars, there is no universally acceptable unit of measurement for many
environmental benefits-dollars or otherwise. Still, decisions must be made regarding whether
management actions aimed at restoring or preserving environmental (or other nonmonetary) resources
should be implemented; and if so, at what scale. Although it is currently not possible to conduct
traditional benefit-cost analysis where nonmonetary watershed benefits will result, other analytical tools,
such as cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses, are available to inform such decision making.
Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses
In their National Strategy for the Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems, the National Research Council
(NRC) states that, in lieu of benefit-cost analysis, the evaluation and ranking of restoration alternatives
should be based upon a framework of incremental cost analysis "Continually questioning the value of
restoration by asking whether an action is 'worth' its cost is the most practical way to decide how much
restoration is enough." (NRC 1992) As an example, the council cites the COE's approach where "a
justifiable level [of output] is chosen in recognition of the incremental costs of increasing [output] levels
and as part of a negotiation process with affected interests and other federal agencies." (NRC 1992)
As outlined in this paper, cost effectiveness analysis is performed to identify the least cost solution for
each possible level of nonmonetary output under consideration. Subsequent incremental cost analysis
reveals the increases in cost that accompany increases in the level of output, asking the question: "As we
increase the scale of this project, is each subsequent level of additional output worth its additional cost?"
-------
Data Requirements: Solutions, Costs and Outputs
Cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses may be used for any scale of planning problem, ranging
from local, site-specific problems to more extensive watershed and ecosystem scales. Regardless of the
problem-solving scale, three types of data must be obtained before conducting the analyses: a list of
solutions, and for each solution, estimates of its ecosystem or other nonmonetary effects (outputs) and of
its economic effects (costs).
The term "solutions" is used here to generally refer to techniques for accomplishing planning objectives.
For example, if faced with a planning objective to "Increase waterfowl habitat in the Blue River
Watershed," a solution might be to "Construct and install 50 nesting boxes in the Blue River riparian
zone." Solutions may be individual management measures (for example, clear a channel, plant
vegetation, construct levee, or install nesting boxes, for example), plans (various combinations of
management measures), or programs (various combinations of plans, perhaps at the watershed level).
Solutions' cost estimates should include both financial implementation costs and economic opportunity
costs. Implementation costs refer to direct financial outlays; for example, costs for design, real estate
acquisition, construction, operation and maintenance, and monitoring. The opportunity costs of a solution
are any current benefits available with the existing state of the watershed that would be foregone if the
solution is implemented. For example, restoration of a river ecosystem may require that some navigation
benefits derived from an existing river channel be given up in order to achieve the desired restoration. It
is important that the opportunity costs of foregone benefits be accounted for and brought to the table to
inform the decision-making process.
The level to which a solution accomplishes a planning objective is measured by the solution's output
estimate. Historically, environmental outputs have been expressed as changes in populations (waterfowl
and fish counts, for example) and in physical dimensions (acres of wetlands, for example). In recent
years, output estimates have been derived through a variety of environmental models such as the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Services' Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP), which summarize habitat quantity and
quality for specific species in units called "habitat units." Models for ecological communities and
ecosystems are in the early stages of development and application, and may be more useful at the
watershed scale.
Cost Effectiveness Analysis
In cost effectiveness analysis, solutions that are not rational (from a production perspective) are
identified and screened out from inclusion in subsequent incremental cost analysis. There are two rules
for cost effectiveness screening. These rules state that solutions should be identified as inefficient in
production, and thus not cost effective, if: 1) the same level of output could be produced by another
solution at less cost; or 2) a greater level of output could be produced by another solution at the same or
less cost.
-------
Table 1. Solution, Costs and Outputs.
SOLUTION
UNITS OF
OUTPUT
TOTAL
COST ($)
No Action
0
0
A
80
2,000
B
100
2,600
C
100
3,600
D
110
4,500
E
120
3,600
F
140
7,000
For example, look at the range of solutions in Table 1. Applying Rule 1, Solution C is identified as
inefficient in production-why spend $3,600 for 100 units of output when 100 units can be obtained for
$2,600 with Solution B; a savings of $1,000. In this example, Solution C could also be screened out by
the application of Rule 2-why settle for 100 units of output with Solution C, when 20 additional units can
be provided by Solution E at the same cost. Also by applying Rule 2, Solution D is screened out-why
spend $4,500 for 110 units when 10 more units could be produced by E for $900 less cost.
Figure 2 shows the "cost effectiveness frontier" for the solutions listed in Table 1. This graph, which
plots the solutions' total cost (vertical axis) against their output levels (horizontal axis), graphically
depicts the two screening rules. The cost effective solutions delineate the cost effectiveness frontier. Any
solutions lying inside the frontier (above and to the left), such as C and D, are not cost effective and
should not be included in subsequent incremental cost analysis.
Incremental Cost Analysis
Incremental cost analysis is intended to provide additional information to support a decision about the
desired level of investment. The analysis is an investigation of how the costs of extra units of output
increase as the output level increases. While total cost and total output information for each solution are
needed for cost effectiveness analysis, incremental cost analysis requires data showing the difference in
cost (incremental cost) and the difference in output (incremental output) between each solution and the
next-larger solution.
Continuing with the previous example, the incremental cost and incremental output associated with each
solution are shown in Table 2. Solution A would provide 80 units of output at a cost of $2,000, or $25
-------
per unit. Solution B would provide an additional 20 units of output (100-80) at an additional cost of $600
($2,600-$2,000). The incremental cost per unit (incremental cost divided by incremental output) for the
additional 20 units B provides over A is, therefore, $30. Similar computations can be made for solutions
E and F. Solutions C and D have been deleted from the analysis because they were previously identified
as inefficient in production.
SOLUTION LEVEL OF OUTPUT COST ($)

Total
Output
Incremental
Output
Total
Cost
Incremental
Cost
Incremental
Cost
Incremental
Output
No Action
°
0
-
A
80
80
2,000
2,000
25
B
100
20
2,600
600
30
E
120
20
3,600
1,000
50
F
140
20
7,000
3,400
170
Table 2. Incremental Cost and Incremental Output.
The incremental cost and output data in Table 2 are plotted in Figure 3. The incremental cost per unit is
measured on the vertical axis, while both total output and incremental output can be measured on the
horizontal axis. The distance from the origin to the end of each bar indicates total output provided by the
corresponding solution. The width of the bar associated with each solution identifies the incremental
amount of output that would be provided over the previous, smaller-scaled solution; for example,
Solution E provides 20 more units of output than Solution B . The height of the bar illustrates the cost per
unit of that additional output; for example, those 20 additional units obtainable through Solution E cost
$50 each.
Decision Making-"Is it Worth It?"
Figure 3 presents cost and output information for the range of cost effective solutions under
consideration in a format that facilitates the investment decision of which (if any) solution should be
-------
implemented. This decision process begins with the decision of whether it is "worth it" to implement
Solution A.
Both Table 2 and Figure 3 show Solution A provides 80 units of output at a cost of $25 each. If it is
decided that these units of output are worth $25 each, then the question becomes should the level of
output be increased? To answer this question, look at Solution B, which provides 20 more units than
Solution A. These 20 additional units cost $30 each-"are they worth it?" If "yes", then look to the next
larger solution, E, providing 20 more units than B at $50 each-again asking "are they worth it?" If it is
decided that E's additional output is worth its additional cost, then look to F, which provides 20 more
units than E at a cost of $170 each.
Cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses will not result in the identification of an "optimal"
solution as is the case with benefit-cost analysis. However, they do provide information that decision
makers may use to facilitate and support the selection of a single solution. Selection may also be guided
by decision guidelines such as output "targets" (legislative requirements or regulatory standards, for
example), minimum and maximum output thresholds, maximum cost thresholds, sharp breakpoints in the
cost effectiveness or incremental cost curves, and levels of uncertainty associated with the data.
The analyses are also not intended to eliminate potential solutions from consideration, but rather to
present the available information on costs and outputs in a format to facilitate plan selection and
communicate the decision process. A solution identified as "inefficient-in-production" in cost
effectiveness analysis may still be desirable; the analysis is intended to make the other options and the
associated tradeoffs explicit. Reasons for "selecting off the cost effectiveness curve" might include
considerations that were not captured in the output model being used, or uncertainty present in cost and
output estimates. Where such issues exist, it is important that they be explicitly introduced to the decision
process. After all, the purpose of conducting cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses is to
provide more, and hopefully better, information to support decisions about investments in environmental
(or other nonmonetary) resources.
References and Resources (resources indicated by an asterisk are
available at the address below)
*Bussey Lake: Demonstration Study of Incremental Analysis in Environmental Planning.
December 1993. USACE, IWR Report 93-R-16.
*Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Environmental Planning: Nine EASY Steps. (October 1994)
USACE, Institute for Water Resources; IWR Report 94-PS-2.
*ECO-EASY, Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses Software, Beta Version 2.6.
(May 1995) USACE, Institute for Water Resources and Waterways Experiment Station.
*Evaluation of Environmental Investments Procedures Manual, Interim: Cost Effectiveness and
-------
Incremental Cost Analyses. (May 1995) USACE, Institute for Water Resources; IWR Report 95-
R-l.
Restoration of Aquatic Ecosystems. (1992) National Research Council, Committee on Restoration
of Aquatic Ecosystems: Science, Technology, and Public Policy.
* Copies of these reports can be obtained from:
Arlene Nurthen
Institute for Water Resources
7701 Telegraph Road
Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3868
Fax: 703-428-8435 (fax requests are preferred)
Voice: 703-428-9042
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Resource Significance in Environmental Project
Planning
Darrell Nolton, Geographerl
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA
Amy Doll, Senior Policy Analyst
Apogee Research, Inc., Bethesda, MD
Introduction
Resource significance, significant resources, significance of the resource, environmental significance,
these are all terms that are used when describing natural resources which have been judged by someone
to be of some special value to the environment and also to society. They include resources such as plant
or animal species or groups of species, wetlands, rivers, lakes, estuaries and marine areas. Some may
argue that all wetlands are significant and this would be difficult to dispute given the vast losses of
wetlands in recent decades. The same may be said for rivers, lakes, species, estuaries and marine areas.
Again, who can dispute this claim? While most of us agree that these natural resources are significant, we
also agree that some of them are more significant than others. To illustrate this point, consider the bald
eagle and its place in your value system compared to the crow. Most people asked to determine which of
these species is most significant would select the eagle. Why? The bald eagle is our national symbol. It
has been admired throughout the ages as a symbol of strength and courage. Furthermore, the bald eagle
was considered an endangered species (ES) for a long time. At the time of placement on the ES list, their
numbers were declining and there was considerable doubt as to whether they would survive as a species.
Crows, on the other hand, recognizing that they do contribute to ecological importance, are more
abundant. They inhabit areas close to human populations and often are considered a nuisance. The bald
eagle, in our society, is a more significant resource than the crow.
-------
The argument about the eagle and the crow is easy to make. Most of us could make this argument, and if
necessary, could convince a decision maker that the eagle deserves more of our resources (money, effort)
than the crow. Unfortunately, comparisons of species and certainly comparisons of other natural
resources are not always so clear. There are characteristics about all natural resources that need to be
examined, scrutinized and evaluated within the context of their natural setting. What are the
characteristics that make each resource significant? How can we learn more about specific resources and
make value judgements about their significance? Furthermore, how can we convey this information to
decision makers to more effectively use available resources or to enhance our chances of securing
additional resources or funding required to protect, restore or enhance the significant natural resources in
question?
The Corps of Engineers Evaluation of Environmental Investments Research Program (EEIRP) contains
several different work units designed to address difficult questions regarding environmental projects. One
of the work units, Determining and Describing Environmental Significance, attempts to provide a
framework to systematically address the issue of resource significance. A discussion of that effort is
presented below.
Problem and Objective
Environmental restoration planning in terms of mission is relatively new to the Corps of Engineers. The
Corps has been responsible for maintaining the nation's navigable waterways for more than 100 years.
Other long standing Corps missions include flood control and hydroelectric power. The Corps has
become expert in planning, designing and building to support these missions over the years. In due time,
the Corps will also become proficient in planning, designing and building for environmental purposes.
However, for now, there is a steep learning curve.
Environmental considerations in project planning have been required in legislation, including the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) since 1969. However, flooded natural wetlands don't
command the same attention as flooded towns suffering millions of dollars in damages. Clogged or
polluted streams don't get the level of attention (funding) that navigable rivers which carry valuable
commodity flows receive. Species depletion, even of endangered species, doesn't rate very high on the
demand scale versus hydroelectric power production. Environmental resources: Species; Wetlands,
Rivers; Lakes, Estuaries and Marine areas are just starting to receive considerable recognition as valuable
resources within the Corps Civil Works programs. There is endless potential for work to improve
environmental resources. However, to "fix" all of them would be impossible. There are too many natural
resource problem areas and too few dollars to address them. Furthermore, the relatively neat, clean and
defendable benefit/cost analyses are not available for justification of environmental projects. So how do
we decide which resources and specifically which potential projects to address?
Resource significance is one place to start. The "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines
for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies," (P&G) written by the U. S. Water
Resources Council, define significance based upon institutional, public and technical recognition. The
-------
document states that, "Significant EQ (environmental quality) resources and attributes that are
institutionally, publicly, or technically recognized as important to people should be taken into account in
decision making." Essentially, the P&G states that significant resources are worth protecting and they
should be considered when carrying out other project purposes.
When the P&G were written, the major concern was protecting from further harm, those significant
resources that stood to be damaged or destroyed as a result of a project such as a dam or levee
construction for flood control purposes. In fact, the meaning of the term significance took on more
importance from the context of "significant effect" on resources. The EQ goal often was not part of the
original plan but rather an afterthought and then, the effort was directed towards reducing the significant
effect of the original action on natural resources. Planners and engineers were obliged to take these
effects into account, but they were not obliged to unduly disrupt the original project purpose for
environmental concerns. Significant environmental resources were viewed as a threat to the original
project purpose.
The tables have turned a full 180 degrees. The concept of resource significance has taken on an entirely
new meaning. Ecosystem restoration is now a Corps mission. Rather than being viewed as a negative to
another project purpose, protecting and restoring significant resources have become a project purpose.
Significant resources that can be demonstrated to be important to people from an institutional, public or
technical perspective, may become the projects of the future. At a minimum, such resources can be
deemed deserving of further consideration in the environmental planning arena. The objective of the
significance work unit is to define ways of determining significance and perhaps, more importantly,
stress the importance of effectively communicating the issue of significance to local planning partners,
stakeholders and decision makers.
Approach and Products
In order to systematize the process of determining resource significance, it was felt that a methodology or
protocol would be a useful document for planners. The initial step was to review and consider what had
been or was already being done. Recognizing the need for determining and describing resource
significance in ecosystem restoration, a literature review was initiated under the Corps' Planning
Methodologies Research Program. This effort produced a "Review and Evaluation of Programs for
Determining Significance and Prioritization of Environmental Resources," IWR Report 94-R-7
(September 1994).
When the EEIRP became an official program in late 1994, work was begun within the Significance Work
Unit to produce interim guidance or information on the use of significance in environmental planning and
evaluation. "Resource Significance: A New Perspective for Environmental Project Planning," IWR
Report 95-R-10 was completed in June 1995. This report provided a summary of the previous review and
introduced the concept of a protocol for including a significance assessment in environmental project
planning. A companion document, "Significance in Environmental Planning: Resource Document," IWR
Report 96-R- (February 1996), provides information and guidance on resources available to support
-------
the use of the significance protocol. The document contains numerous citations of laws and existing
programs which may help determine and document significance as well as illustrative examples of how
the significance arguments can be structured to enhance the communication of resource significance to
project reviewers and decision makers.
The final document of the Significance Work Unit is the "Significance Protocol and Worksheet," an easy-
to-use-guide for identifying and describing resource significance in environmental project planning. The
primary objectives of the protocol are to assist planners in: establishing the Federal interest in a proposed
restoration project and a level of priority for the project at the national, regional, state and local levels;
evaluating individual project plans within the context of the ecosystem; communicating information to
decision makers to support project justification; and ultimately communicating information to decision
makers to assist in allocating resources among different projects.
The protocol provides an iterative procedure for identifying and describing resource significance in
environmental plan formulation and evaluation. Four activities are included scoping, analyzing,
evaluating, and communicating that are referred to as phases of the protocol. Each phase consists of
several steps, with a total of 12 steps to complete the four phases of the protocol. One or more iterations
of these four phases will guide a planning team through the process of identifying and describing
resource significance.
The purpose of each phase in the protocol is summarized below:
1. Scoping Phase. Identify and document the full range of potentially significant environmental
resources related to the study area for a proposed restoration project.
2. Analytical Phase. Determine and document specific sources of priority recognition; collect and
analyze information to describe the institutional, public, and technical significance of particular
environmental resources; and, if appropriate, examine the significance of each resource through
analyzing relative importance rankings, levels of significance, and signifiscores.
3. Evaluation Phase. Determine the most significant resources by further prioritizing resource
significance, evaluate the significance determinations against Corps policy, planning, and
budgetary guidance (e.g., the need to establish a Federal interest) to further prioritize among
significant resources.
4. Communication Phase. Develop narrative arguments describing the determinations of
significance, which will be included in planning reports.
Applications
Environmental project planning for ecosystem restoration includes addressing the specific problems and
needs of any one or group of species, wetlands, rivers, lakes, estuaries and marine areas or various
-------
combinations of these. However, the funding available for addressing these problems is extremely
limited. Consequently, there must be some methodology or screening process to eliminate certain
projects from further consideration while recognizing other projects that warrant further study. An
analysis of the significance of resources can help to support project justification at any level as well as
help to determine whether there is a Federal interest. Resource significance offers a screening tool for
making initial decisions about project worthiness, and, may also serve as a decision making tool to aid in
selecting the best or "most significant" projects from among a group of deserving projects that must
compete for limited funds.
As an illustrative example, consider that there are numerous plant and animal species in the environment
that could and would benefit from the right kind of planned activities. How are we going to select which
species or groups of species we want to spend money on? Information about the species must first be
compiled. What is the species(es) to be addressed? Is it an endangered species, included in the Federal or
state list of endangered species? Is the species' existence threatened or endangered in the current or do
nothing environment? Is it seen as an important resource to the region, the state and or to local interests?
Why is the species important? Commercial, recreational, existence or other values? Will other important
resources be adversely affected if this species continues to decline? Conversely, will other significant
resources benefit by actions taken to restore or enhance the resource being addressed? Ultimately, the
more significant resources to be affected by a project, the better the chances that the project will receive
decision support and funding. As the Corps of Engineers Engineering Circular 1105-2-210 explains, the
Corps mission is to focus on Ecosystem Restoration as opposed to individual resource restoration.
Conclusion
Environmental projects are non-traditional projects within the Corps of Engineers. However, ecosystem
restoration has been recognized as a mission of the Corps and therefore will require new planning
techniques and approaches in order to be effective. Resource significance is just one of many tools now
being developed within the Corps to assist in the planning and decision making process. The significance
of a resource in the eyes of local, state, regional and national interest can help to determine whether there
is a Federal interest in the project and thus, help to justify Corps of Engineers involvement. Resource
significance in the context of ecosystem management can assist decision makers to select the best and
most significant projects to protect, preserve or enhance the more threatened and/or the more significant
resources. With limited funding to support projects of any kind, it will be the projects that show the most
potential for improving the widest range of resources, to include contributing to existing nationally
recognized resource programs such as the National Wildlife Refuge System or the North American
Waterfowl Management Plan.
Future Steps
The major focus of this effort has been to address resource significance within the context of project
planning for restoration activities. However, within the Corps of Engineers, there are at least two other
potential uses for the resource significance arguments. One of those uses is within the management of
-------
Corps owned property surrounding major projects. Many of these projects have extensive land holdings
which are managed for recreational and other purposes. As in the new project arena, funding for land
management is becoming more limited and resource managers must become more selective about which
resources they want or need to address with their limited funding. An analysis of the projects with a focus
on resource significance both within and beyond the boundaries of the immediate project could help
project managers decide the most beneficial use of available funding.
Another potential use of resource significance analysis is in the Corps' Regulatory Permit Evaluation
Process. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires a permit for all potential development impacting on
a wetland. The developer is required to avoid damages where possible and to mitigate for those
unavoidable damages. Mitigation guidance emphasizes replacement of functions and values where
possible or a minimum of one-to-one replacement of area. Use of a resource significance assessment tool
could greatly enhance the Corps' ability to better evaluate the functions and values of wetlands and
ultimately to require more appropriate mitigation measures that may contribute to other regional and
national environmental goals or programs such as the Chesapeake Bay Program.
References and Resources
Review and Evaluation of Programs for Determining Significance and Prioritization of
Environmental Resources, September 1994, USACE, IWR Report 94-R-7.
Resource Significance: A New Perspective for Environmental Project Planning, June 1995,
USACE, IWR Report 95-R-10
Significance in Environmental Planning: Resource Document, February 1996, USACE, IWR
Report 96-R-7.
Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources
Implementation Studies, March 1983, U. S. Water Resources Council.
Copies of IWR reports can be obtained from:
Arlene Nurthen
Institute for Water Resources
7701 Telegraph Road
Alexandria, Virginia 22315-3868
Voice: 703-355-3042
Fax: 703-355-8435 (preferred)
Endnote
-------
1. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not of the Department of the Army or
the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Linking Environmental Project Outputs and Social
Benefits: Bringing Economics, Ecology and
Psychology Together
Gerald D. Stedge, Economist
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA
Timothy Feather, Senior Analyst
Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd., Carbondale, IL
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
Environmental projects introduce features that can be measured in monetary terms as well as features
that cannot, or should not, be monetized. In order to effectively evaluate the benefits and costs of
ecosystem outputs, the linkages between changes in ecological resources, which may be measured by
various habitat assessment techniques, and ecological outputs and services, which may have
socioeconomic value, need to be clearly defined. Once these linkages are understood, there are two
approaches to including the ecosystem outputs and services in the decision making process; either a
monetary value can be placed on the output, or the output can be presented to decision makers in a
nonmonetary fashion for their consideration.
This paper addresses two questions: (1) what are the possible changes in the ecosystem which may result
-------
from environmental mitigation or restoration projects, and what outputs and services do these changes
provide society? and (2) what are effective approaches to communicate to decision makers the linkages
between ecosystem functions and socioeconomic benefits in a manner which allows them to construct
values for ecosystem functions?
Linking Ecosystem Outputs to Human Services
The conception of potential projects starts with the identification of a restoration need, which may be
provided through a number of alternative management actions (see Figure 1). Often, a proposal not only
identifies need but also suggests at least some management alternatives such as building a dike or dam,
eliminating existing water control structures, redistributing bottom sediments, or harvesting aquatic
plants. Planners are expected to evaluate the need and the various management alternatives to determine
which is the most cost effective in providing the need. Each of the alternative proposed actions directly
and indirectly generates environmental changes, which can be categorized as: Morphology and
Topography, Water and Material Transport, Substrate, Habitat Arrangement, Water Quality, and
Biological Quality (Cole et al., 1996).
In order to determine the possible changes in the ecosystem which may result from environmental
mitigation or restoration projects, it is necessary to take an ecological systems approach. This approach
allows the planning team to not only identify first round direct effects on the ecosystem, but also the
indirect, and often unanticipated effects, of management actions. Cole et al. (1996) developed a series of
tables one for each of the above categories of environmental effects which allow the planner to progress
from management control (e.g. water depth), to ecological output and its measure (e.g. clearance to
bottom in feet), to the human service (e.g. boating). The tables are designed to bring together the
expertise of the economist and biologist on the planning team in the development of a robust set of
potential project outputs for plan formulation and evaluation.
The tables facilitate identification of a range of direct ecological effects, and associated human services,
which could result from changing ecological inputs. For example, within Morphology and Topography
(Table 1), it can be seen that increased water surface area can directly increase the use area for boating
and swimming. Additionally, many effects of management actions are indirect, and these effects are
traceable by referring the planning team to a different table within the series. In this case, wildlife
recreation may be effected by the change in surface area, therefore the planner is directed to the
Biological Processes table. As shown in Figure 1, many feedbacks occur in real ecosystems and in the
suite of tables, and should be traced accordingly.
The approach offered by Cole et al. (1996) provides the planner a checklist of possible ecological outputs
and associated human services which might result directly and indirectly from the management options
under consideration. In many cases, however, an effect may not be worth pursuing because there may be
no demand for the output or human service, or pursuing it further would require an expansive data
collection effort. The following test offers the planning team a filter to refine the list of effects to those
worth pursuing for plan formulation and evaluation:
-------
1.
Is there a legal requirement to evaluate the output/service? If yes, then do so. If no, go to (2).
2. Is there a demand for added amounts of the output/service? If yes, go to (4). If no, go to (3).
3. Is this output/service important to a stakeholder? If yes go to (4). If no, drop out.
4. Can meaningful differences in the level of output/service be measured across different alternatives
or scales of action? If yes, go to (5). If no, drop out.
5. Are the data available to measure this output/services or is there sufficient resources to collect
such data. If yes, then evaluate. If no, drop out.
The results of the above described analysis will be a list of "significant" outputs/services which the
planning team will want to investigate further and describe, either quantitatively or qualitatively, as part
of the project justification. The question now facing the planning team is, how should these
outputs/services be described?
Describing the Socioeconomic Value of Ecosystem Outputs and
Human Services
Traditional water resource projects are justified for the most part by showing that they have positive net
national economic development (NED) benefits. However, environmental restoration, by its very nature,
is justified not in NED terms, but rather on the positive environmental impacts which the project
produces. These benefits are then weighed against the cost of the project, and the project is considered
justified if the environmental improvement is "worth" the cost. This difference in project justification has
been institutionalized by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) by the issuance of recent guidance.
However, the question remains, how does one determine if a project is "worth" its costs.
One alternative is to revert back to the NED approach, and attempt to place monetary values on all
environmental project outputs. If this were possible, then costs and benefits could be compared in a
common metric, and the net positive NED rule would be applicable. Another alternative is to provide the
decision makers with a vast list of project outputs in terms such as habitat units, species populations,
acres restored and allow the decision makers to weight the costs of the projects against these benefits. In
actuality, both of these alternatives are probably unacceptable. The first is plagued by our inability, or
unwillingness, to place dollar values on the environment. This is complicated further by equity issues
such as the appropriate role of discounting, the possibility of making irreversible decisions, and inter-
generational equity. The second is plagued by the immense amount of data which must be considered by
the decision maker, and the inability to consider trade-offs between so many different types and levels of
outputs and services.
A hybrid approach would be to reduce some outputs to monetary values through standard NED benefit
-------
calculations, hence reducing the number of different metrics which must be considered by the decision
makers. Consider, as an example, two project alternatives. The first has annualized costs equal to $5
million, and will produce harvestable fish, swimming opportunities, and protect 400 acres of habitat. If
the fish can be valued at $3 million per year, and the swimming at $1 million per year, then the project
can be represented as 400 acres of habitat at a cost of $1 million per year. The second alternative has
annualized costs equal to $7 million, and will produce harvestable fish, swimming opportunities, provide
a flyway for a threatened species, and protect 400 acres of habitat. If the fish can be valued at $3 million
per year, and the swimming at $2 million per year, then the project can be represented as providing a
flyway and 400 acres of habitat at a cost of $2 million per year. As this example illustrates, as more
outputs are monetized, the trade-offs which must be considered by the decision makers become more
manageable.
However, the choice of which outputs to monetize, and the final decision about which alternative is
"better" is still left to the decision makers. Shabman (1995) points out, "(project justification) must be
made to convince those who can block or advance a restoration alternative about the merits of the
project. This means that the analysis required for justification can only be determined after determining
what will be acceptable to the relevant decision makers." This being true, how can the planner be sure
that the analysis required for justification will be acceptable to decision makers? This question can be
answered by examining the uniqueness of environmental projects, and the decision makers' role within
these projects.
In recognition of the important role decision makers play in environmental decisions, Schkade evaluated
the psychology (i.e. perceptions, values, priorities, decision criteria) of stakeholders through a series of
interviews and focus groups surrounding COE environmental projects. Several observations defined
some of the unique differences between the planning philosophies of environmental and traditional COE
projects. First, it is clear that restoration ecology is an evolving science, and hence a great deal of
uncertainty surrounds restoration projects. Therefore, restoration requires experimentation and ongoing
adaptive management. Second, since restoration is a relatively new activity, no single player in the
planning process can assume it has a monopoly on technical expertise or experience. Hence, a
collaborative planning environment is essential. Lastly, environmental projects are popular, and hence, a
cooperative approach to planning is feasible and probably more efficient.
Given these findings, it is clear that the valuation of environmental project outputs requires participation
by decision makers throughout the planning process. Unlike in the case of tradition water resource
projects, it is not enough to determine project outputs, place values on them, using monetary and other
valuation techniques, and then attempt to justify the project to decision makers using these values. First,
environmental projects are very often multi-output projects, therefore the mix of outputs chosen may not
be acceptable to the decision makers. Second, since environmental outputs are often not traded in the
market, the techniques used to place values on the outputs such as the contingent valuation method may
not be believable to decision makers. Third, each decision maker brings scarce information concerning
the new science of environmental restoration to the table. Lastly, active involvement is demanded by
decision makers who want to insure that their interests are incorporated into the final project. Therefore,
we argue that valuation of environmental outputs requires a new breed of group decision making.
-------
Decisions must be made by stakeholders throughout the planning process regarding not only project
features, but also output prioritization procedures.
Conclusion
Environmental projects are complex, multi-output projects, and often these projects have outputs which
are the result of indirect, and unintended effects. By taking a systems approach, as incorporated into the
tables described above, it is possible to identify the significant ecological outputs and associated human
services which will result from a project alternative. Choosing among these project alternatives requires
making decisions about output priorities. Unlike traditional water resource projects, environmental
projects are measured in many metrics, dollar values being only one of them. Therefore output
prioritization cannot be reduced to a single metric based decision rule, such as positive net national
economic development. An alternative decision making protocol, which lends itself well to the
characteristics of environmental project planning, is to involve decision makers throughout the process.
This includes gaining acceptance of valuation techniques which will be used to choose between project
alternatives.
References
Cole, Richard A., John B. Loomis, Timothy D. Feather and Donald F. Capan. 1996. Linkages
Between Environmental Outputs and Human Services. Institute for Water Resources Report 96-R-
6.
Schkade, David A. The Role of Stakeholders in Successful Planning for U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Environmental Projects. Institute for Water Resources Report (forthcoming).
Shabman, Leonard. 1995. Environmental restoration in the Army Corps of Engineers: Planning
and Valuation Challenges. In Review of Monetary and Nonmonetary Valuation of Environmental
Investments. Institute for Water Resources Report 95-R-2.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Customizing Corps Planning for Environmental
Restoration: An Evaluation Framework
Timothy D. Feather, Senior Analyst
Planning and Management Consultants, Ltd., Carbondale, IL
Joy Muncy, Civil Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources, Alexandria, VA
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
Many federal resource agencies are realigning their activities to accommodate the publics' desire for
environmental enhancement, restoration and preservation. This includes traditional water resource
development agencies such as the Bureau of Reclamation and Army Corps of Engineers (COE) which
are bolstering involvement in environmental restoration projects. Plan formulation for federal projects
follow the Water Resources Council's (1983) guidelines (commonly referred to as the Principles and
Guidelines or P&G) that were designed to ensure economically sound developments while considering
environmental and other impacts. In support of the economic analyses required by the P&G, many
analytical tools have been developed to forecast, measure, and evaluate the impacts of water resource
projects. However, many of these methodologies are challenged by the nonmonetary/noneconomic
parameters brought forth through environmental restoration.
This paper describes the COE response to increasing involvement in ecosystem restoration projects
-------
which surfaced the need to customize and operationalize the P&G planning procedures for the unique
challenges of environmental projects. This framework is a product of the COE Evaluation of
Environmental Investments Research Program (EEIRP).
Response to the Challenge
All COE projects follow the six-step P&G planning process shown in the lower section of Figure 1 that is
intended to formulate an optimal (or near optimal) plan to efficiently and effectively address water
resource problems and opportunities. These planning steps have proven effective as a framework for
planning COE water resource development activities for decades. However, there is generally a lack of
standard methods and techniques within the COE planning community to operationalize the P&G
framework for assessing the efficiency and effectiveness of investments in environmental restoration,
protection, and mitigation. To address this challenge, the EEIRP was designed to develop analytical
methods and models for such issues as determining environmental objectives, measuring outputs, and
assessing cost-effectiveness. The broad goals of the EEIRP are to develop analytical tools to assist
planners, managers, and regulators in addressing the following two statements which are referred to as
the site and portfolio questions, respectively:
1. How can the COE determine which is the most desirable alternative to accomplish given
environmental objectives ?
2. How can the COE allocate limited resources among many competing environmental investment
decisions?
The overall objective of the operational framework is to ensure the products of the EEIRP are
incorporated into the site and portfolio evaluation and selection processes. The end product links EEIRP
products and COE restoration planning guidance into the existing P&G six-step process as a procedures
overview manual. The approach to the development of the framework is illustrated in Figure 1 and is
described in more detail below.
EEIRP Products and Guidance
The EEIRP was a three year research program aimed specifically at addressing the analytical needs of
COE planners faced with formulation and evaluation of environmental projects. The program was
initiated to retain flexibility in planning individual environmental projects and thereby develop answers
for the "site" question. It was also intended to promote consistent and effective methodologies for all
COE ecosystem planning and thereby develop strategies to address the "portfolio" question.
The EEIRP was organized according to the following work units: (1) Determining and Describing
Environmental Significance; (2) Determining Objectives and Measuring Outputs; (3) Objective
Evaluation of Cultural Resources; (4) Engineering Environmental Investments; (5) Cost Effectiveness
and Analysis Techniques; (6) Monetary and Other Valuation Techniques; (7) Incorporating Risk and
-------
Uncertainty into Environmental Evaluation; (8) Environmental Databases and Information Management;
and (9) Evaluation Framework. The products created under the EEIRP came as reports, software,
procedures, and training and spanned physical and social sciences. Some of the products were
quantitative in nature while others were more descriptive.
COE environmental guidance includes a mixture of established information from traditional
environmental activities and freshly minted regulations, tools, and case studies developed specifically for
new ecosystem planning activities. For example, the COE has a long history with the mitigation of
adverse environmental effects of its Civil Works projects. As a result, the guidance for these activities are
well developed and well known. In contrast, the ecosystem restoration mission of the COE is a relatively
new mission, and the associated guidance are still under development.
The current ecosystem restoration guidance is Ecosystem Restoration in the Civil Works Program (EC
1105-2-210). This June 1995 engineering circular provides guidance for ecosystem restoration activities
of the Civil Works program. This draft guidance is in effect through June 1997. The purpose of this
guidance is to ensure that restoration projects: (1) produce the intended beneficial effects; (2) are cost-
effective; and, (3) are consistent with Administration policy.
This EC supports previous guidance on ecosystem restoration. It notes that Civil Works budget guidance
assigns funding priority to restoration projects (see EC 11-2-163). As in the case of previous restoration
guidance, EC 1105-2-210 emphasizes projects to restore environmental degradation to which a COE
project contributed or situations where modification of a COE project can accomplish the restoration
most cost-effectively. Emphasis will be placed on engineering measures to achieve the restoration
objectives. In addition, hydrologic control, rather than pollution abatement, will be the principal means
through which water quality improvements are achieved.
The EEIRP products in conjunction with the new EC will give the planning community fresh and useful
guidance and techniques for addressing the COE enhanced environmental mission.
Synthesis of the Framework
In collaboration with the development of tools that serve to better measure environmental project outputs
and significance, a focus was provided within the EEIRP to accommodate the special communication,
trade-off, and decisionmaking needs surrounding environmental plan formulation. The decision metric
that supports traditional COE projects, which is based in economics, does not necessarily apply for
environmental projects. The whole idea of value and worth is placed in another decisionmaking
paradigm that requires use of innovative trade-off techniques and communication among the stakeholders
involved with the projects as illustrated in Figure 1. This section describes the research activities and
products that were created to support in light of these needs which constitutes the evaluation framework
for environmental projects.
An analysis of previous COE environmental studies has been compiled into a two-volume report
-------
Compilation and Review of Completed Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an Evaluation
Framework for Environmental Resources (April 1995). This effort commenced with a workshop of
selected COE Headquarter personnel to gather information on what is observed, explained, and desired in
the review of environmental restoration project documentation. Ten COE case studies involving recently
completed and ongoing restoration and mitigation studies and projects were chosen for interviews with
their stake holders. COE planners, analysts, reviewers, and decision makers at all levels, and non-COE
study participants including members of other agencies, local sponsors, and interest groups were
interviewed. Typical analytical, communication, and decision-making problems encountered, as well as
analytical techniques and study processes that were successful, were documented. Also highlighted
during these interviews were the planning contexts, political and physical, of environmental projects.
Plan formulation of environmental projects necessarily involves tradeoffs to accommodate the many
interests of the project. A second research effort examined alternative trade-off techniques in Trade-Off
Analysis for Environmental Projects: An Annotated Bibliography (August 1995). This entailed a
literature review and annotated bibliography with the goal of identifying applicable methods for the COE
planning process.
An ongoing effort will develop a general protocol for incorporating group process techniques into the
planning of environmental projects. This report will identify specific group techniques to be used within
the six step planning processes and will appraise group process challenges and opportunities faced by
COE planners. The resulting product would be a guide that a planner could use to address typical group
process challenges. This effort would be conducted through interviews to COE environmental planners to
identify problems in the planning process, explore current responses, and evaluate and test potential
improvements.
Another ongoing effort is the development of the Overview Framework Manual for this research
program. This manual will serve as a primary "linkage" of individual EEIRP work unit products. Each of
the chapters in this manual will include a brief discussion of primary objectives and outputs regarding the
six-step planning processes. It will also identify how public involvement and/or trade off analyses can
support that step, and most important, make reference to the various EEIRP products that can support
activities within that step.
Conclusion
Tools and products that are developed and improved upon, such as those from the EEIRP, greatly support
the planning communities' ability to make effective decisions. Environmental projects for the COE can
be generally supported by the six step process within the P&G in conjunction with COE guidance. As
techniques that support the unique conditions of environmental projects surface, they should be added to
the menu of tools available to the planner. A critical attribute of an evaluation framework for
environmental projects at this point in time is to recognize that technical tools are in the process of being
developed and finalized for practical use. In the meantime, insights on environmental project success and
priorities will originate from effective trade-off frameworks and open communication among important
-------
project stakeholders.
References
Feather, Timothy D. and Donald T. Capan. 1995. Compilation and Review of Completed
Restoration and Mitigation Studies in Developing an Evaluation Framework for Environmental
Resources (Volumes I and II). IWR Report #95-R-4 and 5.
Feather, Timothy D., Keith W. Harrington, and Donald T. Capan. 1995. Trade-off Analysis for
Environmental Projects: An Annotated Bibliography. IWR Report 95-R-8.
U.S. Department of the Army. 1995. Ecosystem Restoration in the Civil Works Program. EC
1105-2-210.
U.S. Water Resources Council. 1983. Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for
Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies. Washington, D.C. GPO.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Septic System Impacts for the Indian River Lagoon,
Florida
Scott W. Horsley, Partner
Horsley & Witten, Inc. Boston, MA
Daniel Santos, Registered Professional Engineer
Horsley & Witten, Inc., Barnstable, MA
Derek Busby, Director
Indian River Lagoon Project, Melbourne, FL
The Indian River Lagoon is known as America's most diverse estuary, hosting more than 4,300 plant and
animal species. The Lagoon, which makes up 40 percent of Florida's Atlantic Coast is 156 miles long,
extending from just south of Daytona Beach to just north of West Palm Beach.
The Lagoon is threatened by tremendous population growth within its watershed. The population in this
region was 300,000 in 1970, is currently estimated at 700,000, and is expected to reach 1,000,000 by the
year 2000. Septic system and wastewater plant discharges within the watershed enter the ecosystem
through both ground water and surface storm flows. An intricate series of man-made canals stretch
throughout the watershed and serve as a conduit for pollutants from the watershed to the Lagoon.
Elevated nutrient levels and low dissolved oxygen levels are observed in several locations throughout the
Lagoon. In certain cases, algal blooms have occurred and declines in seagrasses have been observed.
Generally, water quality is most significantly degraded during the wet season when storm water inputs
are the highest. Septic systems are also suspected to be contributors of nutrients through both ground
water inputs and stormflow where hydraulic failures occur.
-------
The primary purpose of this project is to quantify the pollutant loadings from septic and wastewater plant
discharges. Analytic methods include both watershed modeling and water quality sampling. This
progress report summarizes the results of the preliminary modeling work. The next phase of work will
include the identification of case study sites and water quality sampling and analysis. The results of the
sampling and analysis will then be used to calibrate the watershed models. Once the models are
calibrated they will then be applied to future development scenarios (such as year 2000 population
projection and saturation buildout conditions).
The watershed to the Indian River Lagoon measures approximately 1.5 million acres (2,311 square
miles) and includes portions of the counties of St. Lucie, Okeechobee, Brevard, Volusia, Martin and
Indian River. Land uses are predominantly agricultural and residential with more limited areas of
commercial and industrial. Agricultural lands are predominantly in citrus production and occupy the
largest portion (250,000 acres or 18 percent) of the watershed. According to agricultural records, there
are also 50,984 cows located in the watershed. There are approximately 272,500 residential dwelling
units located within the watershed. Approximately 121,500 of these utilize on-site septic systems, the
balance (approximately 151,000) on sewer collection systems with sewage treatment plants which
discharge to the Lagoon.
A nitrogen loading model was developed and applied to the Indian River Lagoon watershed to estimate
relative inputs. Nitrogen was selected for the preliminary modeling for two reasons: (1) it is believed to
be responsible for the eutrophic effects (algal blooms and low dissolved oxygen) in the Lagoon; and (2)
previous investigations have shown that it can be effectively modeled and predicted (Nelson et al., 1988
and Horsley et al., 1996). The model accounts for all major anthropogenic sources of nitrogen (see Table
1). It incorporates source loading rates and persistence factors which were determined from applicable
literature values utilizing as many local references as possible (most importantly for agriculture).
Table 1. Selected nitrogen loading rates by source.
Source Loading Rate ^ , Net Loading Rate
Source , Persistence .
(lbs/year) (lbs/year)
Sewage (per septic system) 20 - 25 50% 10 - 12.5
Lawn Fertilizers (per lawn) 9 50% 4.5
Agriculture (per acre) 170 5% 8.5
Cows (per animal) 135 38% 51.3
A review of numerous scientific papers about the nitrogen content of septic system effluent indicates that
the average is 40-50 mg/liter (Nelson et al., 1988). Assuming an occupancy rate of 2.5 people/dwelling
unit and an estimated average sewage flow of 55 gallons/capita, this results in an estimated nitrogen
loading rate from sewage of 20-25 pounds of nitrogen/septic system per year. Based upon previous
-------
investigations, approximately 50 percent of the nitrogen reaches the underlying ground water, the
remainder being lost to the atmosphere via nitrification-denitrification processes which occurs beneath
the septic leach field. The preliminary modeling work assumes a 50 percent leach rate for sewage derived
nitrogen. Other studies conducted in Florida suggest that lower leaching rates may be associated with
septic systems (Ayres Associates, 1993).
Nitrogen loading rates for citrus groves were obtained from a series of field studies conducted by the
University of Florida, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences at the Agricultural Research Center at
Fort Pierce (Calvert et al., 1981). These studies indicate that fertilizer-nitrogen applications were
approximately 170 pounds/acre per year and that on the average 6.9 percent of the nitrogen applied
leaches to ground water. Under high rainfall/irrigation conditions, higher leaching rates (34 percent) were
observed. A nitrogen leaching rate of 5 percent was utilized in the preliminary modeling.
Table 2. Summary of preliminary nitrogen
loading to Lagoon by source.
(Ibs/year) (percentage of total)
The results of the preliminary model runs
are summarized in Table 2. Citrus
production is indicated as the largest
nitrogen source (33 percent) with cattle
(11 percent), septic systems (10 percent)
and lawn fertilizers (10 percent) as
secondary sources. Direct precipitation to
the Lagoon is also expected to be
significant compared with these other
sources. The relative percentage of
nitrogen loading attributable to septic
systems is expected to increase with
continued population growth in the area.
The next phase of work will include the
installation of monitoring wells and
water quality sampling to field-verify the
nitrogen loading rates attributable to
septic systems. This will be
accomplished by selecting a series of
case study sites where medium to high density septic systems exist. Specially-designed
recapture/monitoring wells will be installed to provide representative ground-water samples
downgradient of developed areas and within the drainage area to the Lagoon. The results of these
analyses will be used to calibrate the watershed model. Further analyses are also planned to further
document the nitrogen inputs from agricultural sources within the watershed.
Septic Systems
1,437,857
10%
Lawns
1,363,300
10%
Agriculture
4,564,148
33%
Cattle
1,553,0745
11%
Forest
660,535
5%
T reatment Plants
484,474
3%
Road Drainage
1,079,397
8%
Direct Precipitation
2,778,416
20%
TOTAL
13,923,227
100%
References
Horsley & Witten, Inc. (1988) Predicting Nitrogen Concentrations in Ground Water-An
-------
Analytical Model. M.E. Nelson, S.W. Horsley, T.C. Cambareri, M.D. Giggey, and J.R. Pinnette.
Horsley & Witten, Inc. (1996). Identification and Evaluation of Nutrient and Bacterial Loadings
to Maquoit Bay, Brunswick and Freeport, Maine. Final Report. S.W. Horsley, J.J. Gregoire, and
B.P. Gresser.
Soil and Crop Science Society of Florida. (1981) Leaching Losses of Nitrate and Phosphate from
a Spodosol as Influenced by Tillage and Irrigation Level. Proceedings, Volume 40. D.V. Calvert,
E.H. Stewart, R.S. Mansell, J.G.A. Fiskell, J.S. Rogers, L.H. Allen, Jr., D.A. Graetz.
Ayres Associates. (1993) An Evaluation of Current Onsite Sewage Disposal System (OSDS)
Practices in Florida. Principal Investigators R.J. Otis, D.L. Anderson, and R.A. Apfel.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Conducting Wasteload Allocations in a Watershed
Framework: Real World Problems and Solutions
David W. Dilks, Associate Vice President
Kathryn A. Sweet, Environmental Scientist
Limno-Tech, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Abstract
The Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) process of controlling all sources of pollutants has been a key
component of a watershed protection approach to water quality control. This paper describes problems
that have been routinely encountered when simultaneously considering point and nonpoint sources; and
some solutions that were applied to address those problems. The problems include: 1) Compounding of
safety factors inherent in toxics wasteload allocation procedures when simultaneously applied to all
discharges in a watershed; 2) Difficulty in selection of critical environmental design conditions, because
wasteload allocations typically consider drought stream flow while nonpoint source analyses consider
high intensity rainfall events; and 3) Difficulties in allocating nonpoint source loads; because of the
uncertain effectiveness of controls and lack of regulatory mandate for their implementation. Some
solutions have been found to address these problems. Probabilistic modeling techniques (i.e. the EPA
DYNTOX model) can be used to simultaneously consider variability in all pollutant loads and define
multiple-discharge wasteload allocations. A critical period approach can be used for selecting design
conditions when simultaneously considering point and nonpoint sources.
Introduction
The watershed approach provides a rational means for controlling pollutant loadings to waterbodies, as it
considers all potential loading sources (point and nonpoint). Recent experience has demonstrated that,
although the conceptual approach is sound, existing methodologies for calculating wasteload allocations
-------
within a watershed framework are often inadequate because they are based upon decades of experience
dealing with "end-of-pipe" controls. In some cases, wasteload allocations developed as part of a
watershed approach are more stringent than what would have been required from traditional wasteload
allocation modeling techniques. Also, it is still in many cases easier to mandate point source controls
than to deal with the uncertainties involved in nonpoint source control. This paper is based upon a range
of studies where wasteload allocations were conducted under a watershed framework. Three specific
examples are discussed here to illustrate the most common "real world" problems encountered associated
with developing TMDLs and permit limits under a watershed strategy. They are: 1) Lehigh River,
Pennsylvania; 2) Lake Lanier, Georgia; and 3) Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron.
Lehigh River, Pennsylvania
A series of model simulations was conducted to compare the results of traditional wasteload allocation
procedures to a probabilistic approach for multiple discharges in a watershed (Schroeder and Marr,
1995). A steady-state wasteload allocation approach was used to calculate water quality-based effluent
limits for copper for four discharges to the Lehigh River in Pennsylvania as part of a basinwide
wasteload allocation. Each facility was assumed to simultaneously discharge the 99th percentile copper
concentration at its design effluent flow during drought stream flow (7Q10) conditions.
Probabilistic modeling techniques were used to simultaneously consider variability in all pollutant loads
and determine limits with a specific, known level of protection,. Probabilistic modeling simulates the
entire distribution of receiving water concentrations resulting from continuous discharges, rather than
simply a single set of critical conditions. Monte Carlo analysis, a probabilistic modeling method which
performs multiple random simulations with inputs based on compiled data records and statistical
assumptions, was used to generate a forecasted probability distribution of water quality, rather than a
single number. This frequency distribution can be used to determine the specific level of water quality
protection provided by a given effluent limit. The EPA-supported probabilistic model DYNTOX was
applied for the four discharges to determine effluent limits protective of water quality at the once in three
year protection level recommended by EPA.
A comparison of the resulting steady-state and probabilistic limits indicated that the traditional steady-
state approach resulted in permit limits that were overly protective by up to 71%, as shown in Figure 1.
The conservative assumptions used in the steady-state approach resulted in stringent effluent limitations
that departed from the desired once in three year level of protection. Stacking conservative assumption
upon conservative assumption for multiple discharges results in over-protection when the design
condition approach is applied on a watershed basis. When extended to additional discharges, the design
condition approach can result in permit limits that are increasingly more restrictive than necessary.
-------
200
1 150
3
100
3
50
0
~ design condition limit
ffl probabilistic limit
&
15
-------
The approach being taken for Lake Lanier balances the resource/information dilemma described above
by performing a Continuous Simulation for only a subset of the historical record. It consists of a review
of past environmental conditions to identify the occurrence of periods with low assimilative capacity.
The intent of the approach is define a subset of years that are expected to contain the most critical
periods. For investigating potential point source impacts, these will be the hottest and driest summer
seasons, which will maximize residence time and thermal stratification, and result in minimum dilution
capacity and maximum potential for algal growth. For nonpoint sources, high flow years may be more
critical.
Table 1. Gaged flow into Lake Lanier.
Year Sum Flow Percentile
1986
522
100
1957
578
97
1988
595
94
1981
646
92
1985
791
89
1970
883
86
1959
951
83
1982
952
81
1987
1023
78
1989
1051
75

* 1 *

•
•
1964
1477
17
-------
1979
1477
14
1976
1508
11
1984
1508
8
1990
1534
6
1973
1759
3
The period 1984-1988 was selected as the critical environmental design period for the Lake Lanier study.
A statistical analysis was conducted of streamflow and temperature data for Lake Lanier to verify the
appropriateness of the 1984-1988 period for this study. Table 1 shows a cumulative ranking of the inflow
to Lake Lanier, as represented by the sum of the USGS gaging station flows. Two of the years contained
in the critical 1984-1988 period fall in the upper 90th percentile low flow, with 1985 at the 89th
percentile. The period also includes an abnormally high flow year, with 1984 representing the 8th
percentile. In terms of critical temperatures (Table 2), three years during the 1984-1988 critical period
fall in the 90th percentile or above. This same critical period is being used for the Comprehensive Tri-
State Study currently being conducted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Table 2. Average Summer (Jun - Sept.)
Temperature in Atlanta.
Year Temp. (C) Percentile

1980
27.66
100

1986
25.98
95
1931
25.95
94
1987
25.93
93
1941
25.85
92
-------
1921
25.78
91
1981
25.78
90
1988
25.75
90
1881
25.73
89

•
1915
24.73
50
1985
24.73
50
1907
24.68
49
•
•
•
1984
24.43
36

•
•
1967
22.10
1
Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron
Saginaw Bay of Lake Huron has been the site of one of the most long term ongoing TMDL-type studies.
During the 1960's Saginaw Bay was undergoing severe cultural eutrophication. The most significant
ramification was taste and odor and filter-clogging problems at municipal water supplies. Initial efforts to
restore water quality in Saginaw Bay were defined in the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement of 1972,
and consisted of categorical limits for phosphorus of 1 mg/1 for large municipal treatment plants.
Subsequent monitoring indicated that these controls alone would not be sufficient to achieve desirable
water quality. The next step was definition of basinwide load reductions required to meet water quality
objectives, i.e. the Saginaw Bay "TMDL". Development of the Saginaw Bay TMDL can be described in
two steps: 1) defining the total allowable load, and 2) allocating the load among sources.
Allowable phosphorus loads to Saginaw Bay were defined in a three step process: 1) Develop/apply
water quality models linking phosphorus load to receiving water quality, 2) Define numeric objectives to
support the designated use, and 3) Use model results to define overall load reductions required to meet
numeric objectives. A range of water quality models was applied to Saginaw Bay, including a simple
-------
total phosphorus model (Chapra, 1977) and a multi-species phytoplankton model specifically predicting
noxious blue-green algae densities (Bierman and Dolan, 1976). Numeric water quality standards were
not available for phosphorus or algae for Saginaw Bay, so a numeric goal of 15 ug/1 for total phosphorus
was established based upon a statistical correlation between taste and odor problems and observed blue
green algal density. This objective, combined with water quality model results, led to specification of
overall allowable loads of 440 metric tons/year.
The modeling effort to define the Saginaw Bay TMDL defined the total allowable load to the system, but
did not specify the means to achieve the reduction. Two reduction strategies were proposed: 1) WWTP
effluent limits at 1 mg/1 and a 55% reduction in nonpoint sources, and 2)WWTP effluent limits at 0.5
mg/1 and a 40% reduction in nonpoint sources. EPA's Great Lakes National Program Office subsequently
funded a multicomponent study to determine the optimal combination of agricultural and point source
reductions (LTI, 1987). The study included an evaluation of the economics of conservation tillage,
monitoring of edge of field erosion and loads delivered to Saginaw Bay, and application of nonpoint
source models to forecast load reductions due to proposed crop management practices. The economic
analysis of the cost of implementing agricultural BMPs indicated that they were the most cost-effective
means to achieve the required reductions.
Several agencies (Michigan Dept. of Agriculture, Michigan DNR, MSU Cooperative Extension Service,
Soil Conservation Districts, USD A) worked with area farmers to promote the use of conservation tillage
and residue management. Significant nonpoint load reductions were achieved, although by 1990 numeric
phosphorus objectives had not been clearly met. Several factors contributed to the lack of definitive
achievement of loading goals: 1) No enforceable mechanism for nonpoint source reduction equivalent to
the NPDES program for point sources, 2) Uncertain effectiveness of nonpoint source controls, and 3)
Difficulty in monitoring nonpoint source loads to determine compliance. Figure 2 demonstrates this
problem with a comparison of monitored loads to loading goals.
-------
2UUL)
1500
a
3
-3
1000
500
0
Monitored Lead
WQA Target
81
82
83
84
85
Sfi
87
88
8 9
90
Year
Figure 2. Comparison of Monitored Saignaw Bay Load to Target (from Feist et al, 1993).
Fortunately, the reductions in phosphorus loads that were achieved were sufficient to meet the ultimate
water quality objective of removing taste and odor problems (at least temporarily). In the early 1990's,
infestation of Saginaw Bay by the exotic zebra mussel disrupted the food web in Saginaw Bay and has
led to an apparent competitive advantage of blue green algae. U.S. EPA and Michigan DNR have
subsequently funded new modeling studies to: 1) revise the existing multi-species phytoplankton model
to include zebra mussels, 2) determine if the altered ecological structure of Saginaw Bay will require a
change to the TMDL in order to maintain compliance with water quality objectives (LTI, 1995).
REFERENCES
Bierman, V. J., Jr. and D. M. Dolan, 1976. Mathematical Modeling of Phytoplankton Dynamics in
Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron, In: Environmental Modeling and Simulation, EPA, Cincinnati, Ohio.
Chapra, S. C., 1977. Total Phosphorus Models for the Great Lakes. Journal of the Environmental
Engineering Division, ASCE, 103 (EE2): 147-161.
-------
Dilks, D. D. and K. A. Sweet, 1996. Selecting Design Conditions as Part of a Watershed
Approach to Water Quality Control, proceedings of the North American Water Congress,
Anaheim, California.
Feist, T. J., V. J. Bierman, Jr. and L. Beasley, 1993. Trend Analysis of Saginaw River Phosphorus
Loads, 1981-1990. Presented at the 36th annual conference of the International Association for
Great Lakes Research.
LTI, 1987. Cost Effectiveness of Crop Management Practices in Reducing Pollutant Loads and
Improving Saginaw Bay Water Quality, prepared for East Central Michigan Planning
Development Region and United States Environmental Protection Agency
LTI, 1995. A Preliminary Ecosystem Modeling Study of Zebra Mussels (Dreissena Polymorpha)
in Saginaw Bay, Lake Huron", prepared for U.S. Environmental Research Laboratory - Duluth,
Large Lakes and Rivers Research Branch, Grosse lie, Michigan
Schroeder, K. A. and J. K. Marr, 1995. Comparison of Steady-state and Dynamic Models for
Determining Water Quality-based Effluent Limits for Multiple Discharges. Presented at the Water
Environment Federation Specialty Conference on Toxic Substances.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Nonpoint Source Management System Software: A
Tool for Tracking Water Quality and Land
T reatment
Steven A. Dressing, Section Chief
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC
Jennifer Hill, Senior Programmer Analyst
Horizon Systems Corporation, Herndon, VA
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Background
Nonpoint source watershed projects present analysts with significant challenges in data management and
analysis due to the need to track land-based activities, precipitation, water quantity, and water quality.
Much has been invested by some in developing geographic information systems, large water quality data
bases such as the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) STORET, and high-powered statistical
analysis packages. Watershed projects, however, still need compact, user-friendly, software packages that
handle both land management and water quality information.
This paper describes the NonPoint Source Management System (NPSMS), a software package developed
by EPA for watershed projects funded under section 319 of the Clean Water Act (CWA).
-------
Section 319 National Monitoring Program
EPA annually awards CWA grants to support state implementation of nonpoint source (NPS) control
programs. EPA initiated the National Monitoring Program (NMP) to address its need to report on section
319 program implementation, progress made in reducing pollution from nonpoint sources, and water
quality improvements resulting from program implementation (EPA, 1991a). EPA specified monitoring
protocols for NMP projects to provide a consistent, minimum set of water quality and land treatment data
that would support a national evaluation (EPA, 1991b). There are currently 15 approved NMP projects,
with others under development. The NMP has been described in greater detail elsewhere (Dressing, et al.,
1994; EPA, 1994; Osmond, et al., 1995).
NPSMS
EPA developed NPSMS to help NMP projects track and report land management and water quality
information. NPSMS has three data files: (1) the Management File which includes information regarding
water quality problems within the project area and plans to address those problems; (2) the Monitoring
Plan File which includes the monitoring designs, stations, and parameters; and (3) the Annual Report File
which contains annual implementation and water quality data (Figure 1).
Early versions of NPSMS operated in a DOSTM environment. Version (4.0) requires an IBM AT class of
computer, preferably a 486 or better, running MS WindowsTM Version 3.1 or better (EPA, 1996). Other
requirements are 640 kilobytes of RAM, no more than 5 megabytes on the hard drive, and a floppy drive.
Users will prefer an EGA, VGA, or SVGA color monitor, and a color printer for graphics.
Management File
The Management File contains information on the watershed, or management area, including location,
drainage area, waterbodies, water quality problems, pollutants causing identified water quality problems,
and pollutant sources. The Management File also contains information regarding the best management
practices (BMPs) or control measures that will be used to address the water quality problems, the specific
sources and pollutants to be addressed by each BMP, and the implementation goals for each BMP.
Project funding is also recorded in the Management File, with data fields for funding uses, sources, and
annual expenditures.
Monitoring Plan File
This file describes the monitoring designs used to evaluate the watershed project. NPSMS supports three
basic designs: (1) paired-watershed (Clausen and Spooner, 1993), (2) upstream-downstream, and (3)
single-station. Chemical, physical, biological, and habitat data can be entered into NPSMS. Users first
identify the type of data to be collected, and then select the paired-watershed, upstream-downstream, or
single-station study design. Monitoring stations are then identified with a name and STORET agency and
-------
station codes. The drainage area for each monitoring station is then entered, along with land use,
monitoring parameters, monitoring seasons, and information regarding quality assurance and quality
control.
NMP projects enter raw water quality data into STORET, BIOS, or WATSTORE. Raw
chemical/physical data are also converted to quartile counts for entry into NPSMS (Dressing, et al.,
1994). Quartiles for each monitored parameter are determined from the frequency distribution of data
collected prior to implementation of BMPs, and data for any given season are reduced to the number of
samples whose parameter values fall within each quartile. EPA will test for trends in the distribution of
quartile counts as one measure of whether water quality has improved (NCSU, 1989). For
biological/habitat monitoring, seasonal mean community or index values are entered into NPSMS and
compared against the maximum potential score of close-ended indices such as the index of biotic
integrity (Karr, 1981) or the estimated highest possible score for an open-ended index such as the index
of well being (Gammon, 1980). Seasonal means are also compared against reasonable attainment scores
and scores at which designated beneficial uses are fully supported, threatened, and partially supported.
NPSMS was structured around grab sampling for chemical/physical data since the NMP does not require
expensive storm-event sampling. Coupled with the focus on quartile counts, this restriction on sampling
method severely limited the applicability of NPSMS beyond the NMP. EPA modified NPSMS to handle
storm-event data since several NMP projects include storm-event monitoring.
Users have two options for entering storm-event data. The simplest approach is to record the data in
quartile format as is done with grab-sampled chemical/physical data. Weekly load estimates derived from
composite samples would be converted to quartile counts with this approach. The more detailed option is
to enter discharge, weather, and water quality data for each sampled storm event. Storms are identified by
an event number. Sample collector, composite method and medium, and the time and discharge
represented by the composite sample are recorded. Weather information includes precipitation sampling
method, sample collection date and time, time represented by the sample, total precipitation amount, five-
day precipitation (for antecedent moisture), average snow cover, and air temperature.
With the storm-event option, NPSMS can now support a much broader range of watershed projects since
it is no longer explicitly linked to the quartile approach used in the NMP. By altering the composite
method specified (e.g., grab sampling or weekly flow-weighted), users can apply NPSMS to a wide range
of sampling scenarios.
Annual Report File
This file receives annual BMP implementation and water quality data. Implementation data can be
reported either as annual or cumulative implementation, and progress can be measured against the goals
set forth in the Management File. For example, acreage of cropland under nutrient management would be
reported as annual implementation, whereas the acreage served by stormwater management structures
would probably be reported as cumulative implementation. Water quality data are entered as quartile
-------
counts for chemical/physical grab-samples, as quartile counts or raw data for composite storm-event
samples, or as seasonal mean community or index scores for biological/habitat monitoring.
Graphics and Other Features
NPSMS includes several standard reports and graphics. Users can easily display all data in a logical,
formatted report. Reports can be generated for all or selected management areas and monitoring stations.
Version 4.0 graphics provide the user with enhanced capabilities for creating and editing charts and plots
for display or color printing. High-resolution graphics can be displayed on a standard PC with an EGA or
VGA monitor.
NPSMS has a data export option which is used by states to report to EPA. It can also be used to create
input for advanced statistical analyses using packages such as SASTM.
Future Directions
Ground Water, Lakes, and Estuaries
NPSMS currently handles only stream studies, but future versions will accommodate ground-water, lake,
and estuary studies. To address these study types, a depth field will be added to the monitoring station.
NPSMS will also be adapted to allow users to specify distinct recharge areas which may differ from the
drainage areas delineated for surface monitoring in the same study area.
User-Guided Analyses
Version 4.0 restricts opportunities for comparing data from one station with data from other stations due
to its explicit linkage of stations when monitoring designs are selected. Currently, data from control sites
can only be plotted against data from the study sites in paired stations, and a similar limitation applies to
data from upstream-downstream studies.
In the future, NPSMS will allow the user to select the stations from which data will be compared and
plotted. This is essential to the analysis of ground-water data derived from nested wells that extract
samples at different depths. Similarly, lake and estuary sampling is often conducted at different depths,
and analysts may be interested in comparing data from one depth at one station with data collected at the
same or different depth at another station.
Linkage to Other EPA Data Bases
NPSMS is designed for linkage with other EPA data systems, including the section 305(b) Waterbody
System, River Reach File (RF3), and STORET. While direct linkages are not now available, the use in
-------
NPSMS of section 305(b) waterbody identification numbers and use support codes, STORET station and
agency codes, STORET parameter codes, and latitude/longitude coordinates provides opportunities for
establishing such linkages.
References
Clausen, J.C. and J. Spooner. 1993. Paired Watershed Study Design. EPA 841-F-93-009, prepared
for EPA, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
Dressing, S.A., J. Spooner, and J.B. Mullens. 1994. Watershed project monitoring and evaluation
under section 319 of the clean water act. IN: Proceedings Watershed '93 A National Conference
on Watershed Management. EPA 840-R-94-002, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1991a. Guidance on the award and management of nonpoint source program
implementation grants under section 319(h) of the Clean Water Act. Office of Water, Washington,
DC.
EPA. 1991b. Watershed monitoring and reporting for the section 319 national monitoring
program projects. Office of Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1994. Section 319 national monitoring program projects. EPA-841-S-94-006, Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
EPA. 1996. NonPoint Source Management System - NPSMS Version 4.0 User's Guide. Office of
Water, Washington, DC.
Gammon, J.R. 1980. The use of community parameters derived from electrofishing catches of
river fish as indicators of environmental quality. IN: Seminar on Water Quality Management
Tradeoffs. EPA-905-9-80-009. EPA, Washington, DC.
Karr, J.R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries 6:21-27.
NCSU Water Quality Group. 1989. Evaluation and recommendations for the proposed annual
reporting format for watershed implementation grants federally funded under section 319 of the
1987 Clean Water Act. Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, NC.
Osmond, D.L., D.E. Line, and J. Spooner. 1995. Section 319 national monitoring program: an
overview. NCSU Water Quality Group, Biological and Agricultural Engineering Department,
North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the information provided
here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions of the
Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed LOJIC -- A Logical Approach to Stormwater Management and
Permitting
Robert F. Smith, Jr., PE, PLS
Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District, Louisville, KY
Steven C. McKinley, PE, PLS
Ogden Environmental And Energy Services, Louisville, KY
Introduction
The Louisville and Jefferson County Metropolitan Sewer District (MSD) has been involved in wastewater management since 1946. In 1987 MSD
embarked on a new venture; the development of a utility to fund the stormwater operations in Louisville and Jefferson County. At the same time
MSD also led the initiative to develop a countywide Geographic Information System(GIS). A countywide information organization called
Louisville and Jefferson County Information Consortium (LOJIC) was created. LOJIC represents a multi-agency effort to build a comprehensive
geographic information system. Participants include the City of Louisville, Jefferson County, MSD, and the Property Valuation Administrator
Comprehensive, countywide management efforts can only be accomplished with a well organized, watershed approach and the integrated
management tool of GIS. This paper describes how MSD has used LOJIC as a primary tool to develop the stormwater program and manage the
community's KPDES stormwater permit.
Jefferson County Watersheds
There are 11 major watersheds within the boundaries of Jefferson County, Mill Creek, Pond Creek, South Fork Beargrass Creek, Middle Fork
Beargrass Creek, Muddy Fork Beargrass Creek, Cedar Creek, Pennsylvania Run, Goose Creek, Harrods Creek, Ohio River and Floyd's Fork. The
Ohio River watershed is primarily served by a combined sewer area. Mill Creek and Pond Creek are located in Western Jefferson County and are
characterized by wide flat floodplains and topography. The three Beargrass Creek watersheds are located in Eastern Jefferson County and are
almost fully developed. The eastern portion of Jefferson County is characterized by narrow floodplains, sloping topography and have a high
potential for flash flooding and are undergoing a rapid rate of development.
Watershed Management
Through its own efforts, cooperative efforts with the United States Geological Survey (USGS), and coordination with the County's Comprehensive
Plan Update, MSD is developing a watershed based approach to management of its activities and responsibilities. The pilot work conducted by
MSD in the Cedar Creek watershed, along with the Multi Objective Stream Corridor/Greenway Plan, is defining the policy by which MSD will
plan capital projects and review and approve development from a water quantity (floodplain and floodway) standpoint. A cooperative effort with
USGS to model and monitor water quality in the Beargrass Creek Watershed is being used to define the policy by which MSD will plan capital
projects and review and approve development from a water quality standpoint. A unified policy on watershed management is currently being
drafted by the stormwater planning staff. The following paragraphs are brief descriptions of the programs that make up the watershed effort of
Jefferson County.
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
(PVA).
-------
Stream Outfall and Structure Inventory Program
Through a joint venture between MSD, the Louisville Chamber of Commerce and Jefferson County Public Schools, the discovery and field
screening of stormwater outfalls in five watersheds were conducted in the summers of 1993, '94 and '95. The students while walking the creeks and
recording the outfall data, have also taken photographs of the creek and reported on erosion and condition of channel banks. The participation of
high school students in the field teams generated public interest and awareness of water quantity and quality problems as well as the value of natural
and beneficial function of streams and channels. MSD is systematically following up problems discovered in these projects by evaluating potential
problem outfalls and requiring improper connections to be disconnected.
Comprehensive Planning Coordination
Cornerstone 2020, the Comprehensive Plan Update for Jefferson County, is a monumental effort which involves a majority of the local government
agencies and utility companies. This effort is changing the way land use planning is conducted, and will therefore directly impact the future quality
of stormwater and streams in Jefferson County. Three specific items which will impact water quality are the Multi-use Stream Corridor/Greenway
Plan, the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control Ordinance and the revised Floodplain Ordinance. The Greenway Plan has been adopted as part of
Cornerstone 2020. Both the Soil Erosion and Sediment Control and revised Floodplain Ordinances are currently being developed and will be
adopted in 1996.
Greenways
The Multi-Objective Stream Corridor/Greenway Master Plan for Louisville and Jefferson County was completed in March, 1995. The plan
describes the activities for the next 10 years that are necessary for the development of a successful program. The plan has been adopted as part of
Jefferson County's comprehensive plan update. One of the early actions involves creating a Greenways Commission and a full-time Greenways
Manager position. These individuals will be responsible for administering the implementation of the plan. Some of the primary goals of the plan are
to provide benefits to water quality, flood control, recreation, alternative transportation and plant and animal habitat.
Cedar Creek Watershed Project
MSD has started the comprehensive watershed based master planning process by completing a pilot study in 1994 on the Cedar Creek basin. The
purpose of the pilot study was to identify and develop solutions for water quantity problems, to begin to assess stormwater quality, and to
incorporate the hydrologic and hydraulic computations and work products into LOJIC. The key elements developed in the Pilot Basin Study and
recommended for future master planning efforts are the use of structural and non-structural water quantity management measures, environmental
quality management measures, a public involvement program and plan implementation.
FEMA Floodplain Mapping and Community Rating System (CRS)
MSD, in cooperation with FEMA, has digitized the Jefferson County Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) into the GIS and obtained their approval
by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as the definitive floodplain maps for the county. MSD is now evaluating the need for map
corrections, additions, and revisions, and is exploring ways to accelerate the revision process by using GIS technology.
MSD participates in the Community Rating System of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's National Flood Insurance Program which
rewards communities with floodplain management programs that surpass minimum requirements. The City and the County currently hold Class 7
ratings, which entitle floodplain residents with flood insurance policies to a 15% reduction in premiums. The communities have submitted
applications to reach Class 6 ratings. Only two communities in the United States currently hold ratings better (lower) than Class 7.
Stormwater Permit Report
MSD submitted the Year 2 KPDES Stormwater Permit Report in February 1996. This document reported on the progress and issues with regard to
the stormwater quality management in Jefferson county in 1995. Figure 1 shows one of the watershed maps submitted in the Year 2 report. This
map is an example of the watershed approach that this community is pursuing in both water quantity and water quality. For example the Hazardous
Material Areas are shown as orange triangles on the map.
-------
legend
ct i*,rnmw
^ £*<#«*
o
MSH
KPDES PER!1/!IT REPORT
MID PI ¦ f i irk. liftPKMAfS CREEK
Ujjimr h: .anj .Ju/"c hum Chi C< Mist uj.i-.ili .u St
¥#*' V :^M^r 'r-
>-^r \ -^V^J *'»

Figure 1. KPDES Permit Report.
Each of the triangles have a database attached that describe the location of the site, the nature and type of materials stored at the site and persons in
responsible charge. This information and the power of GIS can be used to assess and trace pollutant discharges as well as manage emergency
situations. In addition to the watershed maps a GIS (LOJIC) file was developed that contains critical information in an interactive format that can be
easily accessed and maintained. The watershed summary sheets shown in Figure 2 also show the type of information available for each watershed.
As MSD moves to a watershed based program additional information and applications will be developed and LOJIC will used as the management
tool.
ACRONYMS
MSD
Metropolitan Sewer District
GIS
Geographical Information System
LOJIC
Louisville and Jefferson County Information Consortium
CSO
Combined Sewer Overflows
PVA
Property Valuation Administrator
FIRMs
Flood Insurance Rate Maps
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
KPDES
Kentucky Pollution Discharge Elimination System
USGS
United States Geological Survey
SQTF
Stormwater Quality Task Force
CRS
Community Rating System
-------
Environmental Protection Agency
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
City of Los Angeles_Stormwater Information
Management System
Blake Murillo, PE, Director of Geographic Information Systems
Psomas and Associates, Los Angeles, CA.
Wing Tam, PE, Engineering Manager
Stormwater Management Division, City of Los Angeles, CA.
Gail Boyd, National Practice Manager for Water Quality
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Portland, OR
Over the past two decades, local, regional, and national-scale research programs have shown that
pollutants discharged from municipal separate storm sewer systems are among the principal causes of
water quality problems in most urban areas. Recognizing this, Congress and USEPA set forth legislation
and regulations (respective) that have required public works managers in most sizeable urban areas to
focus attention on their storm water collection and conveyance systems. The regulations were intended to
get senior management personnel engaged in efforts to consider the following:
¦ What are the physical characteristics of our storm water system?
¦ Where does it discharge to the local receiving waters?
¦ What land uses and activities are served by the system (and contribute pollutants)?
¦ What degree of control do we have over those who contribute pollutants?
-------
¦ What concentrations and annual loads of pollutants are discharged with our storm water?
¦ What do we presently do to minimize those pollutants and their resultant impacts?
For most sizeable municipal public works departments and flood control agencies, the past several of
years' efforts to respond to NPDES permitting requirements have been challenging and illuminating; but
also frustrating. Most applicants learned things about their systems that will help them be better
managers in the future. Most of these applicants are now facing the lack of practical ways to effectively
conceptualize and manage large, complex urban watersheds. To do so will require managers to collect
and consider large amounts of diverse information on a continuing basis.
The City of Los Angeles contains two large and complex urban watersheds. The Santa Monica Bay
watershed is a highly urbanized area draining to a highly popular bay which supports many beneficial
uses including recreation, shellfish harvesting and fish consumption. The Los Angeles River watershed is
also highly urbanized and is additionally burden by the discharges from several treatment plants.
In order to effectively manage the ongoing collection of data,
the City has chosen to develop a Stormwater Management
Information System that is built around a Geographic
Information System (GIS). This Stormwater Information
Management System has many uses and components. Not
only is the system used to track and report on current NPDES
permit activities, it helps predict water quality throughout the
City's extensive storm drain network. Ultimately, both
maintenance personnel and drainage system inspectors will
have a direct link back to the Information System for use in
tracing and recording pollution problems in the field. The
system will also track polluters and violations that have been
identified. The GIS provides a basis for comparing the
geographic patterns of probable pollutant sources, observed
pollution problems, actual management efforts (e.g. structural Figure 1. Watershed Map.
and non-structural Best Managment Practices (BMPs)), and
spending patterns for pollution controls. Associated databases will be used to store monitoring data, to
facilitate periodic compliance reporting, and to develop information for public education and outreach
programs. In concert with this development is the availability of this and other drainage information via
the Internet along with interactive public involvement.
Stormwater Information Management System
The City of Los Angeles' Stormwater Management Division is organized into 6 sections; permit
compliance, financial, engineering, public education, inspection, and monitoring. The mission of this
division is to implement and manage programs that ensure City compliance with Federal, State, and local
-------
flood control and stormwater pollution abatement laws and regulations; to develop programs that ensure
that storm drain discharges do not interfere with the beneficial uses of the City's receiving waters. The
Stormwater Information Management System is designed to respond to both the stormwater pollution
regulations and the City's flood control responsibilities.
The design of the information management system stemmed from numerous workshops and meetings
with each section. These interactions resulted in a conceptual database design and 12 targeted
applications. Top management assigned priorities to each of the 12 applications and common data sets
were identified. The common data sets identified were: (1) street network, (2) parcels, (3) storm drain
conveyance system, (4) land use, (5) hydrologic boundaries (watershed and sub-areas) and (6)
jurisdictional boundaries. The 12 prioritized applications were: (1) water quality model, (2) enhanced
catch basin cleaning tracking, (3) catch basin stenciling tracking and reporting, (4) flood zone inquiry, (5)
FEMA flood plain map revision tracking, (6) repetitive flood loss tracking, (7) school education program
reporting, (8) BMP reporting by council district, (9) corporate sponsor tracking, (10) stormwater
pollution abatement charge tracking, (11) industrial site investigation tracking and reporting, (12)
pollution investigation trace.
Water Quality Model
There are numerous approaches to modeling of pollutant loads. These range from statistically-based (so-
called "spreadsheet") models to complicated physically-based models (e.g. SWMM, HSPF) which
attempt to simulate complex series of actual physical mechanisms (from pollutant accumulation to wash-
off to transport within the storm water collection and conveyance system). There are many pollutant
sources which make it difficult to use complex physically-based models to derive pollutant
concentrations arising from the many activities associated with land uses and other sources. In almost all
actual urban areas, there is simply not enough reliable field information to properly calibrate the very
complex models, so that all of the important source categories will be accounted for. Often, one or two
mechanisms (e.g., build-up/wash-off) are given too much emphasis and are used to account for a very
broad range of fundamentally different sources and mechanisms. Furthermore, the models seldom
account for other sources that are known to be very important (e.g., illicit connections, illegal dumping,
leaching of pollutants). Many of these models, therefore, tend to over-predict the potential performance
of control measures (such as street sweeping) which involve removing the built-up dry-fall particulates
on surfaces .
It is for these reasons, that the City of Los Angeles decided to begin with the use of straightforward,
statistically-based models to estimate and predict runoff quality from urban environments. It should be
noted that EPA has supported and will probably continue to support a considerable series of research and
development efforts to advance the state of the art of storm water modeling. At some future time (if
specific information needs are important enough to justify the time and expense of supporting
sophisticated models with adequate field-derived data), more complex physically-based methodologies
may be applied to the City's needs.
-------
The Water Quality Model takes available rainfall data for a given storm event (from Weather Service
records or local rain gauge readings), applies a basin-specific rainfall/runoff computation to estimate the
runoff volume, and multiply this volume by a seasonally adjusted pollutant concentration coefficient to
compute the pollutant load from the given basin. This process is repeated using different concentration
coefficients for each pollutant of concern. The total load of a given pollutant from a given event is
calculated by summing up the basin-by-basin loads for all basins that are tributary to (i.e., up-gradient
from) the location of interest. The annual loads for a given pollutant are calculated by summing up the
loads for all events in the year. A seasonal variation in the pollutant coefficient helps to account for the
typical summertime buildup of pollutants. The generic equation is of the form:
Yp = SKMapXa
where:
Yp is the calculated total pollutant load for pollutant "p"
K is a seasonal adjustment coefficient
Map is the estimated pollutant concentration for land use "a", pollutant "p"
Xa is the estimated runoff volume generated from land use "a"
S is the summation over all land uses in the watershed
This methodology is similar to the methodology developed under the EPA's Nationwide Urban Runoff
Program (EPA 1983) and recommended by EPA for use in municipal NPDES programs. The
methodology makes good use of (where available) local data for rainfall, land use, and drainage area
characteristics, and, if available, local water quality data.
The water quality model operates completely within the GIS environment. It uses the processing power
of the GIS to retrieve, format and prepare the necessary rainfall, land use, soils and other information for
the drainage area under study. The model allows for 4 preset rainfall events plus 2 user specified events,
and the selection of up to 27 different pollutants to model. "What if analyses can be done by changing
land uses, pollutant coefficients and time of year.
A pilot project to demonstrate the functionality of the water quality model was completed over a 25
square mile area in early 1995. The model was tested and reviewed by City staff and comments and
requests for changes and enhancements were compiled. The final model was completed in December
1995.
Application Development
-------
Many of the other applications have been completed and are in operation. Three noteworthy ones are
discussed here in more detail. The Enhanced Catch Basin Cleaning application helps to analyze and
visualize a pilot project involving a rigorous and regular cleaning of some 1000 catch basins in three
distinct drainage areas of the city. The application allows easy retrieval and analysis of the data including
total paper, soil, plastic, and toxics by catch basin, by cleaning route and by drainage area. In addition the
GIS reports on the land use breakdown of each of the tributary drainage areas. This data is being used to
develop an understanding of any correlation between land use and the debris removed from the catch
basins. This understanding will then feed public awareness efforts and maintenance scheduling over the
remainder of the City.
The Flood Zone Inquiry allows the Stormwater Management Division staff to determine the flooding
potential of any parcel in the City. Previously any request would require staff to gather both City and
FEMA maps, manually overlay the two, make a determination, produce a composite map and letter to be
sent to the requesting party. In this application the uses enters the requesting party's name,the subject
parcel address and the City staff person's name is entered and the GIS automatically generates a letter
sized map of the property and a properly addressed and formatted letter. The manual process required
approximately 2 hours of effort and usually occurred over two days. This application reduces this process
to less than 5 minutes, thereby saving a great deal of time annually.
The pollutant investigation trace utilizes many of the capabilities of the water quality model. This
application helps to target sources of pollutants within a given watershed. A user selects the outfall or
other storm drain location in the city and enters the pollutant of concern. The application determines the
extent of the drainage area to the selected location and then compares the selected pollutant to the
Standard Industrial Classifications (SIC) of each of the parcels within the drainage area. A table
developed by the Stormwater Management Divisions' inspection and monitoring sections is used to relate
the parcel's SIC to possible pollutants. A map showing the parcels with matching pollutant source is
created. A report delineating other information management system information about each parcel is also
created. This report outlines any inspection history, enforcement actions, illegal dumping, or other
information that may be helpful in determining the source of the pollution. Management is able to deal
with real-time problems with a much more structured and targeted process.
Public Access to Information
In keeping with the City of Los Angeles' mission to better serve its citizens and the Mayor's intentions to
capitalize on technology, the Stormwater Management Division has committed to an intense use of the
Internet through the use of the World Wide Web. This use is twofold, first to provide information about
the stormwater program and what the citizens can do, and secondly to provide a vehicle for
communication from the public at large.
Information available from the Stormwater Management Division is comprised of information about
flood control and stormwater pollution abatement activities. Flood control information includes areas on
the history and development of the flood control system within the Los Angeles area, maps showing the
-------
major drainage systems and watersheds, information about
FEMA and flood insurance, and the ability to access the flood
zone inquiry application so that anyone can evaluate the flood
potential of any parcel in the City. There are numbers of forms
to request service or report problems including catch basin
cleaning and areas of flooding. These forms are then
automatically forwarded to the appropriate staff in the City for
action.
The stormwater pollution abatement activities contains areas
that describe the overall program that the City has underway.
Information details the status of the program, extensive
information from the public education section about what
every citizen can do to help cleanup the urban stormwater, and
links to EPA and other related sites for additional stormwater
pollution abatement information. Forms are available here as well to request information to be mailed,
request a speaker for an event, fill out permits and request general assistance.
All of the incoming requests are gathered and reported back as part of the overall management
information system. This data helps Stormwater management understand where issues or problems are
occurring and is used to help schedule staff assignments and the budgeting of expenditures of resources.
Future Planned Developments
The creation of the Stormwater Information Management System over the last 2 years has provided an
eye-opening environment to other possible extensions and uses. Efforts are currently underway to define
and prioritize these added features. All of the features share the common goal of providing management
information that will lead to better decisions about the expenditure of time and money in addressing
stormwater quality and quantity in the City. Additionally, the system is be used extensively in managing
the implementation of a re-newed NPDES permit (expected in late 1996) in the areas of industrial site
investigations, enforcement actions, and city corporation yard management. Some of the other future
expansion features are:
1. Field automation stormwater field inspectors will carry a hand-held pen-based computer. This
computer will have city-wide maps of the storm drain system, GPS capabilities to track location
and forms to fill out during investigations. The system will also include the ability to search
industrial users within each watershed. Management will be able to quickly react to current field
situations and activities.
2. Advanced water quality model features additional and better monitoring data from the Los
Angeles area will provide the opportunity to add advanced features to the model. These features
include preliminary BMP selection and potential benefits, dry-weather flow predictions and

Figure 2. Home Page Design.
-------
adjustments to the seasonality and event mean coefficients. These enhancements will allow the
stormwater engineers to better understand of the working of each watershed and management to
make more informed and better decisions.
3. Operations and maintenance history stormwater engineers need to understand the maintenance
efforts and results of maintenance operations. The information gathered by other departments will
be made available on a system element (pipe, catch basin, debris basin) basis. The long term
history of maintenance efforts will lead to better decisions about future improvements to the
system as well as better management practices.
4. Ultimate system configuration the management system will track the ultimate system designs and
locations. This will assist stormwater engineers in planning the development and improvement of
the system, help the public education section develop materials explaining the changes and
enhancements to water quality, and provide management with the budgeting and prioritization of
improvement information.
Conclusions
The development of a Stormwater Information Management System has provided stormwater managers
the opportunity to define their need for information to make better and more informed decisions. The
collecting, organizing, retrieving and querying of historical data is critical to a stormwater program
manager. Over time, understanding temporal and spatial patterns, where money has been spent, the effect
of that expenditure on water quality, maintenance activities, public awareness or political realities will
become more apparent. The capture and tracking of this information also helps to bridge the
organizational realities of a large municipality. A properly designed and utilized information
management system can help transcend the movement of management staff between departments that
typically carries with it a loss of institutional memory.
The art and science of stormwater quality is still in infancy. The City of Los Angeles has decided to build
a state-of-the-art system to begin to understand the larger, long-term picture of stormwater quality within
its watersheds. The initial step has addressed short term needs and provided the desi gn for the
development of the long term system. The future growth will provide managers with the long term
information to manage and improve a complex urban watershed well into the 21st century.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Spatial Modeling of Aquatic Biocriteria Relative to
Riparian and Upland Characteristics
Leslie A. Zucker, M.S. Candidate
School of Natural Resources, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
Dale A. White, Environmental Scientist/GIS Analyst
Division of Surface Water, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, Columbus,
OH
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
Riparian zones can be viewed as a boundary, or ecotone, that affects the cascade of water, energy,
sediment, nutrients, and molecules between land and water, and within the stream itself (Risser, 1990).
Riparian zones have significant effects on both chemical and physical factors such as light, temperature,
dissolved oxygen, suspended solids, dissolved ions and other materials that play critical roles in
determining an area's suitability for aquatic organisms. The health of aquatic biota is an important
barometer of how effectively environmental goals are being achieved. Biological criteria are direct
measures of aquatic ecosystem condition and are based on measurable characteristics of aquatic
communities such as species richness, key taxonomic groupings, functional feeding guilds, environmental
tolerance, and evidence of stress (Yoder and Rankin, 1995). Ohio EPA compared the sensitivity of
aquatic biota as a measure of environmental impairment to currently accepted assessment methods. The
comparison showed that biological impairment was evident in 49.8 percent of the segments where no
-------
ambient chemical water quality criteria exceedences were observed (Yoder, 1991). Both the biological
and chemical assessments agreed on impairment (or lack thereof) in 47.4 percent of waterbody segments.
These findings suggest the ability of biota to detect impairment in the absence of chemical exceedences
(Yoder, 1991).
The objectives of this study are: (1) to determine patterns of riparian conditions which are beneficial for
instream biological integrity; (2) to characterize watershed stressor and modifier components in a digital
geographic information system (GIS); and (3) to determine the significance of impacts from upland
stressors relative to characteristics of riparian modifiers.
The analysis employed will result in a predictive spatial model that could benefit the preparation of state-
wide water quality summaries like those required under section 305(b) of the U.S. Clean Water Act (P.L.
95 -217). Assessed waters are those for which a state is able to make use support decisions and includes
both "evaluated waters" and "monitored waters." Using this modeling approach in a predictive mode
could potentially increase the number of "evaluated waters" included in a state's 305(b) assessment.
Further, determination of the relative significance of environmental stressors for a given watershed can be
used to aid in prioritization of stressors as part of the watershed protection approach (U.S. EPA, 1995).
An objective method for prioritization could assist in problem identification for "stakeholders" in specific
watersheds.
Model Description
Big Darby Creek watershed is located in west-central Ohio within the Eastern Cornbelt Plains ecoregion.
The watershed drainage area is approximately 1500 square kilometers. The Darby system contains
biological diversity that is exceptional compared to other streams of a similar size located within the
ecoregion. This study area was chosen because land use is dominated by agricultural production with
urban stresses comparatively minor and localized. This configuration of land uses allows the modification
effects of riparian ecotone conditions to be evaluated in the context of primarily agricultural stressors.
The entire Darby Creek watershed was discretized into 51 subbasins in the GIS Arc/Info. Subbasin outlets
were determined by the location of sampling sites for the Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI; Karr, 1981), a
measure of instream biotic integrity used in the establishment of biological criteria (Figure 1). The IBI is a
multi-metric index of fish community health that measures species richness and composition, trophic
composition, and fish abundance and condition. The index ranges in value from 12 to 60, with 60 being a
perfect score.
A predictive model of the relationship between riparian and upland characteristics and biotic integrity was
built using ordinary least-squares regression. The regression model will be of the form:
Rij = bO +bl*slj + b2*s2j + ...bn*snj + eij (1)
where,
-------
Rij is a biological monitoring value, i, (e.g., Index of Biotic Integrity or one of its components) at a
specific stream location j (j = 0);
bn are ordinary least-squares linear regression coefficients;
snj are explanatory variables for various types of stressors and modifiers located upstream of the specified
stream location j; and
eij represents normally distributed model error.
The response variable in this study was the IBI score measured at subbasin outlets. Riparian predictor
variables include metrics for five vegetative cover types considered indicators of riparian conditions:
forest, shrub/brush, grass, cropland, and urban. The predictor variables are derived from the following
riparian and upland characteristics:
¦ Patch variablesmean width (m), proportion of total area, proportion of stream length bordered,
proportion of stream length bordered under 24 m in width, mean perimeter-area ratio, and the
product of mean perimeter-area ratio and patch length.
¦ Run variables mean run length and mean run density.
¦ Upland variables loading (kg/day/km2) of ammonia and loading of biological oxygen demand in
effluent; density of human population within each subbasin calculated from US Bureau of Census
1990 block data.
The extent and width of each riparian cover type was recorded for patches of vegetation observed on
1:40,000 black-and-white air photos of the Big Darby Creek basin. Riparian cover was measured for
streams that appear on a 1:100,000 digital line graph of the drainage network.
When a string of patches of the same cover type existed adjacent to the stream the data was reaggregated
into a "run". Runs were classified into three types based on the left and right bank cover: (1) forest-facing-
forest, or forest-facing-shrub; (2) forest-facing-crop, -grass, or -urban cover, or shrub-facing-shrub; and
(3) crop-, grass-, urban-, or shrub-facing-crop, -grass, or -urban cover. The average length and the density
of each run type within the subbasin was calculated. Density is defined as the number of runs in a
subbasin divided by the total stream length within that basin.
Other upland variables that were not considered in the model included the proportion of basin area in
various land use/cover types interpreted from a classified Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite image. The
land use classification scheme was coarse and indicated that 98 percent of the total watershed area was in
agricultural land use. The resulting lack of variance in land use between the 51 study subbasins indicated
that the predictive power of these variables would be limited.
-------
Model Development
In a multiple regression analysis, an exploratory process allowed for the inclusion and/or exclusion of
each variable into the regression equation (Equation 1). This model selection process was not automated
as is the case for stepwise procedures but was instead iterative in nature. The criteria for model selection
was that predictor variables must significantly improve the model and that predictor variables must
exhibit a reasonable relationship with the response variable, indicated by the sign of the regression
coefficient. The model with the highest multiple r2 and consequently the smallest mean squared error was
selected. The resulting model with the best fit is:
IBI = -17.5 + 0.43*MWIDTH2 - 30.2*DENSITY3 + 58.7*DENSITY2 + 0.07*PW2*MWIDTH2 +
0.03*PAREA1*P1LENGTH24 (2)
Residual standard error: 3.9 (45 df)
Multiple r2 = 0.82
Adjusted r2 = 0.80
The definition and significance of each of the predictors are shown in Table 1. The variance inflation
factor (VIF) measures the combined effect of dependencies among the predictor variables. If the VIF is
greater than 5 or 10 it usually indicates regression coefficients are poorly estimated because of
dependency among predictor variables (Montgomery and Peck, 1982; Table 1). Traditionally predictive
models are validated by splitting the data set in half, one half to develop the equation and the other half to
validate it. Because the number of observations (study subbasins) is small, an alternative method of model
validation was used. Four randomly selected subbasins were withheld and the model was built from the n-
4 observations. The developed model was then used to predict IBI scores for the four withheld subbasins
and this process was repeated 10 times. The resulting best cross-validated model was nearly identical to
the model presented above which suggests the model is reasonable and potentially a valid predictor of
cases that were not used in it's estimation.
Model Analysis
The relative importance of the predictor variables is evaluated by comparing each predictor's unique
contribution to the standardized variance of IBI. As indicated by the squared semi-partial correlations
(Table 1), the most important predictor variable is the interaction term PW2*MWIDTH2 which measures
the total perimeter of forest patches in the subbasin above a sampling point. Both the extent and width of
forested vegetation have a strong positive impact on biotic integrity. The semi-partial correlation
measures the correlation between the IBI and an individual predictor variable independent of the
remaining four predictors. The interaction term PAREA1*P1LENGTH24 is the proportion of grass
vegetation multiplied by the proportion of stream length bordered by grass, indicating that the relationship
-------
between grassed area and biotic integrity is affected positively by the presence of grass buffers. Nearly as
important is the density of runs, or stretches of stream, bordered by shrub vegetation. There are several
reasons why shrub run-density might show a strong positive relationship with biotic integrity. Shrub
vegetation is characterized by high biomass production related to higher rates of nutrient assimilation.
Other benefits might include some shading of the stream, nutrient inputs to the stream in the form of leaf
litter, stabilization of the stream bank, some provision of woody debris, and opportunity for buffering
sediment in overland and overbank flow. Less important but significant is the negative relationship
between density of runs of either grass, crop, or urban land and biotic integrity. The positive relationship
between grass buffer strips and biotic integrity is weakened by this variable.
An analysis of the residuals indicates several trends (Figure 2). Subbasins with IBI scores below 40 tend
to be overpredicted by the model. Areas with IBI scores lower than predicted may be impacted by
stressors that tend to bypass riparian functions. For example, three subbasins in the northeast quadrant of
the watershed, with overpredicted IBI locations, are impacted by cattle access to the stream. Scores in the
lower portions of the watershed are consistently underpredicted. This trend is probably related to the
heavily forested nature of the lower reaches in comparison to the basin as a whole. Prediction errors in
primarily agricultural areas may be related to the types of vegetation and conditions that exist
immediately upstream of the sampling point. For instance, an area of heavily forested vegetation
immediately upstream of a sampling point in an otherwise modified basin could result in a higher IBI
score than predicted.
Conclusions
The success of the spatial model indicates that riparian conditions can modify and buffer the impacts of
stressors across the watershed. However, future predictive modeling efforts should focus on stressors and
the modifying effects of riparian conditions at several scales, including the area immediately above a
sampling location and for whole basin aggregate conditions. Implementation of a spatially-explicit
predictive model (White et al., 1992) over a larger geographic area (e.g., the Eastern Cornbelt Plains
ecoregion) with the use of similar riparian variables is planned for the next phase of analysis. When
sampling locations for biological indicators exist on the same stretch and hierarchical branch of drainage
system, a strong possibility exists for the residual regression error () for those locations to be spatially
autocorrelated. Further exploration will also employ methods for quantifying the degree of spatial
autocorrelation in a sample set and include Moran's I and significance testing of coefficients using
randomization methods.
References
Karr, J.R. (1981) Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries. 6(6):21-27.
Montgomery, D.C. and E.A. Peck (1982) Introduction to Linear Regression Analysis, John Wiley,
New York, NY, 299-300.
-------
Risser, P.G. (1990) The ecological importance of land-water ecotones. In R.J. Naiman and H.
Decamps, eds. The Ecology and Management of Aquatic-Terrestrial Ecotones, Man and the
Biosphere Series, V 4. UNESCO, Paris, 7-21.
U.S. EPA (1995) The watershed protection approach: A project focus, Office of Water, EPA 841-
R-95-003, Washington, D.C., 30+ p.
U.S. EPA (1991) Guidelines for the preparation of the 1992 state water quality assessments
305(b), Washington, D.C., 23+ p.
White, D.A., R.A. Smith, C.V. Price, R.B. Alexander, and K.W. Robinson, (1992) A spatial model
to aggregate point-source and nonpoint-source water-quality data for large areas. Computers and
Geosciences, 18(8): 1055-1073.
Yoder, C.O. and E.T. Rankin. (1995) The role of biological criteria in water quality monitoring,
assessment, and regulation. Ohio EPA Technical Report MAS/1995-1-3. Presented to
Environmental regulation in Ohio: how to cope with the regulatory jungle, February 23, 1995,
Cleveland, Ohio.
Yoder, C. (1991) Answering some concerns about biological criteria based on experiences in
Ohio. Proceedings Water Quality Standards for the 21st Century, US EPA, Criteria/Standards
Division, 95-104.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Improved Enforcement-Valuable Tool for
Watershed Protection-A Local Perspective
Susan V. Alexander
Citizen, Teacher
Throughout the country there seems to be a backlash against the government being involved in the lives
of private citizens. Under the guise of protecting American values, elected representatives at all levels of
government, from my local county commissioner to my federal congresspersons, seem bent on changing
laws and regulations to return rights to ordinary citizens that were never taken away or in danger of being
lost in the first place. This is particularly glaring in the realm of natural resource protection.
Using incidents from my local watershed, the middle Sabine River/Toledo Bend Reservoir drainage, as
examples, I suggest:
¦ The viewpoint that anything connected to "big government" is a cancerous evil that must be
surgically removed from contact with the public deprives citizens of private property rights,
removes individual freedoms, and, in extreme cases like my own, affects private citizens and their
families in profoundly negative ways.
¦ Far from reflecting the will or needs of the majority of Americans, this local, state, and national
movement to weaken consumer safety, natural resource conservation, and other public protection
laws and their enforcement is contrary to what people really want in their daily lives.
The Sabine Watershed-Its Present Condition and History
The Sabine River drainage basin covers most of east Texas and western Louisiana, the river forming part
of the boundary between the two states. Dammed in 1970 to form Toledo Bend Reservoir, the river
-------
marks the eastern boundary of Sabine County. Almost half the area is either national forest land or open
water and river channel. Timber harvesting and plywood manufacturing are the main sources of income.
Poultry production is common in the northern watershed. Unemployment is high, averaging 10% (TEC).
Surrounding counties in the larger watershed have similar land use patterns, population, economy, and
landscape features.
From about 1860 to 1970 the economy and natural resources of the middle watershed followed a boom
or bust cycle. Railroad expansion and mechanized timber cutting and milling favored wholesale harvest
of the virgin pine and hardwood timber and the economy boomed. Wildlife such as black bear, deer,
turkey, bobcat, wolf, and fox suffered, being virtually eliminated by 1920. Cotton and other cash crops
replaced trees until the boll weevil, drought, depression, and soil erosion combined to wipe out most
farms. Abandoned farms were left to re-vegetate naturally. By the 1950's the USFS had purchased much
of the eroded, denuded land and replanted fast growing pine species. The area was restocked with deer
and turkey by the state game and fish agency but unregulated hunting during the 1950's and 1960's and
loss of habitat from the second or third timber harvest again eradicated the deer, turkey, and other
remaining wildlife populations (TXP&WL, USFS,1988). The current (third or fourth growth) tree crop is
mainly low grade pulpwood or chipboard wood.
After the lake was impounded in 1970, Sabine County benefitted greatly from a huge influx of federal
and state funds which built campgrounds, access roads, and boat ramps on public land; again replanted
clear-cut public and private land; and restocked deer and turkey. Tourists and sportsmen discovered the
area adding diversity and money to the local economy. Yet as the county gained more access to the rest
of the state, very little changed about county government.
The Current Anti-Government Attitude Has Serious Consequences
for the General Public and Individual Citizens
Despite its scenic beauty and extensive natural resources, much of the middle watershed has a long
history of few regulations for the health and safety of its citizens and the protection of its environment as
well as a spotty record for enforcement in criminal matters.
Lack of Regulations = Chaos
Sabine County currently has no basic building codes for electrical, structural, or plumbing work, no
septic or sewerage ordinances, no zoning, no animal ordinances or pound, no local health inspector, no
juvenile detention center, no approved landfill, and no county road and bridge construction and
maintenance standards. Inspections by most state agencies are limited to the two small package waste
water treatment plants and minimal evaluation of local restaurants. State inspection of septic tanks, new
or existing, has not been documented.
As a result many homes lack basic sanitary services. Cess pools, waste ponds, and direct discharge of
-------
human waste to land and water are routine. The county is under a rabies quarantine. Many private wells
are inadequately cased. Old dug wells are still used in a few instances. Fire losses are not uncommon due
to inadequate or antiquated wiring and heating systems. We lamely joke about the front page newspaper
story about the wreck of the week, but serious accidents are common on our winding, poorly constructed
and maintained county roads. It is evident from the lack of local ordinances in my watershed, that the
local citizenry and local government place a low priority on laws and regulations, even when those very
laws protect basic human health. Part of this lack of local governmental service stems from ignorance but
part stems from self-deceptive thinking that places a higher value on a person's right to have a cess pool
than on the health of his or her family and the community.
Some People Resent Enforcement of Any Law, Particularly Resource
Protection Laws
State police officers in Sabine County enforce highway safety regulations and parks and wildlife codes.
Texas wildlife laws are significantly different from the state's other natural resource laws (water, air, and
soil). Game wardens, employed by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TXP&WL) are state
certified peace officers who enforce criminal and civil wildlife and outdoor safety laws on both public
and private property. Their presence is often resented as an invasion of privacy. Two viewpoints, both
equally damaging to wildlife, are common. Some people consider wildlife as personal property, like the
soil or vegetation on their land, thus giving landowners the right to use the resource they please. Others
view wildlife as public property, free for the taking by whoever can get the most, first. In both cases, this
often means harvesting as many deer, squirrel, duck, fish, etc. as possible using any means available.
Resentment over the enforcement of game and fish regulations may seem to be out of proportion with the
penalties for a violation since most are misdemeanors (similar to speeding tickets). For our family, this
resentment took an extreme, violent, and irrational form.
Although most counties in Texas had long ago passed local ordinances that outlawed hunting deer with
dogs, in the Sabine River watershed a state law with state enforcement seemed the only way to eliminate
this destructive type of hunting. One was enacted in 1990. Not surprisingly, in Sabine County, no
corresponding local laws have been added to enhance the state ban on hunting deer with dogs and no
local support services exist for dealing with evidence or confiscated property associated with these
crimes.
We were stationed here in 1991, the year enforcement of this locally unpopular law began. As time
passed, my husband, the game warden, became more adept at catching violators and tension escalated.
Threats, ripped tires, annoying phone calls, and other forms of intimidation increased. On the night of
December 4th our almost completed new home was burnt to the ground by some poachers and their
friends who had been arrested earlier that day for illegal hunting (misdemeanor) and tampering (a felony)
with state evidence (the dead fawn).
Local law enforcement officials were slow to act. No arrests or investigations were made the night of the
-------
fire. Three of the arsonists felt so immune to prosecution that they openly drove around town bragging to
friends about the crime later that evening. With pressure from TXP&WL, the sheriff "invited" the Texas
Rangers and State Fire Marshall to investigate. Three days later 3 men were questioned, arrested, then
released on bond. A grand jury met a few months later and handed down a first degree felony charge.
An Anti-Government Attitude Creates a Climate That Encourages
Terrorism and Intimidation-Certainly Not American Family Values
The first trial for the arsonists ended in a mistrial. Although the evidence was overwhelming, the defense
attorney swayed the jury foreman by arguing throughout the trial along the anti-government, anti-
environmental, pro-individual freedom line. During closing arguments the attorney stated, "This is not
really a case about burning an unoccupied building, it is about a plot by the government, namely Texas
Parks and Wildlife, to control, overrun, and deprive the citizens of Sabine County of their rights." (State
of Texas vs. Lennis Bo Rice, 5th Circuit Court, May 24, 1995) He was not just arguing to the jury, the
courtroom was full of sympathizers for the defendant. This argument was an echo of a peculiar set of
values that labels anything to do with government as an infringement of individual freedom.
I believe that some important attitude factors contributed to this tragedy. The criminals and their friends
(who have not been charged or indited) clearly felt they could get away with a blatant crime. The reasons
are probably complex, but it was clear that these criminals felt terrorism, retaliation, and lawlessness
were permissible in Sabine County simply because many people in our area think the dog hunting laws
are unfair. Some of our locally elected officials have perhaps unwittingly contributed to this attitude
through their choice of companions, private opinions, and job performance, but they reflect the attitude
we see from our nationally elected officials. This irresponsible viewpoint sends a strong and dangerous
signal that is short on individual duty and public trust and long on personal gain. I believe this attitude
plays right into the hands of criminals and terrorists individual and corporate ones.
The point is that we need good laws and strong enforcement for protecting everyone's right to clean
water, air, soil, wildlife, and health because there are bad people in the world. There are the criminals
who justified burning our home because they felt the government was depriving them of their right to
poach just as there are people who currently are justifying actions which erode the health and welfare of
many Americans over the long term by allowing unregulated pollution and exploitation of our natural
resources for the short term financial gains of a few. Perhaps the second example is not as obvious as
arson, but I suggest that it is just as serious. It is time that Congress, state legislatures, and local
governments focus on the needs and rights of the majority, for losing sight of the public good has serious
consequences to individuals real people like my family.
Lack of A Government that Provides Support, Service and Protection
is Not What People Really Want
The pendulum of public policy swinging away in capitals across America may not really reflect the will
-------
of the majority, if the majority will just slow down a minute and really think about what it wants. The old
adage "there are no atheists in foxholes" might have some type of corollary applicable to watershed
protection. I have observed that what people tacitly agree with, or even actively say they want, may not
be borne out in their daily actions when the truth often arises.
People want "someone" in government to protect their rights and
property
As one of the few state employees in the county, we get quite a few non-wildlife calls for help (calls are
routed to our home rather than the sheriffs office). These may explain more concretely the discrepancy
between what people say they want, and what they show they want.
¦ My neighbor was burning trash and it caught my shed on fire, come arrest him.
¦ My neighbor's dogs/pigs are all the time running across my land, come get them and tell him to
keep his animals up.
¦ My pond is all green and it stinks like pig manure. Write my neighbor and his pigs a ticket and get
him to clean up my pond.
¦ The pharmacist is dumping chemicals behind his shop, arrest him.
¦ The people up the road keep fishing in my pond without my say so, chase them off, tell them you
will take them to jail if you catch them again.
¦ My neighbor is throwing old fisheads in my bar ditch, go make him clean up the mess.
The problem is not with the complaints, its with the solution. Almost all require action on the part of the
landowner, such as telling trespassers to leave, asking a neighbor to stop objectional behavior or actions,
or actually signing a complaint/filing charges against someone. The people doing the complaining don't
want to do something themselves, they want someone to do their dirty work for them. This is human
nature. Few people want to confront neighbors, some from embarrassment and some from fear of
retaliation. People say they want to, and should be able to do as they please on their own property, but if
something or someone is bothering/hurting them by their actions, they want someone else (the
government) to take care of it. A lack of support or service is not what people demonstrate they want
from their government in times of personal need.
Justifications for Dissolving/Weakening Laws and Enforcement are
Often Not Based on Reality
Attempts to justify dissolving regulatory powers of state and federal officials often use a number of
-------
arguments that do not bear close examination. Peer regulation and self-policing or oversight programs
are touted as one example of effective replacements for state and federal enforcement. Yet if we but look
at how people act, it is doubtful that these type of programs work well. Certainly self or peer regulation is
better than no regulation, but it is unrealistic to expect most neighbors (individual or corporate) to rat on
each other, particularly when there are few laws or penalties to backup the complainant. Let's be realistic,
how can we expect industry to police itself if we can't even ask our own neighbors to return a
lawnmower or stop dumping fisheads?
Other arguments for decentralizing government suggest that local governments are best suited to make
decisions in general a good argument, but there are some exceptions. In some instances local people will
not do what needs to be done to protect the majority. In my county the "ain't no one died yet" philosophy
keeps us from septic tank ordinances, or the taxpayer expense of a sanitarian. In other instances, local
people don't have the resources, financial or otherwise, to deal with problems that go beyond local
jurisdiction. Additionally, local people can, but may not, have or choose to get access to the latest data or
information (it takes time, effort, and some degree of technical knowledge) needed to make informed
decisions.
One particularly misconceived expectation is that local officials are more accountable than state or
federal government people. Local officials are only accountable if someone checks, and even then, in
Texas at least, you can't get rid of them until the next election. To illustrate: before state and federally
mandated redistricting we had four locally elected Justices of the Peace that set fines/punishment for all
classes of misdemeanors. Often the fines were minuscule, $25.00 for a poached deer. Worse, sometimes
the fines were not actually collected, sometimes due to poor bookkeeping and sometimes because the
locally elected constables responsible for their collection just didn't do so. Unless it is blatantly criminal,
local people don't even notice what goes on in local government; they simply do not have the time,
knowledge, or energy to check on their government themselves and state and national consumer safety
and environmental protection watchdog groups cannot track millions of tiny, local actions nor intervene
in thousands of local cases.
Summary
Weakening natural resource laws, regulations, and their enforcement sends the wrong message to the
public, particularly to that element of society looking for a chance to exploit public resources and
individuals under the guise of personal freedom. This is not freedom it is anarchy it encourages actions
that hurt regular, law abiding citizens. People show through their daily actions that they want a
government that protects them and their property. It is the job of our local, state, and national leaders to
provide people with those services and protect those rights, regardless of the pressure applied by either
unscrupulous or well-meaning individuals or groups.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Development of the Use Restoration Waters
Program
Annette Lucas, Environmental Engineer
Elizabeth McGee, Environmental Engineer
Brian Bledsoe, Environmental Engineer
Lin Xu, Environmental Specialist
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management, Water Quality Section,
Raleigh, NC
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Need
The term "nonsupporting designated uses" refers to waters that the NC Division of Environmental
Management (DEM) has rated as poor based on biological, physical or chemical information such that
the uses are no longer attainable. "Partially supporting designated uses" refers to waters that are impaired
but still partially support some classified uses. Widespread examples of partially supporting waters are
SA waters (the highest classification of salt waters in North Carolina) in which shellfishing beds are
closed due to elevated fecal coliform concentrations. It is difficult to restore these waters because of the
great number of possible sources of fecal coliform discharge.
In an effort to address documented water quality problems, DEM has been developing a Use Restoration
Waters (URW) Program. The URW program will allow the state to cooperate with local interests in
developing a mix of mandatory and voluntary measures to restore waters that are not supporting their
uses.
-------
Application of the URW Program
The URW Program will apply to polluted surface waters where the following conditions apply:
¦ Biological, physical and/or chemical data indicate the specific sources of pollution.
¦ A use attainment study indicates that the sources of pollution are not transitory.
¦ It is possible to control the sources of pollution by implementing appropriate management
strategies under the existing authority of the North Carolina Environmental Management
Commission (EMC).
Based on current water quality data, there are approximately 4,300 miles of freshwater streams (or about
1.4 percent of total miles) and about 40,000 saltwater acres (or about 2 percent of total saltwater acres)
that would be potential candidates for URW consideration.
Prioritizing Waters
The Division will place waters that pose a serious health threat, such as toxicity, as a priority over less
serious pollution problems. Secondary priorities will be as follows:
¦ Existing Data Set: DEM will prioritize waters that have extensive existing data sets, including a
USGS gauging station, ambient monitoring records, soils and land use maps.
¦ Public Interest: DEM will prioritize waters that have the support of the public and local agencies
for restoration efforts.
Possible Mandatory Components of the URW Program
The restoration strategies developed under the URW Program will be site-specific to the watershed of the
nonsupporting or impaired water body. The stakeholders will coordinate each URW strategy with other
agencies' programs to create a holistic approach to address the array of pollution problems in the
watershed. The components described below may be implemented as mandatory measures.
Identifying Pollution Sources
To initially target restoration efforts, consideration will be given to water quality ratings based on DEM
monitoring within small watersheds (2,000 to 20,000 hectares). These watersheds have been delineated
by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) and represent the smallest watershed mapping
unit available statewide in digital form. A geographic information system (GIS) will then be utilized in
-------
conjunction with an appropriate watershed scale water quality model and other data sets to further define
the specific sources of use impairment. Potential data sources include:
¦ USGS gauging station data
¦ Ambient chemical monitoring records
¦ Benthic macroinvertebrate and fish tissue monitoring
¦ Digital soils layers
¦ Landsat Thematic Mapper satellite imagery of existing land uses
¦ Aerial photography
¦ Digital land parcel ownership records
¦ 1:24,000 scale digital orthophotos
¦ Digital elevation model
¦ 1:24,000 digital hydrography
¦ Location of existing Best Management Practices (BMPs)
¦ Soil and Water Conservation District records
The data may be compiled through cooperation and partnerships among government agencies, non-profit
groups, businesses and industry. The limit of GIS is that site-specific analyses of pollution sources and
reduction strategies cannot be discerned at the scales of most digital data. At the site-specific level, the
URW program will depend on the local knowledge of community resource agencies and landowners.
Targeting BMPs
BMPs have been the primary method of pollution control for the past 20 years. Recently, researchers and
engineers have given more attention to targeting BMPs that are appropriate and cost-effective for a
particular site. The type of BMP will be dependent on the pollutant to be controlled and geographic
considerations. For example, mandatory agricultural BMPs may include individual permits for animal
operations, nutrient management, controlled drainage, forested riparian buffers. Some mandatory urban
BMPs may include riparian buffers, wet detention ponds, illicit connection programs, constructed
wetlands, infiltration systems,and bioretention areas. In all settings, stakeholders will target BMPs for the
-------
particular site that they intend to serve.
Point Source Control (if necessary)
Depending on the type of pollutant causing the water quality degradation, DEM will consider controls for
point sources. This may require additional or more stringent effluent limitations. It may be necessary for
existing and expanding wastewater discharges to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. The stakeholders
could require new industrial dischargers to demonstrate that discharge is the only environmentally and
economically feasible option and to meet specific limits for certain pollutants.
In addition, a trading option may be considered where dischargers may offset their additional pollution
loads by funding nonpoint source control programs approved by DEM. These programs include
agricultural cost share programs, wetland restoration, urban cost share programs, etc.
Riparian
Buffers
Riparian buffers
may be another
requirement under
the URW program.
Riparian buffer
systems are
streamside
ecosystems that are
managed for the
protection of water
quality. By
maintaining the
stream environment,
buffers control
nonpoint source
pollution. They
remove or buffer
the effects of
nutrients, sediment,
organic matter,
pesticides and other
pollutants prior to
entry into surface
waters and
groundwater
Table 1. Possible Mandatory Components of the URW
Program
Component of Program (Description
Identifying the Problem
Gather existing data set.
Create/utilize a GIS.
Create a watershed scale model.
Test model with data set.
Specifically identify primary pollution sources.
T argeting BMPs
Point Source Controls
(if necessary)
• Specify SMPs that are tailored to the site.
• Obtain funding from appropriate agencies.
• Use model to track BMP effectiveness.
Evaluate existing and expanding dischargers
case-by-case.
Set limits for new dichargers.
Consider the use of offset fees that would fund
BMPs and/or stream restoration projects.
-------
recharge areas. For RiJ^rianbuffcrs"
optimal
performance,
riparian buffer
systems must be
designed and
Determine the potential effectiveness of buffers
on a site-specific basis.
Specify design criteria for riparian buffers.
Obtain funding from appropriate agencies.
maintained to maximize sheet flow and infiltration and impede concentrated flow.
If riparian buffers are required, DEM will coordinate funding from the appropriate agencies. Some
possible sources of funding include: Conservation Easements, NC Division of Water Resources Stream
Repair Funding, NC Agricultural Cost Share Program (ACSP), the Natural Resource Conservation
Service, Federal Agricultural Conservation Program (ACP), and the Federal Scenic and Wild Rivers
Program.
Possible Voluntary Components of the URW Program
A team of stakeholders will coordinate voluntary efforts to complement the mandatory components of
the URW program. Some of these voluntary efforts may include the following.
Creating a Team of Stakeholders
Each site-specific strategy would be developed in coordination with a team of stakeholders who would
include citizens, environmental groups, industrial interests, and local, state, and federal agencies.
Voluntary aspects of the URW program may include incentives for the stakeholders. For example, the
state may offer low-interest loans and technical guidance to a community if the community contributes
toward costs and organizes the project with citizen participation.
Ecosystem
Restoration
Although reducing
nonpoint and point
sources of pollution
will be the primary
emphasis of the
URW program, the
stakeholders should
also consider the
structural and
functional integrity
of the entire aquatic
Table 2. Possible Voluntary Components of the URW
Program
Component of Program
Description
Creating a Team of
Stakeholders
Invite citizens, environmental groups,
industrial interest, and local, state, and
federal agencies to participate.
Look for incentives for stakeholders to
participate.
-------
ecosystem. When a
stream ecosystem,
including the
adjoining floodplain
and tributaries, has
been radically
disturbed, recovery
may be an
extremely
prolonged process.
In such cases,
reducing the
pollutant input only
represents a partial
solution.
Several aquatic
ecosystem
restoration
initiatives in North
Carolina currently
tend to operate
independently
without prioritizing and consolidating their effort; these efforts include the NRCS Wetland Reserve
Program, state funding for stream restoration, restoration efforts of environmental organizations, and
mitigation requirements. To coordinate these initiatives, the state is developing a Wetland Restoration
Program that would provide statewide leadership in targeting and consolidating wetland and riparian area
restoration projects. The Wetland Restoration Program and the URW program could combine site-
specific pollutant reduction strategies with targeted ecosystem restoration efforts and greatly increase the
ecological effectiveness of both programs.
Ecosystem Restoration
• Determine if riparian area restoration is
necessary.
• Coordinate ecosystem restoration efforts
with the Wetland Restoration Program and
other relevant agencies.
Public Education
• Obtain information about existing
environmental education programs that
pertain to the URW Program.
• Determine which audiences need additional
education about the URW.
• If possible, tailor existing programs to URW
needs.
• If necessary, obtaian funding from
appropriate agencies for educational
programs.
Coordinating Existing
Programs
• Develop cooperative relationships relevant
agencies.
• Consolidate and target overlapping efforts.
Public Education
Public education programs prevent environmental problems before they occur rather than treating them
later. An effective URW strategy must involve a strong educational component. Regulation and technical
assistance, without education, are not sufficient to influence the daily decision making by each individual
living in a watershed. Public education programs are often implemented through cooperation and
partnerships among government agencies, non-profit groups, businesses, and industry. These will be
coordinated and strengthened under the URW program.
An important component of the program will be to inventory environmental education materials.
Materials, such as pamphlets, workshops, exhibits, outings, and soil testing material, could be
-------
components of an existing environmental educational program. Stakeholders should look for gaps in the
distribution and publicity of existing programs. If necessary, the stakeholders should produce and
distribute a "user friendly" guide to pollution prevention to citizens, businesses, and industries. The
stakeholders should search for opportunities for state, federal and local government agencies to support
environmental education in their URW watershed.
Coordination of Existing Programs
Developing interagency cooperation in targeting existing incentives and funding for agricultural and
urban best management practices will be another key component of the URW program. Cost-share
practices providing resources for implementation of various BMPs are administered somewhat
independently by multiple agencies without rigorous prioritization for cost-effectiveness. The URW
program will attempt to develop cooperative relationships among these agencies so that overlapping
efforts can be consolidated and targeted to maximize restoration of designated water body uses.
Conclusion
The URW program will be a coordinated and holistic effort to address documented water quality
problems. In order to be effective, the URW program will include a mix of mandatory and voluntary
programs. The mandatory programs will be coordinated on a site-specific basis by DEM. The voluntary
programs will be coordinated by a group of stakeholders who have an interest in the impaired water body
and associated watershed. In addition, the URW program will attempt to develop cooperative
relationships among these agencies so that overlapping efforts can be consolidated and targeted to restore
designated water body uses.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Optimal Trading Between Point and Nonpoint
Sources of Phosphorus in the Chatfield Basin,
Colorado
Keith Little, Water Resources Engineer
Consultant, Denver, CO
Bruce Zander, Environmental Engineer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Denver, CO
Introduction
Nutrients continue to be the most often-reported pollutant causing use impairments in lakes and reservoirs
throughout the nation (EPA, 1995). The source of these nutrients in many watersheds tends to be a
combination of point sources (PS's) and nonpoint sources (NPS's) thus prompting the need to look at
ways of managing these sources in a balanced fashion. In addition, the US Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has recently published a policy that acknowledges the benefits of pollutant trading
between and among the various sources within a watershed as a means of reducing costs in the course of
meeting Clean Water Act objectives (EPA, 1996). This paper examines PS/NPS trading from an
economic efficiency perspective in the Chatfield Basin of Colorado. The trading issue considered is to
find the optimum PS/NPS tradeoff of total phosphorus such that total costs are minimized while still
achieving an acceptable overall reduction level in the watershed. It was determined that a relatively high
degree of PS treatment (1.0 to 0.5 mg/1 effluent total phosphorus) should be attained before structural
NPS controls become cost-effective. It is believed that this finding perhaps more importantly
demonstrates the economic costs of failing to use source controls, as opposed to structural controls, to
prevent NPS pollution in the first place.
ft
/r'.
-------
Background
Chatfield Reservoir is a US Army Corps of Engineers owned and operated facility located on the South
Platte River just southwest of Denver, Colorado. The Reservoir was completed in 1976 for purposes of
flood protection for the metropolitan Denver area following the disastrous South Platte flood of 1965.
Since that time, Chatfield Reservoir, which is now a State Park, has become increasingly popular as a
recreational facility and concern over possible decreases in water quality due to upstream nutrient
loadings has arisen. The in-Reservoir total phosphorus standard has been set at 0.027 mg/1 to be protective
of a seasonal chlorophyll-a goal of 0.017 mg/1. The 0.027 mg/1 phosphorus standard corresponds to a total
maximum annual load (TMAL) of 59,000 pounds. (The standard and the corresponding TMAL are highly
uncertain, however, and additional in-Reservoir water quality modeling is planned to better estimate the
relationship between the standard and the chlorophyll-a goal.)
Figure l.Cahtfield Basin and Plum Creek Study Area.
-------
The upstream watershed, called here the "Chatfield Basin" and shown in Figure 1, encompasses a total
area of approximately 3,000 square miles and covers portions of six counties. It includes the headwaters
of the South Platte River and extends westward to the continental divide and south almost to Colorado
Springs. The South Platte River portion of the basin is largely undeveloped and includes portions of the
Pike National Forest and the Mount Evans Wilderness area. Some small urban areas and agricultural uses
are also present. The eastern portion of the Chatfield Basin is comprised of the Plum Creek watershed,
approximately 300 square miles in area. The Plum Creek watershed, although predominantly rural, is
much more intensively developed than the South Platte River drainage and is believed to contribute the
majority of the nutrient loads to the Reservoir. The estimated 1995 total annual raw (no PS or NPS
removal) load to the Reservoir from the entire Basin under l-in-10 year high runoff conditions is
approximately 207,000 pounds. Thus, under the current TMAL estimate, some 148,000 pounds (207,000 -
59,000) need to be removed to maintain the total phosphorus standard.
In 1992, a watershed management study was performed by Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC, 1992)
of Denver for the Chatfield Basin Authority, the intergovernmental management agency for the Chatfield
Basin. The WCC study determined that the source of annual phosphorus loading was overwhelmingly
from nonpoint origins and that control of these NPS's would be needed to meet the in-Reservoir
phosphorus standard. Despite the state regulation requiring 0.2 mg/1 effluent phosphorus for the Plum
Creek publicly owned treatment works (POTWs), only one discharger had managed to achieve
compliance at the time of the WCC study.
Understandably, following the WCC determination that PS's of phosphorus are dwarfed by the remaining
nonpoint component, the remaining POTWs were reluctant to proceed further with meeting the regulation
without reassurance that additional PS removal was indeed cost-effective. The Colorado Water Quality
Control Commission (Co WQCC) agreed and relaxed effluent limits to 1.0 mg/1, a level that could be met
without extraordinary capital construction, until such time as the appropriate PS/NPS phosphorus load
allocation (PS/NPS LA) could be better determined. This study (WCC, 1994) examined that issue and
was funded by EPA.
Scope and Objectives
This study examined the PS/NPS LA issue for those portions of the Chatfield Basin that discharge
directly into Chatfield Reservoir, i.e. the Plum Creek subbasin, the South Platte subbasin downstream of
Strontia Springs Reservoir, and several smaller subbasins contiguous to Chatfield Reservoir ("Plum Creek
Study Area" on Figure 1). These subbasins were identified in the WCC NPS Plan as high priority
subbasins for examination of NPS control measures. Those portions of the Chatfield Basin not considered
in this study are generally much less developed than the contiguous subbasins. In addition, they are also
tributary to one or more other reservoirs. Thus, at least from the perspective of protecting water quality in
Chatfield Reservoir, these upstream reservoirs can effectively be thought of as existing NPS controls.
That is not to say that NPS controls do not need to be considered in those subbasins; however, any such
controls would serve largely to protect water quality in the upstream reservoirs, with only secondary
benefits to Chatfield.
-------
The overall objective of the study, from the local perspective, was to determine the optimal (minimum
cost) total phosphorus PS/NPS LA in the Plum Creek Study Area. Specifically, the optimal PS/NPS LA
was determined as a function of total phosphorus load required to be removed annually. Thus, for a given
annual load that should be removed to protect water quality, the cost-effective tradeoff between point and
nonpoint treatment can be determined from this function. From EPA's perspective, an additional study
objective was the development of a methodology to determine cost-effective PS/NPS trading schemes,
not only in the Chatfield Basin but potentially applicable in other watersheds as well. Thus, the
methodology presented in this paper, while described specifically for the Chatfield application, is
transferable in principle to other watersheds.
Treatment Costs
Twenty year present worth treatment cost functions were developed for both PS's and NPS's. PS costs
included only the additional costs (capital and operating) to remove phosphorus by chemical means, and
were based on data from EPA (1987) and Murphy and Associates (1983). NPS treatment costs assumed
that stormwater detention basins were the preferred best management practice (BMP) type, and were
based on data provided by Schueler (1987).
An optimization analysis was first performed to develop the minimum cost wasteload allocation function
for PS's only. This optimization determined, for any given total annual load removed by PS's, the least
cost means of attaining this removal among the six PS dischargers. The marginal cost principle was the
basis of the optimization such that a given annual load removed was allocated among the dischargers in
accordance with their marginal treatment costs. The result of this analysis was a function yielding
minimum present worth PS treatment cost as a function of total annual phosphorus load removed among
the dischargers (Figure 2).
Optimal Point Source WLA
IB
16
14
Costs
FW "
n ^ IB
(Ml) B
0 2Q 4D ID SO 1DU 123 141
Annual Load Removed
(1000 lb)
-------
Figure 2. PS and NPs Minimum Cost Functions.
Optimal Nonpoint Source LA
Similarly, a function relating minimum treatment costs for NPS's only as a function of total annual NPS
load removed was developed. Given that some 40 discrete (non-contiguous) urbanized areas exist within
the Plum Creek Study Area, this optimization problem was essentially whether to build 40 individual
detention basins, 1 regional detention basin, or some number in between. This optimization problem was
originally formulated as a mixed-integer linear program, but proved prohibitively time-consuming to
solve. Instead, a more conventional approach was taken wherein a limited number of alternatives were
individually costed and the minimum selected. A single, regional detention basin was determined to be
the optimal configuration. (The mixed-integer linear programming model, "BMPOPT", has since been
improved and is described elsewhere in these Proceedings.)
Under the assumption that NPS controls should be protective of the Reservoir during 90 percent of years,
a time series of runoff events representing the 1-in-10-year hydrology was developed. Phosphorus loads
were also developed for these events, and the design time series was then routed through the regional
detention basin for each of a variety of alternative basin volumes. For each alternative basin volume, the
routed time series of runoff and phosphorus loads resulted in a total annual load removed by the detention
basin. The result of the analysis thus yielded minimum NPS treatment costs as a function of total annual
load removed among NPS's only (Figure 2).
Perhaps surprisingly, the optimal NPS cost function in Figure 2 reveals much higher costs for NPS
phosphorus control than PS controls. This cost difference is attributable to at least the following factors:
(1) the use of structural BMPs, (2) the choice of capturing runoff from the l-in-10 runoff year, instead of
a more typical year, and (3) the relative ineffectiveness of detention basin phosphorus removal (assumed
at 45 percent). It is not known to what extent these relative cost differences might also apply in other
watersheds.
Optimal PS/NPS LA
The optimal PS and NPS load allocation functions are shown together in Figure 2. Each represents the
minimum cost of removing load from that source only. The PS/NPS LA question is then: What is the
function representing optimal allocation between PS's and NPS's?
The optimal PS/NPS LA function was developed by solving a series of nonlinear programming models.
The decision variables were: XI = annual load removed by PS's and X2 = annual load removed by NPS's
(during 90th percentile year). The objective function was: MIN [Cost(Xl) + Cost(X2)] where Cost(Xl) is
the minimum present worth cost function for PS's, discussed previously, and Cost(X2) is the minimum
present worth cost function for NPS's, also discussed previously. Constraints on the optimization model
were that XI plus X2 equal the total annual load removed and, further, that XI and X2 must be less than
or equal to technological upper limits.
-------
The nonlinear programming model model was
solved for a variety of total annual loads removed.
The resulting minimum cost PS/NPS LA function is
shown in Figure 3 and the specific allocation
between PS and NPS in Figure 4. Interestingly, but
perhaps not surprisingly given the high NPS costs,
PS's are used exclusively to remove phosphorus up
to an annual removal of approximately 128,000
pounds. Beyond this, it becomes economical to
begin removing some of the additional load by
detention basins. Thus, of the currently estimated
148,000 pound annual load to be removed, the first
128,000 pounds would most economically be
140
iao
100
LA so
(1000 lb) eo
40
ao
o

/V
PS
f
y
s
L
NPS
100
150
£00
Annual Load Removed
(1000 lb)
Figure 3. Minimum Cost Function
achieved by the PS's with the remaining 20,000 pounds to be removed by a regional detention basin. The
128,000 pound PS WLA corresponds to a uniform effluent concentration among all 6 dischargers of
approximately 0.5 mg/1. (Given the study assumptions and uncertainties, this concentration is not
considered to be significantly different than the 1.0 mg/1 effluent concentration tentatively established by
the Co WQCC.)

35
PW
30
Costs
15
(M$)
10

J
0

J
0 50 100 150 300
Annual Load Removed
(1000 lb)
Figure 4. Optimum Load Allocation Schedule.
Conclusions
The immediate conclusion from this study is that there is indeed an economically optimal balance
between PS and NPS controls, which can be determined as a function of load to be removed using
methodologies similar to those discussed here. PS/NPS trading decisions made without knowledge of this
cost-effective balance can result in significant cost inefficiencies.
Beyond this obvious result, a secondary conclusion emerges. There seems to be a prevailing belief in the
watershed management community currently that removal of NPS pollutants constitutes almost a panacea
for water quality problems, because NPS removal is regarded as generally less expensive than PS
-------
controls. However, the results of this study suggest, at least for the Chatfield Basin, that structural NPS
control is not nearly as cost-effective as might have been previously believed a relatively high level of
PS phosphorus removal is economically efficient before structural NPS controls are appropriate.
It is not known to what extent this secondary conclusion might apply in other watersheds. If it is
applicable beyond the Chatfield Basin, the authors believe that the real value of this study lies not so
much in guiding phosphorus allocation between PS's and structural NPS's, but rather in quantifying the
economic costs of failing to prevent NPS pollution in the first place. If source controls (e.g., erosion
control, agricultural BMPs) are not in-place and effective at preventing NPS pollution, structural controls,
such as the detention basins used in this study, are then necessary. As demonstrated here, this after-the-
fact treatment is very expensive.
References
EPA. (1978) Handbook-Retrofitting POTWs for Phosphorus Removal in the Chesapeake Bay
Drainage Basin. Water Engineering Research Laboratory. Cincinnati, Ohio. September.
EPA/625/6-87/017.
EPA. (1995) National Water Quality Inventory: 1994 Report to Congress. Office of Water, US
Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC. December.
EPA. (1996) EPA Policy Statement on Effluent Trading in Watersheds. Office of Water, Office of
Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, Office of General Counsel, US Environmental
Protection Agency. Washington, DC. January.
Schueler, T.R. (1987) Controlling Urban Runoff: A Practical Manual for Planning and Designing
Urban BMPs, prepared for the Washington Metropolitan Water Resources Planning Board. July.
WCC. (1992) Nonpoint Source Management Plan for the Chatfield Basin, Colorado.
WCC. (1994) Optimal Phosphorus Load Allocation for Portions of the Chatfield Basin, Colorado.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Opportunities and Obstacles in Watershed-Based
Regulatory Programs: The Stormwater Initiative in
Massachusetts
Pamela D. Harvey, Deputy General Counsel
Department of Environmental Protection, Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Introduction
The merits of using the watershed as the basic hydrologic unit are recognized. Relying solely on the
watershed approach for regulatory programs is more problematic for several reasons. Existing
regulations based on permitting by resource agencies largely ignore the boundaries of the resource that
they are designed to protect. State agencies have historically instituted regulatory approaches which
create a "level playing field" for permittees statewide, rather than tailor the level of protection to unique
circumstances of each watershed. Local government may play a significant role in environmental
permitting, but municipal and watershed boundaries are not aligned. Sources of water quality impacts
may not be susceptible to traditional permitting because they are predominantly nonpoint source or
stormwater point sources. Local governments sharing a watershed may not share legal mechanisms to
control or influence activities within the watershed.
The Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, working in cooperation with the Office of
Coastal Zone Management, proposes to combine watershed and nonwatershed-based approaches in
developing a comprehensive program to address the impacts of stormwater. Massachusetts has extensive
but overlapping authority to regulate stormwater discharges, but has lacked a coordinated and
consistently implemented program. The stormwater initiative envisions combining technical guidance for
review of new development primarily at the local level with a watershed-based approach for state
assessment and remediation of water quality problems from existing stormwater discharges. An advisory
committee of stakeholders was convened to discuss performance standards and implementation, which
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
will result in a blend of traditional permitting and the watershed approach.
The Watershed Approach in Massachusetts
The Massachusetts Watershed Initiative envisions a partnership of government, environmental, and
business groups within each watershed to improve water quality. Local in focus, the initiative emphasizes
grass-roots efforts to prevent or remediate pollution at its sources. A methodology to support these efforts
includes outreach and technical assistance, assessment, planning, and plan implementation including
permitting and enforcement. Some funding for improved watershed management is anticipated from the
state. State resource agency activities have been reoriented to implement the watershed approach. Teams
of agency staff are assigned to each basin and are responsible for supporting watershed management
within each watershed on a rotating schedule from outreach to assessment, through planning to
permitting. Activities that were performed ad hoc and in isolation, such as NPDES/MA surface water
discharge permits and regulation of groundwater withdrawals, will be performed at the same time so that
relationships within and between water resources are addressed. The five-year rotating schedule for
agency staff activities identifies a single focus each year to be performed in each basins: reconnaissance,
information development, assessment, solutions (including NPDES permit issuance), and evaluation.
Regulations covering stormwater discharges predate the watershed approach. Under the state Clean
Waters Act, MGL c. 21 ss. 23-56, a permit is required for a conveyance for stormwater runoff that is
"contaminated" by contact with raw materials, toxic substances, or oil and grease. "Contaminated" has no
regulatory definition. Stormwater may also be designated for a permit on a case-by-case basis as a
significant contributor of pollution to state waters. Due to limited administrative resources,
Massachusetts has rarely issued permits for stormwater discharges.
The Wetlands Protection Act in Massachusetts
While the Watershed Initiative is relatively new, Massachusetts also boasts the oldest and perhaps the
most successful wetlands protection program in the nation. Since the 1960s, the comprehensive statute
has both directly and indirectly provided protection of water resources. Administration is shared by local
and state government. The regulations apply statewide in all watersheds, and the permit process is ad hoc
as developments are proposed, in contrast to the watershed context and schedule for NPDES/MA
permits.
Under the Wetlands Protection Act, MGL c.131 s.40, local conservation commissions and the
Department have responsibility for ensuring wetlands protection through the issuance of permits for
activities in floodplains and in or near wetlands and waterbodies. The public interests served by the act
are public and private water supplies, groundwater supply, prevention of pollution, flood control,
protection of land containing shellfish, protection of fisheries, storm damage prevention, and protection
of wildlife habitat. Proposed work in a resource area, and within a 100 foot buffer zone if it will alter any
resource area, requires a permit. Resource areas include freshwater and coastal wetlands, banks, beaches,
and dunes bordering on estuaries, streams, ponds, lakes, or the ocean; land under any of these water
-------
bodies; and land subject to tidal action, coastal storm flowage, or flooding. Resource areas are protected
by specific regulatory performance standards that must be met to obtain project approval (e.g., except for
limited circumstances, no more than 5000 sq. ft. of bordering vegetated freshwater wetlands may be
altered and any filled area must be replicated).
Although stormwater discharges clearly implicate most of the public interests that the Wetlands
Protection Act is designed to safeguard, the regulations have no specific provisions for stormwater.
However, the authority to regulate stormwater is implicit in the regulations. For example, routing of
stormwater can trigger jurisdiction by altering drainage characteristics, sedimentation patterns, flow
patterns, flood detention areas, water temperature, and affect the physical, chemical, or biological
characteristics of the receiving water. In addition, the performance standards often indirectly require
control of stormwater discharges, such as the prohibition on the impairment of surface water quality for
work on banks or land under water. In the absence of a NPDES permit, local conservation commissions
and the Department of Environmental Protection are instructed to impose conditions on the quality and
quantity of discharges from either closed or open channel point sources to protect the interests of the act
provided the point source is within a resource area or the buffer zone.
In addition Massachusetts' new 401 certification regulations for Corps of Engineers' 404 permits for
discharge of dredge and fill material contain explicit provisions for stormwater management. No fill in
natural wetlands is allowed for pollutant attenuation; fill in wetlands for any stormwater management
purpose or any direct stormwater discharges to outstanding resource waters (in Massachusetts, surface
water supply reservoirs and tributaries, certified vernal parts, and any other designated areas) is
prohibited. This program is implemented by the state on an ad hoc basis as development is proposed
rather than through the watershed process.
The Massachusetts Stormwater Initiative
Although authority to require stormwater management in Massachusetts is evident under the Wetlands
Protection Act, the state Clean Waters Act, and the new 401 certification regulations, stormwater
discharges are causing water quality problems. While industrial and municipal treatment facilities have
greatly improved the quality of their discharges, most stormwater continues to flow untreated into
wetlands, lakes, ponds, streams, and coastal areas. Stormwater runoff combines with failing septic
systems and erosion to be primarily responsible for the 44% of Massachusetts' main rivers and 60% of
assessed coastal waters failing to meet standards for fishing and swimming.
The Stormwater Initiative will implement a regulatory and outreach program designed to address the
discharge of untreated stormwater runoff by promoting effective stormwater management practices. This
program will simplify the existing system, which is currently inefficient for regulated parties and
regulators alike. The initiative relies on existing ample statutory and regulatory authority, but improves
coordination and consistency to ensure that projects with stormwater impacts are adequately reviewed.
The goal is streamlined, enforceable, and predictable permitting and enforcement which will improve
water quality and decrease flooding impacts, leading to both economic and environmental benefits.
-------
Central to this effort is the development of stormwater performance standards to establish uniform
criteria for adequate stormwater management and a best management practices (BMP) manual as
supplementary guidance. These standards are intended to be consistent with the requirements of the
Wetlands Protection Act, the Clean Waters Act, and 401 certification. The standards establish design
criteria that will require implementation of stormwater management systems to reduce water quality and
flooding impacts. This can be accomplished within the existing regulatory framework through policy
development and clarifications by the Department. The BMP manual will link the standards to specific
project types (e.g., subdivisions, parking lots) through a menu of BMPs that are appropriate. Codification
may follow after an interim period to evaluate the approach and assess the results.
Generally, local conservation commissions and the Department of Environmental Protection will
concentrate on assuring adequate stormwater management from new developments through the Wetlands
Protection Act and the 401 Water Quality Certification Program. These permits provide an enforceable
mechanism to prevent water quality impairment from stormwater discharges. The stormwater
performance standards are intended to improve the review and permitting of projects at both the state and
local levels. Where necessary, the Department of Environmental Protection may designate a very large
project as a significant contributor of pollutants requiring a surface water discharge permit (the state
equivalent of a NPDES permit).
When sites are redeveloped, regardless of whether the discharge is direct or indirect, local conservation
commissions will use their authority under the Wetlands Protection Act and regulations to review
projects for impacts from stormwater, provided jurisdiction is established. These sites will be subject to
the stormwater standards as appropriate, to avoid disincentives to redevelopment as opposed to
developing new areas. Sites proposed for redevelopment which are outside the jurisdiction of the
Wetlands Protection Act pose additional problems, because the stormwater may be discharged through
existing conveyances to wetlands and water bodies.
The Stormwater Initiative uses the watershed approach for addressing stormwater impacts from existing
development. Existing sites with direct stormwater discharges impacting water quality will be identified
through watershed water quality assessments. Addressing stormwater impacts from existing discharges
raises more difficult problems than from new development. Existing discharges fall into several
categories: sites not proposed for redevelopment contributing to road runoff and/or municipal stormwater
systems, sites proposed for redevelopment contributing to roads or municipal systems, direct discharges
from sites, direct discharges from roads, and direct discharges from municipal storm sewer systems.
However, impacts from any of these sources can be identified through water quality sampling and
assessment, an integral part of the watershed approach.
Municipal stormwater systems present a range of special problems, including the presence of illegal
connections to sanitary sewers, large volumes of road runoff, and contaminated contributions from other
sites. Often municipalities have been more concerned with the capacity of the system than with water
quality. As each watershed begins the assessment process, municipalities will be assisted in improved
oversight of contributors to their storm sewer systems, particularly through the implementation of
-------
municipal BMPs. Where municipalities are causing water quality impairments from their stormwater, the
Department of Environmental Protection will take enforcement action, using a consent order or other tool
to force improvements. Reliance on enforcement provides a necessary incentive to actually bring about
water quality improvements. Enforcement will be combined with education to promote stormwater
pollution prevention throughout each watershed.
Conclusion
An idealized political map might redraw town and state boundaries according to watersheds. Then an
idealized stormwater program could base decision making on the particularized circumstances of each
watershed. But in the search for real world solutions, the watershed approach need not ignore existing,
highly successful water resource protection programs simply because they are not implemented on a
watershed basis. As long as political boundaries fail to correspond to watersheds and legal authority
flows to state and local government, hybrid programs of watershed and nonwatershed approaches are a
necessity. The stormwater initiative designed for Massachusetts draws on the strengths of traditional
existing programs and the new watershed approach, while sharpening the focus of each to generate
improvements in water quality.
Regulatory References in the Code of Massachusetts Regulations
(CMR)
310 CMR 10.00 Wetlands Protection Act regulations
314 CMR 3.00 Surface Water Discharge Permits regulations
314 CMR 4.00 Massachusetts Surface Water Quality Standards
314 CMR 9.00 401 Water Quality Certification regulations
(Opinions presented in this paper are those of the author and do not reflect official positions of the
Department of Environmental Protection or other executive agencies or offices of the Commonwealth of
Massachusetts.)
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Indicators of International Progress
Ethan T. Smith, Supervisory Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Martin P. Bratzel
International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Through the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement, the Governments of the United States and Canada
(the Parties) are committed "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the
waters of the Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem." For more than two decades, numerous programs and
measures have been undertaken toward this purpose. Article VII of the Agreement assigns important
responsibilities in this effort to the International Joint Commission.
To fulfill its mandate to evaluate Agreement progress and provide advice to governments, the
Commission requires data and information. Over many years, the Commission has carried out analysis of
substantial quantities of data provided by the Parties on ambient conditions and pollutant loadings. The
Commission determined a requirement for identification of indicators to evaluate Agreement progress.
Consequently, in 1993 it established an Indicators for Evaluation Task Force to develop a framework
within which to conduct evaluation and develop advice. From the outset the concentration of the Task
Force was on integrative indicators of ecosystem integrity.
Recognizing that the ecosystem is complex and dynamic, the Task Force undertook to develop an
appropriate framework and indicators which would facilitate the Commission's evaluation of Agreement
progress. The framework, desired outcomes, and indicators focus principally on environmental
conditions, recognizing that changes in the state of the Great Lakes ecosystem implicitly reflect the
effectiveness of the actions undertaken to fulfill the obligations of the Agreement. If the framework
functions as intended, it may provide useful guidance to encourage governments and others to consider a
set of desired outcomes and associated indicators, as well as what data and information are necessary to
-------
evaluate progress under the Agreement, as part of the context for determining actions.
Indicators
Environmental indicators communicate information about the environment and the factors that affect it.
Communication should be done so that the indicator highlights problems and draws attention to the
effectiveness of current policies. Target audiences include the public as well as decision makers. To
command their attention, indicators must be relevant to the problem at hand. Choosing an indicator
conveys the message that it is intrinsically important. Examples of effective indicators are the Dow Jones
industrial average, the gross domestic product, incident solar radiation, and pollen count.
Indicators should quantify information to make significance apparent, and simplify information to
improve communication. Indicators must be easy to grasp. They often possess one of the following
characteristics: either an indicator is in some way arithmetically related to some set of subordinate
measurements, or an indicator is a surrogate, standing for a set of measurements that are somehow
related to the chosen indicator. In most cases an indicator is highly aggregated in some manner.
Indicators must be chosen and presented in such a way that a misleading impression is not created in
regard to nature of the environmental condition addressed; balance is important.
In the case of the Agreement, indicators should answer such questions as:
¦ How clean is the ecosystem; what are present ambient conditions?
¦ Are trends in the right direction; how quickly are we making progress toward achieving desired
outcomes?
¦ What and where are the problems; have cause and effect relationships been established?
¦ Are present programs and processes working; will we achieve desired outcomes?
¦ Can we detect the onset of deleterious conditions and react before significant impact occurs?
The Task Force has structured its view of indicators around the pressure-state-response (PSR) model,
developed by Canada and adopted by other organizations. The main categories in the PSR framework
are:
¦ Direct and indirect pressures, including human activities that cause environmental change.
¦ The physical, chemical, and biological condition or state of the natural world, plus human health
and welfare.
-------
Responses or changes in policy or behavior by humans to address environmental conditions.
The Task Force identified indicators to help evaluate Agreement progress toward desired end points.
However, it did not quantify the end points for each desired outcome; it did not develop measurable
targets to tell us when we have arrived. This task appeared to be one more suited to a joint effort of the
stakeholders concerned about this region.
Framework for Evaluation of Agreement Progress
The framework, which incorporates the PSR model, consists of five components: the Agreement
purpose, desired outcomes, relevant data and information, stresses, and programs and policy. In applying
the framework, assumptions are made about stresses, measurements, and indicators. Programs and policy
are implemented accordingly. If the desired outcome is not achieved, a feedback loop ensures that
programs and policies are revisited and revised accordingly to ameliorate the stress. To achieve desired
outcomes the process must be iterative.
Desired Outcomes
Ecosystem integrity, including pertinent human uses and values, can be expressed in terms of desired
positive outcomes, to which the public and decision makers can relate and strive to achieve. The Task
Force synthesized the following nine desired outcomes from available information:
¦ Fishable, with no restriction on consumption of fish due to human action.
¦ Swimmable, with no public beaches closed due to human activities.
¦ Drinkable, with treated drinking water safe for human consumption.
¦ Healthy human populations, free from illness due to contaminants.
¦ Economic viability, with viable, sustainable support for regional inhabitants.
¦ Biological community integrity and diversity, which can function normally.
¦ Virtual elimination of the input of persistent toxic substances.
¦ Absence of excess phosphorus entering the water from human activity.
¦ Physical environment integrity, assuming development compatible with sustaining a normal
aquatic habitat.
-------
Collectively, this suite of nine interrelated desired outcomes provides a reasonable initial perspective of
ecosystem integrity, for which indicators can be selected to evaluate Agreement progress. The intent of
these desired outcomes is to restore uses, rather than just protect resources.
Data and Information
Associated with each desired outcome is a body of relevant data and information. These can reflect
absolute values, rates of change, ratios, quantitative assessments, or other considerations. They should be
technically and scientifically based but also understandable and relevant. Indicators provide a framework
for collecting and reporting information. However, which data should be compiled, and how does one
massage a mass of facts into a handful of meaningful numbers that signal whether the environment is
getting better or worse? To do this, one must understand how indicators are constructed. Once accepted,
they can then be used to evaluate progress, reach conclusions, and make decisions about desired changes.
Associated with each desired outcome is a "pyramid" of data and information. At the bottom of the
pyramid are primary data such as PCB levels in individual fish or the phosphorus loading from a
particular municipality. Such data provide the scientific underpinnings to any conclusion about achieving
a desired outcome. Basic data can be statistically evaluated and aggregated to yield processed or
analyzed data, such as the average annual concentration in lake trout, or the annual phosphorus loading to
a lake from all municipalities. These data are used by scientists, but are not often understood by the
general public. Something more is needed, to reach further up the pyramid toward outcomes.
Analyzed data can, in turn, be aggregated, combined, or integrated so as to create an indicator which
represents the current state of the system. An indicator serves as a barometer of the general health of the
system. Some indicators are selected as surrogates for multiple associated statistics, e.g., as the dominant
vegetation might indicate a satisfactory habitat for other plant and animal species, plus adequate
underlying physical-chemical conditions.
Indicators, in turn, can sometimes be aggregated into indices. An index aggregates quantities that are not
necessarily commensurate into a dimensionless quantity, e.g., an air quality index. Because of their
nature, indices have practical shortcomings, such as how to clearly articulate the underlying rationale, the
tendency to obscure real changes in the component indicators, and how to assign weights to component
indicators.
Stresses
A logical and understandable way to achieve desired outcomes is to deal with the stresses that impact the
system. Stresses can take numerous forms. They can be living or nonliving and operate at the ecosystem,
community, population, or individual level. To achieve desired outcomes, the Task Force identified five
key stresses that must be considered:
-------
¦ Biological contamination, in which the normal functioning of the ecosystem is disrupted when
non-native species are introduced.
¦ Nutrient contamination, in which nutrients lead to eutrophication of a water body, resulting in loss
of beneficial uses.
¦ Toxic substance contamination, in which persistent toxics are associated with a variety of
problems in biota.
¦ Physical alterations, whereby changes in the physical landscape affect the aquatic system.
¦ Human activities and values, including economic, societal, and technological decisions become
manifest in physical, chemical, and biological changes.
Framework and Recommendations
Putting together the concepts that were developed, the Task Force presents the following framework for
each of the nine desired outcomes, with recommendations where they are noted, as follows:
Desired Outcome: Fishable
Stresses which impact this outcome include persistent toxic substances, which act via major pathways
like direct industrial point discharges, diffuse discharges like surface runoff of pesticides, aerial transport
of contaminants, and resuspension of contaminants from sediments back into the food chain.
The Task Force proposes fish consumption advisories as the indicator for evaluation. Lake-specific
indicators should be established. The indicator is based on a large body of chemical contaminant data,
which should be collected and summarized to report on the status of each lake.
Desired Outcome: Swimmable
The primary stresses affecting this outcome are associated with population growth, urbanization, and
both agricultural and industrial development.
The Task Force proposes beach closings as the indicator for evaluation, measured in median number of
consecutive days for a given year. Five measurements are relevant to this indicator: coliform count,
turbidity, phosphorus concentrations, aesthetics, and beach characteristics.
Desired Outcome: Drinkable
-------
The stresses which impact this outcome are microorganism occurrence, eutrophication-related taste and
odor problems, and persistent toxic chemicals.
The Task Forces proposes a suite of measurements to serve as the indicators for this outcome. Although
some are intended to represent treated drinking water, others must focus on the raw water source. The
measurements include: bacterial count in treated drinking water; reports of human illness due to water
consumption; number of warnings of water consumption limitation; incidence of taste and odor problems
in treated water; reports of incidents that release chemicals which could threaten a treatment plant into
the water supply; chemical concentration in the raw water; treatment plant closures; and amount of
treatment at the plant, with cost necessary for additional treatment.
Desired Outcome: Healthy
Human Populations
Two principal stresses impact this desired outcome. They are microorganisms and persistent and
bioaccumulative toxic substances.
The Task Force proposes a suite of measurements that can be used directly to evaluate progress toward
the desired outcome: number of violations of standards for air quality, microbial, chemical, and
radiological contamination; number of people affected by waterborne microbial disease; toxic
contamination levels in tissues of exposed populations; toxic contamination levels in human breast milk;
and hospital admissions for acute respiratory distress of children under one year of age.
Desired Outcome: Economic Viability
Stresses that affect economic viability include: overall regional production and economic activity;
relative competitiveness of regional producers; demand for regional products; health of the resource
base; world commodity issues; income maintenance, retraining, and other employment policies; and
other exogenous economic social and policy actions.
The Task Force proposes total employment in the Great Lakes basin as the indicator to evaluate progress
toward the desired outcome. Measurements to support the indicator are the number of people seeking
employment, and the percentage of the work force that is employed.
Desired Outcome: Biological Community Integrity and Diversity
Principal stresses of concern are: destruction of habitat important to desirable species; introduction of
exotic species; overharvesting which reduces populations below minimum viable level; introduction of
toxic contaminants; and introduction of excess nutrients.
-------
The Task Force proposes the following suite of measurements to evaluate progress toward the desired
outcome: presence and abundance of selected key species including a top predator, a mid-trophic level,
and at the food base; quantity and quality of habitat types; number and abundance of endangered native
species; cumulative number and abundance of exotic species introduced; fish harvest statistics vs.
spawning biomass levels; toxic contaminant levels in selected fish and fish-eating birds; and ambient
phosphorus concentrations.
Desired Outcome: Virtual Elimination of Input of Persistent Toxic
Substance
Persistent toxic substances are identified directly as an important stress on the ecosystem. The Task
Force proposes a suite of measurements to evaluate progress toward achieving the desired outcome. The
measurements include: quantities of persistent toxic substances produced, used, and discarded; total
loadings of toxic substances to the ecosystem; programs and measures undertaken by governments,
business, and others to reduce the use of toxic substances; concentration of toxic substances in water,
sediment, etc.; concentration of toxic substances in top predator fish and fish-eating birds; biochemical
measures of change at the tissue level, e.g., endocrine function; and changes in the development or
survival of species, e.g., deformities.
Desired Outcome: Absence of Excess Phosphorus
Excess nutrients are identified directly as the stress affecting the desired outcome. The Task Force
proposes a suite of measurements to evaluate progress toward achieving the desired outcome. The
measurements include: ambient phosphorus concentrations in selected areas of the lakes, e.g., nearshore
areas; algal blooms; phosphorus loading and effluent data for point and non-point sources; costs for
additional mitigation of nutrient loadings; and changes in recreational activities due to effects of excess
nutrients.
Desired Outcome: Physical Environment Integrity
Stresses that impact this desired outcome include: actions that alter habitat, e.g., infilling; land use
changes, e.g., development for human purposes; and alterations in shorelines and tributaries.
The Task Force proposes the following suite of measurements to evaluate progress toward the desired
outcome: quantity and quality of habitat for critical components of the food web; quantity and quality of
wetlands; quantity and quality of stream base flow; number and extent of engineered land/water
interfaces, e.g., dams, weirs, diversions; and land use practices and watershed management practices.
Conclusions
The Task Force recommends a number of conclusions that result from this effort. They include that
-------
Governments, the Commission, and others adopt the framework, the nine desired outcomes, and the
indicators and measurements that have been developed. In addition, that a strategy should be created to
implement the desired outcomes. Other conclusions are: further study to link human health to exposure to
contaminants; surrogate measures for human health are needed in other species; seeking consensus on
biological integrity and diversity; study of a possible desired outcome for a balanced nutrient regime;
developing a uniform sport fish consumption advisory, and uniform criteria for water suitable for
swimming; and development of indices suitable for communicating the status of the ecosystem to the
general public.
References
International Joint Commission. (1995) White Paper-Indicators to Evaluate Agreement Progress,
Revised Draft. Prepared by the Indicators for Evaluation Task Force.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Lake Superior Binational Program: An Ecosystem
Approach to Protection of Lake Superior Through
Development of a Lakewide Management Plan
Nancy Larson, Water Resources Management Specialist
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Spooner, WI
Sharon Thorns, Environmental Engineer
John Craig, Senior Scientist
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Ian Smith, Lakewide Management Plan Coordinator
Ontario Ministry of the Environment and Energy, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Carri Lohse-Hanson, Binational Program Coordinator
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, St. Paul, MN
The history of the Binational Program to Restore and Protect Lake Superior goes back to the 1989
International Joint Commission (IJC) meeting in Hamilton, Ontario, although the foundations for the
program were actually laid by the 1972 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA) between the
United States and Canada (amended in 1978 and 1987). The IJC is an advisory board on boundary water
issues. Every 2 years, a growing community of interested citizens and stakeholders around the Great
Lakes gathers for a public IJC meeting on Great Lakes water quality. At the 1989 meeting the public
showed strong support for a program to demonstrate "zero discharge" of persistent bioaccumulative toxic
substances. In response to this support, the IJC recommended that the governments undertake a zero
-------
discharge demonstration program for Lake Superior. The federal governments of the United States and
Canada, together with Minnesota, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Ontario, responded by launching the
Binational Program, an innovative program of ecosystem management for Lake Superior. The program
was announced at the 1991 IJC meeting.
Pollutants targeted for zero discharge
Mercury
DDT
PCBs
Dieldrin
2,3,7,8-TCDD (dioxin)
Toxaphone
Octachlorostyrene
Hexachlorobenzene
Chlordane

The Binational Program is a partnership between the governmental jurisdictions around Lake Superior, a
group of highly involved stakeholders (the Lake Superior Binational Forum), and the wider public. The
Lake Superior Binational Forum is an advisory group with membership representing a wide range of
interests, including municipalities, native organizations, industries, environmental advocacy groups, the
academic community, and other citizens.
Public support for a Lake Superior zero discharge demonstration program was driven by long-standing
concern about toxic substances in the Great Lakes. Although Lake Superior remains the most pristine of
the Great Lakes, it is not without environmental problems. Fish consumption advisories are issued for
lake trout and other species because of mercury and several organochlorine compounds. Contaminants in
fish are of particular concern for tribal subsistence fishers, who receive greater exposure than the average
population. The Lake Superior watershed, with its relatively low population and limited industrial
development, was considered to be the best candidate for the demonstration program. A slogan used by
zero discharge supporters at the IJC meetings was "If not Lake Superior, where? If not now, when?"
-------
Other Consume
Products
Fuel
Combustion
Incineration
Figure 1. 1990 estimated use, generation, and release of mercury.
The nine pollutants targeted for zero discharge are listed to the left. They are bioaccumulative and
persistent and are found in the food chain at levels causing harm.
The Binational Program encompasses two major activities: the zero discharge demonstration program for
designated persistent toxic substances and a broader program of ecosystem management and protection.
The Binational Program uses the Lakewide Management Plan (LaMP) mechanism outlined in the
GLWQA to report progress, but in Lake Superior the broader program will address resource issues. The
GLWQA calls for LaMPs to embody a comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting
beneficial uses. The GLWQA charges LaMPs to identify critical pollutants, and to develop schedules and
strategies for pollutant load reductions to restore beneficial uses.
Resource management issues (e.g., fisheries, wildlife, and forestry) and nonchemical stressors such as
exotic species and habitat loss are important components of the Lake Superior program. The partners are
identifying habitat sites throughout the Lake Superior watershed that are critical for ecosystem health.
Habitat and toxics concerns will be integrated in later stages of the LaMP.
Primary agencies developing the Lake Superior
LaMP
• Environment Canada
• United States Environmental Protection Agency
• Ontario Ministry of Energy and Environment
-------
• Michigan Department of Natural Resources
• Minnesota Pollution Control Agency
• Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
The first stage of the Lake Superior LaMP went out for public review in 1993 and was submitted to the
IJC in 1995. The Stage 2 LaMP, which establishes load reduction targets and schedules for critical
pollutants, is under way. These reduction schedules will serve as goals for the management strategies to
be developed during the third stage of the LaMP.
Stage 1 identified 22 critical pollutants based on impaired beneficial uses, ecosystem objectives in the
GLWQA, and other criteria of environmental quality. The 22 critical pollutants include the 9 targeted for
zero discharge. For these nine, atmospheric deposition is a major path of entry to the lake, where they
bioaccumulate and are responsible for fish consumption advisories. Other critical pollutants were
identified based on impairments (contaminated sediment, degraded benthic communities, and fish tumors
or deformities) in near-shore and harbor degraded areas. Of primary concern among these pollutants are
polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and cadmium because of their relatively widespread
distribution.
The critical pollutants are grouped by the environmental and management goals that will guide
management strategies. "Zero discharge" is a strategy to work toward the conceptual goal of virtual
elimination from the environment, and nine pollutants are in the zero discharge category. The
environmental goal for other critical pollutants is to restore the beneficial uses that they currently impair.
Some other pollutants identified by the LaMP are in a third category, "preventative" chemicals. These
chemicals have not been found at concentrations causing harm in the Lake Superior basin, but they have
the potential for harm if released to the environment. The management goal for these chemicals is to
prevent their release to the Lake Superior environment.
Once the critical pollutants had been identified, information on their sources and loadings was compiled.
In Stage 1 measured data for facility emissions within the Lake Superior watershed were consolidated.
Most of the data had been collected for regulatory compliance purposes, limiting their application to the
LaMP. Data reporting requirements varied between state and provincial jurisdictions, and only regulated
compounds were reported. In the absence of consistent measured data on emissions or extensive
monitoring data on all inputs to the lake (such as tributary loadings, atmospheric deposition, and
sediment-water exchange), estimates of chemical use, generation, and release within the watershed were
used to help guide the strategy for chemical reduction. Measured monitoring data are still integrated into
the program where available.
Stage 2 work began with the nine pollutants targeted for zero discharge. Through 1994 and 1995, the
Binational Forum advisory group worked with the governments and used other sources of information to
develop recommended load reduction schedules. The governments, in turn, initiated public discussions.
The Forum's recommendations provided an excellent starting point for these broader discussions aimed
-------
at developing consensus-based goals. An experimental effort like the zero discharge demonstration
program depends on the engagement and support of the local citizenry, the business community, and
other stakeholders.
Mercury and poly chlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) provide good illustrations of the approach being taken
with the Lake Superior LaMP. Mercury, a naturally occurring element, is used in many products and
applications. It is used in thermometers, batteries, electrical switches, barometers, lamps,
pharmaceuticals, laboratory reagents, and pigments. It is released inadvertently by a number of
combustion, mining, and manufacturing processes.
Work for the Stage 2 LaMP estimated the use, generation, and release of mercury. These estimates will
help in setting priorities for action. The estimates showed that consumer products, including dry cell
batteries, accounted for about half of the total mercury "pool" in the Lake Superior basin (1990). The
pool represents a mixture of estimated environmental releases and potential future releases, such as
consumer products and other waste materials placed in landfills or incinerated, which might enter the
environment over time. Other major sources of mercury release are mining and fuel consumption. The
Forum recommended a reduction schedule for anthropogenic mercury loadings to water, air, and other
sources both within and outside the watershed. A 60 percent reduction in loadings by the year 2000 was
recommended (Table 1). Although the initial 60 percent reduction goal for mercury is aggressive, the
Forum considered it achievable based on successes in limiting mercury use in batteries and implementing
process changes in many industries.
PCBs were once widely used as dielectric fluids in transformers and capacitors, with peak production in
the United States in 1970. PCBs were also used as lubricants and in plastics, paints, inks, and carbonless
copy paper. While the use of PCBs in existing equipment is allowed in both the United States and
Canada, manufacture and new uses ceased in the late 1970s. Because the production of PCBs has been
banned, efforts to estimate the potential PCB loadings have focused on inventories of capacitors and
transformers containing PCBs. In 1991, a total of 1,026 tonnes of PCBs were estimated to be in use or
storage in the Lake Superior watershed. Estimates show that industries house more PCBs than do utilities
in the watershed. The destruction of PCBs will eliminate an estimated 41 kilograms per year released
through spills. The Forum recommended a destruction schedule for "accessible" PCBs, such as those in
use or storage, as opposed to PCBs scattered in the environment.
Guiding principles recommended for government actions include:
¦ Stress pollution prevention for mercury.
¦ Provide incentives to remove mercury from fuel emissions.
¦ Eliminate nonessential uses of mercury.
¦ Remove PCBs at the end of the useful life span of equipment.
-------
¦ Emphasize destruction of PCBs rather than storage.
¦ Encourage development of innovative technology and demonstration projects.
Table 1. Summary of Forum-recommended schedules: mercury and PCBs.
Pollutant Baseline 2000 2005 2010 2020
Mercury
1990
60% reduction in
loadings from in-
basin and
atmospheric sources
-
80% reduction in
loadings from in-
basin and
atmospheric sources
Virtual Elimination
PCBs
1995
Destroy 33% of
accessible PCBs
Destroy 60% of
accessible PCBs
Destroy 95% of
accessible PCBs
Virtual Elimination
The management strategies to work toward these reduction goals will be developed during the third stage
of the LaMP. However, actual progress in the Binational Program does not fall neatly into the LaMP
stages. Progress under various areas is dependent on funding, agency priorities, market forces, public
support, and political will. Elements of the eventual strategy for mercury and PCB reductions are already
being implemented as part of the pollution prevention strategies under the Binational Program. Efforts to
develop better information on mercury and PCB loadings and their behavior in Lake Superior are
ongoing. Activities have included expanded household hazardous waste collection programs, consumer
and business education, state legislation to ban the use of mercury in toys and other frivolous uses, and
pilot projects to target hospitals and dental offices to reduce mercury waste and segregate it from waste
streams going to wastewater treatment plants and incinerators, from which it is largely released to the
environment. Also ongoing are discussions with utilities and legislators concerning energy conservation.
The zero discharge demonstration represents a societal goal to prevent the nine designated pollutants
from being discharged or emitted. The issue is not how many molecules are permissible or detectable in a
discharge. The key is pollution prevention ensuring that these chemicals or their precursors are not used
in processes or products so they are not released to the environment. These are issues for society at large
rather than only issues of treatment technology for industries with point source discharges. The challenge
is to develop chemical reduction goals with broad public support and to form strategies to work toward
those goals to protect Lake Superior. Lessons learned in the Lake Superior basin will lay the groundwork
for application of
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Great Lakes Remedial Actions Plans: Toward
Ecosystem-Based Management of Watersheds
John H. Hartig, Environmental Scientist
International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, Canada
Michael A. Zarull, Research Limnologist
National Water Research Institute, Burlington, Ontario, Canada
Thomas M. Heidtke, Associate Professor
Hemang Shah
Wayne State University, Dept. Civil and Env. Eng., Detroit, MI
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Over a century of human population growth and economic development has led to degradation of the
Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem and impairment of its beneficial uses. Currently, there are 42 degraded
areas of the Great Lakes or Areas of Concern (AOCs) where one or more beneficial uses are impaired.
Examples of AOCs include: Cuyahoga River, Cleveland, Ohio; Hamilton Harbour, Ontario; Fox River-
Green Bay, Wisconsin; Niagara River, New York and Ontario; and Rouge River, Michigan.
The United States and Canada have a long history of assessing and tracking the ecosystem status of the
Great Lakes and working cooperatively to restore and maintain their integrity under the auspices of the
1909 United States-Canada Boundary Waters Treaty, the International Joint Commission (IJC), and the
Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (GLWQA). For each of the AOCs, a remedial action plan (RAP)
is being developed to identify and implement key actions needed to restore beneficial uses. The concept
of RAPs originated from a 1985 recommendation of the IJC's Great Lakes Water Quality Board. The
Board found that despite implementation of regulatory pollution control programs, a number of
beneficial uses (e.g., unrestricted human consumption of fish, successful reproduction of certain sentinel
-------
wildlife species, fish and wildlife habitat) were not being restored, and recommended that comprehensive
and systematic RAPs be developed and implemented to restore all beneficial uses in AOCs.
The 1987 Protocol amending the GLWQA formalized the RAP program and explicitly defined AOCs as
specific geographic areas that fail to meet the general or specific objectives of the GLWQA where such
failure has caused or is likely to cause impairment of beneficial use or of the area's ability to support
aquatic life (United States and Canada, 1987). Impairment of beneficial use means a change in the
chemical, physical, or biological integrity of the Great Lakes ecosystem sufficient to cause any of the
following 14 use impairments:
¦ restrictions on fish or wildlife consumption;
¦ tainting of fish and wildlife flavor;
¦ degradation of fish and wildlife populations;
¦ fish tumors or other deformities;
¦ bird or animal deformities or reproductive problems;
¦ degradation of benthos;
¦ restrictions on dredging activities;
¦ eutrophication or undesirable algae;
¦ restrictions on drinking water consumption, or taste and odor problems;
¦ beach closings;
¦ degradation of aesthetics;
¦ added costs to agriculture or industry;
¦ degradation of phytoplankton and zooplankton populations; or
¦ loss of fish and wildlife habitat.
Annex 2 of the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement states that RAPs shall embody a systematic and
comprehensive ecosystem approach to restoring and protecting uses in AOCs (United States and Canada,
1987). In addition, the Agreement states that the Parties, in cooperation with State and Provincial
-------
Governments, shall ensure that the public is consulted in all actions undertaken pursuant to RAPs. The
RAP Program has been described as an experiment in adaptive, environmental management where
flexible, locally-designed, ecosystem approaches are being used to build the capacity to restore beneficial
uses.
An ecosystem approach accounts for the interrelationships among land, air, water, and all living things,
including humans; and involves all user groups in comprehensive management (Hartig and Vallentyne,
1989). Currently, 40 of the 42 AOCs have either a stakeholder group, coordinating committee, or
comparable RAP institutional structure broadly representative of environmental, economic, and societal
interests in AOCs. These RAP institutional structures are established to: help implement an ecosystem
approach; ensure broad-based public participation; help coordinate and facilitate RAP development, audit
RAP implementation, and track progress; and help build the capacity to restore beneficial uses.
A key concept in the RAP process is accountability for action. This is established through open sharing
of information, clear definition of problems (including identification of indicators to be used in
measuring when the desired state is reached), identification of causes, agreement on actions needed, and
identification of who is responsible for taking action. From this foundation, the responsible institutions
and individuals can be held accountable for progress.
RAPs require cooperative learning that involves stakeholders working in teams to accomplish a common
goal under conditions that involve positive interdependence (all stakeholders cooperate to complete a
task) and individual and group accountability (each stakeholder is accountable for the final outcome). For
RAPs to be successful, they must:
¦ be cleanup- and prevention-driven, and not document-driven;
¦ make existing programs and statutes work;
¦ cut through bureaucracy;
¦ elevate the priority of local issues;
¦ ensure strong community-based planning processes;
¦ streamline the critical path to use restoration; and
¦ be an affirming process.
Based on a basin-wide review of progress in the Great Lakes RAP program, RAP processes are most
effective if they are mission-driven (i.e., a focus on ecosystem results and restoring uses) and not rule-
driven. Successful RAP processes empower institutional structures to pursue their mission of restoring
impaired uses. Empowerment of RAP institutional structures can be demonstrated by: a focus on
-------
watersheds or other naturally-defined boundaries to address upstream causes and sources, and obtain
commitments from within the watershed for implementation; an inclusive and shared decision-making
process; clear responsibility and sufficient authority to pursue the mission; an ability to secure and pool
resources according to priorities for action using nonprofit organizations or other creative mechanisms;
flexibility and continuity in order to achieve an agreed-upon road map to use restoration; commitment to
broad-based education and public outreach; and an open and iterative RAP process that strives for
continuous improvement (Hartig and Law, 1994a).
In essence, the RAP process is building the capacity to restore beneficial uses in the watersheds of Great
Lakes AOCs. RAPs are employing a combination of: human elements and strategies (e.g., empowerment,
long-term vision/mission driven, shared decision-making); tools and techniques (e.g., pollution
prevention, habitat rehabilitation and enhancement, remediation of contaminated sediments and
hazardous waste sites); and management support systems (e.g., ecosystem performance measures,
geographical information systems, decision support systems, information sharing) to restore and maintain
both human and nonhuman uses in degraded watersheds (Hartig et al. 1995).
Considerable progress is being made in re-orienting Great Lakes decision-makers to a more inclusive and
holistic RAP process that accounts for linkages, shares decision-making power, achieves local
ownership, and focuses on ecosystem results. The development and implementation of RAPs represent
the first opportunity, on a broad and practical scale, to implement an ecosystem approach consistent with
the long-term goal of sustainable development (i.e., development that meets the needs of the present
generation without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs). Both an
ecosystem approach in RAPs and sustainable development recognize the fundamental roles and
interrelationships of economy, society, and environment in sustaining the quality of ecosystems. Table 1
presents a list of critical elements to help government agencies guide efforts toward greater use of an
ecosystem approach in watershed management (Coape-Arnold et al., 1994). In a time when resources are
becoming scarce, such an approach has proven an effective mechanism to coordinate programs and
harness and leverage resources.
Table 1. A list of critical elements to help government
managers guide efforts toward ecosystem-based
management of watersheds.
-------
Adopt watershed/bioregion as primary unit for management
Develop partnership agreement or other mechanism for cooperative, multi-
stakeholder management and ensure commitment of leaders
Identify and empower an "umbrella" watershed organization for coordination
Develop long-term vision, goals, and quantitative targets for "desired future state" of
ecosystem
Reach agreement on a set of principles to guide decision-making process
Ensure all planning processes in watershed acknowledge vision, goals, quantitative
targets, and principles
Establish geographical information system (GIS) and decision support system
capability in watershed organization
Compile data and information for input into GIS and ensure strong commitment to
research and monitoring to understand ecosystem and fill knowledge and data gaps
Set priorities that target major causes of ecosystem health risks, evaluate remedial and
preventive options, implement preferred actions, and monitor effectiveness in an
iterative fahsion (i.e. adaptive management)
Ensure full costs and benefits (i.e. economic, societal, environmental) are assessed for
each project in watershed
Consolidate capital budgets and pool resources, as necessary, to move high priority
project forward
Create the framework and condidtions for private sector involvement and capitalize
on its enterprise, initiative, creativity, and capability for investment
Utilize market forces and economic incentives to achieve ecosystem objectives
Commit to public, state-of-the-environment and economy reporting every 2-5 years
to measure and celebrate ecosystem progress, and to measure stakeholder satisfaction
Ensure commitment to broad-based, ecosystem education and human resource
development throughout process
-------
Governments are learning that all stakeholders have something to offer and can play significant roles in
RAPs. Through government and community-based partnerships, RAPs are attempting to overcome
environmental decision-making gridlock by developing a coordinated, multi-stakeholder response to
restoring impaired beneficial uses in AOCs (Hartig and Law, 1994b). Sustaining the RAP process will
require continued public involvement, ensuring long-term commitment to research and monitoring,
achieving effective communication and cooperation, creatively acquiring resource commitments, and
building a record of success. Both short- and long-term milestones must be celebrated. Examples of
milestones include: government management actions; remedial and preventive actions by sources;
changes in discharge quality; reductions in contaminant loadings; changes in air/water/sediment
concentrations; reductions in bioaccumulation rates; biological recovery; use restoration; and improved
suitability for human use of resources.
Stakeholders have been instrumental in helping governments be more responsive to and responsible for
restoring uses in AOCs. Further, stakeholders have been the primary catalyst for implementing actions
which have resulted in ecosystem improvements. In essence, RAPs are reinventing the role of
government in management of Great Lakes AOCs. Such broad-based partnerships among diverse
stakeholders can best be described as a step towards grassroots ecological democracy in the Great Lakes
Basin (Hartig and Zarull, 1992).
References
Coape-Arnold, T., S. Crockard, K. Fuller, J.E. Gannon, S. Gerritson, J.H. Hartig, N.L. Law, G.
Mikol, K. Mills, L. New, A. Richardson, K. Seidel, and M.A. Zarull. (1995) Practical steps to
implement an ecosystem approach in Great Lakes management. Environment Canada, Toronto,
Ontario; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois; International Joint
Commission, Windsor, Ontario; 71 pp.
Hartig, J.H. and N.L. Law. (1994a) Institutional frameworks to direct the development and
implementation of Great Lakes remedial action plans. Environmental Management 18:855-864.
Hartig, J.H. and N.L. Law. (Eds.) (1994b) Progress in Great Lakes Remedial Action Plans:
Implementing the Ecosystem Approach in Great Lakes Areas of Concern. Environment Canada,
Toronto, Ontario; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Chicago, Illinois, 210 pp.
Hartig, J.H. and M.A. Zarull. (Eds.) (1992) Under RAPs: Toward grassroots ecological
democracy in the Great Lakes Basin. University of Michigan Press, Ann Arbor, Michigan, 289
pp.
Hartig, J.H. and J.R. Vallentyne. (1989) Use of an ecosystem approach to restore degraded areas
of the Great Lakes. Am bio 18:423-428.
-------
United States and Canada. (1987) Protocol to the 1978 Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement.
International Joint Commission, Windsor, Ontario, Canada, 84 pp.
-------
,'M.'' •
1
^•--31
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The National Water Quality Initiative: Lessons
Learned From The Water Quality Demonstration
Project-East River
Robin Shepard, Water Quality Coordinator;
Christine Finlayson, USDA Water Quality Project Liaison
University of Wisconsin-Extension, The Environmental Resources Center,
Madison, WI
In 1990 a 221 square mile area of northeastern Wisconsin became one of 16 demonstration projects
nationwide established by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) under the President's
Water Quality Initiative. The project, known as the Water Quality Demonstration Project-East River
(WQDP-ER), was a five year effort that set out to determine whether farmers would voluntarily adopt
innovative pollution protection practices to protect or improve water quality. To determine the impact of
the WQDP-ER project a 1990 baseline survey was conducted that recorded the management practices
being used by farmers in the watershed. In 1995, a follow-up survey and detailed staff records were used
to measure the extent to which practices introduced by the project had been adopted by area farmers.
Background
This federally funded project encompassed the East River watershed, which feeds Green Bay on Lake
Michigan (Figure 1). Three-quarters of the area is rural, including dairy farms, smaller suburban
communities, villages and the city of Green Bay. Green Bay was identified as a "Great Lakes Area of
Concern" by the International Joint Commission and the State of Wisconsin due to ongoing pollution
problems that endanger aquatic life, restrict recreation and other water uses (Wisconsin Department of
Natural Resources, 1988).
-------
Figure 1. The East River Watershed
Heavy phosphorus loading to East River has contributed to algae growth in the waters of Green Bay, while
pesticides have been found in bay sediments. USGS monitoring studies (Hughes, 1988) in the basin found
that the East River is a major source of sediment and phosphorus, contributing 11 percent of the total
suspended sediment and 9 percent of the total phosphorus load transported into lower Green Bay. USGS
river monitoring also detected widespread bacterial contamination originating from livestock wastes and
other sources.
Agricultural Impacts
When the WQDP-East River began, a 1990 baseline survey of farmers in the watershed showed that many
were applying more fertilizer and pesticides than necessary. Roughly 84 percent were applying more
phosphorus than recommended by University of Wisconsin-Extension, while 61 percent were applying too
much nitrogen (Nowak and Shepard, 1991). Most second and third year corn fields were being treated
with rootworm insecticide, even when insect problems weren't detected. Additionally, in 1990, farmers
were applying 215 pounds of nitrogen per acre in the production of corn when average University
-------
recommendations called for 160 pounds of nitrogen per acre. These studies also found that nitrogen
crediting from land-spread manure would allow for further reductions in purchased nitrogen—as much as
80 pounds per acre—while maintaining crop yields. And by using manure to meet crop nutrient needs, less
phosphorus is purchased—thus contributing to lower phosphorus loading in local waters.
The Goals of The Water Quality Demonstration Project-East River
The overall goal of the WQDP-ER was to encourage farmers to adopt research-based practices that protect
and improve groundwater and surface water quality while maintaining or increasing farm profitability. To
accomplish this goal WQDP-ER staff initiated educational programming on integrated crop management
(ICM). ICM helps farmers minimize the potential for water pollution from farm chemicals. With ICM,
farmers determine fertilizer and pesticide requirements on a field-by-field basis. ICM is often defined by a
broad set of best management practices that include soil testing, crediting nutrients from manure
application and prior alfalfa crops, the use of crop scouting, and the application of pesticides only if the
damage caused by the pest exceed the cost of the treatment.
The Water Quality Demonstration Project Response
WQDP-ER staff responded through one-on-one consultations with farmers, field days and tours to
promote a number of ICM practices. The project also offered workshops for farmers and agribusiness
professionals that helped them better understand crop scouting techniques and proper pesticide
application. Local farm visits with producers and private sector agronomists were used to showcase
nutrient management practices such as calibration of manure spreaders and manure nutrient content
analysis. Weekly letters, informational mailings, fact sheets and brochures all helped keep producers more
informed of local insect counts and other specific issues about how ICM works in the watershed.
When WQDP-ER staff teamed up with local crop consultants, farmers were assisted in writing farm
specific ICM plans. Each fall, ICM practicing farmers and their crop consultants gather information for
the coming crop season, pulling soil nutrient samples and scouting fields for insects and weeds. This
information is then used to plan fertilizer and pesticide application on a field-by-field basis.
Results and Discussion
After five years of intensive programming on ICM, a post-project evaluation was conducted. A random
group of farmers was selected from the original 1990 baseline survey. The results indicate that many
farmers had changed their management practices. In doing so, they had reduced excessive fertilizer
applications and decreased the threat of agricultural pollution (Figure 2). Specifically, by 1995 farmers in
the project reduced their total nitrogen application (per acre) by an average of 37 percent since the WQDP-
ER began in 1990.
ICM practices in the WQDP-ER project area focused extensively on the crediting of on-farm sources of
nitrogen and phosphorus. The farmers who were able to proportionately reduce their commercial nitrogen
-------
applications based on nitrogen crediting from alfalfa crop increased from 44 percent in 1990 to 81 percent
in 1995. Similarly, the farmers taking credits from manure applications and reducing their commercial
nitrogen applications increased from 20 percent in 1990 to 28 percent in 1995 (Figure 3).
70
GO
P
E 50
R
C 40
E
N 30
T
20
10
0
—II— 1990 Hill- 1995
i990 Nitrogen Application Mean = 215 Ibs/ac* 1995 Nitrogen Application Mean = 136 ibs/ac*
(Based on 101 cases-population of respondents.) (Based on 56 random!}' selected cases.)
*—significant at the . 001 level.

\ V

s> X

^ -ja

' - —» ^ '
Under Within 10% of Over Grossly Over
Recommendations Recommendations Recommendations Recommendations
Figure 2. Nitrogen Application in the East River Watershed
-------

GO
p

E
70
R

C
60
E

N
50
T

10
1990 1995
Those Farmers
Who Shouftf Cretfrt
But Do Not
1990 data, is based <>« 101 enses-pqsslalidn ofrespendents.
1995 dais. i.i based cm 56 roxdemty selected cases.
Those Farmers
A tie mpting to C re ait
Figure 3. The Crediting of Manure - Nitrogen in the Production of Corn
When the project began in 1990, ICM was virtually unknown. By 1995, 52 farms covering 16,000 acres
were enrolled in the WQDP's ICM program. At least 50 more farmers in the watershed were using ICM
practices through other programs, bringing the total of ICM applied acres to more than 22,000. Moreover,
farmers participating in the ICM program saved an average of $5,000 a year in fertilizer and pesticide
costs.
Acknowledgments
The WDQP-ER was a cooperative venture for the U.S. Department of Agriculture, merging technical,
educational and financial assistance from the University of Wisconsin-Extension (UW-Extension part of
the federal Cooperative Extension Service), the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (formally
the Soil Conservation Service, SCS) and the federal Consolidated Farm Service Agency (formally the
Agricultural Stabilization and Conservation Service, ASCS). This summary also reflects the valuable work
by WQDP-ER project staff.
References
Hughes, P.E. (1989) Nonpoint-Source Discharges and Water Quality in the East River Basin of
Northeast Wisconsin. USGS.
-------
Nowak, Pete and Robin Shepard. (1991) The Farm Practices Inventory: East River Watershed. The
Wisconsin Nutrient and Pest Management Program and The Environmental Resources Center.
University of Wisconsin-Extension.
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. (1988) The Wisconsin Water Quality: 1988 Report to
Congress.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Columbia River Basin Model Watersheds -
Bonneville Power Administration's Implementation
Role
Mark A. Shaw, Fisheries Biologist
Bonneville Power Administration, Portland, OR
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
Bonneville power Administration (BPA) was created by Congress in 1937 to market and deliver
electricity generated by dams on the Columbia River system. Other dam design purposes included flood
control, navigation, irrigation and flat water recreation. Over a period of 66 years 30 federal dams were
constructed on the Columbia River and a major tributary, the Snake River. Five other major dams were
also constructed by public utility districts for a total of 35 major dams on the mainstem Columbia and
Snake Rivers. The federal dams are operated and maintained by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps) and the U.S Bureau of Reclamation. This includes all major dam activities such as power
generation, flood control, navigation, irrigation and fish passage facilities. BPA hydroelectric power sales
fund a majority of the operation and maintenance costs of these programs.
In 1980 Congress passed the Pacific Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Act)
which created the Northwest Power Planning Council (NPPC). The Act's purpose was to create an entity
to guide the Northwest region, which included the states of Montana, Idaho, Washington and Oregon, in
coordinated planning for electric power production and conservation, and fish and wildlife mitigation of
-------
the effects of federally operated Columbia and Snake River dams. Section 4.[h][10][A] of the Act
authorized BPA funding of the fish and wildlife mitigation program.
The NPPC consists of two governor appointed members from each of the four states, their support staff,
and a central support staff for power production planning and fish and wildlife mitigation. The NPPC, in
cooperation with the regional fish and wildlife program managers and other interested entities, developed
a Fish and Wildlife mitigation plan (FWLP) two years after the Act was created, and amends the FWLP
on a five year cycle or as needed.
Model Watershed Program Development
The most recent FWLP amendment phase began in 1990. The need for short term decisions, plus longer
term decision making, necessitated a phased amendment process. Phase One, or Early Implementation
Projects, was passed by the NPPC on August 21, 1991. Measure 3.1 Model Watersheds, directed BPA
through the states of Washington, Idaho and Oregon, to fund the implementation of a watershed planning
and implementation program.
The guiding principles of the Model Watershed measure were:
1. Each state would select a lead state agency and develop a process for watershed selection.
2. Bonneville would provide "initial" funding for a model watershed coordinator and associated
staff.
3. Each watershed would develop a watershed plan with the following major elements:
4. Identify watershed entities which have a role or interest in the fisheries and natural resource
management of the watershed
5. Identify how each of these entities could best be used in the development of a watershed plan, and
organize an oversight and a technical group to guide the watershed plan development
6. Develop a set of watershed plan goals and objectives
7. Identify existing information resources to conduct a watershed assessment
8. Identify major gaps in information base and develop a plan to obtain this information
9. Set out a path to fill major information gaps and address conflicts
10.
Analyze information and determine major limiting factors to in-basin anadromous fish production
-------
11. Develop an implementation and monitoring and evaluation plan to address the anadromous fish
production limiting factors
12. Seek funding sources for project implementation
13. Begin implementation of projects, conduct M&E, and modify plan as needed. Involve volunteer
and educational institutions when possible.
The basic premise behind the Model Watershed (MWS) program was that anadromous fish habitat
mitigation could best be accomplished on the watershed level with plans that were built from the ground
up, with involvement from all watershed entities. BPA had invested approximately $39 million in
anadromous fish habitat restoration projects through 1990. This investment had two major weaknesses.
First, most of the projects had been developed by state fish and wildlife agencies, tribes or federal land
management agencies without watershed level analysis to guide their prioritization and selection.
Generally the projects represented worthwhile habitat restoration efforts, but they were focused on small
areas for specific habitat issues. On a scale the size of the Columbia River basin, project implementation
could have appeared as a random game of darts. Secondly, there was little or no participation from
private land owners. Many of the resource challenges existed on private lands, and often a majority of the
best, or potentially best habitat was on private lands. Participation by state and federal agencies was also
variable within and between states depending upon their view of habitat mitigation. These factors lead
BPA and many other agencies to propose and support the implementation of the MWS program for the
Columbia River basin.
Each of the three states chose one or more watersheds through a selection process which generally
involved a consortium of state agencies. In the first year of the MWS program Asotin Creek was chosen
from Washington, Grande Ronde River from Oregon and Idaho chose a three neighboring watersheds in
the upper Snake drainage, i.e. Lemhi, Pahsimeroi and East Fork Salmon Rivers. In the second year of the
MWS program, Washington added two neighboring watersheds, i.e., the Tucannon River and Pataha
Creek, a major tributary to the lower Tucannon River. See Figure 1.
In Washington and Idaho the lead state agency was the Soil and Water Conservation Commission. They
in turn worked with the local Conservation District to establish the MWS coordinator positions. The
Commissions and Districts jointly choose to enlist existing District or Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS) employees. This choice utilized the existing expertise and coordination of those best
able to work with the private land owners as well as the state and federal agencies and tribes. In Oregon,
the Grande Ronde already had a group which has been established by the Bureau of Reclamation and the
Department of Water Resources to deal with water management challenges. This group was in the
process of hiring a coordinator. It was decided to combine the two programs and resources.
For the most part, planning on a watershed scale, with an emphasis on anadromous fish was a new
process for these watersheds. The exceptions were in the Lemhi and Tucannon River watersheds. The
Lemhi watershed had an intensive existing program to deal with irrigation water management and
-------
screening of irrigation diversions. The Tucannon watershed had an existing watershed plan developed
under Public Law 566_NRCS's small watersheds program. Each of these plans had ingredients of a
comprehensive watershed plan, but generally lacked one or more details such as a review of the instream
habitat quality or riparian habitat information. Each watershed varied in its complexity and challenges to
develop a watershed plan. Table 1 lists some of the components. Grande Ronde Model Watershed: The
Grande Ronde Model Watershed (MWS) is by far the most complex. It has the largest size, number of
sub-watersheds, and miles of stream. It has two diverse counties and major interest from two tribes.
Participation has been high from the major landowner groups and general public participation has grown.
Without a lead state agency, the watershed has had to rely upon a wide variety of sources to gather and
compile information and ultimately produce a watershed plan. The Bureau of Reclamation has been a
major funding participant in one of the counties, in cooperation with BPA to fund the watershed plan
development and implementation. This plan has required an overall umbrella analysis, followed by
detailed sub-basin action plans. This has allowed the formation of groups of land owners within each sub-
basin for a ground-up planning/implementation process. This process lead to the development and
funding ($3 million) of over 110 projects by the State of Oregon during 1994 and 1995.
¦ Washington Model Watersheds: The Washington MWS's vary in complexity, but generally have a
low to moderate complexity factor. Asotin Creek has the smallest number of major land owners
and they have all become major participants in the plan. Aquatic resource problems are severe, but
potential for recovery is high. The Tucannon River has generally enjoyed wide participation from
a majority of the land owners. The MWS process has reinforced this process with a greater
technical understanding of the problems and participation in the solution design. Pataha Creek is
the newest comer to watershed planning for anadromous fish. Although only the upper reaches are
suitable for steelhead use, it is major tributary, and contributor of sediment to the lower Tucannon
River. This watershed is enjoying a growing participation from the landowners. These
Washington MWS's have had good participation from the U.S. Forest Service and from
Washington State land managers. They have been the recipients of the technical expertise of a
"Stream Team" sponsored by the NRCS from Spokan, Washington. This team has provided
technical expertise to collect and analyze resource information, and write the watershed plans. The
State of Washington has since given each watershed $180,000 for project implementation during
1996 and 1997.
¦ Idaho Model Watersheds: The Idaho Model Watersheds have generally been less complex for
watershed plan development, with the exception of the Lemhi River. Before MWS planning, the
Lemhi Irrigation District had aggressively participated in an irrigation diversion screening and
consolidation program. The MWS process expanded the effort to include other resource
management areas such as livestock grazing and maintenance/improvement of channel
complexity. The Pahsimeroi watershed is generally less complex and has not had wide landowner
participation, but several resources concerns are being addressed successfully. The East Fork
Salmon River generally has the best quality habitat conditions, but grazing management concerns
are being addressed by several landowners.
Bonneville Support to Model Watersheds: Past, Present and Future
-------
A summary of the areas of support and their dollar amounts to each of the watersheds is shown in Table
2.
The level of continuing support to the MWS program depends upon the prioritization process established
by the NPPC. Request from the MWS's for fiscal year 1997 include stable support for administration,
with substantial increases requested for project implementation. All of the MWS plans will be completed
by June, 1996 and are prepared to begin full implementation. It is estimated that a sustained habitat
project funding level of $l,750,000/year for ten years is needed to fully implement the MWS plans.
There are presently discussions within the region to designate a portion of BPA's fish and wildlife budget
to the implementation of existing MWS plans and to expand the watershed program throughout the
Columbia River Basin. The MWS program has proven to be an effective means to implement salmon
habitat restoration on a watershed level. BPA will continue to support the MWS and future watershed
program to implement salmon habitat improvement within the Columbia River Basin.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program
"Partnership for Success"
Patty Perry, Executive Director
Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program, LaGrande, OR
Project Background
With the imminent Endangered Species Act (ESA) listing of spring chinook salmon on the horizon, the
Union County Commission and Wallowa Court determined that a grass-roots, locally based effort
working to coordinate existing local, state, and federal programs could effectively maintain, enhance, and
restore our watershed. Joining in this effort, the Northwest Power Planning Council selected the Grande
Ronde basin as a model watershed for Oregon, and the Governor's office through the Strategic Water
Management Group certified the program. Bonneville Power Administration provides the administrative
funding.
Appointed in May 1992, the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program Board of Directors (Board)
represents a diverse group of interests with the common vision of a healthy watershed. Participants
include stock-growers, farmers, tribes, environmentalists, elected officials, and public lands, community,
forestry, and fish and wildlife representatives.
A watershed can be managed to:
¦ Maintain and enhance natural aquatic biological diversity.
¦ Enhance or protect threatened species populations.
¦ Maximize natural resource yields in wildlife, water, commodities, or human uses.
¦ Support the economic and social livelihood of a community.
-------
With that understanding, the Board formulated a mission statement which incorporates many of these
elements. It is to "develop and oversee the implementation, maintenance, and monitoring of coordinated
resource management that will enhance the natural resources of the Grande Ronde basin." Although
addressing multiple elements in watershed restoration is perhaps more difficult that pursuing a single
purpose, the Board felt this approach essential.
The basin encompasses the Blue Mountain region of northeastern Oregon. It is approximately 13,689
km2 (5,265 mi2) in size and has 280 streams and rivers containing over 4,160 km (2,600 mi) of fisheries.
Land ownership is approximately 65 percent public and 35 percent private. The basin supports numerous
healthy populations of fish and wildlife, as well as the ESA-listed spring chinook salmon.
Initial Steps
An important first task was developing memorandums of understanding to create partnerships with local
residents, state and federal agencies, tribes, and interest groups concerned with the management of the
Grande Ronde watershed. From there, stream survey data available from state and federal agencies were
compiled into a Habitat Assessment. This assessment was peer reviewed and accepted by the Board. This
provided a sound "starting point" to develop a plan and focus restoration activities.
A technical committee was formed consisting of biologists, hydrologists, a soil scientist, forester, and
other resource specialists to advise and provide recommendations to the Board on planning direction,
technical issues, and to review and evaluate project proposals for technical merit and adequacy. Local
agency staffs, the tribes, and private individuals with technical expertise are playing a crucial, key role in
the model watershed process by serving on this committee. Reviewing project proposals has become one
of the main functions of the technical committee, and is an effective means for ensuring cooperation and
coordination among agencies and the various projects and activities in the basin.
Model Watershed Action Plan
Next the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Operations Action Plan was prepared. It serves as a basin-
wide framework to identify priority (for spring chinook salmon) subwatersheds for more detailed
planning. It incorporates information gathered from several prior planning documents as well as the
Habitat Assessment. The plan includes restoration criteria to aid in the process of prioritizing project
actions. Staff is continuing to develop detailed subwatershed plans and project actions, working with
landowner groups and others as appropriate. Landowner participation in this process is completely
voluntary.
Additionally, the model watershed program initiated the Grande Ronde Ecosystem Diagnosis and
Treatment (GREDT) study. This was undertaken to provide technical information to the Board and
technical committee in their effort to plan and implement watershed restoration activities. The study was
motivated by a need for a science-based methodology that promotes effectiveness and accountability.
The analysis focuses on spring chinook salmon, which serves as a diagnostic species in assessing the
-------
condition of the watershed for sustainability of its resources and related societal values. This study
assumes that humans and their values are integral parts of an ecosystem and that human communities
within the Grande Ronde basin desire a healthy watershed one that can sustain natural resources as well
as economic and social values for future generations.
An effectiveness monitoring strategy has been developed and will be incorporated in each subwatershed
plan. On-going monitoring efforts will be identified, coordinated, and used to establish gaps that need to
be addressed. Each project action also contains a monitoring component. Several projects include
monitoring by local high school students.
The Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program serves as an educational forum for landowner groups
through coordination with the Oregon Cattlemen's Association and local Soil and Water Conservation
Districts. Additionally, the model watershed program is defining for itself a role as facilitator of
improved dialogue between local, state, tribes, and federal natural resource management agencies. The
model is especially helpful in encouraging coordination on issues beyond normal jurisdictional
boundaries, and creating cooperative and incentive-based ways to encourage private landowners to take
part in restoration efforts.
Habitat Restoration Progress
In the past 14 months, the model watershed program has assisted in developing many project proposals
for habitat restoration in the basin. These projects involve private landowners, schools, organizations,
tribes, and local, state, and federal government agencies. Funding has been recommended and secured for
approximately 111 worthy, well-designed projects. The scope of these projects address factors such as:
¦ Fish passage structures/irrigation diversion improvements.
¦ Riparian and rangeland livestock management/off-stream water development.
¦ Sediment.
¦ Erosion reduction.
¦ Water quality and quantity.
¦ Fish habitat.
¦ Technical seminars addressing riparian grazing.
¦ Education.
Implementation of these projects is in various stages, with 49 completed, 45 presently on-going, and
others to start in the spring/summer 1996. Funding for these projects is available through private
landowners, Oregon Watershed Health Program (state lottery funds), Bonneville Power Administration,
Bureau of Reclamation, and other state and federal agency programs, as well as private groups and
organizations.
Long-term project planning is ongoing, creating an advantage in securing and utilizing habitat restoration
funds as opportunities arise. Project proposals in priority subwatersheds are developed with the objective
-------
to address identified environmental conditions such as fish passage problems, substandard riparian
conditions (i.e., streambank erosion, streambed sedimentation, altered channel morphology, loss of pools,
and reduced habitat complexity), upland conditions producing sediment, poor water quality, and depleted
flow conditions.
In conclusion, the Grande Ronde Model Watershed Program is an exciting and innovative experiment in
citizen-based natural resource planning by coordinating among all entities involved in watershed
activities in the basin and is charged with providing a model for other watershed basins to consider.
Considerations
It takes time to create partnerships and develop a strong basin council. Being based in local county
government has been very positive and offered additional opportunities. A watershed council must allow
for a diverse group of interests, local agendas, and perspectives.
Planning is vital before moving to projects. The key is a local assessment of environmental conditions in
order to establish priorities driven by the local governments, agencies, tribes, and community. The time
expended for this is also well utilized in developing local consensus and unity.
Realize project development is very time consuming, and many local entities must be involved and
incorporated in the process. Implementation is a multi-year process, recognizing our actions today will
make a difference in the quality of our environment 25-50 years from now.
The availability of administrative and technical assistance/support to the watershed council is a crucial
component.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Endangered Salmon, Turning Emotions Into Action
Ralph Swift, Model Watershed Project Coordinator
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, Salmon, ID
Introduction
Idaho's Model Watershed Project began
in November 1992 when former
Governor of Idaho, Cecil Andrus, named
the Idaho Soil Conservation
Commission (SCC) as lead agency for
this project. Model watersheds were an
outcome of the Northwest Power
Planning Council's Strategy for Salmon
(NPPC, 1991). The SCC selected three
watersheds to be included in the project:
the Lemhi River, Pahsimeroi River, and
East Fork of the Salmon River (Figure
1). These watersheds were chosen
because they had similar land use, land
ownership patterns, agricultural
enterprises, and salmon habitat issues.
Also, these three drainages contribute
approximately 50 percent of the salmon
produced in the Upper Salmon River
drainage.
-------
The SCC receives annual funding from
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA)
to operate the project. This funding is
used for office space, staff, and
administrative support. Neither the
NPPC nor BPA gave the SCC specific
directions regarding the project
operations or the desired end product.
The general directions were to assess
what was known about the watersheds
and then implement actions on the
ground that would benefit salmon
habitat.
The SCC designated two local soil and
water conservation districts (Districts) to
take the lead in developing the project.
The SCC also hired a project coordinator
and administrative staff to provide the
necessary project support. The Districts
held an organizational meeting and
formed a local steering group consisting
of mostly private landowners. These
landowners then organized the advisory
committee and requested assistance from agencies and the Shoshone-Bannock Tribes in the form of a
technical advisory committee. The 15-member advisory committee represents a cross-section of
landowners, federal land managers, conservation interests, and industry representatives. These
committees have worked hand-in-hand to developed a vision statement, objective, and goals for the
model watershed. They have also guided a dynamic planning process that has been effective in
implementing projects to benefit fish and fish habitat, while developing a long-term plan to address some
of the more controversial aspects of watershed enhancement.
FAsinenji
Ewe*
East EqA of (he
Figure 1. Model Watershed Project area.
Project Setting
The three watersheds have a drainage area of approximately 7,020 square kilometers (2,700 square
miles). The region has a mixture of land ownership. Most of the valley bottoms are privately owned. The
low foothills are sagebrush grazing land managed by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Land
ownership is approximately 90 percent federal and 10 percent private. The reverse is true when you talk
about existing occupied salmon habitat (i.e., 90 percent is privately owned and 10 percent is federally
managed). The area has a semi-desert climate with an average annual precipitation of 23 centimeters (9
inches) in the valley with about 60 centimeters (24 inches) in the mountains. Snow pack is a key to
stream flow each year. No appreciable water storage systems exist in any of the three basins except what
-------
is stored in the underground aquifers.
Beef cattle are the number one agriculture product, with about 25,000 cows present in the three
watersheds. Some small dairies exist near Salmon. Lamb production has dropped from an annual high of
50,000 animals in the 1960s to only 2,000 today. Most sheep grazing allotments have been converted to
allotments for cattle. Hay is the primary crop and all croplands are flood or sprinkler irrigated. The hay is
used to support the cattle during the winter months; none is marketed outside the valleys. Public grazing
allotments support about 80 percent of the cattle from May until mid-October.
The wood products industry is active in the area, but only a small amount of logging takes place in the
three watersheds. Past mining activity such as dredging, hydraulic, and underground mining is evident
throughout all three drainages. Most of this mining activity occurred in the side drainages where its effect
on anadromous fish habitat was limited. For the most part, this mining activity occurred before the turn
of the century and the effects have become minimized over time.
Recreation now plays a large role in the local economies of Salmon and Challis. It accounts for about 25
percent of the income in the Salmon community. The loss of the salmon fishery has had a significant
adverse economic impact on these communities. It is estimated that this loss has been $2 million dollars
per year (Idaho Soil Conservation Commission, 1996). This, coupled with the cultural and subsistence
loss by the tribes, makes the need to do something a high priority.
Watershed Assessment
Watershed assessments were conducted for each drainage to identify factors limiting salmon production.
Biologists conducted drainage-by-drainage assessments analyzing the salmon's historic and current
watershed use. Habitat inventories were then conducted in the stream segments that currently support
salmon production. These inventories were conducted by inter-agency crews led by BLM fish biologists.
The inventories collected data on the quantity and quality of pools, riffles, and runs. An assessment of
streambank stability and quality of riparian cover was also made. Assessments conducted by other
agencies, as well as previous studies on fish habitat conditions were also reviewed.
Problems identified by the watershed assessments and habitat inventories include:
¦ Streambank stability.
¦ Delayed migration of juveniles through irrigation diversions.
¦ Blockage of upstream migration by irrigation withdrawals or diversions.
¦ Livestock or vehicles crossing streams creating sediment.
-------
¦ Poor control of irrigation water delivery.
¦ High summer water temperatures with large diurnal deviations.
¦ Sedimentation of spawning gravels.
¦ Lack of rearing and resting pools.
¦ Insufficient overhanging bank cover.
Model Watershed Goal Setting
The advisory committee established the following watershed goals:
¦ Provide for the safe and timely passage of migrating fish through critical watershed reaches.
¦ Protect and enhance in-stream and riparian environments to maximize fish production and
escapement.
¦ Ensure than any resources invested achieve maximum return for multiple-use benefits.
¦ Develop or adapt a holistic watershed management approach for fish habitat maintenance,
enhancement, and restoration.
The technical team, using the goals established by the advisory committee and the habitat inventory,
developed five overall goals for evaluating the individual watersheds and stream segments. A biologist
team then made subjective assessments for each stream segment and assigned a priority rating of high,
medium, or low for that goal. Using a criterion of the next available dollar, the final priorities for the
project area were established as shown in Table 1.
Table 1. Habitat goals and priorities between the Model Watershed Project areas.
-------

Levi hi Hiver Watershed
Pahsimeroi
River
Watershed
East Fork of Hie
Salmon Riwr
Watershed
Goals
%
£
O
£=
<1?
-tf
-3—1
=3
o
2
<1?
.2=
C£
Agency Creek to Hayden Creek
£
0

S
C

1
Big Springs Creek
Hayden Creek
sz
<3
_J
8-
o
X
£
sz
o
.2:
~C
Patterson-Big Springs Creek

s
I
X
£
jZ
j 1
13
o
!i_
-------
Fish habitat restoration.
¦ Fish habitat maintenance and enhancement.
The following are examples of actions that correspond with the above general categories:
¦ Use irrigation water conservation or small, water-storage facilities to augment stream flow during
low-flow periods.
¦ Combine or eliminate some irrigation diversions, or use alternatives to diversions such as an
irrigation well.
¦ Establish pool habitat using enhancement structures or allowing natural processes to meander
previously straightened stream segments. Provide continual flows for periods of time to allow fish
migration past dewatered sections of streams.
¦ Maintain, improve or re-establish riparian cover along streambanks through use of pasture
management systems or by limiting livestock access to some riparian communities during some or
all of the year.
Implementing Action
The majority of actions proposed are tied to private landowners willing to make a voluntary decision to
implement some change in the way they currently conduct business. Using a cooperative, collaborative,
interagency approach in working with landowners, irrigators, and cattle grazers works the best. Small
steering groups were assigned to work on the larger actions, such as managing streams flows.
Interdisciplinary teams were put together that had the technical expertise to access the situation and
recommend alternatives. Landowners, Soil Conservation District Supervisors, and irrigation district
representatives would then discuss the alternatives and set a course of direction. This approach leads to
solutions being proposed that have a chance to be supported by the decision makers.
Funding Action
Funding for action start-up costs has come from many different sources. BPA has funded several
projects. Idaho Fish and Game has funded projects through the Challenge Grant and their Habitat
Improvement Program. The Shoshone-Bannock Tribes has supplied manpower using their Salmon Corp
team. The Bureau of Reclamation has funding authority to develop a water management demonstration
project in the Lemhi Basin and is also helping fund a River Basin Study with the Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) and BPA. The NRCS and the Idaho Fish and Game have supported staff
for engineering and technical assistance. The SCC has funded the Lemhi Soil and Water Conservation
District to do a collaborative water quality study with the Bureau of Reclamation.
-------
Evidence of Project Success
The dynamic nature of the Model Watershed Project has led to a number of actions, such as:
¦ Lemhi Irrigation District implementing a water management plan to reduce the conflicts between
water withdrawal for irrigation and anadromous fish migration.
¦ Innovative ways to treat streambank erosion and protect fish habitat.
¦ Pasture management systems to maintain and enhance 8 kilometers (5 miles) of primary fish
habitat in the Pahsimeroi and Lemhi watersheds.
¦ Reconnecting 11 kilometers (7 miles) of habitat using a water transfer from the Pahsimeroi River
to the Salmon River.
Summary and Conclusions
The Model Watershed Project has been locally led and locally supported. It is directed by an advisory
committee represented by the key players and interests in the watersheds. The Advisory Committee and
Technical Committees work closely with the project coordinator to review and recommend actions to
meet the goals and proceed toward the vision. This process has been successful in completing a plan and
implementing actions that will improve the watershed's overall ability to sustain production of goods and
services, as well as the many other values that watershed ecosystems can provide.
References
NPPC. (1991) Amendments to the Columbia River Basin Fish and Wildlife Program (Phase One).
Northwest Power Planning Council Document 91-27.
Idaho Soil Conservation Commission. (1996) Model Watershed Plan for the Lemhi, Pahsimeroi
and East Fork of the Salmon River.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Pataha Creek, Its Changing Ways
Duane Bartels, Model Watershed Project Coordinator
Pomeroy Conservation District, Pomeroy, WA
Pataha Creek has undergone a tremendous change over the last century. Named "Pataha" by the Indians,
the creek today bears little resemblance to its meaning of "Brushy Creek." Located in southeast
Washington State, it meanders through the southern half of Garfield County from its beginning in the
Umatilla National Forest to its end where it flows into the Tucannon River in northeast Columbia
County.
There was a time, in recent history, when a person had to literally crawl on hands and knees to reach the
edge of Pataha Creek. Today one can walk to the edge and peer into the channel with few obstructions to
block the view. Over a relatively short period of time, natural events coupled with man's activities, have
changed Pataha Creek from a pristine fish and wildlife haven to an incised channel used largely for the
transportation of silt and other contaminants.
What happened to the camouflage cover that once bordered the creek cannot be traced to one particular
source. Years of farming and grazing next to the creek can be blamed for part of the degradation. Natural
events, such as a quick snow melt in the mountains and the resulting high water, have removed much of
the natural vegetation that bordered the creek. Today most of the 80-kilometer (50-mile) stretch of the
Pataha has very little vegetation to protect its streambanks and provide cover and shade. This loss makes
it virtually impossible to maintain lower water temperatures and fish habitat.
Coupled with its own demise, Pataha Creek has had an influence on other rivers. Draining into the
Tucannon River, it has deposited silt and warmer water into chinook salmon habitat. With the lower
portion of the Pataha once a rearing area for young salmon hatched in the Tucannon River, the Pataha
now creates a barrier for adults entering the lower Tucannon to migrate further up its waters to spawn.
Although not the entire problem for reduction of salmon in the Tucannon River, the Pataha has lost its
past history of supplementing and aiding the Tucannon in its salmon production.
-------
From a determination by the Northwest Power Planning Council in 1993, the Pataha Creek Watershed
was included with the Tucannon and Asotin watersheds as model watersheds to develop a plan to restore
habitat for the endangered Snake River salmon. A coordinated resource management system process had
started. Two committees consisting of landowners and technical personnel were formed to begin the
process of writing a watershed plan to restore fish habitat. The purpose of the technical committee is to
provide expertise with the existing problems and their proposed solutions. The purpose of the landowner
steering committee is to provide the local input regarding the feasibility and economical aspects of the
solutions to the problems. The resulting watershed plan includes a compromised solution from the
different groups that are involved in writing the watershed plan.
While in the process of writing the watershed plan, funding for demonstration projects was provided by
the Bonneville Power Administration. Sites were selected to demonstrate proposed solutions to the
problems identified by the technical committee. Also during this period, implementation funding for the
plan was obtained by the Washington State Conservation Commission. Due to the uniqueness of these
three model watersheds, some variations in the cost-share portion of the grant policies were requested by
the watersheds and were granted by the Conservation Commission.
Implementation is now underway. Cost-sharing is being used for in-stream and riparian practices, along
with extensive upland practices being implemented on private and state-owned cropland and rangeland.
Some of the many in-stream and riparian practices include log weirs, bioengineered bank stabilization
using tree, shrub and grass plantings, and in some cases, concrete or rock structures. Other practices
include the installation of fish ladders to overcome fish barriers, riparian fencing to manage cattle along
the stream corridor, and off-site watering facilities to reduce direct livestock impacts on the streambanks
and water quality. Some of the upland practices include additional installation of terraces, waterways,
and desilting basins. No-till seeding will be cost-shared to demonstrate its impact on soil erosion and the
economics of no-till farming in comparison to conventional tillage.
To document the effect of these Best Management Practices (BMPs) on the amount of sediment entering
the Pataha Creek, an extensive monitoring program has been implemented. Along with written
documentation of before and after projected effects of practice installation, the direct sediment and other
element measurements are being extracted from the Pataha Creek. This is occurring hourly using water
samplers that are placed in strategic locations. This information, which is being cross referenced with
flow readings that are downloaded into computers daily, will determine the actual delivery of sediment
and other elements by the stream into the lower portion of Pataha Creek and the Tucannon River.
The final project goal will be to determine whether the increased and intensive installation of Best
Management Practices in and along the stream, coupled with BMPs on upland areas, will restore the
habitat in the Pataha Creek and influence sediment delivery to the Tucannon River. If habitat can be
restored to a level that will influence the number of salmon entering the Tucannon River to spawn and
rear, then the Pataha has accomplished its goal. In the process of completing this #1 goal, it will have
restored the habitat within the Pataha Creek Watershed to the point where it can maintain a trout and
-------
steelhead fishery of its own.
Above and beyond the numerous fish and wildlife benefits, there are also benefits for the landowners and
others who live within the Pataha Creek Model Watershed. Whether it takes the salmon to move this
process along or not, it will be the cooperative effort of many people and agencies to put a program
together that benefits everyone. Knowing that this type of project can be accomplished without
government regulation, and that it is a voluntary effort of you and me, says it all. The Pataha Creek
Watershed can once again be brought back in the direction that it once was, and may someday again be
referred to as the "Brushy Creek."
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Accepting Challenges to Develop a Model
Watershed Plan for the Tucannon River
Art Sunderland, Project Coordinator
Columbia Conservation District, Dayton, WA
Location
The Tucannon River is located in northeastern Columbia County, western Garfield County, and in
southeastern Washington State. You will enjoy starting at its headwaters, which are located in the
Wenaha-Tucannon Wilderness Area in the Blue Mountains. The river flows rapidly through the steep,
rugged canyons with a beautiful forest landscape of pine and fir. It enters another open site of steep
canyons with rangeland, then into more steep canyons with high producing wheatland along the top. The
river's final destination is the Snake River. The elevation ranges from 1,920 meters (6,400 feet) in the
Blue Mountains to 150 meters (500 feet) at the mouth of the river. You'll find the temperature will go
from -25oF in the winter to around lOOoF in the summer. The rainfall varies from 20 centimeters (8
inches) in the lower elevations to 175 centimeters (70 inches) in the higher elevations. The area has
deeded rights for fishing etc. for several Indian tribes.
The area was first settled in the 1850s and many small farms dotted the Tucannon River Valley. Today
there are 93 farms, ranging from 2 hectares (5 acres) to over 2,000 hectares (5,000 acres) in size. There
are approximately 93 families with a population of 825 people in the county and 251 people in the town
of Starbuck. This population occupies two-thirds of the 84,123 hectares (210,307 acres) of land in the
watershed.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Most of the land within the watershed is privately owned (Table 1). The landowners are proud of the
river and are always looking for ways to improve the habitat and yet stay economically sound.
-------
The floods of 1964-1965 and a smaller one in the
1970s have caused most of the degradation of shade
along the river. These floods also brought about
many changes in the river itself. These changes
pose many problems for future habitat restoration.
Now, let's look at the challenges that the
landowners, the Columbia Conservation District
(District), and the agency representatives have been
working on.
Challenge No. I
Table 1. Land use and ownership within the
Tucannon River Watershed.
Land Use
Dry Cropland
Irrigated Cropland
HEL Cropland
Forestland
Rangeland
Pasture and Hayland
Land Ownership
Private
State
Federal
71%
6%
23%
During 1983 and 1984, the District, Duane Scott of
the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), two fish
biologists, and landowners felt there was a need for
fish habitat and streambank protection work. These
same people, working together, walked the
Tucannon River area from Highway 12 to State Game Ranges, which covered approximately 24
kilometers (15 miles). Areas for possible demonstration sites were pinpointed. The next project was to
find suitable funding for putting these practices into viable demonstrations. No funding sources could be
found at that time.
Hectares
27,172
1,029
24,400
21,867
32,898
1,134
Percentage
acres
67,930
2,573
61,000
54,667
82,244
2,835
Challenge No. II
During 1984 and 1985, Dusty Eddy of the Soil Conservation office, the District, the fish biologists from
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, and the landowners, at a small neighborhood
planning session, decided Challenge No. I was too good not to see it carried out and enlarged. Water
quality would be the additional emphasis.
Project funding was sought from the Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the Northwest Power
Planning Council (NPPC). It, again, was a disappointment when we were told that there were no funds
available for these practices.
Challenge No. Ill
Using what plans all of us had developed from 1983 through 1985, we sought funding from the
Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE). "Water Quality" scheduled a hearing with WDOE. It
was our job, as cooperators, to educate our new-found listener that nonpoint practices were just as
important as point practices; and, if water quality was to be improved, our practices needed to be applied
to the cropland and rangeland adjoining the Tucannon River. With WDOE, we were directed toward a
-------
Referendum 39 grant from the Clean Water Act.
At last, we were underway. All interested agency people and landowners met and selected practices of
strip-cropping, divided slopes, and limited tillage or no-till for the nonpoint area. As we planned for the
nonpoint, we were reminded by the landowners that we will never stop all of the erosion that runs into
the river. With this in mind, 12 sites were observed for desilting basins. Two basins were selected to be
constructed in 1987 (Table 2). Howard Basin had 492 hectares (1,230 acres) of rangeland and 720
hectares (1,800 acres) of cropland. Hovland Basin had 480 hectares (1,200 acres) of rangeland and 440
hectares (1,100 acres) of cropland. These basins proved to be of great value, because we had captured
large volumes of runoff. To monitor these basins and runoffs, we obtained a list of all pesticides that had
been applied during the past three years in the two drainages. Tests were run at the SCS Western
Technical Center. To everyone's surprise, the test results showed no measurable amounts of pesticide
were going into the river.
Table 2. Silt trapped in each basin.
Keep in mind frozen ground, chinook
winds, and excess rain play an important
part in these studies. Frost tubes and rain
gauges are located in the upper nonpoint
cropland with readings made daily.
Along with the nonpoint practices and
basins, we asked for land along the river
that had been severely damaged by the
flood. A landowner allowed us to plant
11,500 cottonwoods and willow whips,
along with 250 pine trees, and establish
2.4 kilometers (1.5 miles) of fence along
the riparian zone for streambank
protection. The plant survival after
beaver control was 15 percent. Following
these practices, we wanted to develop
pools in the river for fish habitat enhancement. The Washington Department of Fisheries, U.S. Forest
Service, and a landowner cooperator spanned two large log weirs across the river with riprap on each
side. These were well received. Our last practice to demonstrate was streambank protection and cattle
management for water and calving by using water gaps and fencing. There were 54 structures of various
methods installed. The greatest success was with heavy rock deflectors, which were cabled together
using a drill, epoxy glue, and airplane cable. These water quality improvement demonstrations pointed us
to a need for greater expansion and a broad plan.

Howard Basin
Hovland Basin
Year
Silt
Trapped
(metric
tons)
Silt
Trapped
(tons)
Silt
Trapped
(metrics
tons)
Silt
Trapped
(tons)
1988
2,138
2,375
1,436
1,596
1989
1,373
1,525
1,138
1,264
1990
568
631
0
0
1991
67
74
0
0
1992
0
0
0
0
1993
540
600
45
50
1994
0
0
0
0
Challenge No. IV
In 1991, the District asked the Soil Conservation Service to place the Tucannon River into a Watershed
-------
Plan and fund it under PL-566. The plan, unfortunately, was tied very closely to the Food Security Act of
the 1985 Farm Program. Because of this tie, the practice designed to help improve water quality was not
acceptable by the landowners. The landowners felt there was too much regulation. This points to the need
for an on-the-ground approach with landowners. To have better cooperation and less regulation will
show more true results on the land. PL-566 is not dead, and it is our hope to use it in the next challenge,
if possible.
Challenge No. V
Yes, this challenge is just more of the same. This time, in 1993, the Northwest Power Planning Council
and Bonneville Power Administration challenged the District to develop a Model Watershed Plan. The
coordinated resource planning process that was used in all previous challenges is being put into this new
challenge. This plan will include the entire watershed, going from the headwaters to the mouth. It
includes the forestland, rangeland, and cropland, with the big push for habitat improvement on the river.
Of the "four H's" that the NPPC has in its strategic plan (i.e., harvest, hydropower, habitat, hatcheries),
the Tucannon River has the big "H" habitat, which stands for protection and restoration of habitat.
The Columbia Conservation District and its landowners had already set the stage for the plan. They had
identified problems such as high water temperatures, sediment, streambank protection, nonpoint erosion,
and a need for riparian management where economically sound. Resource management planning is great,
but the key is cooperation by all agencies. Thirteen different groups have been involved in Challenges I
through IV. Many of you are familiar with the sayings of Will Rogers. The one that fits us best is "You
may be on the right track, but if you don't move you'll get run over."
This latest challenge is our notice for moving. The stage is set. We have an excellent Landowner Steering
Committee. They have plenty of experience dealing with the watershed. The technical committee has
been working hard, and trust and cooperation is showing up everywhere. The first draft is completed and
ratified, and will be ready for the second draft by the time this conference is over. The plan is flexible,
shows leadership, and if funded, will be workable. This plan will work because it is built around thinking
from all people concerned and is not built around regulations.
If the plan is funded, the Columbia Conservation District and the agency representatives putting it
together will meet with the landowners in small groups in their homes to discuss what the plan means to
them and their property. If they still want changes, we will be flexible to these needs. Trust, cooperation,
flexibility, and desire will make this Model Watershed Plan for the Tucannon River work.
One of the great authors, Margaret Mead, made a statement that I think sums up the work of our
Landowner Steering Committee and Technical Work Committee: "Never doubt that a small group of
thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world, indeed, it is the only thing that has."
Should you wish a copy of our final plan, please write me.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Building Partnerships-A Case Study of the Umatilla
River Watershed
Ann Beier, Senior Planner
Umatilla County
Pendleton, OR
Luise Langheinrich, Coordinator
Umatilla Basin Watershed Council
Pendleton, OR
Overview of the Umatilla River Watershed
The Umatilla River watershed is located in northeastern Oregon (Figure 1). The Umatilla originates in
the Blue Mountains and flows northeasterly into the Columbia. Prior to settlement, native grasses
covered the Umatilla plateau above the Columbia River and the Blue Mountains were covered with open
groves of Ponderosa Pine, Western Larch, Engelmann Spruce, and Douglas Fir. Indians hunted and
fished in the region and thousands of anadromous fish, including spring and fall Chinook, and steelhead
fought their way up the Umatilla to spawn.
-------
Figure 1. Umatella Basin Watershed
The Oregon Trail opened up the west and settlement in the mid-1800s. With settlement came increased
agrarian land use. Intensified management practices changed the nature of the watershed. Over-grazing
resulted in native grasses giving way to sagebrush. Wheat farming on steep slopes increases erosion of
the areas' fertile loess soils. Irrigation of alfalfa, potatoes and other vegetables in the western part of the
basin placed demands on Umatilla River water and ground water. Irrigation diversion dams blocked
upstream salmon passage resulting in the extinction of native salmon runs and declines in other
anadromous fish populations.
Much of the upper portion of the Umatilla watershed flows through range and forest land. Some of the
watershed is owned and managed by the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation - the
Umatilla, Cayuse, and Walla Walla tribes. Currently, approximately 40 percent of the watershed's
acreage is range and 13 percent is forested. The central part of the watershed contains some of the most
productive agricultural land in Oregon. Thirty percent of the watershed's acreage is in wheat, barley,
canola, and other dry land crops. Irrigated crops are grown in the dryer west-end of the watershed and
account for about 11 percent of total acreage. The watershed also faces increased population and the
problems associated with urbanization.
Cultural practices have resulted in water quality problems such as excessive sedimentation, temperature
standard exceedances and high ground-water nitrate concentrations. The Oregon Department of
Environmental Quality (DEQ) recently issued its draft 1994/1996 List of Water Quality Limited Water
Bodies, as required by section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. According to the report, much of the
mainstem Umatilla River and many of its tributaries are water quality limited. Some of the problems
include seasonal violations of temperature, algae, and nutrient standards. In addition, there are violations
associated with flow modifications and annual exceedances of fecal coliform and pH standards. In the
-------
western end of the Umatilla River watershed, ground water concerns prevail. An on-going DEQ study of
ground water quality in that area found that 30 percent of wells tested exceeded the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) maximum contaminant level for nitrates (10 mg/1).
Despite these environmental problems, there is a strong foundation of cooperation and partnership in the
Umatilla River Watershed. In the late 1980s, with increasing conflicts between irrigation and fisheries
needs, representatives of the Bureau of Reclamation, the Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
Reservation (CTUIR) and local irrigation districts came up with a proposal to restore the watershed's
fisheries while protecting irrigation uses. The group solicited federal funds for the Lower Umatilla Basin
project, a water transfer project. This project diverts water from the Columbia River, and stores it in an
off-stream reservoir for summer release to meet irrigation needs. This water substitutes for Umatilla
River water retained instream for fisheries. This effort, in conjunction with hatchery development
projects co-sponsored by the Bonneville Power Administration, CTUIR, and the Oregon Department of
Fish and Wildlife (ODFW) has been a success. Salmon have returned to the Umatilla River for the first
time in over seventy years.
The Umatilla Basin Watershed Council-New Partnerships and New
Issues
In 1994, the Oregon legislature passed House Bill 2215, encouraging the creation of local watershed
councils. This bill was amended in 1995 (HB 3441) and provides on-going authority and funding for
watershed councils. Oregon is one of the few states providing such support for watershed councils.
The Umatilla Basin Watershed Council (the Council) was formed in May, 1994 with a goal of
coordinating efforts for enhancing the health of the Umatilla River watershed. In forming the Council,
local residents expressed concern that water resource management in the watershed was inefficient due to
the numerous federal, state and local agencies involved. For example, the U.S. Forest Service manages
the land surrounding the headwaters of the Umatilla River. A portion of the watershed is owned by the
CTUIR. A number of irrigation districts and the U.S. Bureau of Reclamation manage water uses in the
western end of the basin. Numerous other agencies participate in managing the natural resources of the
Umatilla River watershed. Thus, a primary role of the Council is to form partnerships with these agencies
and to help facilitate cooperation with individuals living in the watershed.
When the Council was originally formed, a major effort was made to represent all interests in the
watershed and to ensure that all stakeholders would be involved and represented. The Council
membership reflects this strategy. The Council is composed of fifteen local representatives with diverse
backgrounds and interests including ranchers, farmers from both irrigated and dryland areas, local
attorneys, business owners, a forestry consultant, tribal representatives and other watershed residents.
Council members also represent different geographic areas in the watershed. In addition the Council is
supported by technical experts from the area resource management agencies including DEQ, ODFW,
Oregon Water Resources Department (OWRD), U.S. Forest Service and the Umatilla County Soil and
Water Conservation District (SWCD) Council meetings are open to the public and all interested parties
-------
are invited to attend and participate.
Partnerships Offer Council Support
The Umatilla Basin Watershed Council benefits from a number of partnerships. First, the Council
receives administrative support from EPA. Funds have been available for two years under section
104(b)(3) of the Clean Water Act. The Council is also supported by the Umatilla County Board of
Commissioners. The value of support from local elected officials cannot be understated. First, such
support provides increased credibility and validity to the organization. County financial support further
validates the Council. County assistance goes beyond support for the Council itself to include funding for
Council supported projects. For example, the County provided $8,500 seed money for a bioengineering
project using video lottery funds. This funding was used by ODFW and the Umatilla County SWCD to
leverage over $70,000 from other agencies and businesses for project construction and implementation.
The Council also benefits from other organizational partnerships. The Council and Umatilla County have
entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with the local Natural Resource Conservation Service
office and SWCD. Under the agreement, NRCS and SWCD provide office space and other
administrative support. The Council benefits financially and from the linkage to the watershed's
agricultural community.
Partnerships and Coordinating Efforts
One of the key responsibilities of the council and the Watershed Coordinator has been to understand the
activities of the other agencies and to monitor projects in the Umatilla watershed. Agency representatives
attend all Council meetings and provide information to the landowners represented on the Council.
Natural resource agencies meet monthly to exchange information. The "Natural Resource Discussion
Group" includes representatives of federal, tribal, state and local government. Members of nonprofit
groups and the press sometimes sit in. These meetings are used to "compare notes" and most importantly
to brainstorm better ways to serve the public and protect the region's resources. The group has compiled a
directory of agencies and responsibilities so residents know who to call on particular issues. Several
members of the group, including the Council, co-sponsored an Ecosystem Forum for landowners. The
workshop was designed to promote ecosystem management and provide tools for individuals to enhance
their own properties while contributing to the overall health of the watershed. Several agencies chipped
in to fund an overflight and video of one of the Umatilla's main tributaries, Wildhorse Creek. Infrared
photos taken on this flight identified areas with limited riparian vegetation and significant variations in
stream temperature. These films are currently being used to educate both resource agencies and
landowners. The agencies, and the Council, have also jointly funded several in-stream restoration
actions.
The Umatilla Basin Watershed Council brings a new dimension to these partnerships by involving area
residents. For example, Birch Creek is a major tributary to the Umatilla River and provides critical
steelhead spawning habitat. Headwaters for Birch Creek are in the Umatilla National Forest and the
-------
stream flows through agricultural land before joining the Umatilla River. Recent forestry activities,
increased agricultural production adjacent to the stream channel; removal of riparian vegetation and high
flow events in the last few years have resulted in significant flood damage. These floods have eroded
stream banks and encroached upon agricultural activities. The Council is currently working with land
owners along Birch Creek and is facilitating discussions with agency experts to help them better
understand the dynamics of their watershed. A goal of this project is to help landowners protect their
properties while restoring watershed health. The value of bioengineering techniques for stream
stabilization is a main focus of this discussion.
The Council is currently entering into a unique partnership with the Oregon DEQ and the CTUIR. As
described earlier, the most recent draft section 303(d) list reports that the Umatilla River is water quality
limited in a number of segments. The DEQ places a high priority on establishing a Total Maximum Daily
Load (TMDL) for major pollutants in the Umatilla River. Many of the water quality problems appear to
be linked to diffuse sources and the DEQ is taking a slightly different approach in developing the
Umatilla River TMDL. The DEQ has solicited the assistance of CTUIR and the Watershed Council to
work together to first determine monitoring needs and then to develop a management plan for the
Umatilla River. This highly innovative approach will provide local residents with early input to the
process and a voice in developing management options.
Public education remains a key to building partnerships. The Council has worked with the local media to
promote watershed health. Council members and the watershed coordinator have appeared on local radio
programs describing the Council's mission and activities. Local newspapers are very supportive and run
regular articles on the Council's projects. The Council is currently sponsoring a watershed logo design
contest for local schools. As part of this effort, Council members and agency representatives have
volunteered to discuss watershed health in area classrooms.
The Value of Partnerships
Forming strong partnerships guarantees benefits for all involved. Partnerships result in a coordinated
response. They allow partners to bring their unique expertise and experience to the table. The Council
benefits from the experience of local residents coupled with the expertise of agency technical experts.
Partnerships allow leveraging of funds. Maintaining a $1,000 monitoring station may be impossible for
one agency. However, a $1,000 project is manageable if five agencies each contribute $200. A $50,000
instream restoration project may be unimaginable for an individual landowner or agency. Using
landowner's labor and equipment contribution to match funds provided by several agencies may be
attainable. The project is stronger because of the buy-in and support of the many partners.
Finally, partners help when it comes to "begging" for money. It's no secret to those of you involved in
watershed protection and restoration that funds for such efforts are limited, particularly with federal and
state government cutbacks. Private foundations are a good source of funds, but there is increased
competition for these dollars too. No matter who you ask for financial support, potential funding sources
-------
respond to projects that reflect strong partnerships and support from a number of entities.
Summary
The Umatilla Basin Watershed Council faces a number of challenges in working to restore health in the
Umatilla River watershed. Both water quality and quantity concerns necessitate a coordinated and
creative response. The Council has benefited from partnerships in the past and will continue to work to
establish new partnerships. Partnerships provide enhanced funding opportunities, provide additional
technical expertise, enhance credibility and promote involvement of all interested and effected parties.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Enabling Interdisciplinary Analysis
Leslie M. Reid, Research Geomorphologist
USDA Forest Service Pacific Southwest Research Station, Redwood Sciences
Laboratory, Areata, CA
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
New requirements for evaluating environmental conditions in the Pacific Northwest have led to increased
demands for interdisciplinary analysis of complex environmental problems. Procedures for watershed
analysis have been developed for use on public and private lands in Washington State (Washington
Forest Practices Board 1993) and for federal lands in the Pacific Northwest (REO 1995). In both cases,
analyses are intended to provide integrated, interdisciplinary evaluations of the biological, physical, and
socio-economic interactions that influence the ecoscape and to describe environmental changes and their
causes. "Interdisciplinary" implies that expertise from multiple disciplines is providing an integrated
attack on a problem area. "Interdisciplinary" is carefully distinguished from "multi-disciplinary," which
implies only that multiple inquiries are being carried out at the same time or in the same place.
Those developing the federal and state procedures called for integrated interdisciplinary evaluations for
several reasons. First, environmental problems are inherently interdisciplinary. It is not possible to
evaluate the reasons for a change in flood frequencies in an area, for example, without understanding the
changes in land-use activities in the area, the processes that generate storm flow, the changes in channel
morphology that have occurred, and the effects of vegetation change on both hydrology and
geomorphology. One discipline, acting alone, would be equipped to evaluate only one aspect of the many
that are likely to have influenced flooding. The influences that a single discipline would most likely
overlook are indirect effects that involve the interaction of several components of the ecoscape. These
influences appear to be subtle because they have fallen through the cracks between disciplines in the
past. But as the least well understood, these influences are in most need of evaluation.
In addition, much disciplinocentric information already exists for many areas, yet the relevance of the
information has not been recognized either because people have not had the time or inclination to look at
-------
the data or because the wrong people have examined it. Interdisciplinary work makes the undiscovered
treasures of one field accessible to others who can recognize their value. In one case, for example,
differences between a soils map and a vegetation map were thought to be errors until anthropological
information revealed that the discrepancies recorded a profound change in vegetation type following the
cessation of burning by Native Americans.
Interdisciplinary work is also needed to ensure that the overall focus of the project is maintained. Mono-
disciplinary analyses filter the objectives through the biases of a single field. Interdisciplinary work helps
ensure that the effort is apportioned according to the relevance of different types of information for
addressing the overall needs, and not simply on the basis of how things are done in a particular field. An
interdisciplinary evaluation continually challenges participants to show the relevance of their own
pursuits to the overall objectives of the project.
Evaluation of the complex environmental problems dealt with during watershed analysis requires each
specialist to have an appreciation for, interest in, and understanding of the other specialties represented in
the effort. A major challenge for analysis teams is thus to find ways to promote interdisciplinary
teamwork. Observations of federal watershed analysis teams, interviews with team members, and review
of analysis documents indicate that this challenge is not yet being met effectively.
Barriers to Interdisciplinary Cooperation
One of the most severe hurdles for such analyses is the difficulty that individuals find in working
together in an interdisciplinary framework. Many "teams" are teams in name only; individuals have done
"their" parts of the analysis independently and have left the integration to an editor or have entirely
ignored integration, electing instead to present the report as a series of stand-alone monodisciplinary
chapters. In other cases, published analyses read as data compendia. Few of the reports provide the
balanced, interdisciplinary perspective intended by the guiding directives. The reasons for the difficulty
in achieving true interdisciplinary analysis are many and span the range between societal expectations
and individuals' personalities.
At a societal scale, the philosophy of western science extols the value of increasingly detailed
understanding within increasingly specialized sub-disciplines, while demeaning the value of the
"generalist." Western science views the world largely as mechanistic: take a complicated thing apart and
understand in detail how all the components work, then put them back together and you will understand
the whole. This strategy for problem-solving permeates western education; the focus is on detail and
precision rather than on meaning. Just as a standard grammarian cannot tell you the meaning of the
sentence "He's bad," a standard biologist cannot tell you the meaning of a local decrease in salmon
populations. But both can parse their respective sentences and find professional fulfillment in the parsing.
Reverence for specialization works in a direction opposite to that needed for cross-disciplinary
communication and understanding.
Federal watershed analysis teams are made up primarily of personnel of participating federal agencies,
-------
people who carry scars inflicted by past battles over funding and policy. Diminishing agency budgets
have produced competition between disciplines for limited funding, and a budget increase for one subject
area often represents a cutback in others. Feelings of collegiality between disciplines are difficult to
maintain in such circumstances, and one discipline would be unlikely to push for cooperation with and
thus funding of another discipline, even if the other discipline could help them reach their own goals. As
a result, we find peculiarities such as the propensity for agency fisheries biologists to do their own
geomorphological evaluations of stream channels using methods that geomorphologists know to be
wrong. In addition, different disciplines historically have had different goals within agencies, and many
professionals see their own roles as being advocates for their area of interest. Some agency wildlife
biologists have become known as "combat biologists" whose perceived role is to champion the interests
of particular species by fighting off the impacts of agency misdeeds; their constituency becomes a
species, rather than the agency or the public.
The drive to specialize also is present at a professional level, and the most respected professionals often
are those that have carved out the smallest niches. In addition, every field has complementary needs for
affiliation, marketing, and communication, and historically, the development of specialized jargons has
contributed to meeting all three needs. If you speak your own language, you are a definable group; your
job appears sophisticated and the uninitiated cannot presume to do it; and you can communicate with
your peers more efficiently. The advantages of jargon become deficits when a team is working in an
interdisciplinary setting; here, the vocabulary must be restricted to words that everyone can understand.
Some professionals find this difficult because, in the words of one interdisciplinary team member, "Other
geologists won't take me seriously if I don't speak their language." In addition, analytical methods are
best developed within the context of a particular discipline, so working at an interdisciplinary interface
often means abandoning the established methods. For example, if it is necessary to characterize a few
stream channels for an analysis, an interdisciplinary team cannot use the cookbook techniques
established by fisheries biologists, geomorphologists, or hydrologists. Instead, an ad-hoc method must be
developed that will fill the specific needs of the interdisciplinary question being asked.
Some of the most difficult barriers to overcome are those that arise from the personalities of participants.
Working in an interdisciplinary environment quickly reveals how much individuals don't know about the
other disciplines, and high-level professionals often are uncomfortable working in an arena in which they
appear ignorant. In addition, individuals believe in the importance and relevance of their own field, and it
is humbling to work with people who do not necessarily share one's assumptions of one's own
importance. Another problem is the natural propensity to prescribe a solution on the basis of the solutions
one understands rather than on the basis of what the problem requires. In the words of one observer of
problem-solving efforts, "If the only tool you have is a hammer, the whole world looks like a nail."
Making Interdisciplinarity Work
One approach to developing an effective interdisciplinary team is to hand-pick people who are likely to
make it work. By understanding the nature of the barriers to interdisciplinary work, it becomes possible
to define the personal characteristics and skills needed of interdisciplinary team participants.
-------
Team members must each have a broad-enough view of the overall problem to be able to think beyond
the boundaries of their own disciplines. In many cases, the most specialized professionals are least able
to see the broader context of the problems. People who have broad backgrounds, such as might be
provided by undergraduate degrees in fields such as geography, those with double majors or a broad
work experience, and those with "hobby" interests in other fields, are particularly well equipped to see
the bridges between fields rather than the fences. Usually allayed with a broad interest is a strong
curiosity about how the world works. Someone known for attending seminars or conferences outside
their own field or for conversing with other disciplinary groups is likely to be a useful team member.
All participants must have the ability to translate their own field's jargon into language the other team
members can understand, and to understand that the same word may have very different connotations and
value loads in different fields. In biological and physical sciences, for example, "evolution" is a value-
neutral synonym for a trend through time, while in social sciences it represents a theory of social
development with strong imperialistic overtones and thus carries a decidedly negative connotation. Each
member must be able to recognize the quirks and complexities of their own field and to explain them to a
broader audience, and for this, some practical experience in teaching is likely to be useful.
Some individuals have the self confidence needed to wade into the unknown and ask dumb questions.
People with the strongest needs to protect their own egos are the least useful on interdisciplinary teams,
since the teamwork requires each individual to develop a realistic view of their overall relevance to the
problems and to expose their own ignorance by asking the simple questions needed to develop a working
understanding of the other fields. Each participant must be able to take on the dual role of expert in their
own field and, at first, naive tyro in everyone else's. Any naive tyros who do not expose their ignorance
by asking questions are doomed to remain naive tyros.
Self confidence is also needed to allow participants the freedom of abandoning established methods
when those methods are not relevant to the problems being addressed. Individuals must have enough
expertise in their fields to be able to design methods that peculiarly suit the particular problems they face.
In many cases, no suitable methods have been developed. At the same time, individuals must have the
humility needed to recognize when their own methods and approaches are inferior to those suggested by
others. The traits of self confidence and humility are closely linked: often it is self-confidence that allows
humility to be expressed.
A second overall approach to facilitating interdisciplinary analysis is to design the analysis strategy to
force interdisciplinary cooperation. In the context of watershed analysis, this might be accomplished by
insisting that the report be focused around issues (e.g. flooding) or environmental changes (e.g.
vegetation conversion). Each focal area then inherently demands an integrated interdisciplinary
evaluation. Also useful might be to provide an example of what a desirable interdisciplinary product
looks like. At this point, few good examples exist, so it is not surprising that few teams have a good
image of what an interdisciplinary analysis is.
Another overall approach is to provide mechanisms and opportunities to enhance interdisciplinary
-------
cooperation. The experiences of federal watershed analysis teams have revealed several techniques that
aid in forging interdisciplinary teams.
First, the issue of interdisciplinarity must be discussed so that all team members understand the
difference between multi-disciplinarity and inter-disciplinarity. Related to this is the fundamental need
for the entire team to develop a shared vision for the task. All participants must at the outset develop a
common image of what the product will look like, its scope, and the role it is expected to fulfill.
Second, exercises in "selling" others on the relevance of one's own discipline to the various facets of the
overall problem help to develop one's own awareness of the linkages between one's discipline and others.
Reciprocally, the exercise provides an opportunity for others to learn of information that may help solve
problems in their areas of specialty. If the interdisciplinary team is embarking on a long-term program, it
may be useful to schedule an on-going seminar series in which each team member introduces the others
to the major ideas in their fields. Such an exercise helps each "teacher" develop a facility for translating
their jargon and gives each "student" information needed to translate jargon that does slip through, or
even to adopt jargon that is generally applicable.
Third, a field day can be scheduled during which each specialist describes to others what she or he is
seeing and inferring at each of a few diverse sites. Such an exercise often discloses fundamental
differences in how different disciplines perceive and interpret aspects of the ecoscape. During one such
exercise, geomorphologists and biologists realized that they had been talking about two very different
parts of the stream system when they had discussed "first-order channels," and this difference could only
have been discovered in the field. In other cases, disciplines are introduced to other interpretations of and
explanations for environmental changes relevant to their own fields.
Fourth, specialists from several fields can be assigned the task of working together to produce a flow-
chart diagram of the interactions that affect a particular issue or that arise from a particular environmental
change. This exercise develops a facility for cross-communication as well as provides an analysis tool.
Such "mind map" diagrams can become the basis for interdisciplinary analyses by providing a
framework for identifying the strongest interactions and for recognizing the most useful information to
gather. Such a task was assigned during an interdisciplinary graduate seminar, and student reactions
indicated that the same characteristics that made the exercise frustrating were the ones that made it
valuable. Students from different fields had very different ways of viewing the problems and found that it
took a lot of discussion and argument before they could understand others' points of view. Once
understood, however, those points of view deepened their understanding of the problem.
Finally, and perhaps most painfully, the analysis document can be rigorously edited to excise any
information that has not been demonstrated to be relevant to the focus of the analysis. Such an approach
encourages analysts to test their words continually against the criterion of relevance and to focus their
efforts on tasks that lead toward the overall objectives.
Interdisciplinary work is often difficult and frustrating, but the results have value beyond that represented
-------
by the report produced. As specialists broaden their understanding of the ecoscape as a whole, they
become better equipped to solve problems even within their own fields. But effective interdisciplinary
work doesn't just happen; it requires appropriate people, appropriate assignments, and appropriate
management.
References
Regional Ecosystem Office. (1995) Ecosystem analysis at the watershed scale, version 2.2.
Regional Ecosystem Office, Portland, OR. US Government Printing Office: 1995 - 689-
120/21215 Region no. 10. 26 p.
Washington Forest Practices Board. (1993) Standard methodology for conducting watershed
analysis under Chapter 222-22 WAC. Version 2.0. Department of Natural Resources Forest
Practices Division, Olympia, WA.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Town-Wide Watershed Protection: Identifying and
Involving Public and Private Stakeholders
Michael J. Toohill, Adjunct Professor
Tufts University Department of Urban and Environmental Policy
Maren A. Toohill, Principal Planner
Toohill Environmental Associates
Terry Bastian, President
Ipswich River Watershed Association
Lida Jenney, Chairperson
Martin's Pond Reclamation Committee
Scott Stimpson, President
Swan Pond Improvement Association
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Introduction
Watersheds as a planning scale unit work well from a technical study perspective but are often less than
ideal areas to deal with during an implementation phase. Rather than attempting to create a new
jurisdictional unit based on watersheds which cross town boundaries, the current study focused on
integrating technical studies on watershed protection within the context of an existing political
infrastructure. Defining, identifying, and educating stakeholders involved the use of a multi-phased
process which is still underway. The intent is to form action groups of citizens and public officials
-------
focused on watershed protection at a localized level.
With strong home rule and weak regional government, many watershed planning efforts in the study
region have become little more than "shelf projects"; interesting data gathering efforts that bear little or
no fruit during implementation. The Sister Pond Project in North Reading Massachusetts is an attempt to
mobilize three small, but diverse, grassroots organizations by focusing on locally familiar geographic
units, ponds. A further intent of the project was to help establish a network between the three pond
organizations, the Town, and the Ipswich River Watershed Association (a regional watershed
organization) for technology transfer and support. Finally, a Lake Management Plan (MADEM, 1994)
for each pond will be produced following the conclusion of the public involvement process.
The Sister Ponds
The three study ponds and their watersheds are primarily contained within the Town of North Reading,
and are part of the Ipswich River watershed in northeastern Massachusetts. The three ponds are
limnologically distinct from one another, have different management histories, and are under different
development pressures. Therefore, the overall project design was tailored to address the unique situations
of each watershed while still attempting to provide the Town with a cohesive approach towards
watershed management.
Martin's Pond, the largest of the Sister Ponds at 37 hectares, is a shallow eutrophic lake in a heavily
urbanized part of the community with a watershed area of 1,925 hectares. Martin's Pond is surrounded by
residential development built to the water's edge. The area around the pond was first developed as "lake
camps" (summer houses or cottages on small lots each served by a well and a cesspool). Most of the
original camps have either been replaced by conventional single family homes or winterized, and a
public water supply system now serves the community. The homes are still served by cesspools or septic
systems. Studies of the pond performed under a grant from the EPA Clean Lakes Program (Anderson
Nichols Inc., 1985) indicate that nutrient inputs to the pond are high and that the shallow nature of the
water body (mean depth of about one meter and a maximum depth of 3 meters) has contributed to
extensive macrophyte growth. The Town of North Reading has a public park near the outlet of the pond
which was formerly used as the town beach. This area is still informally used for swimming, but
macrophyte growth and concerns about pathogen pollution due to the proximity of wastewater disposal
systems to the pond affect the recreational use of the waterbody. Boating, fishing, and ice skating are still
popular activities on Martin's Pond. Martin's Pond has an existing pond association and a Town-
appointed committee that attempt to address pond-area concerns at the local level. The emphasis of these
groups of late had been focused on playgrounds, roads, and conservation land acquisition/cleanup.
Within the context of this study, the goal for Martin's Pond was to attempt to strengthen participation in
these existing groups, to provide the residents with technical assistance in interpreting and implementing
the Clean Lakes Program Diagnostic/Feasibility Study results, and establishing a citizen's monitoring
program for water quality.
Swan Pond is a deep, oligotrophic lake in a sparsely developed portion of the Town. Much of the outer
-------
areas of the watershed (61 hectares, total) are undeveloped lands currently under tremendous
development pressure. The nearshore area is sparsely developed with conventional single family homes
on large lots (one acre or more) and a few homes on smaller lots. Significant areas of watershed close to
the pond are either wetlands or have been purchased for watershed protection by local governments. The
homes around the pond are served by on-site wells and septic systems. The pond is 18 hectares in size
and is relatively deep (ten meters or more maximum depth). Swan Pond is part of the water supply
system of the Town of Danvers, and is used as back-up storage for Middleton Pond, the main surface
water supply for Danvers. Because of its use in water supply, there is a history of water quality testing at
the pond for potable water supply parameters and management of pond water levels. There is no history
at the pond for the testing of ecologically-significant parameters such as dissolved oxygen, temperature,
or secchi disk transparency. The pond is primarily used for fishing and wildlife observation. The Swan
Pond Improvement Association is a group of local residents whose primary interest up to this date were
centered on road maintenance and utilities. The study goals for this pond included increasing the
participation of residents in the pond association, re-focusing part of the efforts of the association on
watershed protection, and establishing a citizen's monitoring program for water quality.
Eisenhaure Pond is a small (3 hectares), shallow (1 to 3 meters) pond in a partially-developed watershed
of approximately 61 hectares. The pond was created as a farm pond and cranberry bog and was
subsequently enlarged by a 2-meter-tall earthen dam and spillway improvements. The recent sale of a
farm which controlled a significant portion of the shoreline and watershed has resulted in increased
residential development adjacent to the pond. Unlike the condition at Martin's Pond, new "waterfront"
development at Eisenhaure Pond has been on one acre lots with significant setbacks from the water's
edge. On one side of the pond a sixty feet wide strip of land was deeded to the Town by the developer of
the adjacent parcels. This buffer strip provides a greater separation distance between on-site septic
systems and the pond than exists at either Martin's or Swan Ponds. The pond is used by local residents
for fishing, boating, and ice skating. There is no pond association for Eisenhaure Pond, so the goals of
this study were to identify the stakeholders, discuss watershed protection issues with them, and establish
a citizen's monitoring program for the pond.
The Stakeholders
Using a small group of already-involved key individuals, the project's first task was to identify
stakeholders in common to all three watersheds, as well as those unique to a particular watershed. A
further goal was to integrate this study into town-wide planning efforts. Therefore, town officials, board
members, and employees were identified as the first group of stakeholders. Because of strong home rule,
many functions of town government are carried out by appointed or elected town boards each with a
particular mission. For this study it was important to integrate the efforts of two town boards that deal
with land use controls, the Conservation Commission (wetlands, waterbodies and floodplains) and the
Planning Board (general land use control). Three town departments were also key to the success of this
effort. The Planning Department, which reports to the Planning Board, is responsible for town-wide
planning efforts and maintains a Geographic Information System for the community. The Water
Department has a vested interest primarily in groundwater protection since that is the sole supply for the
-------
Town of North Reading. The Water Department also volunteered to house and maintain equipment
purchased for the volunteer monitoring groups. The Assessor's Office was involved in this project as the
keepers of property ownership information. We also received cooperation from the Town of Danvers
Water Department and from the Town of North Reading Board of Health. These entities maintained
historical record of water quality in Swan and Martin's Ponds, respectively, and expressed an interest in
involvement with the pond associations.
By using data from these groups, as well as membership information from the two existing pond
associations, the next step was to develop a list of residents who lived within 300 feet of each pond. The
intent here was to attempt to identify individuals who potentially had the most to gain from involvement
in a citizen's group. The authors wanted to first form a core group of people from each pond who could
be guided through the process of setting up a neighborhood group and who would receive water quality
monitoring training. Therefore, it was important to reach out to those who had daily contact with each
waterbody. It also became apparent that, inadvertently, each association was to be comprised primarily of
members that had children or grandchildren that frequented the ponds.
Public Outreach and Education
Once the various stakeholders were identified several efforts were organized which aimed to bring them
together on a pond-by-pond basis. First, a mailing lists for each watershed were developed from the
assessor's information, the pond associations, and town government. A one-page survey form was
developed which asked respondents to identify what they enjoyed about living near the pond, perceived
problems with the pond or watershed, concerns for the future of the pond, and their willingness to
participate in pond/watershed related workshops. This survey form, together with an announcement of a
watershed planning workshop, was sent to each person on the mailing list and was distributed to other
pond association members and town officials. A collection box for the forms was provided at the Town
Hall, or the respondents had the option of mailing the forms to a pre-printed address. Response to this
survey was extremely light. Less than ten percent of the nearly 300 forms mailed out were returned. The
surveys did have a desired effect, however. About half of the people currently involved in the three pond
groups were first made aware of the attempt to plan for the future of their pond via the surveys and
announcements.
An evening workshop was then scheduled at a public facility for each watershed. At each workshop a
brief history of the pond was presented, but most of the time was spent discussing watershed planning
and answering water quality and open space questions. Part of the meeting was devoted to studying
ownership plans of the watershed and discussing opportunities for public access and use of the pond. We
also spent some time discussing establishment of a volunteer monitoring program, picking sampling
stations, and scheduling a field trip to the pond. From each of the three workshops, key individuals who
wanted to take a more active role in watershed protection emerged.
Turnout for the Martin's Pond workshop was light, possibly due to the impression that the two
committees currently overseeing the pond were adequately addressing watershed issues. Citizen's
-------
concerns about Martin's Pond centered on water quality and recreation issues. Residents of the area
wanted the pond to be the focus of more attention and use in the community, partially in an effort to
convince the Selectmen that the Town Beach should be re-opened as a supervised recreational facility.
There was a good turnout at both the Swan and Eisenhaure Ponds workshops. The development pressure
in each of these watersheds probably contributed to this phenomenon. Some Swan Pond residents
expressed an interest in pursuing a Surface Water Protection District through Town Meeting, however,
the fear of the pond being "discovered" by nonresidents was also strongly expressed. Residents near
Eisenhaure Pond also expressed an interest in open space preservation but for the purpose of making the
pond accessible to more townspeople. A representative from the major developer in the Eisenhaure Pond
watershed attended the workshop and discussed their past efforts in maintaining public access to the
pond and open space in the watershed. Continued coordination between the Town, the developer, and the
local residents would provide the opportunity to preserve additional open space and recreational
opportunities.
Following each workshop a field trip/water quality sampling demonstration was scheduled for a Saturday
morning. At each session a local resident made a boat or dock available to their neighbors. The
assembled group spent some time making observations about watershed and pond conditions. At each
meeting there was equal representation among old and new residents, and parents/grandparents were
encouraged to bring their school-aged children. The focus was on making this first "sampling run" a
neighborhood/family event; trying to make it a fun outing rather than one more chore that has to be done.
After the initial observations/discussions, each session included a water quality sampling and analysis
demonstration onshore, and a sampling run on the pond. As part of this project a few pieces of equipment
were purchased by the Town for use by the volunteer groups. These included a pH meter, a dissolved
oxygen test kit, and a secchi disk. We hope to add a dissolved oxygen meter, Kemmer bottle, and funding
for fecal coliform testing (at the Martin's Pond beach) in the next phase of the study. We also plan to
repeat the evening workshop and field exercises in the spring and get each group to plan a summer
activity focused on their pond.
Summary
The intent of this project was is to draw a variety of stakeholders into a local watershed protection
coalition whose mission is consistent with the goals of the regional organization. Keeping the scale small
and personal was a key element in bringing otherwise apathetic citizens into the planning process. These
small neighborhood pond coalitions are then drawn informally into larger scale planning and protection
efforts by training them on a scale that is both meaningful and manageable. They know that they are part
of the "big picture", but they have the perceived advantage of not having to deal with a large,
"bureaucratic", watershed-wide coalition which may be focusing most of their efforts outside of their
Town. The larger-scale watershed coalition then benefits from the micro-management of the
neighborhood pond coalition, leaving it free to focus on grander-scale planning efforts. Key elements to
the successful implementation of this scheme are: identification of a diverse group of stakeholders from
organizations, government, and the general public; involvement of local officials and Town staff;
-------
visibility (public involvement opportunities and "advertising"); knowledgeable guidance in the formative
stages of the groups; maximizing the use of existing data and keeping the effort based on watershed
science principles; and coordination between the local and regional watershed efforts. Maintaining
momentum by planning a variety of activities aimed at the different stakeholders throughout the first
years of the groups' existence also appears to be a key factor in preventing the efforts from becoming
small-scale shelf projects.
Acknowledgements
This project was funded by a grant from the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management
(MADEM) Lakes and Ponds Program and a matching grant from the Town of North Reading. The
authors wish to thank the MADEM, the Town of North Reading, the Ipswich River Watershed
Association, the Martin's Pond Reclamation Committee, the Swan Pond Improvement Association, and
the Town of Danvers Water and Sewer Division for their cooperation and assistance.
References
Anderson Nichols Inc. (1985) Martin's Pond diagnostic/feasibility study final report. Anderson
Nichols, Inc. and Lycott Environmental Research, Inc.
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Management (1994) The lake management plan
workbook. MADEM Office of Water Resources, Lakes and Ponds Program.
USDA (1974) Inventory of potential and existing upstream reservoir sites. Ipswich study area.
USDA and Massachusetts Water Resources Commission.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Practical Approaches to Assessing Costs and
Benefits: Urban Erosion and Sediment Control as a
Case Study
Jim George, Environmental Systems Analyst
Maryland Department of Environment, Baltimore, MD
Introduction
Under the current political climate, governments at all levels are coming under growing pressure to
justify their actions in economic terms. Governmental units typically do not have the resources and
expertise to conduct formal cost benefit analyses (CBA). Furthermore, applying CBA to situations
involving environmental or other social elements produces results that, to many, lack credibility. This is
not an indictment of using systematic methods to support public decision making. On the contrary,
recognizing that human dialogue in support of decision making is fallible, "methods are ways of
structuring this dialogue" to "improve the chances of finding correct answers" (Faludi 1987).
This paper is neither a thorough critique of CBA, nor a "how-to-do-it" about alternatives to CBA.
Instead, it presents a broad view of decision-making that provides a context for considering alternative
tools. The intent is to help alleviate our real or perceived dependence on CBA. This paper is an abridged
version of a working paper on this subject, which is available from the author.
Cost-Benefit Analysis: Strengths and Limitations
Cost-benefit analysis (CBA) is intended for use by the government sector to evaluate alternative public
policies. Formal application of CBA generates a ratio of benefits-to-costs, which can be used to rank
alternative projects or determine if the benefits of a proposed action are greater than its costs. In
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
principle, CBA seeks to find the most economically efficient outcome. A cost-benefit analysis should
also evaluate the distribution of costs and benefits among the various affected parties to identify any
serious imbalances.
A proper critique of CBA should be premised on the intended use of the CBA results. In particular, using
a CBA ratio as the final arbiter in a public decision is vastly different than using the entire array of CBA
information as one of many considerations in the decision making process. The value system that
underlies CBA is economic efficiency. This value system is linked to people by notions of aggregating
individual consumer preferences as expressed by our willingness-to-pay. Yet, in addition to being
consumers, people are citizens who make decisions about their community based on other value systems
(religious, cultural, aesthetic, patriotic, traditional, family), which often conflict with the efficiency goal
of CBA. If CBA is used as the sole arbiter in a public decision, then economic efficiency is implicitly
chosen as the fundamental value system and the other value systems are marginalized. To many, this is a
fatal flaw and the most fundamental criticism of CBA. Paraphrasing Sagoff (1994), it would be irrational
to base a public decision simply on the basis of some people's intense willingness-to-pay, regardless of
the worthiness or reasonableness of the endeavor.
If we relax the premise that CBA be the final arbiter, so that we balance the values of economic
efficiency with other values, then a more meaningful discussion can ensue. Consider some of the
strengths of the CBA method. First, CBA enforces a systematic framework that guides the collection of
information about economic, environmental and social impacts. Systematic frameworks help guide
discussion, thereby avoiding "argument at cross-purposes" (Faludi, 1987). Second, CBA, ensures a
documented record of the information that entered the decision. Third, if the efficient use of limited
resources is the common, overriding goal, then CBA prioritizes resources in an explicit way (Hanely and
Spash, 1993). Finally, if the CBA process is open to public discussion, and is flexible in the manner that
various impacts are quantified (e.g., using natural units), then the notion of weighing costs and benefits in
broad terms is intellectually appealing to just about anyone.
It is understandable that some may find fault with this characterization of strengths. They may feel that
the term "cost-benefit analysis" should be reserved for the formal use of CBA, and that more "flexible"
applications should be identified by another name. In addition, many will note these "strengths" can also
be attributed to any systematic method, thus giving no special significance to CBA.
Critiques of CBA are plentiful (Sagoff 1988, Kennedy 1981, Hanley 1993). Without going into detail, I
will note some of them to help develop a context for alternatives. The primary misconception of CBA is
that many believe that, if given enough resources, CBA will yield a single, objective result. This
misperception is based, in great part, on the allure of economics as a neutral science. At a fundamental
level, selecting the CBA tool represents an implicit, subjective choice of the economic efficiency value
system. At an operational level, CBA generally requires subjective choices. For example, CBAs entail
the explicit definition of a particular perspective, or affected community (a neighborhood, city, county,
state, nation). This choice should be made by public officials rather than by analysts. There are no
mechanical rules for this choice (Apgar and Brown, 1987). The fact that the decision-maker should be
involved in the analysis implies it is subjective, and dispels a second misconception, namely that CBAs
-------
can insulate public officials from controversy. Finally, because CBA has subjective operational elements,
it is not as consistent as many believe it to be.
In addition to this misconception about CBA, which result in false hopes and misapplications, numerous
practical and technical criticisms have been voiced. Most notably, are criticisms of valuing non-market
goods, which involve debates on the offer-asking problem (Kennedy, 1981), questions about budget
limits on willingness-to-pay surveys, and the issue of existence values in which some people may value
the Alaskan tundra even though they never go there. Concerns about valuation represent a specific case
of information loss due to aggregation of information into a summary format. From this standpoint, CBA
results in an unacceptable loss of information through aggregating information into a monetary format.
There is also the problem of institutional capture, in which those conducting the CBA bias the results in
their favor (Hanely and Spash, 1993). The problem of discounting environmental assets to determine
costs and benefits over a time horizon also raises technical criticisms (Hanley and Spash, 1993).
Environmentally Sustainable Economic Development may also be at odds with CBA. If the working
definition of sustainable development is "that at least part of the 'natural capital stock' is non-decreasing,.
. . then CBA is in general inconsistent. . . since it explicitly allows trade-offs between consumption
goods and environmental quality" (Hanley and Spash, 1993). Sustainable development, by this
definition, could be preserved by assuring that any development project with net environmental cost be
off-set by projects with net environmental benefits. This would be very questionable in practice.
Finally, as a practical matter, CBAs are notoriously complex. It is important to note that the complexity
of CBA has been exploited by past U.S. presidents to stifle agencies by miring them in mandatory cost-
benefit analyses (Sagoff, 1993). This is commonly believed to be occurring in the current U.S. Congress
with regard to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Such strategic uses of CBA, and questions of
its credibility as a decision support tool, raise broader implications.
Although Wengert (1976) was making a slightly different point, his words apply here. He notes, "We
have had drummed into us facts concerning the fragility of the ecosystems. I would suggest that our
social and political systems may be equally fragile, and that a cavalier disregard of some traditional
political values and callous tampering with public confidence in the political system can have equally
serious consequences." For those who believe that, in the long run, political institutions represent the
appropriate environmental decision making mechanisms, the following potential chain of events would
be sadly ironic: A political system, weakened in part by repeated misapplication of CBA, would in turn
lose its credibility and become incapable of protecting the environment.
Alternatives to Cost-Benefit Analysis
This section compares and contrasts several settings that an analyst should recognize. This awareness can
be used by the analyst to help define the problem prior to considering alternative analysis tools.
Through the political process, we could remove CBA from consideration and have the legislators and
-------
executive administrators assume the role of primary arbiter in public decision making. Critics of this
scenario rightly ask what systematic methods would be used to ensure objectivity and consistency?
According to Sagoff (1996) this is the subject of ongoing research. The topic is far too involved to
address here other than to say a few words. First, we should recognize that subjectivity is inherent in the
problems being addressed, and in the political process; there is no mechanical process by which to solve
society's difficult problems.
Second, our political system has structure based on theories of balancing power, preventing tyranny of
the majority, and so forth. It can be a cumbersome process, but that is also by design to prevent rash
actions. Third, there are numerous tools and mechanisms that could be applied to improve the political
and administrative systems. For example, Haefele (1973) suggests assessing the voting power when
creating regional decision-making bodies to address environmental issues, and adopting a 2/3 majority
voting rule in environmental decision-making to help prevent errors with irreversible consequences.
First Order and Second Order Problems can be distinguished in terms of scale, complexity, and cross-
discipline impacts. Faludi (1987) observes that a lot of problem-solving is compartmentalized due to the
need to specialize. But specialization can result in second-order problems that surface as clashes between
first-order solutions. Some of the criticism of regulations stem from their compartmentalized
implementation as solutions to first order problems, which fail to address second order issues. When this
occurs, people often call for cost-benefit analyses, when other planning tools may suffice.
The distinction between Laws or Executive Proclamations versus Implementing Regulations provides a
loose guideline for the application of CBA. In general, those who create law should determine the extent
to which costs and benefits are to be weighed. They may do this explicitly prior to developing the law, or
they may require the implementing agency to weigh costs and benefits, or they may preclude the
weighing of costs and benefits explicitly or implicitly. This guideline finds support in Supreme Court
record. It is clear that a law can be passed in which implementation is "limited only by the feasibility of
achieving" the stated ends, such as a safe and healthful working environment (U.S. Supreme Court,
1981).
The distinction between CBA and Cost-Effectiveness follows from the previous discussion. Consider
that in 1987, the Governor of Maryland signed an agreement with neighboring states to reduce nutrients
entering the Chesapeake Bay by 40 percent. In committing to this agreement, the cost-benefit
considerations were decided; regardless of cost, Maryland agreed to meet the 40 percent nutrient
reduction goal. The only remaining problem was to develop a cost-effective strategy to meet this
predetermined goal. In a cost-effectiveness problem setting with a targeted goal, CBA is not the preferred
tool, regardless of its merits.
The distinction between public and private sector problems is worth mention. The private business sector
does not have the same responsibilities to the welfare of society that the public government sector has. In
fact, a firm that has publicly traded stocks has legally binding profit obligations to its share holders that
can be in conflict with greater societal goals. For this reason, the private sector does not typically use
-------
CBA.
The notion of decision support represents another problem class. Alternative methods of assessing costs
and benefits merely intended to collect and organize information. These assessment methods do not in
themselves make a decision. Systematic decision support methods can be used in conjunction with the
assessment information to help render a decision. Decision support ranges from simple techniques that
present or aggregate information, to formal methods such as the Analytical Hierarchy Process, a method
of weighting decision criteria (Saaty, 1990); the Delphi method, a group decision making process
(Linstone and Turoff, 1975); or Interactive Multi-Objective Programming, a method for generating
pareto optimal tradeoff information (Cohon, 1978). If the decision happens to be binary (yes/no), then
formal scored Oxford debate could be used. As a general rule, it is better to use decision support tools as
an educational exercise and then make the decision by conventional methods such as voting or a
consensus process.
Practical Considerations and the Urban Erosion and Sediment
Control Case
Up to this point, much of the discussion has addressed general principles that can apply to many
quantitative assessments, and not simply that of assessing costs and benefits. There are many practical
techniques to aid in assessing costs and benefits when under time and resource pressures. One must
recognize, however, that such outcomes will be approximations subject to inevitable criticisms.
As a general guideline, try to involve the decision maker(s) throughout the process. This will allow them
to become educated over time, thereby less dependent on the final summary report. Also, adopt an
iterative process, beginning with a very simple outline of subject areas to be assessed, and evolving to
greater and greater detail based on the interests of the decision-makers. One approach is to create a
summary list of positive and negative impacts for all areas of interest, e.g., economic, environmental,
social, cultural. Another summary should identify who bears various costs and benefits. While the
iterative approach is intended to focus the information search, decision-makers often request information
that has marginal value. In such circumstances, the analyst should attempt to show that the cost of
collecting the information outweighs the benefits. Another time-honored technique is to "over look" the
request.
In Maryland, control of erosion and sediment at construction sites is required by state law. The state can
delegate the authority to implement reviews of site designs and site inspections to cities and counties. In
this setting, many perspectives can be defined in which assessing costs and benefits might arise. One
could seek to review the impacts of existing law or regulations at a state level. One could assess possible
regulatory changes at the state level. Other perspectives could be from the residential home builders
association, or a local jurisdiction that wishes to assess the costs and benefits of relinquishing authority
back to the state. The assessment approach will differ for each of these perspectives. For example, at the
state-wide level, what is one person's cost may be another person's profit, thereby canceling out, or
representing a transfer, or raising net economic benefit to the state in terms of creating jobs. Yet, from a
-------
local perspective, or that of the home developer, this may be of little interest.
As a general guideline, unless you have special funding to conduct serious research, try to build your
assessment on the work of others. Two useful pieces of literature pertaining to urban erosion and
sediment control (E&SC) costs are Heller, et al. (1992) and Peterson et al., (1993). Other sources of
information include local chambers of commerce or economic development agencies (how many small
inns and restaurants would be potentially impacted if sediments damaged a county's trout streams?);
hobby groups and small businesses (how many in-state and out-of-state fishing licence trout stamps are
sold in a county?); trade associations, state business guide books, the telephone book (how large is the
local or state erosion and sediment control industry and how many jobs does it support?), local and state
government (how many grading permits are issued each year?).
If you are unable to quantify some benefit information, simply list it as a cost or benefit. For instance,
E&SC preserves top soil for landscaping and prevents cost of regrading gullies (benefit to construction
industry); E&SC for stalls the need for dredging of drainage ditches, ponds and reservoirs (benefit to
agency(s) responsible for such maintenance; if properly dredged, flooding will be reduced, which will
reduce property damages and potential liability in the event of auto accidents; E&SC will reduce nutrient
and turbidity pollution in streams and lakes. Again, the list could be continued.
Finally, anyone conducting assessments of costs and benefits should take the time to review the concepts
underlying applications of CBA. Having been around a long time, many case studies exist which serve as
a guidelines to help organize the process and provide additional ideas about how to gather relevant
information.
References
Apgar, William C. and H. James Brown, Microeconomic and Public Policy, Scott Foresman and
Company, Glenview, IL, 1987.
Cohon, Jared L., Multiobjective Programming and Planning, Academic Press, New York, NY,
1978.
Fauldi, Andreas, A Decision-Centered View of Environmental Planning, Urban and regional
Planning Series, Volume 38, Pergamon Press, Oxford England, 1987.
Haefele, Edwin T., Representative Government and Environmental Management, Resources for
the Future, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1973.
Hanley, Nick, Clive L. Spash, Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Environment, Edward Elgar
Publishing Co., Brookfield, VT, 1993.
Heller, Katherine B., et al., "Economic Analysis of Coastal Nonpoint Source Pollution Controls:
-------
Urban Areas, Hydromodifications, and Wetlands," Draft, prepared for U.S. EPA, by the Center
for Economics
Research, Research Triangle Institute, Research Triangle Park, NC, June 1992.
Kennedy, Duncan, Cost-Benefit Analysis of Entitlement Problems: A critique, Stanford Law
Review, vol. 33, 387-445, 1981.
Linstone, Harold A. and Murry Turoff, The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications,
Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA, 1975.
Paterson, Robert G., et al., "Costs and Benefits of Urban Erosion and Sediment Control: The
North Carolina Experience," Environmental Management, 17:2, 167-178, 1993.
Sagoff, Mark, At the Shrine of our Lady of Fatima or Why Political Questions are Not All
Economic, Arizona Law Review, 23:4, 1283-1298, 1981.
Sagoff, Mark, The Economy of the Earth, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England,
1988.
Sagoff, Mark, Free-Market Versus Libertarian Environmentalism, Critical Review, 6:2-3, 211-
230, 1993.
Sagoff, Mark, Personal Communications (1996).
Saaty, Thomas L., The Analytical Hierarchy Process: planning, priority setting and resource
allocation, RWS Publications, Pittsburgh, PA, 1990.
U.S. Supreme Court, American Textile Manufacturers Institute, Inc. versus Donovan, 49
U.S.L.W. 4720, 1981.
Wengert, Norman The Political Allocation of Benefits and Burdens: Economic externalities and
due process in environmental protection, A Royer Lecture, Institute of Governmental Studies,
University of California, Berkeley, 1976.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Conjoint Analysis of Water Quality
Enhancements and Degradations in a Western
Pennsylvania Watershed
Brian P. Griner, PhD Candidate
Stephen C. Farber, Professor
Graduate School of Public & International Affairs, University of Pittsburgh,
Pittsburgh, PA
Introduction
This study utilizes a new methodology for ecosystem valuation, conjoint analysis and extends previous
research using conjoint analysis to incorporate the impact of substitutes on the valuation of ecosystem
attributes. Conjoint analysis has been used extensively in marketing and transportation studies to
examine individual preferences for private and public goods which have multiple attributes. Recently,
conjoint analysis has also been used by MacKenzie (1992, 1993) [1, 2] and Gan (1992) [3] to value the
attributes of recreational hunting trips and by Johnson, Desvousges, Fries and Wood (1995) [4] to value
environmental damages from electric utility plants. This method is particularly appropriate for valuing
watersheds which are complex ecosystems with many attributes.
Conjoint analysis may have the additional advantage of removing or reducing quantity-insensitivity
biases such as the adding up effect (e.g., if the value of remediating stream A and stream B together is
very different from the value of remediating stream A plus the value of remediating stream B given that
you are already paying for the remedation of stream A.) [5], Utilizing a watershed map which makes the
quantities of polluted streams explicit and valuing the streams simultaneously using conjoint analysis
should reduce or eliminate this bias by reminding the respondents of the larger context.
-------
Previous conjoint studies have used orthogonal main effects experimental designs, i.e., the level of each
attribute is evaluated independently of the levels of other attributes so that the individual attributes are
uncorrelated. This study extends the methodology by incorporating the effects of substitution on the
valuation of the remediation of degraded streams and the prevention of degradation of healthy streams in
a watershed (i.e., the value of remediating a degraded stream or preventing the degradation of a healthy
stream will depend on the water quality of alternative streams in the watershed). This is accomplished by
using a fractional factorial experimental design to create alternative policy packages (i.e., conjoint cards)
which will allow for interactions between levels of water quality for alternative streams in a watershed.
The values obtained from this methodology represent the total value; i.e., the use value (e.g., fishing)
plus the nonuse value (e.g., preserving aquatic habitat for future generations); of remediating or
preventing a degradation of a stream within the context of the watershed.
Study Area: Lower Allegheny River Watershed
The study area is the Lower Allegheny River drainage basin which drains 2,394 square miles, includes
six subbasins and covers half of Allegheny, Indiana, Cambria, Somerset and Westmoreland Counties as
well as some parts of Butler and Armstrong Counties. The basin contains 3,073 stream miles, of which
1,136.4 stream miles were assessed for water quality. Of those stream miles assessed, 553.4 miles fully
support statewide protected uses, 112.5 miles partially support statewide protected uses and 459.2 miles
do not support statewide protected uses according to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania 305(b) report
(1994) [6], Of the 583 stream miles degraded (partial and nonsupport) 433.2 of those miles do not
support protected uses due to acid mine drainage (AMD). Of the six subbasins, 18C, the Loyalhanna
Watershed is the most severely degraded with 281.7 miles degraded (59.31 percent), 100 percent of the
degraded stream miles are due to AMD (see Figure 1 and Table 1).
-------
LAWRENCE
i ...
I
BEAVER
\
4*
\ ^ALLEGHENY
; WESTMORELANH
WASHINGTON / x-l* ^
« fayetteO"
SOMERSET
AMD Impact on
Aquatic Habitat
source: EPA Region III
¦No Fish (1829)
Some Fishtl954)
Figure 1. The Lower Allegheny River Drainage Basin & Surrounding Counties.
Table 1. Lower Allegheny River Drainage Basin & Subbasin Characteristics
Subbasin
Area
(Sq.
Miles)
Total
Stream
Miles
Degraded
Stream
Miles
Percent
Degraded
Stream
Miles
AMD Percent
18 A
323.74
417.00
14.70
3.53
13.70 93.20
18 B
168.73 210.00
43.60
20.76
33.60 77.06
-------
18 C
367.26
475.00
281.70
59.31
281.70
100.00
18 D
699.92
899.00
31.40
3.49
28.60
91.08
18 E
648.59
838.00
87.60
10.45
75.40
86.07
18 F
186.14
234.00
0.20
| 0.09
0.20
100.00

Total
2394.38
3073.00
459.20
14.94
433.20
94.34
Methodology
The methodology for this study will utilize conjoint analysis to estimate values associated with water
quality changes due to AMD (i.e., enhancements from remediation and degradations from mining
activities). A fractional factorial experimental design is used to generate alternative policy packages of
AMD remediation, degradation and payments or compensations associated with different combinations
of water quality changes for combinations of streams. The measure of water quality used will be the EPA
classifications of AMD impact on aquatic habitat: severe AMD and no aquatic habitat, and moderate
AMD and some aquatic habitat. Other streams are not classified and so data from the Pennsylvania Fish
Commission will be used to determine streams which have no AMD and good aquatic habitat.
For the study, three streams in Western Pennsylvania were chosen: Loyalhanna Creek, Conemaugh River
and Yellow Creek. The EPA water quality classifications for Loyalhanna Creek is moderately polluted
and for the Conemaugh River is severely polluted. Yellow Creek is a trout stocked fishery stocked by the
Pennsylvania Fish Commission and is unpolluted by AMD. Four payment levels, $45, $90, $180, and
$360 were chosen from previous studies. The three compensation levels $90, $180, and $360 represent
WTA compensation for water quality degradations. A full factorial design would produce 33x7 or 189
combinations of water quality and payment or compensation. To simplify the design, four water quality
changes were used: severely polluted to unpolluted, unpolluted to severely polluted, moderately polluted
to unpolluted and moderately polluted to severely polluted. This reduced the design to 22x3x7 or 84
combinations of water quality and payment or compensation. To further reduce the size of the design,
combinations which do not make economic sense were eliminated. The final design used 56
combinations or policy packages. The 56 policy packages were divided into seven blocks of eight policy
packages. This design will allow for the estimation of the main effects and interactions between water
quality levels in the different streams and the estimation of WTP for water quality enhancements and
WTA for water quality degradations.
The study utilizes a map of streams in the study area which indicate geographic locations and current
-------
water quality conditions. Each respondent will receive a map and eight policy packages to evaluate. The
ratings scale uses five levels to reflect the intensity of preference for the new policy: definitely no,
probably no, maybe yes-maybe no, probably yes, and definitely yes.
Conjoint analysis can be used to produce utility-theoretic estimates of willingness to pay (WTP) or
willingness to accept (WTA) compensation for changes in water quality associated with AMD using
McFadden's (1981) theory of random utility maximization (RUM) [7], Under the RUM hypothesis,
utility is partitioned into a systematic component and a random unobserved component. For example, an
individual chooses policy package i over policy package j if the utility associated i with is greater than
the utility associated with j so that:
Vj (WO,),
0 r
Vj (WQj),
where
Vfc is the indirect utility function for policy
package k { i, j }
WQt is the water quality for policy package k = 1 i, j >
1 is income
Pfc is the willingness to pay for a water quality
enhancement or compensation for a water
quality degradation for policy package k={i,j}
is the random unobserved utility associated
with policy package k={i,j}
In the probabilistic choice framework, the probability that policy package i is chosen over policy package
j is given by:
Pr{6| -es } < P r{Vj (WQj I-Pj J - Vj (WQj I - P| )} [3]
Given a functional form for V and an assumption regarding the distribution of a , maximum likelihood
estimates can be obtained for the parameters of the indirect utility function V.
I -Pi |+ £j > Vj (W Qj I - Pj J + £. 11]
I - Pj ) - Vj (WQj I - Pj ) > - £j 12 ]
An ordered logit model will be used to estimate the marginal utilities of the indirect utility function:
-------
1
R =
[1 + e1]
[4]
where
R is the ratings scale representing the underlying indirect utility index
and
Z =
-------
3Z
3WQ:
K ( W Q, . Y - P, X, BLOCK)=
3(Y - P)
In the case of a water quality enhancement, the marginal value is the WTP for that enhancement and in
the case of a water quality degradation, is the WTA compensation for that degradation. The estimates of
WTP for a water quality enhancement can be used to estimated the value of remediating a particular
stream or sets of streams in a watershed given the characteristics of the watershed and the characteristics
of individuals who live in and around a watershed. WTA can be used for natural resource damage
valuation based on the characteristics of the watershed and the characteristics of individuals who live in
and around a watershed.
The study is currently in progress. The analysis and results will be presented at the conference.
J. MacKenzie, Evaluating Recreation Trip Attributes and Travel Time Via Conjoint Analysis,
Journal of Leisure Research 24, 171-184 (1992).
J. MacKenzie, A Comparison of Contingent Preference Models, Amer. J. Agr. Econ. 75, 593-603
(1993).
C. Gan, A Conjoint Analysis of Wetland-Based Recreations: A Case Study of Louisiana
Waterfowl Hunting, dissertation, Louisiana State University (1992).
F. Johnson, W. Desvousges, E. Fries & L. Wood, Conjoint Analysis of Individual and Aggregate
Preferences, Technical Paper No. T-9502, Triangle Economic Research, (March 1995).
Diamond, P., Hausman, J., Leonard, G., & Denning, M., Does Contingent Valuation Measure
Preferences? Some Experimental Evidence, in Contingent Valuation: A Critical Assessment,"
Hausman, J. (ed.), Amsterdam, North Holland Press (1993).
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, "Water Quality Assessment 305(b) Report," Pennsylvania
Department of Environmental Resources, Bureau of Water Quality Management, 151 (1994).
References
D. McFadden, Econometric Models of Probabilistic Choice, in "Structural Analysis of Discrete
Data with Econometric Applications, ed.s C. Manski & D. McFadden, Cambridge, Massachusetts,
MIT Press (1981).
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Value of River Protection in Vermont
Kari Dolan, Water Resource Project Manager
The Northeast Natural Resource Center of the National Wildlife Federation,
Montpelier, VT
Alphonse Gilbert, PhD, Professor
School of Natural Resources of the University of Vermont
Lesley Frymier and Christina Mitchell, Graduate Students
University of Vermont, Burlington, VT
Introduction
Vermont's water resources its rivers, streams, lakes, and ponds are a prominent feature of the state's
rural landscape. These resources are relatively undeveloped, accessible, and of good quality. However,
the state's waters have had a history of abuse ranging from dams and diversions to shoreline erosion from
poor land-use practices. In many cases, these abuses continue, further degrading our waters.
The constant pressure throughout the state to divert public water for private uses, coupled with an
increase in public demand for water-based recreation, has increased the competition for Vermont's
watersl. Greater competition intensifies decisions about how to best allocate resources across all
demands. The purpose of this study is to help guide public decisions on how to best manage water
resources by focusing on the economic values associated with nonconsumptive use2.
How important is the conservation of rivers and streams to the people of Vermont and its economy? How
much commercial activity are water-based recreationists generating? How would losses in the quality or
quantity of our water resources affect recreation and the businesses that support the recreation industry?
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
To answer these questions, the National Wildlife Federation and the University of Vermont teamed up to
develop a two-part project. Part One focused on water-dependent businesses by investigating the
magnitude of economic activity from such businesses and the importance of clean water to business
stability and future growth.
Part Two is a case study that focused on recreationists the clientele of the water-based businesses who
derive benefit from the use and/or existence of the White River. The White River was selected for this
study because it is known for its clean water and scenic beauty. It defines one of the state's 17 major
drainage basins, one of two free-flowing rivers in the state, and the only major free-flowing tributary to
the Connecticut River.
Methodology
Both parts of this study relied on surveys. Part One consisted of a statewide mail survey of 522
businesses that have a direct relationship to water-based recreation (e.g., bait shops, guide services, etc.).
The survey also included those service-oriented businesses that indirectly depend upon the resource (e.g.,
motels, restaurants, etc.). Their customers may come to these establishments because of their proximity
to a recreational site. The intent of the business survey was to gather data on: (1) general business
characteristics, (2) marketing activities, and (3) perceptions regarding various water policies. The overall
response rate was 33%_44% of businesses directly and 18% of businesses indirectly dependent on water
resources, respectively.
Part Two consisted of a random sample of two groups of Vermont residents_1500 households in towns
bordering the White River and another 1500 households in "all other" towns in Vermont. A 33%
response rate was obtained. The White River survey was designed to elicit information on: (1)
perceptions of river quality, (2) expenditures directly associated with trips to the river, and (3) user and
nonuser value, measured by willingness to pay (WTP), to prevent streamflow reductions3.
Willingness to pay values were obtained using an open-ended form of the contingent value method
(CVM). To study the robustness of the results, two hypothetical scenarios were used to measure the value
of protecting a river's natural flows: water withdrawal by a resort for irrigation and snowmaking; and,
streamflow regulation by the construction of a hydroelectric generation facility. Each scenario depicted
two levels of development that would result in two different flow regimes (Water Levels I and II). Both
regimes provided less water in the river than the natural river flow, and Water Level II was a lower water
level than Water Level 14.
Results
Finding #1: Business Activity that is Dependent on Water Resources
-------
Results of the Vermont business survey show that businesses dependent upon water-based recreation are
widely dispersed across the state, usually located in rural communities near particular rivers, and close to
recreational sites or access points. Results also indicate that water-based recreation in Vermont is a $108
to $125 million per year business ($47-$64 million and $61 million in annual gross revenues from the
businesses that are directly and indirectly dependent on water resources, respectively). These businesses
support a range of 1,600 jobs (typically in the winter months) up to 3,500 jobs (in the summer months)
per year and generate at least $6.2 million per year in sales tax receipts for the state's general fund.
Because these recreational dollars are often spent in rural communities where the water resource is
located, the economic contribution of water-based recreation is particularly significant to the rural
economic base.
The survey also identified another category of water-dependent businesses which we have termed, "other
water-related businesses." This includes boat and angling equipment manufacturers who tend to market
their products primarily outside of Vermont. These businesses may not directly benefit from water
quality improvements in Vermont, but emphasized how they derive benefits from the public perception
that Vermont's natural resources are clean. These businesses generate an estimated $8-10 million
annually in gross revenues and provide an additional 100 jobs.
Finding #2: Use and Visitation Rates of the White River
Overall, 54% of the regional and 14% of statewide respondents participated in recreational activities on
or along the White River during the last 5 years. Regional and statewide users visited the river an average
of 34 and 7 times per year, respectively. The White River recreational activities with the highest
participation rates are:
¦ Swimming and tubing (32% regionally and 5% statewide),
¦ Angling (31% regionally and 9% statewide),
¦ Boating (13% regionally and 5% statewide), and
¦ Indirect uses that include picnicking, sightseeing, walking, and observing nature (44% regionally
and 8% statewide).
These results indicate the importance of Vermont's waters for recreational purposes. They also suggest
that people who live within the watershed use the river for recreational purposes more frequently than
those in other parts of the state. Water-based recreationists in other parts of the state are likely to have
other water resources available to them.
Finding #3: The Importance of Water Levels and Water Quality
Respondents to the statewide business survey were asked to rate the importance of water flow levels to
their business. Similarly, recreational users in the White River study were asked to rate the importance of
water flow levels in meeting their river-based recreational needs. The results in Table 1 show that 74% of
businesses and 77% of White River users overwhelmingly affirm the importance of adequate flow levels
-------
in the river.
Tablel. Importance of Water Levels and Water Quality for
Businesses and Users
i Importance of:
Very Important
Important
Total
Flow levels-Regional Users
40%
36%
76%
Flow levels-Statewide Users
47%
35%
82%
Flow levels-Overall Users
41%
36%
77
Flow levels for Business
41%
33%
74%
Water Quality for Business
62%
30%
92%
Table 1 also shows that 92% of businesses surveyed believe that qualitative improvements in clean water
are important for business. When businesses were asked whether they would prefer a change in the
enforcement or increased investment in current water quality standards, 73% of water-related businesses
stated that they would prefer an increase in enforcement or investment. These results demonstrate the
value of clean water to these businesses and, by extension, its role in providing sustainable jobs and
income in Vermont's rural communities.
Finding #4: User Expenditures to the Regional and State Economy
The estimated annual, statewide expenditures on goods and services directly attributable to recreational
use of the White River is $35,228,000. The nondurable, trip-related expenditures (e.g., transportation,
food, lodging) accounted for 93% ($33 million) of total expenditures. The durable expenditures (e.g., that
portion of a canoe or a fishing rod purchase attributed to trips to the White River) made up the remaining
7% ($2 million). The average nondurable and durable expenditure is $49 and $33, respectively. These
expenditures support local businesses and generate and estimated $1.9 million in tax revenue for the
state.
It is important to point out the differences between Finding #1 ($125 million in annual gross revenues
statewide from business activity) and Finding #4 ($35 million in annual, statewide expenditures from
recreational users at the White River). Results of the business survey are very conservative. The revenues
do not include every water-related business in the state. Not every business, particularly with respect to
the indirect, water-related businesses, received the survey. Moreover, this category of businesses did not
include businesses such as country, grocery, and convenience stores, that sell nondurable goods like
gasoline, food, and drinks that, as indicated from the results of the user expenditure survey, represent a
substantial portion of total user expenditures.
Finding #5: User and Nonuser Value of Maintaining River-Flow
-------
Levels
Both users and nonusers of the White River were asked to list their maximum willingness to pay to
maintain the natural flow of the river for the two water levels described in each scenario. Nonusers were
included in this analysis because previous research on natural resource valuation suggests that people
attribute a large share of their benefit to "nonuse" values.
There are basically two types of values people place on natural resources: use values and nonuse values.
Use values are those based on an individual's private consumption or use of that resource. The concept of
nonuse values arises from the fact that individuals derive value from the river even if they are not "direct
consumers" of the resource. A nonuse value is attributed to a resource existing in its natural state,
regardless of people seeing or experiencing it. These values represent the aggregate net economic value
(i.e., net willingness to pay or consumer surplus) of a given resource by Vermont residents. This type of
information therefore should be given careful consideration in policy decisions affecting the state's
waters.
Nonuse values include: (1) option value (associated with using the resource sometime in the future), (2)
existence value (associated with knowing the resource exists in its natural state), (3) bequest value (of
knowing the resource is available for future generations), and (4) altruistic value (concerning the
opportunity to allow others to use the river now). Users and nonusers assigned the greatest percent of
their derived value (31% and 37%, respectively) from the White River to a desire to bequest the
unaltered river to future generations
Results from the willingness to pay survey on the White River were positive and demonstrate a strong
public interest in maintaining natural river flows. Table 2 shows that users were willing to pay more than
nonusers, and regional households were willing to pay more than statewide households. In addition, with
respect to the two different flow regimes (Water Level I and II), respondents were willing to pay more to
maintain the natural river flow when presented with the lowest of the two water level regimes (Water
Level II).
Table 2. Mean and Total Willingness to Pay Values to Maintain the Natural Flow
Level of the White River

Water Level I
Water Level II
Users
Average
Total
Average
Total
Users-Regional
$62
$531,000
$70
$595,000
Nonusers-Regional
$25
$183,000
$26
$194,000
Subtotal
—
$714,000
—
$789,000
Users-Statewide
$46
$1,266,000
$49
$1,366,000
Nonusers-Statewide
$22
$3,717,000
$27
$4,519,000
-------
Subtotal
$5,885,000
Summary and Conclusion
The increasing public interest in nonconsumptive water-based recreation signifies an important business
opportunity for Vermont. Water-based recreation is an important market niche in the Vermont tourism
economy, providing a source of jobs, income, and social benefits. This is particularly important in rural,
more sparsely populated regions, where other sources of income are limited.
The results of this study should be considered as policy-makers decide how to best manage the state's
water resources, given competing interests. It further justifies, in economic terms, why state and federal
policy-makers need to protect water resource quality, encourage local and state initiatives to address
degraded waters, and offer timely support of legislation that secures protection of public resources.
Footnotes
IThe 1993 Vermont Recreational Plan - Assessment and Policy Document, p. 50.
2The term, "nonconsumptive" refers to the use of the natural resource that does not alter or threaten its
ecological integrity or aesthetic quality. In this case, we use the term to include activities that do not
require diverting flows from the river for other purposes, like snow-making or hydropower generation.
Anglers and boaters in the river, and hikers, picnickers and photographers along the banks of the river are
all nonconsumptive users.
3Nonusers are defined as those who have not participated in recreational activities on or along the White
River during the past 5 years.
4Results of the analysis revealed that the method of water withdrawal did not have a significant effect on
WTP. Consequently, this analysis focuses on the mean WTP under the two
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Characterization of Causes to Changes to
Freshwater Inflow for 29 Gulf of Mexico Estuaries
Miranda D. Harris, Susan E. Holliday, S. Paul Orlando, C. John Klein
Strategic Environmental Assessments Division, NOAA, Silver Spring, MD
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
This report provides an inventory of several major watershed activities that potentially affect the volume
and/or timing of freshwater inflow to 28 Gulf of Mexico estuaries (Figure 1). The inventory includes
characteristics of freshwater impoundments and storage capacities, population trends, consumptive water
uses, and freshwater diversions for each estuarine watershed. Where available, the information was
presented using a time series format that, in some cases, dates back to the 1930s. The time-series
approach documents important incremental changes to freshwater uses and drainage patterns in the
watershed and provides historical context for present-day conditions.
The information provided supplements an assessment of long-term freshwater inflow trends to Gulf of
Mexico estuaries recently completed by NOAA's SEA Division. Collectively, these two analyses provide
an opportunity to evaluate, by estuary, any changes to long-term freshwater patterns against the
incremental changes in major water use activities within its watershed. The results of this work were
reviewed during a workshop in March 1995 and provide the foundation for on-going assessments of
freshwater alteration and its effect on estuarine habitat and pollution susceptibility.
-------
The Inventory of Watershed Activities
The parameters included in the inventory of the major watershed activities that affect the volume and/or
timing of freshwater inflow delivered to each estuary reflect information readily available through
federal agencies that could be quantified consistently for all Gulf of Mexico watersheds. The purpose is
to demonstrate the intensity of freshwater use, alteration, or diversion in each watershed and to compare
the relative importance of these activities within the watershed as well as across Gulf watersheds (see
Table 1 in Summary).
Data synthesized for this inventory was aggregated using the spatial framework established through
NOAA's National Estuarine Inventory (NEI) (NOAA, 1985). The NEI is a series of data synthesis and
assessment activities to describe physical environments, biological resources, water quality, pollution
sources, and human activities in estuaries and their water sheds. The NEI delineates estuarine watersheds
based on the USGS hydrologic cataloging unit system. This approach provides a common spatial
structure for consistent data collection and for meaningful comparisons of watershed activities across
Gulf of Mexico estuaries.
Impoundment Storage Volume
This parameter is an inventory of more than 15,500 freshwater impoundments in the Gulf of Mexico
region and their normal storage volumes. The objective in obtaining this parameter is to establish where
these impoundments exist and highlight one of the most important parameters that affect freshwater
inflow to the estuarine environment. The information used in the inventory was extracted from a portion
of the 1994 National Inventory of Dams (NID) (FEMA, 1994) and adapted to NOAA NEI spatial
framework for estuarine watersheds using a geographical information system.
Impounded water has been associated with increased minimum inflows (i.e., intentional releases from the
reservoirs) during normally low-inflow season as well as a decrease in the maximum or peak inflows
(i.e., water withheld) during the typically high-inflow season. These altered flows, along with issues
related to sediment retention and evaporative losses from impoundments, are important to estuarine
habitat and resources.
Population Density and Long-Term Population Trends
For this parameter, statistics describing population density and long-term population trends are
aggregated by watershed. Population reflects urban land use in the watershed and provides an indirect
measure of freshwater use and alteration. Freshwater supports domestic, commercial, and industrial uses
in urban areas that potentially stress surface water and groundwater supplies. In addition, urban areas
often have extensive regions where vegetative land cover has been replaced by impervious surfaces, thus
affecting the volume and rate of water transported through the watershed. Impervious areas increase the
rate and volume of surface runoff, contrary to vegetated areas which typically intercept and retain
-------
rainfall.
Population data, available from the US Bureau of the Census (BOC), was compiled for the period 1940-
1990 and evaluated at 10-year increments. Data containing population estimates for 1970-1990 were
available through digital data files, while 1940-1960 data were extracted from County and City Data
publications (BOC, 1940, 1950, 1960). BOC provides population estimates by census tract, a small
statistical subdivision of a county that delineates all metropolitan areas and other densely populated areas
greater than 50,000 persons. For this report, census tracts were assigned to watersheds using a
geographical information system that located the census tract centroid with respect to the watershed
boundaries defined in the NEI.
Surface Water Withdrawals and Consumptive Water Uses
This parameter summarizes the volume of water withdrawn by use type (domestic/commercial,
industrial/mining, thermoelectric power, and agriculture) and the percent of that withdrawal that is
considered consumptive. Not all withdrawals are consumptive for example, some domestic uses
(washing cars) and most thermoelectric uses (water used as cooling mechanism) temporarily 'borrow'
water and later return it to the surface water source. In contrast, agricultural uses 'consume' much of the
water that is withdrawn. For example, in 1985 agricultural use accounted for about 82.5 % of the total
amount of consumptive water use in the Nation (USGS, 1987). Evaporation and transpiration of
irrigation water are examples of consumptive losses. In addition, some water infiltrates to the
groundwater table, effectively causing a 'loss' to surface water.
Estimates of surface water withdrawals were derived electronically from the US Geological Survey's
National Water Use Data Dictionary for 1990. The estimates of surface water withdrawals are made for
the four major use types. USGS provides this information for each hydrologic cataloging unit, the same
spatial unit used in NOAA's National Estuarine Inventory. Thus, the information was readily aggregated
to the 28 Gulf watersheds. However, the data were only available for 1990 (no time series was available).
Major Freshwater Diversions
In addition to the watershed alterations described previously, several major freshwater inflow diversions
exist in Gulf of Mexico watersheds that represent significant alterations of historic inflow patterns. These
diversions may occur intermittently or may be associated with a more permanent regulation schedule.
Major diversions (existing and proposed) occur in the following locations; The Central and South Florida
canal project, the Tampa Bay by-pass canal, a proposed diversion from the Suwannee River to Tampa
Bay, manipulation of waters upstream of Apalachicola Bay, the many diversions of the lower Mississippi
River, proposed diversions from the Sabine and Trinity Rivers to San Antonio Bay, a diversion of the
lower Colorado River, and the Lower Laguna Madre floodways.
Summary of Results
-------
For many estuaries, it is not possible to identify a direct cause-efffect relationship between the freshwater
inflow trends and the watershed activities. However, based on the data collected (Table 1), some general
inferences can be made to link the two. The best way to examine freshwater inflow trends and watershed
activities in the Gulf region is to divide the entire region into three; the Eastern Gulf Region which
includes Florida and Alabama, the Central Gulf Region which includes Mississippi and Louisiana, and
the Western Gulf Region which includes Texas.
Six of thirteen estuaries in the Eastern Gulf show a significant change in freshwater inflow. This may be
caused by a combination of watershed activities. There is a large increase in population in this region,
relatively high consumptive water use due to agricultural activities, and Tampa Bay and Charlotte Harbor
both have a high percentage of their flow impounded by many small impoundments.
Three out of nine estuaries in the Central Gulf show a significant change in freshwater inflow. All of
these trends show an increase in freshwater inflow for either the high or low flow season or both. This is
best explained by an increase in the amount of precipitation in this region. However, there are many
diversions from the lower Mississippi River to surrounding water bodies that may affect amount and
timing of freshwater inflow to those estuaries.
Eight out of ten estuaries in the Western Gulf show a significant change in freshwater inflow. Six of the
estuaries with significant freshwater inflow trends show either a decrease in high flow or an increase in
low flow. These are trends highly associated with reservoirs and it is in this region where the 'typical'
large reservoirs exist. This is an example of man's most influential impact on freshwater inflow trends.
References
BOC. (1940) County and City Databook, 1940. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Government Prining Office.
BOC. (1950) County and City Databook, 1940. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Government Printing Office.
BOC. (1960) County and City Databook, 1940. U.S. Department of Commerce. Washington, D.C.
U.S. Government Prining Office.
FEMA and US Army Corps of Engineers. (1994) National Inventory of Dams. Washington, D.C.
National Dam Safety Program. CD Rom.
USGS. (1987) National Water Summary 1987_Hydrologic Events and Water Supply and Use.
Reston, VA. USGS Water Supply Paper 2350. Compiled by J.E. Carr, E.B. Chase, R.W. Paulson,
and D.W. Moody.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Opening More Gulf of Mexico Shellfish Waters for
Safe Harvest: Using a Strategic Assessment
Approach to Target Restoration Efforts and Build
Watershed Partnerships
Dan Farrow
NOAA, Silver Spring, MD
Thomas L. Herrington
FDA, Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis, MS
Frederick Kopfler
EPA, Gulf of Mexico Program, Stennis, MS
The Gulf of Mexico is the top shellfish-producing region in the nation. In 1994, over 27 million pounds
of oysters were landed from Gulf waters with a value of about $96 million (National Marine Fisheries
Service, 1995). However, over half of the nine million acres of shellfish growing waters in the region has
regulatory limitations on harvest (1995 National Shellfish Register, 1996). These closures and limitations
are due to a variety of reasons, ranging from administrative rules to degraded water quality.
The Gulf of Mexico Program, a cooperative partnership among federal, state, and local government
agencies, industry, and citizens to improve the environmental quality of the region, has recognized the
importance of shellfish bed closures as an indicator of the potential decline in coastal water quality. It has
identified the restoration of shellfish acreage as one of its top environmental objectives, and the Program
partners have pledged to work together to meet the Shellfish Challenge to "increase Gulf shellfish beds
available for safe harvesting by 10 percent."
-------
To begin to address the Challenge, the Program formed a team with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA) Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) Division to
undertake a strategic assessment of the issues impacting shellfish bed closures. The assessment set out to
identify, on a Gulfwide basis, the highest-priority strategies for addressing the problem, the watersheds in
which these strategies could be most appropriately applied, the major steps and actions needed to
implement them, and the priority information and assessment needs required for the strategies to work.
The targeting of strategies and information needs was based on the judgment and experience of regional
specialistss and the available data that characterizes the scale and scope of the shellfish problem. The
data used included the 1995 Shellfish Register database, plus additional information on salinity,
freshwater inflow and pollution source location. The underlying goal of the strategic assessment was to
produce a plan that will help the Program most efficiently use its resources to meet the Shellfish
Challenge. This paper describes the planning and analysis process, presents the results, and discusses the
next steps envisioned to move toward restoration.
Why Strategic Assessment?
The Gulf of Mexico is a huge region with well over 2,000 miles of coastline. Within the region there are
five states, hundreds of federal, state, and local agencies, and a myriad of other interested groups ranging
from environmental organizations to heavy industry. The mix of these jurisdictions and interests along
with size of the region and the complexity of the environmental problems makes the use of a systematic
approach such as strategic assessment a necessity.
What is strategic assessment? It is problem solving through the application of good planning principles
with a broad spatial and temporal view. It is an integrated analysis process that brings together interested
parties (stakeholders) with relevant data in a structured framework to produce a sequenced set of
activities designed to reach a goal within the constraints of time, resources, and competing priorities. By
continually attempting to narrow the focus of attention to the most important strategies and best
candidate areas for solving the problem being addressed, it provides a means to simplify the analysis and
derivation of possible strategies for complex management issues. It also seeks to maximize the use of
existing data, thereby reducing the need for (and cost of) additional data collection, and provide the
larger picture of problems and issues necessary to evaluate the importance of, and relationship among,
resource issues.
Key steps in strategic assessment include identifying the problem(s); understanding the key factors
underlying these problems; assembling the information needed to characterize their scale, scope, and
severity; developing and prioritizing strategies to address the problem; reaching consensus on those
ideas, and assembling the strategies into a plan of action. For the process to succeed, however, the
appropriate personnel, information, and analysis tools (eg., computers, GIS) must be available to conduct
the assessment. Without this "assessment engine," the process will not result in a complete and viable
plan of action.
-------
Applying Strategic Assessment to the Shellfish Challenge
For the Shellfish Challenge, two regional workshops were organized by the Project Team to bring
together federal, state, and local specialists in shellfish management, pollution abatement, habitat
management, and the shellfish fishing and processing industry. The goals of shellfish workshops were to
develop a series of strategies to help the Gulf of Mexico Program achieve the Shellfish Challenge, target
watersheds where those strategies could be applied, and provide some general information on how those
strategies could be implemented (Shellfish Challenge Plan, 1996).
Before the first workshop, several key data sets, reports, and assessments were assembled, synthesized
into maps, tabular summaries, and charts, and given to each participant in a workbook. Information was
included on the harvest classification, area, relative resource abundance, and type and relative importance
of various categories of pollution sources contributing to the classification of the 580 growing waters in
the region compiled from the responses of state shellfish managers assembled for the 1995 National
Shellfish Register; on the location of municipal and industrial discharges and the number of persons
serviced by on-site wastewater disposal systems (primarily septic systems) taken from NOAA's National
Coastal Pollutant Discharge Inventory; on trends in freshwater inflow, the intersection of growing waters
with high and low salinity regimes, and trends in coastal population obtained from NOAA's National
Estuarine Inventory; the life history of oysters from the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council's
Regional Management Plan for the Oyster Fishery; and on Molluscan Shellfish Harvesting Criteria from
the National Shellfish Sanitation Program Manual of Operations and a report by the Interstate Shellfish
Sanitation Commission.
These data gave the participants the background needed to help them make better decisions regarding the
relative importance of different problems related to shellfish bed closures. Providing this information at
the workshop in a readily usable form was an essential step in the strategy development process.
Shellfish Workshop I. At the first workshop, held in New Orleans, LA in April 1995, the 50 participants
identified the major issues impacting shellfish bed harvest restrictions, and developed an initial list of 33
strategies to address these issues. To take full advantage of the specific expertise of the invitees, they
were then divided into three breakout groups focusing on strategies related to 1) pollution sources; 2)
habitat enhancement; and 3) public health and resource management.
After a more detailed review of the strategies, each breakout group ranked them in terms of relative
importance to meeting the Shellfish Challenge. The criteria for selection varied by group, but included an
assessment of the severity of the problem that the strategy addressed, the regional importance of the
strategy, the likelihood that successful implementation would lead to upgrades in growing water
classification or increase in shellfish habitat, and the feasibility of successfully implementing the
strategy. They then completed a strategy development worksheet for each strategy by briefly
diagramming the steps needed to implement the strategy, identifying estuaries in the region where the
strategy might be applied, and detailing any impacts the strategy might have on shellfish classifications,
harvests, or the ecosystem. The participants then identified, in very general terms, how long it might take
-------
to implement the strategy, expected costs, parties affected, institutions involved, and potential constraints
on implementation. As a final activity, the results from each breakout session were reported and
discussed in a closing plenary session.
Shellfish Workshop II. Sixty participants attended Shellfish Workshop II, which was held in Pensacola
Beach, FL in early August 1995. One of the first activities at this workshop was to discuss the list of
strategies developed at Workshop I and to suggest necessary modifications. Participants again were
divided into breakout groups, and, after additional discussions, conducted a final prioritization of the
strategies, selecting one or two strategies as their top picks Gulfwide.
The groups then concentrated on targeting watersheds where the strategies could be applied. Prior to this
workshop, the project team had refined the information in the strategy development worksheets, and had
used the available background data to undertake an initial targeting of watersheds for their potential as
candidates for strategy implementation. The approach to targeting varied for each breakout group, but
provided the participants a preliminary result that they could react to and modify. Once the groups had
selected and ranked the watersheds as being possible, good, or best candidates, participants were asked to
review and prioritize a list of additional information and assessment needs compiled by the project team
from the strategy development worksheets completed in Workshop I. This activity was cut short and the
workshop canceled at this point because of the evacuation of Pensacola Beach caused by Hurricane Erin.
State Visits. After Shellfish Workshop II, a series of state visits were used to complete the data collection
and review process needed for the Shellfish Challenge Plan. Four meetings were held during November
1995 (Alabama and Mississippi were combined). At these meetings, the watershed targeting was
reviewed and finalized, priority information and assessment needs were reviewed along with possible
sources for the information, and the states were polled as to their interest in participating in future studies
to evaluate the feasibility of implementing selected high priority shellfish strategies. The state visits were
an extremely valuable way to end the strategic assessment process, as they provided both the Project
Team and the state participants an opportunity to focus on the strategies, candidate watersheds, and
information needs most relevant to their jurisdiction.
Results
Thirty-two strategies were identified and prioritized by the workshop breakout groups in the workshops.
While all of these strategies have merit and can contribute to meeting the Shellfish Challenge, the
breakout groups, through the discussions and ranking activities at the two workshops, identified five top
strategies on a Gulfwide basis.
Pollution Sources. Two highest-ranked strategies were identified by this breakout group related to
reducing inputs of pollutants from septic systems and from runoff from densely populated areas. The
goal of Strategy PS-1 is to connect poorly operating septic systems to wastewater treatment plants
(WWTPs). The group believed that inputs of fecal coliform bacteria (FCB) from malfunctioning or
improperly sited septic systems are a major cause of shellfish harvest restrictions in the Gulf of Mexico.
-------
Individual treatment or septic systems are in widespread use in the region and systems are sometimes
located in areas where soils are inappropriate for this type of technology. Under this strategy, individual
homes would be connected to a WWTP if one was in a close proximity. If no WWTP existed nearby,
construction of a WWTP would at least be considered, taking into account the costs and benefits (both
environmental and economic) of installing in a centralized treatment system.
The goal of strategy PS-5 is to reduce runoff containing FCBs in densely populated areas by
implementing a variety of best management practices. The strategy was developed to target runoff not
only from cities, but also inputs from suburban areas such as shopping centers. The group felt that
significant improvements could be made to reduce the impact of densely populated areas on adjacent
shellfish growing waters. In addition to FCB, other pollutants such as hydrocarbons and pesticides were
cited as components of concern in runoff from densely populated areas.
Habitat Enhancement. Increasing suitable substrate and cultch available in areas of optimal salinity to
enhance shellfish productivity was considered the top rated strategy by this breakout group. This strategy
suggests that shellfish (i.e., oyster) productivity may be increased in areas of optimal salinity with
increased availability of suitable substrate. It targets approved and conditionally-approved harvest areas
that are currently either highly or moderately productive. Substrate enhancement is thought to be most
beneficial if it occurs adjacent to existing productive reefs or at historically productive reefs if other
environmental conditions are satisfied. This strategy was considered generally applicable from the
Florida panhandle to central Texas.
Management. This breakout group identified two top strategies. The top resource management approach
deals with increasing cultch planting to expand habitat suitable for the production of shellfish, and is very
similar to the top habitat enhancement strategy. The top public health management strategy, Strategy M-
4, would provide a more accurate indicator of human fecal pollution to better assess public health risks
and determine harvest classification for shellfish growing waters. The approach to implementing this
strategy is an educational and political process aimed at building support and funding for continuation of
the National Indicator Study to develop more accurate bacteriological and viral indicators of the presence
of human pathogens.
Watershed Targeting. The goal of this targeting was to identify, at the watershed scale, those estuarine
basins where a strategy could reasonably be expected to be successfully implemented. Decisions were
based on a combination of data and the professional knowledge and judgment of the state and local
specialists. Consistent with the strategic assessment principle of continually narrowing the scope of the
problem to reduce its complexity, after Workshop I, targeting was only conducted on those strategies
rated as high priority.
In the Challenge Plan, the results of targeting are presented in a large matrix with the 50 watersheds in
the Gulf along the top row and the 32 shellfish strategies along the left column. Reading this matrix from
left to right shows, for a particular strategy, the number of watersheds in which it can be applied.
Reading the matrix from top to bottom shows for a watershed the mix of strategies with a good chance of
-------
application in that basin. Decisionmakers and environmental resource managers at all levels of
government can use the matrix to better understand and answer questions related to "where and what
kind of shellfish restoration could be undertaken with limited management funds.
Priority Information and Assessment Needs. Over 70 information and assessment needs were identified
during the workshops. They represent information required to implement the shellfish strategies. A
prioritization process was conducted to identify the most important information and assessment needs.
State and federal participants then worked to better define these needs and assess their availability by
state. The top six needs were found to be 1) development of an inventory and spatial delineation of
present and historic reef locations; 2) development and application of a consistent quantitative measure
of shellfish abundance; 3) the compilation of detailed information from the State Shellfish Growing Area
Sanitary Survey Reports; 4) improved methods to determine dilution, dispersion and die-off of the
indicators of pathogens; 5) compilation of an inventory of septic systems adjacent to growing waters; and
6) an assessment of funding sources for pollution control and shellfish restoration projects.
Next Steps
Strategic assessment has been an extremely valuable process to help stakeholders reach consensus on
priority strategies and candidate watersheds for implementation. However, it can not ensure that
implementation of a priority strategy will be successful in a particular watershed because the level of
information available for the strategic analysis in some cases was not sufficiently detailed to allow the
regional experts to determine if all the requisite conditions for successful restoration exist. This level of
detailed characterization can only be achieved by a tactical restoration assessment case study specific to
the watershed. Such a case study can explore the feasibility of successfully undertaking priority
restoration activities by capturing information on the time frame, cost, financing, institutions involved,
regulations, impact on stakeholders, indirect impacts, and the role of the Gulf of Mexico Program.
Investigating the "real-world" feasibility and constraints of making one or more shellfish restoration
strategies work will provide the states and the Gulf of Mexico Program insight into the potential
transferability of implementation techniques and strategies to other candidate watersheds in the region. If
the findings are favorable, the case studies will have laid the foundation to proceed with a demonstration
project to test strategy implementation in the watershed at some future time. These case studies are a
logical next step in promoting the implementation of restoration activities needed to meet the Shellfish
Challenge.
References
1. National Marine Fisheries Service, NOAA. Current Fishery Statistics No. 9400, 1995.
2. 1995 National Shellfish Register (draft). Strategic Environmental Assessments Division,
NOAA, 1996.
-------
3. Shellfish Challenge Plan (draft). Gulf of Mexico Program and the Strategic Environmental
Assessments Division, NOAA, 1996.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Ambient Environmental Conditions, Pollutant
Loads, and Waste Assimilative Capacities in the
Patapsco and Back Rivers Watershed, Maryland,
USA
Dennis T. Logan
Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., Linthicum, MD
Robert L. Dwyer
Environmental Resources Management, Inc., Baltimore, MD
Fred Jacobs
Coastal Environmental Services, Inc., Linthicum, MD
John Maynes
Whitman, Requardt and Associates, Inc., Baltimore, MD
Narendra Panday
Maryland Department of the Environment, Baltimore, MD
Robert Mohr
City of Baltimore Department of Public Works, Baltimore, MD
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
The Patapsco and Back Rivers Watershed drains Maryland's most heavily urbanized and industrialized
-------
area. The Watershed spans 685 square miles across four counties and encompasses the entire City of
Baltimore. Forty-four percent of the Watershed is presently developed, 24% is in agricultural use, and
30% is under forest cover. The sediment, water quality, and ecological conditions in the watershed reflect
the intense urbanization and intrusive land uses of the past 250 years and exhibit some of the most
degraded conditions in Maryland waters and Chesapeake Bay tributaries. Although hundreds of studies
have been conducted by federal, state, regional, and local agencies for the purposes of resource and
watershed management and water supply, no attempt had been to compile, assess and compare the
results.
Present Conditions and Historical Trends
The Maryland Department of the Environment's (MDE) Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Management
Administration therefore commissioned a study to compile and synthesize information from over 300
existing sources on various historic, current or projected environmental conditions of the Patapsco/Back
Rivers Watershed. The objectives of the study were to (1) to assess current pollutant loadings, (2) to
identify data requirements, and (3) to develop recommendations for addressing the data needs. In
addition, the project was conducted to support ongoing efforts within the Chesapeake Bay Program to
quantify and address nutrient and toxic pollutant issues in this Watershed. The project also developed a
Geographic Information System (GIS) data base of physical watershed characteristics.
Previous studies of ambient conditions indicated elevated nutrient levels resulted in algal blooms occur in
both the Back and Patapsco Rivers. Concentrations of some metals (Hg, Cu, Ni, and Pb) in the Patapsco
River have exceeded the marine chronic criteria, and six metals (Cu, Cr, Hg, Ni, Pb, and Zn) have
previously been identified as being of concern for water quality. Aquatic organisms in both the Back
River and Baltimore Harbor have accumulated elevated levels of at least six metals (As, Cd, Cu, Pb, Se,
and Zn), five pesticides (chlordane, DDT, dieldrin, hepatoclor epoxide, and lindane), perhaps PCBs, and
some PAHs. Based on bioassay results, sediment toxicity in Baltimore Harbor and its tributaries is
patchily distributed, and more information is needed on factors contributing to toxicity. A sediment
toxicity index (calculated as the sum of toxicity units) indicated that sediment toxicity was widespread
and patchy, though generally decreasing in a downstream direction. More extensive bioassay and
bioassessment studies are needed for a comprehensive understanding of the condition of living resources
in Baltimore Harbor and Back River.
No groundwater loadings data were found. Groundwater may contribute a significant portion of stream
baseflow, and potential sources of groundwater contaminants exist throughout the Watershed. Nutrient
loadings are of greater concern in the western half of the Watershed where septic system discharges will
be continued and agricultural uses are widespread. Loads of toxic chemicals are important on a local
scale, particularly in the eastern urbanized and industrialized areas of the Watershed. Concerns regarding
groundwater contamination and loadings may be exacerbated by water supply pumping.
Numerous previous estimates of pollutant loadings for the Watershed exist, but no comprehensive
assessment of nutrient and toxic loadings for the entire study area was found. Several studies presented
-------
calculated estimates for various areas; however, the only available empirical data for current loadings
were nutrient discharges from point sources.
Point sources have been and continue to account for the predominant portion of loads to the Watershed _
79% of combined total nitrogen (TN) and 69% of combined total phosphorus (TP). Point source nutrient
discharges have decreased by 70% and toxic discharges have decreased by 95% since the 1970s. Recent
estimates indicate that metals represent the predominant toxic point source loads by volume and are
discharged throughout many of the Watershed segments, but organic chemicals represent the greatest
discharge of cumulative toxic units and their discharges are very site specific. The best available
estimates indicate that 0.385 million lb/yr of toxic chemicals are discharged from point sources in the
Watershed.
MDE estimates indicate that nonpoint source TN loads have increased by 0.2 million lb/yr since 1985.
The Patapsco River freshwater drainage area appears to contribute the largest nutrient runoff loads due to
its large size and extensive agricultural lands in the headwater reaches combined with intense urban areas
in the lower reaches. No estimates of toxic nonpoint source loads were found for the entire Watershed;
however, sub-basins with the most intense urban and industrial development would be expected to
generate the largest toxic runoff loads. MDE estimates that 14 million lb/yr of TN and 0.74 million lb/yr
of TP are contributed to the waters of the Watershed from point and nonpoint sources.
Estimates indicate that atmospheric deposition loads of nitrogen are very significant, with loading rates
averaging 13.5 lb/ac/yr. Atmospheric loading rates for metals (i.e., Zn, Pb, Cu, and Cr) are relatively
small (less than 1 lb/ac/yr). Atmospheric pesticides of concern include alachlor, malathion, and
metachlor, and others.
In general, existing environmental data sets for the Watershed were found to be either spatially
incomplete, temporally discontinuous, or methodologically inconsistent, conditions which together limit
the usefulness of past studies for determining basin wide or historic trends. An extensive listing of data
requirements was then prepared with which to fully assess existing conditions and trends and to develop
management and remedial plans.
Field Data Collection, 1994-1995
Based on the recommendations of this historical data analysis, MDE subsequently sponsored an
extensive data collection effort in 1994 and 1995 for conventional water quality constituents in the
estuarine waters of Patapsco and back Rivers, for flow and quality at the fall line of the Patapsco River,
and for the quality of effluents from major point sources discharging into the estuaries. Those data are
presently being analyzed. Results of preliminary analyses indicate that conditions are improving,
particularly in the Back River. However, that estuary is still severely eutrophic.
The historical and recently collected data on the watershed are presently being used to address some
critical resource management and wasteload allocation issues affecting the Patapsco and Back River
-------
estuaries. Two major point sources, the two Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) operated by the
City of Baltimore, are presently the objects of a comprehensive wastewater Master Facilities Planning
effort to estimate the system capacities needed to serve the Baltimore metropolitan area to the year 2020
and beyond.
Major questions to be addressed concern:
¦ the assimilative capacities of the two estuaries for current and expected future loads of N and P;
¦ the total contributions of N and P from the Watershed to the Chesapeake Bay; and
¦ the contributions of metals from the POTWs, relative to other point sources, nonpoint sources,
and sediment fluxes in the estuaries.
Field Data Collection, 1996
To address specific data gaps related to the management of the POTWs and preparation of the
Wastewater Master Facilities Plan, the City of Baltimore is sponsoring a supplemental data collection
program in 1996. The objective of the 1996 field program is to collect the remaining data needed to
prepare mass balances for N, P and nine metals. The field collection program includes the following
components.
¦ Tributary Loads at the Fall Lines: Base flows (dry weather) and storm events are being monitored
and sampled weekly at the fall lines of the three major streams feeding the Patapsco Estuary: the
Patapsco River, the Jones Falls, and the Gwynns Falls; and Herring Run, the major freshwater
input to the Back River. Flows are monitored continuously and automated samplers collect
composite samples that are analyzed for several forms of N, P and carbon, chlorophyll a, physical
parameters, and total/dissolved forms of the nine metals. These tributary samples provide
integrated measurements of the combined inputs of Watershed nonpoint sources to the estuaries.
¦ Water Column Concentrations: Water column concentrations of the same constituents are being
collected at the same locations sampled by MDE in 1994-1995. Metals sampling and analysis is
following some aspects of EPA's new "clean" protocols, to reduce the effects of sample
contamination.
¦ Sediment Concentrations: Sediments at selected stations in the Back River and Patapsco River
estuaries are being sampled for carbon, nutrient, and metals concentrations.
¦ Sediment Fluxes: At several locations, intact sediment cores are being collected and incubated in
the laboratory to measure oxygen metabolism and fluxes of N, P and carbon dioxide. Replicate
sediment cores are also being used to measure the fluxes of selected metals into the water column.
The large reservoirs of nutrients and metals in the sediments of the estuaries, coupled with the
-------
potential for efflux to the water column, suggest that the sediments could be a significant
contributor to water quality problems in the overlying water column. Further, preliminary
analyses suggest that the POTWs may be minor contributors to metals concentrations in the
estuaries, when compared to sediment fluxes.
Mass Balance Analyses
The combination of the historical status and trend analyses, MDE's 1994-1995 sampling effort, and
Baltimore City's 1996 sampling provides a comprehensive tool that can be used to quantify the relative
contributions of all sources of pollutants to the estuary. Mass balances are being prepared as the first step
in placing the manageable inputs (especially the POTWs) in the context of the other contributors that
may be more difficult to control. This holistic perspective will allow the prioritization of funds available
for management. The combined data set and mass balances will also serve as a basis for a comprehensive
Tributary Strategy for the Watershed, which is being developed under the Chesapeake Bay Agreement to
identify cost-effective measures to reduce nutrient inputs to and improve the water quality of the
Chesapeake Bay.
Reference
Coastal Environmental Services, Inc. (1995) Patapsco/Back Rivers Watershed Study: Ambient
conditions, pollutant loads, and recommendations for further action. Maryland Department of the
Environment, Chesapeake Bay and Watershed Management Administration, Baltimore, MD.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Can a Community Based Watershed Plan Help
Ensure Safe Drinking Water?
Mary S. Wu, Environmental Engineer
David E. Rathke Ph.D., Environmental Scientist
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region VIII, Denver, CO
Rose Skinner
Town Council Member, Pinedale, WY
Introduction
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) has promulgated several new drinking water
regulations following the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendment in 1986. These new regulations are
intended to provide stronger safeguards against potential risk from waterborne diseases by emphasizing
frequent water quality monitoring and source water protection. The regulations have been developed
primarily for large water supply systems (population greater than 10,000) and provided little flexibility to
accommodate unique situations frequently encountered with smaller systems.
This problem with inflexibility became particularly evident after the Surface Water Treatment Rule
(SWTR) was promulgated. For example, the SWTR requires water supply systems utilizing a surface
water source, or a ground water source which has direct surface water influence, to provide filtration
treatment. The only systems which can be exempted from this requirement are those that meet the
filtration avoidance criteria (FAC). The intention of the FAC is to ensure that unfiltered water supply
systems have adequately protected watersheds to provide high source water quality. The FAC provides
no exemptions for systems which draw from very pristine water sources, and/or systems with water
supply sources located in very pristine watersheds.
-------
Project Background
The Town of Pinedale, Wyoming is situated on the western skirt of the Wind River Mountain Range, 120
km south of Yellowstone Park. The population of Pinedale is 1,200 and is experiencing a growth pulse,
characteristic of many small western communities. The town drinking water has historically been a
surface water supply originating from Fremont Lake located 3 km north of the town. The water intake for
the drinking water supply is located in the southwestern corner of the lake, 180 meters from shore, at a
depth of 20 meters. Water is chlorinated and piped to the town distribution system.
Fremont Lake was formed by glacial scouring and blocked at the outlet by a terminal moraine. The lake
lies at an altitude of 2,260 m, having a volume of 1.69 km3 and an area of 20.6 km2. Fremont Lake is
elongated, having a length of 8.14 km, a width of 1.57-2.08 km, and a maximum depth and mean depth
of 185 m and of 82 m respectively. The lake has been characterized as oligotrophic (pristine) with
dissolved solids concentration of 12.8 mg/L. Detailed chemical profile data describes a lake with ion
concentrations at extremely low levels, indicating a very dilute system (Rickert and Leopold, 1972).
As would be expected from the lake chemistry, the watershed is also reasonably pristine. The 196 km2
drainage basin originates from the western slope of the continental divide and is largely comprised of the
Bridger Teton National Forest Wilderness Area. Pine Creek enters the northern end of the lake and
serves as the only significant tributary. The watershed has moderate recreational usage and the U.S.
Forest Service (USFS) has provided grazing permits for this area of wilderness land.
Water quality problems originating for the drainage basin are not expected to be significant. Problems
from recreational usage (boating and camping), a tourist vacation lodge and small marina, and some
housing development adjacent to the lake pose the most immediate threat to the lake and water quality
which could potentially affect the drinking water supply.
The Surface Water Treatment Rule and Filtration Avoidance Criteria
Requirements.
The SWTR primarily focuses on the biological contaminants such as Giardia lamblia, viruses,
heterotrophic plate count bacteria (coliforms), and Legionella. Furthermore, the SWTR specifies a
multiple protection barrier using filtration and disinfection as the best treatment techniques, as an
alternative to establishing maximum contaminant levels for these microorganisms. For Pinedale to
comply with the SWTR and be allowed to remain unfiltered, the municipality must maintain a very
pristine water source, provide adequate disinfection to achieve inactivation of 99.9 percent (3-log) of
Giardia lamblia cysts and 99.99 percent (4-log) of viruses at all times, and maintain a watershed control
program.
In 1991 the SWTR went into effect, and the town of Pinedale was notified that it must comply with the
rule. However, the town made a decision not to provide any treatment to their drinking water beyond
-------
chlorination. Their determination was based upon several factors; the cost of a filtration system would
exceed $1 million, which is very expensive for a small community; there had been no history of Giardia
contamination; and the waste generated from the filtration backwash would create a disposal problem
impacting their local environment.
EPA Region VIII was very concerned about the possible health risks which may result from lack of
compliance to the filtration rule. Even though the water supply is an oligotrophic lake and the watershed
is mostly comprised of wilderness area, there is sufficient human and animal (wild and domestic) activity
around the water supply and in the watershed to create a threat of contamination. In addition, the USFS
stored and used herbicide to control weeds along their stock trail which was considered a possible
contamination source. Therefore, EPA strongly recommended that the town install a filtration system.
After consulting with EPA, the town determined that they could comply with all the criteria to remain
unfiltered, after system improvements, with the exception of developing and maintaining a watershed
control plan. The Pinedale community leaders agreed to work with EPA on formulating and
implementing a plan to meet the FAC. In addition, it was agreed that the town would also install water
meters to encourage water conservation and evaluate the option of providing filtration.
Watershed Control Plan Development
While working with the town to determine the appropriate actions needed to meet the FAC, the
December 1991 statutory deadline expired. In order for the town to continue the effort without violating
the SWTR, EPA issued an administrative order on consent (AOC) to Pinedale in June, 1992 to allow the
town more time to meet the FAC. This AOC is an enforceable bi-lateral agreement between Pinedale and
EPA, which was developed based upon an improvement schedule proposed by the town. The AOC was
amended in April, 1994 to modify the time table following the development and approval of a water
supply master plan. This amended AOC required the town to implement a watershed control program by
July 31, 1994; provide backup power supply for disinfection equipment by June 30, 1995; and complete
system modifications to provide adequate disinfection by December 1, 1997.
EPA Region VIII developed a watershed control program guidance to assist the town with this
undertaking. The guidance included the following major items:
• Delineate a watershed base map.
• Identify animal types and populations which have potential to transmit pathogens.
• Identify human activities.
• Assess potential risk of human and natural activities on the watershed and water quality.
• Develop written agreement with landowners to oversee activities.
-------
• Prohibit activities near water intake structure.
• Prohibit sewage discharge in the lake.
• Develop and implement a water quality monitoring program.
• Develop a long term plan to commit resources to implement the watershed control program.
• Submit annual report for EPA's review.
A water quality monitoring program was identified as an essential component of the plan so as to
determine if Fremont Lake was being affected by human activities around the lake and in the watershed.
An agreement was reached to monitor three times during the ice free season at four sampling locations
based upon potential sources of contamination.
In addition, as part of the watershed plan, the town requires wastewater leach fields be drained away
from the basin. All septic tanks in the campgrounds are pumped and hauled away to prevent sewage
contamination to the lake. In addition, the town installed buoys to prohibit boating near the water intake
area. Signs were posted around the shoreline to inform the public that Fremont Lake is the Pinedale
drinking water supply and request that the public refrain from any activities which would lead to
contamination.
In order to facilitate the watershed plan, there were memoranda of understanding (MOU) developed and
executed between the town and each of the following public entities.
¦ U.S. Department of Interior, Bureau of Land Management.
¦ USFS, Bridger Teton National Forest.
¦ Board of County Commissioners of Sublette County, Wyoming.
¦ Wyoming Game and Fish Department.
Activities on public lands will be governed by each MOU and the regulations of Wyoming Department
of Environmental Quality. In addition, there are 11 private landowners in the Lake Ridge Subdivision on
the east side of the lake. Activities on private land will be governed by applicable Sublette County
ordinances. Any revisions to the management activities and proposed improvement must be reviewed by
the town and EPA.
The watershed control plan also addressed emergency action if a contaminant is discovered in the water
-------
supply. Public notice are to be provided through electronic media, hand delivery, and/or newspapers to
instruct the users in the event of an emergency.
Summary
Over the last twenty-five years, EPA has been most successful in dealing with environmental problems
when working closely with all stakeholder. In addition, proactive approaches in dealing with potential
pollution problems have also proven to be highly effective, when there has been community involvement
and agreement. Historically, the drinking water program has relied on an enforcement strategy to achieve
the program goals. However, as this pilot effort has thus far indicated, success can be realized when
working closely with the community to resolve conflicting views.
This pilot project continues to provide a valuable learning experience for the EPA drinking water
implementation program. This special process provided and continues to provide the opportunity for
Pinedale to work with EPA on their potential problems without violating the regulation. Hopefully, this
will prove to be a good example of resolving an environmental problem through a partnership and
community based approach, alleviating the need for an adversarial enforcement action to achieve health
and environmental protection.
References
Emmett W.W., and Averett R.C.. 1989. Fremont Lake, Wyoming Some aspects of the inflow of
water and sediment. USGS Water-Resources Investigation Report 88-4021.
Johnson-Fermelia Co. Inc.. 1993. Watershed management control plan, Pinedale water supply
project. Wyoming Water Development Commission.
Leopold L.B.. 1980. Bathymetry and temperature of some glacial lakes in Wyoming. In Proc.
Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, Vol.77, No.4, pp. 1754-1758.
Malcolm Pirnie, Inc., and HDR Engineering, Inc.. 1991. Guidance manual for compliance with
the filtration and disinfection requirements for public water systems using surface water sources.
Contract no. 68-016989. USEPA.
Rickert D.A., and Leopold L.B.. 1972. Fremont Lake, Wyoming Preliminary survey of a large
mountain lake. USGS Prof. Paper 800-D, pp D173-D188.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now
outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official
positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A GIS-Based Watershed Survey Used To Develop Protection
Strategies For Elsinore Valley's Drinking Water Source
John E. Hoagland, P.E., General Manager
Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District, Lake Elsinore, CA
Richard A. Masters, P.E., Environmental Scientist
formerly of Montgomery Watson, Pasadena, CA
Paul Wallace, P.E., Senior Engineer
Montgomery Watson, Pasadena, CA
The Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District (District) supplies water to over 75,000 people in western Riverside County in
Southern California. The District obtains water from wells, imported water sources, and the San Jacinto River at Canyon Lake.
The District obtains 15 percent of its water supply from Canyon Lake and the remainder from local wells and imported water.
Introduction
This watershed sanitary survey examined surface water issues related to:
¦ Potential contaminant sources in the watershed.
¦ Watershed controls and management practices by the District and other agencies.
¦ Water quality conditions and water quality monitoring programs.
An important element of the survey was data from the County of Riverside Geographic Information System and the ability to
produce maps to highlight various combinations of land uses. The survey also employed field surveys, discussions with
regulatory agency staff, and review of available reports.
The 718 square mile watershed has two main watercourses as shown in Figure 1. The San Jacinto River and Salt Creek receive
runoff from a wide variety of land uses. Although the dominant land uses are open space and agriculture, the watershed also
contains the urban infrastructure to support five incorporated cities and a large military base. The eastern portion of the
watershed is characterized by mountainous public lands owned by the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management
Watershed And Water Supply System
-------
(BLM).
Location Map
Figure 1
Figure 1. Location Map.
The 1995 estimated population of the watershed is 360,000. The watershed is within the fastest growing county in California
and projections of future land uses show definitive trends toward replacing much of the agriculture and privately owned vacant
lands with residential land uses.
Water from the watershed is treated at the Canyon Lake Water Treatment Plant, a 9.1 mgd facility consisting of coagulant
chemical addition, flocculation and sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection.
Potential Contaminant Sources
A wide variety of potential contaminant sources were reviewed as part of this study. The potential contaminant sources were
then correlated with water quality data where possible to help assess the relative importance of each source.
Table 1. Summary of Potential Contaminant Sources in the San Jacinto River Watershed
_ , , „ , . sRelative Risk Effectiveness of Containment, _
Potential Contaminant Source j_ ^ , (Remarks
Rating Mitigation or Treatment
-------
Concentrated Animal Facilities
High
Fair
Large number of dairies;
containment pond effectiveness
questionable.
Wastewater Collection Systems
High
Good
Rehabilitation nearing completion
for Canyon Lake system.
Septic Tank Systems
High
Poor
Quail Valley area is primary
concern.
Recreational Use-Canyon Lake,
BLM Land Adjacent to Lake
High
Fair
Peak recreational use season
corresponds to peak water use
from lake; no activity allowed
within 1,000 ft of intake.
Urban and Industrial Runoff
Medium
Fair
Stormwater permit process in
early stages; rapid growth
anticipated.
Agricultural Crop Land
Medium
Fair
Little evidence of contamination
at intake; irrigation practices
reduce tailwater and runoff
potential.
Solid and Haz. Waste Disposal
Sites
Medium
Variable
Municipal landfills only, no haz.
wastefacilities; contaminated
runoff from one closed landfill
documented.
Table 1 lists the potential contaminant sources rated as having high or medium potential for contaminating the drinking water
source. Sources having high potential are described below. None of these sources is now degrading the water quality of Canyon
Lake to a degree that results in violations of established water quality standards at the raw water intake. These are, however,
the most likely contributors of pathogens and nutrients including total organic carbon (TOC).
Concentrated Animal Facilities
The watershed contains over 52,000 head of cattle and millions of chickens in concentrated facilities. Runoff from many of
these facilities, if not contained in accordance with water quality regulations, can potentially contribute to pathogen
contamination as well as elevated levels of nutrients such as nitrogen, phosphorus and TOC. Excessive nutrient input to
Canyon Lake can degrade water quality by promoting algae blooms.
Water quality analyses at the Canyon Lake intake indicates the presence, at low levels, of coliforms and two particularly
noteworthy organisms: Giardia and Cryptosporidium. These two can cause usually non-fatal intestinal illness in humans.
However, the numbers of these two organisms found in a very limited sampling program indicate that at the present time, raw
water pathogen contamination has not become a problem in Canyon Lake. The levels of pathogens in the water are not unusual
when compared to typical watersheds that supply potable water systems in the U.S. The lake has experienced a trend of rising
total coliform bacteria over the past six years.
Canyon Lake Wastewater Collection System
Sewers and pump stations around and under Canyon Lake have leaked in the past and are now undergoing a rehabilitation
program. Some sewers are located under the lakebed or close to the shoreline and could directly contaminate the lake if leakage
occurs. Any leakage could result in higher than usual pathogen contamination at the raw water intake.
As noted above, although the water at the plant intake has shown low levels of pathogen and coliform contamination, the levels
-------
are in the typical range for watersheds which serve as potable water sources in the U.S. The collection system rehabilitation
work will be complete by the end of 1995 and should reduce the occurrence of pathogen organisms at the raw water intake.
Failing Septic Tanks
Septic systems in the Quail Valley area near Canyon Lake have a history of failure. There is the potential for ponded septic
tank effluent to become surface runoff during rainstorms. This could result in elevated pathogen levels and nutrient levels in
Canyon Lake, in the same manner as would be true for a sewer overflow or exfiltration.
Recreational Activities
Body-contact recreation in the lake and boating activities have the potential to cause pathogen contamination of the lake water
in the event that shore toilets are not used or boat holding tanks fail or spill. Unlike the previous potential contaminant sources
described earlier, however, these activities are more likely to cause contamination in the warmer months of the year when
rainfall is infrequent and lake recreational use is at its peak. During major rainstorms that occur in the winter months, the risk
of contamination due to recreational activities is reduced.
As is true for the previously mentioned potential contaminant sources, recreational activities could be contributing to the
upward trend in total coliforms at the raw water intake.
Recommendations
The watershed water quality is typical for surface drinking water sources in the U.S. Although there do not appear to be
immediate water quality concerns or need for drastic action, the District will work together with regulatory agencies
responsible for water pollution control and land use management to better implement current water quality protection programs
and existing regulations. A number of actions are being implemented.
¦ Land Use Changes The District will provide input comments to the Environmental Impact Reports generated by
projects and General Plans developed by cities in the watershed with respect to water quality impacts. District input can
help focus attention on the need to properly contain contaminated runoff.
¦ Wastewater Collection SystemsThrough a rehabilitation program, the District is correcting system deficiencies in
pump stations, faulty sewers and manholes which cause overflow or excessive exfiltration. Additional water quality
monitoring and logging of spills and subsequent coliform test results is recommended.
¦ Failing Septic Systems_The District will work closely with stakeholders to negotiate a sewering plan with the Eastern
Municipal Water District for the Quail Valley area. Long term plans call for future developers to finance most of the
needed improvements for new homes, but do not address the need to install sewers in existing developments to connect
to proposed trunk sewers.
¦ Urban and Industrial Land Use RunoffThe District should participate in the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) municipal stormwater permitting process by requesting the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality
Control Board (Regional Board) to require the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and co-
permittees to step up compliance with requirements, monitoring the implementation of Best Management Practices, and
requesting the addition of water quality monitoring stations to the San Jacinto River and Salt Creek, upstream of
Canyon Lake. The District should also request the Regional Board to step up monitoring and enforcement of industrial
and construction activity stormwater dischargers.
¦ Agricultural Crop Land Uses Should pesticide levels in the treated water appear at levels approaching the Maximum
Contaminant Levels (MCLs), the District should initiate a public information and education effort directed to pesticide
-------
users, particularly the citrus growers in the watershed.
Concentrated Animal Facilities Through coordination with the Regional Board, the District now receives immediate
notification in the event of a spill of dairy water. District staff will request to accompany Regional Board inspectors in
their rounds of dairies in the watershed so as to establish routine contact with dairy owners and operators.
Pesticides and Fertilizer Application As a preventive measure, the District is working with the City of Moreno Valley
to reduce pesticide application rates and switch to non-water contaminating pesticides.
Recreation The District plans to:
¦ Distribute information to educate the public about the connection between recreational activities and
contamination of the drinking water supply.
¦ Work with the City of Canyon Lake regarding the city's plans to lease areas in the vicinity of the reservoir. The
intent should be to implement use restrictions to protect water quality and prohibit illegal activities.
Water Quality Monitoring The District is implementing a monitoring program to determine if activities in Canyon Lake
(i.e., recreation, sewage system) or upstream of the reservoir (dairies, agriculture, septic systems, etc.) or both, are
contributing significantly to the coliform, TOC, and nutrient levels at the intakes.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Management: The First Barrier in a Multi-
Barrier Treatment Scheme at Lake Tahoe
Perri Standish-Lee, Manager, Water Program
Brown and Caldwell, Sacramento, CA
Dan St. John, P.E.
Incline Village General Improvement District, Incline Village, NV
To assure high quality potable water, the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) sets treatment
requirements for surface water supplies focusing on microbiological contaminants. The Surface Water
Treatment Rule (SWTR) sets specific Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) of zero for Giardia
lamblia, enteric viruses and Legionellia, and requires filtration of all surface water systems unless source
water quality can be assured through adoption of a watershed management plan and controlling watershed
activities. In this context, watershed management in lieu of filtration is the first barrier of a multi-barrier
protection system to provide inactivation of pathogens. The multi-barrier approach involves the use of
source water quality protection, optimized water treatment, and distribution system integrity to provide
safe drinking water.
The SWTR created a special challenge for the Lake Tahoe water purveyors who have historically relied
on the lake as their water supply with only minimal chlorination before distribution to customers. The
lake offers a pristine water supply, typically with turbidities in the range of 0.2 NTU. The public water
purveyors, which generally have limited technical and financial resources, range from very small 0.13
mgd to 3.1 mgd in size. The challenge was to meet the SWTR watershed control requirements and gain an
exemption from filtration of surface water while providing customers equivalent protection from
pathogen contamination and remaining in compliance with proposed Disinfection By-Product (DBP)
regulations. The Nevada State Health Division, Consumer Health Protection Services (NCHPS),
introduced the concept of "level of protection equivalent to watershed control" into their final SWTR
adopted 29 November 1990. A special provision states, "Alternatively for systems at Lake Tahoe, the
-------
suppliers of water shall demonstrate that by the location of the intake structure a level of protection
equivalent to watershed control is provided." The concept of "equivalent control" allowed the water
purveyors to pursue watershed management as a viable and cost-effective alternative to filtration to
safeguard public water supply.
Tahoe Basin
Located east of the Sierra-Nevada divide, the Tahoe Basin (Basin) is bisected by the California/Nevada
border. The basin covers an area of 506 square miles, of which 315 square miles are land surface area.
Tahoe is the tenth deepest lake in the world with an average depth of 1,027 feet and a maximum depth of
1,645 feet. The lake has an exceptionally long average resident time of 700 years (Crippen, 1972). In
addition, the lake's stratification/destratification and algal bloom potential remain low due to its extreme
clarity, low nitrogen and phosphorus levels, low turbidities and color, and minimal chlorine demand. The
lake does not mix vertically every year (Tahoe Regional Planning Agency (TRPA), 1994), which could
help make it act as a sink for microbes. Whether organisms become inactivated by deactivation, biological
processes, physical actions such as sedimentation, or a combination of the above is not clearly
understood.
The Basin is 77.1 percent publicly owned and 22.9 percent privately owned, however, 66 percent of shore
line is privately owned and 34 percent publicly owned. Development within the Basin occurs entirely on
the low-lying gentle slopes near the lakeshore. The Basin is home for approximately 52,000 residents. It
is, however, the influx of seasonal visitors with daily populations swelling to 250,000 during the summer
months that imposes the greatest challenge to the resources and recreational facilities within the Basin.
Potential Sources of Pollution
Storm water runoff is a primary mechanism by which sediment, nutrient, and other pollutants are
transported to tributary streams and to Lake Tahoe directly. Of ten sites monitored for surface discharge,
approximately 80 percent violated TRPA and state standards for dissolved phosphorus (TRPA, 1994).
Obviously, control of surface water quality will continue to be a principal objective of the regulatory
agencies and, because of its potential impact on turbidities, a focus of the water purveyors utilizing Lake
Tahoe as a raw water source.
Three wastewater treatment plants are located in the Basin, and all wastewater, either untreated (west
shore) or treated (Nevada and South Lake Tahoe) is exported out of the Basin. There are 103 sewer pump
stations and numerous kilometers of sewer collection piping. No operating landfills exist in the Basin, nor
are there any known water quality problems created by the four known closed landfills. Existing
regulations prohibit the disposal of solid (or liquid) waste within the Basin. Storm water runoff and water
coming in contact with solid waste at the two transfer stations are pre-treated prior to discharge. No
commercial feedlots or areas where large numbers of grazing animals congregate exist, although grazing
still occurs within some meadows in the upper Truckee River area under three cattle-grazing allotments
and two horse-grazing pastures, which account for approximately 400 animal units. Truck routes pass
-------
through the Basin, creating the potential for hazardous spills. In 1990, Nevada Division of Emergency
Management reported eight spills in the Nevada portion, while the California Office of Emergency
Services reported ten spills, mostly involving petroleum by-products. Septic tanks have been outlawed
and most homes are connected to sewers. Collection system breaks can result in sewage flows into the
watershed.
The scenic beauty and recreational opportunities at Lake Tahoe make the Basin a favorite tourist
attraction. Recreational activities include boating, waterskiing, and related beach sports; cross-country
and downhill skiing, snowmobiling, and related winter sports; camping; golf; off-road vehicles; horseback
riding; and hiking. Vessel waste and potential contamination by boaters is a concern, with approximately
25 launching facilities, 580 single-use piers, 134 multi-use piers, and numerous mooring buoys.
Approximately 6,000 boats can operate on Lake Tahoe on a peak summer weekend. There are 19
campground facilities containing about 2,000 campsites, and approximately 13 public beaches, allowing
swimming and water sports, of which all but one have flush-toilet facilities. There are nine golf courses
within the Basin, of which three are championship and the remainder either nine-hole or executive
courses. TRPA has required golf courses to implement fertilizer and pesticide management plans to
reduce contamination.
Water Quality Program
To demonstrate a level of protection equivalent to watershed control, the nine participating Nevada water
purveyors undertook a year-long water quality monitoring program in 1991, sampling their ten intakes for
(1) Total and Fecal Coliform: two to three times per week; (2) Turbidity: continuous, or every four hours;
(3) Giardia and Cryptosporidium: twice a month; and (4) Enteric Viruses. All utilities participating in the
effort have extended their monitoring programs indefinitely, as required by NCHPS and the California
Department of Health Services. With over four years' microbial monitoring, the Nevada purveyors have
consistently demonstrated total and fecal coliform levels well below 100 and 20 per 100 milliliters (ml),
respectively; Giardia and Cryptosporidium levels well below a geometric mean of 1 cyst and oocyst per
100 liters (1/100L); and no enteric viruses. The average turbidity at each of the eleven intakes shows an
overall raw water turbidity averaging in the range of 0.17 to 0.20 NTU. Clearly, turbidity variations are
very slight and well below the 5.0 NTU turbidity limit established by SWTR.
The Tahoe Research Group evaluated the vertical distribution of heterotrophic bacteria in a lake water
column. Depth profiles of viable and total bacteria count in relation to water temperature and relative light
intensity were studied. Little bacterial accumulation in the hypolimnion was seen. Furthermore, no
correlation was observed between bacterial density and water temperature. A decrease of bacterial density
was found in both viable and total counts of the upper photic zone less than 24 m deep. This may be due
to bacterial cellular damage caused by solar radiation. The inhibitory effect of sunlight is at least one of
the reasons for a lower bacterial density in the upper epilimnion (Watanabe, 1984).
The numerical goal for Giardia and Cryptosporidium is less than 1/100L as a geometric mean. In the four-
year plus monitoring period, eleven presumptive Giardia cysts and 158 presumptive Cryptosporidium
-------
oocysts were encountered. To put the microbial concentration in perspective, the reports for calendar
years 1993 and 1994 were analyzed. In 1993, 31 protozoa were detected in a total sample volume of
129,358 1, indicating an average occurrence of 0.024 oocysts/lOOL. In 1994, those numbers were 15
oocysts and cysts (including two Giardia) in 178,921 1, yielding 0.0084 oocysts (and cysts) /100L. The
maximum oocyst concentration detected was 1.95 oocysts/lOOL.
The Lake Tahoe utilities have also monitored total and fecal coliform. During the initial one-year
monitoring period ending February 1992, only two of the ten Nevada purveyors had reported sampling
events in excess of the SWTR limit. Edgewood Water Company showed only 1 percent of its sample in
excess of 100 per 100 ml, while Round Hill General Improvement District had total coliform of 3 percent
in excess of 100 per 100 ml and 2 percent of its fecal coliform above 20 per 100 ml. In over four years,
not a single fecal coliform has been detected in Incline Village General Improvement District's two
intakes, while total coliform generally average 0 or 1 per 100 ml. Edgewood Water Company has since
installed a deep intake. Total trihalomethane (TTHM) formation potential for Lake Tahoe is very low. It
reached 25.7 and 28.5 mg/1 after 7 days for raw and ozonated water respectively.
Intake Design
In personal correspondence, Dr. Charles Goldman (1995), Director of the Tahoe Research Group,
University of California, Davis, states that design, considering wind and lake currents, among other
factors, can optimize turbidity levels, and, by doing so, minimize risks of microbial contamination of raw
water supplies. Incline Village General Improvement District's comparative results between the existing
raw water intake and the "deep water" site, 400 m (1,300 ft) off-shore in about 14 m (45 ft) of water,
indicate an apparent buffering effect to turbidity events. Increases of turbidity coincident with high wind
and/or high runoff events up to 1.26 NTU were observed at the existing intakes. Meanwhile, the deep
water sampling location remained nearly constant within a range of 0.1 to 0.2 NTU. In three separate
events where data exist at both the existing intake and deep water location, a spike of greater than 0.6
NTU at the existing intake was followed within two weeks with a spike exceeding 0.3 NTU at the deep
location. In each case, the initial spike appeared to be meteorologically induced. These results support a
conclusion that the deeper, more distant intake location dampens and delays the impact of weather related
spikes on raw water quality. Intakes at depth of at least 30 ft of water have been recommended.
By June 1995, two of the original Nevada nine have constructed water disinfection plants utilizing ozone
and have filtration exemptions, while the remaining six have time extensions for putting their new
facilities on-line.
Best Management Practices
Implementation of best management practices (BMPs) is essential for watershed management (Robbins,
1991). BMPs include a slate of both structural and non-structural methods to minimize and mitigate
potential contaminant sources. Non-structural means are favored over structural means with the inherent
need for long-term financial obligations for construction and maintenance. Non-structural controls
-------
involving land use and regulations imposed by the TRPA, U.S. Forest Service, and other agencies have
been effective and continuously reviewed. Fundamental to any BMP program is public involvement and
education. To that end, there are numerous publications within the Basin aimed at property owners and
visitors to sensitize those that enjoy the Basin as to the potential sources of contamination and means for
control.
The watershed sanitary survey documents prepared by the water purveyors participating in filtration
avoidance (HDR, 1992 and 1995) identify a number of significant BMPs, including (1) Microbial
Controls: Extend the intake to a minimum depth of 9 m (30 feet), should water quality degrade at an
existing raw water intake location; (2) Sediment and Nutrient Controls: Practice timber management and
fuels abatement programs to reduce wildfire danger; utilize sedimentation basins, rock slope stabilization,
and other slope stabilization methods including ground cover to reduce suspension and transport of soils
in erosion-prone areas; (3) Sewer Systems: Routinely inspect wastewater pumping stations and perform
preventive maintenance; construct overflow bypass lines and containment basins to capture accidental
spills; routinely replace old and defective sewage pipes; maintain hygiene in and around public restrooms
located in public parks; encourage city and county agencies to maintain active street and highway
sweeping programs; encourage public agencies to require small boat owners to carry "porta-potties" on
the lake and provide storage tanks for pump-out facilities at boat launches; (4) Hazardous Materials:
Require frequent inspection and maintenance of solid waste pick-up transfer and disposal facilities; work
with TRPA and state transportation departments to discourage transport of hazardous materials when
other alternative routes outside the Basin are available, and maintain emergency contingency measure to
address accidental releases or spills; (5) Education: Maintain an active public education program to
disseminate vital information for the protection of lake water quality, public notices discouraging
unauthorized disposal of refuse and sewage, and need for proper hygiene among boaters.
Conclusions
The physical and institutional characteristics of the Tahoe Basin, including existing regulatory controls,
size, depth, residence time within Lake Tahoe, and watershed activities appear to provide a physical
barrier preventing the introduction of microbial contaminants into the raw water supply for those
purveyors with appropriately designed intakes. In this instance, water quality in Tahoe appears at least as
high as that from a controlled watershed. Based on the monitoring results for microbial constituents,
Giardia and Cryptosporidium concentrations are in the range found in controlled watersheds.
Watershed controls, such as those imposed by the TRPA Code of Ordinances, U.S. Forest Service
practices, and other agencies with jurisdiction in the Basin, appear adequate to minimize the introduction
of microbial contaminants and excessive turbidity to the water supply. Source control is the first barrier in
a multiple-barrier treatment train. Public confidence in the water supply will be shaken if the source water
quality is known to be contaminated.
Based on the ozonation pilot study, utilities utilizing ozone as a primary disinfectant will be able to meet
the proposed Disinfection By-Product Rule (Phase II) with TTHMs less than 40 (ig/1.
-------
The participating water utilities should continue implementation of BMPs associated with the sanitary
survey results, including a comprehensive public education program, surveillance of the watershed,
optimization of the operation and maintenance of all water and wastewater facilities, and continuation of
the capital program to reduce sediment transport and improve storm water runoff to the lake. The efficacy
of BMPs in reducing potential contamination should be evaluated to assure cost-effective use of public
funds.
All utilities participating in the filtration avoidance program in Lake Tahoe have demonstrated that their
facilities exceed the requirements for filtration avoidance, and should continue monitoring for microbial
contaminants. As some pathogens are difficult to analyze for, remove, and disinfect with conventional
treatment methods, keeping them out of source water may be the only way of providing multiple-barrier
treatment. As water quality of source water deteriorates, the cost for treatment goes up and can become
prohibitive.
References
J.R. Crippen and B.R. Pavelka; 1972; "The Lake Tahoe Basin, California-Nevada;" Geological
Survey Water-Supply Paper in Cooperation with the California Department of Water Resources.
Edwin E. Geldreich, James A. Goodrich, and Robert M. Clark; 1990; "Characterizing Surface
Waters that May Not Require Filtration;" American Water Works Association Journal; Vol. 82,
No. 12; pp. 40.
Goldman, C.R.; 1981; "Lake Tahoe: Two Decades of Change in a Nitrogen-Deficient Oligotrophic
Lake;" Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol. 21:45-70.
HDR Engineering, Inc. (Perri Standish-Lee, Principal Author); 1992; "Lake Tahoe Basin
Watershed Sanitary Survey and Control Plan for Douglas County and Incline Village General
Improvement District;" and "Phase II Report-Description of Site-Specific Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to Control Microbial Water Quality for Douglas County and Incline Village
General Improvement District;" HDR Engineering, Inc.; El Dorado Hills, California
Ann C. Moore, Barbara L. Herwaldt, Gunther F. Craun, Rebecca L. Calderon, Anita K. Highsmith,
and Dennis D. Juranek; 1994; "Waterborne Disease in the United States-1991 and 1992;"
American Water Works Association Journal; Vol. 86, No. 2; pp.87.
Richard W. Robbins, Joseph L. Glicker, Douglas M. Bloem, and Bruce M. Niss; 1991a; "Effective
Watershed Management for Surface Water Supplies;" AWWA Research Foundation and the
American Water Works Association; Subject Area: Water Resources.
Tahoe Regional Planning Agency; 1994; "1994 Annual Water Quality Report;" and "Tahoe
Regional Planning Agency's Strategic Plan;" TRPA.
-------
Peter T.J. C. van Rooy, David L. Anderson, and Pierre J.T. Verstraelen; 1993; "Integrated Water
Management Considers Whole Water System;" Water Environment Federation; Vol. 5, No. 4;
pp.38.
Watanabe, Y., and Goldman, C.; 1984; "C. Heterotrophic Bacterial Community in Oligotrophic
Lake Tahoe;" Verh. Internat. Verein. Limnol., Vol. 22, pp. 594-590; Stuttgart.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Watershed Management Plan: Steps to Protect
Your Water Supply
Michelle Miller, Engineer
Brown and Caldwell, Denver, CO
Water suppliers must meet more stringent requirements on public water supplies and as a result, they are
looking beyond increased levels of treatment to protecting source water quality. The basic tenet of water
supply engineering is to use and maintain the best quality source possible. Today's challenge is to
accommodate the varied activities in a watershed without sacrificing water quality. A watershed
management approach to providing high-quality water examines a system from the source watershed to
final treatment. Watershed management is the first, and often most cost-effective, step to ensuring a safe
and reliable public water supply.
Watershed management is a holistic approach defined by hydrologic boundaries, not political boundaries,
and integrates water quality impacts from both point sources and nonpoint sources. Key objectives of
watershed management plans include evaluating ability to meet treatment requirements, identifying
potential contaminant sources, developing plans to improve water quality, and producing a beneficial
watershed planning tool. Most land within a watershed is not owned and operated by one entity,
therefore, an integral piece of a watershed approach also includes gaining consent among stakeholders
with an interest in the watershed. A watershed management plan can enable water suppliers to control the
quality of water to be treated, reduce treatment costs, gain public confidence in the water supply and
reduce health risks by reducing the level of contaminants.
The State of California currently requires water systems that treat surface water supplies to perform
watershed inventories. The proposed federal Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule may require water
systems that treat surface water supplies to perform watershed inventories. Though not yet required,
water systems are choosing to take the first step in implementing watershed management. Developing a
watershed management plan typically includes the following steps:
-------
Step 1 Establish Watershed Management Goals.
Step 2 Perform a Watershed Inventory.
Step 3 Conduct Contaminant Assessment.
Step 4 Develop Source Protection Strategies.
Step 5 Implement Watershed Management Plan.
Developing a Watershed Management Plan
In general, a watershed is a geographic area which drains to a water source, e.g., a river, a reservoir, or an
aquifer. A watershed management plan identifies existing and potential sources of contamination in a
watershed, defines the most appropriate mitigation strategies and outlines an implementation program.
The same steps to develop a management plan can be applied to most watersheds, however, differences
in each watershed will guide the process. Watersheds can encompass a major metropolitan area, a
pristine mountain valley or anything in-between. The number of stakeholders or agencies and individuals
that own, control or operate land varies by watershed and they often have different ideas on what is most
important in the watershed. The size of the watershed, or sub-watershed, the number of stakeholders, the
diversity of land uses, and the level of detail desired will all play a part in determining the scope of a
watershed management plan. The following steps provide the basic framework for developing a
management plan for any watershed.
Step 1 Establish Watershed Management Goals
Once a water supplier or the responsible agencies have decided to develop a watershed management plan
the first step is to establish goals. The goals provide guidance throughout the project by providing
direction and answering the question, "What are we trying to accomplish?" Goals can relate to water
quality protection, reservoir operations, cost considerations, regulatory requirements, and other land use
considerations. Whatever the goals and objectives may be, it is useful to develop a primary goal
statement and achievable objectives. The primary goal statement broadly states the intent of the
management plan. The achievable objectives focus on specific solutions. Together these elements
determine balanced qualitative or quantitative goals. The basic goals for a watershed will greatly affect
the choice of management strategies.
The watershed goal statement developed by the Santa Clara Valley Water District in Northern California
is a good example of a primary goal statement and objectives. The Santa Clara Valley Water District
developed this goal statement for a Watershed Management Project:
-------
"The goal of the Comprehensive Reservoir Watershed Management Project is to develop a reservoir
watershed protection program to protect the water quality and supply reliability of the Santa Clara Valley
Water District Reservoirs. To achieve this goal, the water district will seek to balance the watershed uses
such as the rights of private property owners and public recreational activities with the protection and
management of natural resources..."
Specific objectives defined to attain this goal include (1) preserve operational flexibility; (2) maintain
water quality by minimizing pathogens, algal blooms and precursors to disinfection by products; and (3)
minimize sediment loading (Santa Clara Valley Water District, 1994).
Step 2 Perform a Watershed Inventory
The purpose of a watershed inventory is to become familiar with the watershed and the problems that it
faces (Robbins, 1991). Each watershed has its own characteristics and related water quality concerns. A
community on the Front Range in Colorado may have a concern with high suspended solids coming
down a mountain stream while a reservoir in Idaho may have algae problems resulting from irrigation
return flows and wastewater effluent. A watershed inventory delineates the watershed boundary and
examines the natural characteristics, land uses, and water quality within the watershed. These elements
provide essential information for assessing existing and potential sources of contamination to a water
supply.
The primary natural characteristics to investigate include topography, geology, climate, vegetation,
hydrology, wildlife and land use. Relating terrain, soils, vegetation and hydrology, for example, is useful
in evaluating runoff and erosion potential. Identifying native wildlife can indicate microbiological
contamination. Knowing the natural characteristics also aids in developing appropriate management
strategies later in the planning process.
Knowing the major land uses, land ownership, and population centers provides insight on the types of
activities that are supported by the watershed. These factors relate both directly and indirectly to water
quality impacts. Land use information can be ascertained from county and municipal general plans,
regulatory agency files, agricultural and other existing reports, field surveys, and large federal
landowners such as the Bureau of Reclamation, Forestry Service, and Park Service.
The purpose of developing a watershed management plan is to maintain a safe and reliable water supply,
therefore, water quality is an integral portion of a plan. An inventory includes identifying and reviewing
water quality monitoring data, focusing on key constituents of concern. The following constituents are
typically of concern because they may impact public heath and affect treatment plant operations:
¦ Microbiological contaminants
Turbidity
-------
¦ Nutrients
¦ Natural organic matter
¦ Total dissolved solids
¦ Algae
¦ Organic contaminants
¦ Hardness
¦ Metals
The watershed inventory identifies the components of the watershed which can be integrated to evaluate
the vulnerability of a water source.
Step 3 Conduct Contaminant Assessment
The contaminant assessment determines the vulnerability of the source water by identifying existing and
potential pollutant sources and estimating impacts to water quality. Potential contaminant sources include
both point and nonpoint sources such as:
¦ Wastewater discharges
¦ Urban runoff
¦ Agricultural crop land use
¦ Grazing
¦ Concentrated animal facilities
¦ Mine runoff
¦ Solid waste disposal facilities
¦ Recreational use
Traffic accidents/spills
-------
¦ Fires
The extent to which an activity may impact a water source can be evaluated by various methods which
range in complexity. Evaluation methods may include physically-based modeling, empirical modeling,
decision analysis, and best professional judgment. The best evaluation method selected should suit the
available data, cost, and resources. Computer models are more complex and attempt to simulate the
physical, chemical, and biological processes that affect contaminants. Models can handle a large amount
of information to estimate the water quality impacts of different scenarios. Best professional judgment,
on the other hand, is more simplistic and involves the evaluation of existing data by experienced
professionals to determine the significance of existing and potential impacts and the best protection
strategies to mitigate impacts. As an example, a pollutant impact matrix was developed for the City of
Boulder, Colorado, to identify the level of concern for potential contaminants in its watersheds, an
excerpt from this matrix is presented as Table 1. Rankings were based on criteria including the distance
to the water supply, the distance to the treatment plant intake, the frequency and probability of
contamination, type of contaminant and relative concentration of contaminant.
Table 1. Potential contaminant sources, impacts and actions (Brown and Caldwell,
1992).
Location
Boulder
Reservoir
Dry Creek
Dry Creek
Contaminant Contaminants of Ranking- Ranking- .
i • a • /» , gBilSlS
existing future
source
Recreation
Wastewater
irrigation
reuse and runoff
Local soils
concern
pathogens
volatile organics
pathogens
nutrients
metals
organic
diss.solids
sulfates
sodium
hardness
medium
low
medium-
low
medium
medium-
low
pathogen levels high
seasonal occurrence
impervious surface
limited
return flows limited
seasonally important
(Nov. - Mar.)
small loadings
Whatever the selected evaluation method, it should be appropriate for the purpose of the watershed
management plan and the available data and resources. As an example, computer models are only as
good as the input data and assumptions, therefore, if little data is available best professional judgment
-------
may be a more appropriate evaluation method.
Step 4 Develop Source Protection Strategies
Once the goals of the watershed management program have been determined, the watershed has been
characterized and contaminant sources have been evaluated, the appropriate source protection strategies
can be determined. Source protection strategies, or best management practices, are a means of mitigating
contaminant sources. The source protection strategies should focus on key watershed activities and
constituents of concern to protect water quality. Source protection approaches may include both non-
structural and structural control strategies.
Non-structural controls utilize planning, regulatory policies, and land ownership to minimize threats to
water quality. Structural controls include capital improvements designed to detain or divert contaminants
in surface runoff. The Marin Municipal Water District (MMWD), located in Northern California,
performed a watershed sanitary survey or watershed inventory to comply with the California Surface
Water Treatment Rule. MMWD stores source water in two watersheds; MMWD owns and controls most
of the Mount Tamalpais Watershed, but has little control over activities in the Nicasio Watershed.
Selected non-structural control strategies identified and recommended in the watershed inventory
include:
Mount Tamalpais Watershed
- Policy for Land Use and Management
- No livestock grazing
- Access control
Nicasio Watershed
- Development controls_parcels >60 acres in subwatershed
- Private landowner agreements
- Agricultural land trusts to purchase development rights
Typical examples of structural control strategies include wet retention ponds, dry detention ponds,
infiltration controls and diversion systems. Non-structural controls focus on minimizing the sources of
contaminants and are usually not costly to implement, but it can be difficult to quantify removal rates.
Structural controls focus on removing contaminants that have entered runoff and removal efficiencies
can be measured, but these controls require maintenance and can have high capital costs.
-------
Step 5 Implement Watershed Management Plan
The maintenance or improvement of water quality from a management plan relies on how well the plan
is implemented and monitored. Implementation requires ownership of the plan, financing, stakeholder
involvement or consent, and long-term monitoring. The owner of a plan may be an advisory committee, a
regional planning agency, water utility staff, or a consultant. The owner is responsible for acquiring staff
and financial resources and disseminating information among internal and external stakeholders.
A long-term monitoring program is essential to the management plan as a means to review and evaluate
progress. The plan is a dynamic process and goals should be revisited periodically to address changes in
watershed activities, water quality and effectiveness of source protection strategies. Modifications in the
plan may be necessary to address these changes.
Benefits of a Watershed Management Plan
Protecting water quality on a watershed basis can be cost effective by minimizing the need for extensive
water treatment. Watershed control measures implemented in the Lake Tahoe Basin enabled water
utilities to avoid filtration requirements and millions of dollars in added treatment costs. Most
importantly, developing a watershed management plan is a proactive approach to protecting a water
supply. This proactive approach aims to protect human health, the reliability of existing supplies, and the
water quality of the entire watershed.
References
Santa Clara Valley Water District. 1994. Watershed Update. Issue 1.
R.W. Robbins, J.L Glicker, D.M. Bloem, and B.M. Niss. 1991. Effective Watershed Management
for Surface Water Supplies. AWWA Research Foundation. Subject Area: Water Resources.
AWWA California-Nevada Section, Source Water Quality Committee. 1993. Watershed Sanitary
Survey Guidance Manual.
Brown and Caldwell, Inc. 1992. The City of Boulder Water Source Impact Assessment. Prepared
for the City of Boulder, Colorado.
Brown and Caldwell, Inc. 1995. Marin Municipal Water District Watershed Sanitary Survey.
Prepared for the Marin Municipal Water District, California.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the information
provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions of
the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Workshop on a Technique for Assessing Stream Habitat
Structure for Nonpoint-Source Evaluations
Michael T. Barbour, Director
James B. Stribling, Principal Scientist
Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD
Water resource managers face problems of understanding and managing nonpoint source pollution, evaluating the complex,
cumulative impacts of changing land use on stream habitats and biological communities, and assessing the effectiveness of fish habitat
improvement projects and other mitigation procedures (Frissell et al., 1986). The majority of water resource programs are oriented
toward detection and monitoring of chemical contamination, and are deficient in detecting other forms of perturbation (Barbour and
Stribling, 1994). However, it is generally recognized that the main stressor in nonpoint source impacts is alteration of the physical
habitat structure. The principal objectives of the Clean Water Act are "to restore and maintain the chemical, physical and biological
integrity of the Nation's waters" (section 101). In response to these mandates, methods to assess the integrity of our water resources
have been developed and tested in a variety of stream types.
The quality of the instream and riparian habitat influences the structure and function of fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages in a
stream. The effects of water quality on these faunal distributions is sometimes obscured by the presence of a degraded habitat. A
comprehensive approach to assessing the quality of stream habitat structure should include an evaluation of habitat complexity,
including the variety and quality of the substrate, channel morphology, bank structure, and riparian vegetation. Biological potential is
limited by the quality of the structure of the habitat. Habitat assessment is becoming a critical tool in evaluating effects to the water
resource from nonpoint sources. Barbour and Stribling (1991) modified the habitat assessment approach originally developed for
Rapid Bioassessment Protocols (Plafkin et al., 1989) to include additional assessment metrics for high gradient streams (Figure 1) and
a different metric set more appropriate for low gradient streams. These metrics relate to various components of the stream and riparian
habitat and provide information that, when integrated, allow for the judgment of habitat quality relative to regionally-expected
reference conditions. The ability to accurately assess the quality of the physical habitat structure using a visual-based approach
depends on several factors:
¦ The metrics selected to represent the various features of habitat structure need to be relevant and clearly defined.
¦ A continuum of conditions for each metric must exist that can be characterized from the optimum for the region of the stream
type under study to the poorest situation reflecting substantial alteration due to anthropogenic activities.
¦ The judgment criteria for the attributes of each metric should minimize the subjectivity through either quantitative
measurements or specific categorical choices.
¦ The Investigators are experienced in or adequately trained for stream assessments in the region under study.
¦ Adequate documentation is maintained to evaluate and correct errors resulting in outliers and aberrant assessments.
-------
HABIW METRICS FOR VIS UAL-BASED ASSESSMENT OF STREAMS
OPTIMAL SUBOPTIMAL MARGINAL POOR
20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 '0 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 10
¦ mstream Lover Abundant, Diverse Uniterm, Unstable
, Epifaunal Substrate Mixed Rubble, Extensive Rubble Lacking
. Ernbeddedness Little or No Fine Sedimeni Abundant Fine Sediment
. Channel Alteration Not Channelized Extensively Channelized
. Sediment Deposition No Sediment Deposition High Deposition
. Frequency of R if ties Frequent Riffle/Run Sequs nee infrequent Riffles
. Channel Flow Status Channel F illed Low Wetted Width
. Bank Vegetative Protect ior Well-Vegetated Banks No Bank Protection
, Bank Stability Low Erosion High Erosion
. Riparian Vegetative Zone > 18-m Width 6-m Width
Figure 1.
Habitat Metrics for Assessment of High-gradient Streams
Instream Cover (fish) includes the relative quantity and variety of natural structures in the stream, such as fallen trees, logs, and
branches, large rocks, and undercut banks, that are available as refugia, feeding, or sites for laying eggs. A wide variety and/or
abundance of submerged structures in the stream provides the fish with a large number of niches, thus increasing the diversity. As
variety and abundance of cover decreases, habitat structure becomes monotonous, fish diversity decreases, and the potential for
recovery following disturbance decreases.
Epifaunal Substrate is essentially the microhabitat diversity of hard substrates (rocks, snags, etc.) available for insects, snails and other
inverterbrates. Numerous types of insect larvae and nymphs attach themselves to rocks, logs, branches, or other submerged substrates.
As with fish, the greater the variety and extent of available microhabitats or attachment sites, the greater the variety of insects in the
stream. Rocky-bottom areas are critical for maintaining a variety of insects in most high-gradient streams. Snags and submerged logs
are among the most productive habitat structure in low-gradient streams.
Ernbeddedness refers to the extent to which rocks (gravel, cobble, and boulders) are covered or sunken into the silt, sand, or mud of
the stream bottom. Generally, as rocks become embedded, the surface area available to macroinvertebrates and fish (shelter, spawning,
and egg incubation) is decreased. Ernbeddedness is a result of large-scale sediment movement and deposition, and is a parameter
evaluated in the riffles and runs of high-gradient streams.
Channel Alteration is a measure of large-scale changes in the shape of the stream channel. Many streams in urban and agricultural
areas have been straightened, deepened, or diverted into concrete channels, often for flood control purposes. Such streams have
reductions in natural habitats for fish, macroinvertebrates, and plants than do naturally meandering streams. Channel alteration is
present when artificial embankments, riprap, and other forms of artificial bank stabilization or structures are present; when the stream
is very straight for significant distances; when dams and bridges are present; and when other such changes have occurred. Scouring is
often associated with channel alteration in particular, downstream of channelized reaches.
Sediment Deposition measures the amount of sediment that has accumulated in pools and the changes that have occurred to the stream
bottom as a result of deposition. Deposition occurs from large-scale movement of sediment. Sediment deposition may cause the
formation of islands, point bars (areas of increased deposition usually at the beginning of a meander that increase in size as the
channel is diverted toward the outer bank) or shoals, or result in the filling of pools. Heavy sedimet deposition can cause erosive flow
energy to be diverted into streambanks, causing instability. It can also be evident in areas that are obstructed by natural or manmade
debris and areas where the stream flow decreases, such as bends. High levels of sediment deposition create an unstable and continually
changing environment that becomes unsuitable for many organisms.
-------
Frequency of Riffles (or bends)/Velocity Depth Combinations is a way to measure the sequence of riffles and, in part, the complexity
of habitat occurring in a stream. Riffles are a source of high-quality habitat and diverse fauna; therefore, an increased frequency of
riffle occurrence usually enhances the diversity of the stream benthic community. For areas where distinct riffles are uncommon, a
run/bend ratio can be used as a measure of one characteristic of channel meandering or sinuosity. High sinuosity provides for diverse
habitat and fauna, and the stream is better able to handle flow surges when the stream fluctuates as a result of storms. The absorption
of this energy by bends protects the stream from excessive erosion and flooding. In headwaters, riffles are usually continuous and the
presence of cascades or boulders provides a verticle sinuosity and enhances the complexity of the stream habitat structure. In "oxbow"
streams of coastal areas and deltas, meanders are highly exaggerated and transient. Natural conditions in these streams are shifting
channels and bends, and alteration is usually in the form of flow regulation and diversion. A stable channel is one that does not exhibit
progressive changes in slope, shape, or dimensions, although short-term variations may occur during floods (Gordon et al., 1992).
Patterns of velocity and depth are included under this parameter. The best streams in high-gradient regions will have all four patterns
present: (1) slow-deep; (2) slow-shallow; (3) fast-deep; and (4) fast-shallow. The general guidelines are 0.5 meter depth to separate
shallow from deep, and 0.3 meter/sec to separate fast from slow. The occurrence of these four patterns relates to the capacity of the
stream structure to provide and maintain a stable aquatic environment.
Channel Flow Status is the degree to which the channel is filled with water. The flow status will change as the channel enlarges (e.g.,
aggrading stream beds with actively widening channels) or as flow decreases as result of dams and other obstructions, diversions for
irrigation, or drought. When water does not cover much of the streambed, the amount of viable substrate for aquatic organisms is
limited. In high-gradient streams, riffles and cobble substrate are exposed; in low-gradient streams, the decrease in water level exposes
logs and snags, thereby reducing the areas of good habitat. Channel flow status is severely reduced in low gradient streams that have
becomre braided. This metric is especially useful for interpreting biological condition under abnormal or lowered flow conditions.
Bank Vegetative Protection measures the amount of the stream bank that is covered by vegetation. The root systems of plants growing
on stream banks help hold soil in place, thereby reducing the amount of erosion that is likely to occur. This parameter supplies
information on the ability of the bank to resist erosion as well as some additional information on the uptake of nutrients by the plants,
the control of instream scouring, and stream shading. Banks that have full, natural plant growth are better for fish and
macroinvertebrates than are banks without vegetative protection or those shored up with concrete or riprap. This parameter is made
more effective by defining the natural vegetation for the region and stream type (i.e., shrubs, trees, etc.). In areas of high grazing
pressure from livestock or where residential and urban development activities disrupt the riparian zone, the growth of a natural plant
community is impeded. Residential developments, urban centers, golf courses, logging, and pastureland are the common
anthropogenic causes of riparian zone degradation .
Bank Stability (condition of banks) measures whether the stream banks are eroded (or have the potential for erosion). Steep banks are
more likely to collapse and suffer from erosion than are gently sloping banks, and are therefore considered to be unstable. Signs of
erosion include crumbling, unvegetated banks, exposed tree roots, and exposed soil. Eroded banks indicate a problem of sediment
movement and deposition, and suggest a scarcity of cover and organic input to streams.
Riparian Vegetative Zone Width measures the width of natural vegetation from the edge of the stream bank out through the riparian
zone. The vegetative zone serves as a buffer to pollutants entering a stream from runoff, controls erosion, and provides habitat and
nutrient input into the stream. A relatively undisturbed riparian zone supports a robust stream system; narrow riparian zones occur
when roads, parking lots, fields, lawns, bare soil, rocks, or buildings are near the stream bank. The presence of "old field" (i.e., an
agricultural field not currently in production and supporting early-successional plant growth), paths, and walkways in an otherwise
undisturbed riparian zone, may be judged to be inconsequential to impairment of the riparian zone. In some regions of the country, an
increase in the specified width of a desirable riparian zone is warranted.
Conclusion
As with any environmental data collection and interpretation methods, physical habitat quality assessment approaches should take into
account regional patterns and site-specific uniqueness. Regionally, it is recognized that gradient or slope is the most influential
hydrologic-controlling factor of stream and habitat formation. The approach presented here addresses regional slope patterns by
having different suites of parameters for high gradient and low gradient streams. Site-specific variability is addressed in two ways.
First, because the complexity of stream habitat structure is recognized as a factor influencing (and resulting from) channel stability,
generally higher rating scores are given to a complex stream. Second, if a stream has some feature that is different or unique from
other streams in the region, individual parameters will score differently.
-------
This paper presents a summary of the physical instream and riparian habitat features of a visual-based habitat assessment and their
relationship to, and influence on, biological communities. The quality and stability of stream and riparian physical habitat, rated as it
relates to unimpaired streams of similar site-specific and regional characteristics, provides an estimate of the biological potential of a
stream system. The most important characteristic of a field biologist using this approach is that they possess training and experience in
field stream ecology and are generally familiar with regional variability of streams in their region.
References
Barbour, M.T., and J.B. Stribling. 1991. Use of habitat assessment in evaluating the biological integrity of stream communities,
In Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation, 1991, pp. 25-38. EPA-440/5-91-005. U.S. EPA, Office of Water, Washington,
DC.
Barbour, M.T., and J.B. Stribling. 1994. A technique for assessing stream habitat structure. Pp. 156-178, In Proceedings of the
conference "Riparian Ecosystems of the Humid U.S.: Management, Functions, and Values". National Association of
Conservation Districts. Washington, DC.
Frissell, C.A., W.L. Liss, C.E. Warren, and M.C. Hurley. 1986. A hierarchial framework for stream habitat classification,
viewing streams in a watershed context. Environmental Management 10(2): 199-214.
Gordon, N.D., T.A. McMahon, and B.L. Finlayson. 1992. Stream hydrology: an introduction for ecologists. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., West Sussex, England.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, and R.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Use in
Streams and Rivers: Benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. EPA/440/4-89-001. U.S. EPA, Office ofWater, Washington, DC.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Response of Stream Macroinvertebrates and
Water Quality to Varying Degrees of Watershed
Suburbanization in Northern Virginia
R. Christian Jones
Department of Biology, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA
Thomas Grizzard
Occoquan Watershed Monitoring Laboratory, Department of Civil Engineering,
Virginia Tech, Manassas, VA
Robert E. Cooper
U.S. Geological Survey, Richmond, VA
Introduction
Suburban development is becoming a predominant land use in many watersheds near large population
centers. The conversion of watersheds with low population densities and land use intensities to suburban
and urban land uses typically results in degradation of stream biotic communities. Possible factors
responsible for degradation of stream communities include altered water quality, hydrology and habitat.
Numerous constituents of urban nonpoint source pollution may have deleterious or undesirable effects on
freshwater macroinvertebrates. Suspended sediments interfere with respiration and feeding of stream
invertebrates and when deposited bury desirable habitats through embedding. Increased levels of toxic
contaminants such as heavy metals, road de-icing salts, petroleum hydrocarbons, and pesticides found in
urban runoff may also have a deleterious effect (Jones and Holmes 1985). Although less important in
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
flowing waters than in lakes and ponds, nitrogen and phosphorus can stimulate the growth of nuisance
algae which may alter stream food webs. Temperature is a critical factor controlling the life cycles of
many aquatic insects (Vannote and Sweeney 1980). Urbanization alters the temperature regime of
streams by decreasing riparian vegetation and base flow, which could lead to the elimination of insects
adapted to cooler pre-development conditions.
Given the potential for urban nonpoint pollutants to impact freshwater life, it is not surprising to find that
most watershed studies to date indicate substantial degradation of the fauna of urban and suburban
streams. Jones and Clark (1987) found that watershed suburbanization had a major impact on benthic
insect communities even in the absence of point source discharges. Watershed development had little
impact on total insect numbers, but shifted the taxonomic composition markedly. Chironomids increased
while mayflies, stoneflies, beetles, and dobsonflies decreased.
The research described in this paper was conducted to support development of an innovative storm water
management plan that demonstrates a watershed approach to natural resource conservation and
sustainable development. This comparative study of three watersheds of varying land use histories is
being conducted in the rapidly developing suburbs of Washington, D.C. Objectives of the study are to
assess the status of biotic communities and water quality in the three watersheds and to assess the
efficacy of individual best management practices.
Study Site
Located in eastern Prince William County, Virginia, the three watersheds are roughly parallel to one
another and perpendicular to the tidal Potomac River into which they each drain. Each watershed
originates in and is centered on the Piedmont physiographic province and all sampling stations are
located within the Piedmont or at the Piedmont-Coastal Plain border. Neabsco Creek is a predominantly
suburbanized watershed with single family (<1 acre lots) housing accounting for about 40% of the
watershed. Other developed land such as commercial, highways, and other housing account for about
10% and the other 50% is open space consisting of parks, school sites, flood plains, and land zoned for
development, but currently fallow. Powells Creek is predominantly open space (77%), with the
remainder in low density housing. Quantico Creek is composed almost entirely of park and military
reservation land. There are isolated dwellings scattered along roads in the upper headwaters.
Subwatersheds sampled with bioassessment within each watershed drained 0.2-15.7 km2 in Neabsco (34
sites), 6.2-21.0 km2 in Powells (8 sites), and 0.2-43.6 km2 in Quantico (19 sites). Intensive water quality
surveys involving both grab samples of base flow and automated sampling of storm flows have been
conducted at selected sites within the watersheds.
Methods
A modification of the EPA Rapid Bioassessment Protocol (RBP) II was used as the basic tool for
macroinvertebrate bioassessment (Plafkin et al. 1989). RBP II utilizes semiquantitative field collections
in representative stream habitats to determine the values of up to eight metrics which characterize the
-------
status of the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Macroinvertebrate samples were collected at each
station using a 44 cm x 22 cm pole-mounted kick net with a mesh size of 0.5 mm. The net was held to
the stream bottom while a one meter strip of substrate directly upstream of the net was agitated for one
minute. Two samples were collected at each station, one from a riffle and one from a run, and these were
pooled to form a single composite sample. Where possible, a coarse particulate organic matter (CPOM)
sample was collected, but these data are not included as many stations were lacking in CPOM. All
macroinvertebrate samples were preserved in formalin. During the RBP sampling measurements of
temperature, dissolved oxygen, conductivity, and pH were made using field probes.
In the lab samples were rinsed with tap water through a 0.5 mm sieve to remove formalin and placed into
a 35 cm x 40 cm pan marked with 5 cm x 5 cm squares. After distributing the sample evenly over the
pan, squares were selected from a random number table and organisms recovered until a total of 200 was
reached or until the whole sample was sorted. The selected organisms were sorted into ethanol-glycerine,
identified to family and enumerated.
Macroinvertebrate rating was calculated following the guidance of the EPA bioassessment manual
(Plafkin et al. 1989). Two of the suggested metrics (scraper: filter collector ratio and shredders: total
ratio) were not utilized. The former has not shown diagnostic value in our studies (Jones and Kelso
1994), while the latter requires a CPOM sample which was not available at all sites. We used Sorensen's
index of community similarity instead of the community loss index. The other five metrics cited in the
RBP II were utilized as outlined in the bioassessment manual. RBP results from three samplings (two in
spring and one in fall) were included in this paper.
Intensive water quality measurements were made at several sites along Cow Branch, a Neabsco tributary,
above and below a regional storm water facility. Grab samples were collected on a monthly to bimonthly
basis and several storms were sampled using grab or automated sampling procedures. Samples were
analyzed for a full suite of parameters including nutrients, metals, and major cations and anions.
Results and Discussion
Bioassessment results indicated that
macroinvertebrate communities were
least impacted in the undeveloped
Quantico watershed and most impacted
in the suburbanized Neabsco watershed
(Table 1). Family richness,
EPT/chironomid ratio, and EPT index
averaged substantially higher in Quantico
than Neabsco, although there was some
overlap in all three metrics. Family biotic
index and percent dominant taxon were
highest in Neabsco, again indicating
Table 1. Results of RBP sampling. Averages over all
stations with range shown in parentheses.
Family Richness
Family Biotic Index
Neabsco
7.7
(1-21)
5.4
(3.3-9.0)
Powells
13
(8-21)
4.7
(3.8-5.7)
Quantico
15
(8-23)
4.4
(3.0-5.6)
-------
greater impairment. Sorensen's index of
similarity to the reference site averaged
highest in Quantico. For 5 of the 6
metrics the lightly developed Powells
Creek stations showed intermediate
values. The exception was
EPT/chironomid ratio which was the
most variable metric. When the values of
all six metrics were combined (RBP
Composite Index), a clear trend emerged
of increasing impairment of the
macroinvertebrate community with
increasing watershed suburbanization.
Water quality measurements made at the
time of RBP sampling indicated minimal
difference in base flow conditions among
the three watersheds for the small suite of
parameters measured. Temperatures did
not exceed 26oC at any site. Dissolved
oxygen readings below 5 mg/L were
observed sporadically in both Neabsco
and Quantico. pH readings were slightly
acidic and even dropped below 5 in a few
samples, again in both Neabsco and
Quantico. Specific conductance was
generally slightly lower at Quantico sites;
however, a very high reading was also
obtained at Quantico. Slightly acidic
surface waters are typical of this area
with more acidic conditions often
associated with localized areas of pyrite
oxidation.
EPT/Chironomids
(by abundance)
% Dominant Taxon
EPT Index
Sorenson's Index of
Similarity to Ref
RBP Composite Index
(6-metric)
% reference
RBP Index
Temperature
(C)
Dissolved oxygen
(mg/L)
Dissolved oxygen
(mg/L)
Dissolved oxygen
(% saturation)
1.9
(0-41)
6.1
(0-47)
3.6
(0-88)
59.5 54.3 48.0
(22.2-100) (22.6-85.5) (18.4-86.4)
1.3
(0-5)
3.9
(1-6)
6.6
(2-12)
0.37 0.51 0.62
(0.09-0.63) (0.33-0.71) (0.35-1.00)
9.1
(0-21)
16.2
(9-27)
20.4
(6-36)
26.1 46.3 58.3
(0-63.6) (27-83) (18-100)
18.7 19.1 17.2
(9.1-25.7) (7.9-22.9) (4.9-24.2)
7.4 6.9 6.7
(3.1-10.9) (5.2-9.9) (2.8-13)
7.4 6.9 6.7
(3.1-10.9) (5.2-9.9) (2.8-13)
78.9 73.4 79.0
(35-95) (60-95) (31-101)
6.3
(4.9-6.8)
6.3
(6.0-6.5)
5.9
(4.6-6.9)
Intensive water quality determinations pH (field)
were made on base flow and storm flow
samples from sites above and below a
regional storm water management pond Conductivity 119 126 70
in Cow Branch, a Neabsco tributary (uS/cm) (44-179) (78-176) (24-608)
(Table 2). Two tributaries to the regional
pond were sampled: PPUL and PPUR.
PPUL and PPUR are permanent streams each draining about 0.5 km2. Land use is similar with about
20% developed as commercial or highway and the rest as mostly forested large lots or open space.
-------
Average base and storm flows were similar. However, the two larger tributaries differed markedly in
ionic content at base flow. PPUR exhibited markedly higher concentrations of some dissolved phase
parameters like alkalinity, calcium, sulfate, ammonia-N, dissolved iron and dissolved manganese than
PPUL. PPUL recorded higher levels of suspended solids (TSS), total kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), nitrate-N,
and total phosphorus. This watershed lies on the boundary between the Piedmont and Coastal Plain and
soils and rock formations from these two areas are interwoven. The increased iron and manganese levels
are related to leaching of these elements from crystalline rocks of the Piedmont (Robbins and Norden
1995). The enhanced calcium levels may result from leaching of scattered shell deposits in coastal plain
soils. The differences in nutrient levels more likely result from differences in human activities in the two
watersheds. At storm flow, differences in dissolved constituents were lessened while those in particulate
parameters such as TSS and total phosphorus were enhanced. Land disturbance activities appeared to be
more recent at PPUL which may explain the higher particulate values. Bioassessment data for PPUL and
PPUR indicated little consistent difference with both streams exhibiting moderate impairment.
Two stations were located on Cow
Branch downstream of the regional pond:
PPD1, immediately downstream, and
PPD5, approximately 1 km downstream.
PPD1 exhibited characteristics that were
generally intermediate to those observed
at the inflow stations. Certain parameters
such as ammonia-N, nitrite-N, nitrate-N,
TKN, total suspended solids, and total
phosphorus were obviously altered by
residence in the pond. Ammonia-N,
nitrite-N, and TKN showed increases
while nitrate-N, TSS, and total
phosphorus decreased below the pond.
Between PPD1 and PPD5 large volumes
of storm water were discharged directly
into the stream resulting in large
increases in storm concentrations of TSS
and a slight increase in total phosphorus.
Base flow concentrations of iron and
manganese were greatly elevated at these
sites and deposits of iron minerals were
obvious. Biological data indicated
moderate impairment immediately below
the regional pond, but severe impairment
below the large storm water inputs.
Conclusions
Table 2. Intensive water quality sampling at stations
on the Cow Branch of Neabsco Cr.
Parameter
Discharge
(cfs)
Conductivity
(uS/cm)
pH
DO (mg/L)
Alkalinity
(mg/L CaC03)
TSS
Ca++
(mg/L)
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
PPUL
0.15
2.90
159
107
6.96
7.38
9.2
9.0
19.5
12.0
8.5
570
8.7
5.1
PPUR
0.22
2.69
258
97
6.59
6.82
8.6
8.6
83.0
20.3
5.0
45
30.3
8.5
PPD1
176
87
6.86
7.20
7.2
26.2
17.0
10.7
34
9.3
6.2
PPD5
0.40
18.3
182
59
6.52
6.34
9.2
8.8
24.0
7.8
20.6
3074
12.5
4.2
-------
Macroinvertebrate bioassessment S04 -2 Base
indicated substantial impairment of (mg/L) Storm
streams in the heavily suburbanized
Neabsco Creek watershed relative to a
companion forested watershed (Quantico
Creek). A lightly developed adjacent
watershed (Powells Creek) showed an
intermediate level of impairment. All six
metrics employed to assess the
macroinvertebrate community exhibited
a similar pattern. Field water quality
measurements failed to detect any
substantial differences among multiple
sites in the three watersheds. Intensive
water quality sampling of tributaries to a
regional storm water management pond
indicated considerable differences which
did not result in obvious changes in the
macroinvertebrate community. A site
immediately below the pond exhibited
alterations in nitrogen speciation and
reduced suspended solids and total
phosphorus levels, but little change in
bioassessment metrics. Severe
impairment of the benthic
macroinvertebrate community was found
further downstream below the discharge
of large quantities of unmitigated storm
water. Further study will be required to
determine the extent to which the
impacts of suburbanization in these
watersheds can be ascribed to water quality impacts as opposed to other
modification.
NH4-N
(mg/L)
TKN
N02-N
N02 + N03-N
(mg/L)
Total P
(mg/L)
SRP
Dissolved Fe
(ug/L)
Dissolved Mn
(ug/L)
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
Base
Storm
6.8
7.9
0.07
0.31
0.80
1.72
0.03
0.03
0.53
0.61
0.13
0.45
0.01
0.01
158
194
215
76
11.6
5.0
0.26
0.62
0.47
1.14
0.05
0.04
0.25
0.54
0.02
0.09
nd
0.03
1690
626
697
110
5.0
4.9
0.42
0.05
0.90
0.60
0.37
0.05
0.23
0.18
0.03
0.07
nd
1037
330
226
47
14.4
6.5
0.20
0.24
0.43
0.71
0.02
0.02
0.36
0.40
0.03
0.11
0.02
0.01
3414
356
1043
134
factors such as habitat
Acknowledgements
Support for this work was contributed by the U.S. EPA, Prince William County, Virginia, and the
Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation. Field and lab work by Allyson Via-Norton, Donald
Morgan, and Steve Winesett is gratefully acknowledged.
References
-------
Jones, R.C. and C.C. Clark. 1987. Impact of watershed urbanization on stream insect
communities. Water Resources Bulletin 23: 1047-1055.
Jones, R.C. and B.H. Holmes. 1985. Effects of land use practices on water resources in Virginia.
Bulletin 144. Virginia Water Resources Research Center. Blacksburg, VA. 130 pp.
Jones, R.C. and D.P. Kelso. 1994. Bioassessment of nonpoint source impacts in three northern
Virginia watersheds. Final Report. Submitted to U.S. EPA Region 3. 53 pp.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, andR.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid
bioassessment protocols for use in streams and rivers: benthic macroinvertebrates and fish. U.S.
EPA. Office of Water. EPA/44/4-89-001.
Robbins, E.I. and A.W. Norden. 1995. Microbial oxidation of iron and manganese in wetlands
and creeks of Maryland, Virginia, Delaware, and Washington, D.C. In: Chiang, S-H. (ed)
Eleventh Annual International Pittsburgh Coal Conference Proceedings 2: 1154-1159.
Vannote, R.L. and B.W. Sweeney. 1980. Geographical analysis of thermal equilibria: a
conceptual model for evaluation the effect of natural and modified thermal regimes on aquatic
insect communities. American Midland Naturalist 115: 667-695.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although
the information provided here was accurate and current when first created,
it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent
official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Determining Ecological Quality Within a Watershed
Jerry Diamond, Ph.D., Principal Scientist
Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD
Watershed managers and engineers frequently rely on ambient EPA or state water quality criteria to determine
overall water quality and to prioritize reaches in need of further examination or remediation. While this approach is
relatively inexpensive to implement and requires little effort or expertise to obtain and interpret data, the
underlying assumptions of this approach are often invalid. Physical habitat quality, pollutant bioavailability, and
the type of animal and plant communities naturally present, are a few of the site-specific factors that often
confound supposed relationships between pollutant concentrations and ecological effects in aquatic systems. These
factors are often poorly understood or ignored in current watershed management approaches. Biological
approaches to this problem are necessary because it is the biota and general ecology of the watershed that we are
typically interested in protecting. This paper presents two case study examples in which relatively low-cost
biological analyses were used to effectively determine the ecological quality of the watershed and where
management resources should be spent.
Biological Assessments
In this first example, the upper Smith River, Virginia, was believed to be impaired because copper and cadmium
concentrations instream were higher than state water quality standards. Point-source dischargers were implicated as
the cause of elevated metal concentrations. These metals were thought to have potentially deleterious effects on
aquatic life in Smith River and on the sport fishery downstream in Philpott Reservoir. Benthic macroinvertebrate
and fish biological assessments of this watershed, using both a targeted and probabilistic sampling design,
indicated little or no effects due to point-source discharges and also indicated generally unimpaired conditions at
most locations compared to reference sites in the area (Figure 1). However, the bioassessments revealed certain
habitat-poor areas due to livestock watering and other deleterious farming practices. Increased silt loading and
fecal coliform were observed downstream of these areas resulting in poor spawning habitat for the stocked
kokhanee rainbow trout in the reservoir. Thus, elevated metal concentrations in this watershed appeared to have
little or no ecological impact. On the contrary, biological approaches demonstrated that higher management
priority should be given to mitigating and preventing habitat destruction in the riparian zone and instream.
-------
to Phil potl Reservoir
7
Reference
IUI = 44
IB I - 52
III = 130
Refers nne
ICI =48
IBI =59
HI - 183
CI
-20
Bl
= 25
HI
- 55
ICI
= 22
m\
= 3l>
HI
-47
Re'ereriee
ICI = 42
IBI -53
HI = IfU
Figure 1. Assessment sites, invertebrate(ICI), fish (IBI) and habitat (HI) quality in upper Smith
Lower scores signify impairment.
i?.VV
1 km
River, VA.
In-Situ Bioassays, Ambient Water Testing, and Toxicity Identification
Analyses
Biological techniques can not only help prioritize watershed areas in need of remediation, as indicated in the above
example. They can also help define causes of impairment as illustrated in this second example involving a study of
Peak Creek watershed, a tributary to Claytor Lake and the New River, Virginia (Figure 2). Benthic
macroinvertebrate and fish biological assessments of this watershed, using a probabilistic and targeted sampling
design, indicated ecological impairment in the town of Pulaski and downstream of an abandoned chemical
manufacturing facility.
-------
abandoned factory
to CI ay tor Lake
1 Km
Figure 2. Assessment sites in Peak Creek, VA. showing habitat scores (numbers) and impaired sites (light
shaded circles).
In-situ bioassays, using three ecologically important indigenous species, showed little or no acute or sub-acute
toxicity effects at impaired sites during dry weather conditions (Figure 3). However, significant effects were
evident during or after wet weather events downstream of the chemical facility only (Figure 3). Both habitat
assessment data and results of in-situ bioassays suggested that the Pulaski site was impaired by poor riparian
habitat and channel alteration whereas the abandoned factory site was impaired by toxic storm water runoff.
Toxicity identification fractionation of the storm water runoff from the factory site implicated heavy metals as the
chief cause of toxicity (Figure 4).
-------
Pulaski-Dry Factory-Dry
Pulaski-Wet Factory-Wet
¦ Mayfly I Amphipod ~ Minnow
Figure 3. Percent survival of indigenous species in in-situ bioassays in Peak Creek during dry and wet
weather near Pulaski and at an abandoned factory.
-------
% Survival
100
80
60 -
40 -
20 -
Chemical treated
I Volatiles ~ Metals ¦ Oxidants ~ Non-polar ~ Ammonia
Figurre 4. Ceriodaphnia survival in differently treated fractions of storm water collected downstream of the
factory site.
Simulated stream microcosm testing, using ambient water samples collected downstream from the facility,
confirmed that storm water runoff from the factory site was toxic to sensitive indigenous invertebrates (Figure 5)
and inhibited important functional ecological processes. Furthermore, the pulsed effect of storm water-derived
metals entering Peak Creek was sufficient to cause significant impairment to aquatic life.
-------
ICI
60
50 -
40 -
30 -
20 -
10 -
Control
Peak Cr.
100
40
- 20
0
¦ ICI n %Decomposition ¦ 7<>Chlorophyll reduction
Figure 5. Results of simulated stream invertebrate microcosm study of pulsed Peak Creek storm water.
Subsequent metal analyses revealed high storm water copper concentrations downstream of the abandoned factory
site and high sediment concentrations as well (Figure 6). The sediment was a probable source of copper and other
metal pollutants during high flow events when benthic turbulence and resuspension of contaminants was highest.
This process was probably affecting several kilometers of stream habitat and potentially, the lake.
-------
Water column Cu (ug/L)
200
sediment Cu(mg/kg)
400
150
100
50
0
300
200
100
Reference
Factory Site
0
| Dry Weather ~ Wet Weather | Sediment
Figure 6. Sediment and wet and dry weather water column copper concentrations in Peak Creek.
Typical water quality chemical monitoring might not have indicated a problem in Peak Creek watershed if
performed during dry weather conditions. Biological analyses in this watershed were a cost-effective means to
determine where ecological problems existed, the causes of those problems, and thereby, the necessary information
with which to make informed management choices regarding remediation.
-------
Note: This information is provided lor reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now
outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions
of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Maryland Biological Stream Survey: Developing Estimates of
Watershed Condition
Mark T. Southerland, Jon H. Volstad, Stephen B. Weisberg
Versar, Inc., Columbia, MD
Paul F. Kazyak, Ronald J. Klauda
Monitoring and Non-Tidal Assessment Division, Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD
The Maryland Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is charged with managing the natural resources of the state. Although site-
specific studies have revealed adverse effects on streams from acidic deposition, no statewide or watershed-level information is
available on the condition of stream resources in Maryland. To address the lack of comprehensive information on the biological
resources affected by acidic deposition and other stresses, DNR is implementing the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS).
The MBSS will provide a comprehensive and technically defensible assessment of the extent to which acidic deposition may have
affected or may be affecting critical biological resources in the state. The survey will help decision makers identify the geographic
distribution of biological resources, establish priorities for environmental issues of concern in Maryland's streams and rivers, and
identify regions that require protection or mitigation (Southerland and Weisberg, 1995).
Characterizing the condition of the ecological resources in a watershed is critical to its effective management. Unfortunately, many
watershed projects do not have reliable estimates of condition, because data are collected in an ad hoc fashion. Even relatively
extensive monitoring data may fail to adequately characterize watershed condition if results cannot be extrapolated beyond
individual sampling sites. The MBSS has been explicitly designed to provide area-wide estimates of biological condition. This
includes a probability-based sampling design in which sites are selected from a comprehensive list of stream reaches in Maryland
such that all sampling sites have a known, non-zero probability of being sampled. This sampling design will enable investigators to
use data from the MBSS to estimate the condition of streams and rivers on watershed and statewide scales.
Random Sampling
Planning and execution of a sample survey involves three
primary steps: (1) creating a list of all units in the target
population (the sampling frame) from which to select a sample,
(2) selecting a random sample of units from this list, and (3)
collecting data from the selected units. The probabilistic
sampling design has substantial advantages over nonrandom
surveys because it enables investigators to estimate the condition
of streams and rivers for any geographic region, ranging from
small watershed to statewide scales. The design supports
MBSS Field sampling
-------
statistically valid population estimates of variables such as
densities of particular species of fish or the number of miles of
stream with degraded habitat. The MBSS sampling design also
permits rigorous characterization of the sources of variability in
the data.
The MBSS design incorporates a hierarchical arrangement of
sampling units (Figure 1). First, the MBSS stratifies the nontidal
streams of Maryland into 18 river basins (watersheds). Lattice
sampling is used to schedule sampling of basins over the three-
year study. Lattice sampling, or multistratification, is a cost-
effective means of allocating effort across time in a large
geographic area (see Cochran, 1977; Jessen, 1978). The MBSS
study area was divided into three geographic regions with five to seven basins each: (1) western, (2) central, and (3) eastern. Each
basin will be sampled at least once during the three-year study. The sampling frame for the MBSS was constructed by overlaying
basin boundaries on a map of all blue-line stream reaches in the study area as digitized on a U.S. Geological Survey 1:250,000-scale
map. A stream reach is defined as the section between two adjacent confluences, or between the head of the stream and the first
downstream confluence. The stream reaches are further divided into nonoverlapping, 75-m segments; these segments are the
elementary sampling units for which biological, water chemistry, and physical habitat data are collected. Random sampling of
segments within each basin and stream order allows the estimation of unbiased summary statistics (e.g., means and proportions, and
their respective variances) for the entire basin, or for subpopulations of special interest.
/ \
WATERSHED AND STREAM CLASSIFICATION
The MBSS field studies involve collecting biological, physical,
and water quality data during the spring and summer. Benthic
macroinvertebrates and water quality paramenters are sampled
during the spring; during the summer, fish and herpetofauna are
sampled, and the physical habitat is evaluated. Biological
variables are used to evaluate the ecological condition of
streams within a region or watershed. Flabitat indicators are
used to evaluate the condition of the physical environment and
determine how habitat condition contributes to ecological
condition. Information about water quality and anthropogenic
stressors are used to describe and identify potential causes of
degraded ecological conditions.
~
Rcadi Ueda
#

Figure 1,
Eadi basin consists ofmany watersheds wi(h
varying degrees of ampleHly These watersheds
can be classified based on the order of (he
constituent stream readies. The Strahler
condition was used tor ranlung (he readies
by order; 1 st order reaches, for eHarrples, are
(he most upstream readies in (he brandling
system
The approach for sampling the streams of Maryland is basically the same as for an opinion poll. Instead of collecting the opinions of
a sample of people, the MBSS collects data about stream chemistry, physical habitat, and biological assemblages from a
-------
representative sample of stream segments in a watershed to characterize its condition. For a basin and stream order, for example, the
proportion of stream segments in the sample with ANC less than a critical value (e.g., 200) provide an estimate of the proportion of
stream miles that has ANC below this value. MBSS's objective is to characterize the entire network of stream in the study area;
therefore all stream segments in the area must be eligible for inclusion in the sample. We clearly would not get a good estimate of
the percentage of stream miles with ANC < 200 in the entire state if measurements were taken only from acid sensitive streams. For
estimating proportions, a great advantage of random sampling is the fact that the number of samples needed to achieve a satisfactory
level of precision can be approximately determined in the planning phase.
Sampling Design
The specifics of a probability-based sampling design vary with the goals of the assessment and the funding available. The precision
of estimates of condition is limited by the heterogeneity of the watershed and the number of samples taken. Given limited funds,
designs for estimating watershed condition need to optimize apportionment of sampling effort based on the heterogeneity of
watersheds. The MBSS is an example of an ambitious program with the goals of assessing the status of stream resources on both the
statewide scale and finer scales. In the MBSS design, the ecological resources of interest (the target population) was restricted to
nontidal, third-order and smaller stream reaches, excluding unwadable impoundments and impoundments that substantially alter the
riverine nature of the reach. The target population was then subdivided into streams of different size according to the Strahler
convention (i.e., first-order reaches are the most upstream reaches in a branching stream system). Different refinements (e.g.,
subdivision into subwatersheds) are possible, but the MBSS decided that reliable estimates of stream condition in all three orders
were most critical to assessing the fishability and biological integrity of stream resources in Maryland (Figure 2). To obtain these
estimates, approximately equal numbers of stream segments are sampled from each stream order across the state. For each stream
order, the number of samples is approximately proportional to the number of stream miles in a basin. Stratifying by stream order
ensures that enough samples are obtained to develop precise population estimates for various parameters in second-order and third-
order streams. Although most stream miles are in first-order streams, higher-order streams contain relatively higher abundances and
diversity of fish species.
JP"
MULTI-STAGE SELECTION OF 1994 SAMPLING SITES,
\
-------
Figure 2.
Developing area-wide estimates of ecological resources also provides the opportunity to determine trends in watershed condition.
Although the possibility of extending the MBSS has not yet been planned, such an extension would be required to effectively
evaluate trends in biological resources and identify the consequences of the changes in atmospheric deposition expected to result
from full implementation of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990. Several design options could be used if the MBSS is repeated;
one efficient design for assessing status and trend in a resource is to sample with partial replacement (Cochran, 1977). In a future
MBSS study, 75% of the sites could be selected randomly following the standard MBSS design; 25% of the sites could be at fixed
at locations randomly selected as a subset of sites from the previous MBSS. This would provide watershed managers with reliable
information on changes in the entire watershed rather than changes at individual sites.
References
Cochran, W. G. 1977. Sampling Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 428pp.
Jessen, R. J. 1978. Statistical Survey Techniques. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York. 520pp.
Southerland, M.T. and S.B. Weisberg. 1995. Maryland Biological Stream Survey: The 1995 Workshop Summary. Report to
Chesapeake Bay Research and Monitoring Division, Maryland Department of Natural Resources.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Gulf of Maine Land-Based Pollution Sources
Inventory: Lessons Learned in Building and Using
a Tool for Regional Watershed Management
Percy Pacheco, Dan Farrow, and Pat Scott
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Silver Spring, MD
Ranj an Muttiah
Texas A&M University, Temple, TX
David Keeley
Maine State Planning Office, Augusta, ME
David Hartman
New Hampshire Office of State Planning, Concord, NH
Introduction
The Gulf of Maine watershed is extensive, covering 64,000 square miles in three states and three
Canadian provinces. It includes 25 major watersheds and 11 minor coastal drainage areas (Figure 1), and
stretches from the north shore of Cape Cod, Massachusetts, to Cape Sable, Nova Scotia in Canada. The
waters of the Gulf of Maine include the rich fishing grounds of the Georges and Browns banks. Recent
history has seen a decline in the quality of the Gulfs ecosystem as evidenced by shellfish bed closures
and the depletion of the region's groundfishery, while the competition for the remaining resources has
grown more intense. The Gulf of Maine Council on the Marine Environment, an alliance between the
states and provinces, was established in November 1989 by the governors and premiers of the Gulf of
-------
Maine, and has recognized the problem of increasing pressure on the ecosystem's health. One of the
Council's major goals has been the development of a land-based pollution sources inventory. This
inventory can be used to analyze and better understand the stresses on the ecosystem and to enable
managers and policy makers to accurately assess environmental problems and set remedial or regulatory
priorities (Maine Coastal Program, 1995). This comprehensive inventory will be the first ever developed
for the Gulf of Maine region and it is a critical step toward interjurisdictional management.
When completed in 1996, the inventory will give resource managers throughout the Gulf an overall
picture of pollution sources in the region, allowing them to develop appropriate control strategies and
monitoring programs. It will also provide information on the location, timing, and magnitude of point and
nonpoint sources discharging to the rivers, streams, lakes, and estuarine and coastal waters of the Gulf of
Maine drainage area, as well as on the existing and future relative contributions of point and nonpoint
pollutant discharges within and among watersheds. With this information, managers will be able to target
financial and human resources to the programs that will have the greatest impact on pollution problems
and that will benefit those who depend on the Gulfs resources. The inventory can also be used to support
the design of joint marine monitoring efforts and aid in implementation of management programs such as
the Coastal Nonpoint Pollution Control Programs required by Section 6217 of the U.S. Coastal Zone
Management Act Reauthorization Amendments of 1990. In the future, the inventory could be linked to a
habitat suitability model to evaluate the impact of changes in pollutant loadings on estuarine ecosystems.
This paper will discuss the efforts to develop the land-based pollution sources inventory and the lessons
learned in the process of its development.
Figure 1. Major watersheds in the Gulf of Maine Region
-------
The Gulf of Maine Pollution Sources Inventory
Phase l-Point Source Inventory
The development of a point source inventory, the first objective given immediate priority by the Gulf of
Maine Council in 1991, was completed in 1994 (NOAA, 1994). The inventory includes background data
and pollutant discharge estimates for 273 major and 1,751 minor direct point sources discharging in the
watersheds and coastal drainage areas of the Gulf of Maine. Annual and seasonal discharge estimates for
a base year of 1991 are made for 15 parameters of concern based on their effect on water quality and on
human health. These parameters are: flow, biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids, nutrients
(nitrogen, phosphorus), heavy metals (arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, and
zinc), oil and grease, and fecal coliform bacteria.
Pollutant loading estimates for U.S. facilities were based on data from self-monitoring reports required
by each facility's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit. When this
information was not available, staff used the facility's permit discharge limits. If monitoring or permit
pollutant data were both unavailable, typical pollutant concentration values associated with the facility's
industrial activity or level of wastewater treatment were used to make the estimate (NOAA, 1993).
Information in the inventory can be aggregated by watershed, eight-digit U.S.G.S. hydrologic cataloging
unit, the 11-digit subbasins that make up watersheds, or by county or province. For Canadian facilities,
monitoring information and facility design flows were used when provided by Canadian government
officials, and typical concentration values were used if this information was not available.
Phase ll-Nonpoint Source Inventory
The development of a nonpoint source inventory, the Council's second objective, is not yet complete. An
attempt is being made to model the runoff and sediment yield of the U.S. portion of the Gulf of Maine
region using an integrated approach which includes: 1) a hydrological model to predict the surface and
sub-surface water quantity; 2) a geographic information system (GIS) to collect, manage, analyze, and
display the spatial and temporal inputs and outputs; and 3) a relational databases to manage the
nonspatial data and drive the model. The system divides the Gulf of Maine (U.S. portion) into 422
subbasins (polygons), and the model inputs were derived for each polygon. The simulation is for a five-
year period (1989-1994). For all the subbasin areas, information is needed to characterize land use,
climate, soil properties, and topography. The spatial databases were assembled at both 1:24,000 and
1:250,000 scales using the Geographical Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS).
One of the innovative aspects of the project is the use of a watershed-scale modeling capability called the
Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to estimate nonpoint source discharges and route the loadings
through each watershed to the estuary (Arnold et. al, 1993). The SWAT model, which is being developed
jointly by the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s Agricultural Research Service and
Texas A & M's Agricultural Experiment Station in Temple, Texas, in close cooperation with the project
-------
team, combines a watershed model known as "Simulator for Water Resources and Rural Basins
(SWRRB)" and a river routing model called "Routing Outputs to Outlets (ROTO)" within the GRASS
environment. The subbasin components of SWAT can be placed into eight major divisions: hydrology,
weather, sedimentation, soil temperature, crop growth, nutrients, pesticides, and agricultural
management. The input interface programs and other tools are written in the compiled language C, and
are integrated with the GRASS libraries (Srinivasan and Arnold, 1994). The model itself is written in
FORTRAN 77, and both the interface and model run within the UNIX environment. The SWAT model is
undergoing a continuous refinement and adaptation to a wider range of hydrologic and environmental
problem solving abilities. For the Gulf of Maine project, it has been updated to include improvements for
urban runoff, snow melt and instream water quality.
A Unique Partnership
What makes this inventory unique is its spatial scale and the fact that it brought Federal, State, and
provincial partners working in the Gulf of Maine together with the common goal of developing a
practical management tool. The partners include two groups within the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAA): the Pollution Sources Characterization Branch (PSCB) of the
Strategic Environmental Assessments (SEA) Division, and the Office of Ocean and Coastal Resource
Management (OCRM)'s Coastal Programs Division (CPD). Other partners include The Gulf of Maine
Council on the Marine Environment (including the coastal programs of Maine, New Hampshire, and
Massachusetts) and several offices within the provincial governments of New Brunswick and Nova
Scotia. Input from all these organizations has ensured the development of a truly regional inventory.
Among the partners, PSCB is responsible for building and refining the land-based pollution sources
inventory. The CPD is providing guidance and insight on policy issues and is helping to coordinate
partners. The State coastal programs are playing a major role in coordinating the review of the inventory
and exploring the potential use of the information to support State program needs.
Results of the 1991 Inventory
The major results drawn from the analysis of the point source component of the inventory include:
¦ There are 273 major and 1,751 minor facilities in the study area. Sixty-nine percent of these
facilities (1,406) are in the Unites States.
¦ In the United States, there are 1,069 active industrial facilities, 252 wastewater treatment plants,
and 85 power plants; in Canada, there are 492 industrial facilities, 126 wastewater treatment
plants, and 8 power plants.
¦ In the United States, wastewater treatment plants produce over half of the total load discharged for
all 15 pollutants, although industrial facilities alone are responsible for approximately 38 percent
of the chromium discharges in the study area. In Canada, wastewater treatment plants are
responsible for the greatest portion of the total pollutant loads for total nitrogen, total phosphorus,
arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, iron, lead, mercury, oil and grease, and fecal coliform
bacteria, while industries have higher discharges of process flow, biological oxygen demand, total
-------
suspended solids and zinc.
¦ U.S. facilities account for approximately 84 percent of the process flow discharged into the Gulf
of Maine. The Massachusetts Bay watershed alone accounts for over 36 percent of this flow in the
study area. Three other watersheds account for and additional 38 percent of the total process flow
in the study area. These are Sheepscot Bay watershed (76 billion gallons), Merrimack River
watershed (66 billion gallons), and the Saint John River watershed (56 billion gallons).
Wastewater treatment plants are the primary source of process flow for both the Massachusetts
Bay and Merrimack River watersheds, while industry is the major source for the watersheds of
Sheepscot Bay and Saint John River.
¦ The (MWRA) Deer Island and Nut Island treatment complex in Boston is the largest overall
discharger with a combined flow of 139 billion gallons per year. It is responsible for more than
half of the region's point source discharge of biochemical oxygen demand, total suspended solids,
and iron. It also has the highest discharges for 12 of the 15 pollutants in the inventory.
¦ The International Paper Company facility in Jay, Maine (Sheepscot Bay watershed) accounts for
the largest industrial discharges of process wastewater, biochemical oxygen demand, total
suspended solids, chromium, and zinc in the region.
Results from the nonpoint pollutant source inventory were not available at the time this paper was
written, but will be presented at the Watershed '96 Conference.
Lessons Learned in Developing the Inventory
The Inventory project is an ambitious effort to develop an inter-jurisdictional management tool for
regional and state/province level analysis. Some of the most important lessons learned by the team that
may of value to others engaged in developing large scale source inventories include:
¦ Monitored Data are Scarce. Although a significant effort was made to collect and use monitoring
data, the pollutant discharge estimates still rely heavily on typical pollutant concentration
approach, particularly for minor facilities in both countries. However, since the inventory has a
built-in audit trail, the typical estimates can be screened out if the user only wants to evaluate
values based on monitoring data. The fact that the vast majority of permits for point source
facilities in the study only require monitoring for a limited number of pollutants raises the
question of whether monitoring for additional pollutants should be required, at least for the major
facilities that contribute the bulk of the pollutant loadings. The inventory can be used to identify
those major facilities for which additional permit requirements should be considered.
¦ The Accuracy of Estimates Varies. As discussed above, the capability to generate accurate
discharge estimates is limited by the scarcity of monitored pollutant data. For many pollutants,
loads were based on assumptions about typical pollutant concentrations in the waste stream,
volume of flow in the pipe, and the type of wastewater (e.g., process, cooling, a combination of
both, or domestic sewage effluent) discharged. In general, estimates for wastewater treatment
plants are better than for complex industrial facilities because treatment processes are less variable
for the treatment plant. It was not possible to quantify the error by assigning numerical confidence
-------
limits to the estimates. However, by tagging each estimate with a data source and computational
basis code, an effort was made to provide a means of evaluating the relative confidence that can
be placed in the estimate.
¦ Latitude/Longitude Data are Incomplete. The assignment of all facilities to watersheds (e.g., eight-
digit hydrologic cataloging units) proved to be a difficult task because of incomplete and
inaccurate latitude/longitude information. If a river reach number for U.S. facilities or the
Canadian equivalent was available it would greatly improve the accurate aggregation of facilities
in small watershed units.
¦ Timeliness is Important. The inventory is a snapshot in time-a picture of pollution discharges in
1991. For screening-level assessments, loading estimates can be considered reasonably
representative of discharges from 1992 to 1995. In general, this assumption is better for discharges
from wastewater treatment plants, which vary less over time, than from industrial activities, which
are more sensitive to changes in production levels tied to economic conditions.
¦ Reconciling Differences in Data Variables is Time-Consuming. To achieve consistency in the
Gulf of Maine database, a considerable amount of time and effort was needed to understand the
meaning and account for differences between several U.S. and Canadian data variables (e.g., the
Standard Industrial Classification system).
¦ Building a Complete Inventory is Difficult. Compiling a comprehensive and current inventory of
facilities in a large area is a difficult task. In any given time period, some facilities begin or
change operations, others cease operating permanently, and some change ownership and name.
Resolving discrepancies in the exact number, type, and discharge characteristics of facilities in an
area is time- consuming and often unsuccessful. Nevertheless, the project team believes the
inventory contains a reasonably complete listing of the dischargers in the study area.
¦ Data Collection and Processing are Always Underestimated. The time frame to collect and process
data and improve computer model algorithms always takes longer than originally anticipated. This
is a factor to be planned very carefully. The Project Team faced problems associated with data
release agreements, compatible data media and data format issues, and resolving differences in
input data sets, which caused the completion of the project to be delayed. One particular example
was the processing of 8,500 subbasins in Maine to aggregate them to a subbasin size compatible
to those in Massachusetts and New Hampshire. A computer algorithm had to be written that used
digital elevation information to accomplish this grouping. While the delay was unfortunate, the
improvements to the model and the resolution of the input data sets will result in better estimates
and model results for State partners because they will match the spatial framework used by each
state in its water quality management efforts.
¦ Outreach is Important. This project built good working relationships between the partners, and the
inventory has been perceived as a very useful tool to augment the work of scientists and managers
in the region (Moore and Truesdale, 1995). However, many potential users are still unaware of the
preliminary results and capabilities. A well-designed communication plan detailing how to access
and use the inventory would address this problem.
Next Steps
The complete inventory and a summary report presenting the results will be available in the summer of
-------
1996. The digital contents of the point source inventory are currently available in ASCII format on
NOAA's Internet server (the Internet FTP address is: "seaserver.nos.noaa.gov" and the files are in the
directory "/public/percy/gomaine"). The Gulf of Maine Program, in cooperation with the project team, is
evaluating possible improvements to the inventory, including:
¦ Incorporating additional data to update estimates for point and nonpoint source pollutant loads;
¦ Refining information for minor point source facilities;
¦ Improving spatial resolution (e.g., modeling at the 14-digit subbasin level);
¦ Completing the Canadian portion of the nonpoint source inventory;
¦ Overlaying other data to improve the utility of the Gulf of Maine Project (e.g., shellfish closures
information to be correlated with pollutant discharges);
¦ Providing the inventory in several GIS formats; and
¦ Increasing awareness and access to the inventory (e.g., putting all or a portion of the inventory
into a desktop information system to make the data more accessible to a broader group of users).
References
Arnold J.G., P.M. Allen, and G. Bernhardt (1993). A comprehensive Surface-Groundwater Flow
Model. Journal of Hydrology 142:47-69.
Maine Coastal Program (1995). Land-Based Sources of Pollution: An Inventory of the Gulf of
Maine.
Moore R. and A. Truesdale (1995). A report on the Implementation and Distribution of the Land
Based Sources of Pollution: An Inventory of Point Sources in the Gulf of Maine.
NOAA (1993). Point Source Methods Document.
NOAA (1994). Gulf of Maine Point Source Inventory: A Summary by Watershed for 1991.
Srinivasan R. and J.G. Arnold (1994). Integration of a Basin-scale Water Quality Model with GIS.
Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 30, No. 3.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Modeling Nitrogen Cycling and Export in Forested
Systems at the Watershed Scale
Brian R. Bicknell
Thomas H. Jobes
Anthony S. Donigian, Jr.
AQUA TERRA Consultants, Mountain View, CA
Carolyn T. Hunsaker
Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN
Thomas O. Barnwell, Jr.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
The Chesapeake Bay Watershed Model (Linker et al. 1993) provides nutrient loadings to the Chesapeake
Bay Water Quality Model for use in estimating the impacts of land use and other management scenarios
on water quality in the Bay. The nonpoint loadings are defined by the various land use categories in the
Watershed Model, which include forests, cropland, pasture, haylands, urban, and animal waste areas. The
U.S. EPA Hydrologic Smulation Program-FORTRAN (HSPF) (Bicknell et al. 1992) provides the
framework for the Watershed Model, and the AGCHEM module within HSPF is used to model nutrient
cycling and export for the croplands and haylands.
-------
A recent review of the nitrogen loadings calculated by the Watershed Model indicates an over-prediction
of nitrogen loadings from forested segments of the model. Under a joint USGS/EPA effort to improve
AGCHEM for representing nitrogen mass-balance modeling for forest areas at the watershed scale, a
number of refinements have been implemented and are being tested based on recommendations by Oak
Ridge National Laboratory (Hunsaker et al. 1994).
The primary inputs to forests are atmospheric deposition and nitrogen fixation, and the primary losses are
leaching and denitrification. Important processes are retention of ammonium by the soil, mineralization
of organic N, and uptake of available nitrogen by plants. Typically, forests are deficient in nitrogen, and
consequently, they tend to retain input nitrogen. However, after long term nitrogen inputs, forests can
eventually become saturated, at which point the combined effective inputs of mineralization and
atmospheric deposition may exceed the capacity of the plants to take up the available nitrogen. At this
point, nitrogen exports, particularly nitrate, begin to increase. The needs of the forest nitrogen model for
the Chesapeake Bay are representation of the principal state variables already considered in the
Watershed Model, representation of the important variables and processes in forests, responsiveness to
atmospheric deposition, and ability to generate the expected magnitude and timing of nitrogen exports.
The nitrogen transformations, nutrient storages, and reaction rates considered by HSPF, as modified in
this effort, are shown in Figure 1. Each of the subsurface processes and compartments (i.e., not
aboveground plant N, litter N, or related processes) occur in each of the four soil layers modeled in the
AGCHEM module. The forest-related modifications include the following:
¦ The particulate organic nitrogen state variable was subdivided into four soil organic nitrogen state
variables: labile particulate, labile solution, refractory particulate, and refractory solution. The
particulate labile fraction is assumed to convert to the refractory form using first-order kinetics,
and both particulate species are assumed to leach to the solution forms using a simple partitioning
function.
¦ Because uptake of inorganic nitrogen from forest soil can be saturated at high nitrogen
concentrations, an optional method was added for modeling nitrogen uptake and immobilization,
using saturation kinetics instead of first-order kinetics.
¦ The plant nitrogen state variable was subdivided into aboveground and belowground
compartments.
¦ A litter nitrogen compartment was added to provide an intermediate compartment between the
aboveground plant nitrogen and the surface and upper layer organic nitrogen.
¦ New pathways were added to allow plant nitrogen in the aboveground and belowground
compartments to return to the litter and organic nitrogen in the soil using first-order kinetics.
Additional modifications were made to the AGCHEM module to improve nitrogen modeling in
-------
agricultural areas. Ammonia volatilization was added for conditions where animal waste or fertilizer
applications warrant this mechanism; soil fixation by leguminous plants was added; and a yield-based
plant uptake option was included to make the model more sensitive to nutrient applications.
Model application and calibration requires estimation of the expected soil nitrogen storages and fluxes,
as well as parameterization of the model. In the absence of comprehensive site-specific data on the
nitrogen mass balance in forested watersheds, we have developed an expected mass balance (Table 1)
based largely on literature values compiled from the review by Oak Ridge. These estimates are being
used to test the new system on forested, small research watersheds in Pennsylvania and Maryland using
nitrogen loss data collected by the USGS. As is suggested by the information in Table 1, the primary
difficulty in calibrating the model is related to balancing the large storages of plant and organic nitrogen
over long periods with small inorganic storages, relatively small process fluxes, and attaining the
observed seasonal variation in nutrient concentrations and loadings in discharge from the watershed. In
particular the seasonal timing of mineralization, plant return, and uptake fluxes are critical to the plant
nitrogen storage and accurate estimation of loadings.
Table 1. Expected Nitrogen Balance for Forest Soils.
a. Storages (kg/ha)
Mean or
Range
St.Dev.

Aboveground plant N
456
199
Belowground plant N
106
96
Litter N
20-30
Surface soil N
735
643
Mineral soil N
5749
2513

b. Fluxes (kg/ha/yr)
Mean or
Range
St.Dev.

Plant uptake
116
58
-------
Aboveground plant return to litter
35
18
Belowground plant return to soil
50
19
Denitrification
0.2-2
-
Mineralization in forest floor
13
20
Mineralization in mineral soil
42
40
Input (atmospheric deposition)
6-13
-
Output (erosion and discharge)

Nitrate
Ammonium
Organic N
0.04-2.4
0.07-0.18
0.2-1.7
-
References
Bicknell, B.R., J.C. Imhoff, J.L. Kittle Jr., A.S. Donigian, Jr. and R.C. Johanson. (1993)
Hydrological Simulation Program-FORTRAN. User's Manual for Release 10. EPA/600/R-93-174.
U.S. EPA, Athens, GA.
Hunsaker, C.T., C.T Garten, and P.J. Mulholland. (1994) Nitrogen Outputs from Forested
Watersheds in the Chesapeake Bay Drainage Basin, Environmental Sciences Division, Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, TN.
Linker, L.C., G.E. Stigall, C.H. Chang, and A.S. Donigian, Jr. (1993) The Chesapeake Bay
Watershed Model. U.S. EPA, Chesapeake Bay Program, Annapolis, MD.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
GIS Watershed Assessment Model for Suwannee
River Basin
Del B. Bottcher, Ph.D., P.E., President
Soil and Water Engineering Technology, Inc. Gainesville, FL
Jeffrey G. Hiscock, P.E., Project Manager
Mock, Roos, & Associates, Inc., West Palm Beach, FL
Introduction
On March 22, 1995 the Suwannee River Water Management District (District) authorized Soil and Water
Engineering Technologies, Inc. to perform environmental related assessments of their entire District
through the development of a watershed Geographic Information System (GIS) assessment model. The
study area includes the Suwannee River drainage basin (19,400 km2) within the State of Florida.
The overall objective of the GIS watershed assessment project is to identify and develop specific criteria
and assessment algorithms that reflect the relative impacts of land use, soils, hydrography, and wetlands
on the discharge water quality, wetlands value, and flooding impacts. Two methods or sets of watershed
assessment algorithms were developed as part of this project. The first method provides spatial
assessment using impact indices, and the second method utilizes hydrologic and contaminant transport
modeling. The method used depends on the watershed assessment parameter of interest. The indexing
approach is used for assessment parameters (BOD, coliform bacteria, and toxins) that are hard to
quantify or are not directly associated with pollutant transport, while the modeling approach addresses
the major pollutants of sediment and nutrients. Both approaches provide outputs at both the source cell
and sub-basin outlet level.
Model development and testing is nearly complete for a pilot area (North New River, approximately
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
80,000 hectare). A brief discussion of the assessment procedures, data sources, and operational
techniques for the GIS watershed assessment model developed thus far are summarized in this paper. The
model will be extended to the entire District during 1996.
Watershed Assessment Approach
The general approach to perform the watershed assessment is to use the District's comprehensive GIS
databases (land use, soils, hydrography, topography, and basin delineation) and known pollutant
transport processes to locate the areas within the District that have the greatest potential for adverse
impacts on the environment. The goals are to locate the problem areas and to quantify the relative impact
on a watershed-by-watershed basis across the entire District. The assessment impact parameters
evaluated are: water quantity, nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, biological oxygen demand (BOD),
coliform bacteria, toxic/hazardous materials, wetland habitat value, wetland value for water quality
treatment, and potential flood proneness. For each of the above parameters, the products of the
assessment program are maps of the relative ranking/index for each impact parameter across the pilot
area (eventually across the entire District) and the cumulative ranking/index by watershed/subbasin.
The actual ranking or indexing of the various assessment impact parameters is accomplished by using
two assessment approaches depending on the impact parameter being evaluated. An indexing approach is
used for the following assessment impact parameters: BOD, coliform bacteria, toxic/hazardous materials,
wetland habitat value, and wetland value for water quality treatment. A modeling approach is used for
water discharge, flood proneness, and loads of nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment. Two approaches are
used to reflect the relative importance of the various impact parameters and their ability to be modeled
using available data. Based on current and anticipated future land uses, it is felt that nutrients (nitrogen
and phosphorus) and sediment have the greatest potential for causing adverse impacts in the streams,
wetlands, rivers, and estuaries within the District. This decision, combined with the fact that only
hydrologic/nutrient transport models have been effectively tested for use in watershed assessments,
justified the decision that only the water, nitrogen, phosphorus, and sediment loads should be simulated
dynamically.
The indexing and modeling approaches are similar because both use the watershed characteristic data
from the District's GIS coverages to select the appropriate input data (indices for index approach and
model parameter sets for modeling approach) used to calculate the combined impact of all the watershed
characteristics for a given grid cell/polygon. Once the combined impact for each unique cell/polygon
within a watershed is determined, the cumulative impact for the entire watershed is determined by first
attenuating the constituent to the sub-basin outlets and then calculating an area-weighted ranking/index
for the attenuated load generated at each cell. Constituents are attenuated based upon the flow distances
(overland to nearest water body, through wetlands or depressions, and within streams to the sub-basin
outlet), flow rates in each related flow path, and the type of wetland or depression encountered.
The resulting ranking/index provides a good comparative tool for assessing the spatial importance of the
land use, soils, wetlands, depressions, and hydrography within a given watershed and across different
-------
watersheds. The simulated results are not intended to provided precise load estimates for the individual
watershed impact parameters, but are intended to provide a relative index of the potential environmental
impacts.
GIS Model Interface
The Suwannee River Watershed Assessment Model (SRWAM) is written for ARC/INFO 7.0.
ARC/INFO is the widest used GIS software in Florida and is currently used by virtually all of the water
management districts in the State including the Suwannee River Water Management District.
The programming language, ARC/INFO Macro Language (AML), was used to develop a customized
menu interface specifically designed to allow the user to control the model environment. There are three
menus and one display window opened simultaneously when the model is activated. A main menu is
provided that includes eight primary selections: Project, Update, Spatial Extent, Display, Edit, Model,
Output, and Help. A Tool menu provides various utilities for zooming, panning, querying, etc. coverages
that are currently shown in the display window. The final menu consists of a dialog box located next to
main menu options. This is simply an area where messages are conveyed to inform the user of the
processes taking place and occasionally prompt the user for information. It is referred to as a menu in
ARC/INFO.
All of the input and output
information generated from
a model session is stored in
a workspace (or
subdirectory). This
workspace is referred to as a
Project for data management
purposes. The user is
allowed to create a new
Project, open a previous
Project, save or rename a
current Project and manage
Projects. The Manager
option provides a valuable
means of tracking,
describing, and removing
Projects.
Because of the time
involved creating the
Su!:¦!>•' 'ViViJt-H" m
Kgnre 1: Example of Model Interface
coverages needed to run the model, many coverages are pre-processed. Occasionally, the existing vector
coverages such as hydrography and land use might have to be replaced with newer versions. If so, the
-------
default model coverages will need to be pre-processed again. When the Update option from the main
menu is selected, a new menu opens that prompts the user through this process and recommends (based
on the changes that have occurred) which algorithms should be run. The other menu options are provided
to select regions of interest, update coverages, run assessment models, customize outputs, and display
maps.
GIS Modeling Techniques
There are several AML algorithms written for SRWAM that ultimately are used in three submodels:
Water Quality, Wildlife Habitat and Flood Proneness. ARC/INFO GRID plays a major role in the
algorithms because it is fast and powerful. A grid is simply a raster representation of a geographic
coverage. The coverage becomes an image (or bitmap) that consists of several small square cells (0.21ha
of data. The advantage of GRID as opposed to vector analyses (polygons) is that the time associated with
re-assembling the topology (coordinate data) is not required. GRID also includes several analytical and
relational functions that are fully exploited by SRWAM.
The Water Quality and Flood Proneness submodels both need depressional areas which are determined
based on a combination of several coverages including hydrography (streams), wetlands, soils, and
topography. Topographic depressions are determined by converting a vector coverage of USGS
topographic contours into an grid and applying a GRID SINK function. Other potential depressions are
determined through a geographic elimination process. Wetlands and certain soils that exhibit
depressional characteristics are combined into one coverage and potential areas are reduced further based
on land slope and proximity to streams.
The Water Quality submodel requires a series of attenuation runoff lengths. First, runoff lengths from
each source cell to either wetlands, streams, or depressions are calculated. Depending on which one of
these three features is found by the source cell first, additional attenuation lengths are found and returned
to the source cell. For example, if a wetland is found, the source cell needs to know the distance from
that point of contact on the wetland to the nearest stream. The source cell then also needs to know the
distance from that point of contact on the stream to the sub-basin outfall. These distance calculations are
accomplished with the GRID function, COSTDISTANCE, applied to the topography grid. This function
returns the "least cost" path distance to cells of a specified grid based on values of another grid. By using
the topography grid as the value grid, the path is determined based on the lowest elevations around the
source cells.
Of course, the advantage of any GIS is the ability to overlay information and create new data sets. The
Water Quality model requires such an overlay of land use and soils to determine the unique combinations
that exist. These unique combinations are summarized and distributed to a FORTRAN program, BNZ
(Cooper and Bottcher, 1993), which estimates loads for various parameters. The output from BNZ is then
joined to the original land use/soils combination grid which, in turn, is combined with the attenuation
distance grids. Another database containing attenuation coefficients is also joined to the coverage. The
resulting coverage database includes all of the information necessary for the attenuation formula. Sample
-------
results for soluble P are shown in Figures 2 and 3,
where light to dark shades indicates increased P load.
. .v.. i ..-J: T . .¦ -:k: |'U" r..y : u.l Figure 3: PLoad per Sub-basin
The Wildlife Habitat submodel estimates the animal diversity index for each wetland cell. Wildlife
Aerial Influence (WAI) indices, which represent the relative negative impact of neighboring land uses on
wildlife within a wetland, are joined to the land use grid and wildlife diversity indices are joined to the
wetland grid. The GRID function FOCALMEAN achieves a "moving window" effect by creating a new
grid with values equal to the mean WAI of the cells in a specified neighborhood block (300m x 300m).
This new value represents a factor (<1) to be applied to the wetland wildlife indices by multiplying the
two grids together. The result is a wetland grid with values equal to an Adjusted Wildlife Index (AWI)
that gives the relative animal diversity expected in a given wetland cell.
The Flood Proneness submodel utilizes the topographic depressional areas determined earlier and
calculates the extent of flooding in these areas based on a given rainfall event. GRID hydrologic
functions are available to determine the drainage area contributing to each depression. Modified land
use/soils combination grid and topography grids are then created with extents equal to the depression
contributing areas by using the GRID SELECTMASK function. A database containing CN numbers is
then joined to the land use/soils combinations. The rainfall (user input) and the CN numbers are then
used to calculate runoff volume per cell. The GRID ZONAL SUM function is then used to determine the
total volume of runoff that is generated for each depressional area. Available storage calculations are
performed in a do-loop at one foot increments to determine the stage reached by the floodplain.
Summary and Conclusions
A GIS watershed model has been developed that performs the following assessments for a watershed:
-------
¦ Maps of existing GIS coverages
¦ GRID (0.2 ha cells) load index maps for water quantity, nitrogen, phosphorus, sediment, BOD,
coliform bacteria, and toxic/hazardous materials (see Figure 2)
¦ GRID (0.2 ha cells) index maps of wetland habitat value, wetland value for water quality
treatment, and potential flood proneness
¦ Basin ranking coverages for each of the above assessment parameters (see Figure 3)
¦ Differential impacts of implemented management practices by GRID cell and basins
The model provides an excellent tool for regional planners to determine current areas under
environmental stress and to estimate future impacts of land use management decisions.
References
Cooper, A.B. and A.B. Bottcher. 1993. Basin scale modeling as a tool for water resource
planning. J. Water Resour. Plan. & Mgmt., Vol. 119. No. 3. pp 306-323.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Geographic Information Systems for Water Quality:
Examples from the Little Bear River and Otter
Creek, UT
Michael O'Neill, Assistant Professor
Frank Dougher, M.S. Candidate
Department of Geography & Earth Resources, Utah State University, Logan, UT
Michael Allred, Cache County Extension Agent
Verl Bagley, Piute County Extension Agent
Cooperative Extension Service, Utah State University, Logan, UT
Within the arid and semi-arid west, water quality often is considered the most critical resource
management issue. Water quality problems typically arise through a variety of nonpoint source (NPS)
pollution sources. Foremost among NPS problems is the origin and delivery of sediment to stream
channels and waterways. Sediment enters stream channels through a variety of processes including
streambank and hillslope erosion, runoff from agricultural surfaces or irrigation return flows, and
mobilization of stream or floodplain deposits. This study describes attempts to identify potential sources
of NPS pollution to two stream systems in Utah. The data are organized within a Geographic Information
System (GIS) environment.
Study Watersheds
Analyses described here were conducted using data from two watersheds in the state of Utah. The first
basin is the Little Bear River watershed located in Cache County, Utah. The basin is approximately 800
km2 in size and includes two reservoirs primarily used for irrigation water supply. The second watershed
is the Otter Creek basin located in Sevier and Piute Counties, Utah. This basin is approximately 600 km2
-------
in size and has one reservoir located in the upper portion of the basin. These two basins have been
designated as Hydrologic Unit Areas (HUAs) for water quality improvement. Primary impacts to water
quality include sediment loading from agriculture and accelerated stream bank erosion, nutrient loadings
from livestock waste, and loss of stream and riparian habitat.
GIS Framework
GIS development was conducted using ESRI Arc Infoc and ERDAS Imaginec software. In general,
image analysis was conducted using Imagine whereas topographic and hydrologic analyses were
conducted using Arc Info. Within the study watersheds, data and analyses are organized at three spatial
scales: the watershed, reach, and field (site) scale (after O'Neill et al., in review). These three spatial
scales provide valuable resource information for water quality management decisions within the
watersheds. We also consider temporal data in our analyses. Temporal data are incorporated through
historic flow records, repeat field surveys, and historic aerial photographs. Table 1 identifies examples of
data resources and analyses conducted at the three spatial scales.
Table 1. Examples of coverages and data analyses for designated spatial scales.
Spatial Scale jData Resource
Analyses
Watershed
USGS Digital Elevation Models, Landsat
TM imagery, Utah GAP Analysis Data
Slope, Aspect, Flow Accumulation, Land
Cover Types, Land Ownership
Reach
Historic Aerial Photographs,
Multispectral Videography
Channel and Riparian Change Maps, Extent
and Condition of Riparian Vegetation, Reach
Classification
Field (site)
Topographic and Vegetative Field
Surveys, USGS Gaging Station Records,
Water Quality Monitoring Data
Site Evaluation, Flood Frequency Analyses,
Repeat Photo Points
Watershed Scale
At the watershed scale, our efforts focus on watershed characterization and resource or land cover
inventory. Topographic characterization of the basins include slope frequency distributions and
hypsometric curves. These data provide us with a generalized comparison of physiographic basin
conditions. We use hydrologic tools in Arc-Info (ESRI, 1995) to construct coverages that provide us with
an estimate of the proportion of upstream basin area that consists of different physiographic or land cover
conditions. For example, we can determine the proportions of pinyon-juniper forest, sagebrush, and
agricultural areas upstream from any point on the stream network. These estimates of basin cover can
then be related to point measurements of water quality or stream condition (described below).
Alternatively, we can estimate the proportion of upstream area (by cover type) where slopes exceed a
specified threshold. Combinations of slope and cover type then can be used to provide relative estimates
-------
of sediment production from hillslope surfaces. We also use models of relative wetness (see Phillips,
1990; Russell, 1994; O'Neill, in press) to describe watershed conditions for potential wetland or riparian
restoration sites at the watershed scale. These wetness models are based on contributing area, local slope,
and relative estimates of solar insolation.
Reach Scale
At the reach scale, we focus our efforts on segments of the main valley and relatively large tributaries.
Data collected at this scale include longitudinal profiles (from USGS topographic maps), historic aerial
photographs, and multispectral videographic imagery. We derive unit flows (Q/A) from hydrologic data
(see below) and then construct spatially distributed values of discharge using drainage area calculations
derived from watershed hydrologic tools (ESRI, 1995). Discharge estimates then are combined with
slope data from longitudinal profiles and measures of valley width to generate total stream power (W =
gQlOSv) or specific stream power (w = gQlOSv/Wv) at the reach scale, where g is specific weight of the
fluid, Q10 is the estimated ten year flood, Sv is valley gradient and Wv is valley width. These reach
based estimates of stream power can then be used to guide management decisions regarding restoration
and resource management (see below).
Historic aerial photographs and multispectral videography provide detailed data regarding stream and
riparian condition at the reach scale. Figure 1 presents an example of these data. At present, we are using
historic aerial photographs to generate historic change maps of riparian condition, maps of stream
channel change, and to corroborate age estimates of woody riparian vegetation (cottonwoods and
willows).
-------
I
Figure 1. Historic aerial photographs of the Little Bear River, Utah, flow is from left to right.
Upper image is from 1953 and lower image is from 1959. Note loss of riparian vegetation
downstream (right) of bridge crossing and expansion of gravel deposits in the stream channel.
Field (Site) Scale
Field data incorporated into the GIS typically involves topographic or vegetative surveys, point data from
stream or water quality monitoring, and hydrologic data from USGS gaging stations or field based water-
level recorders. Repeat surveys of stream channel cross-sections at monitoring sites are being used to
determine the nature of channel change at specific sites. These survey data are stored within the GIS
environment.
Additional site data include ages of cottonwood trees at selected sites along the main stream valley. The
relative location of these trees are determined from field surveys. Field survey data are then geo-
referenced in the GIS by establishing coordinates for local benchmarks or known points in the area using
a Global Positioning System (GPS).
Water quality data for long-term monitoring sites are recorded as point data within the GIS. These data
can be accessed from the GIS in tabular or graphic form. A suite of water quality parameters are
available in these forms. Historic trends can be evaluated with regard to changes in land management
activities upstream of the monitoring sites.
Finally, we have a historic record of site conditions based upon repeat photo points (ground level oblique
photographs). These photos are available as a catalog of data depicting changes in hillslope or stream
conditions. Although qualitative, these photographs provide powerful visual information regarding
historic trends at a particular site.
GIS for Water Quality Management
The GIS we have developed here can be used to improve decision making and management regarding
water quality issues in the study watersheds. As an example, it is possible to evaluate potential
-------
restoration sites with regard to upstream conditions (cumulative impacts) as well as local conditions
(riparian or stream condition). Combining watershed based estimates of wetness with reach based
estimates of stream power yield maps that can be used to assess restoration potential along a stream
channel. Low values for stream power and high wetness indices represent high potential whereas high
stream power and low wetness would indicate low restoration potential.
Reach based estimates of total or specific stream power also can be used to evaluate potential sources of
sediment entering the river system. For example, if bank material strength is considered constant through
a large reach, changes in specific stream power could indicate greater potential for erosion and therefore
greater source potential for sediment, to enter the stream. Riparian conditions then can be evaluated in
these areas to determine if revegetation would decrease sediment delivery to the channel.
Use of historic aerial photographs and multispectral videography provide us with tools to evaluate the
nature and extent of changes along the stream and riparian corridor. We evaluate changes at sites or
along reaches relative to historic flow conditions (recent or historic floods) and land management
strategies. Where possible, we attempt to assess the role of floods in changing stream and riparian
conditions. In particular, we are developing a model that considers hydrologic and geomorphic
conditions necessary for cottonwood regeneration. These temporal tools provide a means to evaluate
conditions within a larger historic context.
Summary
GIS provide powerful tools for spatial and temporal data analysis at the watershed, reach, and site scale.
Use of modeling tools available within GIS provide a means to link water quality conditions at specific
points to cumulative effects from upstream environments. Historic data also provide a framework for
evaluating rates of change in stream or riparian conditions.
Acknowledgments
This work was paid for in part by a grant from the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the Utah State
University Cooperative Extension Service. Partial funding also was provided by a grant (to O'Neill) from
U.S. EPA through the Utah Department of Environmental Quality and the Utah Department of
Agriculture.
References
Dennis-Perez, L. and O'Neill, M.P., 1996. Hydrologic and Geomorphic Conditions Necessary for
Regeneration of Cottonwoods, Chalk Creek, Utah, Watershed Mangagement, AWRA
Symposium.
ESRI, 1995. Arc-Info Hydrologic Modeling Tools, Redlands, CA.
-------
O'Neill, M.P., Schmidt, J.C., Hawkins, C.P., Dobrowolski, J.P. andNeale, C.M.U., Identifying
Sites for Riparian Wetland Restoration: A Conceptual Framework, Restoration Ecology, in
review.
O'Neill, M.P., Watershed Based Riparian Wetland Identification: Examples from the San Luis
Rey Watershed, California and the Upper Arkansas River, Colorado, Restoration Ecology, in
review.
Phillips, J. D., 1990. A saturation-based model of relative wetness for wetland identification,
Water Resources Bulletin, v. 26, p. 333-342.
Russell, G., 1994. Site Selection for Riparian Wetland Restoration Using Geogrpahic Information
Systems, Unpublished M.S. Thesis, Utah State University, 49 pp.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Using a Geographic Information System to Identify
the Chesapeake Bay Watershed's Strategic
Agricultural Land: Why is it Necessary and How is
it Done?
Jill Schwartz, Future Harvest Project Coordinator
American Farmland Trust, Washington, DC
The Chesapeake Bay watershed, a spider web of rivers and streams weaving through six states, is a
lifeline to the Chesapeake Bay. For the bay's diverse population of plant, animal and marine life, the
waterways draining into the bay represent a food source, spawning area and shelter.
The same watershed represents home to more than 13 million people. To accommodate the masses,
residences and businesses are constructed, roadways are paved, and sewer systems are built between the
watershed's northern tip in New York and its southern tip in Virginia. Collectively, this development
places a strain on the bay area's natural resources.
One of those resources is agricultural land, whose benefits include:
• High quality food production.
• Ecosystem maintenance, restoration, and enhancement.
• Protection of historic landscapes, scenic beauty, and open space.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
• Economic stability of communities.
-------
• Sustainable rural development.
Within the watershed, as well as the country, Maryland is arguably the leader in protecting agricultural
land. In 1977, Maryland created the first statewide purchase of development rights program. Through the
PDR program, landowners are compensated for voluntarily agreeing not to subdivide or develop their
property. More than 117,000 acres of Maryland's agricultural land is permanently protected under the
state's PDR program, and nine county-level programs that have been implemented since the state
program began.
Despite Maryland's successes, the state is struggling to protect farmland from the checkerboard pattern of
development called urban sprawl. For every one acre of agricultural land Maryland protects, it is losing
two acres of farmland (approximately 20,000 acres) annually. With the watershed's population expected
to increase 20 percent in the next 25 years, the Governor's Commission on Growth in the Chesapeake
Bay Region anticipates that this ratio will increase if traditional development patterns do not change. The
commission anticipates that almost one-third (695,000 acres) of the state's farmland and forestland will
be converted to non-agricultural use during that time period, leaving 1.6 million acres of farmland.
Maryland is not the only state facing this struggle. The ratio of farmland lost to that protected is similar,
if not worse, in most of the states that are part of the watershed. This suggests that, although PDR is an
effective farmland protection tool, it is not enough in an era when growth pressures are increasing. In this
climate, public and private entities should be challenged to take a more innovative approach to protecting
farmland.
To ignore this challenge would be irresponsible, both from a local and a national standpoint. According
to a 1993 study by American Farmland Trust, Farming on the Edge, the mid-Atlantic/Chesapeake Bay
area is the fourth most threatened agricultural area in the United States. In selecting the area for its list of
"The Top 12 on the Edge," AFT cited the region's economic importance as a food-producing area and the
threat to its agricultural resource base from rapid population growth and urban-edge sprawl.
Ignoring the challenge would be irresponsible, too, since the Chesapeake Bay is the nation's largest
estuary and it is a treasured resource for those who visit it once a day or once a lifetime.
The Solution: Identify Strategic Farmland
The threat to the watershed's agricultural land and, ultimately, the bay, can be minimized if a more
strategic approach to the protection of farmland is implemented. Utilizing a strategic approach recognizes
that time, money and energy are limited, so one must be more selective in deciding which farmland to
protect. Some farmland should be developed for housing and commercial uses, while some not
all should remain open and available for food production and other public values. Most state and local
farmland protection programs do not have a strategic plan. Incentive-driven programs, such as PDR
programs, use criteria to set ad hoc priorities among those who want to participate. Regulatory programs,
e.g., planning and zoning, circumscribe the general area where farmland protection policies apply. But
-------
few actually attempt to identify their most important farmland, determine how much of it needs
protection, or set specific objectives for protecting the land.
Using a strategic approach to identifying farmland also recognizes that agricultural land is important for
a variety of reasons. Since farmland protection programs were created two decades ago, food production
has been the rationale for retaining land in agricultural use. With this focus, prime, unique, and important
farmland is the priority for PDR and other farmland protection programs. A strategic approach identifies
farmland that is important to society not just for food production but as a multiple-purpose resource.
Farmland may be strategic, for instance, for environmental, economic or cultural reasons, too.
The Method: Geographic Information Systems
The most effective, reliable and simplest way to map strategic farmland is to use a geographic
information system. Made up of hardware, software and graphics, a GIS can encode, analyze, and display
multiple data layers. Information about property ownership, assessment and taxation, for instance, can be
directly related to water resources, soils, agricultural productivity, wildlife habitat, and historic sites. The
integrated data can be presented in tabular, graphic, and map format. By integrating data, a GIS provides
the framework for better understanding the spatial and temporal interrelationships of landscapes.
On a national level, AFT used GIS in 1993 to produce a map of the country's strategic agricultural land.
On a state level, Maryland and Delaware are the first areas undergoing this paradigm shift. Both states
hug the bay.
In the watershed, implementing a strategic approach has several implications for the health of the bay's
ecosystem. Among them is that the environmental benefits of farmland are elevated to a higher level
when farmland is prioritized. Environmental amenities include the retention capacity for floodwaters, the
conservation of soils, the protection of water quality and the enhancement of wildlife habitat.
In 1995, Delaware became the first state in the country to map strategic agricultural land. Factors mapped
were soils, land use/land cover, sewer districts, agricultural investment, percentage of crop areas, and
existing and proposed natural and open space areas. The Delaware Agricultural Lands Preservation
Foundation's Agricultural Lands Strategy Map was a key factor in Governor Thomas Carper's decision to
earmark $12 million for the state's PDR program, the first such appropriation since the program's
establishment in 1991. The map is being used to prioritize which land to protect through the program.
The Future Harvest Project
Maryland is following suit. Under the direction of AFT and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, a map of
strategic farmland in the Maryland portion of the watershed (approximately 95 percent of the state) is
being created. The Delaware portion of the watershed (approximately 30 percent of Delaware) also is
included. The mapping project, due to be completed by the end of 1996, is part of the Future Harvest
Project: Farming for Profit and Sustainability, a W.R. Kellogg Foundation-funded initiative designed to
-------
foster the widespread adoption of sustainable agriculture in the Maryland and Delaware portions of the
watershed. AFT, CBF and eight other groups and individuals from the farming and environmental
communities are carrying out the Future Harvest Project.
The first step in creating the map was to identify the type of data to use. Several brainstorming sessions
were held by the Chesapeake Farms for the Future Board, the board created to assist AFT and CBF in
completing this project, to determine what data is most important in the watershed. Through this
consensus-building process, the board agreed that the following factors define strategic farmland in the
watershed (items in parentheses indicate the specific categories of information to be used):
¦ Land Cover (agricultural, forest, development).
¦ Soils (prime/productive, unique, other).
¦ Productivity (market value of production, microclimate, profit/income).
¦ Farm Viability (agricultural infrastructure, on-farm investment, leased vs. owned farms).
¦ Development Pressures (population growth projections, recorded subdivisions, designated growth
areas, sewer service areas).
¦ Protected Lands (agricultural zoning areas, easements, public lands, sending areas for
transferrable development rights programs).
¦ Cultural Implications (historic sites, scenic roadways).
¦ Environmental Implications (endangered and threatened species habitat, watershed boundaries,
wetlands).
Databases containing this information will be acquired or provided for no fee from various sources,
primarily the Maryland Office of Planning, Maryland Department of Natural Resources (Maryland
Heritage Program), and United States Department of Commerce (Census of Agriculture). Most of this
data is digitized and available in Arc/Info format. The project's GIS consultant will then input this data
into a GIS. A challenge during this phase will be making the databases compatible so the edges of the
various maps (each containing different information) match.
The result will be a series of county- and state-specific maps, each at a scale of 1:24,000 and color-coded
to highlight the most strategic agricultural land. Each map will contain a base layer which includes the
limits of the watershed, state, county and city boundaries, major water bodies and roads. Also produced
will be charts and tables which summarize the data from those maps. The products will be available to
public and private entities and individuals for their use in making planning, land use and other decisions
involving the watershed. For groups, particularly those at the county level, operating with limited time
-------
and money, the map and database are expected to be invaluable resources.
References
American Farmland Trust. (1987) A Survey of Geographic Information Systems for Natural
Resources Decision Making at the Local Level.
American Farmland Trust. (1995) Winning Friends, Losing Ground: States and Local
Communities Need a Federal Partner to Protect the Nation's Farmland.
Committee on the Preservation of Agricultural Land. (1974) Final Report.
Governor's Commission on Growth in the Chesapeake Bay Region. (1991) Protecting the Future
A Vision for the Chesapeake Bay.
Maizel, Margaret Stewart, Tom Iivari, Darlene Monds, George Muehlbach, Paul Baynham,
Jennifer Zoerkler and Paul Welle. (1995) Using the National Resources Inventory for Ecological
Assessments in a Regional Decision Support System for the Chesapeake Bay.
Soil and Water Conservation Society. (1994) Protection of Strategic Farmland.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Implementing a Watershed Management Program
Using GIS
Fernando Pasquel, Senior Water Resources Engineer
CH2M HILL, Reston, VA
Madan Mohan, Engineer III
Watershed Management Division, Department of Public Works, Prince William
County, VA
Paul DeBarry, Head, Hydraulics and Stormwater Management Section
R.K.R. Hess Associates, East Stroudsburg, PA
This paper describes five applications of a Geographic Information System (GIS) used in the
implementation of the Watershed Management Program in Prince William County, Virginia. The GIS
software used in the county is ARC/Info of the Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). The
following applications are described:
¦ Drainage System Inventory andNPDES Compliance.
¦ Watershed Modeling Automation.
¦ Inventory of Natural Resources.
¦ Watershed Management Strategy Selection.
¦ Storm Water Management Fee.
These applications allow the county to manage large amounts of data and to communicate the results of
watershed studies and watershed management activities to the public, elected officials, and regulators.
-------
Drainage System Inventory and NPDES Compliance
The county conducts inspections and maintains approximately 250 storm water management (SWM)
facilities and 130 miles of drainage easements. These easements include drainage ditches, pipes, inlets,
storm water management facilities, and other drainage structures.
The GIS based drainage system inventory contains information on the SWM facilities and drainage
structures located in the easements. The information in the inventory includes the size, location, and type
of storm water or drainage structures; the invert elevations of drainage structures; and other facility
specific data.
The drainage system inventory was developed to facilitate the inspection of drainage easements and
maintenance activities. The maps produced with the inventory are used by maintenance crews to locate
pipes and drainage structures during inspections. A process was developed to update the maps regularly.
An inspector provides feedback when discrepancies are noted between what was shown on the map and
what was actually observed in the field. The maps have also proved valuable to locate outfalls during
emergency cleanup of spills of hazardous materials.
The drainage system inventory also provides information on the location and type of storm water
outfalls. This information is used in the preparation of watershed studies and permit applications for
compliance with EPA's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. The
inventory was used to identify some of the outfalls that meet the NPDES regulatory requirements. Since
the inventory was incomplete during the preparation of the NPDES applications, paper maps and site
visits were also used to identify outfalls.
The GIS was used to depict the results of NPDES pollutant field screening at 265 major outfalls. The
maps prepared helped to visualize the types of problems and the spatial distribution of potential sources
of nonstormwater discharges.
Watershed Modeling Automation
Watershed models are used to study the hydrologic and hydraulic characteristics of the County's 32
watersheds, and to design facilities that will mitigate floods, control erosion, and improve water quality.
The preparation of the input parameters for these models involves overlaying land-use information, soil
types, topographic and hydrographic features, and pollutant loading rates. This process, typically done by
hand, is extremely time consuming.
The GIS is used to automate the preparation of the input parameters for the HEC-1 and HEC-2 models.
This application expedites the development of watershed models and allows the analysis of alternative
solutions and "what-if' scenarios. This application was tested in three watersheds covering
approximately 80 square miles. In the future, this application will be used in the remaining 29 watershed
management areas.
-------
The process to automate hydrologic models (such as HEC-1, TR-20, or PSRM) involves creating soils,
land use, and subwatershed boundaries, and assigning attributes to each coverage such as hydrologic
soils groups (HSG) and TR-55 land use classifications. The process then involves overlaying the
coverages, computing Runoff Curve Numbers (RCNs) for each polygon in the "combined" coverage
based upon HSGs and land use and then computing a composite RCN for each subwatershed. The RCNs
provide a means to compare the relative runoff potential of various watershed areas. An automated macro
language (AML) or macro was developed was developed to automate this process and facilitate future
applications.
The next step in the automation process of hydrologic models involves the computation of the time of
concentration (TC) for each subwatershed. TC is the time for the runoff to travel from the hydraulically
most distant point of the watershed to the point of interest. A macro was developed to use the
topographic analysis tools available within the ARC/Info GRID package. The macro applies elevations
from the Digital Elevation Model (DEM) to overland and sheet flow, obtain slope and, in turn, travel
times. The TCs for shallow concentrated flow and channel flow are calculated using the flow line
coverage and supporting look-up tables.
The GIS is also used to compute non-point source pollution loads based on land use, soil type and
available areal loading rates. Local loading rates based on monitoring data and literature values available
from the National Urban Runoff Program (NURP) were used. The GIS tool delineates and calculates any
drainage area using a digital elevation model.
Inventory of Natural Resources
The GIS is being used to collect and depict wetlands data and biological monitoring data. The data is
being collected as part of a multi agency watershed management demonstration project. Trend analysis
and establishment of performance measures for several watershed management strategies are planned
with the inventory.
The county also used the GIS to compile Chesapeake Bay Resource Protection Area (RPA) boundaries.
The RPAs are areas that if improperly developed will cause a significant impact on water quality. Paper
sources were used to create layers such as soils, floodplains, perennial streams, and wetlands. Developers
use RPA maps in order to plan future development.
Watershed Management Strategy Selection
The GIS will be used as a decision making tool to identify applicable management strategies. The
process involves developing a composite layer by overlaying hydrologic and hydraulic data, and
information on environmental resources (wetlands, highly erodible areas, steep slopes, streams, flooding,
bioassessments, water quality, etc.). The composite layer will identify, by color, the environmental
-------
sensitive areas, the impaired waters, and the source of the environmental problem. A menu of control
strategies will assist in determining where to concentrate the management efforts.
Storm Water Management Fee
The County used the GIS to determine impervious areas (rooftops, paved areas, etc.) of approximately
80,000 parcels and to calculate the "base unit" for the storm water management fee. The base unit is the
total impervious area of a typical single family residential property in the county. The base unit in the
county equals 2,059 square feet.
The county-wide stormwater management fee is based on each parcel contribution to storm water runoff.
The amount of runoff is proportional to the parcel's impervious area. The GIS data was used by a storm
water assessment system to calculate storm water management fees for all parcels.
Summary
Prince William County has had the foresight to realize the long-term flexibility and cost savings afforded
by coordinating GIS applications with the implementation of the Watershed Management Program. The
county is also using GIS to communicate the progress being made in the protection of its water resources
and to facilitate compliance with state and federal regulations.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Implementing Watershed Protection Projects Using
Principles of Marketing
Thomas J. Makowski, Environmental Sociologist
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Portland, OR
Robert Fredrickson, District Conservationist,
USDA-Natural Resources Conservation Service, Craigmont, ID
The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has
worked with the National Association of Conservation Districts and National Association of State
Conservation Agencies to develop an effective procedure for implementing watershed protection projects
under a variety of conditions. Smaller budgets and a wider diversity of private landowners, land users,
and persons interested in watershed protection requires more creativity in how we work with people to
manage the bio-physical resources, as well as the human component, of the watershed ecosystem.
Using principles and concepts of marketing, proven effective in industry and business for influencing
people's behavior, the NRCS has developed and is testing conservation marketing for implementing
watershed protection projects. The purpose of this paper is to introduce the NRCS conservation
marketing process being used to actively encourage voluntary participation in Soil and Water
Conservation District and NRCS watershed protection projects on privately owned lands.
The case study used to illustrate conservation marketing comes from Mission-Lapwai Creek Watershed
in northern Idaho. The project sponsors and the NRCS field staff were committed to insuring that
landowner needs were investigated and considered as the project to restore anadromous and resident
fisheries habitat on private lands was implemented. Project sponsors and staff used NRCS's conservation
marketing process as a means to develop a strategy that would fulfill this commitment and allow them to
successfully achieve the project's watershed protection goals.
-------
Conservation Marketing
Mention marketing and some people immediately see a smooth-talking used car salesman in a plaid sport
coat haranguing customers with a high-pressure sales pitch. Others will think it another management
trick to get more work out of fewer people. NRCS's conservation marketing, however, has nothing to do
with these old cliche images. Conservation marketing is not forcing unwanted government programs and
projects on skeptical landowners. Instead, conservation marketing involves identifying landowner needs
and developing a watershed protection plan which meets their needs, as well as the bio-physical needs of
the watershed.
Conservation marketing is designed to help NRCS Field Offices, local Soil and Water Conservation
Districts (SWCD), watershed steering committees, coordinated resource management planning (CRMP)
groups, and other concerned individuals and groups develop watershed protection plans which include
socially acceptable land management conservation practices and management systems.
The conservation marketing is a relatively straightforward process. Although conservation marketing is
not a linear process, it roughly follows seven steps:
¦ Identify the Critical Issues.
¦ Develop Alliances and Determine Your Role.
¦ Define Customers.
¦ Identify Customer Needs.
¦ Set a Strategy and Action Goals.
¦ Develop and Initiate the Marketing Plan.
¦ Evaluate the Marketing Effort.
Mission-Lapwai Creek Watershed Protection Project
The Mission-Lapwai Creek Watershed Protection Project in northern Idaho's Lewis and Nez Perce
Counties provides a case study example of how conservation marketing is being used to motivate
landowner participation. The project is intended to move the two creeks toward compliance with the
Clean Water Act's goal of fishable and swimable waters, and comply with all applicable water quality
standards. The project calls for accelerated land treatment and non-structural management practices on
non-irrigated cropland and riparian zones located adjacent to Mission and Lapwai Creeks. The voluntary
-------
cooperation of the watershed's 73 farmers and ranchers is critical to reaching the project goal of treating
75% of the damaged riparian area (about 12.2 miles or 43 acres) and applying treatment measures on
75% of the project area's cropland (26,180 acres).
The original Implementation Plan included in the Mission-Lapwai Creek Watershed Project consisted of
two sentences stating that the NRCS field office staff and sponsors:
"The sponsors will encourage the development and application of long term contracts on all identified
cropland and riparian areas needing treatment. They will provide leadership through an aggressive
information and education program to encourage application of land treatment and nonstructrual
measures necessary for the success of the project." (Supplemental Watershed Protection Plan-
Environmental Assessment, Mission-Lapwai Creek Watershed, Lewis and Nez Perce Counties, Idaho,
1994, p. 19).
It was implied that project sponsors and staff should get every land owner of critical riparian areas in the
watershed to participate in the project and that you merely need to educate landowners to get them to
sign long term contracts with the government that could cost them thousands of dollars and change the
way they farm or ranch. Since these landowners were not a homogeneous group and their operations
were also run differently, this simple, ungrounded approach to encouraging project participation was
bound to be ineffective in its outcome, frustrate the project staff, and waste a lot of time and money. The
field staff realized the problems they would face if they pursued this approach and decided to use
conservation marketing to recruit the participation required for project success.
Conservation Marketing Plan for Mission-Lapwai Creek Watershed
Protection Plan
A group of people representing the project sponsors, technical staff, and others who had an interest in the
project or knowledge of the operators and operations in the watershed area were brought together to
provide information necessary for developing the marketing plan. The group determined that there were
two critical issues on which the marketing plan needed to focus: (1) Overcoming land owner and
operator reluctance to work with NRCS to restore anadromous and resident fisheries habitat, and (2)
Improve the habitat of the anadromous and resident fisheries. The group then identified specific actions
which need to be done to resolve these issues. This becomes the fundamental goal of the marketing plan.
Following the conservation marketing steps the group decided what the role of the project sponsors
should be in addressing the critical issues. Next they identified about 15 to 20 other individuals, groups,
and organizations which have a stake in these issues, can help resolve the issues, and have something to
gain from these issues being resolved. The last thing the group was asked to do was to identify and
profile critical watershed area landowners and their operations. The profile included the group's
perception of landowner needs and concerns, landowner sources of information, their decision making
process, and a listing of those that influence their decisions or whom landowners trust when making a
decision.
-------
This information was then validated through a series of personal interviews with landowners.
Corrections, additions, and deletions were made and, subsequently formed the basis for the Mission-
Lapwai Watershed's Conservation Marketing Plan's strategy, goals, and plan of work.
Considering the abilities and the limitations of the project sponsors and field staff available to implement
the project's marketing plan, a modified version of the conservation marketing model was used. Due to
time constraints, it was decided that initially a marketing plan for only the project's first year of
implementation would be drafted. The critical issues identified at the outset remained unchanged.
Developing alliances was not determined to be a priority at the early stages of implementation and it was
decided to postpone this task until two or three successful demonstration projects were completed.
In the first year of implementation six farming and ranching operations in critical areas in the watershed
were targeted. These were chosen based on bio-physical needs, potential for signing an agreement, and
the potential for the land management practices (i.e., cropland treatments and nonstructural measures) to
visibly demonstrate positive results and, thereby, influence other landowners. For each operation a
customized marketing strategy was drafted. The strategy consisted of identifying and profiling each
operation's decision maker(s) and their concerns and needs; determining precisely what landowner action
was desired; concluding what the possible landowner benefits were to participation in the project; and
devising the specific actions to be taken to persuade and motivate landowner cooperation.
Outcomes and Lessons Learned
In the first four months of using the conservation marketing approach to implement the Mission-Lapwai
Creek Watershed Protection Plan, two landowners have signed long term contracts. One contract is for a
water and sediment control structure and the other is for riparian area management and restoration.
The most substantial advantage field staff noted for using a marketing plan to implement the project is
that it saves them time and effort by identifying who would be most productive to contact, how they
should contact them, and what would be the benefits of project participation to this particular landowner
or operation. Other advantages noted were that:
¦ A marketing plan sets realistic goals for recruiting voluntary participation and provides guidance
for accomplishing those goals.
¦ By taking into account the social conditions of the watershed, a marketing plan communicates to
an organization's administrative levels significant controlling factors which influence
implementation.
¦ Conservation marketing, by requiring that we talk to landowners before we try to persuade them
to commit to a watershed protection practice, demonstrates our respect for the landowner, their
needs, and the viability of their operation.
-------
The following suggestions for improving the usefulness of conservation marketing were provided
by field staff and project sponsors:
¦ Include conservation marketing considerations at the beginning of watershed protection planning,
not just when it comes time to implement it.
¦ Involve potential targeted landowners in the initial stages of watershed protection planning so we
have to make fewer assumptions in the marketing plan regarding social acceptability of project
goals and possible solutions.
¦ Include project sponsors, landowners, and stakeholders in writing and carrying out the marketing
plan.
¦ Use the marketing planning process as a tool to evaluate the chances that voluntary participation
will be adequate to reach the watershed plan's resource management objectives, and/or to indicate
what it is going to take to get the necessary participation levels.
¦ Institute conservation marketing (and the consideration of social conditions) into watershed
protection planning so that it carries enough weight to justify the commitment of more resources
to implementation.
Conclusion
Applying principles of marketing to the implementation of watershed protection projects provides
planners a practical means to develop plans people want and need; not plans which we have to coerce,
legislate, bribe, or otherwise bully people into using. The linchpin to successfully marketing watershed
protections projects on private lands is to convincingly demonstrate to landowners how project
participation will meet their needs or solve their problems. The conservation marketing process NRCS is
testing provides a tool for doing this by requiring that planners consider landowner concerns, needs, and
problems as they identify resource problems and select alternatives to solve these problems.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Building Capacity For BMP Compliance: An Applied
Behavioral Analysis
Robert G. Paterson, Assistant Professor
Graduate Program in Community and Regional Planning, The University of Texas
at Austin
Over the last two decades, water quality researchers have conducted numerous field and laboratory
studies to identify effective techniques to prevent or reduce contamination of water resources. However, a
critical issue that is not addressed in most of those field and laboratory studies and associated guidance
documents is how to ensure that the improved pollution prevention and control technologies are
adequately implemented (US EPA, 1993). To be effective, our environmental programs and regulations
must eliminate, reduce or adjust behavior that degrades the environment. However, comparatively little
research has focused on identifying the most effective ways to accomplish that end.
Numerous scholars and study commissions have argued for greater research on ways to promote
environmental regulatory compliance because of the great potential that this work offers for improving
the effectiveness of our environmental protection programs (Andrews, 1992; U.S. EPA, 1990; Geller,
1992 & 1989; Russell, Harrington, and Vaughan, 1986; Draggan, Cohrssen, and Morrison, 1987). If
researchers can develop a thorough understanding of enforcement activities that promote environmental
regulatory compliance, then agencies can use that information to tailor appropriate responses to specific
compliance problems. In the ideal situation, agencies would know all the important cause and effect
pathways, the threshold levels for effects, and the costs and benefits of alternative management
approaches. In short, we could design the perfect cost-effective program to ensure progress toward
environmental goals (Sparks, 1987).
This paper reports on research that begins to answer some of those important questions as applied to
urban erosion and sediment pollution control practice (UESC). The study relies on a recently neglected
but arguably useful theoretical framework for identifying effective enforcement actions to advance
-------
compliance with UESC regulationsnamely, applied behavioralism. The next section describes the study
methods and data collection procedures. This is followed by a presentation of the study results with
discussion of how the findings square with the applied behavioralism literature as well as other socio-
behavioral theories. The article concludes with a discussion of the study limitations and future research
needs.
Enforcement Intervention: What Works?
The social science literature that is relevant to the study of environmental regulatory compliance is rich
and vast. There are a multitude of explanatory frameworks that researchers can use to guide investigations
of environmental regulatory compliance, including models based on economic theory (Stover and Brown,
1978), deterrence theory (Braithwaite andMakkai, 1991), social control theories (Hirschi, 1969;
Reckless, 1967), and subculture theories (Bardach and Kagan, 1982; Braithwaite, 1989) to name just a
few. One of the more interesting but often overlooked explanatory frameworks is that of applied
behaviorism (Geller, 1992).
The behavioralist approach seeks to develop parsimonious explanations of overt behavior through quasi-
experimental studies that avoid making assumptions about a target groups' cognitive deliberations to the
greatest extent possible (Tallman and Gray 1990). Applied behavior analysts (ABAs) acknowledge that
those cognitive processes (which are often the explanatory linchpins of many of the aforementioned
competing behavioral theories) are interesting and concede that certain cognitive deliberations and
attitude change may be important for inducing regulatory compliance in some settings. However, ABAs
consider those inferred cognitive activities to be of secondary significance to gaining practical, applied
understanding of interventions that reliably produce the desired behavior change. In short, ABAs argue
that it is most cost-effective to apply intervention strategies directly to the relevant behaviors rather than
attempting to understand what are the key cognitive deliberations, attempting to modify those cognitive
calculations and then hoping for a subsequent indirect influence on behavior (Geller, 1990).
Applied behavioral analysts directly test environmental arrangements or stimuli (antecedents and
consequences) posited to increase the occurrence of desired behavior or reduce undesired behavior. In this
application, focusing on the UESC context, some of the compliance supporting stimuli or key antecedent
characteristics tested include: the duration and intensity of surveillance, technical assistance efforts (e.g.,
pre-construction conferences and use of design professional oversight) and communicative clarity. In
addition, since operant learning results from behavioral consequences, other salient factors to test for
include prior enforcement experiences that reinforce expected rewards for compliance or that punish
noncompliance.
Data and Method
The data used in this analysis were generated from a comprehensive evaluation of North Carolina's
Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program, which was commissioned by the N.C. Department of the
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (see Malcom, et al., (1990) for full study results). Under the
-------
North Carolina Sedimentation and Erosion Control Act all construction projects of one acre or more must
submit and receive approval of Pollution Prevention Plans (PPPs) to ensure that the Act's goals will be
met. A quasi-experimental, post-test design (Rossi and Freeman, 1988) was used to evaluate program
performance. The unit of analysis is construction projects, with the study population consisting of all
construction projects falling under the program's jurisdiction during the summer of 1989 when the field
research was conducted. A stratified random sample of 128 construction projects were evaluated for
compliance with the Act's requirements. For each construction project in the sample, variables were
measured using four data collection procedures. The degree of compliance with the PPP requirements was
measured in the field through site visits to each of the 128 projects in the sample. Other measures to
control for variability in project characteristics and enforcement stimuli were taken from the field survey
and surveys of staff, project developers and project files. OLS regression analysis is used to evaluate the
effects of enforcement stimuli and antecedents on installation compliance while controlling for site
characteristics. Logistic regression analysis is used to evaluate the same predictors for the performance
compliance measure.
Two indicators provide measures of compliance with the Act's standards: (1) the percentage of BMPs
specified on approved PPPs that are actually installed at a construction site, and (2) whether there was no
major loss of sedimentation off-site or into adjacent waterbodies. All of the site characteristics measure
important aspects of the regulatory task's tractability which need to be statistically controlled for in the
multivariate analyses. Surveillance of the project site was measured in terms of both frequency and
duration. Communicative clarity is measured on a five-point scale (i.e., engineer's perception of the
clarity of the erosion and sediment control plan). Inspector expertise is measured in years of experience
since most of North Carolina's inspectors gain expertise through what is equivalent to an apprenticeship
process (Paterson, 1989). Dummy variable indicators are used to note whether design professional
oversight was required as a condition of project approval and whether a pre-construction conference was
held before land disturbing activity commenced. Prior enforcement experience is measured by
information reported by the project developer and inspector. A dummy variable indicates whether a
sediment control agency has imposed a fine, stop work order or restraining order, or revoked a grading
permit because the developer failed to comply with the Act's requirements at any time over the preceding
three years (based on self-report from the project developer). A dummy variable is also used to indicate
situations where the developer and inspector worked together on prior projects and where both parties
were willing to characterize that past working relationship as cooperative.
Results
Table 1 on the following page reveals that both models are statistically significant at the .05 level or less.
The predictors explain about 22 percent of the variation in the installation compliance model (Adjusted R-
squared). While many of the predictors are in the hypothesized direction, only a few variables attain the
.05 level of statistical significance. Controlling for site characteristics, the two key predictors for the
installation compliance model are PPP clarity and an established cooperative rapport between the
inspector and developer. Installation compliance was, on average, about 17 percent greater at projects
where prior enforcement experiences had engendered a cooperative rapport as opposed to those with no
prior cooperative enforcement experience to build upon (holding all other predictors constant). Several of
-------
the enforcement inputs are statistically significant predictors of the log likelihood of performance
compliance, including PPP clarity, inspector expertise and whether a pre-construction conference had
been held. As in the installation compliance model, an established cooperative rapport is also a
statistically significant predictor of the log likelihood of performance compliance.
Table 1. Factors Affecting Compliance with Nonpoint Pollution
Control Regulations
(Compliance Indicators (1)
Installation Performance
Variable (Coef) (Sig) (L.Odds) (Sig)
Site Characteristics

Acreage Disturbed
.15 (.31)
-.01 (.38)
Residential Project
-1.60 (.35)
1.63 (.00)*
Phase of Grading
10.14 (.00)*
.26 (.15)
Mountain Region
13.50 (.04)*
-1.85 (.00)*
Piedmont Region
21.89 (.00)*
-1.77 (.01)*
Project Enforcement Inputs

Surveillance:

Inspections per month
.55 (.18)
-.10(0.7)
Time per inspection
.12 (.25)
-.01 (.25)
Communicative Adequacy:
PPP clarity
5.77 (.00)*
.56 (.00)*
Technical Support:

Inspector experience
.59 (.31)
.51 (.00)*
Preconstruction conference
1.24 (.40)
1.74 (.00)*
Engineering oversite
-10.45 (.07)
.63 (.20)
provided at site
Prior Enforcement Experience

Cooperative Rapport
16.61 (.00)*
1.56 (.01)*
Sanctioned w/in 3 years
-16.75 (.00)
.25 (.35)
R-Squared
.317
Pseudo .218
Adjusted R-squared
.217
Log-L -46.72
F-value
3.173
ChiSq 41.05
Degrees of Freedom
13,89
13,89
Significance
.001
.000
(1) Significance levels for coefficients are based on one- tailed test.
-------
Discussion
The findings reported here are consistent with prior research reported from the applied behaviorism
literature. First, the importance of the PPP clarity measure is consistent with prior empirical findings that
communications about desired behavior must be clear and precise (Geller, 1992). Second, inspector
expertise and the pre-construction conferences may also serve to ensure that clear and precise regulatory
requirements are conveyed as well as providing those messages in close proximity to opportunities to
change the target behavior (e.g., clarifying expectations in the field, rather than going back to an office for
advice or sending a formal written notice of violation that fails to ensure understanding of specific
problems). Moreover, the pre-construction conference tends to be a participatory process rather than a
formal command approach which also has been shown to improve behavior change (Geller, 1989).
Finally, the cooperative rapport finding and the failure of formal sanctions to elicit compliance is also
consistent with prior behaviorism studies. Rewards are considered superior consequences in many
instances because they have a greater chance of engendering positive attitudes toward the desired
behavior from the recipients. This, in turn, increases the possibility of the desired behavior becoming a
norm (i.e., a socially accepted rule of action). A cooperative rapport enables the inspector to overlook
small violations in return for the developer being consistent in ensuring that no major violations occur.
This can only occur through the development of shared understanding and mutual trust through repeated
interactions. By contrast, negative consequences such as formal sanctions tend to require continual
application and may also elicit negative attitudes and rebellion behavior (Geller, 1989).
Conclusion
The ABA framework is a potentially powerful guide for improving environmental regulatory compliance.
While its greatest use to date has been in largely voluntary environmental settings, the present
investigation points to its potential usefulness in regulatory settings as well. There are countless
possibilities for quasi-experimental designs to test the influence of various enforcement efforts on
compliance that could be carried out at minimal expense within existing environmental programs.
However, while the U.S. EPA has expressed some interest in this area (US EPA, 1990), commitment to
environmental protection behavioral research remains largely nonexistent in most federal and state
programs (Andrews, 1992; Geller, 1989). Significant advances in environmental protection behavioral
research will only occur when environmental management, enforcement and research communities work
more collaboratively to address program effectiveness concerns (Draggan, Cohrssen, and Morrison,
1987).
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Maryland's Tributary Strategies: Statewide Nutrient
Reduction Through a Watershed Approach
Lauren Wenzel, Roger Banting, and Danielle Lucid
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD
Origins of the Program
Maryland's Tributary Strategies are a recent addition to the historic Chesapeake Bay Agreement, signed
in 1987 to address the problem of overenrichment in the nation's largest and most productive estuary. In
1987, Maryland, Virginia, Pennsylvania, the District of Columbia, the Environmental Protection Agency,
and the Chesapeake Bay Commission (the Executive Council of the Chesapeake Bay Program) formally
agreed to work together to achieve a 40% reduction in nitrogen and phosphorus reaching the Bay by the
year 2000 (using 1985 as a base year).
Extensive scientific studies had identified excess nutrients as the primary pollution problem in the Bay.
High levels of nutrients cause excess algal growth, depleting dissolved oxygen in the water as it
decomposes, and reducing the amount of habitat for animals. In addition, algal growth blocks the
sunlight needed by beneficial bay grasses, which provide food and habitat to waterfowl, fish and crabs.
The 40% level was estimated by Bay scientists as the reduction necessary to significantly improve
dissolved oxygen in the deep waters of the Bay, triggering a series of beneficial responses in habitat, and
benefitting living resource populations.
In 1991, the Chesapeake Bay Program conducted a scientific re-evaluation to assess progress toward the
40% goal. It concluded that, although significant progress had been made through a ban on phosphorus in
laundry detergent, and upgrades at wastewater treatment plants, more needed to be done to control
nonpoint sources. As a result of this finding, in 1992, the Executive Council directed all the Bay partners
to develop "tributary strategies"_watershed-based plans to reduce nitrogen and phosphorus entering the
Bay's rivers.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
The Approach
In Maryland, the goal of the Tributary Strategies was to introduce a new working relationship between
the federal, state and local governments, business, the agricultural community and citizens to improve
water quality, and enhance habitat for living resources. Just as the Chesapeake Bay Agreement is a model
for interjurisdictional cooperation, the state recognized a need to extend this partnership to those
responsible for making local land use decisions. To initiate and manage this process, State agencies
involved in natural resources management formed a steering committee on the Tributary Strategies.
Comprised of staff from the Departments of Environment, Natural Resources, and Agriculture, the Office
of Planning, the University of Maryland, and the Governor's Office, the committee worked to ensure a
coordinated approach among all the agencies responsible for planning and implementing this complex
program.
Because over 95% of Maryland's land area is in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, meeting the 40% goal
demanded a comprehensive, statewide approach. In order to address regional land use and water quality
issues as part of its nutrient reduction strategy, Maryland divided its Chesapeake Bay watershed into ten
tributary basins. The state then conducted a two-year, three stage effort incorporating technical analysis,
document production, and formal and informal meetings with local governments and the public meetings
at every stage. During the first stage, each of the ten tributary basins was characterized in order to
describe the pollutant loads, sources, and reduction goals; land uses; and the status of fish and wildlife
populations. The second stage involved assessing all of the options for nutrient reduction, such as
biological nitrogen removal at wastewater treatment plants, erosion and sediment control on construction
sites, agricultural nutrient management, and streamside forested buffers. For each option, information
was gathered on costs, applicability and implementation considerations. The third stage involved setting
numeric targets for implementing the most promising options identified in stage two, based on past levels
of implementation, cost, acceptability, and comments from the public and local governments.
Moving Toward Implementation: The Tributary Teams
To help implement these Strategies, "Tributary Teams" were formed in each of the ten watersheds. These
teams are made up of representatives of state and local agencies, farmers, business, environmental
organizations, federal facilities, and citizens. They meet monthly, providing local knowledge essential for
implementing best management practices, and helping state and local governments target their programs
to improve efficiency and participation.
The Teams were charged with:
¦ Ensuring that implementation proceeds on schedule in a fair and flexible manner;
¦ Coordinating participation among citizens, government agencies, and other interested parties; and
-------
¦ Promoting an understanding of Tributary Strategy goals and the actions needed to achieve them
through public education.
Most Team members were selected from individuals who nominated themselves at the public meetings.
However, additional Team members were recruited to ensure balanced representation of all stakeholder
groups. In order to share the heavy workload involved in working closely with the Teams, different state
agencies agreed to act as the lead for one to three Teams. The Lead State agency designates a staff person
as a Team member, and represents all State agencies on the Team. In addition, two Team coordinators
were hired to provide organizational and staff support for all ten Teams. Team lists were drafted by an ad
hoc committee of local government and state agency staff. These lists were then sent to local elected
officials for their review and comment, and finally to the Governor for formal appointment. The Teams
were appointed by the Governor in August 1995. They first met in September 1995, and continue to meet
monthly.
Progress To-Date
Progress on the ground. Maryland's Tributary Strategies lay out ten implementation plans that will be
accomplished between 1994 and the year 2000, and builds on implementation efforts that began in 1985.
Significant progress has been achieved since the Strategies were initiated in Fall 1992, including the
implementation of nutrient management plans on more than 735,000 acres of cropland. Also since Fall
1992, 18 municipalities have agreed to voluntarily begin biological nutrient removal (BNR) at their
wastewater treatment plants. This represents a doubling of effort for the BNR program, and will prevent
an additional 1.5 million pounds of nitrogen per year from entering the Bay.
Progress in the water. Improvements in water quality and living resources from efforts begun ten years
ago illustrate the types of improvements we expect to see as the Tributary Strategies are fully
implemented. Actions taken since 1985 are estimated to result in a 23% decrease in loads of controllable
nitrogen and a 38% decrease in phosphorus reaching the Bay. This reduction in nutrient pollution has in
turn contributed to a significant increase in the coverage of aquatic grasses.
Institutional progress. State agencies initially encountered some suspicion and resistance from local
governments and landowners who were concerned that this comprehensive, watershed-based approach
might lead to additional state regulations. However, affected groups were brought into the process early,
and had significant input into the Strategies that were ultimately developed. Today, local governments
have made a strong commitment to the Tributary Strategies. Given their important role in implementing
many of the practices called for in the Strategies, this committment is a key sign of the Strategies success
to-date. In 1993, the Governor and elected officials from each of Maryland's twenty-three counties signed
a "Partnership Agreement" formally promising to work cooperatively to restore the Bay's tributaries.
Challenges Ahead
-------
Adopting a watershed approach to nutrient reduction statewide is a complex endeavor; even more so
when all of the key stakeholders are involved in decision making. The following challenges are among
those that have emerged to date, and must be gradually resolved as the process continues.
Guiding the Process: Too much or too little? State agencies aim to act as facilitators to the Teams, rather
than directing them toward specific objectives or activities. However, particularly at the beginning of the
process, many Team members felt the need for more direction, and were uncomfortable with a "self-
directed team" approach. The lead state agency for each Team has had to balance providing sufficient
guidance with allowing the Team to develop ownership of the process and begin making its own
decisions.
Cultivating Team leaders. Having strong Team leaders is essential for moving the Teams toward action.
In order to get the Teams started, the State appointed Interim Chairs, with the specification that they
would act as Chair for six months, until the Team chose to select a permanent Chair. In addition, some
Teams have benefitted from additional leadership by forming subcommitteees and selecting
subcommittee Chairs to move the Team forward on particular issues.
Team Buy-In. Many team members were selected from among those who attended public meetings to
discuss the Tributary Strategies as they were being developed. However, some team members were new
to the process, and lacked both the technical background and the history associated with developing the
Strategy for their Tributary. As a result, there have been many questions about the technical basis for the
Strategies (e.g., the computer modeling that was used to set nutrient loads and reduction goals). Most of
the Teams have both members who want to spend more time understanding the problems and the
proposed solutions, and those who are impatient to move toward action. Team members are being asked
to help implement the Strategy. But first, all members need to understand and accept the Strategy.
Funding. The Strategies outline a package of best management practices that, when implemented, will
lead to a 40% reduction in nutrients in each Tributary. Many of these practices are funded through
existing programs, but will require additional funding for increased implementation. To address this
need, the Governor appointed a Blue Ribbon Panel of experts from the disciplines of finance, business,
and government to identify new ways to finance environmental projects. While the Panel's report
identifies dozens of new approaches, some of which are being further explored by State agencies,
funding remains a persistent question that needs to be addressed by all parties.
Growth. The 40% reduction in nutrients is not only an ambitious goal, but is a cap. Under the 1987
Agreement, once nutrients are reduced to 60% of 1985 levels, they will not be allowed to increase. With
portions of the State developing rapidly, managing growth in ways that minimize its impacts on water
quality will be a continuing challenge. Maryland has growth management legislation, but most land use
decisions remain at the local government level, making local planning issues a key part of the Tributary
Strategies.
Working with elected officials. In the current climate of budget cutting, environmental programs need to
-------
demonstrate their importance for quality of life, health, and economic vitality. Maryland is working to
inform both state legislators as well as elected officials at the county and town level of the importance of
watershed planning and water quality goals. A local government liaison works closely with both elected
officials and staffs to provide information and act as a sounding board for local government concerns.
With elected officials constantly turning over, this effort must be coordinated and continuous.
State goals v. Local goals. The Teams were created to help implement a goal that had been set by the
Chesapeake Bay Program. This goal can be met statewide through a collection of practices implemented
at the local level, which will also improve local water quality and habitat. Many of the practices
recommended such as creating forest buffers, improving stormwater management, and managing animal
waste clearly have both nutrient reduction benefits, and benefits for local water quality. However,
several teams have identified a potential tension between local priorities (e.g., habitat restoration, and
reservoir protection) and the State's focus on nutrient pollution, the primary problem in the estuary. This
is currently being addressed by focusing on the many areas where State and local priorities overlap.
Some teams may also choose to expand their mission to look at a broader set of goals than the current
nutrient pollution focus.
Understanding the Team's role. Before the Teams were formed, State and local government staff working
on their creation drafted a mission statement and guidance document outlining the Team's role in helping
to implement the Strategies. In practice, however, the Team's role has been a learning process for all
parties. The different levels of knowledge of the Strategies, as well as the broadness of the Team's
mission have led to frustration within some groups. This can be compounded with confusion about the
many existing programs that are working on aspects of the nutrient reduction problem. The Teams
wonder where do we fit in? Currently, this issue is being addressed by focusing both on Team forming
subgroups that allow the more activist members to begin examining issues and identifying actions, and
allow those who want more familiarity with the Strategies to take time to review the progress made to-
date.
Maintaining private sector involvement. The Teams were formed to represent all the major stakeholders
in each Tributary, and to encourage creative, realistic solutions based on dialogue between different
interest groups. The agricultural community has been active in the formation of the Strategies from the
beginning, in part because agriculture is a major source of nutrients to the Bay, and farmers have an
interest in demonstrating the success of a nonregulatory approach. However, because there is no intention
of producing additional legislation, the business community has been less involved in this process. It is
hoped that as the Teams begin to organize local initiatives they will be able to involve more local
businesses in specific "hometown" projects.
Building a watershed perspective. The Tributary basins are quite large, ranging from 269 to 2,043 square
miles. Most Tributaries encompass parts of at least three counties, which, like most jurisdictions, are
unaccustomed to implementing or planning on a watershed basis. The Teams provide a framework for
coordination among counties, but it remains to be seen how much the watershed perspective will be
integrated into day-to-day decisions.
-------
Conclusion
Maryland's Tributary Teams have been meeting for less than one year, and are still in the beginning
stages of their work. They are a key part of an approach that has never been tried before in Maryland a
long term watershed-based implementation effort that seeks to accomplish both Chesapeake Bay
Program nutrient reduction goals and local water quality objectives. It is not yet clear where the balance
between a state-directed and a locally-driven approach will be struck. What is clear is that the Tributary
Teams offer an opportunity to rethink traditional approaches toward improving water quality, and could
greatly expand the constituency for watershed protection.
-------
T f —r
f jTW J ! |
~ rf
JC.--K ' \
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed '96
Contents - Sessions 61-80
[Session 611 \Session 621 fSession 631 fSession 641 \Session 651
[Session 661 \Session 671 fSession 681 fSession 691 \Session 701
[Session 711 \Session 721 fSession 731 fSession 741 \Session 751
[Session 761 \Session 771 fSession 781 fSession 791 \Session 801
SESSION 61
713
Integrated Watershed Approach For Improving Water Quality In The Mill Creek,
Cleveland, Ohio
Lester A. Stumpe, George Zukovs, Art Hamid
Watershed Planning in a Developed Urban Area 718
William Frost
Sustainable Watershed Management at the Rapidly Growing Urban Fringe 721
T.H. Cahill, J. McGuire, W.R. Horner, R.E. Heister
Integrating Water Quality into Urban Stormwater Management: A Watershed
Approach in Fort Collins, Colorado
724
-------
Kevin McBride
SESSION 62
The Oregon Watershed Health Program: A Bold Local/State/Tribal Partnership 728
Mary Lou Soscia
SESSION 63
Forming a Partnership to Preserve Resources — The Virginia Beach Agricultural
Reserve Program
MaryM. Heinricht
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance: A Case Study in Forming a Grassroots Watershed
Organization
Lisa Jo Freeh, Chuck Barsez, Tom Tyler
Watershed Partners Participate in Comprehensive Municipal Infrastructure
Planning: A Case Study
('is Myers
SESSION 64
Meeting the Goals of an Urban Subwatershed Study — A Case Study 740
Peter D. Cookson, Ann Rexe, Victoria Jeffery, Alan Winter
Watershed Management in the Headwaters of Nations' Rivers: The Mississippi and
the Volga
Tatiana Nawrocki, H. Mooers
Modeling Soil Erosion and Sediment Transport on Watersheds with the Help of
Quasi Three-dimensional Runoff Model
Victor Demidov
Consensus Building in Watershed Management Initiatives: Lessons from the
749
National Estuary Program
Jessica Cogan
SESSION 65
730
733
736
-------
The Visioning Process and Its Role in Consensus-Building 750
Richard Volk
Moving From Characterization to Plan Development 751
Helen E. Drummond
Priority Setting for the Casco Bay Estuary Project 755
Mark Smith, Lee Doggett
SESSION 66
Storm Water Permitting: A Watershed Perspective
James E. Murray, Kelly A. Cave, JohnM. Bona
A Watershed Approach to Combined Sewer Overflow Control
Lise M. Marx, Wendy Smith Leo, Gregory Heath
Watershed Monitoring Program Supports Multiple Goals
Pamela P. Kenel, Catherine M. Rappe, Pamela D. Mann
Staten Island Bluebelt Project: New York City's Watershed Approach with
Multiple Benefits
Dana Gumb, Jack Vokral, Robert D. Smith, Sandeep Mehrotra
SESSION 67
Stream Water Quality Response to Agricultural Land Uses in Erath County, Texas 773
Anne M.S. McFarland, Larry M. Hauck
Designing a Volunteer Water Monitoring Program for the Merrimack River
Watershed
Geoff Dates, Alicia Lehrer, Jerry Schoen
Accessing U.S. Geological Survey Water Resources Data on the Internet
Kenneth J. Lanfear
SESSION 68
Small Watershed Studies: Analytical Approaches for Understanding Ecosystem
Response to Environmental Change
Thomas Huntington, Peter Murdoch, Richard Hooper
TMDLs as a Tool for Watershed Management
758
762
766
770
777
781
783
787
-------
Cynthia Paulson, Dave Dilks
Watershed Management Decision Support System 790
Chris Fulcher, Tony Prato, Yan Zhou
SESSION 69
A Modular Modeling Approach to Watershed Analysis and Ecosystem
Management
G.H. Leavesley, G.E. Grant, S.L. Markstrom, R.J. Viger, M.S. Brewer
Hydraulic Modeling to Support Wetland Restoration in Coastal Watersheds
Christopher S. Adams, RaymondL. Hinkle, Jeffrey J. Pantazes
Development of a Spatially Distributed Hydrological Model for Watershed
Management
Shulin Chen, Guang-Te Wang
IWMM — an Integrated Watershed Management Model with a Watershed
Protection Approach
C.L. Chen, L.E. Gomez, W.T. Tsai, C.M. Wu, I.L. Cheng
SESSION 70
Upper Sligo Creek: An Integrated Approach to Urban Stream Restoration 808
John Galli, James D. Cummins, James B. Stribling
Airborne Thermal Remote Sensing Of Salmonid Habitat For Restoration planning
In Pacific Northwestern Watersheds
Christina E. Torgersen, Nathan J. Poage, Mark A. Flood, Doug J. Norton, Bruce A.
Mcintosh
Brinkley Manor Run: A Case Study in Geomorphologically-Based Stream
Restoration Design in Prince George's County, Maryland
Mark A. Symborski, Mow-Soung Cheng, James W. Grade, Mohammed Lahlou
SESSION 71
Watersheds and Cultural Landscapes: Sustainable Development through Heritage
Areas
A. Elizabeth Watson
794
798
801
804
812
815
-------
The Hudson River Valley Greenway — A Regional Success Story
David S. Sampson
Helping Communities Make Watershed-Based Land Use Decisions: Three
Successful "Real World" Examples that Make Use of GIS Technology
Chester L. Arnold, Jr.
SESSION 72
The Tidelands Watershed Projects: Using Computerized Natural Resource
Information to Promote Watershed-Based Decision-Making at the Local Level
Chester L. Arnold, Jr., Heather L. Nelson, Juliana Barrett
Promoting Watershed Based Land Use Decisions in New Hampshire Communities:
Geographic Information System Aided Education and Analysis
Jeffrey A. Schloss, Frank Mitchell
Training Local Officials in Watershed Management Using User-Friendly
Geographic Information Systems
Lorraine Joubert, Alyson McCann, Arthur Gold
SESSION 73
Maryland Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Association: A Model Alliance 838
Abby Markowitz, Ginny Barnes, Peter Bergstrom, Sharon Meigs, Rebecca Pitt,
Representative from a state agency (as yet undetermined)
SESSION 74
National Cattlemen's Beef Association's Water Quality Information Project 842
W. James Clawson, Myra Hyde, Jamie Kaestner
The Pork Industry's Environmental Partnerships 844
Jeff Gabriel
AG.21; An Agricultural Technology and Marketing Program that Benefits the
Environment
Gary W. Colliver
SESSION 75
823
825
830
834
-------
HOW HIGH IS UP: Water Environment Research Foundation Develops a Practical
E 849
Guidance Document for Conducting Use-Attainability Analysis
Gene Y. Michael, Timothy F. Moore
Framework For Watershed Management 852
Clayton Creager, Trevor Clements, Tom Schueler, Jon Butcher
Establishing Watershed Management Process and Goals 856
Vladimir Novotny
SESSION 76
Use of Watershed Concepts to Address Sanitary Sewer Overflows 860
Kevin Weiss, Ben Lesser
Managing Stormwater Runoff: A New Direction 864
Thomas D. Tapley, Wayne H. Jenkins, Ronald C. Gardner
Funding Regional Flood control improvements in Fort Bend County, Texas 867
Carolyn Gilligan
Development of Cost-Effective Stormwater Treatment Alternatives 870
Thomas R. Sear, James S. Bays, Gene W. Medley
SESSION 77
874
A National Non-Point Source Pollution Monitoring Program for the National
Estuarine Research Reserve System
Dwight D. Trueblood, Alice Stratton, et al
Water Quality Data Evaluation and Analysis for the Florida Everglades 877
Michael P. Sullivan, Zhida Song-James, Gregory Prelewicz, Joanne Chamberlain
A Water and Weather Monitoring System for an Urban Watershed 881
Derek Carby, Vanessa Greebe, David Malcolm
SESSION 78
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department's Interactive Weather Radar and
Virtual Watershed Management
Marc P. Walch, Kathleen S. Leo
885
-------
Watershed Planning System: A Tool for Integrated Management of Land Use and
Non-Point Source Pollution
Deborah Weller, Joseph F. Tassone, Dawn M. DiStefano, Nevitt S. Edwards
Comprehensive Watershed Analysis Tools: The Rouge Project — A Case Study
Gary Mercer, Kelly Cave, Vyto Kaunelis
SESSION 79
Development and Application of a Coupled GIS-Modeling System for Watershed
Analysis
Joseph V. DePinto, Joseph F. Atkinson, Jieyuan Song, Chen-Yu Cheng, Tad Slawecki,
Paul W. Rodgers
A Wasteload Allocation Modeling Tool for Watershed Management
Wu-Seng Lung
Watershed-Based Source Screening Model ~ An Analytical Tool for Watershed
6 1 904
Management in Urban Environments
Terence Cooke, Phillip Mineart, Sujatha Singh, James Scanlin
SESSION 80
Successful Restoration of Shellfish Habitat by Control of Watershed Pollution
Sources
David R. Bingham, Francis X. Dougherty, Sandra L. MacFarlane
Watershed Restoration in Deer Creek, Washington — A Ten Year Review
James E. Doyle, Greta Movassaghi, Michelle Fisher, Roger Nichols
Watershed Management of Coral Reef Communities 915
Kennard W. Potts, Deborah R. Lebow
889
893
896
900
908
911
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now
outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official
positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Integrated Watershed Approach For Improving Water
Quality In The Mill Creek, Cleveland, Ohio
Lester A. Stumpe, Manager, Planning Department
Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District, Cleveland, OH
George Zukovs, President
W20, Inc.
Art Hamid, Project Manager
Montgomery Watson Americas, Inc.
Project Goals
The Mill Creek project was undertaken with the deliberate intent to integrate facilities planning, aimed at the control of
combined and sanitary sewer overflows, with the longer-term goal of developing a comprehensive watershed plan to
restore the water quality of this urban stream. In addition, the project recognizes the goals of providing improved
management of sewerage and drainage services for the residents of this watershed. In particular, the District has adopted
the goal that the project should be integrated with the efforts of local communities to address a variety of flooding issues.
Project Overview
There are several major elements of the project which represent the District's vision of a truly integrated approach to
watershed management:
¦ Source inventory and characterization to aid in developing effective control strategies.
¦ Comprehensive inventory and understanding of the sewer system.
¦ Comprehensive assessment of the factors affecting Mill Creek water quality (focus of this paper).
¦ Integration of broad community goals into facility planning process.
Public information and feedback process to incorporate community goals into watershed planning.
-------
¦ Creation of an ongoing process to advocate for sound management of Mill Creek as an important community
resource.
Watershed Description
Mill Creek is a tributary of the Cuyahoga River which discharges to Lake Erie in the Cleveland area. Figure 1 shows the
Mill Creek along with the 11 cities included in the watershed.
¦%£
N
Miles Rd.
%
|
32Am \
K.
\
\ ¦ ¦
/
Chagrin Mvd.
/

I
Mpnd;
• Stresm Monitoring Sites
35.2 ~
\|Z]
\3SA

~ Fish MMiHoifrigSfceff
Figure 1. Monitoring sites.
Mill Creek has a drainage area of 23.4 square miles with a length of 12.2 miles. The average stream gradient is 53.5
feet/mile. A unique feature of the water course is the 60-foot falls that effectively divide the upper and lower portions of
the stream and provide a virtually absolute barrier to fish migration.
Land use in the watershed is primarily urban, zoned for single and multiple family dwellings. A small portion, located
mostly along main streets, is zoned for business and office space or industry. Open space is limited to small parks,
cemeteries, golf courses and a race track.
A total of 175 outfalls discharge to Mill Creek and its tributaries. The outfalls may be broadly classified as combined
sewer, storm and mixed. While Mill Creek receives inputs of leachates from old adjacent landfills, it has no permitted dry
weather sources.
Water Quality Monitoring
The data collected from the Water Quality Monitoring Program was used to assist in evaluating current conditions within
Mill Creek. The data was used to aid stream and source modeling and other water resources assessment activities, such as
-------
source-receiver interactions and control facilities benefits.
Figure 1 presents the four stream monitoring sites selected to provide complete coverage of stream water quality from the
headwaters through to the mouth of Mill Creek. All ten sites shown in Figure 1 were monitored for fish,
macroinvertebrates and sediment.
Stream Monitoring
Chemical and Physical Data
Figure 2 shows a typical real-time dry weather data set, conductivity, pH and temperature at station 32.2. Excessive
cycling and high stream temperatures, exceeding 3O0C at times, were observed at this site. It is thought that this condition
reflects the loss of tree canopy which would moderate response to daytime temperature increases.
ph/DO(mg/iyremp. fC)
Conductivity (/iS/cm}
2000
1500
1000

¦ 1 ' ¦ ¦ ^
* m

500

Jun 12 Jun 13 Jun 14 Jun 15 Jun 1S Jun 17 Jun 18
TEMP pH COND. DO
Dry W&ath&r Flow
Figure 2. Large temperature variations in Mill Creek occur during dry weather flows at Site 32.2.
Bacteria densities were also measured at four locations in Mill Creek. Figure 3 shows Fecal Coliform and E. Coli
pollutographs for the most upstream and downstream stations for the storm event of May 24, 1995. Significantly higher
bacteria densities observed near the mouth of the Mill Creek reflect the cumulative impact of a variety of pollution sources
including stormwater and downstream CSOs.
-------
Figure 3. Bacteria concentration in Mill Creek varied with creek flow during the storm event of May 24,1995.
The dramatic increase in creek flows creating high velocities and bed scour are suspected to contribute to non-attainment
of fish and biological activity as measured by biological indexes.
Heavy metals concentrations measured in Mill Creek did not exceed water quality standards except for a couple of
instances. Copper and zinc exceeded water quality standards on three occasions during three wet weather events. This is
common for stormwater runoff in developed areas.
Biological Data
An extensive biological monitoring program was a major component of the Mill Creek stream assessment. Biological
monitoring encompassed fish and macroinvertebrate collection, detailed stream and riparian zone habitat evaluation and
toxicity studies during storm and low flow periods. Biological monitoring provided a direct measure of stream ecosystem
integrity as well as important data about non-water-quality factors such as habitat conditions which limit the success of
aquatic communities.
Early findings from the fish collection program indicated low species diversity and total number of fish at the 13 stream
biomonitoring sites, as shown in Figures 4 and 5. The most downstream Station No. 31 showed the influence of the
Cuyahoga River on species diversity. In other areas, Mill Creek fish communities generally declined in a downstream
direction. No fish were collected at Site 33, Site 34.5, or at the most upstream location, Site 35.2.
-------
in

c
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
Downstream *-
Upstream
31 32 32.2 32.4 32.6 32.8 33 34 341 36 35.2
SITE
Figure 4. Relatively few fish were counted in Mill Creek during June and July, 1995.
»
UJ
u
111
a.
m
u_
O
£
in
m
20
18
16
14
12
10
&
S
4
2
0
Downstream «¦
6
1
¦^Upstream
31 32 32.2 32.4 32.6 32.8 33 34 34.5 35 35.2
SITE
Figure 5. Low fish diversity was measured in Mill Creek during June and July, 1995.
Emerging Issues
Chemical data have shown limited indication of toxicity or low dissolved oxygen levels in Mill Creek to date. However,
biological sampling has shown low fish quantities and diversity. It appears, therefore, that stream characteristics affecting
-------
the aquatic life in Mill Creek may be one or more of the following:
¦ Sediment deposition
¦ Scour
¦ Pool size at low flow
¦ Temperature variations
¦ Range of flow variations
Community Goals And Public Information Program
As part of the facilities planning effort for this watershed, the District developed a public information program to
understand and respond to community goals. In addition to public information activities including newsletters, public
meetings, neighborhood meetings, and meetings with interested parties, the District has established two committees to
provide consultation with the District during facilities planning.
The Policy Advisory Group includes mayors, council members and other policy makers. This group will meet three times
at different stages of planning. The Watershed Protection Committee (WPC) is composed of a variety of stakeholders who
will participate in five workshops planned by the District. These workshop will solicit input to facilities planning and will
also seek to impart information on the factors which limit the uses of Mill Creek. The critical feature of the WPC is the
anticipation that this group will reconstitute itself as an ongoing community effort that will advocate for new community
actions in areas such as stormwater management and habitat protection.
Conclusion
A major concern for the District is represented by the scenario that after investing substantial sums for control of CSOs
and potential sanitary sewer overflows, Mill Creek shows only a marginal response in the direction of attainment of water
quality goals.
It is suspected that the real limiting factors are a complex mix which include a dramatically altered hydrologic cycle for
the stream and the loss of critical habitat features which we are not capable of adequately quantifying. In turn we are
concerned that given irreversible changes in this urban watershed, current water quality standards may not represent a
realistic goal. Despite this concern we are hopeful that substantial progress in restoration of stream quality is possible.
While new facilities to control wet weather discharges will play a significant role in this restoration we believe substantial
progress also depends on a new sense of stewardship for Mill Creek at the individual and community level. We are
hopeful that the ongoing work of the Watershed Protection Committee will be able to make a substantial contribution both
in the restoration of Mill Creek and the attainment of related community goals.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Planning in a Developed Urban Area
William Frost, Senior Planner
Arlington County Public Works, Arlington, VA
Arlington County is an urbanized area of 26 square miles across the Potomac River from Washington,
DC. It was largely developed between 1930 and 1950 when it was the fastest growing county in the
United States and is now essentially fully built up, with 60 percent of its land in single-family residential
housing. In the last three decades, portions of Arlington have been undergoing redevelopment to higher
density office and commercial uses.
County staff are working on a master plan for storm water management which takes a watershed
approach to problems such as flooding, runoff pollution, and stream degradation. During plan
preparation, we have identified some issues in watershed planning for a small, fully developed
jurisdiction which make it different from those for less urbanized areas. Some issues are technical, such
as the definition of watersheds and the appropriate scale for planning and computer modeling. More
weighty questions involve the legal, regulatory, and equity issues associated with treating citizens
differently based on the watershed in which they live.
The Nature of Urban Watersheds
By the strict definition, a watershed is the area of land contributing runoff to an outlet point. Selection of
the outlet point determines the boundaries of the watershed. In this respect all watersheds are the same,
whether urban, rural, humid, or arid. The purpose of this conference, however, is to take a broader view
of watersheds. In the context of watershed management, a watershed is an area contributing to the
streamflow, water quality, and ecological health of downstream areas. This definition creates a
distinction between urbanized watersheds and those in their natural state.
The primary distinction is the elimination or reduction of natural streams. In the case of Arlington and
-------
most older cities, development took place when the only storm water issue was accommodating the
amount of flow. Drainage problems were identified by occurrences of flooding or erosion, and the
solution was to build a storm sewer or culvert to put the flow underground. As a result, older urban
drainage systems consist of a large interconnected system of man-made storm sewers and channels with
a few reaches of highly stressed natural streams, many of which have been straightened or otherwise
modified. Flows from these drainage networks empty into a receiving water (e.g., the Potomac River, the
Great Lakes, the Chesapeake Bay) which is distinct from the system by being large with respect to the
network.
Urban watersheds also function differently; for example, stream health is not an issue where there is no
stream. Changes in the chemistry of runoff from urban areas are well documented. These include more
pollutants, more toxic pollutants, and higher bacterial contamination.
The small size of many urban jurisdictions brings a smaller scale of watershed planning. Arlington's
master plan effort focuses on tributaries and sub-tributaries to streams which have a watershed area
ranging from about 100 acres to 1,000 acres. More detailed networks are appropriate for drainage and
catchment studies related to storm water projects or development impact analysis.
Watershed Size and Scale
Many of the watersheds in a small jurisdiction would not be separately delineated when looking at a
larger area. Several of Arlington's tributary streams are considered part of a larger "direct Potomac"
drainage area in statewide watershed plans.
Watersheds are frequently defined based on the location and size of perennial streams. In urban areas
which are completely storm sewered, this procedure is not possible. Arlington used several evaluation
criteria to combine networks of tributaries, channels, and storm sewers into watersheds. The most
important were the original drainage pattern and channel/pipe size. Using a map of the storm sewer and
stream network, major drainage conduits were identified. This system corresponded roughly to pipes of
72 inches diameter and larger, or culverts greater than 30 square feet in cross-section. Watersheds
delineated for these branches matched reasonably well with the original stream watersheds identified
from historic USGS maps.
For the master plan effort, each of these watersheds is being be subdivided for further study. The scale to
be used depends on the type of planning, analysis, or design to be done. In Arlington's experience,
nonpoint source pollution modeling can be conducted on a fairly coarse scale. The catchments average
about 50 acres, and pipes smaller than 60 inches diameter are not modeled. The larger pipes and streams
are joined into equivalent pipes averaging about 1,000 feet long.
For computerized hydraulic and hydrologic models of the major drainage system, the same pipe
networks are used, but without creating equivalents. Lengths and slopes are those found in the field.
Because the pipes are shorter, about twice as many catchments are modeled; essentially one for each
-------
tributary of 30 inches and larger. These catchments average about 25 acres.
The most detailed modeling uses catchments averaging about 5 acres in size for all pipes 30 inches and
larger. A study showed that this was a reasonable threshold, giving the same results for the larger system
as a model of the whole pipe network with a fraction of the effort. The study also showed there were no
capacity problems in the smaller pipes that would be hidden if they were left out of the model.
Storm Water Management Issues
The impacts of storm water runoff in a small developed area focus on a few issues. As always, one is the
adequacy of the drainage system for the quantity of runoff. The amount of storm water flow is clearly a
function of watershed characteristics such as land cover, slope, and soils. Regardless of the size of the
contributing area, upstream watershed and drainage characteristics govern the amount of flow and timing
of peaks. Similarly, downstream channel and storm sewer capacity dictate whether the flows can be
handled. Thus the use of watershed boundaries is a necessity for design of drainage improvements.
There are situations where it may be appropriate to require different design criteria for storm water
systems in different watersheds. One example in Arlington is Four Mile Run. Since 1976, developers in
this watershed have had to provide detention for the 100-year storm to preserve capacity in a flood
control channel financed by the Corps of Engineers.
Runoff pollution is a second issue. In Arlington, it affects the water quality of both the small tributaries
and the Chesapeake Bay. As with the quantity of flow, the quality is a function of the watershed
characteristics. However, in urban areas, runoff quality doesn't differ significantly by watershed. This is
because the single most overriding characteristic of the watershed in estimating runoff quality is whether
it is developed or not. The Nationwide Urban Runoff Program study (U.S. EPA, 1983) could find no
statistically significant difference in runoff quality between types of urban land use. The only land use
difference that could be used to predict the amount of runoff pollution was between open/non-urban land
and urban land.
This finding lends itself to a decision on boundaries for runoff quality planning. If the entire jurisdiction
is developed, runoff quality for all watersheds is essentially the same. Runoff quality controls can
therefore be applied equally across the jurisdiction without the need to distinguish among watersheds.
A third issue is the effect of urban runoff on tributaries and receiving waters. The condition of small
urban streams and their habitat is tied closely to the level of development of their watersheds, particularly
the degree of imperviousness. Channel degradation, sedimentation, lower base flows, and higher
temperatures all impair stream habitat; all are functions of changes in hydrology caused by urbanization.
As with runoff quality, however, conditions of urban streams vary less than expected. Schueler (1994)
documents impacts at 10 percent to 15 percent imperviousness, a level exceeded in every tributary
watershed in Arlington. Above this level, channels become unstable and begin to erode, habitat quality
-------
becomes poor, and stream biodiversity drops.
For streams in open, undeveloped watersheds where imperviousness is less than 15 percent, stricter
controls on development and stronger efforts at stream protection could be required. Otherwise, the same
level of stream restoration efforts and runoff controls are appropriate everywhere in a completely
developed jurisdiction, and need not be focused on particular tributaries.
Legal and Regulatory Issues
A watershed approach to storm water planning means that a local government could write its ordinances
to apply to only one part of its jurisdiction or apply its regulations differently in different areas. Is this
legal?
For new development, there is a long history of land use controls regulating activities in only part of a
jurisdiction. Some examples follow.
¦ Zoning laws are one of the major limits on the activities of landowners, based simply on the
location of the property.
¦ In Virginia, the Chesapeake Bay Preservation legislation governs what kinds of new development
are permissible near tributaries to the Bay. The regulations also govern redevelopment, including
improvements to single-family residences.
¦ The Four Mile Run 100-year detention requirement is an example of regulating development by
watershed. Arlington's storm water ordinance applies more stringent standards to this watershed
than to the remainder of the County.
For a fully developed urban area, the legality of placing restrictions on existing development and
residents' activities based on the watershed of residence is a more difficult question. It appears to be
acceptable if based on zoning law. A local government can regulate how landowners may use their
property depending on its zoning classification. Other non-zoning legal methods may be possible, such as
special taxing districts or sewer districts.
Equity Issues
When a jurisdiction treats its citizens differently based on residence in a particular watershed, equity can
be an issue. As examples:
¦ Should residents in a watershed where stream restoration is underway pay more in taxes than
those in a watershed with no streams?
-------
¦ Should developers in watersheds with streams be required to manage storm water differently than
developers in fully storm sewered watersheds?
The current consensus is that storm drainage, like transportation and other public improvements, is a
community benefit for which the community contributes equally. Similarly, clean water, parks, and open
space have been treated as community benefits. Using this reasoning, the costs of stream restoration or
flood control should be shared throughout the community and not just by the residents of the watershed.
However, it is also considered fair to ask developers and redevelopers of properties to do more in
watersheds where the needs are more critical, especially where the changes to properties would otherwise
exacerbate problems. It has not been considered fair to ask existing residents in the same watershed to
contribute more than other residents in the jurisdiction. One benefit of this approach is political. Costs are
not seen by existing taxpayers; property values may even rise because the additional storm water
management cost may lead to higher priced houses.
The disadvantage is that it leaves the burden of watershed management on new arrivals. In a developed
area, watershed improvements financed by redevelopment alone are likely to be minimal compared with
the problems faced. Serious efforts toward watershed and stream improvements will likely require
regional storm water detention facilities and preventive control of pollution sources. These activities
cannot be financed or built by new development. Since the benefits will be shared by all, the burdens
should be shared as well.
This reasoning also applies to developed watersheds that cross jurisdictional boundaries. Residents of all
the watershed jurisdictions share responsibility for the problems and will share the benefits. It is not
inequitable to apportion the costs of improvement programs to all the residents in the jurisdictions
spanned by the watershed.
Conclusion
Urbanized watersheds function differently than natural watersheds. However, watershed characteristics
still govern capacity problems from peak flows, and to some extent impacts on the receiving waters.
Thus the watershed approach is appropriate for planning and analysis of storm sewer and stream flows,
but is less important for runoff quality controls.
There appear to be no legal barriers to regulating either new development or existing activities by
watershed. Whether it is equitable is a philosophical and political issue. Because storm water problems in
developed areas have been caused by the land use and activities of existing residents, it is fair that they
contribute to costs of improvements.
Within a single jurisdiction, apportioning costs of watershed restoration to just the residents of the
watershed is less equitable. It goes against the long-standing principle that storm drainage is a public
service which benefits upstream and downstream residents both, and it ignores the fact that people living
-------
outside the watershed will also benefit from the restoration.
References
Schueler Thomas R. (1994). "The importance of imperviousness," Watershed Protection
Techniques, 1(3): 100-111.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1983). Results of the Nationwide Urban Runoff Program.
Volume I. Final Report. U.S. EPA, Water Planning Division, Washington, DC.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Sustainable Watershed Management at the Rapidly
Growing Urban Fringe
T. H. Cahill, J. McGuire, W. R. Horner
Cahill Associates, West Chester, PA
Dr. R. E. Heister, Executive Director
Green Valleys Association, Birchrunville, PA
Introduction
From one major metropolitan area to another, land development is proliferating. Even in so-called "no
growth" regions, development large lot residential subdivisions and expansive office parks is sprawling
outward at surprisingly rapid rates, consuming ever increasing amounts of undeveloped areas at the
urban fringe. In the Philadelphia metropolitan area, which has experienced over 350 years worth of
development, total developed acreage increased by nearly 20 percent during the '80s decade, even though
total population remained virtually constant. From a water resources perspective both water quality and
water quantity, this dynamic has alarming consequences. Water resources are affected as water supply
systems, wastewater treatment systems and stormwater management systems are constructed. New
impervious surfaces translate into significantly reduced ground water infiltration and aquifer recharge.
Reduced recharge, by definition, results in lowering the water table with a corresponding reduction in
stream base flow the life of the stream for most of the year. As base flow decreases during dry periods,
crucial first-order tributaries literally dry up, with drastic ecological consequences. Existing wells,
especially older shallow wells and springs, are jeopardized. In addition, future ground water use at other,
yet undeveloped, parcels is threatened, adversely affecting their value.
At the other flow extreme, the impervious surfaces which reduce infiltration mean increased stormwater
discharges. Even with careful design, the use of detention basins for stormwater management, which
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
only control the peak rates of stormwater discharge site-by-site, increase the total volume of stormwater
discharged. As detention basins multiply throughout a watershed, these delayed releases may also
accumulate, with destructive downstream impacts. Flooding may actually worsen. With these increased
runoff volumes, stream bank and channel erosion is aggravated, and basic stream morphology is
adversely altered. A mix of water pollutants, scoured from the urbanizing landscape with stormwater, is
also an important concern. This is especially true in high quality watersheds. This water quality impact
includes wet weather discharges or "mass loads" of nonpoint source pollution from these new impervious
areas, containing hydrocarbons, metals, other toxics, BOD/COD, and a host of other pollutants.
Stormwater pollution also is generated from large areas of created and chemically maintained landscapes,
such as lawns and gardens, generating nutrients, sediment, COD, pesticides and herbicides. During dry
weather, nonpoint source water quality impacts include malfunctioning on-site septic systems and other
small but significant wastewater flows.
Water supply in these metropolitan fringe zones typically is ground water-based, pumped from the
aquifers with corresponding reductions in stream base flow. Water use can be considerable for different
land uses and activities and often increases during the warmer weather months when stream flow is
already at its lowest point. Land-based wastewater treatment systems lessen these water loss impacts on
aquifers and stream flow, although a significant portion of water used is lost by evapotranspiration with
some systems. If conventional wastewater treatment plants with centralized collection and conveyance
systems are constructed, water is completely "lost" to the immediate watershed area. Furthermore, water
quality impacts of wastewater effluent discharges downstream can be extremely harmful. In addition to
these direct water quality impacts, development typically translates into removal or partial removal of
riparian vegetation which serves multiple critical functions for overall stream quality. Stream
temperature regimes are adversely affected as the result of reduction in stream shading. All of these
pollution impacts combine to adversely affect the stream system and its biota in a variety of ways.
Sustainable Watershed Management
The fundamental resource management objective proposed here is to measure the tolerance limits of the
natural system and balance the human use of these land and water resources so that we live within the
carrying capacity of these natural systems. This concept takes the form of a program we call Sustainable
Watershed Management The following management objectives have been established based on this
concept, with modeling methodologies developed to achieve these objectives:
¦ Maintain stream base flow, and in particular during drought periods (Q7-10).
¦ Maintain ground water levels in order to protect existing/future wells.
¦ Assure that stream flooding is not increased.
¦ Prevent ground water contamination, particularly from nitrate.
-------
¦ Minimize additional point and nonpoint source pollutant inputs into surface waters.
To quantify the critical links between land development and water resources, we have developed a series
of "models" for application on a watershed basis. In this program the different impacts on the hydrologic
cycle are described by different but overlapping models, such as the Low Flow Maintenance Model, the
Dry Year Nitrate Impact Model, the Cumulative Flooding Model and the Impervious / Pervious Runoff
Impact Model. The Model Program includes a variety of both technical and institutional objectives and
related work tasks:
¦ Bringing together the various agencies and institutions which must cooperate and coordinate
efforts to achieve water resource protection. The precedent-setting alliances already in existence
will be expanded to forge stronger and more effective joint watershed-wide efforts. Data
developed by other agencies has been integrated in computer compatible format (technical
resource sharing). Financial contributions also are being sought from municipalities to reinforce
participation and commitment.
¦ Development of a Geographic Information System (GIS) of spatial data, including natural
resources, existing and future land use, and political and hydrologic boundaries for the
Watersheds. This GIS has been designed for subsequent application in other Chester County
watersheds and elsewhere in Pennsylvania. The GIS will be structured to serve existing agency
needs, such as at the Chester County Planning Commission, and to exploit all existing data
development, such as at the US Geological Survey, Chester County Health Department and
elsewhere.
¦ Documentation of generic water resource impacts resulting from new land development. The Low
Flow Maintenance Model, based on the concept of maintaining balance within the hydrologic
cycle, has been developed to evaluate potential impacts of land use changes on stream baseflow
and other water table-driven functions such as well development, especially during dry periods.
The Dry Year Nitrate Impact Model has been developed to assess groundwater quality impacts
resulting from new land development. The Pervious/Impervious Runoff Impact Model focuses on
nonpoint source surface water quality impacts. This array of models results in a total methodology
which can be used more broadly in other watersheds throughout Chester County and other
counties.
¦ Delineating the Baseline Future of the Watersheds, defined by the existing municipal plans and
zoning ordinances, as an evaluation of the existing patterns of land management.
¦ Applying the above impact analysis to the Baseline Future for watershed municipalities, and
recommending alternatives.
¦ Evaluating the existing management system that governs land development/water resources and
identifying management gaps linked to water resource impacts. Of special importance will be
-------
analysis of legal capabilities for expanded municipal action, grounded in the Pennsylvania
Municipalities Planning Code.
¦ Developing a Model Program, including both a detailing of what technically needs to be done
differently (technical issues) as well as how to go about doing it (institutional issues). This Model
Program will include alternative scenarios, selection of which ultimately must be done by
municipalities. The resulting Model Program will include a Sustainable Watershed Plan for the
French and Pickering Creeks, to be translated into municipality-specific comprehensive plans,
zoning ordinances, subdivision regulations, Act 537 and other planning during the next
implementation phase of the program.
Stream Low Flow Maintenance
As an example of how we link water resources and land use, we will summarize one of the developed
models, which we call the Low Flow Maintenance Model (LFMM). The structure of this Model
emphasize the dynamic nature of the hydrologic cycle the continuous movement of water from one
phase to another. To focus on one particular element of this very dynamic hydrologic cycle can be
conceptually dangerous. For example, we often identify "ground water" or "stormwater" as distinct
management areas. In terms of ground water, such an isolated and narrow perspective has given rise to
viewing and therefore managing ground water as something of a static reservoir, available for
utilization/exploitation without impact. This concept fails to take into account the delicate balance of the
groundwater system and the fact that every subtraction from ground water inputs (i.e., reduced
infiltration, well pumping, etc.) translates into a reduction of ground water output (i.e., stream base flow).
Although a highly variable time lag separates a typical subtraction, the impact ultimately cycles through
the stream base flow.
The water table can act as the barometer of the entire system, and when the water table drops below
stream bed elevation due to reduced aquifer inputs, the stream goes dry.
Streams in southeastern Pennsylvania (and many other parts of the country) are maintained by
continuous base flow discharge for about 330 days a year (White & Sloto, 1990). Declines in base flow
impact the aquatic community in a variety of ways, including reduced habitat, benthic stress, temperature
changes, and a host of other effects. For pollutant discharges which are continuous in nature, reduced
base flow translates into lesser pollutant dilution and effectively increased in-stream pollutant
concentrations. Although maintaining base flow is vital, making sure that the stream does not go dry
completely during drought periods is absolutely essential, especially in vulnerable headwaters or first
order streams, where essential biochemical processes break down detritus material for food chain
processing.
One statistic available to define the critical base flow condition is the Q7-10, the lowest 7-consecutive-
day average flow with a probability of occurring no more than once in 10 years. In the French Creek
system, the Q7-10 value has been calculated (Helm, 1995) as a flow of 0.32 m2/s (11.26 ft3/s), or 1795
-------
1/d/Ha (192 gal/d/ac) contribution, assuming that all watershed acres contribute equally. Owners of
undeveloped watershed properties have some expectation and legal right to utilize their "fair share" of
this ground water in the future. Thus a keystone of sustainability is the equitable allocation of water
resource development rights across both developed and undeveloped properties throughout a watershed.
However, the concepts of "fair share" and "equitable allocation" become extremely challenging to define,
both technically and legally. If we consider the base flow as a resource which can be further depleted by
some fraction of the total, two extreme positions are possible.
At one extreme, we could propose to use all of the base flow (100%) to serve future needs, effectively
drying up the stream during future drought periods; on the other hand, we could prevent any further
reduction (0%) in low base flow, effectively stopping any further consumptive activity within the
watershed. In this LFMM model, we select an additional consumptive limit of 10%. That is, each
watershed hectare (acre) must continue to yield 90 percent of the Q7-10 value of 1795 1/d/Ha (192
gal/d/ac), and can experience a minimal impact or loss of up to 10 percent of the Q7-10 value, or 179.5
1/d/Ha (19.2 gal/d/ac). We call this value the Low Flow Margin Factor, because it constitutes the upper
limit, or threshold of ground water recharge depletion allowable, as new development occurs. It is
important to keep in mind that this low flow objective is to be established as a regulatory limit.
Development Uses and Densities
Given the need for a strategy to manage land development so that low base flow is maintained, we
consider the ways in which development-related aquifer depletion occurs: aquifer withdrawals for water
supply, the wastewater treatment approach utilized, and the stormwater management techniques used. All
of these depletion sources resulting from new land development must be combined and integrated within
the limits of the Low Flow Margin Factor calculation, the total of which must not exceed 19.2 gal/d/ac, if
a near balance in aquifer recharge and stream base flow is to be achieved. Unfortunately, our best efforts
in minimizing water depletion objectives are never totally successful, and some water loss impact does
occur, even in systems that we think of as 100% recycled, such as individual wells with on-site septic
systems.
Analyzing the existing and potential future hydrologic balance in each of the estimated 140 sub-basins
comprising the two watersheds requires the formulation of what is referred to as the Water Balance
Model (WBM). The WBM accounts for the movement of incident rainfall in terms of seasonal variability
and event probability, as well as the evaporative and transpirational losses as a function of temperature
and vegetative land cover. The dynamics of groundwater movement through the soil and the groundwater
reservoir are analyzed to determine the net effect of infiltrated rainfall and wastewater effluent balanced
against well withdrawals and groundwater discharge to stream base flow. The model considers temporal
variability of yearly rainfall in terms of average, wet or dry periods, and spatial variability of
groundwater availability and recharge by geologic structure and land cover/soil type.
The WBM is applied to each area based on the assumption that the developable land within the
watersheds is used according to the applicable Zoning which comprises the 18 municipalities. The WBM
-------
is not a "water budget" in the conventional sense, with resources allocated to various uses, but is meant to
define a bookkeeping process by which the dynamics of water movement, through the soil and into the
groundwater reservoir with gradual discharge as base flow, can be managed. In this manner, the resource
can be "sustained" with a balance between the dynamics of the natural drainage system and the
consumptive demands of human use.
References
Helm, 1995 (Unpublished). Low Flow Frequency Statistics, French Creek near Phoenixville. R.
Helm, USGS. Personal comm. w/ T. Cahill, May, 1995.
Sloto, 1994. Geology, Hydrology and Ground-Water Quality of Chester County, PA, R. A. Sloto,
USGS. Chester County Water Resources Authority, Water Resource Report 2, West Chester, PA,
1994.
White and Sloto, 1990. Base Flow-Frequency Characteristics of Selected Pennsylvania Streams,
K. E. White and R. A. Sloto, USGS Water Resources Investigations Report 90-4161, USGPO,
Wash., DC.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Integrating Water Quality into Urban Stormwater
Management: A Watershed Approach in Fort
Collins, Colorado
Kevin McBride
Stormwater Utility, City of Fort Collins, CO
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
There is increasing interest in managing the quality of urban runoff. For example, current federal
regulations require cities over 100,000 in population to obtain permits for storm drainage systems as
point sources discharges under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Program (NPDES)(Clean
Water Act sec. 402(p)). Watershed management is also receiving renewed attention as an appropriate
method for water quality management (The Colorado Water Quality Forum 1991, EPA 1994, Horner,
Skupien, Livingston, and Shaver 1994, Water Quality 2000 1992). At the same time, flood control
agencies nationwide are seeking methods for providing a balance between protection of human life and
property and concern for the environment. For example, including the quality of the environment as a
goal "concurrent with reducing human vulnerability to flood damage" (Galloway, et. al. 1994) has been
proposed for flood control actions conducted by the US Army Corps of Engineers on the Mississippi
River.
The primary purpose of this paper is to outline the City of Fort Collins Stormwater Utility's urban
watershed management approach that integrates the efforts to control the quality of runoff along with its
quantity.
-------
Watershed Concepts
In order to tie management actions to the geographic characteristics of the watershed, three primary
components are conceptualized: land surfaces, tributaries, and receiving waters. These three primary
components form a spatial basis for management efforts within the urban watershed. Each component is
altered during urbanization causing environmental degradation. Although impacts are site specific,
similar types of stresses are described in many urban settings. For example, fundamental changes in the
rainfall-runoff processes occur due to the construction of streets, buildings, and storm sewer systems.
Increases in peak flow rates impact downstream properties with increased flooding. Altered chemical
composition of water flowing from the urban landscape can cause toxic conditions in water bodies
downstream. Chemical, physical and biological alterations combine to create a variety of water quality
impacts (Osborne and Herricks 1988, Jones 1988).
A Watershed Approach_Planning to Implementation
For integrated urban drainage management to be successful, methods are needed to identify stressors to
local environments; prioritize their importance; determine their cause(s); and plan responses which are
likely to be effective. The complexity of controlling the water quantity and quality impacts to humans
and the environment, makes the determination of proper control measures difficult. A watershed
planning and management framework is an essential beginning.
Watershed planning should proceed in a tiered approach of goals, objectives, and actions (The Colorado
Water Quality Forum 1991). Figure 1 shows a planning process hierarchy proposed by Sheeran (1976).
The practitioner should remember that outreach to those with an interest in watershed planning is key to
the process in order to gain full acceptance of the "ends."
Identifying the Mission
Identification of the mission is the first step in this process. The Fort Collins Stormwater Utility was
established in 1979 to "consolidate all drainage related activities into a single program" (Engemon and
Krempel 1983). The Utility's statutory mission is the "... control of flood and surface waters" so that". .
. waters may be properly drained and controlled, pollution may be reduced and the environment
enhanced . . ." (City of Fort Collins Code Sec. 26-492). Protection of people and property from flooding
along with reducing pollutants and environmental enhancement is the broadly stated mission.
Setting Goals And Objectives
Setting goals is an important part of the water resource planning process (Grigg 1985). To develop local
watershed goals for both water quantity and water quality for Fort Collins, federal, state and local
policies were reviewed.
-------
The overall national water quality goal, described in the 1972 Clean Water Act, is "to restore and
maintain the physical, chemical, and biological integrity of the nations waters." A Colorado water
resources task force defined ecological integrity as
"An ecosystem where interconnected elements of physical habitat, and the surficial processes that
maintain them, are capable of supporting and maintaining the full range of biota adapted for the
region....their inherent potential is realized without management support or intervention...."
The City's Comprehensive Plan Goals and Objectives (1991) calls for: the joint use of drainage facilities,
such as open channels and detention ponds, for open space purposes; consideration of long range
ecological effects and costs when addressing short-term and long term economic problems; design, and
location of new development to be compatible with environmental considerations; and maintenance of
adequate public access to the city's lakes, rivers and streams. In addition, protection from the 100 year
recurrence interval flood can be considered a primary goal for quantity management (City of Fort
Collins, 1988).
It is evident that federal and state water quality goals recognize the need for comprehensive approaches
to water quality management and that local policy makers value ecosystems associated with water bodies
as public amenities. This led to the City Council adopting a watershed goal statement, to "promote clean
water" in local water bodies in order to "support a variety of wildlife." The intent was to avoid the use of
jargon, define management boundaries (the urban water environment), and be supportive of ecosystem
management by including wildlife variety in the goal statement.
Next, objectives were formulated subsequent to these goals. Following a natural systems approach,
objectives to meet these goals were based upon the three components of the watershed: land surfaces,
tributary systems, and the receiving waters. Since contaminants in urban runoff are tied to deposition of
contaminants on land surfaces, pollution prevention, avoiding deposition of anthropogenic sources of
contamination on land surfaces, was adopted as a watershed objective. The urban tributary system is
composed of streets, curb and gutter, storm sewers, channels and detention ponds. It is used to convey
water away from urban areas and to modify peak flow rates. In natural systems water quality is modified
by the tributary system. So, a second watershed objective is water quality treatment within this tributary
system to mitigate the effects of urbanization. Receiving waters include the creeks, reservoirs, and
wetlands recognized as part of the City's natural areas system. These areas are storm water conveyances
as well as important habitats and must serve both functions. The primary water quality management
objective for receiving waters is the protection and restoration of aquatic, wetland and riparian habitat
components.
In summary, preventing the introduction of pollutants within the watershed, treating for pollutants which
we are not able to prevent, and preserving and restoring habitats comprise the objectives layer in our
planning process.
Implementation_Strategies And Activities
-------
Strategies link objectives to definable tasks, termed activities, in this management structure. Since a
watershed approach for water quality must be implemented in conjunction with existing water
management the strategies serve to integrate the watershed objectives into the current operation of the
Stormwater Utility. The three strategies are: (1) to use the master planning process to protect and restore
habitat; (2) use the stormwater design criteria and development review process to insure water treatment
in the engineered tributary system; and (3) to utilize regulatory and education programs to prevent
pollution on the land surfaces. Some examples of Best Management Practices (BMP's) for each strategy
follow.
Pollution Prevention_Education And Regulation
Many of the contaminants described in urban drainage are by-products of typical urban life. Site
development, lawn maintenance, and use of the automobile have direct and indirect effects on water
quality. The decision to deposit contaminants on a watershed is made, by an individual or industry, by
balancing values. These values may be economic or personal, conscious or unconscious. The use of
education and regulation will increase conscious decisions to reduce activities which cause pollution.
Pollution prevention activities selected by any jurisdiction should evaluate local needs, identify programs
currently in place within the watershed and seek to support existing programs.
The City of Fort Collins and Larimer County Colorado have implemented pollution prevention activities
including, household hazardous waste collection, integrated Pest Management for maintaining public
lands, and spill prevention plans for appropriate locations. Public education activities include the
Children's Water Festival which provides a day of interdisciplinary education about water for the fourth
grade classes within the local school district. The City's Natural Resources Department trains volunteers
about specific values of city-owned natural areas with its master naturalist program. Activities specific to
the Stormwater Utility include stormwater inlet stenciling, brochures about water quality and watershed
impacts, and a citizen monitoring/educational program for elementary schools.
Water Quality Treatment_Design Criteria And Construction
Standards
Stormwater treatment BMP's should be designed to remove pollutants expected from particular land uses
and integrated into individual property drainage and landscape plans. The City's Stormwater Design
Criteria and Construction Standards specify acceptable drainage methods to be used for individual
developed properties. The Standards are enforced by a development review staff at the design stage and
construction inspectors in the field to insure conformance throughout the development process. The
Design Criteria manual contains sections on drainage policy, documentation required with submittals,
hydrology standards, and requirements for the design of streets, storm sewers, culverts, channels,
detention storage and sediment control during construction. The addition of treatment BMP's for new and
re-developing sites is currently underway.
-------
Habitat Protection And Rehabilitation_Basin Master Planning
Master planning of drainage systems for the protection of habitat components normally associated with
drainage ways is perhaps the most important and least understood component of the watershed approach
presented here. While aquatic, wetland and riparian lands are integral to chemical, physical and
biological integrity, requirements for their protection in stormwater design are typically lacking. The
strategy of using basin master planning for habitat protection addresses this deficiency. It places the
habitat protection objective within the technical context of drainage management where it has the most
significance.
In Fort Collins stormwater basin master plans guide the major stormwater system improvements as the
city grows. Master Plans model watersheds to determine flow rates, delineate flood plains and urban
flooding zones, evaluate channel sizes, and flood detention needs. Master plans proceed in the following
order: gather data; identify problems; develop alternative solutions; select a preferred alternative; and
estimate final costs. Adoption of a Master Plan sets the general configuration of the drainage system in
the watershed. Construction of facilities implements the master plan. In order to integrate habitat
concerns we must evaluate environmental and flood control problems simultaneously. Opportunities for
their mitigation must proceed together in the master planning process. Integrating habitat protection and
restoration requires specific activities of habitat assessment and mitigation planning as part of the overall
process.
The first activity is defining the boundaries of habitats to be protected, mitigated or restored. The next
activity is to gather data on these areas and identify problems. To gather habitat data and identify
problems the city proposes to develop and use Rapid Bioassessment Protocols for Streams and Rivers
(USEPA 1989). Rapid Bioassessment Protocols were developed to characterize the existence and
severity of impacts; identify the sources and causes of impacts; evaluate the effectiveness of control
actions; support use attainability studies; and characterize regional biotic components. In the case of
drainage master planning, initial channel characterization will provide a rating (excellent, good, fair,
poor) of the stream aquatic and riparian habitats associated with receiving waters. Problems can be
identified as fair or poor quality habitat in need of rehabilitation.
In developing and evaluating alternatives, solutions to problems identified for both flood control and
habitat will be used to evaluate conceptual designs. This way habitat can be modeled along with the
hydraulic analysis of the drainage system and appropriate improvement alternatives can be formulated.
Alternatives can then be evaluated based upon both economic and environmental costs and benefits. A
preferred alternative can be selected through public process with those likely to be asked to fund the
implementation of construction and /or restoration activities.
The final planning hierarchy for the watershed approach is shown in figure 2. In this case a watershed
planning approach to stormwater quality has successfully linked the spatial characteristics of watersheds
to specific objectives associated with their role in the precipitation-runoff process. Finally, these
objective were linked by specific strategies to functions typically performed by public works entities and
-------
the engineers, hydrologists, ecologists and landscape architects working on urban drainage system
design. Activities to protect the water environment are underway throughout our urban watersheds.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Forming a Partnership to Preserve Resources_The
Virginia Beach Agricultural Reserve Program
Mary M. Heinricht, Coordinator
Southeastern Association for Virginia's Environment, Virginia Beach, VA
On May 9, 1995, the City Council of Virginia Beach, Virginia adopted a landmark growth
management and farmland preservation program in the Commonwealth. The Virginia Beach
Agricultural Reserve Program (ARP) establishes a voluntary, market-based program where the
city may purchase conservation easements from farmland owners. By approving the Agricultural
Lands Preservation Ordinance, the Virginia Beach City Council committed to funding ARP for 25
years at approximately $3.5 million annually. In addition to a dedicated property tax increase,
funds will come from a new cellular telephone tax, and payment in lieu of taxes by the Back Bay
National Wildlife Refuge.
During 1995, as we examined the consequences of continued suburban sprawl on the American
quality of life, only two new farmland preservation programs were adopted in the United States.
Both of these programs were brought about through the efforts of grass-roots citizen groups. Each
is funded with a dedicated local property tax increase startling at a time when the mantra heard
throughout the halls of Congress is lower taxes, lower taxes. How did the citizens of Virginia Beach
come to the conclusion that farmland preservation was needed, and how did they convince their
fellow taxpayers that this was the time to commit to it? It was done by building a strong
partnership of traditional foes that brought a voluntary, market-based solution to a variety of
community challenges. ARP will help to stabilize the tax base and future tax rates; prevent
continued sprawl from degrading important resources; and protect a land base to assure a
continued agricultural industry.
Background
-------
Virginia Beach was the fastest growing large city in the United States for the two decades of the
1970's and 1980's. From the time the city was incorporated in 1963 by combining a small,
oceanfront resort with agricultural Princess Anne County, its population grew to more than
420,000 making it the largest city in Virginia. The source of this growth was the establishment of a
large military presence in the region. This created a large home building industry supported by the
related suppliers, realtors, and bankers.
Farmland became a commodity for developers and began to lose its identity as an industrial
resource. Virginia Beach found itself with one powerful industry group growing by consuming the
resources of another. Over half the farmland in Virginia Beach has been converted in the last three
decades and only 32,000 acres of crop land are farmed in the city today. That remaining land has
the highest per acre yield for corn and soybeans in the Commonwealth, even though it was
relegated to subsistence farming in earlier centuries.
Biodiversity and Natural Resources
This cropland is not the only significant natural resource in Virginia Beach. Sitting at the mouth of
the Chesapeake Bay, there are more than 37 miles of oceanfront and interior shoreline; 7,000 acres
of land are preserved in two unique natural state parks; two national wildlife refuges, totaling
7,700 acres, are within the North American Flyway along the Atlantic shore; the city encompasses
1,100 acres of tidal marsh, 11,600 acres of swamp, and 17,600 acres of freshwater wetlands.
These other natural resources are threatened by continuing sprawl, as well. The southern Virginia
Beach agricultural area surrounds wetland and forest resources which have been identified as
some of the most diverse ecosystems east of the Blue Ridge Mountains and recognized as a priority
area of the Atlantic Coast Joint Venture of the North American Waterfowl Management Plan; it is
the headwaters area of the Albemarle-Pamlico-Currituck Estuary and the Roanoke-Tar-Neuse-
Cape Fear River Ecosystem of the National Wetlands Priority Conservation Plan. It is also one of
the Nature Conservancy's areas of focus in Virginia identified through Natural Heritage
inventories as exemplary ecosystems and critical habitat for at least 46 rare and endangered
species.
Local Land Use Planning
In 1979, an urban service boundary was established by implicit policy of the City Council, and
later, by explicit policy with the adoption of a Green Line in 1986, more than a decade and a half
into the growth boom. Political pressure and deep pocketed developers continued to breach the line
with subdivisions and utilities. A costly litigation from a down-zoning action made the Council
wary of denying rezoning and conditional use permit requests in the rural agricultural area. Even
as a water shortage restricts new hookups, large lot sprawl continues in the rural area served by
septic systems and wells. Clearly, a new strategy was needed for rural preservation.
-------
ad hoc Southern Watersheds Committee
Environmental and agricultural interests have been no closer in Virginia Beach than the rest of the
country over the past years. Virginia Beach may be the only locality in the country with its own
definition of wetlands that excludes an entire range of hydric agricultural soils. It is also an area
supporting a number of endangered plant and animal species. Some, like the state-endangered
Canebrake Rattlesnake or the federally-listed Dismal Swamp Shrew, are creatures few find
sympathy for. The coalition that formed to preserve farms and wetlands was not immediately a
cohesive and comfortable group.
The ad hoc Southern Watersheds Committee, as it called itself, started meeting in response to a
proposed change in the Comprehensive Plan for the Southern Rural Area of Virginia Beach.
Although the changes were represented as a way to preserve rural character, deter the need for
major urban infrastructure, protect environmental resources, provide reasonable development
opportunities, and provide the opportunity for continued agriculture they were merely a new
standard for the continuing conversion of agricultural lands to houses, and provided no means to
promote the continuation of agriculture as a healthy industry.
Going into these discussions, the farming community was wary of commitments which would not
be kept; it feared increased regulation; and it felt it had been made a scapegoat for many unrelated
environmental problems. The environmental community was also wary of promises which would
not be kept; it held concepts about agricultural pollution which were general rather than specific
to local industry; it had little hard knowledge about the business of farming; and it had watched
three decades of growth consume its wetland and forest resources.
This group was diverse in character and had come together by chance and interest rather than
having been recruited or appointed. The membership consisted mainly of farm and conservation
interests, but these individuals also brought expertise and experience as a former Chairman of the
Chamber of Commerce, a former Chairman of the Planning Commission, the Chairman of the
Agricultural Advisory Commission, a director of the Council of Civic Organizations, a former
Chairman of the Princess Anne Historical Society, the president of a local environmental group,
representatives from a local Audubon Society chapter and Sierra Club group, board members of
the Farm Bureau, specialty and grain farmers, a forest land owner, a specialty produce business
owner, the Director of Agriculture, a rural City Councilperson, Director of Protection of the
Virginia Chapter of The Nature Conservancy, and the Manager of Back Bay National Wildlife
Refuge.
Funding
The group coordinator was partially funded through an EPA Near Coastal Waters Grant; the rest
of the time was donated. This funding allowed someone to devote their focussed attention to this
effort, something that was vital to its success. Later administrative funding came from a
-------
Cooperative Agreement with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and from the Virginia Coastal
Resources Management Program for a public opinion poll. Continuing funding is being provided
by the Virginia Environmental Endowment. This funding is critical at the grassroots level. Even
the most ardent volunteer cannot donate enough time and effort to coordinate this lengthy process.
The Process of Setting Goals
Ground rules were established after the first two meetings: there would be no debate over wetlands
definitions or values, and the discussions must stay focussed on the process and project. These
simple rules avoided the reopening of old wounds. The meeting structure was informal with a
coordinator, or moderator, who kept the discussions directed and set the general meeting agenda,
but there was no attempt to identify a leader or hierarchy; everyone and all opinions were equal.
This did not avoid many heated discussions at the beginning, but in the long run, it promoted a
great deal of respect within the group.
The Committee set a common goal for their process and anticipated proposal: To promote and
enhance agriculture as an important local industry which is part of a diverse local economy. This
goal was agreed upon after some very frank discussions about differing agendas, intentions, and
perceptions.
The conservation interests freely admitted their concern about potential degradation of the
wetland resources within the rural area. The abundant diversity of these systems is an indication of
their health and of the minimal pollutant contribution of surrounding areas. This led to a
consensus agreement that: agriculture is, and has been, a compatible use to these wetlands; the
potential threats of nonpoint source pollution, alteration of hydrology, destructive land use
practices, fire suppression, and invasive exotic species comes from continued sprawl, not continued
agriculture.
The farm and forestry interests worried that entering into an agreement to preclude residential or
commercial development that protected wetlands would also lead to future restrictions of their
farming or forestry practices, and they would be trapped in an industry where they could not
make a profit. Given the flat topography of our coastal plain, the high water table which creates a
denitrification process, and the coastal microclimate which allows for greater production with less
input, a consensus grew that any program proposed should not require additional restrictions of
performance criteria for farming. It was felt that the successful implementation of a program
would actually preclude the need for future environmental regulation. Once the Committee was
comfortable in their consensus positions, farmland programs from around the country were
investigated for local applicability. The ARP is a combination of elements of several successful
state and local programs with ranking criteria developed specifically for southern Virginia Beach.
Community Context
-------
Virginia Beach's rapid growth of earlier decades brought the level of residential development well
beyond the identified goal for a balanced and sustainable tax base of 70 percent residential and 30
percent industrial/commercial. The agricultural southern watershed area has a very shallow water
table making it unsuitable for significant industrial development. Virginia Beach's other major
industry is tourism. To be assured that it will remain a destination into the future, Virginia Beach
must retain the characteristics that make it attractive. The rural area with its significant natural
resource features is an appealing companion to the oceanfront beaches for family vacationers.
By enacting the ARP and preserving the agricultural industry sector, Virginia Beach's
infrastructure resources can remain concentrated in the densely developed parts of the city and
redevelopment in those areas will be the focus of future growth. There is a reserve of over 20,000
existing residential lots within developed and zoned areas of the city.
Virginia Beach also faces the challenge of converting from a typical suburban development pattern
as the city's housing stock ages and needs replacement. While Virginia Beach lacks a typical city
core, it has the opportunity to develop business, commercial, and recreational corridors while
redeveloping obsolete sectors of the city.
Community Outreach
A candid evaluation was done of the potential support and opposition from stakeholders in the
community to a proposed purchase of development rights program. From that research, an
outreach program was instituted to educate the community about the proposal's benefits to
Virginia Beach as a community. Presentations and meetings went on for over a year with any
interested person or group; their concerns were heard and incorporated into the final proposal.
Careful attention was paid to the financing and economic impacts of the proposed program.
Because ARP does have positive benefits to Virginia Beach in preserving a profitable industry
which demands little in services and infrastructure, the Director of Management and Budget not
only endorsed the program, but helped to design the dedicated funding sources. In public
presentations, there was a simple comparison made between the annual cost of ARP ($3.5 million)
and the annual cost of a new high school ($4.5 million) with the concluding point that ARP is a
finite program while operating costs for facilities goes on forever. The annual cost to the typical
homeowner in Virginia Beach is $20; that is less than a membership at the recreation center and
not enough to take a family of 4 to the movies on Friday night. The total cost of the program is less
than half the cost of infrastructure it will preclude.
As we built community support for ARP, we asked people to call their councilpersons and to send
postcards stating that they supported ARP and understood that it meant a property tax increase.
We did not want the policymakers unclear that the voters knew they would have to pay for the
program.
-------
Conclusion
The ARP is aimed at the southern watersheds area of the city identified in the Comprehensive Plan
and by local residents for future and continuing agriculture and rural uses. The ARP is designed to
bridge the gap between the short-term economic pressures on the farmland owner and the long-
term benefits of farmland preservation. It gives another choice to a farmland owner, one that did
not existthe sale of development rights in return for working capital that can be reinvested in the
farm. Preservation of productive farmland will reduce future tax increases to pay for the deficit of
more and more suburban sprawl and infrastructure to serve it. It will keep the family farm a part
of our living heritage and can promote the development of small businesses serving agriculture,
tourism, and recreation. It will protect Back Bay and the North Landing River systems, resources
we value for their beauty and richness. The ARP is a sound investment in Virginia Beach's future.
In Virginia Beach, a self-appointed group of citizens was able to bring the first farmland
preservation and growth management program into existence in Virginia in 1995 because they set
aside the rhetoric and disputes to work toward a common-sense solution to a community challenge.
Their program is fair, it will save future community costs, it promotes the growth of a local
industry group, the environment will benefit from it with no additional regulation, and it enhances
the quality of life in their community.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance: A Case Study in
Forming a Grassroots Watershed Organization
Lisa Jo Freeh, Director
Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, Mardela Springs, MD
Chuck Barscz, Planner
National Park Service, Philadelphia, PA
Tom Tyler, Forester
Chesapeake Forest Products, Sharptown, MD
The River
The Nanticoke River begins its journey in southern Delaware, flowing southwest to the Chesapeake Bay
through the Lower Eastern Shore of Maryland. One of the Chesapeake's healthiest rivers, the Nanticoke
supports almost a third of Maryland's tidal wetlands and includes extensive freshwater wetlands in both
states. This 370,000 acre watershed provides exceptional habitat of national significance for threatened
plants, animals, and natural communities.
Bald eagles, ospreys, and great blue herons are common in the skies above the Nanticoke, while the
waters below thrive with a profusion of fish and shellfish: American shad, striped bass, largemouth bass,
white and yellow perch, crabs, oysters, and clams. Flocks of migrating waterfowl black ducks,
canvasbacks, mallards, and teals use the Nanticoke as a resting point and wintering area. Otters, owls,
and muskrats also call the Nanticoke their home. There are more than 120 rare species such as the bald
eagle, black rail, seaside alder, Delmarva fox squirrel, and spreading pogonia orchid.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
The Nanticoke is endowed with outstanding abundance and diversity of wildlife, undisturbed land, and
rural characteristics. The river and its major tributaries—are free of dams and support excellent fisheries.
The Nanticoke is a wonderful river for recreation, education, nature study, and simple solitude. It has a
rich history of Native Americans, tall ships, steamboats, slaverunning, piracy, and the underground
railroad. There are properties within the watershed on the National Register of Historic Places. Some of
the northernmost stands of bald cypress trees on the Atlantic Coast are found within this watershed.
These characteristics should be preserved. However, development pressure is growing.
Early Action
In response to that pressure, citizen groups formed to take action. In Maryland a citizens group called
Friends of the Nanticoke sprang to life in a classic manner: in response to a crisis concerning
development. Simultaneously, upriver in Delaware, another citizens group coalesced in anticipation of
similar crises. Each group's goals and work were and still are typical of river conservation groups.
In 1992, at the request of the Nanticoke Watershed Preservation Committee (NWPC) and the Delaware
Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, the National Park Service's River, Trail
and Conservation Assistance Program began to provide planning assistance for the conservation of the
Nanticoke River and its watershed. A memorandum of understanding, signed by the states of Maryland
and Delaware, NWPC, the Friends of the Nanticoke, and the Wicomico Environmental Trust expanded
the project into a bi-state planning effort that promotes the river and the watershed as a treasured
resource.
This bi-state group, now known as the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance, is made up of representatives from
a host of different interests including Chesapeake Forest Products, Glatfelter Pulp Wood, Delmarva
Power and Light, Survival Products, MD Department of Natural Resources, MD State Office of
Planning, DE Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Chesapeake Bay
Foundation, Lower Shore Land Trust, the Nature Conservancy, the National Park Service, the three
original citizens groups, and many local residents, some of whom are watermen and farmers. The
Alliance is growing rapidly, the atmosphere is positive and productive, and partnerships are at the core of
the Alliance's work.
The Nanticoke Watershed Alliance is currently conducting several projects involving partnerships: a
shad restoration project in conjunction with Chesapeake Bay Foundation and Delmarva Power and Light;
a water quality monitoring program with Salisbury State University; and a canoe trail with the Nature
Conservancy, Chesapeake Forest Products, and the Chesapeake Bay Foundation. Partnership projects
that have taken place in the recent past include the building of osprey platforms, running a float trip,
surveying attitudes, a canoe race, various cleanups, and publishing a directory of all organizations having
any kind of project related to the Nanticoke River. We are working toward implementing a bi-state
boating traffic study.
-------
Early Trouble
A positive and productive atmosphere was hardly the case in the early days of the Nanticoke Watershed
Alliance. Inherently disparate river interests were polarized on almost all issues. The timber companies
and farmers were at odds with the environmental groups and everyone was at odds with the state natural
resource departments. Getting these groups to the bargaining table was not an easy task. Everyone knew
that an Alliance should be formed, but no one knew what the mission of such a group should be or how
to capitalize on the common thread among such diverse constituents.
The story of how the Alliance finally formed and partnerships developed is an important case study in
early watershed planning. There are many lessons to be learned from the experience of the Nanticoke
Watershed Alliance.
As with most if not all consortiums, particularly those that reach across state lines, fear and suspicion
predominated for a long time. Forward progress of any real significance was not possible until that fear
and suspicion could be addressed and shown to be unnecessary, a two-fold task. Fear gripped many
players as they stepped into untested waters. Suspicion had already long been in the hearts and minds of
citizens due to copious government land regulations. Everyone assumed government officials had a
hidden agenda. (It turns out they do, but those agendas aren't necessarily always threatening.)
The overall answer to laying these fears aside was patience and the wisdom that comes with time. But
more specifically, certain key tactics helped: 1) obtaining information to answer questions, 2) the
willingness to say "I don't know" when we didn't, 3) tapping the source of passion within each participant
that brought them to the table in the first place, which was in many cases more personal than
professional, and 4) undertaking small projects that forced people to work together and share a success,
thereby beginning down the road of trust.
The Turning Point
The big quagmire for us was the issue of Federal Wild and Scenic River Status. Only two or three people
out of twenty five thought it was a good idea, but that was enough to scare the pants off a few others,
which resulted in a year-long, hot debate, through which no other topic could pass. Those were the most
frustrating days of our evolution. Looking back now, it's amazing to realize that despite flaring tempers,
we never actually lost anyone because of that debate. Losing someone in a controversy usually means
giving them over to negative public relations.
The key tactics mentioned earlier eventually won everyone over to the realization that while federal
status may someday be appropriate and even helpful to the river, the timing was all wrong. The entire
watershed would have been divided over this issue and there would have been a blood bath. It was hardly
worthwhile. Besides, there was no guarantee the river would qualify, and the process was long and
difficult. Time would be better spent taking on more and smaller projects.
-------
Settling this issue was the turning point for the Nanticoke Watershed Alliance. With the table cleared and
players frustrated by inactivity, we threw ourselves into writing our articles of incorporation, by-laws,
and applying for 501(c)(3) status, and conducting some cleanups and getting some publications on line.
Now we were getting somewhere.
Easily the most surprising and also the most effective partnership to be made within the Nanticoke
Watershed Alliance was the one between the "green" groups and the local timber industry. Members of
the "green" groups originally saw the timber industry as destructive to the watershed. The timber industry
saw the "greenies" as radical extremists. "Green" groups now see that far worse prospects lie in store for
the watershed than thousands of acres of trees, which will remain as such. The timber folks eventually
came to see that not all environmentalists are foaming at the mouth. We share a passion for quiet woods
and for wildlife which creates ample opportunity for us to work together.
Another gap to bridge was the one between everyone else and the government agencies. Some
government agency representatives were extremely enthusiastic to help, while others were extremely
hesitant. Some of them accused the citizens groups of having a closed door policy and the citizens groups
weren't sure they really wanted to work with government. Only when the doors were removed from their
hinges did everyone settle down to the work that needed to be done. Perhaps the "green" groups had the
most to learn from this whole experience.
Our work is far from done: we have yet to bring the local Indian tribe into our fold and our vision for the
river will not be complete without them, fundraising has not yet become a strong focus of the board, we
have no strategic plan, and we do not yet have the ear of our local politicians. But our commitment is
very strong and our potential is unlimited. Our teamwork has been recognized by EPA, the Alliance for
the Chesapeake Bay, and River Network. And now that we are united in our endeavors, our energy is
indomitable.
Lessons Learned
¦ No two groups or set of experiences are alike. Yet if one ignores the lessons to be learned from
others on that basis, one is destined to repeat their mistakes.
¦ Accept that a crisis is sometimes necessary to facilitate growth within the organization.
¦ No one can be left out of the circle. If people are excluded, they will eventually thwart the work of
the group, so bring them in early.
¦ Build trust by getting busy doing the agreeable projects first and controversial ones later.
¦ Keep participants in one corner of the ring and the problem in the opposite corner.
-------
Other consortiums like ours exist, but they are few and far between. Where they do exist they are
powerful, respected, effective, and efficient organizations. Partnerships are the wave of the future.
In a time of budget cutbacks and federal government shutdowns, shared resources, which include
people, money, and time, are not only necessary, they make good sense.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Partners Participate in Comprehensive
Municipal Infrastructure Planning: A Case Study
Cis Myers, Sr. Environmental Coordinator
Project Coordinator, City of Smithville
Lower Colorado River Authority, Austin, TX
The City of Smithville is a forward looking community with a population of over just four thousand, yet
it retains its early sense of comfortable seclusion, resting high on the banks of the Colorado River.
Centuries old oak trees line its streets. But this small conservative Texas community is aggressive in
sustainable economic development which is compatible with environmental leadership strategies. Capital
projects completed over the past three years include a school complex, a regional hospital, two parks
with major recreational and camping facilities, little league fields, savings and loan institution,
supermarket/gas station complex, and several restaurants. In addition, projects on the drawing boards or
under construction include a medical office complex, minimum security correctional facility, wildlife
museum and civic center, motels, expansion of the regional airport, and other commercial businesses
such as gas stations, fast food restaurants, and retail establishments.
Smithville is approximately 30 miles from the new Austin-Bergstrom International Airport. This major
airport is located on the southeast (Smithville) side of Austin on the major highway to Houston. The
unique rural and pristine nature of Smithville naturally attracts new residents. Coupled with the fact that
this beautiful Texas rural community has been found by "the investors" has caused development to head
that way. The City of Smithville is prepared for this but the new activity will be on their terms. The town
fathers, led by Mayor Vernon Richards, the retired Southwestern Bell Vice President for Marketing, are
very progressive about protecting their segment of the Colorado Watershed-environmentally, culturally,
historically, and financially. The city has won many awards in these areas including several from the
Governor, Keep Texas Beautiful, Clean Texas 2000, Texas Natural Resources Conservation Commission
(TNRCC), and the Texas Municipal League. The City Council does not consider increased taxes as an
option to support this development but rather pursues an aggressive grant program and increases their
-------
resources through partnerships with other organizations.
Since the City sits on the banks of the Colorado River, one such strategy has been to form a major
partnership with the Lower Colorado River Authority (LCRA) to ensure the protection and constructive
use of the area's natural resources. The LCRA is a Texas conservation and reclamation district committed
to the well-being and safety of the over 1.2 million citizens it serves. The LCRA provides reliable, low
cost electricity to 33 cities and 11 electric cooperatives in all or part of 58 Texas counties. The City of
Smithville is one of those electric customers. Because the Colorado is a major source of drinking water, a
top priority for the LCRA is the protection and constructive use of the river and its tributaries. In
addition, there are six dams on the Colorado which provide flood control and hydroelectricity. The river
also supplies the water necessary for the operation of LCRA power plants, the Southwest Texas Nuclear
Project, more than 135 municipalities, water districts and private water systems, and is the source of
irrigation for rice growers in Matagorda, Colorado and Wharton Counties. A comprehensive watershed
management approach is the sermon that the LCRA delivers to all its communities. The City of
Smithville is a working model of how LCRA can partner with a community to implement that strategy in
order to influence managing the river, its tributaries and surrounding watershed.
The Texas Clean Rivers Act of 1991 mandated that river authorities and other designated entities assess
the water quality within each river basin. Section 319 (b)(2) (B) of the federal Clean Water Act and the
TNRCC State Management Plan require identification of programs for technical assistance, education,
training, technology transfer, and demonstration projects. The purpose of these programs is to achieve
implementation of best management practices (BMPs) and measurable documentation of improved water
quality. Each river has been divided into segments based on an identified set of characteristics and each
segment has been evaluated relative to its level of water quality. The TNRCC made the determination
that 319 grant funds will be based on the seriousness of the water quality problems in a particular
segment. Smithville lies at the upper end of Segment 1402 of the Colorado River. According to the Texas
Water Commission 1992 document entitled "The State of Texas Water Quality," 11th Edition, Segment
1402 is affected by inorganic nitrogen, phosphorous and fecal coliform.
This classification qualified the city as eligible to apply for 319 funds to address their nonpoint source
pollution (NPS) issues. As additional new construction occurred, NPS and erosion problems on the banks
of feeder creeks increased due to lack of proper controls and planning. Mayor Richards and the City
Council recognized this problem and worked with the LCRA to submit a 319 grant proposal to the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) through the TNRCC. This effort was successful and a three-
year grant was awarded for a total project cost greater than $300,000 with the federal share being capped
at $170,000. In order to facilitate the comprehensive watershed approach, the LCRA has taken the lead in
working with the City of Smithville to be a demonstration project for small cities. The overall purpose of
the project is to implement a municipal NPS control and abatement program including managing
potential water quality impacts due to storm water runoff. In the particular case of Smithville, the
occurrence of NPS and its subsequent impact on the water quality of the Colorado River and its feeder
creeks is a direct result of poor drainage throughout the city. With the advent of more construction, the
amount of impervious cover is increasing which reduces the storage and infiltrative capacity of the land.
This increases the proportion of surface runoff to rainfall dramatically-resulting in the degradation of
-------
downstream waterways due to increased flows and velocities eroding the natural geomorphology of the
stream. In addition, this rapid form of runoff and loss of infiltration depletes the base flow conditions of a
stream which further affects the benefits of the riparian corridor.
The most critical commercial drainage area to be studied is defined by a ten square block area in the
northwest quadrant of the city. Located in this ten-block area is a new supermarket with a large paved
parking lot and gas pump facilities, a barbeque restaurant, service station, car wash, recycling drop off
center, and meat slaughtering facility. One boundary of this area is Gazeley Creek which drains directly
into the Colorado River. Under current conditions, the existing NPS runoff discharges out of a storm
drain into a channel located in Gazeley Creek which is highly degraded from urbanization and continues
to erode due to lack of any erosion deterrents. The negative impact on water quality is neither contained
nor filtered in any way, at this time. In developing the initial project plan, the LCRA proposed to
determine the current surface runoff to a rainfall ratio for the predominantly commercial area and
establish baseline conditions. The next step would be to modify and reduce the runoff to a rainfall ratio to
more closely resemble undeveloped conditions through two means. First, storm water attenuation devices
will be constructed within the contributing watershed area which will consist of infiltration and storage
practices such as trenches, shallow berms, or Gambian type structures to promote groundwater recharge.
Second, an end of pipe best management practice (BMP) would be constructed. This BMP will function
similar to an extended detention type basin with groundwater recharge enhancement facilities. Currently
eroded channel banks will be rehabilitated predominantly through bio-revetment. Behind the channel
banks, infiltration chambers will be installed. These infiltration chambers will be recharged as the pond
fills. Once the pond drains, the infiltration chambers should provide both groundwater recharge and
increase the period of base flow in the stream.
The main project objectives are: (1) Implementation of the BMP; (2) Verification of its effectiveness; (3)
Production of a video demonstrating the capability of small cities to implement NPS control programs
and other water quality protection efforts; and (4) Preparation of a plan for implementation of further
BMP's throughout problem areas in the city. High-level project tasks include: (1) Construction of the
BMP reducing pollutant loading for a ten-block commercial area in Smithville; (2) Monitoring upstream
and downstream of the BMP to document water quality benefits; (3) Conceptualize, shoot and produce a
video addressing NPS pollution strategies in a small, growing rural community; and (4) Preparation of a
detailed master drainage plan which demonstrates the economic feasibility of incorporating water quality
protection into rehabilitation and reconstruction of a currently inadequate city drainage system. The
primary measure of success for this demonstration project will be the actual reduction of surface runoff
achieved for varying rainfall intensities. Sediment transport and nutrient loading data will also be
gathered to further assess the benefits of BMP implementation. Results will be quantifiably measured
through (1) Water quality data collected from pre, interim and post water sampling; (2) The level of
compliance with EPA, TNRCC, and LCRA water quality standards; (3) Implementation and verification
of Best Management Practices that reduce nonpoint source discharges; (4) Consideration f a Master
Drainage Plan for Smithville for future implementation by the Smithville City Council; and (5)
Completion and distribution of the project video tape.
Well, all this sounds very good! But, in the grant process, as you all know, things take awhile-no matter
-------
how well intended our friends in Dallas and Washington are. The problem we encountered was, that in
the two-year application and approval process, Mother Nature dramatically increased the erosion
problem at the ten block commercial site which, in turn, increased construction costs for the BMP
beyond the approved grant budget Small cities like Smithville often don't have the resources to
adequately maintain their infrastructure systems such as drainage, street maintenance, etc. to begin with
much less face major capital expenditures for NPS erosion structures. It was not possible to increase the
amount of the grant and even LCRA didn't have additional resources to throw at the problem so inquiring
minds went to work to develop "the creative solution." Basically, it boiled down to adding more partners
in order to capture more resources. One place that we went was Texas A&M University. Texas A&M is
one of the largest universities in the nation serving over 40,000 students and employing over 2,200
faculty members. It ranks in the top ten in enrollment of National Merit Scholars, has students from over
one thousand nations, and is located in College Station-approximately two hours from the City of
Smithville. The University has a national reputation in the field of engineering and the A&M University
System houses four major engineering components: The College of Engineering, The Engineering
Extension Service, The Engineering Experiment Stations, and The Texas Transportation Institute. The
LCRA and the City of Smithville met with A&M Officials to determine if there was a possibility of
utilizing some or all these resources to assist with this project.
Professors Robert Lytton and Walter Moore of the College of Civil Engineering had been championing
the idea of giving engineering students some real life engineering experience before leaving the college
environment and entering the work force. The local professional consulting engineering firms support
this project because they realize that this type of practical training will provide better prepared engineers
to enter the profession. Through his efforts and those of the Deputy Vice Chancellor of Engineering, Ray
Flumerfelt, Texas A&M became an active partner in the City of Smithville project. In early September
1995 (Fall Semester), approximately sixty upper division and graduate students, visited Smithville to
evaluate specific NPS problems that involve street and commercial area drainage besides bank erosion at
the designated BMP construction site (Gazeley Creek). Classes were held on the site and conducted by
the Mayor, City Manager, city public works personnel, LCRA engineers, and TNRCC project staff.
The students, as part of their class assignment, formed "consulting firms" to work on the city's most
pressing drainage problems. As part of their projects, each student "firm" designed structural devices
such as filtering ponds, Gambian falls, and underground retention facilities to mitigate or prevent the
NPS pollution associated with the rain runoff of city streets and commercial development. The student
"firms" presented their proposals, as part of their final examination, to the Mayor, City Manager, Project
Manager and Project Engineer at the end of the semester. The proposals were judged on the efficiency
and effectiveness of the solution design, budget considerations and aesthetic enhancement of the site. The
winning project designs were awarded $100 and will be integrated into the real life project solution by
the project team including the City's professional consulting engineers for final engineering design,
before construction.
Another partnership has been formed to facilitate a reduction in certain labor costs. The Mayor has
entered an agreement with the County Sheriff to utilize minimum security trustees on a daily work
program. These individuals will do the manual labor required to clear brush from the Gazeley Creek site
-------
and along the drainage channel into the Colorado. They will assist in the construction phase of the BMP
installation including the placement of the monitoring equipment. In addition, as part of this project,
another group of students worked on computer geographic information systems programs and equipment
to create and/or accurately update city maps for streets, utility lines, and topographical features. Contour
maps at the appropriate intervals (1'), master drainage plans, or storm water strategies are currently
nonexistent for both the designated commercial area and the city as a whole. Besides being used as base
information for the NPS project, this information will be necessary for future use in utility and street
planning and other capital improvement projects such as expansion of the regional airport. The FAA
grant of over $2.0 million for that expansion requires an erosion and NPS plan. Two summer school
engineering surveying classes will focus on this section of the city to incorporate the appropriate
mapping data into the master drainage plan.
The success of the Fall Semester has lead to increased activity for the next several semesters. Present
plans are for the civil engineering class to continue to study the drainage problems in the city, draft the
master drainage plan, and prepare draft ordinances to implement the plan. Also, the students will be
required to provide cost estimates for their proposals and present the final product to the Smithville City
Council. The additional resource of this student work will enable the city to consider well-developed
alternative solutions to some of their long term drainage and pollution problems at a very low front end
cost.
The City of Smithville has also committed to build a new water/wastewater plant as they are currently
approaching capacity with their existing facility. The hydrology engineering class will be working with
the City Manager to develop the specifications for the Request for Proposal-not only for the design and
construction of that plant but for the operations and maintenance phases as well. The geotechnical
engineering class will be working with the LCRA transmission company to relocate 15 miles of
transmission lines and towers to facilitate the extension of the airport runway as part of the expansion of
the regional airport. That class will be specifically involved in the soils analysis, testing and design of the
footings for the transmission tower. They will be supervised by licensed LCRA engineers and will be
involved in certain day to day aspects of that project. This project is being funded by the Texas
Department of Aviation through federal funding received from the FAA.
The School of Landscape Architecture is working with the College of Engineering in the "Make it
Pretty" phase of all the projects. They have dedicated several masters' students who will do their final
design projects on the aesthetics or visual design of the various engineering applications utilized to solve
the Smithville problems. Also there is a 15,000 square foot historical building which is in the process of
being restored for a Wildlife Museum and Civic Center. The basic historic documentation and concept
design is being done by a master's level student from Architecture. This project is being funded by the
Texas Department of Transportation ($400,000) through dedicated intermodal transportation funds,
LCRA community assistance grants and a $5.0 million mounted wildlife collection from a private
individual donor.
Professional expertise from all the partners plus participation by engineering students and faculty from
Texas A&M engineering components will facilitate completion of a significant component of a master
-------
comprehensive infrastructure plan for the City of Smithville. Other ongoing programs which are utilizing
similar partnership arrangements are a recycling drop off program which markets their recyclable
commodities through a recycling marketing cooperative, comprehensive intermodal transportation study,
site selection and construction of a regional correctional facility, expansion of local recycling programs
to include cooperative marketing component, restoration of original historic buildings, identify and
remediation of environmental hazards, energy conservation measures for existing and new housing, a
master environmental plan for City expansion, and development of existing and new river access
recreational facilities. Major agencies involved include Texas Natural Resource Conservation
Commission, Texas General Land Office, Texas Department of Commerce, Texas Commission of the
Arts, Texas Department of Transportation, Federal Aeronautics Administration, Texas Water
Development Board, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, Texas Department of Corrections, The
Central Texas Recycling Association, Keep Texas Beautiful, Private Businesses, Environmental
Organizations, Texas Office of State Federal Relations, Office of the Governor, and other state, federal
and locally elected officials.
NOTE: A major benefit of this approach which can't be quantified is the personal and professional
relationships that have developed across disciplinary and generational boundaries. To put it another way,
when the A&M students are playing hookie, they can be found in the Mayor's backyard-fishing on the
banks of the Colorado River.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Meeting the Goals of an Urban Subwatershed
Study A Case Study
Peter D. Cookson, Assistant Director, Environment
Ann Rexe, Principal Planner
Victoria Jeffery, Environmental Planner
City of Scarborough, Scarborough, Ontario, Canada
Alan Winter
R.E. Winter Associates, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
The City of Scarborough, located in Southern Ontario, recently undertook a study of the Morningside
Tributary subwatershed. The impetus for the study came from the pressure to develop the area and the
fact that the tributary itself had just been proclaimed a part of a new urban park. The Rouge Park is billed
as Canada's largest urban park and there were concerns about the impact of development in this
subwatershed on the park.
A tributary of the Rouge River, Morningside Tributary drains 22 km2. The subwatershed is one-half
fully urbanized with residential, commercial and industrial land uses. The remaining fifty percent
includes golf courses, agricultural and open space. The subwatershed represents the last large area within
Scarborough's limits not yet fully urbanized. In 1980, a diversion structure was constructed, diverting all
major flows for about fifty percent of the Morningside Tributary subwatershed to the Rouge River. Only
baseflows up to 0.50 cubic metres per second are designed to continue downstream of the diversion. The
diversion structure was constructed to reduce flooding potential downstream, thereby allowing full
development of the downstream area.
With the cooperation of City Council, the various jurisdictional agencies, special interest groups and the
development industry, five goals for the study were identified.
-------
1. Ecosystem Protection and Enhancement
"provide a strategy whereby the economy depends not only on the continued and
sustainable urban development, but also on the protection and enhancement of the
ecosystem and its habitat."
2. Greenlands System
"protect, restore, develop and enhance the historic, cultural, recreational and visual
amenities of the subwatershed."
3. Floodplain Management
"minimize the threat to life and destruction ofproperty and natural resources from
flooding and preserve or reestablish the natural floodplain hydrologic functions where
possible."
4. Pollution Prevention
"preventpollution before it happens; minimize the adverse impacts of pollution by
managing it at source."
5. Land Use Planning and Integration
"link the strategy and recommendations of this study to official municipal plans to guide
and authorize development within the subwatershed."
Ecosystem Protection and Enhancement
The subwatershed lies within the Carolinian life zone, known for its distinct wildlife and vegetative
species. With more than fifty percent of the subwatershed fully urbanized, a need was recognized to
preserve and enhance where possible the important environmental features of the subwatershed.
Development in the past had little regard for ecosystem protection. Ecosystem features such as
watercourses, forest cover and riparian habitat were treated as secondary to the development of an urban
system. In portions of the subwatershed, low base flow, degraded habitat and channelized sections of the
creek are all the result of a planning process that historically dealt with the environment after land uses
and development rights were established. This consequence of this approach is a degraded, fragmented
ecosystem.
The approach used in this study was to put the ecosystem first to determine the parameters necessary to
protect the existing environmental features of the subwatershed and to provide a framework for
improving and enhancing the entire ecosystem of the subwatershed. The study focussed on providing
vegetated linkages within the subwatershed and also adjacent watersheds. An important outcome of the
study was the conservation of a substantial corridor for the watercourse following biodiversity principles.
The corridor width was based on many factors including meander belt width, floodplain management,
and appropriate buffering.
The study also identified that restoration work to increase the vegetative cover in the subwatershed from
the present level of fifteen percent to a minimum of twenty five percent is required to allow for a
-------
sustainable sub watershed. Vegetated, connecting links to the Rouge River system will be incorporated.
Since fifty percent of the subwatershed still remains in a relatively undeveloped state, there is greater
potential for the implementation of these recommendations and thus greater potential for the return to a
more balanced, natural ecosystem.
The Morningside Tributary study is the first step in rethinking the role of land use planning in the context
of the ecosystem approach. While not a panacea for all planning issues, the study has offered the City an
alternative and more comprehensive method for handling development issues.
Greenlands System
One of the goals of the subwatershed study was to "protect, restore, develop and enhance the historic,
cultural, recreational and visual amenities of the subwatershed." The subwatershed study planned to
carefully assess the provision of municipal services for development of the area in an ecologically sound
manner. It was expected that this would lead to preservation of lands in the stream corridor as a
greenland area, where no development would be permitted. This evaluation had not been done in such a
comprehensive manner prior to this.
It was thought that a greenlands system would encompass all of the lands required to protect the long-
term health of the subwatershed and to provide ecological linkages to adjacent watersheds. There was a
gap between desire to protect these greenlands and the authority to carry out this wish.
The undeveloped lands in the central reaches of Morningside Creek had been designated for development
as an industrial area since the 1970's. Although the lands were predesignated in the City's Official Plan,
the owners of the area had operated a golf course on a portion and the remainder was in agricultural use
or vacant. New owners applied for development approval for a new concept which included housing and
commercial development on a portion; industrial development was proposed on the remainder. The new
proponent agreed to actively participate in the subwatershed study and agreed, in principal, that a
greenlands area would be desirable.
The Rouge Park Management Plan and the Morningside Tributary subwatershed plan identified the need
to protect the stream corridor. Earlier planning decisions, however, had designated only a much narrower
corridor for protection. What tools were available to broaden this narrow band to the wider area hoped
for in the Park Management Plan and implied by the greenlands goal?
Historically in the City of Scarborough, stream and valley corridors have been protected from
development by public acquisition. Severe flooding in the early 1950's resulted in public acquisition of
large areas of the Rouge River and Highland Creek for flood protection. The Metropolitan Toronto and
Region Conservation Authority gradually identified flood prone areas and, through regulation, prohibited
development. Gradually, municipalities also negotiated and received developer concurrence to deed the
land below the valley crest.
-------
In the case of Morningside Tributary, the stream corridor is made up of a very wide but shallow flood
plain. In the upper reaches of this Tributary, the remains of forested areas extend out from the valley. As
a result of the subwatershed study, the land being considered as greenlands, and concurrently park,
constitutes forty five hectares. The subwatershed study had direct impact on increasing the open space
allotment to allow for ecological factors.
For many years, the Ontario Planning Act has required a dedication of parkland consisting of two percent
for industrial and five percent for residential development. This levy is supplied either in land or cash.
Within the Morningside Tributary subwatershed, this will allow acquisition of a small portion of the
greenlands and Rouge Park. In principle, if the valley land or stream corridor is a proportion of the
developer's lands, the applicant will often design the Plan of Subdivision to allow dedication of up to ten
metres from the stable top-of-bank, even if the lands are in excess of the parkland levy.
Development charges, a fee for developing land, has had the option of being used to acquire valley and
stream corridors. The legislation is now changing so it can only be used for hard services such as
storm water ponds. As a result, this is no longer an option to help acquire greenlands.
Stewardship, private owners caring for their lands, has been identified as a potential route to protect
greenlands. This may be a workable solution for cases where the private landowners do not wish to build
on their lands. It may well be workable for existing golf courses as well. It is not a particularly viable
option for the landowner who wishes to build on their lands. There is currently no tax advantage for
stewardship which is being explored.
Tax deductions may be another option to acquire greenland areas. However, in Ontario, it is not yet
possible, although discussion at the Provincial level is currently taking.
The bottom line to protecting greenlands, especially if the lands to be protected are extensive, is
economics. Developers have been willing to deed substantial amounts of greenland if the overall
economics allow for this. As a result, some money has been set aside in a special capital budget fund
designed to acquire priority watercourses. The subwatershed Studies have generated data which helps
establish priority lands to be acquired.
Floodplain Management
Prior to the subwatershed study, much of the urban development occurred on the basis of stormwater
management studies. These were generally prepared for the specific development. These previous studies
recommended efficient conveyance systems via the construction of storm sewers and channelization of
the creek. Diversion and storage facilities were constructed to mitigate potential downstream impacts
from developing upstream areas. A large diversion structure was partially constructed in 1980 to allow
for development of the area. The diversion structure was designed to divert all of the major flows for
fifty percent of the subwatershed to the Rouge River, with base flows only continuing downstream of the
diversion.
-------
Through the course of the subwatershed study it was recognized that the hydrologic cycle had been
negatively modified by the construction of these works. Stream base flow could not support the cold
water fishery that once existed. Since the diversion scheme was only partially completed, a risk of
flooding and property damage still existed under regulatory conditions.
Through the use of computer simulation techniques and drawing on the expertise of the multidisciplinary
team, a better understanding of the hydrologic cycle was developed. A stream corridor analysis was
undertaken, which will guide the limit of future development within the subwatershed. Based on this
analysis, the stream corridor will maintain the natural meander belt width and low flow channel,
complete with appropriate buffers. This width varies, but is generally in the range of 60 metres.
Based on the analysis performed in the subwatershed study, the stream corridor will convey the
regulatory storm events upstream of the diversion structure. The diversion structure will be modified to
provide for the establishment of base flow conditions which will allow re-introduction of a cool water
fisheries. The structure will allow storms up to a twenty year design event to be conveyed safely
downstream in the natural channel. Stream flows reaching the diversion structure and exceeding this
value will be diverted towards the Rouge River through a stormwater management facility. This flow
target was established based on fisheries habitat and to protect against downstream flooding.
The stream corridor will envelop all significant adjacent vegetation. Ten metre wide buffers will provide
an element of protection to the significant vegetation. This will provide for better terrestrial habitat and
for biodiversity.
Pollution Prevention
As the subwatershed continues to allow urban development, the water quality of the creek must be
safeguarded. Urban stormwater discharge can contain high concentrations of suspended solids, chemical
oxygen demand, phosphorus, pathogens, pesticides, de-icing salts and numerous other substances. There
is also the possibility of accidental and illegal discharges into storm sewers.
The first phase in the development of a suitable water quality management plan was to select a long list
of alternative techniques for restoring and enhancing the watercourse system. The philosophy of
approach adopted toward the implementation of stormwater management practices had a bearing on the
preparation and evaluation of the list of alternatives. The approach adopted in this study assumes that:
¦ stormwater runoff is a resource and should be utilized where possible for non-potable functions,
where zero impact on baseflow can be demonstrated;
¦ since prevention is more efficient and cost effective at controlling stormwater quality, site level
controls should be maximized where possible; and,
-------
¦ fewer but larger centralized controls with multipurpose (quantity, quality, erosion recreation, and
aesthetics), usage are preferable to numerous small uni-purpose facilities.
The preferred, ultimate water quality management plan consists of a centralized control strategy with
source and pre-treatment control in new developments. Retrofitting of existing developments has been
incorporated into the plan where cost effective.
Land Use Planning and Integration
The lengthy environmental studies which were undertaken in Phases I and II of the Morningside Sub-
Watershed Study, have provided more detailed information about the environmental concerns in the
subwatershed. This information has been shared with municipal staff, the developers and environmental
interest groups. Phase III of the subwatershed study has set out how the municipal planning process can
make the most of this information. Most importantly, City policies and procedures are being modified to
incorporate this most unique approach to planning within the City of Scarborough's boundaries.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Why? There are countless books about two rivers. At the first glance it seems like one could add nothing
new to the well known facts. Mighty MississippiFather of Waters. Mother Volga. Two national rivers
for centuries inspired poets. Decades ago they became objects for large scale engineering remodeling and
countless research projects. And yet surprising gaps strike one's mind if somebody turns to the
consideration of accumulated knowledge about two rivers.
"Volga flows into the Caspian Sea", Russians say to mock somebody repeating facts familiar to a first
grader. On a visit to the newly open gorgeous Tennessee fresh water aquarium I admired excellent
collection which was exhibited with the great love to aquatic nature and imagination. Species from all
great world rivers were exhibited under illuminated maps. I could not believe my eyes when looked at the
Volga map: the river did not flow to the Caspian sea! The downstream stretch was bent and turned
towards the Black sea. I explained the error to the attendant. The map makers were mislead by the canal
connecting the Volga with the Don. Russians possess comparable amount of knowledge about the
Mississippi. General sources of information on its hydrology are as fresh as Tom Sawyer's and Huck
Finn's water rafting adventures from Mark Twain's novels.
Watershed Management in the Headwaters of
Nations' Rivers: The Mississippi and the Volga
Tatiana Nawrocki, Research Associate
Howard Mooers, Associate Professor
University of Minnesota, Duluth
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
While implementing in 1930-1950s canal, reservoir and dam construction plans designated to boost
-------
centrally planned economy, Russian hydrologists and engineers paid little attention to the practices of
their colleagues at the Mississippi. Similarly, river management and gradual development of resource
conservation strategies in the later basin were based solely on own experiences. Both approaches could
be described in many cases as "try and error methods". There were obvious and strong reasons for mutual
ignorance. Countries were political rivals for too long, and the current of events around two national
rivers followed the politically designated streamline. For decades independently developed river basin
management strategies were applied to each river. While navigation locks and levees were chosen as
basic control structures for the Mississippi, the Volga experienced drastic flow regulation by hydropower
dams, which turned this river into the almost continuous chain of shallow lakes.
Historic parallels. Historic parallels are astonishing. As old as the human race is the history of human
impacts on the hydrologic regime and water quality of great rivers. National symbolic character of both
rivers, however, does not originate in a too remote past. Consolidation of the entire basins under national
authority is a relative historic novelty. Only in 1550s, six centuries later than the beginning of the Russian
statehood, Czar Ivan the Terrible was able to concur Tatar cities Kazan and Astrakhan, which guarded the
midstream Volga and its mouth. The USA became the owner of the Mississippi from its source to its
mouth only in XIX century, after the purchase of Louisiana from France in 1803. Since that both rivers
were put on the national service to unite and connect scattered settlements and to advance national
frontiers. The Volga tributaries conveyed Russians to the Ural mountains and then to Siberia, the
Mississippi's ones carried pioneers to the gates to the West.
The commercial exploitation of rivers boosted economic development on its watersheds. Stages of
capitalism repeatedly played its turns around two rivers in late XIX - early XX centuries. Prosperous
lumber industry in the headwaters floated countless timber rafts downstream. When forest resources
declined by predatory clear cuts and fires, upstream shipments of grain and other agricultural products
dominated among navigation cargos for a while. Steamboats and machine revolution were the yeast for
urbanization. Large and small cities started to dump its raw sewage and industrial wastes into the rivers.
Navigation required safe passages so locks, dams and canalized streams were created. Growing
industries demanded cheap electricity and the challenge to harness the rivers for hydropower generation
materialized. Flood protection needs directed levee construction, as agriculture did drainage works.
Eventually, the rivers and their watersheds experienced major alterations that affected flow regimes, land
features and the underlying structure of the original ecosystems.
The hydropower era was marked for two rivers by amazing analogies as well as by exploring alternative
ways. By 1913 the Mississippi already had the largest in the world 1.4 km long hydropower dam at
Keokuk, Iowa. The project was implemented under the guidance of the famous engineer Hugh L. Cooper.
Later Cooper was serving to the Russian government as a consulting engineer for the Dnieperstroy
hydroelectric project. He became the first foreign recipient of the Order of the Red Star when the
completed dam over the Dnieper river was dedicated in 1932 (Scarpino, 1985). The Dnieper dam, the
first of this class in the Soviet Union, became the prototype for the further construction of a cascade of
hydroelectric power dams over the Volga. In 1940-1970s the Volga was converted into a continual chain
of shallow water lakes - reservoirs.
-------
Other giant hydropower projects did not succeed at the Mississippi after the Keokuk dam. Costly and
harmful to the environment when built at plain rivers, these projects did not become very popular in the
USA where more beneficial mountainous sites were available. However, in 1913 the motif of glorifying
the erection of the huge dam and the man's victory over nature sounded loudly at Keokuk. "Utilizing the
water power wasting at our doors," "The will of Man hath won" were the headlines of the local
newspapers. Stanzas from poems reverberated with optimism and the adjectives like colossal, mammoth,
enormous, spectacular, greatest and boldest were filling the articles, describing the Mississippi dam
(Scarpino, 1985). This original motif was reiterated and amplified at the Volga banks few decades after.
From today the Keokuk dam could be fairly viewed as one of the seeds for historic, personal, economic
and emotional links between two rivers.
The Mississippi came through its development periods at the higher speed, probably, distinctive for the
dynamic nature of the whole American economy. Most of the man-induced changes were compressed
here into a few short decades since 1890s till mid 1950s. Environmental movement and regulations,
developed since 1960s prevented many of new hydraulic structures from being erected, wetlands from
being drained and reduced pollution.
The Volga confronted human impacts which were more extended in time and scale, profound in effects,
than on the Mississippi. The magnitude of events was drastic. In 1930-1940 Stalin's prisoner camps
provided abundant labor for erection of many dams across the Volga, locks and canal network, linking
the river with several sea ports. More than 300 reservoirs were constructed in the basin, 8 in the main
stream, which flooded 40,000 sq. km of productive flood plain. Water exchange slowed down 10 times
and pollution reached the hazardous level. Fish catch in the Volga-Caspian basin decreased from 614,900
ton in 1930 to 76,500 in 1988 (Zubareva, 1994). The hydraulic structure construction boom ended in mid-
1980s after the notorious public fight against the water transfer project Northern rivers the Caspian sea.
It was the first victory of the public opinion over the centrally planned system, the first one in the
dramatic chain of events, which eventually lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, that
victory of environmental movement turned to be fruitless at the time. Environmentalists were not capable
to achieve considerable positive results under general economic, political and legal disarray of the last
decade.
What is similar? River management strategies in both basins are undergoing radical transformations.
Goals and objectives for water resources use, means and principles of control are changing. This is just
the right time to look and study what could be similar or different, and what could present mutual interest
from the experience of human interactions with two great rivers. It is especially interesting because river
management concepts in the both river basins accepted the theory of the river unity with its watershed.
Any undesirable condition of the river, whether it is flood, pollution or river channel sedimentation, is
linked to and could be controlled by watershed management.
With this kind of refocusing the apparent similarities of many hydrologic features in two upstream basins
become of more significance. Maximum peak flow in both upper basins originates from snow melt. The
Mississippi and the Volga upstream basins are situated on gently rolling plains in mixed forest zones.
Northern portions extend into coniferous forests, and southern ones into hardwood forest zones, where,
-------
respectively, 50-60% and less than 30% of forested land remains. Steppe and prairie occupy the south
edges of both upper basins. The annual precipitation is 500-600 mm with similar seasonal distribution in
both areas. The Quaternary sediments are of glacial till and moraine, glacial outwash, lacustrine and
alluvial origin. Wetlands are typical. They occupy more than 25% of area at less disturbed watersheds,
and have hydric soils with various degree of gley process development and/or peat accumulation
(Bhowmik et al, 1995; Sergeev, 1984). The land forms in the Upper Mississippi and the Upper Volga
were created by the glaciation. In the first basin the recent Wisconsin glaciation was spread over the
northern portion, and Illinois glacier land forms are found further south. In the Upper Volga the recent
glacier (Valday) occupied the smaller north western margin of the basin, while Moscow glacier forms
dominate the rest of the territory.
High gradients of climate and associated runoff changes are typical for the Mississippi headwaters.
Annual runoff in Minnesota decreases from 430 to 50 mm from the north east to the south west over 360
km distance (1.05 mm/km). In the Upper Volga more uniform hydrology conditions exist. Runoff
changes from 300 to 100 mm over 600 km towards south west (0.33 mm/km). The hydrology of
watersheds in middle parts of the basins is quite similar (figure 1).
Turning point and goals. By the end of the XX century the river basin management policies seem to
arrive to a turning point both at the Mississippi and the Volga. This is the time for formulating new
policies, which need to be free from former extremes both from selfish ripping off economic merits for
the sake of one generation, and from lifting unrealistic environmental prohibitions, calling for the
restoration of untouchable wilderness. This balanced management approach is known as a "sustainable
development".
However, for now sustainability exists more like a theory, than as a practical accomplishment. Balancing
conflicting needs is not an easy task. Local experience and general wisdom are not always sufficient for
making right choices, either in the Mississippi and in the Volga basins. That is there, where so many
natural similarities and unresolved environmental problems exist. That is why the comparative analysis of
two river basins with differing magnitudes of human impacts could become especially beneficial. And
that is now, when the learning of environmental history lessons in detail becomes more possible than
ever. The prerequisites to this study are the following: 1. The periods of extensive engineering
development for both river channels are left behind. Driven by floods at the Mississippi, alarming
pollution and shallow reservoir ecosystems degradation at the Volga, the focus of attention in both
countries gradually is being shifted to upstream watersheds management. 2. The Soviet Union collapsed
and many previous restriction for the information exchange have been removed. 3. Geographical
Information Systems become available to serve for spatial data analysis and for linking diverse watershed
impacts to downstream endpoints.
How to perform a comparative study? The Natural Resources Research Institute, University of
Minnesota, Duluth, initiated a project with the goal to demonstrate how GIS could facilitate watershed
management. The project, funded by IREX (International Research and Exchange Board), is titled "GIS
as an integrating tool for multidisciplinary environmental efforts in the headwaters of nations' rivers: the
Mississippi and the Volga". This is the international study, conducted in cooperation with Russian
-------
colleagues, who spent lifetime for water resources research of the Volga basin. Wide gaps exist in Russia
among advanced theoretic perceptions of scientists and the practice of land and water resources use in
river basins. The purposes of the project is to convey to the related agencies in Russia the experience of
GIS applications in integrated studies and management of watersheds, accumulated in the USA, and to
establish the exchange of research results, beneficial for scientific studies of global environmental
problems. Collaborative links were established at the Moscow State University, Russian Academy of
Science, research stations in Moscow, Novgorod, Tver and Kostroma regions, State Institute of Applied
Ecology, National Park "Losiny Ostrov." Field studies of wetland impacts on watershed hydrology under
variety of natural and human impacts were conducted at the following watersheds: river Polomet' and
lake Valday (Novgorod Region); river Velesa, tributary to the Zapadnaya Dvina at the vicinity of
Sosvyatskoye (Zapadnaya Dvina district, Tver Region); river Unzha, tributary to the Volga (Manturovo
and Makariev districts, Kostroma region); river Istra, tributary to the Moscow river at Kholcsheviki (Istra
district, Moscow Region); river Yauza, tributary to the Moscow river (city of Moscow and Mytischi
district of Moscow Region). The discussions with Russian colleagues revealed the growing interest to the
variety of issues of GIS applications to water resources management. Though this technique is still not so
easily available to many researchers and decision makers in Russia, the noticeable advance in its
development was made in the last two years. Original GIS software were created and applied at the
Moscow State University, State Institute of Applied Ecology, Geocentre Moscow and Geosoft Istlink.
Researchers of this institutions are working on linking process based hydrological and environmental
models with GIS.
The results of the project are available on WWW (http://gpl.nrri.umn.edu/russia.html).
References
Bhowmik, N.G. et al. (1995) The 1993 flood on the Mississippi river in Illinois. Illinois State
Water Survey. Miscellaneus Publication 151.
Hydrology Yearbook (1974) Basin of the Caspian Sea. V. 4, Issue 1-3. Hydrometeorology
Department, Gorky (In Russian).
Scarpino, P.V. (1985) Great river. An environmental history of the Upper Mississippi, 1890-1950.
University of Missouri Press, Columbia.
Sergeev, E.M. (Ed.) 1984. Soil and geology conditions of the Nechernozem zone. Moscow State
University.
USGS (1993) Water Resources Data. Minnesota. Water Year 1992. V. 2. Upper Mississippi and
Missouri River Basins. Water-Data Report MN-92-2.
Zubareva, M.Y. (1994) Around ecology of the Volga basin. Priroda, N 1. (In Russian).
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Modeling Soil Erosion and Sediment Transport on
Watersheds with the Help of Quasi Three-
dimensional Runoff Model
Victor Demidov, Principal Researcher
Water Problems Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences
The main objective of this study was the development a distributed physically-based soil erosion model
and the including its in the hydrological modelling system of Water Problems Institute of Russian
Academy of Sciences (Kuchment, 1983). The developed soil erosion model allows to simulate the
temporal and spatial variations in erosion by raindrop impact and overland flow, sediment transport and
deposition.
Structure of the Model
Quasi Three Dimensional Model of Rainfall Runoff Formation
A physically based model of rainfall runoff formation is based on using differential equations which
describe the processes of overland, groundwater, subsurface, channel flow as well as vertical moisture
transfer in soil. The catchment is represented in the horizontal plane by rectanqular grid squares. The
main channel and the tributaries of different orders are represented by the boundaries of grid squares.
The model describes the following processes:
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
1. vertical moisture transport in the unsaturated zone (the one-dimensional Richard's equation is
used; the calculations is carried out for each grid square of hillslope);
-------
2. groundwater flow and the interaction of surface and groundwater on the hillslope and in the river
channel (the two-dimensional Boussinesq equations are used);
3. overland flow (the two dimensional kinematic wave equations are applied);
4. unsteady flow in the river network (the one-dimensional kinematic wave equations are used).
The organization of the interaction between components of the hydrological modelling system allows to
take feedback into account. Coupling of the calculations of the vertical moisture transport with the
overland and groundwater flow is accomplished by means of a special procedure. More detailed
description of the hydrologic block of the quasi three dimensional model can be seen in (Demidov, 1989;
Kuchment et al., 1991).
Modeling Soil Erosion and Sediment Transport in the River Basin
A soil erosion and sediment transport model was developed as a separate block of the hydrological
modelling system. The soil erosion model describes the temporal and spatial variations of the soil erosion
and the sediment transport in the river basins during flood events (erosion by raindrop impact and
overland flow, sediment transportation and deposition).
The erosion rate by raindrop impact, Dr(kg m s J ^ js expressed by the following equation
P
(1)
Dr = Kr Ks i Fr R
K K
where r is the soil erodibility factor for erosion by raindrop impact; s is the fraction of bare soil; i is
the ground surface slope 'm m J ; R is the rainfall intensity ^c m ® '' P is an exponent; is
the factor reflecting influence of the water depth on erosion by raindrop impact that is expressed as
(Park, 1982)
Fr =
exp [1 - h D~1 ) if h > D
1 if K < D
(2)
where h is the flow depth (m); ^ is the median diameter of raindrops that is determined from
— _ 0.181
D - 0 .0 1 9 3 R (Laws, Parsons, 1943).
-------
D f Ic nn ™ ^ s ™ 1
The erosion rate by overland flow impact, e 9 m ® -§ ca]CLl]ated as (Ariathurai,
Arulanandan, 1978)
:: = (3)
where is the overland flow soil erodibility coefficient; is the shear stress ' ^ 9 m s '' is
the critical shear stress, which is taken to be equal
-0.5 1.5
7c=pg.{ni Vp J
f k m™ ^} 2
where is the water density 1 9 m ; g is the acceleration of gravity ( m s "2 ); n is the Manning
- 1 / 3 V 1
roughness coefficient s m • P is the pickup velocity ( m s " ) that is determined by the
0 . 5
=1 .1 4 (g a d] a = f P , P~ 1 - 1 1 P,
equation (Shamov, 1954) p , where ' is the
j j^_ ^ - 3 j _
sediment density 9 m ; d is the grain diameter (m).
The sediment transport capacity, ^ i ' ^ ® m s ' ; js calculated by means of the Engelund-
Hansen's equation
s
G =0.04 ^^ [5]
-ill ^ ^
"ijl
where V is the flow velocity ( m s "1 ); V* is the shear velocity ( m s "1 ); » is the criterion which
1|J = a d h 1 i 1.
is equal '
The sediment transport by the overland flow is described by two-dimensional sediment continuity
equation
-------
[6]
~
E = - (1 -£) PT
t
f Kc m- ^ |
where C is the sediment concentration 9 m x' y are the sediment transport rate in the x
and y -direction respectively ' 9 ^# ^ is the soil surface porosity; z is the soil surface
f lc "2 "11
elevation (m); E is the erosion or deposition rate on surface slope 1 91 m s ' . Sediment routing in
channels is described by the one-dimensional sediment continuity equation. Numerical integration of
these equations are carried out an implicit finite difference scheme.
Model Application
To test the soil erosion block in the hydrological modelling system the observation data of the water
regime and the sediment flow for the Studeniy River basin located in area of Transcarpatian water
balance station were used. The watershed area is 25.4 km2, the average height of the watershed is 793 m
above sea level, the average width is 3.2 km, the channel length is 8.0 km and the average channel slope
is 31.2%0. The surface cover is represented by sandy clay loams; the soils are moderately podzolized
brown soils. The lengths of the reaches of the channel network, the slopes of the river bed and the
catchment surface were determined from a topographic map.
The lenghts of the reaches of the channel network, the slopes of the river bed and the catchment surface
were determined from a topographic map. The horisontal permeability coefficient was determined by
matching the values of the observed base flow with these calculated and was taken equal to 0.6 m day-1.
In the calculations of the vertical moisture transfer in the unsaturated zone, the saturated hydraulic
conductivity coefficient was taken equal to the horisontal permeability coefficient. The equiblirium
moisture profiles calculated for a different thickness of the unsaturated zone were used as the initial
moisture profiles.
The results of the calculations of maximum discharges and total runoff for floods show a sufficiently
well agreement with observed values. The error in the calculations of maximum discharges constitutes in
the average 17%. At the same time, the difference between observed and calculated total runoff for each
flood does not exceed 14%.
The estimation of the soil erosion model parameters have been obtained from literature data and
calibration. The calibration was carried out by comparing the calculated sediment hydrographs with
observed data for the flood of 12-13 May 1970. On results of the calibration the raindrop soil erodibility
-------
K If
coefficient, r , was taken equal 50 and the overland flow soil erodibility coefficient, e , equal 0.1 10-
3. The calculations of soil erosion during other four floods carried out without changing the calibration
K If
value of r and ® . The calculations on the model were carried out with a half hour time step. The
calculation results of suspended sediment discharges on the whole sufficiently well fit to observed data.
The calculation results showed that the groundwater table in the near-channel areas before the start of the
flood significantly influences on the total volume of sediment runoff from the watershed in comparison
with flood runoff. For example, a rise of the groundwater table by 0.2m for the flood of 27-28 June 1974
caused increasing flood runoff volume on 20% and at the same time the total sediment runoff in this
conditions increased on 70% (Table 1). The groundwater table in the near-channel areas before the
beginning of the flood especially greatly caused on the calculation results for the flood of 24-25 June
1974. Because of increasing the groundwater table the rainfall runoff of this flood increased about two
times and sediment runoff about twelve times (Table 1).
Table 1. Effect of the groundwater table in the near-channel areas on the total
volume rainfall and sediment runoff.
1A ^ .... , _ , . . Volume of Volume of
Date oi flood Groundwater table, m „„
runon, mm sediment runon, T
12-13 May,
1970
0.3
22.7
1410
0.5
17.8
677
16-17 July,
1970
0.4
18.9
608

0.6
12.4
101
24-25 June,
1974
0.5
18.9
892
J 0.7
8.8
72
27-28 June,
1974
0.3
26.7
2910

0.5
i22.3
1720
-------
22-23 July,
1974
679
11.7
186
0.5
The spatial variation of the net erosion or net deposition in the catchment for the flood of 24-25 June
1974 is shown in Figure 1. From the figure it can be seen that large erosion is on steep and excessive
moistening grid squares where overland flow can be formed. Deposition of suspended sediment is
usually on flat grid squares due to decreasing a sediment transport capacity.

flli

> 0.100
> 0 ,050
> 0.000
> -0,010

x... .

*
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of the net erosion/deposition on the Studeniy Watershed for the flood
of July 22-23,1974.
Conclusion
A physically-based model describing soil erosion and sediment transport processes was coupled with
hydrological modelling system (quasi three-dimensional physically-based model of rainfall runoff
formation). The erosion rate is taken to be the sum of the erosion rates caused by raindrop impact and
overland flow that are determined by rainfall intensity, hydrologic and hydraulic variables and soil
-------
characteristics. The hillslope sediment transport model is based on two-dimensional sediment continuity
equation, the sediment transport in the river network is described by a one-dimensional equation of mass
conservation.
In modelling the sediment transport was taken into account that the sediment discharges may be limited
by the sediment transport capacity which is expressed by Engelund-Hansen's equation. The developed
soil erosion model describes both the temporal and spatial variations of soil erosion and sediment yield in
a catchment.
The model was tested for the Studeniy River basin. Results of the calculations of water and sediment
discharges from the model were in agreement with observed data. The calculation results also showed
that the groundwater table in the near-channel areas before the start of the flood significantly influences
on the soil erosion process rate and the total volume of sediment runoff from the watershed.
The physically-based model allow to determine on the genetic basis the role of hydrometeorological
factors and surface watershed characteristics on development of soil erosion processes, to quantify the
effects of changed land use and conservation practices on sediment yield.
Acknowledgments
The work described in this paper is being financed by the Russian Fund of Fundamental Researches.
References
Ariathurai, R. and Arulanandan, K., 1978. Erosion rates of cohesive soils. J. Hydraulic Division,
Proc. ASCE, 104: 279-283
Demidov, V.N., 1989. Modelling of the interaction of surface and subsurface waters during runoff
formation on a river basin. (Russ.). Vodnye Resursy, N2, pp 60-69.
Kuchment, L.S., Demidov, V.N. and Motovilov, J.G., 1983. Runoff formation (physically-based
models), (Russ.), Nauka, 216.
Kuchment, L.S., Nazarov, N.A. and Motovilov, J.G., 1990. Sensitivity of hydrological systems,
(Russ.), Nauka, 144.
Laws J.O., Parson D.A., 1943. The relation of raindrop size to intensity. Trans. AGU, 24: 452-
460.
Park S.W., Mitchell J.K., Scarborough S.N., 1982. Soil erosion simulation on small watersheds: a
-------
modified ANSWERS Model. Trans.Am. Soc. Agric. Eng., 25: 1581-1588.
Shamov, G.I., 1954. River sediment. (Russ.) L. Gidrometeoizdat.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Consensus Building in Watershed Management
Initiatives: Lessons from the National Estuary
Program
Jessica Cogan, Panel Organizer
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is charged with administering the National Estuary Program
(NEP), section 320 of the Clean Water Act. There are currently 28 National Estuary Programs around the
country. The NEP employs consensus building processes to develop Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plans (CCMPs) to protect and enhance water quality and living resources in estuaries of
national significance. Estuary study areas are often defined by watersheds.
Consensus building is an effective tool for facilitating partnerships among all levels of government, the
private sector, and the public. This type of decision-making often leads to acceptance of and support for
difficult decisions and actions, particularly when all stakeholders are involved in the process of
identifying issues and setting priorities. Consensus aids in developing community based stewardship of
natural resources.
This panel, moderated by Suzanne Orenstein, Vice President of RESOLVE, Inc., will describe the use of
consensus building in different phases of the NEP process. Richard Volk, Director of the Corpus Christi
National Estuary Program will discuss consensus building in the visioning process; Helen Drummond,
Water Quality and Sediment Quality Team Leader of the Galveston Bay National Estuary Program will
illustrate how they applied consensus based approaches to move from scientific characterization of the
estuary to plan and action item development; and Lee Doggett from the Casco Bay Estuary Project will
explain their community and consensus based process in strategically prioritizing actions.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Visioning Process and Its Role in Consensus-
Building
Richard Volk, Program Director
Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program, Corpus Christi, TX
Abstract
The Corpus Christi Bay National Estuary Program (CCBNEP) is an ecosystem scale regional planning
effort that is stakeholder driven and that involves consensus decision-making. During the Program's four-
year planning phase, more than 100,000 volunteer hours will be invested, mostly in large group
meetings. In an effective meeting, the group must be of one mind; focused on the same problem in the
same way at the same time. Such focus is particularly challenging for regional planners, since the task of
regional planning often means different things to different people. In its early stages therefore, the
Program's Management Conference recognized the value in creating a Program Vision Statement to help
set the parameters for the regional planning effort both in approach (and thus content), and on the time
scale to be used for goal setting. A CCBNEP Vision Statement and Operating Principles were developed
by more than 110 participants during a two-day workshop in February 1995. An innovative computer-
based balloting program was utilized to obtain large group input on the 'key themes' to be included in the
vision statement. Guidelines for what a vision statement should and should not be were discussed. After
its successful development, the vision statement and operating principles were ratified by the Program's
Management Committee and have become the basis for discussion by the more than 325 individuals
representing 165 stakeholder groups involved in the development of potential management actions for
the study area.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Moving From Characterization To Plan
Development
Helen E. Drummond, Water and Sediment Quality Team Leader
Galveston Bay National Estuary Program, Webster, TX
Galveston Bay is the largest estuary in Texas and the second most productive in the United States. It
covers over 600 square miles and its average depth is about 10 feet. The Bay is surrounded by 203 square
miles of estuarine marsh, 14 square miles of forested wetlands and 61 square miles of fresh water ponds
and lakes.
The Galveston Bay system is adjacent to one of the largest urban areas in the United States. Nearly 50%
of the nation's petrochemical production and 30% of the nation's petroleum industry is located around
these bays, comprising the world's largest petrochemical complex. The Port of Houston is the third
largest port in the United States and sixth largest in the world-more than 140 million tons of cargo pass
through this port each year. Approximately 60% of the wastewater discharged in Texas flows into the
Galveston Bay System, and 45% of all wastewater treatment plants on the U.S. Gulf Coast are in the
Galveston Bay region. More than 7 million people, half the Texas population, use the Galveston Bay
System as a final destination for wastewater.
Galveston Bay's lower watershed is home to some 3.5 million people, with a government structure that
includes five counties, some 15 agencies with bay resource jurisdictions, and an incredible 500 or more
water, utility, and drainage districts. This patchwork mosaic of jurisdictions gives new meaning to the
term "fragmented".
The problems which currently plague many coastal ecosystems fundamentally differ from those of the
past. In the past, major improvements in water quality were possible with relatively simple (if expensive)
end-of-the-pipe regulation. Some gains are still to be made in traditional water quality approaches.
However, the traditional management approaches do not apply to problems like pervasive habitat loss,
-------
diffuse sources of non-point contamination, or freshwater inflow alteration. These are ecosystem
problems, not limited to individual natural resources, nor circumscribed by political boundaries. These
problems are complex and interrelated, involving the bay itself, its tributaries to some distance upstream,
and the watersheds where humans carry on their daily activities.
How The Galveston Bay Plan Was Created
The Galveston Bay National Estuary Program was created to comprehensively address problems
resulting from human pollution, development, and overuse of estuarine resources. Work was undertaken
by an appointed consortium of state and federal agencies, industry, and citizen members - the GBNEP
Management Conference, in three phases:
Phase One: Agreement on bay problems. A Priority Problems List was established by consensus of the
Management Conference. This list provided guidance for the next step.
Phase Two: Scientific characterization of the problems. Over a four-year period, numerous scientific
studies were carried out to determine the status, trends, and probable causes of the problems. This effort
culminated in publication of a book entitled: The State of the Bay: A Characterization of the Galveston
Bay Ecosystem. This step resulted in substantial re-definition of the bay's problems, providing a strong
factual foundation for management planning.
Phase Three: Development of solutions. The Galveston Bay Plan links a set of specific initiatives to the
identified problems in Galveston Bay. These solutions were developed over three years by sixteen task
forces established by the Management Committee of the GBNEP.
The approach taken by the Management Conference to develop The Galveston Bay Plan was one of
consensus-building among all Galveston Bay user groups, government agencies, and the public. This
approach was based on a philosophy that the best governance for Galveston Bay can only be established
by strong and direct involvement of the people who live and work in the Galveston Bay region. No
environmental program in the history of the state has involved citizens and stakeholders more actively in
environmental problem-solving.
The Role of the Public
Strong involvement by the public was indispensable to the development of The Galveston Bay Plan.
When the GBNEP began in 1989, a Citizen's Advisory Steering Committee (CASC) was established.
Appointments to this committee included a variety of stakeholder interests: industry, shipping,
recreational boating, commercial and recreational fishing, development, agriculture, and environmental
groups. The committee was instrumental in assuring that citizen/stakeholder perspectives were at the
forefront of planning. The CASC undertook several projects that were aimed at fostering public
awareness and involvement with the GBNEP and the development of The Galveston Bay Plan.
-------
Numerous public meetings were also held to obtain citizen input on the developing Galveston Bay Plan.
A total of 35 meetings were conducted between April, 1989, and June, 1994. The public was made aware
of the availability of summary documents and encouraged to attend the public meetings through a variety
of mechanisms: news releases to area media; paid display and legal notice advertising; articles and
notices in environmental group and civic association newsletters; postcards mailed to all BayLine
subscribers; and speeches by staff and volunteers to targeted groups and organizations. One-page news
advisories, or reminders of the meetings, were faxed to radio stations and newspapers in the locale of the
meetings one to two days in advance of each meeting.
The developing Plan was also reviewed by numerous "focus groups" through an active outreach program
sponsored by the GBNEP. These focus groups included industry, environmental groups, local
governments, and others. Fifty-six focus group meetings were held between June 1993, and May 1994.
The direct involvement of the general public and Galveston Bay stakeholders helped shape The Plan that
was unanimously approved by the GBNEP Policy Committee for submission to EPA Adminstrator
Browner.
The Role of the Scientist
The Scientific/Technical Advisory Committee, established in 1989, provided scientific and technical
guidance to the Management Conference by identifying estuarine problems and by overseeing studies to
establish the trends and probable causes necessary for management action.
Because the world views of scientists and resource managers clearly differ, some sort of agreed-upon
guidance was necessary for these diverging views to be reconciled. Certain conceptual boundaries were
applied to the program's scientific activity in order to provide information of optimal use in management
planning. These guidelines were:
¦ Projects must address the right questions, requiring that managers have a role in identifying and
ranking project topics;
¦ Projects must be undertaken in the context of a perturbed ecosystem, requiring that projects focus
on impact dynamics rather than traditional ecology alone;
¦ Projects must provide data at a scale of resolution applicable to management, requiring
generalized geographic ordering of projects and sampling within projects;
¦ Results must be available to managers in an accessible, useful format, requiring that data be
converted to synoptic information; and
¦ Ongoing work must fulfill a sensory feedback function to managers, requiring a monitoring
program with a direct link to management objectives.
-------
To address this last issue, a Priority Problems List was agreed upon as a focal point for consensus about
where to begin the scientific process. Generally, issues were advanced in this process if they had system-
wide impact, impaired designated uses, or (more practically) if they could be quickly or cheaply fixed.
For Galveston Bay, the preliminary Priority Problems List was drafted by scientists based upon joint
expert opinion. The list was then adopted by consensus of the Management Committee.
Over a course of about 4 years, the program then carried out several dozen scientific projects. Seventeen
issues emerged from the bay characterization process as worthy of management attention. In rank order
of importance for bay management, the top six problems were:
¦ Vital Galveston Bay habitats like wetlands have been lost or reduced in value by a range of
human activities, threatening the bay's future sustained productivity.
¦ Contaminated runoff from non-point sources degrades the water and sediments of bay tributaries
and some near-shore areas.
¦ Raw or partially treated sewage and industrial waste enters Galveston Bay due to design and
operational problems, especially during rainfall runoff.
¦ Future demands for freshwater and alterations to circulation may seriously affect productivity and
overall ecosystem health.
¦ Certain toxic substances have contaminated water and sediment, and may have a negative effect
on aquatic life in contaminated areas.
¦ Certain species of marine organisms and birds have shown a declining population trend.
Each study which contributed to these findings was published in the program's technical monograph
series. These volumes were made available to all who requested copies and distributed to some 50 area
libraries. Two State of the Bay Symposia were convened, and proceedings published, in 1991 and 1993.
Finally, the scientific work was compiled in a single book entitled The State of the Bay: A
Characterization of the Galveston Bay Ecosystem.
The Galveston Bay Plan
Based on characterization
study findings goals were Table 1. Goal Priorities in The Galveston Bay Plan.
established to address
each problem identified
in the priority list. These
goals were then the basis
-------
for more specific
objectives and actions,
which are the heart of
The Plan. Table 1
describes the relative
importance of The Plan's
goals. The table
subdivides the goals into
three major bay
management categories:
Water and Sediment
Quality Improvement,
Habitat/Living Resources
Conservation, and
Balanced Human Uses.
Goals in each of these
categories are classified
by their priority level-
that is their relative
importance in
comprehensive planning
to solve the problems.
Within each priority level
in the table individual
goals are also listed in
order of priority.
Ultimately, 82
management actions
were established, each of
which were assigned a
priority rank of "High,"
"Medium," or "Low"
based on deliberation by
the Management
Conference, including
the sixteen task forces. In
assigning these ranks, the
Management Conference
considered both the costs
and probable outcomes
of the actions, and made
judgments about which
were most significant in
Priority
Level
Very
High
High
Water/Sediment
Quality
Improvement
Reduce NPD
pollutant loads
Reduce toxicity and
contaminant
concentrations in
water and sediments.
Eliminate wet
weather sewage
bypasses/overflows
Eliminate pollution
problems from
poorly operated
wastewater
treatment plants
Restore and/or
compensate for
environmental
damage (injury)
resulting from
discharges of oil or
the release of
hazardous
substances.
Eliminate illegal
connections to storm
sewers, which result
in introduciton of
untreated wastes
directly to bay
tributaries
Habitat/Living
Resource
Conservation
Increase the quantity
and improve the
quality of wetlands
for fish and wildlife.
Eliminate or mitigate
the conversion of
wetlands to other
uses caused by
human activities
Acquire existing
wetland habitats and
provide ecomonic
incentives for
conservation
Reverse the declining
population trend for
affected species of
marine organisms
and birds, and
maintain the
populations of other
economic and
ecologically
important species.
Balanced Human
Uses
Ensure beneficial
freshwater
inflows
necessary for a
salinity, nutrient,
and sediment
loading regime
adequate to
maintain
productivity of
econmonically
important and
ecologically
characteristic
species in
Galveston Bay.
Reduce the
potential health
risk resulting
from
consumption of
seafood
contaminated
with toxic
substances.
Reduce negative
environmental
consequences to
the bay (i.e.
human-induced
erosion) form
shoreline
development
-------
relation to the bay's
documented problems.
The assigned rankings
will provide a guideline
for expenditure of funds
during implementation of
The Plan. In all, several
hundred meetings were
convened as The
Galveston Bay Plan
evolved through six
complete revisions.
The cohesiveness of the
comprehensive planning
effort is reflected in the
unprecedented level and
breadth of endorsements
that The Galveston Bay
Plan has received.
Support for The
Galveston Bay Plan
ranges from The Texas
Chemical Council and
Greater Houston
Partnership to the
Galveston Bay
Foundation (a non-profit
conservation
organization) and The
League of Women
Voters. Examples of the
Moderate
Low
Increase dissolved
oxygen in problem
areas.
Reduce agricultrual
NPS pollutant loads
Reduce industrial
NPS pollutant loads.
Reduce marina
water quality
degradation
associated with
sewage.
Reduce
marina/dockside
NPS loads
Reduce construction
NPS pollutant loads.
Reduce the impact
from spills on the
natural environment.
Eliminate illegal
dumping.
Eliminate
waterborne debris
Selectively moderate
erosional impacts to
the bay and
associated shorelines
Increase porductivity
of oyster reefs in
West Bay.
Restore deteriorated
colonial bird nesting
islands to usefulness
and create new
islands for birds
where nesting habitat
is inadequate.
Eradicate or reduce
the populations of
exotic/opportuni stic
species which
threaten desirable
native species,
habitats, and
ecological
relationships. Prevent
the introduction of
additional exotic
species.
Reduce oyster
reef harvest
closures.
Ensure that
alterations to
circulation do not
negatively affect
productivity and
overall
ecosystem health.
Reduce risk of
water-borne
illness resulting
from contact
recreation.
Increase
environmentally
compatible
public access to
bay resources.
numerous statements of support from diverse organizations appear on several pages in the front of The
Galveston Bay Plan itself. Prior to The Galveston Bay Plan, no natural resource management program in
Texas had ever received such a broad basis of support for implementation of comprehensive ecosystem
management.
Based on this broad agency, industry, and environmental consensus, The Galveston Bay Plan was
endorsed by the Governor of Texas in December, 1994, and simultaneously submitted for approval by
EPA Administrator Browner. The Plan was given federal approval in April 1995 and has become the first
crossjurisdictional ecosystem management document of its kind to be implemented in Texas.
-------
Implementation of the Galveston Bay Plan
The Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) and the Texas General Land Office
(GLO) are jointly administering implementation of The Galveston Bay Plan. A Galvetson Bay Estuary
Program (GBEP) Director and a staff of 9 TNRCC employees oversee implementation. The composition
of the staff reflects The Plan's initiatives, with expertise in wetlands and estuarine habitats, coastal
resource conservation, non-point source pollution issues, water quality and public education. Work of the
staff also include support actions such as regional monitoring initiatives, research, and fostering
continued public participation in establishing management policy. The duties of the GBEP staff include
the following:
¦ Acquire, manage and disperse funds to implement The Plan.
¦ Review federal, state and local projects in an open process for consistency with The Plan.
¦ Provide for coordination with the Texas Coastal Management Program (CMP) and the Coastal
Coordination Council (CCC).
¦ Provide for coordination and communication among state and federal resource agencies for the
many cross-jurisdictional issues.
¦ Monitor implementation of specific actions by The Plan's partners.
¦ Identify and communicate bay improvements to agencies, stakeholders, and the public, and
redirect The Galveston Bay Plan where improvements lag.
¦ Conduct public outreach and education to increase public awareness of Galveston Bay, and to
advocate conservation of the estuary.
¦ Evaluate the impacts of proposed actions on cultural resources and areas of historical significance.
Diverse concerns for habitat and wildlife, competing resource uses, water quality, and human health
cannot be adequately addressed without the involvement of multiple natural resource agencies and bay
stakeholders. To achieve success, problems of a regional nature-those affecting the entire ecosystem-will
require regionally coordinated actions. Because of the comprehensive nature of The Plan, the creation of
a Galveston Bay Council (GBC) to advise the GBEP is an important part of implementation. The GBC
consist of representatives of federal, state and local natural resource agencies, the research community,
local governments, citizens groups including representatives from low-income and minority
communities, and other Galveston Bay stakeholders. The GBC will help the GBEP provide a continuing
focus on Galveston Bay issues and coordination among the implementing organizations. The GBC will
have a strong advisory role; not merely perfunctory.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Priority Setting for the Casco Bay Estuary Project
Mark Smith
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, Boston, MA
Lee Doggett
Casco Bay Estuary Project, Portland, ME
The Casco Bay Plan focuses on five priority issues. There was a need to limit the number of issues
included as part of the five year estuary project because of time and financial constraints. These may not
be the only issues the Casco Bay Estuary Project addresses but they are the issues it will address first.
Once implementation is underway, the Project may identify and address other issues. This paper focuses
on the process of issue prioritization for the Casco Bay Estuary Project.
Background
Casco Bay was accepted into the National Estuary Program in April, 1990. That summer the
organizational structure was developed and committees were formed. These committees included a
Management Committee, a Citizens Advisory Committee, a Local Government Committee and a
Technical Advisory Committee. The Management Committee of the Casco Bay Estuary Project
represents a diverse group including state and federal agencies, industry, citizen groups, local
government officials, and scientific and education institutions. However, Management Committee
members realized that public participation was vital to the success of the Project and the development of
the Casco Bay Plan.
Public Input
In the fall of the first year, the first public forum was held. The forum had three goals:
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
¦ educate participants about issues facing Casco Bay;
¦ allow participants to hear what other citizens think the important issues are; and
¦ develop a list of priority issues.
Over 120 people attended the forum. The day began with talks by experts on issues affecting the Bay.
Participants then broke into small groups to brainstorm about the issues. The issues were sorted into three
categories:
¦ problems that should be addressed;
¦ actions that need to be taken; and
¦ questions that need answering.
This process yielded over 75 different items. After reviewing the lists from all groups, each small group
reconvened to discuss which of these 75 issues were most important. The day ended with an informal
"vote," with each participant voting for the two issues they felt were most important. The issues most
widely viewed as important were:
Problems:
¦ Toxic waste, such as PCBs and oil pollution
¦ Balancing economic development with environmental protection
¦ Lack of enforcement
¦ Nutrients
¦ Bacteria
¦ Combined sewer overflows (CSOs)
Actions:
¦ Educate the public
¦ Include the Kennebec River in project
-------
¦ Develop baseline data
¦ Step up enforcement
Questions:
¦ What is the extent of contamination by heavy metals and PCBs?
¦ What are the flows and currents in the Bay?
¦ What is the nutrient carrying capacity of the Bay?
¦ Who has existing data?
Many of the issues raised at the forum were addressed in the projects in the project's first year workplan
including measuring contaminant levels in sediments of Casco Bay and modeling the currents and
flushing rates in Bay.
Follow-up Public Input
The Management Committee identified three broad priorities for the first year of the project. These were:
¦ A need for more information so that specific issues and problems can be prioritized. This includes
gathering and analyzing existing information and gathering some new data.
¦ A need to involve a broad spectrum of people and interests in the Project. This involvement is
necessary in order for credible and effective actions to be developed.
¦ A need to focus on activities and needs at the local level. This reflects the realization that many of
the efforts that are likely to be undertaken will depend on efforts undertaken at the local level.
The Management Committee recognized that to be effective, the Project had to limit the number of issues
to work on at one time. Therefore, the Management Committee attempted to identify a set of priority
issues for the Casco Bay Estuary Project. However, a problem emerged about how to define issues.
Should the priorities be set based on:
¦ the sources of pollution?
¦ the impacts of the pollution? or
-------
¦ the types of pollution?
Each approach had limitations and none were adequate to handle the numerous interrelations that exist
among issues. As time passed, the need to set priorities became acute. Therefore, a more structured
priority-setting approach was undertaken. The first step was the preparation of six issue papers. They
ensured that all members of the Management Committee had an understanding of the issues and their
interrelationships. The topics of the issue papers were: toxics; pathogens; nutrients; depletion of marine
resources; habitat loss and alterations; and aesthetics. Each paper included:
¦ a definition of each issue;
¦ a discussion of the known impacts of the issue in Casco Bay;
¦ an explanation of its effect on the ecology and human uses of the Bay;
¦ an identification of typical sources of the pollution or problem and mitigation strategies available
to address them; and
¦ a description of the existing efforts in place to address the issue.
After receiving and discussing the issue papers, the next step was the development of a formal mission
statement. The mission was designed to set the broad mandate for the program. Once the mission was set,
the Management Committee developed a list of potential threats to Casco Bay and the criteria by which
to judge them. The list contained 21 potential threats (hereafter referred to as issues) that included a mix
of categories of pollution sources and activities that threaten the Bay. The Committee ranked each issue
as high, medium or low on 12 criteria. The criteria were:
¦ Existing or potential impact on the ecosystem of Casco Bay.
¦ Existing or potential impact on the economic resources of the Bay.
¦ Existing or potential impact on public use of the Bay.
¦ Whether existing efforts addressing the issue are inadequate.
¦ Whether the Casco Bay Estuary Project could make a positive contribution to the issue.
¦ Whether there could be immediate action taken to address the issue.
¦ Whether addressing the issue would lead to a greater understanding of the Bay.
-------
¦ Whether the efforts to address the issue could be replicated in other areas.
¦ Whether the efforts to address the issue could be precedent setting.
¦ Whether the issue fit within the Casco Bay Estuary Project mission.
¦ Whether the issue was of strong public concern.
¦ Whether public involvement was required to address the issue.
The ranking of issues by these criteria resulted in the emergence of a set of priority issues. The results
were reviewed and adjusted by combining similar issues and by making sure no major omissions had
occurred. The result was the selection of five priority issues. This narrowing of issues to five priorities
was a difficult process. The Management Committee recognized that all 21 issues were important to
maintaining the health of the Bay. However, the Committee realized only a few issues could be
adequately addressed at one time. The five priority issues were turned into goal statements. They are:
¦ To promote environmentally appropriate use and development of land and marine resources.
¦ To minimize adverse environmental impacts from storm water runoff and combined sewer
overflows.
¦ To minimize adverse environmental impacts of individual wastewater systems.
¦ To determine the effect of existing sediment contamination on the health of Casco Bay.
¦ To promote responsible stewardship of Casco Bay and its watershed through increased public
involvement.
After the priorities were set, the second year workplan was developed. The workplan addressed both the
new priorities and many of the issues raised at the first public forum.
Public Input Revisited
The Casco Bay Estuary Project held a second public forum to get feedback on the five priority issues.
Despite a spring snow storm, 30-40 people met to discuss the issues. Those present heard a summary of
the priority setting process and attended small group discussions on the issues. Management Committee
members were present to discuss how and why the priorities were selected and an expert in each field
answered technical questions about the issue.
Developing Goals and Objectives
-------
After the priorities had been set, the next step was to focus the goals into more specific objectives. The
Management Committee agreed that each objective should contain the impact that was of most concern
(the priority issues often had more than one impact) and one or two approaches that should be used to
address the impact.
Having developed goals and objectives, the Management Committee then began developing action plans.
The first step was to give each goal and objective to an "expert roundtable" composed of people from
federal, state and local governments and research institutions who deal with the issues on a regular basis.
Each goal and objective had its own roundtable. Participants of the roundtables brainstormed lists of
possible actions and identified those that they felt were most important.
The Management Committee reviewed the results of the roundtables, reduced the number of actions,
focused the actions more narrowly, and adjusted the priority of the actions. The action plans were
structured to include a brief discussion of existing efforts underway, a series of short term actions, and
discussion of future directions. The future directions point to where the Management Committee thought
the actions should end up. The final recommendations depended on the outcome of the existing efforts
and short-term actions.
Public Input Through Focus Groups
The draft action plans were taken to a series of focus groups. Each focus group was composed of people
representing a particular interest that has a stake in the issues addressed in the action plans. The eight
stakeholder groups were:
¦ Waterfront organizations and industry
¦ Homeowners, septage haulers and plumbers
¦ Fishing community, clam diggers, and marina owners and operators
¦ Real estate and land use, including brokers and contractors
¦ Local elected officials and planning board members
¦ Municipal government staff
¦ Environmental advocates
¦ Farmers and foresters
-------
The participants in each focus group reviewed the two action plans of most interest to their group. Each
group responded to three questions:
¦ Are the future directions outlined in the action plans appropriate?
¦ Will the actions achieve the stated goals and objectives?
¦ What opportunities and barriers exist for the implementation of the action plans?
The comments of the focus groups included suggested changes to the action plans and more general
comments about environmental protection issues. However, six overarching themes emerged from the
comments that cut across all the groups and issues discussed. These six themes were:
¦ Regulatory overload - People are overwhelmed by the maze of environmental regulations. The
regulations are often unfairly applied and the people who try to comply have more trouble than
those who ignore the rules.
¦ Cooperative approach - Government should be less adversarial and more supportive of people
who are trying to protect the environment and play by the rules. There needs to be technical help
on environmental and regulatory issues.
¦ Bottom-up approach - It is important to involve a broad range of people in the information
gathering, priority setting and decision making which accompanies environmental protection.
These efforts should not be restricted to only local, state and federal governments.
¦ Economic and taxes - There is a need to demonstrate the cost effectiveness of protective
measures, the economic value of protection and the true costs of development. Current tax
policies often drive unwise development and should be changed to provide the correct incentives.
¦ Logical Approach - Government should mandate goals and provide a list of options of how to
achieve the goal rather than mandating the use of a specific option. This would allow the most
practical approach to be used in a given situation. Resources for environmental protection should
be targeted to address the most important concerns and achieve the biggest impacts.
¦ Public education - There was almost universal agreement that education is one of the most
important ways to protect the environment. In particular, working with schools to teach children
was seen as the best long-term protection measure.
The comments from all the groups, and the overarching themes, were taken to the Management
Committee for review. The Committee revised the action plans based on the comments, including some
major revisions, such as reworking the objectives of two of the action plans to clear up inconsistencies.
These revised action plans were then taken to a public forum for additional input.
-------
Another Check with the Public
A public forum was held to allow a broader public discussion of the action plans. Over 60 people
attended and participated in small group discussions about two action plans of their choice. The
comments from these small groups were brought back to the Management Committee for review,
revision, and approval of the preliminary Casco Bay Plan for release.
Summary
¦ Involve the public early and often include all interested parties, publicize results.
¦ Provide structure to the public input and priority setting.
¦ Take public imput seriously reflect that input in data gathering, priority setting and activities
¦ Get local help develop goals and objectives by using technical experts and focus groups
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Storm Water Permitting: A Watershed Perspective
James E. Murray, Director
Wayne County Department of Environment, MI
Kelly A. Cave, P.E
Camp Dresser & McKee, Detroit, MI
John M. Bona, P.E.
Camp Dresser & McKee, Detroit, MI
—f——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
The Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project (Rouge Project) has provided a unique
opportunity for a watershed-wide approach to municipal storm water discharge regulation under the
Clean Water Act. This paper discusses some of the shortcomings of the existing storm water regulatory
program as it offers solutions for removing the barriers to allowing a watershed-wide storm water permit,
and presents the approach taken by the Rouge Project to initiate a watershed based permitting process.
The Rouge River, a tributary to the Detroit River in Southeast Michigan, has been documented as a
significant source of pollution to the Great Lakes System. The Rouge River is about 128 miles within a
watershed of approximately 467 square miles in three counties and is home to over 1.5 million residents.
The eastern portion of the watershed consists of much of the old industrial areas of Detroit and Dearborn.
The western and northern portions consist of newer suburban communities and areas under heavy
development pressure.
-------
Historically, the major sources of pollution to the river were industrial and municipal point sources, wet
weather sanitary sewer bypasses, and combined sewer overflows (CSOs). The point sources and sanitary
sewer overflows have been successfully controlled by an aggressive National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) permitting process administered by the Michigan Department of
Environmental Quality (MDEQ). However, the river still fails to meet water quality standards due to a
wide range of sources such as CSOs, storm water runoff, illicit connections, failing septic systems,
leachate from abandoned dumps, and resuspension of contaminated bottom sediment.
The Rouge Project has developed its watershed-wide management program based on the concept that
each citizen has the right to expect clean water from their upstream neighbor and are also expected to
assure that their downstream neighbor is given the same courtesy. To restore water quality and beneficial
uses in the Rouge River under current institutional arrangements, each jurisdiction must implement
measures to eliminate pollution. It is increasingly more evident that managing water quality necessitates
looking beyond political boundaries and focusing on the hydrologic units for assessment and remedial
action.
The Rouge Project initiated the watershed-wide management approach in southeast Michigan by
facilitating CSO control and permitting based on common requirements throughout the watershed. Rouge
communities served by combined sewers have entered into permits with the MDEQ and the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) requiring a base level of abatement construction
throughout the watershed followed by assessment of water quality impacts and future construction
phases to meet public health and water quality standards.
In the separated sewer areas of the Rouge River watershed, currently only one of the 48 communities and
select industries are required to obtain NPDES stormwater permits. Stormwater permitting and
management only in select areas of the watershed, combined with the CSO efforts, will not achieve the
water quality and beneficial use objectives for the river. Therefore, the Rouge Project team, comprised of
communities and counties, industries, local/regional agencies, MDEQ, and U.S. EPA, is working to
develop a consensus-based design for a watershed-wide storm water management and permit program
meeting the needs of all local communities while focusing on the instream water quality issues facing the
Rouge River watershed.
The Rouge Project has defined a five component strategy designed to identify and overcome the barriers
that have previously hindered water shed-wide permitting. The components are:
1. Define working groups with a focused local purpose;
2. Develop a common set of basic technical information;
3. Identify and prioritize specific sub-watershed problems;
4. Develop a long-term strategy and implementation process;
-------
5. Allow for a watershed-wide NPDES permit or an alternate program.
The first component, define working groups with a focused local purpose, is the key to establishing the
local interest and support fundamental to watershed issues. It is the intent of these groups to define the
requirements of an effective storm water management program, and it is understood that these
requirements will vary from one area of the watershed to another. The involvement of citizens and their
local community officials is best encouraged by identifying a specific local issue that is a component of
the overall watershed-wide problem. It is easier for the general public to understand how drainage affects
their backyards than to comprehend the complexities of the entire watershed.
Within the Rouge watershed we have, thus far, established three working groups focused on specific sub-
watershed areas. Each of these groups is facilitated by project staff working closely with community
leaders to identify local issues of concern and to convene appropriate involvement from citizens and
municipal officials. Once the issues are drawn along water quantity or quality lines effecting specific
individuals, the problems associated with municipal boundaries can be overcome.
Our first working group was formed within the Upper Rouge 2 sub-watershed (see Figure 1). This area
encompasses about two-thirds of the City of Livonia together with portions of five surrounding
municipalities. Upon completing a sewer separation project in a small area of the city, Livonia will be
required to obtain a Phase I NPDES municipal storm water permit. It was these impending permit
requirements that became the catalyst for Livonia city officials to champion the working group involved
in this sub-watershed. Their efforts are directed at developing processes and procedures to evaluate in-
stream water quality as a determinant of needed Best Management Practices rather than undertaking the
"end-of-pipe" analysis associated with previous permit requirements. This group is also examining
institutional and financial barriers to watershed management at the local level. Incentives are also being
identified to encourage a watershed approach to storm water regulation at the local, state, and federal
levels.
The second working group has been formed within the Middle Rouge 1 sub-watershed, a relatively rural
area facing intense development pressure. This effort was championed by a citizens group concerned
with the condition of Northville Mill Pond, and has garnered the support of all upstream municipalities.
The group is addressing issues associated with the effects of development on the river and on in-stream
impoundments. A key activity for this group is implementation of consistent stormwater management
requirements for new development in the six communities in the sub-watershed.
The third working group is comprised of communities within the Middle Rouge 3 sub-watershed. This
area is comprised of older suburban communities which have areas served by both separate and
combined sewer systems. This group is the most recently formed, and is beginning to consider the
problems of storm water management in densely developed areas, and the equity issues created by the
need to address both CSO abatement and storm water management within a single municipality. The
findings and recommendations of these groups will provide the basis for expanding the watershed
-------
management effort to the entire Rouge River watershed.
The next component of the Rouge watershed storm water strategy, develop a common set of basic
technical information, is required in order to provide benefit/cost information on alternative pollution
controls to the watershed decision makers. This effort is based on the construction or implementation and
evaluation of pilot pollution controls, as well as information from the literature, and is providing
consistent information across the entire watershed. While local issues and priorities may differ, it is
important that a common base be used to evaluate the proposed remedial measures from one sub-
watershed to another. Additionally, it will become necessary to evaluate watershed-wide impacts of local
improvement efforts.
The third component of the Rouge watershed storm water strategy is to identify and prioritize specific
sub-watershed problems. This effort is initially being done by the working groups and will be expanded
throughout the watershed. This effort is based on the extensive information being developed for the
watershed, including comprehensive in-stream water quality monitoring and modeling programs (e.g.,
watershed analysis programs). This effort is identifying problems outside of local areas of concern and
will prioritize these problem areas across the entire watershed. This approach may substantially reduce
the costs and increase the effectiveness of wet weather pollution remediation measures in this large urban
watershed.
The sources of pollution vary considerably by sub-watershed and the level of anticipated use for each
reach of urban river is also different. It is therefore necessary to consider a number of factors in
establishing priorities for addressing specific problems. These include bacterial contamination (i.e.,
human health concerns), flow variability, water column chemistry, aesthetics, and the ability to support
an appropriate biological community as well as technical and economic limitations. The Rouge Project
has developed an index system which is being used to define the present quality of river use in each sub-
watershed and to compare and assess the impacts proposed management practices will make on the
increased usability of the resource. This tool is proving useful for communicating complex and technical
information to watershed stakeholders with widely varying technical backgrounds.
The fourth component of the Rouge watershed storm water strategy requires the integration of all local
sub-watershed efforts through the development of a long-term strategy and implementation process.
While problem identification and consensus building must proceed from the bottom up, it is critical that
the process be established to unite the individual sub-watershed groups, and the municipalities they
overlap, within a single strategy for managing the watershed on a long-term basis. Only if the initial
watershed analysis programs are continued to be utilized after the initial remediation measures are
implemented and future measures implemented as needed will progress toward meeting water quality
goals be attained.
We believe that responsibility for the majority of remedial and preventive watershed management
measures remains at the local community level. However, certain aspects of the long-term
implementation may be best served by a watershed-wide association. These include baseline water
-------
quality sampling and analysis, regional pollution controls (where appropriate), consistent standards for
new development, bank stabilization, and certain aspects of flow control and other urban problems
associated with logjam removal, debris and sediment remediation.
The institutional arrangements required to implement this association will differ widely from watershed
to watershed throughout the country. These arrangements will be based on specific issues being
addressed, existing agencies or associations, state enabling legislation, and regulatory agency
requirements. Yet, before any agreements can be forged between local units of government and the
regulatory agencies, the basic foundation established through Rouge watershed storm water strategy
components one through three must be in place.
The fifth component of the strategy presumes that the Rouge watershed management effort encompasses
the purpose and intent of both NPDES point source and storm water efforts. This effort allows for a
watershed-wide NPDES permit or an alternate program to be developed which will meet the
requirements in a manner acceptable to both the local regulatory agency and the U.S. EPA.
For certain sources such as traditional point sources or CSOs, the existing NPDES permit process should
remain basically unchanged but with modifications to consider the effects of specific outfalls on specific
receiving water and watershed concerns. However, for non-point and urban storm water sources, an
alternative to the formal permit issued to each municipality may be preferable. In these cases, the
communities may be considered to be permitted by rule as long as they are actively participating in the
watershed management process, supporting those general activities such as baseline sampling and
analysis, and implementing the Best Management Practices called for within their particular sub-
watersheds.
For this process to be successful, the regulatory agencies need also to redirect their emphasis. It is hoped
that by mutually defining a program in the Rouge River watershed based upon local consensus to address
storm water management, the river will realize improvement much earlier than would be realized through
a protracted command-and-control permitting procedure.
The Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project is working to establish an enforceable
storm water management system on a watershed basis. Communities within the watershed have joined
with state and federal representatives to implement a five component strategy to develop technical,
institutional, and regulatory options to cost-effectively manage stormwater and other sources of pollution
on a watershed basis. It is hoped that the lessons learned from this effort will be beneficial to others
across the nation to achieve the goals of the Clean Water Act.
-------
,'M.'' •
1
^•--31
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Watershed Approach to Combined Sewer
Overflow Control
Lise M. Marx, Project Manager
Wendy Smith Leo, Project Manager
Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, Boston, MA
Gregory Heath, Project Manager
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wakefield, MA
The Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA) provides wastewater service to 43 communities
in the metropolitan Boston region. MWRA ratepayers have experienced significant increases in the annual
cost of service, as a result of infrastructure improvements required for compliance with the Clean Water
Act and to ensure system reliability. The four communities of Boston, Cambridge, Chelsea and Somerville
and the MWRA have approximately 81 combined sewer overflows (CSOs) which discharge a mixture of
sanitary sewage and stormwater to Boston Harbor and its main tributaries during wet weather. These
receiving waters are shown in Figure 1. A combined sewer overflow control plan to reduce these
discharges through construction of an extensive deep rock and connecting tunnel system was developed in
the late 1980's and was expected to add an additional 1.4 billion dollars to the ratepayers' bill.
-------
Alewife BrooK
U|jp«r Mpstc Hv«r
i::I:

Ut»pw Qiortfts Hww
Low Charies Hvw
m.:: :.
4 V
"I;;*:::
J

Lower lrr»w
Hsrtcr

Bsch Bay Fens
F&I-L l^ir.1
Channel
North
wm&m
char**

:
"¦¦iiiii:::!
OOHBIH)
sar Bf CWEHFLOW5

0
EXKmSCSD
THE ATM E MT FACtUTES
Souh
Dorcheslw Bay
Mipori»l Hvw
W-ln-W:

w
Figure 1. Receiving Water Segments and CSO Locations.
The Authority was able to negotiate with EPA to be allowed additional time to undertake more extensive
monitoring of combined flows and to develop a more detailed understanding of the community and
MWRA piping systems. At the same time, EPA on the national level was developing a new CSO control
policy with input from municipal, state and environmental interests. This new policy was more flexible in
that it allowed the permittee to demonstrate compliance with state water quality standards. This approach
requires that the permittee (the MWRA and the four communities) have a thorough understanding of the
receiving waters and of the impacts of CSO discharges and other sources of pollution on water quality.
The MWRA work plan for additional CSO planning was developed to be consistent with this new EPA
policy and with the Massachusetts CSO policy. The end result is a new CSO control plan which provides
equivalent or greater water quality benefits at a cost of 370 million dollars. For Boston Harbor and its
tributaries, fourteen watersheds or sub-watersheds were delineated based on water quality, frequency and
volume of CSO discharges, uses of the water body and adjacent shoreline, and water body hydrodynamics.
Four major sequential tasks of a watershed approach were identified and are shown in Figure 2. North
Dorchester Bay and the Lower Charles River can be used as representative examples of how these tasks
were implemented.
-------
Taskl.-DBfneBisedineCoiKfitbiks Task2.-Dteieb|iRaiigeafBefrfcBl Uses
Figure 2. Watershed Approach To CSO Control Planning.
Task 1-Define Baseline Conditions
The development of baseline conditions involves definition of applicable water quality standards and
existing water quality for each receiving water, and characterizing the watershed and the waterbody
hydrodynamics which can greatly effect the temporal and areal impacts of CSOs. The next step focused on
characterizing CSO and non-CSO sources. Information on the volume, frequency and location of CSO
events was determined using comprehensive hydraulic models that were well calibrated and verified. CSO
flows and pollutant loads were computed for various size storms and for a "typical" year. Flows and loads
from upstream watershed sources, and from study area stormwater and CSOs were then input into water
quality models for Boston Harbor and the Charles River to estimate wet weather impacts on receiving
waters from key CSO-related pollutants. These models predict pollutant concentrations over time and
space for each segment. These can then be compared to State water quality standards to estimate the
impact of the various pollution sources on the attainment of beneficial uses. These models also distinguish
the relative contributions of CSO and non-CSO sources.
For North Dorchester Bay and the Charles River, baseline conditions revealed very different stories. North
Dorchester Bay is classified SB-Fishable/Swimmable with Restricted Shellfishing in approved areas. This
receiving water segment contains several of Boston's public beaches and is the focus of a major "Back to
the Beaches" campaign by state and local officials. Although significant shellfish resources are known to
-------
exist in the area, shellfishing is currently prohibited due to the fecal coliform levels in the overlying waters
and to the presence of CSOs. Boating and fishing are also popular forms of recreation in this area. The
area draining into this section includes portions of the South Boston and Dorchester areas of Boston with a
mixture of parkland and typical urban land uses. Sampling done by the Boston Water and Sewer
Commission indicates that the stormwater in this area is generally free from sewage contamination. Seven
CSOs discharge to this segment and in a typical year, it is estimated that there are approximately 78
overflow events.
Existing water quality in North Dorchester Bay is generally good. Bacteria levels meet the swimming
standard of 200 fecal coliform/100 ml in dry weather, and the boating standard of 1,000 fecal coliform/100
ml is met at all times. The restricted shellfishing standard (88/100ml) appears to be met in dry weather but
not in wet weather. Daytime dissolved oxygen (DO), critical to aquatic life, generally meets the water
quality standard but levels do appear to be depressed in both surface and bottom waters following heavy
rains. An examination of the sources of fecal coliform bacteria indicates that in a 1 year design storm
CSOs contribute more than twice the bacteria load from stormwater but the latter contribution is also
significant.
The Charles River is classified as B-Fishable/Swimmable, and the lower Charles segment is heavily used
for recreational boating including many sailing and rowing organizations. This segment is considered part
of the Charles River Basin and is relatively wide and deep with virtually no current. The shoreline is
predominantly parklands which are heavily used for seasonal river-based festivals or special events. The
Charles River Dam and Locks are located at the mouth of the river and maintains the water level in the
basin. Significant CSO discharges include flow from both the Cottage Farm CSO Treatment Facility and
from Stony Brook. The Cottage Farm facility provides screening, floatables skimming, and disinfection of
combined flows as well as 1.3 million gallons of detention storage which allows some reduction in
sediment. In general, bacteria levels around the Cottage Farm discharge are not well correlated with
rainfall indicating effective disinfection. Stony Brook flow discharges into the lower Charles River
continuously but during wet weather this discharge includes significant amounts of stormwater and
combined sewage and is a major source of most pollutants to the lower Charles River. Overall, this
segment receives a much greater volume of stormwater than CSO flow but both of these sources are tiny
relative to the upstream flow into this segment. These flows tend to have high concentrations of nutrients
and toxic metals from upstream sources of pollution within the 35 cities and towns that comprise the
watershed. The Charles River Dam at the downstream end of the CSO study area has the effect of trapping
pollutants in the basin which tends to further exacerbate the water quality problems and putting this
segment in continuous or wet weather nonattainment for many uses.
Task 2-Define Range of Beneficial Uses
The second task for the watershed approach was to use the baseline conditions information to set a range
of beneficial use goals for which plans for CSO controls and control of non-CSO sources will be
developed. In general, the receiving water goals were set to reflect the following three levels:
¦ Level I: meet or exceed water quality standards at all times and target key pollutants.
-------
¦ Level II: meet water quality standards most of the time (except for 4+/- storm events per year) and
target key pollutants in certain waters. This reflects the Massachusetts policy which allows a
B(CSO) designation with an allowance for a specified number of overflows per year if sufficient
justification is provided.
¦ Level III: Improve water quality, target aesthetics and target bacteria in certain waters. This was
viewed as a short-term goal where baseline conditions indicate that significant water quality
improvements are not feasible in the immediate future.
Improvements in aesthetics through floatables control was addressed at all levels.
For North Dorchester Bay it was feasible to consider an upgrade of the water quality classification from
SB to SA-Fishable/Swimmable with unrestricted shellfishing as the Level I goal given the current high
water quality and the relative contribution of CSOs to the wet weather bacteria problems for that segment.
Based on the data collected, DO, nutrients and aesthetics criteria would also be targeted. The Level II goal
would be to meet the restricted shellfishing and swimming bacteria standard (except for <4
overflows/year) and to meet all other Level I goals. Since North Dorchester Bay is the major beach area
for much of metropolitan Boston, even the Level III goal was to meet the SB standard most of the time
(<4 overflows/year) and to address the aesthetics criteria.
For the Lower Charles River segment, the Level I goal was to meet the swimming bacteria standard at all
times, improve dissolved oxygen, reduce nutrients and reduce metals. The Level II goal would meet the
swimming standard except for 4+/ overflows per year) and Level III goals reflect the existing water
quality and would meet the boating standard at all times.
Task 3-Define CSO and Non-CSO Control Levels
CSO control goals were then developed to match the receiving water goals previously set. For North
Dorchester Bay, the only CSO control goal which would allow an upgrade in the water from SB to SA
(assuming that non-CSO sources of pollution were also controlled) is the elimination of all CSO
discharges. To meet the Level II or III goals, untreated CSO discharges would need to be limited to
<4/year. These goals lead to specific CSO strategies or technologies. To eliminate CSOs, two control
strategies are possible: sewer separation or relocation of the CSO discharges to a less sensitive receiving
water. To limit CSO discharges to <4/year, alternative strategies could include partial separation or storage
of CSO flows.
The same range of CSO control goals were examined for the lower Charles with sewer separation as the
mechanism for eliminating CSOs and meeting the Level I goal. Level II goals would again be achieved by
limiting CSO discharges through a range of storage, flow removal, or transfer and optimization
technologies.
-------
Task 4-Select CSO Control Program
Once the control strategies were identified, the MWRA initiated a series of workshops for CSO
community officials, state and federal regulators, ratepayer and wastewater advisory boards, and local
environmental organizations to present the information. An alternatives rating and ranking process was
used which considered water quality improvement, system performance, cost, and siting feasibility and
preferred CSO controls were identified. These controls reflected the designated uses of the receiving
waters but acknowledge the relative contribution and feasibility of controls for both CSO and non-CSO
pollution.
For North Dorchester Bay, elimination of CSOs was a desired goal. Sewer separation and relocation of
CSOs to a less sensitive area (Reserved Channel) were both feasible and roughly comparable in cost.
Separation would mean new stormwater discharges to the bathing beaches and it was decided that
relocation to Reserved Channel was preferred. A consolidation conduit would store up to a statistical one-
year storm for later transfer to the main treatment plant and larger storms would be discharged from a new
Reserved Channel screening and disinfection facility after treatment. Under this plan, all North Dorchester
Bay CSOs are eliminated.
For the Charles River, it was decided that the bacteria and floatables associated with CSO discharges in
larger rain events were the primary target. These flows contribute significantly to wet weather non-
attainment. Other pollutants, such as total suspended solids and nutrients, were primarily associated with
upstream or stormwater inputs and were not targeted in the CSO controls. The Cottage Farm screening
and disinfection facility will continue to operate and be upgraded with new screens, dechlorination
equipment and a new outfall diffuser. Stony Brook wet weather flows are proposed to receive screening
and disinfection at a new facility to be constructed. All other Lower Charles River discharges either
currently discharge less than four times per year or can be reduced to that level though additional MWRA
or community system improvements. This provides immediate water quality benefits which are also cost-
effective.
Overall, Task 3 was particularly valuable in that it highlighted the need to identify the range of non-CSO
controls also necessary to fully achieve the water body goals. This portion of the task is outside the
MWRA's scope of responsibility and is appropriately done by the State. Massachusetts has now
implemented a watershed approach for all of its water quality investigations and permitting. At the same
time, a non-profit environmental organization, the Charles River Watershed Association, has initiated a
major study of that river. The MWRA is supporting this effort with both technical and financial resources.
If this study identifies responsible parties and implementable solutions for control of non-CSO pollution, it
is possible that the MWRA would be asked to revisit CSO control on the Charles River and implement a
higher level of control.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Monitoring Program Supports Multiple
Goals
Pamela P. Kenel, P.E.
Black & Veatch, Gaithersburg, MD
Catherine M. Rappe
Bureau of Water Resource Management, Carroll County, MD
Pamela D. Mann
Black & Veatch, Gaithersburg, MD
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
The Bureau of Water Resource Management of Carroll County, Maryland, initiated a
comprehensive water quality monitoring program for the Piney Run reservoir and watershed in
1993. This program is designed to satisfy multiple county goals of protecting the quality of the
water supply source, managing a recreational facility, and monitoring the effects of changes in the
watershed from new and potential pollutant sources. The data from the program is being used to
evaluate operational practices, the performance of source protection measures, and the need for
additional measures to protect this valuable county resource.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Multiple Reservoir Uses
-------
The Piney Run Reservoir was constructed in 1975 by Carroll County and the Soil Conservation
Service for the purposes of water supply, recreation, and flood control. The reservoir has served to
successfully control downstream flooding, as well as to provide numerous recreational
opportunities involving boating, picnicking, and passive nature activities. A water treatment plant
is under design to provide up to an additional 3.5 mgd source of water supply to the growing area.
Watershed Composition and Protection Measures
The reservoir has a surface area of 298 acres at its normal pool elevation. The 10.6 square mile
watershed is a mix of land uses, although predominantly zoned for agriculture. The current mix is
approximately 63% agricultural, 18% residential, and 19% forested land uses. A number of
policies have been specifically implemented to protect the surface water resources of the county. A
Conservation Zone exists to restrict the intensity of development in the watersheds of the county's
reservoirs, and in 1993, a stream buffer provision was implemented for new subdivisions to
maintain in a natural vegetative state 100 feet of land from each top of bank for all county streams.
Monitoring Program Elements
The Piney Run monitoring program is a cooperative effort between Carroll County staff and Black
& Veatch personnel; data is supplemented through the efforts of a group of citizen volunteers who
have collected stream sampling information since 1989. Priority objectives of the current program
are to establish a comprehensive baseline that can be used to evaluate long term reservoir behavior
and trends, as well as to identify any immediate water quality issues.
The following are the six elements of the monitoring program:
¦ routine reservoir sampling.
¦ routine tributary inflow sampling.
¦ stream flow monitoring.
¦ storm sampling.
¦ special and quarterly sampling.
¦ watershed surveys.
Baseline data are collected from a total of five stations (Figure 1), three reservoir locations
(Stations 1, 2, and 3) and from the two major reservoir tributaries (Stations 5 and 6). Streamflow
quantities are measured at Stations 5, 6, and 7. Once the baseline has been established using
-------
information from these five stations, site specific issues may require that additional data be
collected from other locations, such as from several major coves receiving agricultural drainage.
Routine Reservoir and Inflow Sampling
Each of the five stations are sampled nineteen times per calendar year, weather permitting.
Samples are collected monthly from November through March, and bi-weekly during the growing
season, April through October. Samples are collected from two depths in the reservoir to
separately depict activity in the aerobic (epilimnion) and in the anaerobic (hypolimnion) zones.
Secchi depth, dissolved oxygen, temperature, conductivity, pH, and turbidity measurements are
collected using portable meters. Laboratory analyses are performed on the water samples for
phosphorous, nitrogen, alkalinity, hardness, total suspended solids, total organic carbon, iron,
manganese, chlorophyll a, and phytoplankton.
Stream Flow Monitoring
Continuous flow information is collected at the two reservoir tributaries and at the reservoir
outlet. Stevens' brand level loggers are used to measure flow elevations. County-developed ratings
curves are used to convert the water levels to flow data at each station.
Stormwater Sampling
Stormwater runoff samples are collected in the two main tributaries at Stations 5 and 6. The water
level loggers are used to trigger sampling with the automatic sampler unit. Up to 24 samples are
collected at pre-set 30-minute intervals for flow-weighted compositing by the laboratory.
Stormwater samples are analyzed for total phosphorous, orthophosphate phosphorous, total
Kjeldahl nitrogen, nitrate+nitrite-nitrogen, and total suspended solids. Samples from three storms
are collected at both stations annually.
Special and Quarterly Sampling
Twice each year a special set of samples is collected at Station 3 which is near the intake of the
future water treatment plant. The samples are analyzed for arsenic, organics, inorganics, synthetic
organic compounds, and radionuclides as listed in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Quarterly samples
are collected for calcium to evaluate the suitability of the reservoir for zebra mussel populations. A
plate sampler for zebra mussels has been constructed and placed adjacent to the public boat
launch, the most probable location for introduction of the nuisance mussels into the reservoir.
Watershed Surveys
-------
In 1989 a stream walk was conducted by County staff to visually assess the condition of the streams
in the watershed, to identify potential pollution sources, and to provide a baseline for future
evaluations. The Citizen Monitoring Program was established in the same year to provide baseline
water quality data. Seven stations were initially established in the Piney Run Reservoir watershed
which are sampled monthly from March through October. Lamotte sample kits are used to
analyze base flow concentrations of dissolved oxygen, phosphates, and nitrate. Air and water
temperature as well as observed conditions are also recorded at the time of each sample collection.
Monitoring Program Results and Trends
Comprehensive monitoring of the reservoir and its tributaries began in April 1993 and will
continue through August 1996. In late 1996, the three years of collected data will be evaluated, and
the county will determine whether to continue at the current level of data collection, or whether
certain elements can be reduced. Trends and hypotheses have been established through analysis of
the current two year's of sampling and data analysis.
Trophic State
Carlson's trophic state indices (TSI); which relate variations in Secchi depth, chlorophyll a, and
total phosphorus; varied considerably during the two years, but indicate that Piney Run is a
borderline mesotrophic-eutrophic reservoir. Anoxic conditions in the hypolimnion and high
concentrations of manganese in the bottom sediments during the summer are evidence that the
reservoir continues to eutrophy.
Nutrients
Phosphorus and nitrogen are essential nutrients for growth of biological organisms. Phosphorus is
the nutrient usually found in least supply in reservoirs and lakes, and becomes limiting to the
growth of algae and higher plants.
Total phosphorous concentrations average 0.02 mg/L to 0.05 mg/L in the tributary baseflow
samples while average concentrations in the reservoir water column range from 0.02 to 0.03 mg/L.
Therefore, some deposition of phosphorus in the reservoir bottom sediments is occurring.
Total nitrogen concentrations in natural waters are reported in the literature usually within the
range of 1 to 3 mg/L. However the concentrations measured in the Piney Run tributaries average
4.0 to 5.0 mg/L, and concentrations in the reservoir water column range from 1.2 to 1.8 mg/L.
Ratios of total nitrogen to total phosphorus during the spring, prior to establishment of thermal
stratification, varied from 45:1 to 160:1 in 1994 and from 52:1 to 170:1 in 1995. These data
demonstrate that the lake is phosphorus limited, and TN:TP ratios greater than 10:1 favor diatoms
-------
over blue-green algae as the predominant algal form.
Phytoplankton and Chlorophyll Analysis
Phytoplankton analyses revealed a relatively sparse community of plankton algae in the reservoir.
However, supersaturated dissolved oxygen concentrations suggest that algae were quite prolific
several times during the year. Concern over the presence of blue-green algae focussed
phytoplankton investigations during the summer and early fall months. Significant concentrations
of silica were found, which in conjunction with the appropriate nutrient mix, can support a
substantial diatom community.
Chlorophyll a is used as a surrogate measurement of algae in surface waters. Monthly chlorophyll
a concentrations ranged from less than 3 to 28 jug/L, with an average of 7 jli/L. The highest
chlorophyll a concentrations were observed during the colder months of the year, a characteristic
of lakes dominated by diatoms.
Iron and Manganese
High concentrations of iron and manganese at the bottom of the reservoir during the summer and
fall indicate the presence of anaerobic conditions, which foster the release of these metals from the
sediments. Increased surface concentrations of iron and manganese are present following fall
overturn. Removal of these metals will be required in the water treatment plant processes, if water
quality problems are to be avoided.
Conclusions and Recommendations
The Piney Run Reservoir is in a borderline mesotrophic/eutrophic state, and it displays
characteristics of a eutrophying reservoir. Several concerns are raised by this conclusion:
¦ Eutrophic lakes provide a good environment for proliferation of algal populations which
can cause taste-and-odor problems in drinking water.
¦ Lake overturn releases nutrients and minerals into the treatment column which cause
significant water quality problems and treatment difficulties.
¦ Eutrophic lakes are highly productive environments for larger plants (macrophytes), in
addition to algal populations. Overly productive algae and macrophytes populations create
a nuisance for recreational uses of the reservoir and may negatively affect fishery
populations in competition for oxygen in the water.
A reconnaissance of the lake will be conducted to determine the extent and presence of
-------
algae. These may be growing attached to aquatic plants, or as mats in the shallow areas.
Citizen monitoring efforts will be focussed on this issue as well.
¦ The investment in the Citizen Monitoring Program has benefited the County immeasurably
as the participating volunteers become advocates for the streams they monitor. The
volunteers investigate the causes of irregularities observed in the sampling process, and they
report incidents of dumping and illicit discharges.
¦ Data collected in the monitoring program can be used to calibrate a modeling effort to
evaluate various land use scenarios in relation to the potential impacts to the streams and
the reservoir.
¦ Protection of Piney Run as a water supply will be considered in the current effort to update
the Sykesville-Freedom Comprehensive Plan. Monitoring data will be part of the evaluation
of any changes to the Comprehensive Plan.
References
Black & Veatch and Carroll County, Maryland. (1995) Piney Run Monitoring Program,
Draft Report.
Carroll County, Maryland. (April 1994) Carroll County Master Plan for Water and
Sewerage.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Staten Island Bluebelt Project: New York City's
Watershed Approach with Multiple Benefits
Dana Gumb
Jack Vokral
New York City Department of Environmental Protection
Robert D. Smith
Sandeep Mehrotra
Hazen & Sawyer, New York, NY
The Staten Island Bluebelt project is an effort by the New York City Department of Environmental
Protection (NYCDEP) to provide storm water management for the last large unsewered area of the city
which makes sense from both an environmental point of view and from the perspective of dollars and
cents.
In a city where the conventional method of handling storm water is to put everything in a pipe, the
NYCDEP is pioneering a different approach which preserves streams, ponds and other wetland areas in
order to allow these systems to perform their natural functions to convey, store and filter storm water.
This approach is proving to allow not only for the preservation of scarce and valuable urban wetlands but
is also saving equally scarce capital construction dollars. The NYCDEP has found that wetland
preservation saves millions of dollars in infrastructure costs when compared to the conventional storm
sewer system. This analysis is a model of how natural area preservation can have important long-term
cost-saving implications.
Even though NYCDEP's specific mandate is the provision of drainage services, this project is truly multi-
objective. The wetland preservation, underway and proposed, not only preserves natural drainage
-------
patterns for flood control purposes, but also provides for the filtering of storm water run-off, utilizing the
natural cleansing functions of wetlands. In addition, the wetland and riparian corridors called Bluebelts
provide important community open space amenities and diverse wildlife habitats.
Background
South Richmond, Staten Island, the most southerly part of New York City and State, is the last area of
the City with a significant amount of vacant land. South Richmond is bounded by the Arthur Kill,
Raritan Bay and the mid-Island area from Fresh Kills Landfill to Great Kills Harbor. Historically, land
development in this area has been concentrated in villages which grew up around the stations of the
Staten Island Rapid Transit System (SIRTS).
Since the opening of the Verrazano Narrows Bridge in November 1964 and the construction of the
ancillary highway network, land development in South Richmond has been in a more scattered pattern of
low density settlement. Since the area is virtually without sewers, that development has employed on-site
waste disposal systems like septic tanks and package treatment plants and on-site storm water
management measures like dry-wells and retention basins.
For the past 30 years, the idea of using the area's freshwater wetlands for storm water management
purposes has percolated through City government. In the late 1960's during the Lindsay era, an effort to
create a system of "fenways" in South Richmond was advocated by some city planners.
Not until the mid-1970's did the City act to preserve some of the stream systems on the southern end of
the Island. In 1975 the City enacted the Special South Richmond Development District (SSRDD), a
special purpose zoning district for the same southern end of the Island. A primary goal of the district was
the preservation of the area's low density open character. One step taken to accomplish that goal was the
creation of the Open Space Network (OSN), a system of about 700 acres which are to remain in their
natural state. The purpose of the zoning designation is to preserve important natural features such as
ponds and streams.
Following the creation of the OSN, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
began regulating development in an extensive system of freshwater and tidal wetlands in South
Richmond. During the 1980's, the State issued a series of maps for the freshwater wetlands on the Island
which include the streams and ponds of importance for storm water management. The on-going
regulatory program has resulted in the preservation of some wetland areas with significance for the
overall drainage system.
Finally, capping off the activity of the 1970's and '80's, the Department of City Planning issued a report
in October 1989 entitled the "South Richmond's Open Space Network An Agenda for Action: Storm
Water and Open Space Management" which advocated using the OSN as a storm water management
system. This effort propelled the NYCDEP into the latest phase of the project.
-------
Bluebelt Land Acquisition
The Bluebelt systems are really land assemblages-puzzles with a variety of different pieces that have had
to be constructed through a mastery of all the municipal bureaucratic processes involved. The various
pieces include the following:
¦ City-owned property taken because of real estate tax delinquencies,
¦ the beds of mapped but unbuilt streets, called paper streets,
¦ properties acquired by DEP for Bluebelt purposes,
¦ privately owned property preserved by the OSN mapping,
¦ privately owned property preserved by State wetland regulation, and
¦ City parkland and State wetland preserves.
-------
In the last four years, NYCDEP has undertaken a major effort to acquire wetland properties in order to
complete the continuity of the stream corridors and other wetland systems in the OSN. All eleven
applications for site selection and acquisition of Bluebelt parcels have been fully approved under the
City's Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The attached map shows the watershed areas
within which wetlands were acquired; the drainage basins depicted cover about 6,100 acres.
The idea of acquiring wetlands in lieu of storm sewer construction was indeed a novel concept for New
York City requiring a very detailed cost/benefit study. The studies, which were done for each of the
acquisition projects in turn, used as the baseline old drainage plans for South Richmond done 30 years
ago. The plans assumed the complete obliteration of the riparian and wetland systems and full storm
sewering like that in the urban settings of the other four boroughs.
These plans done in the early 1960's before wetlands regulation, the OSN and the mapping of many City
and State wetland preserves showed the paving over of the streams and other surface water features with
all that storm water flowing in trunk sewer lines. The cost/benefit studies made a comparison between
-------
the very high cost of constructing those trunk sewer lines and the cost of the land. The thinking was that
the trunk sewer lines would not have to be built if the stream and the adjacent floodplain property were
preserved. If the storm sewer construction costs were greater than the wetland acquisition costs, then the
project got the go-ahead. Altogether the Bluebelt project saves about $50 million over the conventional
trunk sewer line approach.
The land acquisition will help to complete the Bluebelt corridors by building upon existing parks, other
city owned properties and private land zoned as open space along the streams and other wetland systems.
Drainage Plan Revision
In addition to the acquisition program, the other major initiative of the Bluebelt project has been the
effort to re-do the official drainage plans for South Richmond. The Bluebelt concept of making use of the
wetland systems is to be applied by redoing the old official drainage plans for the last large unsewered
part of New York City.
As mentioned above, the old plans done 30 years ago assume complete obliteration of the riparian and
wetland systems and full storm sewering like that in the urban settings of the other four boroughs. The
mapped street network which generated this drainage plan assumes a grid pattern of streets, laid over the
landscape without regard for any natural features. Following the logic of these preliminary designs for
the sewer system, streets mapped on ponds, streams or other wetlands are not at all inappropriate since
those water features would have been eliminated anyway by the adopted storm water sewerage system.
The old plans are obviously not usable any more. In June of 1995, NYCDEP began work on the new
plans with the engineering consulting firm of Hazen & Sawyer. The new drainage plans will incorporate
the preserved wetland systems into the overall storm water management network.
An important consideration in the preparation of the drainage plan will be the issue of the water quality
of the urban storm water runoff running into the preserved wetland systems. NYCDEP will employ
innovative designs for best management practices to reduce pollutant loadings. How to design retention
basins for quality control of urban storm water, in addition to their more conventional quantity control
functions, will be an important issue in the study. What can be done at the storm sewer/wetland interface
to reduce the impact of the discharge into the wetlands is a related issue. Constructed wetlands for the
treatment of storm water may be one approach for the Bluebelt system.
The new plan will guide the agency in its on-going capital construction program in southern Staten
Island. The resulting combination of natural systems with some necessary constructed sewer networks
will be a model of how urban wetlands can be incorporated into a drainage scheme for a fast developing
area.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the information provided here
was accurate and current when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official positions of the Environmental
Protection Agency.
Stream Water Quality Response to Agricultural Land Uses in Erath County,
Texas
Anne M.S. McFarland, Senior Research Associate
Larry M. Hauck, Assistant Director of Environmental Research
Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research, Tarleton State University, Stephenville, TX
In response to concerns about nutrient levels in the North Bosque River, the Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research (TIAER) has monitored
storm water quality in the upper North Bosque River (UNBR) watershed since early 1991. The UNBR watershed encompasses about 93,150 ha (230,000
acres) forming the headwaters of the North Bosque River and has been the focus of three separate TIAER studies documenting the degree and effects of
agricultural nonpoint source pollution (Nelson et al., 1992; Hauck et al., 1994; Hauck and McFarland, 1995). The monitoring network, while continually
evolving, contains storm water sampling sites which monitor water quality from the diversity of agricultural land uses within the watershed. Dairying
represents the basin's major agricultural enterprise with 94 dairies and a combined milking herd size of about 34,000 cows. Production of peanuts, range
cattle, pecans and forage hay also represent significant agricultural practices in the area.
One of the major objectives of the monitoring network is to associate land use with in-stream water quality. While the direct causal mechanisms underlying
enhanced nonpoint source pollution, such as soil disturbance and movement, are not addressed by in-stream monitoring, in-stream monitoring can be used
to associate various land-use patterns with water quality constituent levels using correlation and regression analysis (Meals, 1992; Byron and Goldman,
1989). This information can then be used in watershed-level planning for determining "hot-spots" and for promoting best management practices (BMPs) to
land uses or areas that are major contributors of nonpoint source pollution. The objectives of this paper are to examine the relationships of storm water
quality to land use from 16 storm water monitoring sites within the UNBR watershed and to discuss the implications of these relationships on land-use
management within the watershed. Nitrogen and phosphorus constituents are emphasized due to their role in the eutrophication of receiving waterbodies.
Web Note: I'/esae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
-------
Methods
The distribution of each land use within the watershed was determined using Landsat TM imagery digitally manipulated into a GRASS-based geographic
information system layer. Rangeland, improved pasture, winter wheat/summer grain pasture, woodland, orchards, peanuts, urban, barren and water were
the nine land-use categories specified. Ground truth was used to assist imagery classification and to validate results. Information from the Agricultural
Stabilization and Conservation Service (now the Farm Service Agency) was used to validate the location and size of peanut fields. The size and location of
animal-waste application fields were obtained from Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission (TNRCC) dairy permits and available waste
management plans. Animal waste in almost all cases was applied to improved pasture or winter wheat/summer grain pasture. The land-use categories of
improved pasture and winter wheat/summer grain were combined and re-categorized as either animal-waste application fields or forage fields not used for
waste application. Dairy cow density was also derived from estimates of dairy herd numbers compiled from TNRCC records and surveys conducted by
TIAER. The drainage area associated with each sampling site was delineated using a digital elevation map. To normalize the data between sites, land-use
areas above each sampling site were converted to percentages based on the total drainage area associated with each site. The range of values for each land-
use category for the 16 sites is as follows:
Woodland 11-37%
Rangeland 25-61%
Waste Application Fields 0-45%
Forage Fields 3-38%
Urban 0-2 %
Peanuts 0-7%
Barren 0-3%
Orchard 0-1%
Water 0-1%
Dairy Cow Density 0-1.68 cows/ha
An automatic sampler was activated at each site by about a 4 cm (1.5 inch) rise in water level into a programmed collection sequence. The actual sequence
varied from site to site depending on the drainage area size and typical hydrograph experiences at a given site. In general, the most frequent sampling
occurred at the beginning of a storm event with fewer samples collected as storm water levels subsided. The water quality constituents measured included
ammonia-nitrogen (NH3-N), nitrate-nitrogen (N02-N), nitrate-nitrogen (N03-N), total Kjeldahl nitrogen (TKN), orthophosphate-phosphorous (OP04-P),
total phosphorus (total-P) and total suspended solids (TSS). Water level data was also collected at five-minute intervals throughout each storm event.
Manual measurements of water flow were used to develop stage-discharge relationships for each site allowing determination of flow from the water level
data.
Since water quality can vary greatly within a given storm event, a volume-weighted mean value was calculated for each water quality constituent for each
storm event at a given site. Volume-weighted means were calculated by combining the storm flow with the water quality data for each storm event. The
flow hydrograph was divided into intervals based on the date and time when water quality samples were taken using a midpoint rectangular method
between water quality samples (Stein, 1977). Constant flow was assumed between each five-minute level measurement to estimate the water volume
-------
associated with each water quality sample. These volume-weighted mean values for each storm event were then used to characterize the storm water
quality at each stream site by averaging across a number of events at each site (Byron and Goldman, 1989). The geometric mean across storm events for
each water quality constituent at each site was used in the correlation and regression analyses with land-use characteristics. The storm events included were
monitored between March 1992 and March 1995 (see McFarland and Hauck, 1995 for a detailed account of the storm water quality at each site on an event-
by-event basis).
Results
The results of the correlation analysis are presented in Table 1. Positive correlation coefficients were generally associated with land uses representing more
intensive agricultural practices, while negative correlation coefficients were generally associated with less intrusive land uses. The percent land area in
waste application fields and dairy cow density associated with each site consistently showed the highest positive correlations with water quality
constituents. The similarity in the correlations associated with these two independent variables was expected since the amount of land needed for animal-
waste application is a function of the number of dairy cows in a given drainage basin. This significant positive correlation indicates that as the percent of
land used for waste application (or dairy cow density) in a drainage basin increases, the concentration of water quality constituents in storm water runoff
and downstream reservoirs increases. The percentage of woodland and rangeland in each drainage basin was generally associated with fairly high negative
correlations with water quality constituents. The negative correlations associated with woodland and rangeland represent a "trade-off in each drainage
basin between relatively intensive and less intensive land use categories, i.e., drainage basins with a high percentage of woodland and/or rangeland
generally have less land available for waste application and vice versa. Since TIAER studies indicate that phosphorus is the primary water quality
constituent of concern in the watershed (McFarland and Hauck, 1995), a graph presenting the full regression analysis for 0P04-P for stream sites versus
percent waste application fields is presented in Figure 1.
-------
1.6 T
1.4
1.2
0
y = 0.062 + Q.023x
R 2 = 0.78
10
20
25
30
40
45
50
Waste Application Fields (%)
Figure 1. Relationship of geometric mean OPO 4-P levels to percent waste application fields in the drainage area above each sampling site for
storm events monitored between March 1992 and March 1995.
Implications of Land Use Patterns on Water Quality
While there are many potential sources of nutrients in the upper North Bosque River watershed, runoff from dairy waste application fields appears to be the
predominant land use impacting surface water quality in storm water runoff from agriculturally dominated drainage basins. In the land application of
animal waste, nutrient and sediment losses can vary greatly. Nutrient and sediment losses depend primarily on the degree of incorporation of the animal
waste and the long-term build-up of phosphorus and nitrogen in the soil. The State of Texas confined animal feeding operation (CAFO) regulations restrict
the application of dairy manure and lagoon effluent to the agronomic nitrogen requirements of the crop. Under the nitrogen plant requirement restriction,
phosphorus is typically over-applied by a factor of 2-1/2 to 3 times crop requirements. The over-application of phosphorus allowed in the regulations
recognizes that phosphorus has a high capacity to bind with most soils (adsorption of phosphorus to clays) which makes the phosphorus much less
available for transport to surface or ground waters. Present CAFO regulations allow phosphorus build-up in the top 6 inches of the soil to an extractable
phosphorus level of 200 ppm (mg/kg), at which time the phosphorus requirements of the crop controls manure and lagoon effluent application rates.
Complicating the issue of phosphorus in surface water runoff is the surface application of manure without incorporation. The predominant waste
-------
application fields in the UNBR watershed are of coastal Bermudagrass or coastal Bermudagrass overseeded in the winter with wheat or rye. Manure is
generally surface applied without incorporation to maintain these permanent pastures. With surface application, soil erosion is minimized, but soluble
runoff of nutrients is increased from direct exposure of the manure to rainfall and restricted adsorption of manure phosphorus to soil particles.
Intensive efforts have been made to implement BMPs for manure application (Upper North Bosque River Hydrologic Unit Project, 1994). While these
efforts have been quite successful, phosphorus still appears to be a potential concern in the watershed when compared to screening levels 1 (0.2 mg/L for
0P04-P) recommended by the TNRCC (1993). Many of the stream sites indicated 0P04-P levels well above the 0.2 mg/L screening level and these levels
increase significantly with an increasing percentage of waste application fields in a drainage basin. Phosphorus runoff is dependent on three factors: (1)
sediment transport, (2) the capacity of the soil to adsorb phosphorus into the solid phase, and (3) the dissolved phosphorus concentration in the soil surface
layer. All three factors need to be considered in controlling phosphorus levels in surface and subsurface runoff from waste application fields. Based on
rough estimates of soluble phosphorus (as represented by 0P04-P) to total-P in storm water runoff, soluble phosphorus losses appear to increase as the
percent waste application fields increase in a drainage basin (McFarland and Hauck, 1995). Many proven erosion control technologies exist to manage
particulate losses of phosphorus. The control of dissolved phosphorus forms may be a greater management challenge than the control of particulate
phosphorus forms since factors controlling the concentration of soluble phosphorus in runoff are not as well understood as those controlling particulate
phosphorus (Daniel et al., 1993). The need to develop and promote BMPs for the control of soluble phosphorus from animal-waste application fields in the
UNBR watershed appears apparent from the empirical relationships between 0P04-P and this land use (Table 1 and Figure 1).
The relationships between land use and water quality can also be used as a planning tool for the future siting of dairies and waste application fields in the
watershed. Although these relationships are only estimates and do not explain all the variability in nutrient levels, they provide a planning guide in
evaluating the potential impact of proposed changes in land-use on nutrient water quality within a drainage basin. These relationships are specific to the
upper North Bosque River watershed, although further research should indicate whether they may be extrapolated to similar watersheds.
Acknowledgements
Financial Support was provided by the State of Texas, Texas Water Development Board, USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, and the US
Environmental Protection Agency. We wish to recognize the willing cooperation of the landowners who allow us access to their property for stream
monitoring.
References
Byron, E.R and Goldman, C.R. (1989) Land-use and water quality in tributary streams of Lake Tahoe, California-Nevada. Journal of
Environmental Quality, 18, 84-88.
Daniel, T.C., Edwards, D.R., and Sharpley, A.N. (1993) Effect of extractable soil surface phosphorus on runoff water quality. Transactions of the
American Society of Agricultural Engineers, 36, 1079-1085.
Hauck, L., Jones, T., and Coan, T.L. (1994) Report on the Role of Two PL-566 Reservoirs in Agricultural Pollution Control - North Bosque River
Basin, Erath, County, Texas. Prepared for Texas State Soil and Water Conservation Board. Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research,
Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas. July 1994.
-------
McFarland, A. and Hauck, L. (1995) Livestock and the Environment: Scientific Underpinnings for Policy Analysis. Texas Institute for Applied
Environmental Research, Tarleton State University, Stephenville, Texas. September 1995.
Meals, D.W. (1992) Relating land use and water quality in the St. Albans Bay Watershed, Vermont, pp. 131-143. In The National Rural Clean
Water Program Symposium: 10 Years of Controlling Agricultural Nonpoint Source Pollution: The RCWP Experience, USEPA, Washington, D.C.
EPA/625/R-92/006.
Nelson, J.C., Branyan, D.G., Dittfurth, E., Flowers, J.D., Jones, T., Jones, H., and Coan, T.L. (1992) Final Report on Section 319 Nonpoint Source
Management Program for the North Bosque Watershed. Texas Institute for Applied Environmental Research, Tarleton State University,
Stephenville, Texas.
Stein, S.K. (1977) Calculus and Analytic Geometry, second edition. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York.
TNRCC (1993) Texas Clean Rivers Program: FY94-95 Program Guidance. Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission, Austin, Texas.
Upper North Bosque River Hydrologic Unit Project (1994) Annual Project Report Fiscal Year 1994.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Accessing U.S. Geological Survey Water
Resources Data on the Internet
Kenneth J. Lanfear
U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA
Abstract
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is making many of its information products available on the
Internet. These include historical and real-time streamflow records, digital cartographic data, and
interpretive reports of water resources studies. The USGS Node of the National Geospatial Data
Clearinghouse is the main electronic pathway to USGS's vast collection of geographic information
system (GIS) data. Many of the data sets, such as hydrologic unit boundaries and digital elevation
models, are critical for watershed management. Hydrologic data and the National Geospatial Data
Clearinghouse are offered on the Internet using the World Wide Web. Lessons learned in serving these
data sets using this new technology are discussed. A statistical profile of World Wide Web "customers"
who access water data also is examined.
Introduction
Few technical advances will affect the distribution of water-resources information as much as the World
Wide Web (WWW). More than 100,000 individuals "visited" USGS water resources WWW sites in
1995, the first year of operation. They saw data on historical and real-time streamflow, read on-line
reports and abstracts, downloaded GIS data sets, and examined fact sheets on a wide variety of water
issues. Feedback from users is very positive, and usage is projected to at least double in 1996.
The scope of information products offered by USGS on the World Wide Web now includes many of
critical importance to watershed studies. This paper describes some of these products and shows how to
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
access them. It also examines the demographics of the customers and points out some surprising findings
about who is accessing the data.
Information Products
The USGS Water Resources Information home page (http://h2o.usgs.gov/) should be the first stop for
anyone desiring water information. In addition to "headlines" for feature articles and current hydrologic
events, it includes links to all USGS water applications, such as the ones described below.
Historical Streamflow
In January 1995, USGS began serving historical daily streamflow records for nearly all stations in its
data base. This comprises more than 19,000 stations throughout the United States. As the data for each
State was reviewed by the local USGS office, the records were opened for public access. Records for
more than half the States were available by January, 1996.
Upon selecting a State, the user is presented with an "imagemap" of counties and watersheds. Pointing
the cursor and clicking on a county brings up a scrolling list of stations within that county. Upon
selecting a station with the cursor, the user sees background information for the station, including the
periods of record for data collection. After choosing a time period, the user may either see a graph of the
streamflow or retrieve the record directly. The whole process takes less than two minutes.
Some local offices have augmented the basic software supplied by USGS Headquarters with image maps
for selecting stations and other alternatives for finding and selecting stations. Multi-station retrievals of
data via file transfer protocol (FTP) also are available. Further upgrades were in progress at the time this
paper was written.
USGS has never offered its streamflow data in a format with anything close to this level of convenience.
Data used to be hard to obtain, and downloading it required relatively high levels of computer skills and
knowledge of the system. Now the data and a simple graph are available to anyone quickly and at no
charge.
Current Streamflow Conditions
The current streamflow conditions pages bring streamflow data "from the stream to your screen." Some
stream-gaging stations transmit data directly to USGS via satellite, usually on a 4-hour update cycle. As
of February, 1996, 19 states were serving this "real-time" streamflow data on World Wide Web. This
application offers users a plot of the streamflow data for the most recent 7 days.
"Real-time" streamflow data are, of course, provisional and subject to later changes as stations are
reviewed and calibrated. Nevertheless, this service has proven immensely popular not only with
-------
traditional water-resources professionals, but also with Whitewater enthusiasts and fishermen.
Geospatial Data Sets
The USGS Node of the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse (http://nsdi .usgs.gov/nsdi/) was opened
in January, 1995 as the primary Internet access point to USGS's vast holdings of spatial data. Among the
many data sets available at this World Wide Web site are some that are critical to watershed planning,
including hydrologic unit maps and digital elevation models.
Hydrologic unit maps delineate the hydrographic boundaries of major river basins and show numeric
codes assigned to each river basin. The maps were prepared in a cooperative project between the USGS
and the U.S. Water Resources Council. Boundaries and numeric codes are depicted for 21 regions, 222
subregions, 352 accounting units, and 2,100 cataloging units. River basins are delineated that have
drainage area greater than 700 square miles. State maps are published at a scale of 1:500,000; the U.S.
map (unfortunately, out of print) is at a scale of 1:2,500,500. The report "Hydrologic Unit Maps", (USGS
Water-Supply Paper 2294), describes the maps and contains the numeric codes for the river basins.
Digital data sets for hydrologic units are available at scales of 1:2,000,000 and 1:250,000. Each includes
metadata-also available on-line-that describes the data set in compliance with Federal Geographic Data
Committee metadata content standards (Federal Geographic Data Committee, 1994) Attributes of the
l:2,000,000-scale version include basin names. These data sets may be found in the Clearinghouse either
by a Wide Area Information System (WAIS) search on keywords, or by a variety of "browsing" paths
through the Clearinghouse pages. The metadata includes a choice for on-line retrieval.
Digital elevation models (DEM's) are a valuable tool for defining drainage patterns or delineating
watershed boundaries. Elevation data spacing varies from 30 meters for 7.5-minute DEM's
(corresponding to the USGS quadrangle series of the same scale) to 3 arc-seconds for 1:250,000 scale
maps. Complete U.S. coverage is available only for the 1:250,000-scale digital line graph (DLG) data,
which may be retrieved on line. An on-line status map gives the availability of 7.5-minute DEM's. As
with all data sets in the Clearinghouse, metadata describes the data sets and gives ordering instructions.
Hydrologic units and digital elevation models are only a few of the many geospatial data sets available in
the National Geospatial Data Clearinghouse. Among the many offerings of geospatial data sets are
hydrography, transportation, satellite images, and aerial photography.
Customer Profiles
Like many other WWW sites, the USGS Water Resources Information pages have seen spectacular
growth. Thirty local and regional water sites have shown similar growth. Log records indicate that more
than 100,000 individuals accessed the system in 1995.
-------
The vast majority of users are in the private sector. A core of at least 2,400 outside users makes extensive
use of the system, accessing it at least twice per month.
User feedback has been highly favorable. It plays a big role in developing support for further
enhancements and in shaping the design of the pages. Electronic mail from users also clearly indicates
that many are not from the professional water-resource community that has comprised the traditional
customer base of USGS. The enthusiasm and numbers of these "non-professional" users, while not
anticipated, is a welcome response.
Conclusions
USGS has been serving water-resource information on the WWW for more than a year. By any standard,
this has been a great success and is very popular with the public. In terms of costs, speed, convenience,
and availability, the benefits of using the WWW for distributing water-resource data and reports are
compelling. The message is clear: The WWW will play a big role in how you get water resources
information products from USGS and other government agencies in the future.
References
Federal Geographic Data Committee (1994) Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata
(June 8), Federal Geographic Data Committee. Washington, DC. URL:
ftp: //fgdc. er .usgs. go v/pub/metadata/
Seaber, A.M., and Boyle, E.A. (1987) Hydrologic unit maps: U.S. Geological Survey Water-
Supply Paper 2294, 63p.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Small Watershed Studies: Analytical Approaches
for Understanding Ecosystem Response to
Environmental Change
Thomas Huntington and Richard Hooper, Hydrologists
U.S. Geological Survey, Atlanta, GA
Peter Murdoch, Hydrologist
U.S. Geological Survey, Troy, NY
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
Biogeochemical studies in small watersheds provide an analytical approach to understand how
ecosystems respond to natural climatic variations and human-induced environmental change. Small
watersheds, usually less than 5 km2, are small enough to permit characterization and understanding of
ecosystem processes within relatively simple, homogeneous biological and physical settings; yet they are
large enough to incorporate more complex processes and element cycles than can be studied at plot
scales. Watersheds comprise discrete hydrochemical environments allowing quantification of hydrologic,
element, and energy budgets. Element budgets, or mass balances, can be quantified as the difference
between the mass of a solute that enters a watershed in wet and dry deposition and leaves a watershed in
streamflow. Element budgets are primary tools used to investigate biogeochemical processes. Monitoring
various aspects of element budgets to assess ecosystem health and stability is analogous to measuring the
pulse or blood chemistry of a patient. Monitoring streamwater chemistry, basic climate, soil, and biotic
-------
variables provide a means to integrate complex biogeochemical processes and evaluate trends in water
quality. Small watershed studies provide a scientific basis to develop predictive models of watershed
function.
Major emphases of small watershed studies include investigation of hydrologic and chemical responses to
natural climate variation, anthropogenic stressors, and alternate forest-management practices. The nature
and significance of biogeochemical research in small watersheds is reviewed by Moldan and Cerny
(1994). The U.S. Geological Survey, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service, and other federal
agencies support several long-term small watershed studies to provide insight into a variety of ecosystem
processes. Long-term records are essential to distinguish trends resulting from natural climatic variations
or other stressors. The following sites, with noted periods of records, are examples of intensively studied
forested watersheds in eastern USA supported by federal agencies:
¦ Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory, North Carolina, (1939-present), Swank and Crossley (1988).
¦ Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest, New Hampshire, (1956-present), Bormann and Likens
(1979).
¦ Sleepers River Research Watershed, Vermont, (1958-present), Shanley et al. (1995).
¦ Walker Branch Watershed, Tennessee, (1967-present), Johnson and Van Hook (1989).
¦ Catoctin Mountains Research Site, Maryland, (1982-present), Rice and Bricker (1995).
¦ Catskill Stream Network, New York, (1983- present), Murdoch and Stoddard (1992).
¦ Panola Mountain Research Watershed, Georgia, (1985-present), Huntington et al. (1993).
Small watershed studies also provide essential baseline information for understanding variations in water
quality and element cycling in "pristine" ecosystems that can be used as benchmarks to evaluate
anthropogenic impacts and alternate watershed management practices. This paper provides examples of
how analytical tools developed through watershed research provide insight into ecosystem processes and
can contribute to the management of watershed resources.
Case Studies
Six reservoirs in the Catskill Mountains provide 75% of drinking water supplies to New York City.
Episodic acidification and nutrient leaching from forest soils are major concerns for resource managers in
these watersheds. Results of long-term studies in streams of the Catskill Mountains indicate that nitrate
concentrations in stream water increased from 1970 to 1991, then decreased sharply and have remained
low through 1994 (Murdoch and Burns, 1995). During the same period, sulfate concentrations steadily
decreased in both deposition and streamwater (Murdoch and Stoddard, 1992); these changes appear to be
-------
associated with variability in nitrogen and sulfur deposition, drought periods, and air temperature. Air
temperature also influences soil microbial activity. Correlations between deposition, air temperature, and
stream nitrate concentrations would not have been detected without the long-term intensive monitoring of
hydrochemical processes characteristic of the watershed approach.
Long-term, intensive data sets on element budgets generated from watershed studies are needed to
distinguish between natural climatic variability and the effects of different stressors. For example,
Huntington et al. (1994a) determined that variations in sulfate export were governed more by annual
differences in runoff quantity rather than differences in precipitation or atmospheric deposition of sulfate.
This work was extended by Aulenbach and Hooper (1994) who demonstrated that adjusting for annual
differences in run-off distributions was critical to detect trends in water quality. Comparing flow-
weighted annual average concentrations, as is typically done, induced false positive and false negative
trends. These improved trend-detection techniques assist in environmental assessment and design of more
cost-effective monitoring studies. Rice and Bricker (1995) also used long-term, intensive data sets to
identify seasonal hydrologic and geochemical processes that can be used to design more cost-effective
monitoring studies.
Small watershed studies also include the collection of ancillary data, such as soil-water chemistry and
ground-water quality, that provides stronger evidence to explain why changes are occurring. Huntington
et al. (1994a) determined that the sulfate concentration-discharge relation changed substantially following
changes in hydrologic conditions. Streamwater-sulfate concentrations decreased during normal to wet
years following dry years (Figure 1), mirroring changes observed in soil-water lysimeters. These patterns
indicate that a relatively labile pool of sulfate accumulates during dry years and is slowly released during
subsequent years of normal to above average rainfall.
Element-mass budget calculations also can be useful in detecting the potential for nutrient depletion and
consequent effects on the sustainability of long-term forest productivity. Watershed studies conducted on
highly weathered soils with recovering forests on abandoned agricultural lands in the southeastern USA
indicate that calcium leaching and timber harvest removals exceed atmospheric inputs and weathering
resupply (Johnson and Todd, 1990; Huntington et al., 1994b). Soil calcium stores in these ecosystems are
relatively small and atmospheric deposition of calcium appears to be declining. Budget calculations
suggest that ecosystem storage could be reduced by about 50% in two or three harvest rotations (Table 1).
Comparative analyses of suspended-sediment yields among three intensively studied small watersheds
provide information on controls of sediment generation and transport in Puerto Rico and the Georgia
Piedmont (Larsen et al., 1995). Land use is the dominant control, however, storm runoff, storm intensity,
relief, and availability of stored sediment are important secondary controls that affect sediment yields.
Effective watershed management to minimize sediment yields should recognize the relative importance
of all factors that influence the generation and transport of sediments. Suspended-sediment data from
forested watersheds provide information on background levels of suspended sediment, which are useful
in evaluating the impacts of alternate land uses and in predicting sediment loads to reservoirs under
minimal disturbance conditions.
-------
Nitrogen cycling has been identified as an important indicator of ecosystem stability. In a number of
montane forest ecosystems in northern Europe and U.S.A., high rates of atmospheric deposition of
nitrogen and streamwater exports which equal or exceed inputs have occasionally been associated with
"forest decline". Excessive nitrogen may be responsible for reduced frost hardiness, accelerated soil and
foliar cation leaching, increased susceptibility to insect pests and pathogens, and a number of other
ecosystem processes (Gundersen and Bashkin, 1994). Although substantial uncertainty remains
concerning these hypotheses, watershed studies have shown that monitoring nitrate concentrations in
streamwater can allow disruptions to normal ecosystem processes to be detected and the concepts of
critical loads and ecosystem health to be evaluated.
Key processes involved in episodic acidification of surface waters were identified using small watershed
studies (O'Brien et al., 1993; Wiggington et al., 1992; Campbell et al., 1995). Episodic acidification is
caused by a number of factors, including pulses of sulfate, nitrate, organic acids, or sea salt. In all areas,
changes in flowpath through the shallow subsurface affects the temporal and hydrochemical
characteristics of episodes. Identification of these processes can assist land managers and legislators to
understand how changes in climate, land use, forest-management practices, and emissions are likely to
effect various ecosystems, depending upon local geology, soils, and atmospheric acidic deposition.
Research conducted in the U.S.A., particularly at Coweeta Hydrologic Laboratory in North Carolina and
at Hubbard Brook Experimental Forest in New Hampshire, has been used to investigate the effects of
forest-management practices on surface-water hydrology and water quality. Decades of research have
resulted in a better understanding of basic principles of streamflow generation, evapotranspiration, and
hydrologic responses to a variety of forest-management practices under different forest types. Swank et
al. (1989) quantified relationships between forest-cover alternatives and water-yield responses under a
variety of management and forest type combinations. Watershed studies have quantified soil losses
(Swift, 1988) and losses of dissolved nutrients resulting from forest harvesting in several ecosystems
(Swank et al., 1989; Hornbeck et al., 1986). Studies such as these provide a scientific basis for land
managers to evaluate alternative management strategies.
Challenges for Future Research
One of the biggest limitations to broader application of watershed studies is uncertainty regarding how
well an understanding of ecosystem processes at the small watershed scale can be transferred to
significantly larger landscape units. The challenge for watershed scientists is to develop new methods for
scaling processes up from a small watershed to the river basin. There are large uncertainties about the
relative importance of different processes at different spatial scales. For example, processes determined to
be of key importance at the scale of 1 km2 may be unimportant or overwhelmed by other processes that
operate only at scales greater than 100 km2. Hypotheses developed at the small watershed scale must be
tested at larger scales to determine the controlling processes at each scale. Recent advances in geographic
information systems (GIS) and access to increasing digital data bases should be exploited to select target
watersheds to test new hypotheses. Primary consideration should be given to nested basins, which
provide the opportunity to compare alternate land-use and land-management practices and their
-------
influences on water quality.
References
Aulenbach, B.T. and R. P. Hooper, 1994, Adjusting solute fluxes for climatic influences. EOS
Trans. Am. Geophys. Union, 75, 233.
Bormann, F. H. and G. E. Likens. 1979. Pattern and Process in a Forested Ecosystem. Springer-
Verlag, New York, 253 p.
Campbell, D. H., D. W. Clow, G. P. Ingersoll, M. A. Mast, N. E. Spahr and J. T. Turk. 1995.
Processes controlling the chemistry of two snowmelt-dominated streams in the Rocky Mountains.
Water Resour. Res. 31:2811-2821.
Gundersen, P. and V. N. Bashkin. 1994. Nitrogen Cycling, p. 255-283, in Moldan, B. and J. Cerny
(eds.) Biogeochemistry of Small Catchments. SCOPE Report Volume 51. John Wiley & Sons
Ltd., New York
Hornbeck, J. W., C. W. Martin, R. S. Pierce, F. H. Bormann, G. E. Likens and J. S. Eaton. 1986.
Clearcutting Northern hardwoods:Effects on hydrologic and nutrient ion budgets. For. Sci. 32:667-
686.
Huntington, T. G., R. P. Hooper and B. T. Aulenbach. 1994a. Hydrologic processes controlling
sulfur mobility: a small watershed approach. Water Resour. Res. 30:283-295.
Huntington, T. G., R. P. Hooper, A.E. Blum, C. E. Johnson, B. T. Aulenbach, R. Cappellato, and
E. H. Drake, 1994b, Sustainability of Forest Productivity in the Georgia Piedmont, (abs.):
Agronomy Abstracts, p. 385, Annual Meeting of the Soil Science Society of America, Seattle,
WA.
Huntington, T. G., R. P. Hooper, N. E. Peters, T. D. Bullen and C. Kendall. 1993. Water, Energy,
and Biogeochemical Budgets Investigation at Panola Mountain Research Watershed, Stockbridge,
Georgia A Research Plan. U.S. Geological Survey. Open File Report. 93-55, 39 p.
Johnson, D. W.and R. I. Van Hook. 1989. Analysis of biogeochemical cycling processes in
Walker Branch Watershed. Springer-Verlag, New York., 401 p.
Johnson, D. W. and D. E. Todd. 1990. Nutrient cycling in forests of Walker Branch Watershed,
Tennessee: roles of uptake and leaching in causing soil changes. J. Environ. Qual. 19:97-104
Larsen, M.C., T. G. Huntington, D. L. Booker, I. M. Concepcion, J. E. Parks, T. P. Pojunas,T.P.,
-------
and A. J. Torres-Sanchez, 1995, Suspended sediment transport in small upland humid watersheds
undergoing afforestation following human disturbance: a comparison of tropical and temperate
environments (abs.): American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting, San Francisco, EOS,
Transactions of the American Geophysical Union , v. 76, no. 46, p. F260
Moldan, B. and J. Cerny. 1994. Biogeochemistry of Small Catchments. SCOPE Report Volume
51. John Wiley & Sons Ltd., New York., 419 p.
Murdoch, P. S. and J. L. Stoddard. 1992. The Role of Nitrate in the Acidification of Streams in the
Catskill Mountains of New-York. Water Resour. Res. 28:2707-2720.
Murdoch, P. and D. A. Burns, 1995. Effect of climate on nitrate concentrations in watersheds of
the Catskill Mountains, NewYork. in Acid Reign, '95?, 5th international conference on acidic
deposition. Water, air and soil pollution, v.85, p.357.
O'Brien, A. K., K. C. Rice, M. M. Kennedy and O. P. Bricker. 1993. Comparison of episodic
acidification of mid-Atlantic upland and coastal plain streams. Water Resour. Res. 29:3029-3039.
Rice, K. C. and O.P Bricker. 1995. Seasonal cycles of dissolved constituents in streamwater in two
forested catchments in the mid-Atlantic region of the eastern USA. J Hydrol. 170:137-158.
Shanley, J. B., E. T. Sundquist and C. Kendall. 1995. Water, Energy, and Biogeochemical Budget
Research at Sleepers River Research Watershed, Vermont. U.S. Geological Survey. Open File
Report. 94-475, 22 p.
Swank, W. T. and D. A. Crossley Jr., 1988. Forest Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. Springer-
Verlag, New York, 469 p.
Swank, W. T., L. F. DeBano and D. Nelson. 1989. Effects of timber management practices on soil
and water. In R. L. Burns (Tech. comp.) The scientific basis for silvicultural and management
decisions in the national forest system. Gen. Tech. Rep. WO-55. (ed.) USDA Forest Service,
Washington DC.
Swift, L. W. 1988. Forest access roads: design maintenance and soil loss. 313-324. In Forest
Hydrology and Ecology at Coweeta. W. T. Swank and D. A. Crossley Jr. (eds.) Springer-Verlag,
New York.
Wiggington, P. J., T. D. Davies, M. Tranter and K. N. Eshleman. 1992. Comparison of episodic
acidification in Canada, Europe and the United States. Environ. Pollut. 78:29-35.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Management Decision Support System
Chris Fulcher, Associate Director
Tony Prato, Director
Yan Zhou, Research Associate
Center for Agricultural, Resource and Environmental Systems (CARES)
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO
OPpi/f?
Introduction
There is a growing consensus that an effective way to control nonpoint source pollution and enhance the
long-term sustainability of agriculture and rural communities is through locally-based planning and
management at the watershed scale. The total watershed management viewpoint is supported by the
National Water Agenda for the 21st Century which supports the following conclusions: "1) it can be
argued scientifically that watersheds constitute the most sensible hydrologic unit within which actions
should be taken to restore and protect water quality, 2) watersheds allow for the development of total
resource protection plans that are tailored to the conditions in the area of interest, and 3) management
institutions organized by watershed provide far better opportunity to resolve intergovernmental or
interjurisdictional conflicts through collaborative, consensus based techniques" (Water Environment
Foundation, 1992).
Watershed planning and management is superior to single-objective resource management for several
reasons. First, it recognizes that human activities within a watershed are motivated by multiple and often
conflicting objectives and/or constraints, such as maximizing farm income, protecting soil and water
resources, and securing and maintaining drinking water supplies. When conflicts occur among watershed
management objectives there are tradeoffs between the beneficial uses of watersheds. Second, total
watershed management accounts for the interactions among socioeconomic conditions, land uses and
environmental quality. Crop and livestock production affect not only income and social status of farmers
but also storm runoff, water quality and ecological processes. Conversely, excessive soil erosion reduces
-------
crop yields which lowers potential farm income. Third, the spatial configuration and connections among
landscape elements in a watershed influence the profitability of agricultural activities, natural resource
quality and ecological performance. Landscape elements include: parcels in cropland, grass, brush and
forests; and sizes and composition of riparian areas. Fourth, since total watershed management is
comprehensive and knowledge-based, it is more likely to generate solutions that are acceptable to diverse
stakeholders in a watershed.
While watershed management is widely supported, the spatial information on socioeconomic and
physical processes needed for comprehensive evaluation of alternative watershed management plans is
not readily accessible to local decision makers. Advances in remote sensing, geographic information
systems (GIS), multiple objective decision making, and physical simulation make it possible to develop
user-friendly, interactive, decision support systems for watershed planning and management. A user-
friendly, interactive, watershed management decision support system (WAMADSS) incorporates these
advances. The decision support system (DSS) adopts a landscape perspective which is a way to view
interactive parts of a watershed rather than focusing on isolated components.
Objectives
The study has two objectives: (1) design a user-friendly, interactive WAMADSS that identifies the
relative contribution of sub-watershed areas to agricultural nonpoint source pollution and evaluates the
effects of alternative land use/management practices (LUMPs) on farm income, soil erosion and surface
water quality at the watershed scale; and (2) demonstrate the utility of WAMADSS in identifying and/or
evaluating LUMPs for controlling soil erosion and surface and ground water pollution in Goodwater
Creek watershed.
LUMPs included in WAMADSS are: crop rotations, tillage practices, conservation practices (grass
waterways, terraces), pollution prevention practices (timing, rate and method of application of fertilizers
and pesticides) and other landscape elements such as improved vegetative cover in riparian areas.
Study Area
The agricultural watershed is Goodwater Creek watershed in Boone and Audrain counties, Missouri
(Figure 1). This is the site of the Missouri Management Systems Evaluation Area (MSEA) project. This
watershed, which is 77.43 square kilometers, is selected for two reasons: (1) atrazine and alachlor
concentrations in the surface runoff are 10 to 100 times higher than the current drinking water standards
during the late spring and early summer period following chemical application; and (2) extensive water
quality monitoring has been conducted in Goodwater Creek watershed which can serve to validate results
obtained from environmental simulation models.
-------
Methods
WAMADSS is a knowledge-based computer system which integrates data, information, physical
simulation models and economic analysis to identify alternative LUMPs for solving specific watershed
problems. The DSS has three components: a graphical user interface (GUI), a GIS, and a modeling
system. The interface enables the decision maker to manipulate land use alternatives, run the simulation
models, execute the economic model, and view results in an interactive session.
Graphical User Interface
A GUI provides the user with access to the GIS and modeling system. The GUI contains menus which
allow the user to select LUMPs, parameters and evaluation criteria needed to run the models. A menu
provides an interactive interface for entering all the parameters needed to execute a complex operation.
The user provides information (filling in blanks, checking boxes or answering questions) by interacting
with visual objects called widgets. Since the DSS is designed for users with diverse, nontechnical
backgrounds, the graphical appearance of menus and program functionality is consistent across all
menus. On-line help and feedback will be incorporated as they are critical elements of the GUI.
Geographic Information System
ARC/INFO software is the GIS used in WAMADSS. A GIS is often defined as the complete sequence of
components for obtaining, processing, storing and managing, manipulating and displaying spatial data.
Incorporating a GIS in the DSS significantly improves the user's ability to manipulate the spatial and non-
spatial data needed to evaluate alternative watershed management plans. This approach enhances the
"best judgement" decisions offered by conventional environmental models. ARC/INFO is a widely used
-------
commercial software product that contains modules for interfacing models in a decision support system.
Specifically, the GRID module in ARC/INFO generates the elevation surface parameters (slope, aspect,
slope length). The Arc Macro Language (AML) module generates the GUI menus and ties the
components together. The INFO database management system stores, maintains, manipulates and reports
all spatial and non-spatial attribute data relevant to the DSS. The ARCPLOT module is used to
graphically present water quality/economic results of baseline and alternative LUMPs.
Modeling System
The modeling system consists of environmental models and an economic model. Two environmental
models are incorporated into WAMADSS. AGNPS (AGricultural Non-Point Source Pollution model)
simulates erosion, sediment, runoff, and nutrient (nitrogen and phosphorus) transport from agricultural
watersheds for individual storm events. SWAT (Soil and Water Assessment Tool) is a continuous daily
time-step model which simulates the impacts of alternative land use management practices on surface and
ground water quality. The purpose of incorporating both AGNPS and SWAT in WAMADSS is to offer
the user more options for evaluating the impacts of alternative LUMPs. The GIS is well suited for
managing the input parameters for each model.
The economic model evaluates the effects of a particular spatial configuration of LUMPs on annualized
net returns at the field and watershed scales. A spatial configuration refers to the LUMPs applied to each
and every field in the watershed as specified by the user(s). WAMADSS calculates annualized net returns
on an acre, field and watershed basis using the Cost and Returns Estimator (CARE). The spatial input
data needed to calculate annualized net returns include: set-aside requirement, total acres per field,
planted acres per field (total acres times proportion planted), initial crop yields and cost of production per
acre. Cost of production is estimated based on crop yield, LUMP and average costs of farm labor,
fertilizer, pesticides, fuel and machinery/equipment.
WAMADSS Input Parameter Generation
All the parameters required for the economic and environmental models are stored as relational tables
and accessed through the GUI. Some parameters are based on physical attributes extracted from the
various layers (hypsography, landuse, soils, hydrology) while other parameters are based on input elicited
from the user via the GUI. WAMADSS' open architecture and modular framework supports the
refinement, addition and interfacing of new components. WAMADSS allows the user to specify the
criteria used to evaluate watershed management plans. Based on the results of WAMADSS, the user can
modify the LUMPs until a desired management plan is achieved.
The three components that comprise WAMADSS are accessed from one common interface. Specifically,
AGNPS and SWAT and the economic model are linked to ARC/INFO via the ARC Macro Language or
AML. AML is the programming language used to interface the simulation models and the economic
model in a seamless decision support system framework. This programming language handles all
simulation-related activities, including generating input files, executing the environmental and economic
-------
models, and viewing results in the GIS. In terms of input parameter generation, AML programs are used
to create the GUI for entering model input parameters and transform input parameters from the GIS to a
AGNPS or SWAT compatible input file format. WAMADSS permits the end user to modify land use
activities by prompting the user through a series of menus which are used to update the parameters for the
selected LUMPs.
Conclusions
WAMADSS, makes complex and technical information and knowledge available to decision makers in a
user-friendly graphical user interface. It allows users to: organize information based on existing data and
scientific knowledge, design alternatives and assess consequences of new watershed management plans
or policies, and evaluate and compare alternative watershed management schemes (Fedra et al., 1993).
The DSS has three components: a graphical user interface, a geographic information system (GIS), and a
modeling system. A GIS can be used to minimize the time involved to manually enter or manipulate the
large amount of input data required to describe the spatial detail of a watershed. A GIS also minimizes
human error and inconsistencies in distinguishing landscape characteristics across a watershed that would
otherwise be collected by conventional methods.
Coordinated resource management of a watershed requires the simultaneous consideration of physical
and socioeconomic interrelationships and impacts. In order to address these considerations, it is necessary
to integrate a large amount of spatial information and knowledge from several disciplines. While
knowledge about the interactions among socioeconomic and physical processes in a watershed is
essential for improving sustainability of agricultural production, the mere generation of such knowledge
is insufficient. The knowledge must be delivered to potential users in a way that maximizes its usefulness
in watershed planning and management. Long-term agricultural sustainability can be advanced by
achieving the twin goals of: a) increasing knowledge/understanding regarding the spatial and temporal
interactions between economic and environmental processes and how these interactions are altered by
LUMPs at the watershed scale and b) developing decision support aids which make this
knowledge/understanding accessible to and usable by individuals and groups involved in watershed
planning and management. WAMADSS contributes to both goals.
References
Arnold, Jeff G., P. M. Allen and G. Bernhardt. 1993. A Comprehensive Surface-Groundwater
Flow Model. Journal of Hydrology 142(1990): 47-49.
Fedra, Kurt, et al. 1993. Decision Support and Information Systems for Regional Development
Planning. International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria.
Fulcher, Christopher, Tony Prato, Christopher Barnett and Steven Vance. 1994. The Role of
Wetlands in Improving Agricultural Ecosystems: An Ecological Economic Assessment.
Proceedings: 30th Annual American Water Resources Association Conference, November 6-11.
-------
Negahban, B., C. Fonyo, K.L. Campbell, J.W. Jones, W.G. Boggess, G. Kiker, E. Hamouda, E.
Flaig and H. Lai. 1993. LOADSS: A GIS-Based Decision Support System for Regional
Environmental Planning. Proceedings of the Second International Conference/Workshop on
Integrating Geographic Information Systems and Environmental Modeling, September 26-30,
Breckenridge, CO.
Prato, Tony and Hongqi Shi. 1990. A Comparison of Erosion and Water Pollution Control
Strategies for an Agricultural Watershed. Water Resources Research 26(2): 199-205.
Prato, Tony and Kimberly Dauten. 1991. Economic Feasibility of Agricultural Management
Practices for Reducing Sedimentation in a Water Supply Lake. Agricultural Water Management
19:361-370.
Prato, Tony, and Shunxiang Wu. 1991. Erosion and Sediment Control Benefits of Conservation
Compliance in an Agricultural Watershed. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation 46(3): 211-
214.
Prato, Tony, Yun Wang, Tim Haithcoat, Chris Barnett and Chris Fulcher. 1994. Converting
Hydric Cropland to Wetland in Missouri: A Geoeconomic Analysis. Journal of Soil and Water
Conservation 50(1): 101-106.
Water Environment Foundation/Water Quality 2000. 1992. A National Water Quality Agenda for
the 21st Century. Final Report, Alexandria, VA.
Young, R.A., C.A. Onstad, D.D. Bosch, and W.P. Anderson. 1987. AGNPS: Agricultural
Nonpoint Source Pollution Model: A Watershed Analysis Tool. Conserv. Res. Rpt. 35, Agr. Res.
Serv., U.S. Dept. of Agr., Washington, DC.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Modular Modeling Approach to Watershed
Analysis and Ecosystem Management
G.H. Leavesley
U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO
G. E. Grant
U.S. Forest Service, Corvallis, OR
S.L. Markstrom, R.J. Viger, and M.S. Brewer
U.S. Geological Survey, Denver, CO
Introduction
Recent developments in the areas of federal forest-ecosystem and water-resource management have
indicated a need for the development of tools to assist resource managers in assessing the effects of
alternative land-management strategies on a variety of environmental issues (FEMAT, 1993;
Montgomery et al., 1995). These needs include the ability to (1) build spatially explicit landscape
scenarios based on externally supplied rules such as harvest levels and environmental constraints; (2)
characterize and parameterize these scenarios for hydrological and ecological models to evaluate the
effects of alternative scenarios on key system behaviors; and (3) iterate with decision models to modify
scenarios to identify optimal resource management strategies. To address management needs, a database-
centered decision-support system that couples hydrological and ecological process models with resource-
management models (RMMs) is being developed.
The interdisciplinary nature and increasing complexity of forest-ecosystem and water-resource
management problems require the use of modeling approaches that can incorporate knowledge from a
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
broad range of scientific disciplines. Selection of a model to address these problems is difficult given the
large number of models available and the wide range of study objectives, data constraints, and spatial and
temporal scales of application. Coupled with this are the problems of characterizing and parameterizing
the study area once the model is selected. Guidelines for estimating model parameters are few and the
user commonly has to make decisions based on an incomplete understanding of model details.
To address the problems of model selection, application, and analysis, a set of modular modeling tools,
termed the Modular Modeling System (MMS) (Leavesley et al., 1995) is being developed. MMS uses a
library of compatible modules for simulating a variety of water, energy, and biogeochemical processes.
A model is created by selectively coupling the most appropriate process algorithms from the library to
create an "optimal" model for the desired application. Where existing algorithms are not appropriate, new
algorithms can be developed.
MMS provides a flexible framework in which to develop a variety of physical process models that can be
coupled with RMMs for use in addressing a wide range of management issues. The management of
forested ecosystems is an application being addressed jointly by the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) and the
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) under a collaborative research project. Initial work is focused on
coupling MMS with selected RMMs for use in the northwestern United States. This work will be
expanded to other regions as tools are developed and tested. The purpose of this paper is to provide an
overview of MMS and the database-centered approach to linking MMS with RMMs.
MMS Overview
The conceptual framework for MMS has three major components: pre-process, model, and post-process
(Fig. 1). The pre-process component includes the tools used to prepare, analyze, and input spatial and
time-series data for use in model applications. The model component includes the tools to develop and
apply models. The post-process component includes tools to display and analyze model results, and to
pass results to management models or other types of software. A graphical user interface (GUI) is being
developed to provide user access to all the components and features of MMS. The current framework has
been developed for UNIX-based workstations and uses X-windows and Motif for the GUI. The GUI
provides an interactive environment for users to access model-component features, apply selected
options, and graphically display simulation and analysis results.
-------
DDE
m* fl j—¦
pr
fr ill\Jf
MODEL
m
DIGITAL
DATA
A
MODEL
[MIA W
GIS
\TlQN |
L !
* t
DATA
RACC
D #%i3p C
m n n i i i & r
I tf 1 L,/ U LJ L r\ li
MODEL
ILD
1: i— L-J*
MODULAR
LIBRARY
STATISTICS
GRAPHICS
f XTFNOP n
I— * I IL« *¦ ItaJ*
3 T R El A MF L OW
prediction
GIS
OPTIMZATION
SENSITIVITY
.MENT
Figure 1. A schematic diagram of the components of the Modular Modeling System (MMS).
Pre-process Component
The pre-process component includes all data preparation and analysis functions needed to meet the data
and parameterization requirements of a user-selected model. A goal in development of the pre-process
component is to take advantage of existing data-preparation and analysis tools and to provide the ability
to add new tools as they become available. Spatial data analysis is accomplished using GIS tools that
have been developed and tested in both the Arc/Info system (ESRI, 1992) and the Geographical
Resources Analysis Support System (GRASS) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1991). Functions
developed include the ability to (1) delineate and characterize watershed subbasin areas for distributed-
parameter modeling applications; (2) estimate selected model parameters for these subbasins using
digital elevation model (DEM) data and digital databases that include information on soils, vegetation,
geology, and other pertinent physical features; and (3) generate an MMS input parameter file from these
estimates. Time-series data from existing databases as well as from field instrumentation are prepared for
use in selected model applications by generating and combining these data into a single ASCII flat file.
Model Component
The model component is the core of the system and includes the tools to build a model by selectively
linking process modules from the module library and to interact with this model to perform a variety of
simulation and analysis tasks. The library can contain several modules for a given process, each
-------
representing an alternative conceptualization or approach to simulating that process. The user, through an
interactive model builder interface (MBUILD), selects and links modules to create a specific model.
Once a model has been built, it may be saved for future use without repeating the MBUILD step. This
capability allows 'canned' versions of models to be provided to users.
Post-process Component
The post-processing component contains the tools to analyze model results. These include a variety of
statistical and graphical tools as well as the ability to interface with user-developed special purpose tools.
Statistical and graphical analysis procedures provide a basis for comparing module performance and can
be used to aid in selecting the most appropriate modeling approach for a given set of study objectives,
data constraints, and temporal and spatial scales of application. A GIS interface provides tools to display
spatially distributed model results and to analyze results within and among different simulation runs. A
modified version of the National Weather Service's Extended Streamflow Prediction Program (ESP)
(Day, 1985) also is available and provides forecasting capabilities using historic or synthesized
meteorological data.
GIS Interface
A geographic information system (GIS) interface component is being developed for MMS to facilitate
model development, parameterization, application, and analysis. This interface permits application of a
variety of GIS tools to lumped- and distributed-parameter modeling approaches and permits development
and testing of a variety of objective characterization and parameterization techniques. The GIS interface
also permits visualization and analysis of the spatial and temporal distribution of model parameters and
simulated state variables. Within the model component, the GIS interface provides an animation tool to
enable the visualization of the spatial and temporal variation of simulated state variables during a model
run. Selected images from this animation for user-defined time periods can be stored and used in a post-
modeling analysis to compare simulated and measured spatial and temporal variations in the selected
state variable.
Database-Centered Decision Support System
The physical process models in MMS are being linked with RMM via a common database, thus
providing a database-centered decision support system (Fig. 2). Software is also being developed to
provide GIS, statistical analysis, and data query and display capabilities that will be shared by MMS and
RMM. In the current project, the database is an ORACLE (Oracle Corporation, 1987) based system.
However, this approach is not limited to ORACLE but can be used with any relational database system.
MMS and RMM access the database through user-written data management interfaces (DMIs). Users can
use a variety of standard DMIs, or write customized DMIs in any standard programming language that
has database interface capabilities, to access data from a variety of data repositories, including other
relational databases. Changing the central database requires only that the DMIs be modified to support
-------
the selected database. No changes need to be made in MMS or RMM.
DATA
FRAMEWORK
DATA
Management
DATABASE
STATISTICAL
ANALYSIS
PHYSICAL PROCESS
MODELS
MMS
FRAMEWORK
Figure 2. Schematic of the database-centered decision support system.
Communication between MMS and RMM is being designed to use a scenario file in the database. A
scenario is defined as a sequential list of modeling operations to be run using MMS and RMM. Different
scenarios can be developed to address a range of resource-management decisions. The scenario file is
accessed by both modeling systems and the specified models are executed in the order listed. A given
resource-management decision may require the results of one or several models in both systems. Model
results from MMS are written to the database for use as inputs to RMM and vice versa. This exchange of
data and model results is an iterative procedure, the magnitude of which is dependent on the complexity
of the decision process.
An example of such a procedure would be the analysis of forest-management alternatives for a selected
watershed within the constraints of competing resource users and selected environmental constraints. A
scenario of MMS and RMM runs might begin with the execution of landscape-generation models in
RMM that would provide measures of landscape characteristics for selected management options over a
200-year forest cutting rotation. Management option scenarios might range from maximum timber yield
to maximum habitat protection. The following steps would then be executed. Watershed characterization
and parameterization procedures would be run in MMS to create the parameter files for each scenario.
Next, a watershed model in MMS would be called to provide estimates of the daily time series of water,
sediment, and selected chemical constituents for each scenario. RMM would be executed to analyze the
MMS model results. RMM analyses might eliminate scenarios that exceed selected threshold criteria but
indicate that more information is needed for the remaining scenarios. Additional process models would
-------
be run in MMS for selected time periods, watershed areas, or stream reaches. RMM then would be run
again using the additional information to further refine the management options.
Summary
MMS is an integrated system of computer software that has been developed to provide the research and
operational framework needed to support the development, testing, and evaluation of water, energy, and
biogeochemical process algorithms and to facilitate the integration of user-selected sets of algorithms
into operational models. MMS provides a common framework to develop and apply models that are
designed to address problem-specific needs. MMS is being coupled with RMMs using a common
database interface to provide a database-centered decision support system for use in forest-ecosystem and
water-resources management.
References
Day, G.N. (1985) Extended streamflow forecasting using NWSRFS. J. of Water Resourc.
Planning and Management. American Society of Civil Engineers, 111, pp. 157-170.
Environmental Systems Research Institute (ESRI). (1992) ARC/INFO 6.1 user's guide. Redlands,
CA.
Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team (FEMAT). (1993) Forest ecosystem
management: An ecological, economic, and social assessment. Report of the Forest Ecosystem
Management Assessment Team. U.S. Government Printing Office 1993-793-071, Washington,
D.C.
Leavesley, G. H., Restrepo, P. J., Stannard, L. G., Frankoski, L. A., and Sautins, A. M. (1995)
The modular modeling system (MMS) - A modeling framework for multidisciplinary research
and operational applications, in M. Goodchild, L. Steyaert, B. Parks, M. Crane, M. Johnston, D.
Maidment, and S. Glendinning (eds), GIS and Environmental Modeling: Progress and Research
Issues, GIS World Books, Ft. Collins, CO.
Montgomery, D.R., Grant, G.E., and Sullivan, K. (1995) Watershed analysis as a framework for
implementing ecosystem management. Water resources Bulletin, 31(3), pp. 369-386.
Oracle Corporation. (1987) User documentation. Belmont, CA.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. (1991) GRASS Version 4.0 User's Reference Manual,
USACERL, Champagne, IL.
Acknowledgement
-------
The use of trade, product, industry, or firm names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply
endorsement by the U.S. Government.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Hydraulic Modeling to Support Wetland Restoration
in Coastal Watersheds
Christopher S. Adams, P.E.
Raymond L. Hinkle, C.W.B.
Woodward-Clyde Consultants, Wayne, NJ
Jeffrey J. Pantazes, P.E.
Public Service Electric and Gas Company, Hancocks Bridge, NJ
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Introduction
Coastal wetlands are highly productive ecosystems which provide spawning and feeding habitats for
many aquatic organisms. Coastal wetlands also provide other benefits relating to flood protection, water
quality, waterfowl habitat, erosion control, biological diversity and recreation. Similar to freshwater
wetlands, it has been estimated that about half of the tidal wetlands in the United States have been
destroyed, resulting in negative impacts on large scale watersheds.
Restoration and enhancement of coastal wetlands offers an opportunity to reverse such negative impacts
and should be pursued as part of an overall management plan for both large and small scale watersheds.
As part of a New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection water discharge permit for Public
Services Electric and Gas Company's (PSE&G) Salem Generating Station, PSE&G is implementing one
of the largest wetland restoration and preservation programs in the country. The program scope includes:
¦ Restoration of 4,000 hectares of degraded coastal wetlands.
¦ Preservation of a 1,800-hectare tract of coastal wetlands and adjacent buffers.
-------
¦ Installation of 5 fish ladders on Delaware Estuary tributaries.
¦ Implementation of a comprehensive bay-wide biological monitoring program.
¦ Improvements to the Station's intake system to increase survivability of aquatic resources.
With the addition of other wetland restoration projects in the State of Delaware, over 80 square
kilometers of coastal wetlands and wetland buffers will be enhanced and preserved for perpetuity within
the Delaware Estuary.
Among the lands that are suitable areas for coastal wetland restoration and enhancement are diked
farming areas, such as salt hay farms. These farm areas occur along the New Jersey bay shore where
dikes and sluice gates (or other water control structures) have been installed to control tidal inundation,
and thereby promote the growth of salt hay (Spartina patens). Because only occasional tidal inundation is
allowed on these farms and the salt hay is mowed and removed from the land, these farms contribute
very little to the aquatic productivity of the Delaware Estuary. In addition, these areas provide ideal
breeding grounds for the saltmarsh mosquito (Aedes sollicitans) and are susceptible to colonization by
invasive species such as common reed (Phragmites australis).
Project Description
Woodward-Clyde Consultants (WCC) was retained by PSE&G to conduct baseline studies, develop
engineering designs, prepare a Management Plan and prepare permitting documents for the restoration of
coastal wetlands at two sites along the New Jersey bay shore.
WCC's designs for these salt hay farm sites have the objective of restoring tidal inundation and drainage
to these areas through the construction of new inlets and major channels based on detailed hydraulic
studies at each site. With the return of the normal daily tidal flow, these areas will 1) again contribute to
the enhancement of the marsh/estuary food web through the export of detrital production; 2) provide
refuge, feeding habitat and nursery grounds for various estuarine animals; and 3) be less favorable as
breeding areas for the saltmarsh mosquito.
Site Description
The Maurice River Salt Hay Farm Restoration Site is a 445-hectare diked salt hay farm located in
Cumberland County, New Jersey. The site is bordered by Delaware Bay to the south and by tidal creeks
to the east and west. The eastern tidal creek ranges in size from 30 to 100-meters wide and has a small
freshwater flow. The western tidal creek is 12 to 30-meters wide and has no freshwater flow.
Salt hay farming was conducted at the site for several decades but was discontinued several years ago.
The perimeter dikes and their associated outlet structures were constructed in the late 1960s and early
-------
1970s to protect the salt hay farm from flooding. However, lack of maintenance on the dikes and outlet
structures has led to their deterioration and as a result, many breaches in the dikes have formed. These
breaches now control the tidal flow into and out of the restoration area.
The topography across the site is generally flat. Elevations are lowest in the center of the site and
increase towards the perimeter. The site has experienced settlement and consolidation of the sediments as
a result of the restriction of tidal flows. Elevations within the perimeter dikes vary from -0.31 to 0.92
meters NAVD. Tides range from a Mean Low Water (MLW) of -1.01 meters to a Mean High Water
(MHW) of 0.75 meters with a Mean Tide Level (MTL) of -0.13 meters.
The existing drainage channels are not sufficient to convey tidal flows throughout the site. The major
interior channels of the site are borrow areas/pits for the construction of the dikes and are located on the
inboard side of the perimeter dikes. These channels are not interconnected and are generally
hydraulically isolated during periods of lower water. Currently, tidal flows are conveyed throughout the
interior of the site predominantly by overland flow.
Methodology
The objective of the hydraulic study was to develop a conceptual design of a channel system that would
convey tidal flows throughout the wetland with minimal channel erosion and tidal attenuation. Therefore,
the methodology selected for performing the hydraulic analyses had to be:
¦ Capable of predicting the extent of flooding and draining for different channel configurations and
sizes.
¦ Capable of predicting overland and channel flow velocities.
¦ Flexible enough so that different channel configurations and sizes could be simulated.
¦ Proven, widely accepted, and therefore defensible in front of the client, the regulatory agencies,
an independent advisory committee, and the scientific community.
In general, a comparison between average tidal conditions and site topography can help evaluate the
extent to which the wetland restoration goals can be met. However, such an evaluation does not define
the period of inundation, the potential for erosion or the ability of channels to convey tidal water into the
site. To estimate these, a hydraulic model is necessary. The US Army Corps of Engineers Waterways
Experiment Station RMA-2 two-dimensional finite element hydrodynamic model was selected to analyze
different design alternatives proposed for restoration of the site. The version of the model included the
front and back-end interface FastTABS. One important feature of the model is its ability to simulate
wetting and drying of a system such as occurs in a coastal wetland. Also, the model has been applied to
several water bodies across the United States and is widely accepted by regulatory agencies.
-------
In order to conduct the modeling, detailed topography of the site is needed. Over 25,000 digitized aerial
survey data points complemented with field survey data of the adjacent tidal creeks and larger interior
channels were used in the study. This original data set was reduced to a finite element mesh consisting of
approximately 6000 nodal points and 2500 elements. This resulted in a grid of approximately 122 by 122
meters for the flat areas and approximately 5 by 5 meters for the breaches and interior channels. The
RMA-2 model grid for existing conditions is presented in Figure 1.
Design alternatives were modeled using RMA-2 by modifying the grid from the existing conditions to
the proposed conditions. The inlet and channel locations and sizes were modified to maximize flooding
and draining with minimal channel erosion. One of the design goals was to mirror the size and
distribution of channels in the adjacent natural marsh systems. The flexibility in the model allowed the
design to be optimized to meet this design goal.
The modeling indicated that four inlet and channel systems are required to fully inundate and drain the
site: one connected to each adjacent tidal creek and two directly connected to the Delaware Estuary. The
final design of the inlet and channel configuration is shown on Figure 2. These results are consistent with
observations of the distribution of tidal channels in surrounding natural tidal marsh areas.
Figure- 1 Twq— rilmpn^iciripl mncJi-I grid
Figure 1. Two-dimensional model grid.
Results
-------
.-£'iT5TME PEIHIC1EW 0«E
[W CtMMNEl
EXI5TNG C«EIK
^ILL Mt£A
XISTMB CflIEK
DELAWARE 0AV
Figure 2. Final Design
Figure 2. Final design.
In total, about 12,200 linear meters of channels will convey tidal flows throughout the site. The higher
order channels, channels directly connected to an inlet, will have bottom widths ranging from 9 to 45
meters, and top widths ranging from 25 to 60 meters. The lower order channels, channels farther from an
inlet, will have bottom widths ranging from 1 to 6 meters with top widths ranging from 18 to 23 meters.
All channels will have 4:1 to 5:1 (horizontal to vertical) side slopes. The maximum velocities predicted
by the model range from less than 0.5 m/sec in the channels to almost 1.6 m/sec in one of the inlets. The
predicted 1.6 m/sec peak velocity is higher than the pre-established velocity criteria of 0.6 m/sec;
however, such peak velocities will be localized and of short duration.
Conclusions
This paper showed that a two-dimensional model is a useful tool to understand and characterize tidal
flows into an impounded coastal wetland. The model selected was the USACOE RMA-2 model which
proved to be a flexible tool to assist in the design of appropriate channel configurations and sizes to
reestablish tidal flows necessary for successful wetland restoration.
-------
r¦
IIPy?
/dT-1. - o
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Development of a Spatially Distributed Hydrological
Model for Watershed Management
Shulin Chen, Assistant Professor
Washington State University, Pullman, WA
Guang-Te Wang, Research Associate
Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
The conversion of excess rainfall into surface runoff is traditionally analyzed by means of lumped
models. These models assumed that excess rainfall and geographical conditions over a whole watershed is
uniform and the conversion process is described by the familiar convolution integral and an instantaneous
unit hydrograph for linear system. In practice, the excess rainfall and geographical conditions over a
middle or large watershed are non-uniform, so errors can be caused if the lumped model is used to
simulate the rainfall-runoff process. To overcome this deficiency, really distributed models were proposed
(Laurenson, 1964; Mein, et al., 1974; Boyd, 1978, 1981; Diskin, et al., 1978, 1984) with which the whole
watershed was divided into a number of sub-watersheds or cells with the uniform excess rainfall and
geographical conditions. Two types of sub-watersheds or cells are recognized by Diskin, et al. (1984),
exterior cells, which have only excess rainfall as input, and interior cells having both excess rainfall and
channel inflow as input. The excess rainfall input to each exterior cell is transformed into the
corresponding output which is the input to the channel of the next interior sub-watershed or cell. This
inflow is routed through the channel and the excess rainfall over the interior cells is transformed and
forms the total output at outlet of the interior cells that is the input to the next interior cell.
-------
The water movement in a watershed can be divided into two types of flows: overland flow and channel
flow. Based on fluid mechanics laws, the overland or channel flow velocities depend on the value of the
flow discharge. The larger the discharge, the higher the flow velocities. Many authors (Askew, 1970;
Kellerhalls, 1970; Mein, et al., 1974; and Pilgrim, 1977) suggested that a power relationship between
discharge and flow velocities is valid. For a watershed, the time of concentration of both a channel and an
overland flow is inversely proportional to the flow velocities. Therefore, the nonlinear relationship
between the concentration time of watershed and discharge exists.
In this paper, a watershed is treated as a complex system which consists of a number of the first order sub-
watersheds and each of which will be further divided a number of sub-watersheds and so on until the
lowest order sub-watersheds are obtained. The excess rainfall and geographical conditions are
approximately uniform on each of lowest order sub-water sheds. Two types of the lowest order sub-
watershed are recognized, exterior and interior sub-water sheds. Excess rainfall on the exterior is only its
input which will enter the channel of next adjacent interior sub-watershed. A linear and nonlinear
distributed hydrological simulated models can be derived and model parameters can be determined from
the geographical features.
A New Version of Linear Distributed Watershed Hydrological Model
Watersheds are complex systems that consist of a number of sub-watersheds, such as forested,
agricultural, mountainous, water-covered, urban-developed, or wetland sub-watersheds. Each of these sub-
watersheds can be further divided into a number of lower order sub-watersheds. In studying a watershed
Figure 1. A mountainous watershed.
-------
system, we can choose to focus on the detailed behavior of the lowest order sub-watersheds which are
approximately uniform for rainfall and physical geographical conditions. Taking a mountainous
watershed as an example, the watershed is divided into 9 sub-watersheds that are classified into exteriors
and interiors (see Figure 1). Sub-watersheds one, two, three, six, seven and eight are exterior and the rest
interior. For exterior sub-watersheds, excess rainfall is the only input. Based on water balance, storage-
release equation and system analysis theory, the ordinary differential equation is obtained as following:
(1)
Where, Q9 is the output from the ninth sub-watershed; kl . . . k9 are the model parameters representing
the characteristics of the sub-watersheds, respectively; CI ... C9 are the model parameters representing
the channel characteristics of the sub-watersheds, respectively. D = d/dt is differential operator.
The ordinary differential equation (1) stands for the mountainous watershed. Similarly, the ordinary
differential equations for forest, agricultural, urban watersheds etc. can be written. These ordinary
differential equations will be assembled in series or parallel to form the general ordinary differential
equation of the whole watershed system of a larger scale.
Using a unit step function to represent the discrete excess rainfall input (Wang, 1983) and Laplace
transform, one can obtain the following equation for calculating runoff hydrograph:
(2)
Equation (2) can be used to estimate runoff hydrograph from rainfall over the 9 sub-watersheds each of
which includes channel and overland flows. In practice, the output from exterior sub-watersheds indeed
enters the channel of the next adjacent sub-watershed which is the interior one and the flows in channel
and overland are quite different. Therefore, the new version of the distributed hydrologic model is more
useful in simulating real watersheds.
Nonlinear Distributed Hydrological Model
As mentioned above, the concentration time of watershed is related to the discharge, the larger discharge,
the shorter the concentration time of a watershed. The relationship between the concentration time and
discharge of a watershed can be also derived from the nonlinear storage-release equation, that is:
(3)
where m is the exponent which stands for nonlinear relation of a sub-watershed differentiating equation
(3) and:
(4)
-------
We also take the mountainous watershed as an example. For the first sub-watershed of 9, the water
balance equation is:
(5)
Solving equations (4) and (5) simultaneously, resulting in:
(6)
In the same way, we can write another 12 equations for the rest of the sub-watersheds. These equations
are first order, nonlinear differential equations which involve 13 unknown variables that can be obtained
by solving these equations simultaneously.
Discussion and Conclusion
The models have the following advantages:
1. The channel flow and excess rainfall of the sub-watershed are transformed into the corresponding
output, respectively. This is reasonable to simulate a real sub-watershed because the characteristics of
flow in a channel and overland are quite different and so are the parameters. The model proposed in the
study expresses the distinction between the channel and overland flows by using a different values of
model parameters.
2. The model involves a channel routing model and a watershed model, it can be used for predicting flood
hydrograph from a more complex watershed system which consists a number of sub-watersheds and
channels. Theoretically, the model can be used to predict the flood hydrograph from a large watershed,
provided all the information of the watershed is available to estimate the model parameters and rainfall
storm data over the whole watershed are provided.
Reference
Askew, A. J. 1970. Variation in lag time for natural catchments. J. Hydraul. Div., ASCE,
96(HY2):317-330.
Boyd, M. J. 1978. A storage routing model relating drainage basin hydrology and geomorphology.
Water Resour. Res., Vol. 14, No. 5, pp. 921-928.
Boyd, M. J. 1981. A linear branched network model for storm rainfall and runoff. Proceeding of
International Symposium on Rainfall-runoff Modeling, Mississippi State. Published by Water
Resources Publications, Littleton, Colorado, pp. 111-124.
-------
Diskin, M. H. and E. S. Simpson. 1978. A quasi-linear spatially distributed cell model for the
surface runoff system. Water Resources Bulletin, Vol. 14, No. 4, pp. 903-918.
Diskin, M. H., G. Wyseure and J. Feyen. 1984. Application of a cell model to the Bellebeek
watershed. Nordic Hydrology, 15:25-38.
Kellerhalls, R. 1970. Runoff routing through steep natural channels. J. Hydraul. Div., ASCE,
96(HY11):2201-2217.
Laurenson, E. M. 1964. A catchment storage model for runoff-routing. J. of Hydrology, Vol. 2,
No. 2, pp. 141-163.
Mein, R. G., E. M. Laurenson and T. A. McMahon. 1974. Simple nonlinear method for flood
estimation. J. Hydraul. Div., Proceedings ASCE, Vol. 100, No. HY11, pp. 1507-1518.
Pilgrim, D. H. 1977. Isochrones of travel time and distribution of flood storage from a tracer study
on a small watershed. Water Resour. Res., 13(3):587-595.
Wang, G-T and K. Wu. 1983. The unit-step function response for several hydrological conceptual
models. J. Hydrol., 62:119-128.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
IWMM-an Integrated Watershed Management Model
with a Watershed Protection Approach
C. L. Chen, Senior Engineer
L. E. Gomez, Senior Engineer
W.T. Tsai, Senior Engineer
Systech Engineering, Inc., San Ramon, CA
C.M. Wu, Chairman
Water Resources Planning Commission, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Taiwan,
ROC
I.L. Cheng, Executive Secretary
Te-Chi Reservoir Watershed Management Commission, Ministry of Economic
Affairs, Taiwan, ROC
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Abstract
IWMM (Integrated Watershed Management Model) is being developed with a
watershed protection approach to evaluate the impact of land use and watershed
management practices on water quality. The hydrologic module of the model
simulates the processes of canopy interception, throughfall, evapotranspiration,
snow accumulation and melting, surface and subsurface flow, stream and
reservoir hydraulics. The water quality module simulates the nitrogen cycle,
-------
phosphorus cycle, oxygen cycle, algal dynamics, major cations and anions, pH,
alkalinity, organic acids, temperature, pesticides and sediments in the watershed.
Application to Te-Chi Watershed over a two-year period, 1992-1993, indicates
that the model successfully simulates hydrological and biochemical processes
under influence of human activities. The model was incorporated with a user
interface that was designed to make the model user-friendly. The model is
operated through Microsoft Windows with multitasking and multiwindowing
capabilities. The model input can be imported from GIS and updated from the
monitor screen through dialog boxes. The model output can be displayed by
either the user interface or GIS software. The linkage of simulation model and
user interface enables the model to play what-if scenarios and to evaluate the
alternatives of the watershed and reservoir management schemes.
Introduction
Systech Engineering, Inc. has developed an Integrated Watershed Management
Model (IWMM) consisting of a GIS based user interface and a simulation model.
This model considers the reservoir and its watershed as one system. It follows the
flow path to simulate the physical, chemical and biological processes through
canopies, soil layers, rivers, and reservoirs (lakes). The simulation model is
comprised of hydrologic and water quality modules. The hydrologic module
simulates the processes of canopy interception, throughfall, and
evapotranspiration; snow accumulation, sublimation, and melting; water
infiltration, percolation, lateral flow, and surface runoff; river and reservoir
hydraulics. The water quality module simulates the processes of canopy
exudation, nitrification and washoff; litter fall and breakdown; snow leaching,
rock weathering, cation exchange, anion absorption, chemical equilibrium,
nutrient cycling, oxygen cycling, pesticide decay, and sediment transport.
In the hydrological calculations, the model outputs snow pack depth, soil
moisture contents, river flow rate, and either reservoir surface elevation or
reservoir outflow. In the water quality calculations, the model outputs the water
temperature, pH, total alkalinity, and concentrations of ammonium, calcium,
magnesium, potassium, sodium, chloride, sulfate, phosphate, total phosphorus,
-------
nitrate nitrogen, nitrite nitrogen, ammonia nitrogen, organic nitrogen, organic
acid, dissolved oxygen (DO), three kinds of algae (Peridinium, diatoms and green
algae), three kinds of pesticides (carbaryl, methomyl, mevinphos), three kinds of
sediment (sand, silt and clay).
The simulation model is a FORTRAN program modified from the Integrated
Lake-Watershed Acidification (ILWAS) model (Chen et al., 1983). It adapted
some equations and formulas from several existing models. The ability to
simulate erosion from subcatchments was added by using equations employed in
the ANSWERS (Beasley, D.B., 1991) model. Pesticides are simulated using the
approach of the CREAMS model (Knisel, 1980). Simulation of dissolved oxygen
and algae in the reservoir, is based on the equations used in the WASP5
(Ambrose et al., 1991). Reservoir hydraulics can be simulated as a one
dimensional layered system using the ILWAS code or in two dimensions using
the CE-QUAL-W2 code (Environmental and Hydraulics Laboratories, 1986).
The input data can be categorized into two types. One type is the static data that
will be read in once when the model is started. The other one is the dynamic data
that will be read in at certain time interval when the model is running.
The static data include: (1) geographic data such as longitude, latitude, elevation,
catchment slope and aspect, the lengths and slopes of river and reservoir
segments, etc. (2) land use data such as percentage of each land use, leaf area
index of each kind of canopy, chemical content of canopy, mineral and soil
solution, etc. (3) rate coefficients related to the hydrological and chemical
processes in canopies, snowpacks, soils, and water.
The dynamic data include: (1) meteorological data, air quality data, rain quality
data, fertilizer application data, pesticide application data, point discharge data,
and reservoir depth or outflow data.
The geographic data can be imported from GIS and updated from the monitor
screen through dialog boxes. If a watershed has its DEM (Digital Elevation
Models) files, the user interface can import the DEM files and then delineate
-------
catchments, river and reservoir segments and calculate slope and aspect of each
catchment and river reach elevations. Any graphic object can also be imported
from GIS database or Windows Metafiles (WMF). The graphic objects contained
in the imported file format will be converted to IWMM's format. The model
output can be displayed by either the user interface or GIS softwares.
A more detailed description of the user interface is presented a companion paper
(Gomez et al., 1996). This paper will focus on a specific application of the model
to the Te-Chi Reservoir watershed in Taiwan.
Model Application
Te-Chi Reservoir watershed is at the upstream of Da-Chia River in Central
Taiwan. Its average elevation is above 2000 meters. The climate is favorable for
growing fruit trees and vegetables. About 6.4% of the watershed area have been
cultivated to orchards and vegetable farms. This region is a famous travel
attraction due to its extraordinary scenery and public accessible orchards. The
agricultural and touring activities have created sediment erosion and water quality
problems. Particularly, the Te-Chi Reservoir has become eutrophic since 1976. In
order to control the point and nonpoint pollution sources in the watershed, Te-Chi
Reservoir Watershed Management Commission and Water Resources Planning
Commission of Taiwan Government conducted a long-term water quality
monitoring program and sponsored Systech Engineering, Inc. to adapt the IWMM
to this area.
At current stage, the Te-Chi Reservoir watershed is divided into 32
subcatchments, 26 river segments and a 30-layer reservoir (for one-dimensional
simulation) or 30-layer and 6-section reservoir (for two-dimensional simulation).
Although the model allows the user to select any time interval for model
calculation, the default and preferred time step of the model simulation is one
day.
There are two meteorological stations and ten precipitation stations in the
watershed. Each subcatchment is assigned to use one of the meteorological data
-------
collected at these stations based on the relative location and elevation of the
station. The air and rain quality data collected seasonally at one station is used for
the whole watershed. The soil data collected seasonally at ten locations is
distributed to individual subcatchment based on the location and land use of the
subcatchment. The data of fertilizer and pesticide applications is compiled from
the information of agricultural almanac in this area. The point source data is
generated by extrapolation of three measurements over the past years. The
reservoir outflow data as well as the reservoir depth data is provided by the
Taipower Company that operates a hydro-power plant at the Te-Chi Reservoir.
We have been calibrating the model with 1992-1993 river and reservoir data. So
far the simulated flow, temperature, calcium, magnesium, potassium, and
dissolved oxygen demand match the data pretty well. The simulated phosphorus,
ammonia nitrogen, organic carbon, alkalinity, and pH agree fairly well with the
data. Nitrate and chlorophyll-a do not match the data very well. We expect
additional iteration of calibration and verification to reach a good model
calibration and verification.
Figure 1 shows the flow and DO comparisons at river segment 12. The model
results match with the data very well. Figure 2 shows the temperature and
alkalinity at the surface of reservoir. The temperature has a very good agreement
between the model results and field data. The alkalinity has a fair match.
As shown in Figures 1 and 2, the user can make several comparisons between
model results and field data and among various locations. The user interface
allows users to open multiple windows, thus various locations and comparisons,
as they want. In addition to the time series plots, the user interface can display
spatial distribution plots. The spatial distribution plots provide a snapshot of what
is happening throughout the watershed at one point in time. To change the date of
the plot, the user can simply place the cursor on the day, month or year of the date
shown at the upper right hand corner of the display and click on the up and down
arrows next to the date. With these capabilities, the model enables the decision
makers to play what-if scenarios and to evaluate the alternatives of the watershed
and reservoir management schemes.
-------
Conclusion
IWMM employs state-of-the-art methods in both its user interface as well as in its
simulation component. The model is operated through Microsoft Windows with
multiwindowing and multitasking capabilities. The model input can be imported
from GIS and updated from the monitor screen through dialog boxes. The model
output can be displayed by either GIS or the user interface. The simulation
component is comprised of an integrated set of time tested models capable of
simulating most constituents and most processes that occur in a watershed
system. The results of its application to the Te-Chi Reservoir watershed endorse
the model capability. The combination of ease to use and simulation robustness
makes the model an ideal tool for administrators and scientists as well.
Improvements will continue on both the user interface and the simulation
components.
References
Ambrose, R.B., T.A. Wool, J.L. Martin, J.P. Connolly and R.W. Schanz.
(1991) WASP5.X, A Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model-Model
Theory, User's Manual, and Programmer's Guide. Environmental Research
Lab., Office of Research and Development, USEPA, Athens, Georgia.
Beasley, D.B. and L.F. Huggins. (1991) ANSWERS user's manual.
Publication No. 5. Agricultural Engineering Department.
Chen, C.W., S.A. Gherini, R.J.M. Hudson and J.D. Dean. (1983) The
Integrated Lake-Watershed Acidification Study, Vol. 1: model principles
and application procedures. Electric Power Research Institute, Palo Alto,
California.
Chen, C.L., L.E. Gomez, C.M. Wu, I.L. Cheng. (1996) IWMM-An
Integrated Watershed Model With a Watershed Protection Approach.
Proceedings of the Watershed '96 Conference, Baltimore, MD.
-------
Environmental and Hydraulics Laboratories. (1986) CE-QUAL-W2: A
Numerical Two-Dimensional, Laterally Averaged Model of Hydrodynamics
and Water Quality; User's Manual. Instruction Report E-86-5, US Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Knisel, W.G., editor. (1980) CREAMS: A Field-Scale Model for
Chemicals, Runoff, and Erosion From Agricultural Management Systems.
US Dept. of Agriculture, Conservation Research Report No. 26.
Environmental and Hydraulics Laboratories. (1986) CE-QUAL-W2: a
numerical two-dimensional, laterally averaged model of hydrodynamics and
water quality; User's manual. Instruction report E-86-5, US Army Engineer
Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss. 224 p.
Keywords
watershed
modeling
water quality
watershed protection approach
geographic information system
watershed management model
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Upper Sligo Creek: An Integrated Approach to
Urban Stream Restoration
John Galli
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC
James D. Cummins
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockville, MD
James B. Stribling
Tetra Tech, Inc., Owings Mills, MD
Abstract
The restoration of degraded urban streams to near pre-development conditions is both a formidable and
expensive challenge. Upper Sligo Creek is a typical degraded 3rd order Piedmont stream which flows
though an older suburban area located in Montgomery County, Maryland. Since 1989 an interagency
effort, as part of a larger Anacostia River restoration initiative, has been underway to restore 7.5 km of
the stream and its environs. The restoration strategy has consisted of the comprehensive employment of
stormwater retrofits, structural stream habitat creation and rehabilitation, riparian reforestation, wetland
construction and native fish and amphibian reintroductions. A wide variety of fish habitat enhancement
structures, such as rootwads, stone wing deflectors, log drop structures, boulder placement, brush
bundles, etc. were employed. The project was performed in three phases. Biomonitoring of fish and
macroinvertebrates was conducted before, during and after each construction phase of the project. In
addition, physical habitat, hydrological and chemical conditions were monitored in the last phase. The
number of fish species living in the system has risen from a low of three in 1988 to 27 in 1995.
Monitoring results were used to adjust fish stocking strategies, document recruitment success, and to help
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
critique the overall success of the restoration effort.
The restoration of the Upper Sligo Creek stream system exemplifies the basic subwatershed restoration
approach being employed throughout much of the 400 km2 Anacostia River watershed (Figure 1).
Functional changes which each subwatershed had experienced were evaluated and appropriate
stormwater retrofits and stream restoration alternatives were identified. Candidate stream restoration sites
were linked directly with an upstream stormwater retrofit project. Restoration of in-stream habitat did not
occur until after upstream stormwater controls became operational. Extended detention wetpond/marsh
systems were selected on the basis of their proven ability to reduce pollutant loads and stream channel
erosion problems and to create additional wildlife habitat. Additional restoration measures included
riparian reforestation, artificial wetland and vernal pool creation and the employment of parallel pipe
storm drain systems. These measures were used to replace lost or damaged functional components of the
ecosystem. The ultimate goals of this $2 million demonstration project in the Upper Sligo Creek system
were to improve the aquatic and riparian conditions, increase fish and wildlife habitat, create refugia for
reintroduced native fish species and improve the community value and use of the resource.
Biological Monitoring
Protocols
Biomonitoring and habitat
assessments during all three phases
were based upon U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency protocols (Plafkin
et al., 1989), with some modifications
on habitat assessments (Barbour and
Stribling, 1991). The condition of
each site under study was rated as a
function of its capacity to support a
healthy biological community. Fish
monitoring was conducted by
backpack electrofishing. Amphibian
relative abundance and species
richness was determined via visual
encounter surveys.
Phase l_Wheaton
Branch Restoration and
Monitoring (1990-1991)
Restoration components completed in
Phase I were performed on Wheaton
V
%
-------
Branch, a tributary to Sligo Creek,
and included: a) construction of a
three-celled wet extended detention
stormwater management pond/marsh,
b) restoration of 300 meters of stream
habitat; and c) creation of two vernal
pools and riparian reforestation along
a 350 meter stream corridor.
Phase I biological assessments at four
stream sites found low taxonomic
diversity and levels of abundance of
fish and benthic macroinvertebrates. Exceptions in the upper Sligo Creek drainage were located within
Wheaton Branch, where samples usually had the greatest numbers of macroinvertebrates and were
dominated by Hydropsyche or Chironomidae. It was determined that, for a brief period of time, there was
organic loading into Wheaton Branch from a sewer line leak, and possibly, non-retention of organic
particulates by the recently completed stormwater management retrofit. These conditions contributed to
the extreme dominance of the net-spinning (i.e., filter-feeding) caddisflies (Hydropsyche and
Cheumatopsyche) and the relatively low number of benthic macroinvertebrate taxa. Fisheries surveys
found only three species of fish; blacknose dace, northern creek chub, and goldfish. These species are all
highly pollution tolerant (Plafkin et al. 1989). The blacknose dace accounted for 77 percent of all
individuals captured. An indication of environmental stress was that 11 percent (20 of 182) of the
northern creek chubs collected had either fin erosions, skin lesions, external fungal infections or
combinations of these external symptoms. These symptoms are associated with environmental
degradation such as chronic, sublethal exposure to contaminants, low dissolved oxygen, or high levels of
suspended solids (Wedemeyer et al., 1990). Generally low density and taxonomic diversity in the Sligo
Creek mainstem was attributed to a combination of scouring stormflows, pollutants associated with urban
runoff, and the possibility of unknown toxicants (Stribling et al., 1989).
Due to existing downstream blockages, normal fish movement and migration in the system is restricted,
thus preventing the natural re-establishment of a more diverse fish community in both Wheaton Branch
and the Upper Sligo Creek mainstem. In response, Phase I recommended experimental transplant
stocking of selected native fish species into Wheaton Branch to augment the recovery of fish populations
in Sligo Creek. The general strategy involved the reintroduction of non-game species indigenous to the
area, and featured a local citizen volunteer component. Gamefish were intentionally not stocked because
of expected problems with predation on the establishing minnow populations and, from experience,
gamefish species such as sunfish tend to be introduced rapidly by local anglers. Stocking was phased in
order to account for expected changes in water and habitat quality and to permit less prolific species to
establish themselves prior to the introduction of more prolific species. If water quality showed a marked
improvement over pre-restoration conditions, future stocking of more pollution-intolerant/less-prolific
species such as the common shiner and rosyside dace was to be attempted. Approximately 10-20
individuals of each species were stocked into pools or riffles, depending on species habitat preference
and size and depth of individual pools or riffles.

1 V
\ f / *
- -
Figure 1. The Anacossia Basin with the Sligo
Creek subwatershcd (shaded).
Figure 1. The Anacostia Basin with the Sligo Creek
subwatershed (shaded).
-------
Phase II and IIHJpper Sligo Creek Mainstem and Flora Lane
Tributary Restoration and Monitoring (1992-1995)
While no major restoration construction work was performed in Phase III, Phase II included: a)
completion of a two-celled wet extended detention pond/marsh stormwater retrofit, b) selective
restoration of approximately 7.0 km of Upper Sligo Creek mainstem stream habitat, c) construction of a
300 m long parallel pipe system along the Flora Lane tributary, d) creation of a 0.1 hectare marsh, and e)
riparian reforestation of 2.0 hectares along Sligo Creek.
Biological conditions from Phase I to Phase III. A site for which representative changes between the
three phases can be examined is on the Sligo Creek mainstem just downstream of its confluence with
Wheaton Branch. For macroinvertebrate collections in both spring (1990, 1993) and fall (1990, 1992),
changes in numbers of individuals were generally much greater than 50 percent from Phase I to Phase III,
as were numbers of taxa. For the latter, the spring samples changed from number of taxa ranging from 4-
7 (1990) to 7-13 (1993); similarly, fall samples ranged from 5-7 taxa in 1990 to 12-15 in 1992.
Although, in themselves, high numbers of species or other taxa should not be the ultimate indicator of
improving ecological conditions, these changes do signal a general improvement in habitat conditions in
Wheaton Branch, the Flora Lane tributary and Sligo Creek since completion of construction. Often,
improving conditions are reflected in benthic macroinvertebrate assemblages by one or a few taxa not
being overly dominant (Cummins and Stribling, 1992). This characteristic is in part described by the
metric "percent contribution of dominant taxon." Thus, when conditions improve, there are typically
lower values for this metric. In the spring samples, there was a change from 50-80 percent dominance
(1990) to approximately 37-45 percent (1995). Percent dominance changed from a range of
approximately 67-93 percent in 1990 to 39-63 percent in 1992. Similarly to the change in numbers of
taxa, substantial changes are seen from Phase I to Phase II, with less change evident between Phase II
and Phase III (Figure 2). While the total number of invertebrate taxa still remains relatively low
compared to unimpaired streams, these changes signal improving conditions in both Wheaton Branch
and Sligo Creek.
Conclusions
Upper Sligo Creek's stream habitat and its macroinvertebrate, fish and amphibian communities recovered
considerably from Phase I to Phase III. The general increase in the number of macroinvertebrate
individuals together with the decrease in the dominance of the most common taxon signal both an
increasingly healthy stream and improved food base for fish. The fish assemblage, particularly that of
Wheaton Branch, appears far healthier. For example, the percentage of fishes with external anomalies
such as tumors or infections decreased to negligible levels. Overall, fish community structure showed
their greatest gain in the Sligo Creek mainstem. The number of fish species residing in the Upper Sligo
Creek mainstem has increased from three in 1988 to twenty-seven in 1995. The system presently features
a wide diversity of native non-game and gamefish species and supports relatively pollution intolerant
-------
species, such as the rosyside dace
(Clinostomus funduloides),
northern hogsucker (Hypentelium
nigricans) and the mottled sculpin
(Cottus bairdi). With regard to the
amphibian assemblage, vernal pool
and wetland creation areas now
provide habitat for both native
resident and reintroduced species.
Natural colonization and
successful reproduction by five of
these species has been
documented. In addition, all of the
in-stream habitat enhancement
structures remain in good
condition and functioning as
designed.
However, there remains room for
improvement, particularly in the
area related to control of
storm water runoff in both the
Wheaton Branch and Flora Lane tributaries. At the end of Phase III, even the best of the sites studied
remained well below the reference site conditions. With the exceptions of a few short selected reaches,
the uppermost Sligo Creek mainstem fish communities have not recovered. Currently, recruitment
success of several of the key pollution intolerant fish species has not been confirmed. While the general
goal of restoring the fish community to a near pre-development condition has been partially met,
additional monitoring to measure long-term success is recommended.
Literature Cited
Barbour, M.T., and J.B. Stribling. 1991. Use of habitat assessment in evaluating the biological
integrity of stream communities. Pp. 25-38 in Biological Criteria: Research and Regulation.
Proceedings of a Symposium. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water,
Washington, D.C. EPA-440/5-91-005. July 1991.
Cummins, J. D. and J. B. Stribling. 1992. Wheaton Branch retrofit project. 1990-91
Biomonitoring Program. ICPRB Report 92-1. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin,
Rockville, MD. 39 pp.
Stribling, J. B., M. G. Finn, P. D. Thaler, and D. M. Spoon. 1989. Nineteen eighty nine Maryland
Anacostia River study. Part 1: Habitat. Macrobenthic invertebrate communities and water quality
v. Contribution Dominant Taxon
JOO
so -
so -
¦to -
EO
Number oftaxa
15
- - LB
Sligo Creek Restoration Phases
Figure 2. Metrics "percent contribution of dominant
taMon1 (bottom panel). Range of values is presented for tjie
former; cumulative totals for the latter, values used are torn
vynter sampling events, Phases I - III. Sites WB1, WB2, SL2,
SL3.
-------
assessment. ICPRB Report 90-1. Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin, Rockville,
MD.
Plafkin, J.L., M.T. Barbour, K.D. Porter, S.K. Gross, andR.M. Hughes. 1989. Rapid
Bioassessment Protocols for Use in Streams and Rivers: Benthic Macroinvertebrates and Fish.
U.S. EPA, Office of Water. EPA/444/4-89-001. 128pp. + appendices.
Wedemeyer, G. A., B. A. Barton, and D. J. McLeay. 1990. Chapter 14: Stress and Acclimation.
Pages 451-490 in C. B. Schreck and P. B. Moyle, editors. Methods for fish biology. American
Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Airborne Thermal Remote Sensing Of Salmonid
Habitat For Restoration Planning In Pacific
Northwestern Watersheds
Christian E. Torgersenl
Nathan J. Poage 2
Oregon State University/USD A Forest Service, IDept. of Fisheries and Wildlife,
2Forestry Sciences Lab, Corvallis, OR
Mark A. Flood
Topographic Engineering Center, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Alexandria, VA
Doug. J. Norton
Office of Water (4503F), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC
Bruce A. Mcintosh
Oregon State University/USD A Forest Service, Forestry Sciences Lab, Corvallis,
OR
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Many technologies that have roots in defense-related applications have been successfully transferred to
civilian, commercial use in environmental analysis, planning, and many other applications. As part of the
Environmental Technologies Initiative (ETI), we examined the utility of military-origin remote sensors
for water quality monitoring applications. Overseen by EPA, this project was carried out in cooperation
with research laboratories of the U.S. Forest Service and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Our project
-------
focused on using forward-looking infrared (FLIR) imagery as a monitoring tool for assessing salmonid
habitat in several rivers and streams in Oregon, Washington, and Idaho.
FLIR systems were originally designed for military night surveillance applications, however they are
now utilized extensively in medical operations, law enforcement, fire reconnaissance, search and rescue,
and environmental monitoring because they are relatively portable and provide real-time thermal imagery
that may be captured digitally or recorded on video tape. Because FLIRs are so portable, they may be
easily operated from air (fixed-wing and helicopter) or ground-based platforms, making them ideal for
terrestrial and aquatic resource assessment (Luvall and Holbo 1991). Our primary use of FLIR was to
supplement water temperature information from in-stream data loggers with spatially continuous thermal
image data composing entire river reaches. We were able to integrate temporally continuous, spatially
limited temperature monitor data with spatially continuous, temporally constrained FLIR imagery.
Aerial videography and remote sensing techniques are increasingly being applied operationally in inland
water resources and fisheries research to address issues of aquatic habitat assessment and restoration
(Rango 1995, Crowther et al. 1995, Hardy and Shoemaker 1995). Multispectral aerial videography can
provide high-resolution, spatially continuous information on stream channel morphology, the distribution
of aquatic habitat components, such as riffles and pools, and riparian vegetation characteristics and areal
extent. Thermal infrared mapping using FLIR imagery, coupled spatially with videography in the visible
spectrum, records continuous water temperature patterns and facilitates identification of cool-water
refugia important for coldwater fish species (Torgersen et al. 1995). Longitudinal stream profiles of
thermal patterns can be obtained with airborne video thermography. The frequency, total area, and
average surface area of cool-water areas, i.e. tributary confluences, ground water seeps, and subsurface
stream outflow areas, can be identified in entire reaches known to be vital for spawning salmon.
Stream temperature is a critical issue particularly in the Columbia River basin in Oregon, Washington,
and Idaho where historical and present land-use pressures, such as logging, road building, grazing, and
mining, have limited the spawning distribution of salmon to only the uppermost river reaches where the
water is cool and tolerable to salmon and trout (Beschta et al. 1987, Platts 1991, Wissmar et al. 1994).
Some anadromous salmonids migrate from the ocean and enter natal streams in the spring, several
months before spawning, when water temperatures are still within preferred tolerance zones for
migration. The salmon must then remain in headwater streams throughout the summer, often exposed to
high ambient stream temperatures and low flow conditions. Energy expenditure in coldwater fishes
increases at elevated temperatures, so the reproductive performance of spawning salmon with finite
energy reserves may be compromised when stream temperature rises above preferred tolerance zones.
Ambient water temperatures in spawning and holding reaches for spring chinook (Oncorhynchus
tshawytscha) in the Middle Fork and the Mainstem John Day River frequently exceed both the thermal
optima cited for spring chinook migration (16C) and spawning (14C) as well as the upper zone of
thermal tolerance (22C) (Armour 1991, Bjornn and Reiser 1991).
Approximately 1600 river kilometers of FLIR coverage were obtained for analysis during the heat of the
summer, 1995, and these data, combined with limited FLIR imagery from 1994, formed the basis of this
project. Thermally intact and impaired river reaches of ecological significance to anadromous salmon
-------
and trout were aerially surveyed in the following drainages in 1995: Asotin, Grande Ronde, Lolo,
Tucannon, Umpqua, Yakima, as well as the Main, Middle, North, and South Forks of the John Day
River. Thermal infrared data (5-55oC) were recorded in S-Video format on Hi-8 video tapes at 425
meters above the ground using an Agema 1000 FLIR vertically mounted on the underside of a helicopter.
Digital images with ground resolutions of 25-30 cm were captured from the analog video tapes in the
laboratory using a TARGA+ frame grabber and DiaQuest video animation controller. GPS coordinates
and SMPTE time-code recorded in-flight permitted each image to be integrated with spatially-explicit
data layers in the Arc/Info geographic information and ERDAS Imagine image processing systems.
We developed diurnal water temperature curves from selected data logger locations to predict expected
stream temperature on the hottest days of summer when coldwater fishes are likely to experience thermal
stress. The diurnal curves were used to interpret whether the FLIR imagery, collected between 12:00 and
18:00, represented a probable daily maximum. The imagery proved useful for both classifying river
reaches according to thermal characteristics and detecting cool-water refugia of critical importance to
salmonids. With the aid of radio-telemetry in 1994, we were able to track the movements of tagged
salmon and observe their use of cool-water areas identified in the thermal imagery (Torgersen et. al.
1995). The imagery also proved effective for locating and assessing the relative influence of warm-water
inputs, such as irrigation inputs and tributaries. Specific reaches identified in 1994, a relatively hot
summer, as important thermal refugia for salmon were re-examined using imagery from 1995, a
comparably cooler summer (Figure 1). Preliminary analysis suggests that relatively cool reaches,
possibly influenced by groundwater inputs, are predictable on a year-to-year basis. These predictably
cool reaches also appear to be consistently utilized by salmon. This has important implications for stream
habitat management and restoration because critical areas may be protected while reaches with habitat
potential may be enhanced with riparian restoration efforts to increase shading.
References
Armour, C.L. (1991) Guidance for evaluating and recommending temperature regimes to protect
fish. U.S. Fish Wild. Serv., Biol. Rep. 90(22). 13 pp.
Beschta, R.L., R.E. Bilby, G.W. Brown, L.B. Holtby, and T.D. Hofstra (1987) Stream
temperature and aquatic habitat: fisheries and forestry applications. Pages 191-232 in E.O. Salo
and T. W. Cundy, eds. Streamside management: forestry and fishery interactions. University of
Washington, Seattle.
Crowther, B.E., T.B. Hardy, and C.M.U. Neale. (1995) Application of multispectral video for the
classification of fisheries habitat components in Salmon River, Idaho. Pages 143-157 in P.W.
Mausel (ed.) Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Workshop on Color Photography and Videography
in Resource Assessment. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Terre
Haute, Indiana, May 1-3, 1995.
Hardy, T.B. and J.A. Shoemaker. (1995) Use of multispectral videography for spatial
-------
extrapolation of fisheries habitat use in the Comal River. Pages 134-142 in P.W. Mausel (ed.)
Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Workshop on Color Photography and Videography in Resource
Assessment. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Terre Haute, Indiana,
May 1-3, 1995.
Luvall, J.C., and H.R. Holbo. (1991) Thermal remote sensing methods in landscape ecology. In
M.G. Turner and R.H. Gardner, eds. Quantitative Methods in Landscape Ecology: The analysis
and interpretation of landscape heterogeneity. Ecological Studies, Analysis and Synthesis, Vol.
82. Springer-Verlag, New York.
Platts, W.S. (1991) Livestock grazing. In W.R. Meehan (ed.) Influences of Forest and Rangeland
Management on Salmonid Fishes and their Habitats. American Fisheries Society Special
Publication 19: 389-423.
Reiser, D.W. and T.C. Bjornn. (1979) Influence of forest and rangeland management on
anadromous fish habitat in western North America: habitat requirements of anadromous
salmonids. U.S.D.A, Forest Service, Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-96.
Torgersen, C.E., D.M. Price, B.A. Mcintosh, and H.W. Li. (1995) Thermal refugia and chinook
salmon habitat in Oregon: Applications of airborne thermal videography. Pages 167-171 in P.W.
Mausel (ed.) Proceedings of the 15th Biennial Workshop on Color Photography and Videography
in Resource Assessment. American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing. Terre
Haute, Indiana, May 1-3, 1995.
Wissmar, R.C., J.E. Smith, B.A. Mcintosh, H.W. Li, G.H. Reeves, and J.R. Sedell. (1994)
Ecological health of river basins in forested regions of eastern Washington and Oregon. Gen.
Tech. Rep. PNW-GTR-326. Portland, OR: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
Pacific Northwest Research Station. 65 p.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Brinkley Manor Run: A Case Study in
Geomorphologically-Based Stream Restoration
Design in Prince George's County, Maryland
Mark A. Symborski, Environmental Engineer
Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission, Natural Resources
Division, Upper Marlboro, MD
Mow-Soung Cheng, Section Head
Department of Environmental Resources, Programs and Planning Division,
Prince George's County, Largo, MD
James W. Gracie
Brightwater, Inc., Ellicott City, MD
Mohammed Lahlou
Tetra Tech, Inc., Fairfax, VA
Introduction
Stream restorations using fundamental principles of fluvial geomorphology and natural materials are
being increasingly and successfully implemented across the country. Properly applied, the new
techniques result in restorations which are not only less expensive than those using conventional
armoring methods, but are properly sized and configured to ensure stability, natural appearance, habitat
value, and equilibrium in the sediment transport and depositional patterns. Located within the
-------
Washington, DC Metropolitan area, Prince George's County, Maryland is developing a stream restoration
program incorporating these new approaches within an overall framework of comprehensive watershed
management. This will facilitate the County's efforts to improve environmental quality and integrity,
achieve the goal of sustainable uses of natural resources, and encourage economic revitalization.
Uncontrolled storm water runoff has had a great impact on the historically rich streams of Prince
George's County. Many of the County's streams are in the process of downcutting and widening,
resulting in lost or impaired habitat and eroding property, which in some cases threatens homes as well.
Stream restoration in urban and suburban settings often poses special challenges due to significant
constraints including private property encroachment, proximity of structures, wetland and forest
disturbance, access, and conflict with utilities. Brinkley Manor Run is an example of an actively
degrading stream in a residential area and was selected as a pilot project. The objective was to apply the
most current techniques of stream restoration to determine if a new channel could be designed to fit the
existing constraints and meet geomorphological stability criteria. A geomorphologically-based approach
has been utilized in analyzing and designing a restoration plan for this stream. Lessons learned in dealing
with the all too familiar problems and constraints encountered in this case study will help Prince
George's County implement similar measures county wide.
Geomorphological Approach
Stream channel stability is not a static state. Rather, natural stable streams are characterized by a
condition of dynamic equilibrium. Sediment supply is in equilibrium with sediment transport. Slow rates
of erosion on the outside of meander bends are matched by similar rates of deposition on point bars.
Disequilibrium can come about as a result of a change in any one of the variables that govern stream
morphology. A disturbance which creates a change in one variable sets up a series of concurrent changes
in the others resulting in altered channel patterns. Stream morphology is therefore the result of an
integrative process of mutually adjusting variables. One of the disturbances that can result in
disequilibrium is the increase in frequency, magnitude, and duration of bankfull flows that result from
extensive land development.
There is a close relationship between drainage areas and stream channel dimensions that holds
throughout regions of similar climate and physiography (Dunne and Leopold, 1978). There is also a
relationship between channel dimensions and the magnitude of runoff from frequent storm events. It has
been established that the peak discharge from a storm which occurs on an interval of from 1 to 3 years
produces the flow which shapes, sizes and maintains stream channels (Leopold, Wolman and Miller,
1964). This peak flow is called the bankfull flow.
It follows that a substantial increase in frequency, magnitude, and duration of the peak discharge which
generates the bankfull flow will result in more stress on stream channels with concomitant morphological
adjustment. In a landmark paper Thomas Hammer determined that stream channels in developed areas
can enlarge ten to twenty times their cross sectional area in a process that does not return to equilibrium
for decades (Hammer, 1973).
-------
When dealing with complex natural systems, a good classification system is invaluable in providing a
consistent and reproducible frame of reference for analyzing data and communicating findings. The
Rosgen Classification System (Rosgen, 1994) is widely used to describe natural channels. The
classification is based on morphological parameters that are used to describe channel condition and
predict stream behavior.
The measurements used in the Rosgen Classification System include: entrenchment ratio, width/depth
ratio, sinuosity, slope, and channel material size. A Classification of Natural Rivers (Rosgen, 1994)
includes a table presenting 42 major stream types. An important application of the Rosgen Classification
System is the ability to interpret channel geometry to determine if the channel is in equilibrium with its
flow regime. Because bankfull flows have the most influence on the shaping and maintenance of
channels, it follows that there is a relationship between the dimensions of the stream channel and the
bankfull flow. A properly restored channel will reduce stress in the near bank regions, maintain sediment
transport capacity to handle sediment delivered by watershed runoff, but significantly reduce sediment
supply from stream bank erosion. In this study, the Rosgen System was used to classify the stream, help
establish the bankfull discharge, and guide the design of a stable channel geometry within the existing
field constraints.
Overall Assessment
Brinkley Manor Run is located in the southern portion of Prince George's County, Maryland, in the
coastal plain province. The land use in the 1. 6 square kilometer (0. 6 square mile) watershed is
comprised of small lot residential development with some commercial development on the periphery of
the drainage area. Most of the stream corridor is forested. Near the center of the study area the channel
had been dammed by a large earth and concrete structure to impound a shallow lake approximately three
acres in size. The dam was destroyed in 1972 by Tropical Storm Agnes and the lake area has since
reverted to forest. The basin is traversed by several main thoroughfares and other wide streets. The land
development in this watershed occurred prior to the requirement for stormwater management controls
resulting in a dramatic increase in frequency, magnitude, and duration of peak flows. This increase in
runoff initiated a process of channel enlargement which destabilized the stream.
The channel is filled with excess sediment evidenced by shallow, sediment-filled pools and has a low
width/depth ratio, with eroding banks as high as 2. 5 meters (8 feet) in places. Trees are being
undermined along most of the stream. In the vicinity of the failed dam the eroding banks are up to 3. 6
meters (12 feet) in height, where headcutting occurred through the sediment that had accumulated behind
the structure. Residential properties abut the stream at the rear of the backyards along significant portions
of the channel. Conversations with the property owners revealed serious concerns regarding the current
state of the stream, with some long-term residents able to recall a previously smaller unentrenched
channel with a healthy recreational fish population. Many of the homeowners have made futile attempts
to arrest the erosion of the stream banks using brush and other yardwaste. One house is located
approximately 3. 6 meters (12 feet) from an eroding bank. Such constraints are often encountered in
urban streams, making the design of new stable channels challenging.
-------
The stream channel has incised and abandoned its historic floodplain. In fact, the bankfull elevation is as
much as 1. 8 meters (6 feet) below the abandoned floodplain. The significance of this is that large flows,
which would normally spread over a wide floodplain, are confined in the channel exerting excess stream
power on the bed and banks. This condition worsens in a process of bank erosion supplying excess
sediment which creates depositional features resulting in more bank erosion downstream, which
generates more excess sediment, and so on. The stream will not return to equilibrium until it has moved
enough sediment to create a new flood plain at the new, lower base elevation. It was decided that
restoration could both reduce sediment supply from bank erosion and improve sediment transport so that
the stream could move sediment that would be supplied by the watershed.
Both G and F streams are usually characterized by a process of channel incision and widening, with steep
eroding banks contributing excess sediment. Gravel is present throughout but is obscured in the upper
reaches and highly embedded in the others by the quantity of fine particles present. Field measurements
determined most of the stream to be in a G4 or F4 configuration. The uppermost portion of the study area
is characterized by G5 and F5 segments. Relatively short lengths of channel at the downstream end of the
study area are classified as C4 and DA4. The degraded G and F reaches of the stream comprise roughly
600 meters (2000 feet) of channel. A restoration design was undertaken using the Rosgen Stream
Classification System to determine parameters for stable channel geometry based upon a B4 stream type.
Design considerations
Measurements of channel cross sections, slopes and material size were used to estimate the bankfull
discharge, which was found to be about 1. 84 cubic meters per second (65 cubic feet per second). These
measurements were used in Manning's Equation with roughness estimated by using Rosgen's bankfull
stage roughness coefficients by stream type (Rosgen, 1994).
The estimate of bankfull discharge was corroborated by Maryland Geological Survey gauge station data
from a watershed with similar climate, physiography, and landuse using a proportional area method
(Carpenter, 1983). This "design bankfull discharge" was used to determine the desired channel
dimensions in the following procedure. Considering the valley slope, the choices for restored stream
types allowed either a "C" or "B" stream class. Considering the fact that the stream was already deeply
entrenched and constrained by backyards and forests, a "B" stream type with a low sinuosity was chosen.
In order to create the low well-developed floodplain necessary for a "C" stream type, excavation as much
as 1. 8 meters (6 feet) deep over a wide area would be necessary to accommodate the required meander
belt width, encroaching on private property and destroying valuable woodland. A width/depth ratio
consistent with the Rosgen Classification System was selected. Manning's Equation was then solved for
width and depth using the design bankfull discharge of 1. 84 cubic meters per second (65 cubic feet per
second) and a roughness coefficient commensurate with a B4 stream type. Figure 1 presents the concept
of "G" to "B" restoration in cross section.
-------
\
\
\
\
x
V
b
R&nkfull Elevation
Existing RuiKfuH Width
Cteslgn Bank full Wfdih
* G4
/
/
-B4
i
Figure L Conceptual G to B channel restoration in cross section
A restoration design for Brinkley Manor Run was prepared using the Rosgen Classification System to
diagnose its instability and determine stable parameters for restoration. Root wads will be used to
stabilize banks on meander bends, and vortex rock weirs will be used to provide grade control in straight
reaches. Typical root wads and vortex rock weirs are shown in Figures 2 and 3.
PROPOSED GROUND—N
BOliDERS —x \ *
(AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER) V-"
CUT OFF LOG- ^
ROOT WAU
EANXJULL
IIXVATION
INVERT ELEWTION
TOP OF INVERT LOG
13 AT INVERT
SUBGJtADE
ROOF WAD LIMIT
BOULDER
FOOTER LOG
Figure 2m Roat wad revetment (typical section)
-------
BANKFULL WIDTH
Figure 3. Vortex rock weir (cross section}
Root wads provide a temporary revetment for up to twenty years until they decay and disintegrate.
Willows are planted immediately behind the root wads and will establish a deep and dense root system to
provide permanent vegetative stabilization. Vortex rock weirs are placed in straight reaches and the
upstream and downstream ends of meander bends. They provide grade control and enhanced fish habitat.
They also are designed to maintain sediment transport as a result of the spacing between rocks. Their " V"
shape, with an upstream apex, causes stresses due to high flows to be directed away from near bank
regions, thereby reducing the tendency toward bank erosion. This direction of stress resulting from high
flows into the center of the channel also creates a controlled scour, which gives increased depth for fish
habitat.
Conclusions
This pilot project provided an opportunity to apply a geomorphologically-based approach to stream
restoration to a problematic degraded stream in Prince George's County, Maryland. In a variety of ways,
this stream is typical of many steams in the County, especially those in developed areas, which are often
subject to severe constraints due to the proximity of forest and structures. This project indicates that even
given significant restrictions imposed by development, designs can be accomplished for natural looking
restored streams which can fit the constraints and meet geomorphological stability criteria. The next
phase of this project, construction and monitoring, will continue to help Prince George's County develop
its stream restoration program further and implement similar measures countywide.
-------
References
Carpenter, David H., 1983. Characteristics of Streamflow in Maryland. Report of Investigations,
# 35, Maryland Geological Survey.
Dunne, Thomas and Leopold, Luna B. , 1978. Water in Environmental Planning. W. H. Freeman
and Company, San Francisco, California.
Hammer, Thomas R., 1973. Effects of Urbanization on Stream Channels and Stream Flow.
Regional Science Research Institute, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Leopold, Luna B., Wolman, M. G., Miller, J. P. , 1964. Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. W.
H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, California.
Rosgen, David L., 1994. A Classification of Natural Rivers. Catena, 22:169-199.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watersheds and Cultural Landscapes: Sustainable
Development through Heritage Areas
A. Elizabeth Watson, Chair
National Coalition for Heritage Areas, Washington, DC
Introduction
Rivers involve significant human history and settlement that can be addressed in watershed planning,
building greater public support through an integrated effort that respects the cultural aspects of
watersheds. Watershed planning should recognize human history and communities, and multiple human
objectives for life in the watershed, or efforts to restore or enhance water quality and aquatic habitat will
fail to build the significant level of public support and commitment required to succeed.
The key element unifying communities and rivers is the land they share. This linkage is the basis for the
following logical sequence of points on why watershed planners should address broader community
issues for added environmental gains:
1. Environmental programs can no longer address a river's water quality apart from the lands it
drains: the insight that drives watershed planning.
2. The health of a river is not judged by water quality alone living resources (birds, fish, mammals,
plants) must also be helped to thrive, primarily through addressing habitat, much of it land-based;
3. Once land is to be involved in an environmental program, it is vital to enlist communities,
citizens' groups, and property owners, for these are the actors that are directly involved in land
management, and are closest to both the problems and the solutions to be addressed through
watershed planning.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
4. Water-quality programs enlisting communities, citizens' groups, and property owners are most
likely to engage them by addressing the things they enjoy and want to enhance in their
environment, beyond clean streams: outdoor recreation, nature study, attractive scenery, historic
sites, and economically healthy and sustainable communities.
5. The massive public investments already made in "restoring" the water quality of many rivers are
threatened in the near future by inappropriate development from population growth and the
increase in nonpoint source pollution from many sources.
6. The future health and vitality of a given river is often jeopardized not so much by current
environmental threats as by the lack of a shared agenda among those in the basin who could
address the river's needs.
7. This shared agenda must, first and foremost, recognize the idea that community empowerment is
key to continued environmental improvement in any given watershed. Sustainable development
approaches that recognize "economics, environment, and equity" naturally incorporate community
empowerment. One such approach is that of forming "heritage areas."
Heritage Areas Defined
The National Coalition for Heritage Areas states that:
Heritage areas are most often regions with a distinctive sense of place unified by large-scale resources:
rivers, lakes or streams, canal systems, historic roads or trails, railroads. They may include both rural and
urban settlement, and are cohesive, dynamic environments where private ownership predominates, and
will continue to predominate, but where change can be creatively guided to benefit both people and
place.
Heritage areas encourage both the protection of a wide variety of environmental, scenic, and cultural
resources and sustainable development for tourism and other economic opportunities. They educate
residents and visitors about community history, traditions, and the environment, and provide for outdoor
recreation.
Heritage areas most often comprise more than one jurisdiction, with regional management that combines
public and private sector leadership and engages grass-roots enthusiasm for celebrating community
assets.
A Sampling of Heritage Areas
Most people who are at least familiar with heritage areas in the United States have heard of three
"national heritage corridors" designated by Congress and serviced by the National Park Service: the
-------
Illinois and Michigan (I&M) Canal outside of Chicago, with a wide variety of transportation history
dating from the earliest European exploration of the region; the Blackstone River Valley in Rhode Island
and Massachusetts, considered the earliest cradle of the American Industrial Revolution; and the
Delaware & Lehigh (D&L) Canal National Heritage Corridor, which traces the Industrial Revolution's
effects on a remarkably intact cultural landscape in eastern Pennsylvania, including a 150-mile trail along
both rail corridors and canal towpaths from Wilkes-Barre to Bristol. All three corridors have rivers at
their hearts the Illinois, the Blackstone, and in the case of the D&L, both the Lehigh and the
Delaware and all three address the environmental needs of these rivers.
Beyond these examples, there are many more heritage-based initiatives proposing to integrate tourism,
recreation, and resource conservation around a host of American stories. Some have involved the
National Park Service; others have not. Their hallmarks are that they involve more than one community
with some kind of regional management structure, and they are interdisciplinary, with a balanced
commitment to interpretation, tourism, recreation, and resource protection. A very few have been started
as the result of state programs in Pennsylvania, New York, and Massachusetts. (California is in the
process of developing a heritage program that was established "on the books" several years ago;
Maryland has introduced legislation for a program; and Colorado and possibly North Carolina are
exploring the level of state support that might be possible for local efforts.) The organizers of heritage
development initiatives have sometimes emerged from the historic preservation movement, but just as
frequently they are leaders from the tourism industry, economic development, or the arts, or museum
administrators, or recreation enthusiasts. The ability of such interest groups to forge alliances almost
naturally on the basis of an agenda new to all is one of the most intriguing features of the heritage
development movement.
The best way to gain a sense of the purpose and enthusiasm of heritage areas is to take a brief tour
around the nation of selected, on-going efforts to define, interpret, and develop these special cultural
landscapes:
¦ The Hudson River Greenway, the spectacular early American landscape that became home to the
early 19th-century Hudson River School of American landscape painters and has been a part ever
since of the nation's history of landscape awareness and environmental protection (see
accompanying paper by David A. Sampson).
¦ The story of ranching and water rights on the Cache La Poudre River in Colorado.
¦ America's last fully operable hand-operated canal on the Fox River running from Lake
Winnebago to Green Bay, Wisconsin.
¦ A seven-mile canal along the Savannah River that still powers mills in Augusta, Georgia, the
heart of the South's manufacturing and munitions production during the Civil War.
¦ The National Road in running through western Maryland and Pennsylvania, America's first civil
-------
work.
The two-county region in northwestern Pennsylvania where oil was first discovered.
The El Camino Real, a corridor following the ancient trails of Native Americans and Spanish
Explorers across a large part of eastern Texas, under the protection of a special commission of the
state highway department.
Southern Indiana counties_26 of them showing off their covered bridges and agricultural
heritage;
RiverSpark, one of New York's earliest urban cultural parks in its twelve-year-old program,
promoting the canal and manufacturing history of Cohoes, Watervliet, and other small towns near
Albany;
The Pocomoke River heritage corridor, started originally to address protection of the significant
wetlands and scenic river on Maryland's Lower Eastern Shore;
Tracks Across Wyoming, a 400-mile stretch of the active Amtrak line following the old Union
Pacific railroad.
The Ohio & Erie Canal corridor, involving towns from Zoar to Cleveland, relating to recreation
along the Cuyahoga River and the Cuyahoga National Recreation Area.
The Quinnebaug and Shetucket (Q&S) National Heritage Corridor, a lovely untouched corner of
Connecticut, inspired by a history similar to that of its neighbor, the Blackstone River Valley, and
federally designated in late 1994.
The Cane River National Heritage Corridor, celebrating the Creole culture and historical sites in
northwestern Louisiana, and federally designated in late 1994.
The Delaware Coastal Heritage Greenway, encompassing the entire Delaware River and Bay
shoreline of the state of Delaware, using an exemplary approach to both the cultural and natural
history of the region along with an emphasis on the recreational and environmental qualities of
this largely unspoiled East Coast shoreline;
Silos & Smokestacks, encompassing the Cedar River Valley in Iowa and interpreting the
development of agriculture as an industry, using meatpacking and tractor factories in Waterloo as
well as the spectacular farm landscape in the valley.
The South Carolina heritage corridor, an ambitious program for the 14 counties along the state's
Savannah River border, to develop driving tours interpreting the state's historical settlement
-------
patterns from tidewater to piedmont to mountains.
¦ A trans-national heritage area developed with participation of communities in both Texas and
Mexico along the Rio Grande from Brownsville to Laredo, addressing early military and
settlement history along our mutual border.
The Heritage Areas Movement
The phenomenon of American regional heritage areas has been growing in the past two decades, since
the creation of the federal commission for Lowell National Historical Park (Massachusetts) that dealt
with the privately owned surroundings of the site in the late 1970's. The subsequent adaptation of the
commission idea to the I&M National Heritage Corridor, with no federally owned "core"_designated in
1984_sparked the imagination of a number of communities and regions. By the late 1980's, a movement
was clearly discernible, although the federal commission innovation has fallen out of favor as less
flexible than other mechanisms for promoting regional and inter-agency collaboration.
With the rising level of interest, the National Park Service began considering the idea of a program for
heritage areas as early as 1989. In late 1994 just as the 103rd Congress was closing, the House passed
legislation, which was not considered in the final hours of Senate deliberations. As of this writing, both
the Senate and the House are considering legislation for passage by the end of the 104th Congress in the
fall of 1996.
Other important advancements that have influenced early leaders in heritage development include the
creation in the 1970's of "urban cultural park" systems in Massachusetts and particularly New York, and
the formation in the late 1980's in Pennsylvania of a non-legislative inter-agency committee that
encouraged state-sponsored heritage areas interpreting the state's industrial history. Canadian heritage
regions, English national parks, and French regional natural park all places where people and
communities remain undisturbed in the process of recognizing and cultivating a distinctive regional
identity have provided international experience from which to draw.
The National Coalition for Heritage Areas was founded in 1993 to link the many constituencies and
localities across the nation interested in heritage development, to develop programs to serve its members
and the needs of all heritage areas, and to develop forums that enable various governmental agencies,
nonprofit organizations, and other service providers to exchange information and establish mechanisms
for collaboration. It participated in the notable effort during the White House Conference on Travel and
Tourism in late 1995 to define and propose steps for private and governmental support for cultural
tourism; it publishes a newsletter; and it sponsors and supports conferences and training.
National Legislation for Heritage Areas
Heritage areas recognized nationally currently gain their status via ad hoc, project-by-project lobbying to
-------
achieve an act of Congress. Efforts are now underway to systematize this process through federal
legislation that would establish a universally applicable procedure, when requested by local governments,
to provide federal recognition, technical assistance, and a modest level of funding. An act of Congress
would remain central to this process and a special program to advise and support heritage areas would be
created most likely within the Department of the Interior (National Park Service), but local supporters of
the heritage areas themselves would remain in the lead.
Efforts to promote this legislation have fallen afoul of property rights objections involving owner consent
and compensation. This is despite the reliance in both House and Senate bills on strictly voluntary
participation by local governments, and federal recognition that in no way regulates private property.
The National Coalition is a participant in efforts to support legislation, primarily through advising the
Congress on principles to be met by any act establishing such a program and making sure that its
members remain informed about the process. Principles include such concepts as flexible administration,
processes that build enduring local commitment and capacity, development of supportive state or
regional programs, and reliance on existing programs for resource conservation and development.
The National Coalition's vision is that an organized national program will result in "the conservation of
resources in the nation's distinctive regions, representative of the diverse origins of our uniquely
American character and vital to our national heritage and identity. Limited federal investment and
involvement will stimulate innovative partnerships and economic development_private and public, local,
state, and federal across geographic regions. Heritage areas will create a greater sense of a shared natural
and cultural heritage and new and renewed connections, leading to greater commitments to conservation,
education and recreational opportunities in the public realm."
Links to Watershed Planning
The link of heritage area planning and development to watershed planning is significant. As the above
examples illustrate, many heritage areas are centered on rivers and valleys. They often incorporate (or are
even known as) greenways an approach that can reinforce either watershed planning or heritage areas, or
as implied here, both. Scenic byway corridor planning is another compatible approach to the large-scale
planning needed for heritage areas and watersheds; some leaders in the movement, in fact, suggest that
"heritage areas" with specific boundaries may be only one approach for heritage development. The
heritage tour route developed by the Southwestern Pennsylvania Heritage Commission, linking nine
counties with their multiple parks, heritage sites, and heritage areas, is an example of a different, equally
compatible approach to heritage development in a cultural landscape. This approach is reflected in the
South Carolina heritage corridor, and has also been suggested as appropriate to the interpretation of the
multi-layered cultural history of the Potomac River watershed in combination with renewed efforts to
enlist local communities in addressing nonpoint source pollution.
Planning a heritage area is a variation on standard planning, greatly resembling watershed planning: steps
include an assessment of the region's resources and interpretive themes (the "narratives" or "stories"); a
-------
review of the issues involved in recognition (sometimes calles a feasibility study); an agreement to move
forward with substantial planning (at the federal level, this involves an act of Congress); the
identification or development of an entity to coordinate the planning effort; the actual planning; and
implementation. Throughout the process, local commitments are developed for concerted action under
existing law and funding for initiatives newly identified through the planning process (e.g., marketing or
development of a unified signage system). Public education and participation are integral to all stages.
Conclusion
In conclusion, watershed planning that incorporates an approach to heritage assessment, protection, and
development may result in the achievement of multiple objectives:
¦ Natural resource protection and enhancement, including water quality improvement.
¦ Cultural heritage preservation, including archeology and historic preservation, including the
cleanup of hazardous sites involving historic structures.
¦ Appreciation of community and folk traditions.
¦ Improvement of recreational opportunities.
¦ Creation of education programs celebrating geography, the environment, human history, and their
interaction.
¦ Sustainable economic development supporting heritage resources (both natural and cultural),
including but not limited to heritage tourism.
¦ Development of physical linkages through greenways, trails, scenic byways and auto tour routes.
¦ Enhancement of community pride and self-reliance.
¦ Linkage of competing and fragmented local, state and federal programs.
References
Doppelt, Bob, Mary Scurlock, Chris Frissell, and James Karr. 1993. Entering the Watershed: A
New Approach to Saving America's River Ecosystems. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. 1994. Potomac River Visions (text draft dated
5/27/94). Rockville, MD: ICPRB.
-------
McMahon, Edward T. and A. Elizabeth Watson. 1992. In Search of Collaboration: Historic
Preservation and the Environmental Movement. Washington, D.C.: National Trust for Historic
Preservation. Information series.
National Coalition for Heritage Areas. 1993. Statement of National Need (dated 10/4/93).
Washington, DC: NCHA.
Potomac River Greenways: A Shared Agenda. Annandale, Va.: Potomac River Greenways
Coalition, 1995.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Hudson River Valley Greenway-A Regional
Success Story
David S. Sampson, Executive Director
Hudson River Valley Greenway, Communities Council
The Hudson River Valley Greenway Act of 1991 created a legal structure of regional connections and
cooperation within New York's 10-county, 3 million acre Hudson River Valley. The Act took two
existing organizations-the Hudson River Valley Greenway Council and the Heritage Task Force for the
Hudson River Valley-and gave them a new focus and a new mandate.
The Council, created in 1988 to study environmental and economic trends in the Hudson Valley, was
restructured within the Executive Branch and asked to work with local and county governments to create
a voluntary, regional planning compact in the Hudson River Valley. Under the compact, communities
will be able to design a process for regional decision-making that utilizes common planning ideas and
criteria. If they do so, they receive financial and procedural incentives unavailable elsewhere in New
York State.
At the same time, the Legislature created the Greenway Conservancy for the Hudson River Valley as the
organization that could assist the Valley's communities and organizations in implementing the ideas and
projects that arose out of the planning process.
The Conservancy's main legislative directives are to assist the Council in establishing the compact; work
with local governments in the establishment of a Hudson River Trail System east and west of the
Hudson; develop a strategy that would allow the Hudson River Valley to promote itself as a single
tourism destination area, and work with the agricultural community to promote and protect the industry
of agriculture in the Hudson River Valley.
The two organizations, although separated by budget and structure, have established a close working
-------
relationship and have become integral parts of each other's programs.
The closeness of the Council and the Conservancy appears to justify the initial decision of the Greenway
study council to create two separate organizations; one for planning and the other for project
implementation. The Council chose this path after visiting the California Coastal Conservancy and
Coastal Commission and seeing how planning and the political questions it sometimes raises was
separated from specific projects such as trails, dockage and other waterway projects.
The Conservancy has worked closely with the Council as it develops a model community program that
will lead to the regional compact envisioned in the legislation. The Council has been a partner with the
Conservancy's development of a strategic plan that will help to implement the visions and goals of the
communities and organizations in the Greenway area.
What controversy there has been and it has been centered largely in one community-has been about the
Greenway idea as a whole and has not been specifically focused on the Council or the Conservancy.
It is the combination of planning and projects-of visions and the means to attain portions of these visions-
that has led to early successes within the Greenway region.
There are 10 "model" Greenway projects underway in the Hudson Valley involving 23 communities.
Several involve more than one community, highlighting the Greenway premise that local political
boundaries should not prohibit regional thinking and planning. Four other communities have voted to
become part of the Greenway officially, and scores of others have worked with the Greenway on various
projects.
Two Greenway cities-Newburgh and Beacon-have developed a cross-river partnership that has
incorporated planning, a cross-river "Trail of Two Cities" and the proposed reinstitution of ferry service.
The Greenway planning process involves the creation of a local Greenway committee, the development
of a community planning profile, and the subsequent development of a vision based upon several public
meetings.
One of the keys to the success of the program has been the idea that, as a broad community vision is
developed, small, doable physical projects should be identified and implemented to give substance to the
planning process.
In some cases, this process has led to the total revision of a Town master plan (Stuyvesant), the
development of a specific waterfront strategy (Troy), and the development of a common trail and tourism
strategy (Croton and Ossining.)
As the community planning process has progressed, the Hudson River Greenway Trail has reached more
than 100 miles and will probably double that amount in 1996. A voluntary, participatory process similar
-------
to the model community process is used in each community for trail development. A regional tourism
strategy that will seek to take advantage of one of the most historically important areas of the United
States was completed in late 1995.
The Hudson River Valley Greenway is relentlessly bipartisan, and has received excellent cooperation
from both sides of the aisle in Albany and from mayors, supervisors and city managers, regardless of
political affiliation.
The Model Community program has not been without its mistakes, leading Greenway staff to explain
"That's why we call them 'model' communities."
Initially, for example, the Greenway sent too many staff members to local Greenway meetings, thus not
allowing the local committee to assume a life of its own.
The Greenway also concentrated too much initially on zoning, master plans and other traditional
planning mechanisms. The local committees wanted to talk about visions for the community and how
specific projects could help achieve those visions. Thus, zoning became the last part of the discussion,
not the first.
The Greenway also learned early on that, no matter how well-intentioned its membership was, there were
significant groups such as the sports and recreation community who felt they needed direct representation
on the Council and Conservancy. There is much more to be done-to date only 25 of the Valley's 242
communities have asked to participate-but the first five years of existence have laid a solid foundation on
which the Greenway can be built.
The Czech-Hudson Greenway
The Hudson River Valley Greenway has established a special relationship with a Greenway Project in
the Czech Republic running from Prague to Vienna.
The partnership followed a visit by the Hudson River Greenway in 1992 to what was then
Czechoslovakia to explain to the newly freed country about the Hudson Greenway process. That visit
was funded through a grant from the World Monuments Fund.
Proponents of the Czech Greenway enlisted foundation support to bring a delegation of Czech mayors to
the Hudson River Valley in the fall of 1993. That visit was followed in spring of 1994 by a Hudson
Valley delegation trip to the Czech Republic.
The exchanges have been profitable for both Greenways. In the Czech Republic, Greenway has become a
Czech word, replacing Zelene Stesky. The mayors of the Czech Greenway have created a working
coalition and have begun to meet regularly to discuss issues of common concern. Ideas on tourism, agri-
tourism and open space protection imported from America have begun to take hold.
-------
In return, the Czechs have added to the Hudson River Greenway by lending expertise on trails, signage
and an infectious love and respect for the land and history. Additionally, exchange programs have been
instituted by the Culinary Institute of America and by the sister Greenway cities of Newburgh and
Beacon.
Both exchanges were underwritten by foundation grants from the American Express Foundation, The
Trust for Mutual Understanding, and the German Marshall Fund of the United States.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Helping Communities Make Watershed-Based Land
Use Decisions: Three Successful "Real World"
Examples that Make Use of GIS Technology
Chester L. Arnold, Jr., Water Quality Educator
University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System, Haddam, CT
At some point, all watershed management efforts must confront the common denominator of local land
use policies. Local land use decision-makers whether elected or appointed, professional or
volunteer need assistance in overcoming the many barriers to making watershed-based, environmentally
sound land use decisions. Among these barriers are the narrow focus of most land use boards and
commissions, their high turnover rate, their inability to predict or track cumulative impacts, and their
decision-making framework defined by political boundaries.
The key to addressing these problems is education and information. Perhaps the most unexplored tool for
supporting educational and informational programs is geographic information systems, or GIS. GIS is
increasingly used at the federal and state levels of government for natural resource management,
including many new watershed-based studies and inventories. At the local level, GIS, where used at all,
is most often applied to problems like school bus routing or property tracking for the tax rolls. However,
the use of GIS as a tool to help municipal officials protect their water resources is being explored by
relatively few. GIS images can convey an enormous amount of information in a succinct, understandable
format especially useful to busy decision-makers needing to put their actions into a "bigger picture."
This panel session brings together three groups of projects in New England that are making use of GIS to
help communities change the way they look at land use decisions. All are educational projects
spearheaded by the Cooperative Extension Service (CES), in partnership with other agencies. In
Connecticut, CES is teaming with The Nature Conservancy to do two watershed projects in the lower
Connecticut River, one of 40 places designated as a "Last Great Place" by the Conservancy. The projects
-------
make use of a wide range of digitized data, including cutting-edge remotely-sensed land cover data, to
create educational products and programs. Through the use of GIS parcel (property) data, these programs
are targeted to specific audiences. In Rhode Island, CE staff are not only using GIS as an educational
tool, but they are training local officials in the use of GIS. In addition, GIS information is used to run a
new risk assessment model that estimates nonpoint nutrient loadings. In New Hampshire, extensive data
from the state GIS system was combined with ten years of water quality data collected by citizen
monitoring programs to analyze subwatersheds of the Squam Lakes system, with regard to their impact
on water quality and wildlife habitat. GIS is also being used to help communities inventory, evaluate and
prioritize their natural resources.
Taken together, these projects demonstrate the wide range of creative ways that GIS can be applied to
watershed projects from visualization to loadings analysis to audience targeting, with a few stops in
between. This panel is not about technology, but about education and the use of this new technology to
better inform the local land use process. We hope that it will stimulate discussion of new and better ways
to tackle watershed management at the all-important local level.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Tidelands Watershed Projects: Using
Computerized Natural Resource Information to
Promote Watershed-Based Decision-Making at the
Local Level
Chester L. Arnold, Jr., Water Quality Educator
Heather L. Nelson, NEMO Program Technical Coordinator
University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System, Haddam, CT
Juliana Barrett, Tidelands Program Director
The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut Chapter, Middletown, CT
Overview
The University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension System and The Nature Conservancy, Connecticut
Chapter are collaborating on two innovative watershed projects in the lower Connecticut River, an area
designated as a "Last Great Place" by The Nature Conservancy in 1993. The Chester Creek and
Eightmile River watershed projects are non-regulatory, non-advocacy natural resource management
public education initiatives, conducted in close cooperation with local residents and town officials. The
projects were begun with seed funds from the Environmental Protection Agency, and are continuing with
ongoing USDA funding through Cooperative Extension, and the support of The Nature Conservancy.
During the course of the projects, a multi-disciplinary team from Cooperative Extension and The Nature
Conservancy conduct a series of educational workshops on a number of natural resource management
issues including nonpoint source pollution, forest stewardship, and environmentally-sensitive property
management. The workshops, planned and conducted with input and guidance from a local advisory
-------
committee, are supported by maps and information collected by the project on a geographic information
system, or GIS. GIS is used not only to collect, analyze, and display data, but to target the educational
message to key audiences. While these projects are relatively young, there are already strong indications
that this approach is an effective one at helping both individuals and municipal entities adopt a watershed
perspective, and become stewards of their natural resources.
A Last Great Place
In March, 1993, the Tidelands of the Connecticut River region was designated by The Nature
Conservancy (TNC) as one of forty "Last Great Places" in the western hemisphere. The Tidelands region
encompasses the lower 37 miles of the Connecticut River, from the Rocky Hill/Glastonbury area of
Connecticut to the mouth at Long Island Sound. The region is the southernmost portion of the
Connecticut River watershed, a major basin which incorporates an extensive area surrounding the River
from the Canadian border down through Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut. The
Tidelands stretch of the River was singled out because of its exemplary complex of high quality salt,
brackish and freshwater tidal marshes, and the many threatened and endangered species that the complex
supports.
The "Last Great Places" initiative constitutes a commitment by TNC to preserving the ecological
integrity of areas far too large to be addressed solely by TNC's traditional methods of land protection.
Such large-scale efforts require that public agencies and private organizations work together to promote
and assist natural resource conservation at the local level. Land use and resource management issues at
the regional or watershed levels are complex, and have not lent themselves well to resolution through
conventional regulation and enforcement approaches. In the Northeast, the strong tradition of local
"home rule" also serves to work against "broad brush" solutions mandated by federal or state authorities.
Education of local officials, of individual landowners, of the general public can be an effective,
nonregulatory method for addressing these complex issues.
This paper describes the ongoing development of an education-driven approach to watershed
management. At the time of the Tidelands announcement, the University of Connecticut Cooperative
Extension System (CES) Nonpoint Education for Municipal Officials (NEMO) Project had been working
with coastal communities in Connecticut on the issue of nonpoint source water pollution. Over the past
four years, the NEMO project team has developed an effective educational methodology using
geographic information system (GIS) computerized mapping as a tool to help municipal officials
understand the impacts of land use on water quality and options available for managing those impacts
(Arnold et al., 1994). With the "Last Great Places" designation as a catalyst and the NEMO model as a
programmatic basis, CES and TNC staff conceived the Tidelands watershed projects, which were given a
crucial boost from two one-year "start-up" grants from the Environmental Protection Agency.
Project Areas
As part of the "Last Great Place" designation, TNC-Connecticut Chapter had identified 17 "core sites" in
-------
the Tidelands, based on their assessment of habitat value. The first step in selecting a project site was to
view these core wetlands not as isolated units, but as natural resources affected by the activities in the
local watershed subbasins draining to them. Of the 17 areas, potential project sites were considered based
on the natural resource base, land use patterns, availability of digital data, watershed size, and the number
and enthusiasm of the affected towns. Based on these criteria, Chester Creek watershed was chosen for
the first project in late 1993, and a year later the Eightmile River watershed was selected for the second
project.
The Chester Creek watershed is a 14.5 square mile basin located on the western side of the lower
Connecticut River, approximately 25 miles upstream of Long Island Sound (Figure 1). Almost 80% of
the watershed is in the town of Chester. The 63 square-mile Eightmile River watershed lies just across
the River on the eastern side, and includes major acreage in three towns. In addition to the critical tidal
marsh habitat to which both of these watersheds drain, each area has significant upland biological and
aquatic resources (Nelson and Arnold, 1995).
1 , ;!
| lljtrai W*!r»
| tiallfelil# Walnxllrd/
Clififaf Viiifiiipl
III"
*

1€> 'V.'fi
Figure 1. Tidelands region and watershed project areas.
Key Project Elements
The Tidelands watershed projects have several key elements that we wish to highlight. The first is the
partnership between Cooperative Extension and The Nature Conservancy. While private-public
partnerships may be fairly common these days, truly successful ones are a bit more scarce. The Tidelands
partnership creates overall benefits for the watershed projects that go beyond the skills and expertise of
the individual team members. Both TNC and CES are organizations with non-advocacy, research-based
philosophies. However, the "Last Great Place" designation gives the projects a regional framework and a
"reason for being" that the University alone could not provide. In return, the experience of CES in
dealing with property owners and municipal officials on land use and conservation issues provides the
projects with an educational "track record" at the local level that TNC alone could not match.
-------
The second key element is yet another partnership that between the project team and the towns with
significant acreage in the watershed. A key criteria for selection of the two project sites was the strong
support of the chief elected officials of each town involved. After that step, advisory committees were
formed of key land use and other officials from each town. These committees meet frequently with the
project team to review the GIS maps, discuss local concerns, and assist in planning and publicizing the
educational workshops. The goal is to have these committees, or some combination of the groups that
they represent, take complete ownership of any resource management initiatives resulting from the
projects' education and information.
The third key element is the educational use of GIS technology. While GIS is often used for natural
resource planning and analysis at the state and federal level, at the local level it is typically reserved for
things like tracking property taxes or routing school buses. Through the NEMO project, the University of
Connecticut CES has been exploring the use of GIS to educate municipal officials. The emphasis is not
on the analytical ability of GIS so much as the ability of well-crafted, colorful maps to convey complex
issues and relationships in a simple and understandable manner. In the case of NEMO, the focus is on
portraying the links between land use and water quality through the display of satellite-derived land
cover information.
The Tidelands watershed projects expand on this basic NEMO methodology in several important ways.
The start-up grants enabled the projects to hire a private GIS consulting firm to collect, and in some cases
digitize, a wide variety of information on the watersheds. Data layers include land cover, water features,
open space, soils, drainage basins, wetlands, roads, zoning categories, and parcel boundaries (property
lines). This list goes well beyond what is available for any of our NEMO programs, and allows the
project team to expand the range of the educational programs beyond nonpoint source pollution to
include other topics relevant to the watershed. In the Eightmile project, for instance, we are planning
programs on forest stewardship, open space management, and streamside property management.
An expanded list of educational topics translates to a longer list of target audiences, broadening the
constituency base for the projects. While the nonpoint source and open space programs remain targeted
at municipal officials and local groups like land trusts, the forestry and property owner programs are
largely aimed at individuals. With a slight twist to our use of GIS, we have devised a technique to help us
reach these individual audiences. Using the parcel data layer, we can identify specific target audiences
for a given educational program. For example, in Chester Creek the GIS was queried to identify all
properties within the watershed over 5 acres in size with predominately forested land cover. Linking this
list to a tax assessor's database gave us the names and addresses of the owners of the properties, which
we then used to do a direct mailing announcing a forest stewardship workshop. The turnouts at programs
for which we have used this targeting method have been very impressive. In the next few months, we'll
be using information similar to that portrayed in Figure 2 to promote streamside property owner
programs in the Eightmile watershed. The addition of individual land owners as a target audience for our
watershed programs, and the targeting of this critical sector via GIS, is an improvement on the NEMO
educational model that we think will greatly enhance the success of these projects.
-------
warn.
mp-i-rly Outlinex
1 «>ij-air*J SoiLr
15
jl.
-------
While it is too soon to report such progress for the Eightmile River project, the productive sessions with
the ten-person, three-town advisory committee have been very encouraging, as has the positive reaction
to the educational programs done to date. This project, which is perhaps a more representative model
based on the watershed's size and number of political jurisdictions, is already reinforcing our belief in the
effectiveness of GIS-based education to promote the watershed approach. With the watershed maps
serving as the common denominator among the advisory committee members, watershed-wide issues can
be discussed while still recognizing the dominant role of municipal policies and individual actions in
determining land use.
It's been said that "knowledge is power." In our experience, maps can be a uniquely effective tool for
transferring knowledge, with their ability to convey complex information in a succinct and
understandable way. Once armed with this knowledge, it appears that local officials and land owners are
much better able to work together to prioritize problems, discuss solutions, and chart courses of action.
While this may seem an obvious point, it doesn't make the implementation of such a program any easier.
The trick is in crafting the right maps and devising appropriate educational programs to accompany them,
and in providing long term assistance to local decision-makers and residents to facilitate their use of this
information.
With our NEMO experience and the commitment of TNC and CES staff to working with these
communities over the long haul, we are confident of our ability to meet these requirements. However, we
are still working on the problem of making the GIS data readily available and useable to the locals,
independent of our involvement. None of the towns involved with these two projects has its own GIS
system, and Connecticut, as yet, has no centralized GIS repository. Hard copies of the maps can and will
be provided, but this falls short of the goal of true accessibility. The project team and towns are exploring
various options to rectify this situation.
References
Nelson, Heather L. and Chester L. Arnold. (1995) The Chester Creek Watershed: A Progress
Report on a Unique Natural Resource Management Partnership. Publication of the University of
Connecticut Cooperative Extension System.
Arnold, Chester L., H.Crawford, C.J. Gibbons, and R.F. Jeffrey. (1994) The Use of Geographic
Information System Images as a Tool to Educate Local Officials about the Land Use/Water
Quality Connection. Proceedings of Watersheds '93 conference, Alexandria, VA, March 1993.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Promoting Watershed Based Land Use Decisions in
New Hampshire Communities: Geographic
Information System Aided Education and Analysis
Jeffrey A. Schloss, Water Resources Specialist and Research Scientist
Frank Mitchell, Water Resources Specialist
University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension, Durham, NH
Introduction
In New England we place great importance in the local decision making process. These local decision
makers are primarily elected or appointed or may be volunteers. They may or may not have the direct
assistance of a planning or environmental professional. They often do not have, or lack access to, the
proper resource information and education on which to base their decisions. Yet, these local officials are
responsible for evaluating development, subdivision, residential, industrial, commercial and recreational
projects all of which can have significant impact on a community's natural resources. They are also
responsible for the implementation of land use and zoning regulations and the development of the
community's master plan which affects the future land use of their community. Thus, while local decision
making is the key to watershed based community resource protection, the information and education
required to make informed decisions is often lacking or severely limited.
Watershed assessment and protection efforts have generally been driven by more "reactive" approaches
in which wetlands and waters that show signs of degradation are examined and the resulting diagnostics
are used to attempt to mitigate the damage. A more proactive approach is necessary for the high quality
wetland or water body, typical of New Hampshire, since a major concern is to keep the ecosystem in as
pristine a condition as possible. Information and understanding of connectedness, linkages and
interrelationships between land use activities and the watershed resources are critical to local decision
makers and landowners alike.
-------
In an attempt to address these complex issues, various method manuals have recently been developed to
assist local officials and interested citizens in finding or assembling the information necessary for
planning and decision-making. These valuable manuals include methods for evaluating the functional
values of freshwater and coastal wetland systems (Amann and Lindley-Stone, 1991; Cook et al., 1993) as
well as a handbook on community natural resource inventories (Auger and Mclntyre, 1992). This latter
work offers suggestions and provides examples of a resource inventory process that is based within the
political boundaries of the community. This resource inventory process has also been adapted to
demonstrate this approach in the context of a watershed based assessment and analysis (Schloss and
Ruben, 1992).
The advent of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) has brought a new and potentially powerful
inventory, analysis and educational tool to watershed investigators and decision makers. Although GIS
natural resource applications are currently being developed and explored on a statewide and regional
scale there has been less effort to transfer and utilize the technology at the local level. This paper presents
two examples of approaches undertaken by University of New Hampshire Cooperative Extension
educators and other to use GIS as an information, analysis and education tool. The first case study
presented involves towns that are part of a multi-jurisdictional lake watershed and the second involves
multiple wetland watersheds within a single town.
GIS Inventory and Analysis of the Squam Lakes Watershed
As part of a model watershed study under the direction of the NH Office of State Planning, a multi-
agency task force worked to create a GIS based resource inventory of the Squam Lakes Watershed (Scott
et al., 1991). The state's GIS , GRANIT (for Geographically Referenced Analysis and Information
Transfer) is housed at the University of New Hampshire but linked to state agencies and regional
planning commissions. Data "layers" used in this GIS study included bedrock geology, hydrology
(streams, wetlands, lakes, ponds and aquifers), soils, elevation, land use zoning, land cover (from aerial
photographs and satellite images) and wildlife habitats. This was in addition to a base map of roads and
political boundaries. Also included was ten years of water quality data, collected weekly during the ice
free season throughout the lake, by volunteer monitors of the Squam Lakes Association under the
direction of the NH Lakes Lay Monitoring Program.
A conventional GIS analysis of land capability was undertaken to displays all of the developable area
remaining in the watershed. The GIS was also used to analyze information on zoning specific to each
town (i.e., land area required for each house lot) and provide a "buildout scenario" that could estimate the
number of new houses by town and by subwatershed, and the resulting increase in population. When this
was done for the Squam Lakes watershed it was found that about 12 percent of the watershed was
currently developed or protected, about 52 percent was constrained or restricted to development, and
almost 37 percent of the watershed was left to be developed. While, as a whole, the lake displayed
excellent water quality and was relatively pristine in nature, there were areas within the lake with less
desirable water quality conditions. Thus, the problem was defined: areas of the lake were already
-------
showing signs of water quality degradation yet current laws and regulations would allow development
within the watershed to expand over three times the area of what was already developed. What was still
needed was a method to locate critical lake areas and produce additional GIS products to educate and
support decision makers and their communities.
With that in mind, it was time to go beyond the traditional GIS approaches and "push the envelope" by
exploring GIS data display and visualization. Displaying the water quality data spatially, it became
apparent that many of the small coves and embayments were areas of more degraded water quality. The
data suggested that the lake did not react uniformly to watershed inputs; that it was not just one big
reaction vessel or "bathtub" as is commonly assumed for many large systems. This concept was further
enhanced by taking the bathymetric map (depth contour plot) of the lake and using the GIS to create a 3-
D model of the lake bottom. No experience in topographic readings was necessary to be able to see how
the lake was really made up of multiple basins connected together and that each of these basins had high
sills around them.
With the basins defined, they could be associated through the GIS with the abutting sub water sheds. This
would allow for analyses of what characteristics of the land around the basins had an influence on the
basin's water quality. While our study team had the luxury of an extensive GIS data-base of land cover
(down to the type of tree stand from aerial photography !), we started with some basic GIS analysis using
information that would be more readily available to localities across the state. With some relatively
simple data analyses, areas of the lake that react more critically to nutrient loading were defined. A land
cover analysis found that land cover within the shoreland zone (a 250 foot area from the lake shore)
explained less water quality variation than the total subwatershed land cover. Thus, although shoreline
regulations are important for the Squam Lakes, activities throughout the watershed also have a major
impact. The results of these applied analyses and others were then built into our community educational
programs.
Through community advisory groups we learned that other aspects of the watershed besides water quality
held equal if not greater importance. To that end, a GIS layer of loon habitat (provided by volunteers of
the NH Loon Preservation Society), bass nesting areas, cold water fish reefs and holes, and smelt brooks
(from NH Fish & Game and volunteer surveying) was created. The GIS could then reference the various
in-lake and shoreline wildlife extent contained in each of the basins. Now the GIS was complete with
information of in-lake water quality conditions and wildlife resources. From this information the GIS
was used to locate the lake's most critical areas. For each basin and adjoining subwatersheds the GIS
simply averaged together all of the criteria scores. The resulting integration was best visualized by
draping a color (light or "cold" for less critical, reddish or "hot" for most critical areas) over the 3-D plot
of the lake basins.
A color slide program that best visualized the procedures and concepts of this demonstration study was
developed and presented at educational sessions to communities throughout the state. However, the
materials produced for the communities and decision makers in the watershed had to be more functional;
Towns and most citizens still do not have easy access to GIS systems so a more "low tech" set of
products were developed. For the town decision makers, a map of the watershed area was provided,
-------
delineating the various subwatersheds and subbasins of the lake labeled by number. These numbers were
then referenced to a printed table which contained the water quality and resource information of both the
basins and the abutting sub-watersheds. Thus, instead of having to decide on the approval of a project
based solely on information provided by the applicant, the decision maker can look up the subwatershed
where the project is being proposed, check on the important lake resources that may be impacted, weigh
benefits and concerns, and have the applicant address specifically how they will minimize loss or impacts
to that resource. Tabled information could also be captured to a spreadsheet or a data-base system and
digital maps could also be provided to those with GIS display systems. However, there have been no
requests for GIS products at this level of sophistication to date.
GIS Analysis of Local Wetland Buffer Options for Deerfield, NH
This past fall, a new guidance document was published on riparian buffer function that included
recommendations for regulatory and nonregulatory buffer widths (Chase et al., 1995). It represents a
collaborative effort between the Audubon Society of New Hampshire, NH Office of State Planning,
UNH Cooperative Extension and the USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service. The guidebook
focuses on water quality and wildlife habitat as two key functions of upland buffers. It provides
municipalities with both a scientific rationale and practical actions for protecting and preserving naturally
vegetated upland areas that border surface waters and wetlands. Ultimately, local decision makers will
need to determine the most appropriate buffers to suit their needs and the means for establishing them. In
an effort to introduce this new tool and to demonstrate how GIS might be used to assist in the decision
making process, a pilot project was undertaken and the results presented to a statewide audience at a GIS
workshop for decision makers sponsored by the NH Office of State Planning and the University of New
Hampshire.
The Town of Deerfield, NH completed a comprehensive inventory of its natural resources in the spring
of 1991 extensively using GIS (see Appendix D in Auger and Mclntyre, 1992). For investigating the
various buffer scenarios it was first necessary to take an inventory of the water resources of concern.
From the GIS base map, surface waters are already delineated. The GIS soils coverages were used to
delineate wetlands areas (from Hydric soils classifications). Other options for NH towns to delineate
wetlands include digitized or hard copy National Wetland Inventory maps and Landsat derived wetland
classifications, both available through GRANIT. The inventory of Deerfield disclosed that wetlands
comprise 86% of the town's water resources acreage and many are connected and lie within stream
corridors that run throughout the town.
The existing regulatory buffers and setbacks in the town were analyzed using GIS. Two sets of state laws
and regulations are already concerned with maintaining a vegetated buffer at the shoreline of lakes and
streams. The Comprehensive Shoreline Protection Act requires that a minimum tree basal area must be
maintained at greater than 50 percent within 150 feet from the shore of lakes greater than 10 acres and
4th order or greater streams (except those in the NH Rivers Program). State forestry regulations also
maintain this requirement for land within 50 ft from a perennial stream or brook. There is also a setback
of 75 feet for buildings and septic systems bordering wetland areas required under town regulations. The
-------
GIS display of these overlay zones indicates the existing acreage of these areas as 434 acres under the
Shoreland Protection Act, 577 acres under the forestry regulations and 2880 acres bordering wetlands
with town mandated setback restrictions.
Through a review of the current scientific literature and recommendations of other states, and with
priority focused on water quality protection, a "reasonable" minimum buffer width of 100 feet is
recommended in the buffers guide. A larger buffer is recommended for sensitive wetlands (bogs, fens,
white cedar swamps), prime wetlands, endangered or threatened species protection, or to support wildlife
habitat more thoroughly. Through the use of GIS, maps were produced that visualized the extent of lands
that would be impacted by the new recommendations. Imposing the 100 ft buffer overlay for wetlands
and streams about doubles the protective acreage around streams and adds another thousand acres that
border wetlands. This represents a 40 percent increase in the protected areas. Using an overlay of the
town tax map the decision makers are now able investigate the degree to which different lands might be
affected by various regulatory approaches.
Through use of the NH Method (Ammann and Lindley Stone, 1991) the Town of Deerfield evaluated the
functional values of all of its major wetland areas and is proposing some of these for designation as
prime wetlands. As the buffers document suggests a buffer larger than 100 feet, our study explored the
use of a 200 foot buffer in our analysis. An overlay of this buffer was created to visualize the impact and
to discern whether the size chosen was adequate to serve both water quality and wildlife habitat
concerns. The resulting analysis indicated that with the 200 ft buffer some wetlands in the sample area
would be connected to each other, but others would not. If habitat considerations are a goal, the GIS
analysis indicated that other, perhaps nonregulatory, methods would be needed to establish habitat
connections among all of the critically important wetlands.
Nonregulatory approaches to buffer protection were also explored with GIS analyses. For purposes of
wildlife habitat and travel corridor protection and to maximize the benefits of conservation lands,
acquisition of larger buffer areas may be required. To achieve this level of protection a town may have to
rely on land acquisition and/or conservation easements. Use of the GIS information regarding the
wetland and stream locations, existing and proposed buffer overlays and habitat land cover information
along with property or tax map overlays and existing conservation lands can help decision makers choose
the most cost-effective way of achieving their goals.
Conclusion
All of the community and watershed based inventory processes and guidance documents discussed in this
presentation offer a proactive approach for decision making, resource protection, and stewardship. They
encourage the community to become involved in defining what resources are important and why. They
also provide the information required to develop protection and management strategies. The use of GIS
in educating the local communities, especially exploring and visualizing the extent, impacts and benefits
of various protection and management alternatives, can greatly enhance the local decision making effort.
-------
References
Ammann, Alan, and Amanda Lindley Stone. (1991). Method for the Comparative Evaluation of
Non-tidal Wetlands in New Hampshire. NH Department of Environmental Services, Concord,
NH. NHDES-WRD-1991-3.
Auger, Phil and Jennie Mclntyre. (1992) Natural Resources: An Inventory Guide for New
Hampshire Communities. Upper Valley Land Trust and University of New Hampshire
Cooperative Extension, Durham NH.
Chase, Victoria, L.S. Deming and F. Latawiec. (1995) Buffers for Wetlands and Surface Waters:
A Guidebook for New Hampshire Municipalities. Audubon Society of New Hampshire. Concord
NH.
Cook, Richard A., A. Lindley Stone and A. Ammann. (1993) Method for the Evaluation and
Inventory of Vegetated Tidal Marshes in New Hampshire. Audubon Society of New Hampshire.
Concord, NH.
Schloss, Jeffrey A. and Fay A. Rubin. (1992) A "Bottom-Up" Approach to GIS Watershed
Analysis. Proceedings of the 1992 GIS/LIS Conference, November 10-12, 1992, San Jose, CA.
American Society for Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing (and others). Volume 2, pages 672-
679.
Scott, David, J. McLaughlin, V. Parmele, F. Latawiec-Dupee, S. Becker and J. Rollins. (1991)
Squam Lakes Watershed Plan. Office of State Planning, Concord, NH.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Training Local Officials in Watershed Management
Using User-Friendly Geographic Information
Systems
Lorraine Joubert, Water Resource Specialist
Alyson McCann, Water Quality Coordinator
Dr. Arthur Gold, Professor, PhD
University of Rhode Island, Natural Resources Science, Kingston, RI
Targeting Local Officials for Nonpoint Training and Technology
T ransfer
Rhode Island cities and towns, like other New England communities, play a key role in protecting water
quality. They develop community plans, review subdivision proposals, approve zone changes, and
manage community water supply systems. Through these routine land use decisions, local officials have
the opportunity to control nonpoint pollution. Yet, volunteers serving on planning and zoning boards,
town councils, and other boards making these decisions often have limited expertise in watershed
management. Perhaps more importantly, water quality protection is only one of many competing and
sometimes conflicting issues that local decision makers face. Unless there is an immediate threat to
community water supplies or economically important recreation or shellfishing areas, pollution
prevention may not be perceived as an urgent priority, especially when economic development needs and
other local issues vie for local attention and available funds.
With support from the Cooperative State Research Education and Extension Service (CSREES), the
University of Rhode Island (URI) Cooperative Extension has developed a technology transfer/education
program for local decision makers that addresses the unique challenges of dealing with municipal
audiences. The aim of this project is to reduce nonpoint inputs to Narragansett Bay, an EPA-designated
ij'% *;i *3"'
¦*. r ¦
.... „ .. -
- \\
-------
national estuary, by providing local officials with the skills and resources they need to manage nonpoint
pollution in local watersheds. Our strategy is to capture local interest by focusing on local resources and
problems through the use of Geographic Information Systems (GIS) map products, offer a mix of
training opportunities to meet various levels of interest, and supply practical nonpoint assessment tools to
identify and manage nonpoint pollution problems. Unlike many GIS-based education programs, local
staff are also trained in the use of GIS software so they can continue to take advantage of its analytical
capabilities long after training workshops and demonstration programs are completed. The purpose of
this paper and our panel presentation is to describe successful application of GIS technology as an
education and analytical tool using three approaches:
1. Enhance awareness of local resource values and illustrate the relationship between watershed land
use and water quality using GIS products.
2. Provide decision makers with an analytical tool for watershed-level nonpoint management using a
GIS-based pollution source identification and nutrient loading model currently under
development.
3. Teach municipal officials to incorporate geographic data in routine planning and land use
decisions through introductory workshops that demonstrate GIS capabilities and hands-on practice
in using the ArcView GIS software.
Geographic Information Systems as an Education Tool in Local
Nonpoint Education
Local Outreach Strategies
Local officials are often eager to learn practical techniques for dealing with immediate problems but they
have busy schedules with little time for generalized training. To overcome this initial barrier the URI
training program relies on tiers of training strategies to reach various municipal audiences based on their
level of commitment or time constraints, and their level of expertise. Our objective is maximize our
limited staff resources to reach as many local land use decision makers throughout the Narragansett Bay
watershed while concentrating our efforts in priority sub water sheds. Our target audience is planning and
zoning board members, planners, conservation commissioners, council members, water suppliers, and
others involved in local land use.
We offer three tiers of training and assistance to towns: (1) Brief presentations that can be scheduled
during regular board meetings, evening workshops, and one to three day conferences on priority topics
such as stormwater controls, wetlands protection, and wastewater management. These attract both new
and experienced board members and professionals from throughout the watershed. The time commitment
is minimal but gives local officials an opportunity to improve skills when they are ready. Attendance in
one workshop frequently leads to participation in other workshops and interest in the next level of
-------
training. (2) Intensive watershed-level short courses in watershed management for board members and
town staff in priority sub watersheds. This is where we can best use GIS as an educational tool to enhance
awareness of local resource values and nonpoint problems. (3) Follow-up assistance in implementing
nonpoint source controls based on interest generated from topical workshops and short courses above.
This includes, for example, assistance in developing local ordinances and nutrient loading analysis to
identify relative impacts of nonpoint sources and control options.
Watershed-Based Training
Short courses in watershed management target all local officials from two or more communities within a
priority watershed. Through a series of six to thirteen workshops, this intensive program is ideal for
building relationships among board members within a town and among communities within a watershed.
These sessions cover topics such as the relationship between watershed land use and water quality,
development review techniques, watershed protection strategies, stormwater and wastewater
management techniques, board procedures and legal issues, and coordination among local boards.
Because the watersheds selected are normally small, 15,500 acres or less, it is also an ideal opportunity
for using powerful GIS imagery to illustrate the relationship between watershed land use and nonpoint
pollution sources.
This watershed-based training focuses on watershed aquifers and reservoirs to incorporate GIS analysis,
local case studies and field training sites. Because they are predominantly interested in local water
supplies and shellfishing areas, local officials learn best from these targeted examples. Using coverages
available through the Rhode Island Geographic Information System (RIGIS) GIS products are used to
illustrate land use patterns and to describe watershed features such as subwatershed boundaries, aquifers,
well head areas and wetland resources and to illustrate the relationship between sensitive water bodies
and riparian areas with high risk land uses (McCann et al., 1994). Following the NEMO approach used
by the University of Connecticut Cooperative Extension (Arnold et al., 1993), percent impervious cover
under existing land use and potential land use with build out under present zoning are also analyzed.
The geographic analyses generate awareness and interest in watershed protection issues which are then
explored at the parcel-scale through subdivision and commercial development case studies. Generally,
two or three case studies are used repeatedly in several sessions to illustrate a range of realistic nonpoint
problems and practical control options. For example, one subdivision may be used to demonstrate a
variety of techniques, such as subdivision review procedures, creative zoning or cluster options to reduce
impervious area, specific stormwater controls, and wetland protection options. A field review of at least
one site is conducted to improve map reading and plan interpretation skills, demonstrate field assessment
techniques and promote discussion of local regulatory issues. Following this progression from watershed-
scale GIS analysis to the parcel-level site evaluation, we may select one area of the watershed for more
detailed analysis of nonpoint control options based on local interest. Other features of the watershed-level
training are summarized below:
-------
¦ Target local interests that are compatible with pollution prevention. Because water resource
protection are usually one of many local concerns, we focus attention on opportunities to achieve
local land use goals through implementation of nonpoint control. For example, discussions of
techniques to minimize impervious area focus on reducing pollution, minimizing the size of
stormwater facilities needed, and preserving community character. Stormwater management
practices discussed emphasize designing for low maintenance as well as water quality
enhancement.
¦ Work closely with municipalities to develop and conduct the training series. Planners and board
members are surveyed to determine their areas of interest. Survey results are used to select course
topics and identify priority areas for in-depth evaluation of nonpoint pollution sources and control
options. To ensure local commitment to participate in development of the program, a
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between URI and each municipality is developed and signed.
¦ Collaborate with other university groups, state regulators and planning staff and federal partners
in developing and conducting the program. Watershed-level training areas are selected based on
state nonpoint priority watersheds and local interest.
¦ Design each session to promote discussion and sharing of local expertise. Provide opportunities
for board members to build relationships with each other and with state regulators, resource
managers and consulting professionals from the region people they can call on for assistance long
after the training is completed.
Tools for Watershed Management GIS-based Nutrient Loading
Assessments of high risk land uses and impervious coverage are useful as a first cut analysis of nonpoint
problem areas, but municipal officials considering adoption of costly and perhaps controversial nonpoint
control measures often need stronger evidence to justify the need for additional controls and to
demonstrate their benefits. As a second tier of assistance to these communities, the URI Cooperative
Extension is developing a practical nutrient loading method (Kellogg et al., 1995) that land use decision
makers can use to compare nonpoint impacts under present and future land use, and to evaluate the
effectiveness of alternative best management practices. Known as MANAGE: a Method for Assessment,
Nutrient-loading, and Geographic Evaluation of Nonpoint Pollution, the method is designed to estimate
nitrogen and phosphorus loading to surface waters and nitrogen loading and concentrations in aquifers. It
also estimates average annual runoff and infiltration volumes and mass-balance nutrient loading using
readily available RIGIS based on land use as well as soil hydrologic group and riparian area
relationships.
The following case study illustrates one application of GIS-based nutrient loading analysis, using a
simplified phosphorus mass balance model developed by the R.I. Department of Environmental
Management, to identify nonpoint management options and to promote adoption of best management
practices as a spin-off project of a watershed-level short course.
-------
Case study: St. Mary's Watershed, Portsmouth, Rhode Island
The Problem: As a result of concern over water supply protection generated in a URI watershed
management short course on Aquidneck Island, R.I., a local watershed group was formed, known as the
St. Mary's Watershed Group. This group was initiated by members of the local Portsmouth Agricultural
Advisory Committee who participated in the training program, with support by the Eastern Rhode Island
Conservation District. Other members of the group included local planners, administrators, the municipal
water supply company and Cooperative Extension. St. Mary's watershed was selected for analysis
because of its small size and mix of residential and agricultural land uses. Because previous studies had
suggested that both residential and agricultural land uses were contributing to eutrophication of the water
supply, the group set out to conduct a detailed watershed assessment to identify the relative nonpoint
pollution inputs and suitable control measures. Using the results of field analyses conducted by the
Conservation District, URI updated the GIS land use coverage and subwatershed boundaries.
Results: A nutrient loading conducted by the District and URI showed the following.
¦ The amount of phosphorus moving into the St. Mary's pond is estimated to be roughly five times
higher that the pond can assimilate without excessive algal growth.
¦ agricultural activities and polluted runoff from residential land contribute phosphorus to St.
Mary's pond in roughly equal proportions.
¦ A combination of both agricultural conservation practices and storm water controls are needed to
effectively reduce phosphorus concentrations to approach acceptable levels.
Action:
¦ The members of the St. Mary's watershed group prepared a fact sheet summarizing their findings,
using the results of the GIS-based nutrient loading and GIS watershed map, as shown in Figure 2.
¦ The group presented their findings to the Portsmouth planning board and Aquidneck Island
Planning Commission. Both boards agreed to support efforts to construct stormwater basins and
seek funding through Section 319 of the Clean Water Act.
¦ Portsmouth local officials and Newport Water Supply Company are continuing discussions to
determine locations of basins and to resolve issues relating to ownership and maintenance of
basins.
Setting Up Local GIS Capability
-------
With the advent of user-friendly Geographic Information System software the possibility that local
planners can incorporate geographic data in their land use decisions is no longer just wishful thinking. In
comparison to full-scale GIS systems, software technologies developed or improved within the last few
years are relatively low cost, easy to use without extensive training, and run on computers with 486 or
Pentium processors typically found in most offices. These new technologies enable local planners to
easily access and view extensive resource databases and perform fairly sophisticated watershed analysis
with minimal investment in equipment and staff time. For Rhode Island cities and towns, the incentive to
use GIS is particularly attractive. The state RIGIS database is one of the most comprehensive, high-
quality and up-to-date compiled for a large area and the data is readily available at low cost. All
municipalities are familiar with GIS products, having received State-supplied GIS coverages of their
community for use in updating local comprehensive plans.
Hands-on short courses in user-friendly GIS software, as a third tier of nonpoint training, enables
planners and other municipal staff to set up and use a local GIS. Since local planning is a dynamic
process, constantly evolving as development pressures and management opportunities arise, this
capability is essential to continued use of geographic data for watershed management over the long term.
Thirteen Rhode Island municipalities have participated in GIS training to date; almost all of these
communities have either established or are developing a local GIS.
Summary and Future Direction
The URI Cooperative Extension municipal training program demonstrates the effectiveness of a tiered
approach to nonpoint education and the value of incorporating GIS as both an educational and analytical
tool. Based on the success of the program we plan to continue offering a range of training opportunities
for local officials to meet their interests and educational needs, including workshops on priority topics
and watershed-level short courses in watershed management. We are continuing to develop the
MANAGE method as a GIS-based watershed assessment and nutrient loading tool. To promote use of
geographic data in local planning we will continue to offer workshops and short courses in application of
the user-friendly GIS software. In addition, we will provide technical assistance to municipalities in
implementing local nonpoint source controls as a follow-up to training in priority watersheds.
References
Arnold, C.L. et al. 1993. The Use of Geographic Information System Images as a Tool to Educate
Local Officials about the Land Use/Water Quality Connection. Proceedings of Watershed '93
Conference, VA.
Kellogg, D.Q., L. Joubert, and A. Gold. 1995. MANAGE: a Method for Assessment, Nutrient-
loading, and Geographic Evaluation of nonpoint pollution. Draft Nutrient Loading Component.
University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI.
McCann, A.J. et al. 1994. Training Municipal Decision Makers in the Use of Geographic
-------
Information Systems for Water Resource Protection. Conference proceedings, Effects of Human-
Induced Changes on Hydrologic Systems, AWWA.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Maryland Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring
Association: A Model Alliance
Abby Markowitz
Tetra Tech, Owings Mills, MD
Ginny Barnes
Audubon Naturalist Society, Chevy Chase, MD
Peter Bergstrom
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, Annapolis, MD
Sharon Meigs
Prince Georges County Dept. of Environmental Resources, Landover, MD
Rebecca Pitt
Save Our Streams, Severn, MD
Representative from a state agency (as yet undetermined)
What is the Maryland Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring
Association?
The Maryland Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Association (MVWQMA) is a coalition of
organizations, agencies, businesses, schools, and individuals who work to promote and support volunteer
-------
environmental monitoring in Maryland.
History and Background of MVWQMA
In 1991, the Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, the Maryland Department of Natural Resources, and the
Chesapeake Bay Trust cosponsored the first Chesapeake Bay regional volunteer monitoring conference
at Solomon's Island, Maryland. As part of that conference, participants attended state breakout sessions
designed to foster communication among various constituencies involved, or interested in, volunteer
monitoring.
Representatives from environmental organizations, watershed associations, university professors,
teachers, as well as personnel from state and county agencies attended the Maryland breakout. During
our discussion that day, we discovered that there was a tremendous amount of volunteer monitoring
activity taking place around the state, more than any of us realized. However, as we began to talk about
who was doing what and where, two overall problems became evident:
¦ Left hand-right hand syndrome. Organizations monitoring different parts of the same watershed,
or monitoring similar parameters, had no knowledge of each other and, therefore, were unable to
share information, combine efforts, or seek guidance from each other. Further, this lack of
awareness was not limited to volunteer monitoring. Counties did not know what data were
available from the state or from other local jurisdictions. Staff of the two state resource
management agencies, the Department of the Environment (MDE) and the Department of Natural
Resources (DNR), often did not know what their counterparts in the other agency were doing. In
short, there were no mechanisms available to find out which watersheds were being monitored,
how they were being assessed, and by whom.
¦ Volunteer monitoring is nice, but. Even among people who recognized the educational value of
volunteer monitoring, there was a great deal of skepticism that volunteer collected data could be
useful to resource managers and watershed management programs. The notion that volunteers
could collect technically credible data was not widespread throughout the community of people
and institutions concerned with water quality.
Many of us attending this session felt the need to continue discussions beyond the conference and, about
15 people decided to form an ad hoc committee to explore ways to increase communication among
ourselves and to build support for volunteer monitoring throughout the state. Very quickly, this
committee came to the conclusion that a more formal mechanism would be needed if we really wanted to
promote volunteer monitoring. Clearly, a coalition, or alliance, dedicated to volunteer monitoring and the
use of volunteer-collected data would speak with a stronger and more credible_ voice than any one
organization or agency. In addition, a formal association would foster the development of relationships
among watershed stakeholders by providing a framework where we could work together to accomplish
goals common to us all. Finally, a statewide organization potentially could serve as a clearinghouse of
the who's, what's, and where's of volunteer monitoring and data.
-------
In 1992, after a year spent developing initial goals and objectives, writing bylaws, incorporating and
applying for tax-exempt status, and building support, the Maryland Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring
Association was born. It is the first statewide association in the country dedicated to the goal of
promoting volunteer water and watershed monitoring and to the use of data collected by volunteers as a
method of improving the health of our environment.
It was important to us that we maintain a strong presence of actual volunteer monitors in a decision-
making capacity. Therefore, it was written into the bylaws that at least 20 percent of the board of
directors had to be people who participated in volunteer monitoring as volunteers, as opposed to project
managers, agency representatives, teachers, consultants, or equipment manufacturers. Further, the bylaws
state that although anyone is welcome to join MVWQMA, voting membership is reserved for appointed
representatives of organizations, agencies, and businesses who are directly involved in volunteer
monitoring in some capacity. Initial funding for MVWQMA was provided through membership dues and
a grant from the Chesapeake Bay Trust.
Our first annual membership meeting was held in 1993, and an initial board of directors was elected that
would carry out the primary work of the Association. That first year, over 30 organizations, schools,
agencies, and businesses involved in volunteer monitoring became members of the Association. The
initial board of directors consisted of representatives from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Audubon
Naturalist Society, Magothy River Association, MDE, DNR, Montgomery County, Anne Arundel
County, Alliance for the Chesapeake Bay, Save Our Streams, Charles County, Sawmill Creek Watershed
Association, Seton Keough High School, Middle Patuxent River Project, and the University of Maryland
in Baltimore County. Of the 15 original board members, 5 were volunteers.
MVWQMA's Objectives
The Association has developed written objectives in two overall categories, networking and education, to
guide and focus our work internally and to characterize the organization to potential supporters and
members:
Networking
m Foster communication among member organizations and between the association and various
water quality monitoring groups in federal state and local governments.
¦ Develop and maintain a statewide directory of citizen and government water quality monitoring
groups and activities.
¦ Help new volunteer monitoring groups define and refine their project goals.
¦ Act as a liaison between manufacturers of monitoring equipment and monitoring groups to ensure
-------
that equipment is effective and accurate.
¦ Participate in regional and national volunteer monitoring networks.
Education
m Offer interested leaders and volunteers training, workshops, seminars, guidance materials, and
other opportunities to develop effective monitoring skills, techniques, and procedures.
¦ Promote volunteer monitoring methodology that meets scientific criteria and standards of quality
assurance.
¦ Provide guidance and technical assistance for water quality monitoring activities, including
referral to water quality experts.
¦ Determine how best to use monitoring data collected by volunteers to improve the condition of
our waterways.
Putting Our Objectives into Action
Having a set of written objectives has provided a structure for organizing MVWQMA's work over the
last 3 years. Through the formation of board subcommittees, we have been able to formulate specific
ideas and then produce programs and materials that meet our objectives. Periodically, during board
meetings, and especially at each annual membership meeting, we can revisit these objectives to see how
we have done and where we need to focus increased activity.
Guidance Manual for Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring in Maryland
Developing technical guidance and supporting comparable methods for volunteer monitoring projects
was one MVWQMA's first priorities and the subject of many early discussions. The Association decided
early on that we would not strive for standardization among groups, but rather promote comparable
techniques and protocols to look at data within and across watersheds. We also wanted to emphasize that
the level of technical expertise needed depended on the goals of the volunteer monitoring group. Groups
monitoring primarily for educational purposes would not need the same level of sophistication as groups
that wanted their data used by government agencies. Further, we realized that government agencies
would be more likely to look at volunteer-collected data that were based on methods that they helped
develop. Therefore, our Protocols and Methodologies committee was cochaired by representatives from
MDE and DNR. Their first task was to collect information on how groups in the state monitored different
parameters and water bodies and to develop guidance for volunteers, based on existing methods and
project goals.
-------
The first edition of our Guidance Manual was produced early in 1995. To date, over 350 copies have
been distributed to volunteer groups and teachers within Maryland. The document provides information
on what types of waters are found in Maryland and why, where, when, and how to assess the state's water
quality and watersheds. The manual is far from comprehensive or complete, but it is a significant first
step toward promoting the use of comparable methods among Maryland's volunteer monitoring
community.
Directory of Maryland Water Quality Monitoring Programs
Designed as a companion to the Guidance Manual, this document was compiled from surveys distributed
to organizations, agencies, and schools throughout Maryland. It lists information on who is monitoring,
what watersheds are being monitored, and what parameters are being studied. In this way, a person who
reads the Guidance Manual to learn about monitoring Secchi depth can then find a list of programs that
are currently monitoring that parameter. Also, someone interested in compiling data on the Potomac
River can find a list of groups that collect data on that watershed. The survey also collected a variety of
other information, including length of time programs have been monitoring, whether the program has a
quality assurance plan, and who the primary data users are.
Our goal is to update the survey and the Directory, as well as the Guidance Manual, at regular intervals.
Both documents are distributed together in a 3-ring binder so that updates can be mailed and inserted
easily without having to recreate either document.
The Sampler
What organization is complete without a newsletter? The Sampler serves as the primary continuing
networking and informational tool of the Association. It is a place for programs to highlight projects,
recruit volunteers, seek advice, and offer suggestions. It is also a valuable publicity tool, serving to
introduce potential members and funders to the Association. Although the goal is for this publication to
be produced on a quarterly basis, since 1994, it has been published twice a year. Regular features of the
newsletter include upcoming events announcements submitted by member organizations; Why I Monitor,
a section devoted to the personal experiences of volunteer monitors; and Watershed Notes, which
profiles community activity in a specific watershed.
Annual Workshops
Each year, MVWQMA holds an annual business meeting and workshop in a different part of the state.
During these meetings, board members are elected and association members have an opportunity to
discuss how the organization should proceed for the coming year. Through keynote and other speakers,
these meetings have also provided an opportunity to hear various perspectives on volunteer monitoring.
For example, past speakers from DNR, MDE, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.
EPA) have addressed members on the use of volunteer data in state water quality assessment, volunteer
-------
monitoring as a part of watershed management, and what's happening with volunteer programs around
the country.
Each annual meeting has also contained a variety of classroom presentations and field training on topics
such as quality assurance, fundraising, biological monitoring, habitat assessment, physical/chemical
assessment, macroinvertebrate taxonomy, student programs, wetland delineation, vegetation surveys,
urban monitoring, and data presentation.
Local Government Outreach
In an effort to increase and improve communication between local governments and to encourage
collaborative efforts among jurisdictions sharing watersheds, the Association has embarked on an
ongoing program of local government outreach. Work has included a day-long forum for county and
state personnel that highlighted existing programs that utilize volunteer monitoring for resource
management and offered time for participants to explore opportunities for joint ventures. During this
forum, the entire afternoon was devoted to a roundtable discussion that enabled participants to begin
honestly, and informally, discussing challenges and obstacles and to begin strategizing collaborative
ways to eliminate or minimize those problems and promote the growth of volunteer monitoring on a
watershed basis.
Participation in the Regional and National Volunteer Monitoring
Communities
Since the Association's inception, members have participated in volunteer monitoring conferences and
events at the regional and national levels. In 1994, board members from MVWQMA facilitated a
discussion on forming a statewide association at the 3rd National Volunteer Monitoring Conference in
Portland, Oregon. This year, MVWQMA is represented on the steering committee of the 4th National
Conference which will be held in Madison, Wisconsin, in August 1996. We have also attended
preliminary meetings with other Chesapeake Bay regional groups to discuss the formation of a regional
volunteer monitoring organization. Perhaps even more important, MVWQMA serves as a source of
guidance and support for groups in other states that want to form similar coalitions. Our experience
hopefully will enable other states to get organized, adapting what is useful, learning from our mistakes,
and applying what has worked.
Maryland Water Monitoring Council
This year, Maryland has embarked on the formation of the Water Monitoring Council to serve as a
statewide collaborative body to achieve effective collection, interpretation, and dissemination of
environmental data and to improve the availability of information for sound decision making on
environmental policies and natural resource management. Modeled on the national Intergovernmental
Task Force on Water Quality Monitoring, and spearheaded by Maryland DNR, the Council will establish
-------
a forum for all constituencies involved in watershed monitoring to come togetherincluding volunteer
monitoring. Members of MVWQMA served on the original planning committee for this effort, and the
Association has elected two members to represent us on the permanent Steering Committee. It is
important to note that both of our representatives are themselves volunteers and are serving as peers with
resource managers from county, state, and federal agencies on this Council. Other members of the board
will serve on the Council's work groups, dealing with a variety of issues including method comparability,
framework, and interagency collaboration. This means that volunteers and volunteer collected data will
be included in discussions and decisions regarding monitoring in Maryland. It also means that volunteer
monitors will be part of these discussions and decisions as they are happening.
MVWQMA's Future
The development of MVWQMA and its visibility over the last few years has ensured that the interests
and perspectives of volunteer monitoring are addressed as part of overall monitoring issues at the state
level. Over the next year, we will be focusing energy on recruiting new members and developing a more
stable funding base, hopefully allowing us to hire part-time staff. The Association's membership has also
identified analysis of volunteer data as a area of concentration so that information can flow from the
monitors to the managers more effectively, thereby increasing the use of this information in watershed
management and planning.
Acronyms
MVWQMA Maryland Volunteer Water Quality Monitoring Association
MDE Maryland Department of the Environment
DNR Maryland Department of Natural Resources
U.S. EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
U.S. FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
National Cattlemen's Beef Association's Water
Quality Information Project
W. James Clawson
Consultant, Water Quality Information Project
Myra Hyde
NCBA, Washington, DC
Jamie Kaestner
NCBA, Denver, CO
—f——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Partnerships come in differing shapes and sizes. In dealing with water quality, beef cattle operations will
mostly be involved with partnerships at the watershed management level. There are also the partnerships
that are forming at the national and state level among organizations and agencies. The focus of this
presentation deals with the latter type of partnership.
However, there needs to be a clear understanding that some cattlemen are hesitant to participate in
partnerships because there is a strong feeling they will lose control of their management options when
they bring others into the process of making business decisions. Most beef cattle operations are on
private lands where there is a vested interest in both property and water rights. Having complete control
of these rights in the past make it difficult to understand why these rights should be tampered with in
addressing broad environmental issues. Effective local watershed partnerships need to recognize the
concerns of the property owners and ensure their involvement from the very beginning and not as an
afterthought.
Grazing lands, the most extensive agricultural land use in the United States, and beef cattle feedlots are
the basis for this industry and both have been perceived to impact water quality. The National Cattle
-------
Association (NCA), through it's 1992 Strategic Plan on the Environment has recognized it's role as an
association in water quality protection, as well as with other environmental issues. NCA initiated the
Water Quality Information Program in 1992 as a positive action of the NCA Strategic Plan. The NCA
was incorporated into the new National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA) in January 1996.
The National Cattlemen's Beef Association Water Quality Information Project started with concerns over
national water quality assessments and the lack of understanding the processes used to identify water
quality impairments and the development of nonpoint source control programs. Phase I of the project
evaluated national assessments and studied ten individual state water quality programs. The individuality
of the state approaches to water quality and the ability of the state beef affiliate associations to address
water quality issues suggested that the continuation of the NCBA Water Quality Information Program be
supportive of state level efforts. Thus Phase II was initiated with the following goals and objectives:
Goal
To provide materials and leadership for a voluntary response among beef cattle producers to meet the
challenges of water quality management as appropriate for local conditions.
Objectives
1. Promote a climate for livestock producers to function effectively in local water quality
management programs at a level suitable to the state's problems and abilities. An emphasis to be
placed on the state Beef Cattle Affiliate(s) program.
2. Conduct an information program that encourages voluntary participation and the implementation
of management programs at the landowner's request and under his control.
3. Supplement existing NCBA resources and the resources of other water quality programs and
partnerships with materials and NCBA training workshops.
4. Utilize approaches and materials suitable to a variety of livestock producer audiences.
During 1995, a survey of the state Beef Affiliate Associations (with 34 responses) was conducted. The
responses emphasized the diversity among the states in terms of staffing, interests in water quality as an
issue, and what the associations needed from NCBA in terms of support. Phase II recognizes these
differences and suggests a number of ways to provide information utilizing existing NCBA resources and
the resources of agencies and other organizations. NCBA participated in a number of national workshops
and with other organizations in both legislative and program matters relating to water quality.
A major task in Phase II is a Water Quality Directory. It is in the process of being developed by a project
team consisting of NCBA staff, state affiliate staff and beef cattle operators. The target audience is the
beef cattle producer and the directory will address the following topics:
1. Background and rational for the directory,
-------
2. Water Laws - national water quality laws and state water right laws,
3. Why cattlemen should be involved,
4. Self analysis/assessment,
5. Prevention, maintenance and corrective measures,
6. Management process approaches - watersheds, water basins, water authorities,
7. Lists of resources and assistance sources
8. Glossary
Efforts continue to utilize resources within NCBA to exchange information on successful programs at the
state affiliate and individual producer levels. One very successful program is the use of the NCBA
Environmental Stewardship Award winners which represent seven regions throughout the US. These
seven winners are selected each year to exemplify beef cattle operation's inclusion of environmental
goals in their buisness management. The use of electronic information systems, such as the world wide
web and internet, is just beginning.
Finally, NCBA is working with a number of partnerships including the Grazing Lands Conservation
Initiative, Know Your Watershed, Save Our Streams and the national Agricultural Water Quality Task
Force. Partnerships make use of each others resources and the ability to reach different audiences, but the
individuality of each partner needs to be respected in order to achieve success.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
The Pork Industry's Environmental Partnerships
Jeff Gabriel, Director, Environmental Services
National Pork Producers Council
Thank you for the warm and generous introduction and a personal thank you to Carl Myers for inviting
me to present at Watershed 96. As you are all aware the pork industry has been at the center of attention
this past year. Given this attention we have had in the environmental area, I tell my family it's job
security not job displacement.
The environment, not surprisingly, is one area we, in the pork industry, have identified as extremely
important. How is the pork industry going to remain profitable, but yet respond and comply with all the
environmental requirements now and in the future? And what, if anything, can producers do to minimize
that impact? Will the public regain its trust in our industry to be sound land stewards? Those as well as
other questions we must be willing to answer as our industry is dissected under the environmental
microscope.
Agriculture and the environment have a dynamic and symbiotic relationship. Agricultural productivity
depends upon a quality environment. Likewise, a quality environment depends upon the wise use of our
natural resources. Although this natural link exists, the debates over agriculture and the environment
often take on an "us versus them" mentality. It doesn't have to be this way.
Agricultural and environmental interests share a number of the same goals. Unfortunately, we've been on
opposite sides of the table for so long, that we no longer stop find what we have in common. When the
pork industry made the decision to be proactive on environmental issues, we started listening to what
others had to say. When we began to understand the environmental needs of our producers, we
recognized that we needed help in providing effective service and sound information. And most amazing
of all, when we have asked for help we have found hundreds of people who are willing and able to help
our industry meet the needs of our producers. Its a win-win proposition for us and for the environmental
community. And it is the beginning of the pork industry's new environmental partnership.
-------
Today's Pork Industry
The pork industry has changed dramatically during the past twenty years. In the olden days, you might
expect to find a few hogs on every farm. Pork's profitability back then earned the hog the title of "The
Mortgage Lifter." Today, the pork industry is still a profitable investment, but the picture of where hogs
are raised has changed. The U.S. Census numbers estimate there are approximately 249,500 pork
producers. Since that number include 4-H and FFA students who sell hogs at the county fair, our estimate
runs closer to 180,000 active, full-time producers. When you look at those numbers, 7% of those
producers produce 60% of the hogs. On the flip side, 62% of our operations produce just 5.5% of our
nation's production.
The National Pork Producers Council is a trade association that represents 85,000 producers across the
country. Our Council is made up of 45 state pork producer associations. Producers join their state or
county pork producers group to gain membership in the National Pork Producers Council. The Council
offers a variety of programs, both on the national level and through state associations that are designed to
promote pork to consumers, improve the quality of our product, and increase producer profitability.
The Pork Industry's Environmental Programs
As an industry, pork producers are working to protect the environment. Our program involves a four-part
approach to serving producer's needs and ensuring fair environmental policies. The components to our
program are: 1. Research; 2. Education; 3. Policy; and 4. Law. While we are conducting individual
projects within each of these areas, the grand design is to integrate these components into meeting the
overall objectives of helping producers protect the environment and remain profitable. For example,
research is needed to help shape policy decisions. Likewise, our research results will have to be an
integral part of our producer education programs.
Our Environmental Partnerships
All of our programs are built on the principles of partnership and cooperation. There are four specific
examples I believe should be highlighted. First, our industry developed The Guide To Environmental
Quality In Pork Production to serve as a tool for our members to use in planning and managing their
operations. The purpose of the Guide was to create an awareness within the pork industry about the key
principles of environmental management. While we were developing the Guide, we sent copies to EPA,
USD A, state water quality agencies, and a number of others for input and comment. This partnership in
the development of educational materials helped us produce a better product and helped shape future
educational programming.
Second, pork producers teamed up with SCS and Region VII EPA to build "The Choice Farm", an
educational model emphasizing total farm resource management. The model shows how thirty different
-------
conservation and environmental practices can fit together in a total farm resource management plan. The
Choice Farm has been featured at three major farm events that has allowed us to reach over 50,000
people with the total farm resource message.
Third, pork producers have teamed up with the EPA, SCS, ASCS, Extension Service, state water quality
agencies, state departments of agriculture, and others to sponsor state livestock environmental workshops
for producers. The programs have featured the producer's responsibilities under state water quality laws,
what technical and financial assistance is available, and how producers can improve their nutrient
management. In two years, our state associations have sponsored over 60 workshops that attracted more
than 5,000 producers.
Finally, our next major step is the implementation of the pork industry's Environmental Assurance
Program. Developing the program and materials used for teaching environmental responsibility involved
local, state and federal government officials, allied industry members, producers, academics and
environmentalists. This program is a training and educational program focused on changing
environmental management at the farm level. We have teamed-up with state associations to implement
this program. Under the program, producers will attend local Assurance Workshops to review nutrient
management, facility management-including worker health and safety, air quality, and aesthetics and
neighbor relations. This program has been well-received by state associations and producers.
From my perspective, Environmental Assurance has set the standard for the agriculture industry. Formal,
voluntary environmental education, developed and delivered by the industry association has important
social, economic, political, and environmental benefits. We won't replace Extension or other traditional
delivery mechanisms, but will use these resources as part of our continuing education effort. Socially, our
industry must demonstrate our willingness to protect the environment while producing healthy, nutritious
pork. Economically, preparing for future environmental challenges gives us a competitive advantage
against other livestock sectors and international competitors. From the environmental perspective, a
message of environmental quality from the industry has more credibility with producers than the same
message delivered by government or other sources.
How We Can Make Things Happen Together
Recent environmental events that have plagued our industry is a shock of reality we could have done
without. Since 1991, the pork industry had been actively involved in increasing and heightening produce
awareness about environmental issues. Although these events are not pleasant to hear or read regularly in
the news, we must not be overshadowed with despair or angry. Episodes like those we experienced this
past summer give us the opportunity to accelerate our efforts to demonstrate we are responsible land
stewards. While aggressively adopting the latest technology or tools to better our environmental record,
we must also not condone those who blatantly pollute.
Pork producers will continue to develop and implement environmental programs because we recognize
our industry's responsibility and the needs of our producers. To be successful, however, we need the
-------
technical input of water quality agencies and conservation professionals to develop material and shape
programs. We need financial resources-this is not a cry for help, merely a statement that our limited
dollars cannot do the job alone. Financial partnerships leverage our producer's funds as well taxpayer
dollars. And finally, we need ideas. The educational process depends on creativity and marketing. We
know we don't have all the answers, so we are looking for people who can add positive input.
Our partnerships are a two-way street. We offer the opportunity to reach thousands of producers in a
farmer-friendly manner. Its a win-win proposition for a new environmental partnership. The opportunity
is ours.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
HOW HIGH IS UP: Water Environment Research
Foundation Develops a Practical Guidance
Document for Conducting Use-Attainability
Analysis
Gene Y. Michael
Timothy F. Moore
Risk Sciences, Colorado Springs, CO
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
The foremost goal of the Clean Water Act is that water quality should fully support aquatic life and
human recreation wherever those beneficial uses are attainable. Initially, each state was responsible for
identifying the beneficial uses for waters within their borders. Slowly, they began the overwhelming task
of surveying and officially designating those uses.
By 1983, most of the waters of the U.S. were designated to support aquatic life and recreational uses.
Many states had elected to make these uses the "minimum" standard for surface waters within their
jurisdiction. In the event that the designation turned out to be inappropriate, EPA had provided a means
for making adjustments: Use Attainability Analysis.
Use Attainability Analysis is a structured scientific assessment of the chemical, physical, biological
conditions in a waterway. The comprehensive evaluation focuses on water quality, available habitat, flow
regimes, and other factors which are necessary to support aquatic life. The detailed review also includes
an analysis of social and economic impacts associated with attaining the designated beneficial uses.
After the 1987 Clean Water Act Amendments, EPA issued new regulations which required states to
provide scientific justification wherever a surface water was not designated to protect aquatic life and/or
-------
recreation uses. A Use Attainability Analysis is required to meet the applicable evidentiary requirements.
In addition, the classification decision must be reviewed every three years to determine if the "limiting
factors" still apply or whether the stream designations should be upgraded.
In most states the aquatic life beneficial uses are fairly broad. Certain sub-classifications, such as warm
vs. cold water and fresh vs. salt water, are also fairly common. But, in general, if a waterway is
designated to protect aquatic life, it is assumed that all forms of aquatic life may potentially live there. As
such, the water quality must also be high enough to support all species of aquatic life. Very few states
have made official distinctions based on available habitat conditions, flow regimes, or other factors
which determine which forms of aquatic life are most likely to colonize and flourish in a given lake or
stream.
As the interest in water quality-based regulation increased, so has the interest in Use Attainability
Analysis. One group wants to apply Use Attainability Analysis as a means of demonstrating that
formerly undesignated waters are in need of greater protection. The other group wishes to employ Use
Attainability Analysis to demonstrate that prevailing water quality standards are more stringent than
necessary to fully protect the aquatic ecosystem. Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) serves both
applications well.
The vast majority of UAA's completed since 1983 have been to redesignate unclassified waters to protect
aquatic life. The rules for such a reclassification are clear: if any aquatic life is present in the waterway at
any time then that existing beneficial use must be designated and protected. The evidence required is also
relatively straightforward: biological surveys can be used to show that aquatic life is present.
When Use Attainability Analysis is used to demonstrate that a waterway cannot support aquatic life,
regardless of water quality, the rules and required evidence are not nearly so simple. This probably
accounts for why so few UAA's of this nature have been initiated and why even fewer have been
successful.
There is a strong presumption that all waters of the U.S. could support aquatic life if water quality is
good. The presumption may only be overcome by a very limited set of conditions. And, the evidence
necessary to demonstrate these conditions must be gathered as part of a Use Attainability Analysis. These
conditions, given in 40 CFR 131.10(g), are:
1. Naturally occurring pollution prevents use attainment
2. Flow conditions prevent attainment
3. Human-caused pollution prevents the attainment and cannot be remedied
4. Dams or other channel modifications prevent attainment
-------
5. Physical habitat conditions prevent attainment
6. Cost of attainment would cause unreasonable social & economic impact
EPA has developed and distributed considerable guidance on how to conduct a Use Attainability
Analysis. Most of this guidance focuses on how to design the structured scientific assessment of
chemistry, aquatic biology, habitat conditions and the like. There is also guidance available for how to
conduct an analysis of social and economic impacts.
While the available guidance does an good job of describing how to gather evidence, it does not tell the
UAA-researcher how to interpret the evidence. Most important, it does not tell the local decisionmakers
how to evaluate the scientific conclusions in order to set standards (beneficial uses and water quality
objectives).
This is particularly problematic for those who seek to use UAA to justify less stringent regulations. In
many of these cases, both the water quality and the habitat conditions are unsupportive of designated
beneficial uses. The researchers must demonstrate that even if water quality were better, the uses would
remain unattained because other conditions limit attainment. They must show that existing water quality
does not cause or contribute to reduced density or diversity of species in the affected waterbody. And, in
essence, this means they must "prove the negative."
It is appropriate to have a presumption in favor of environmental protection. And, it is appropriate to
force the burden-of-proof on those who seek variances from accepted national standards. However, in
such a decision system, it is also essential that clear thresholds of proof be established for when the
burden has been met.
Imagine, for a moment, what it would be like to run a race where there was no defined finish line. Use
Attainability Analysis is such a race. There are well-defined rules for initiating and conducting the
review but, no fixed boundary for knowing when adequate proof has been presented.
The absence of decision thresholds, often referred to by scientists as "critical values," causes many Use
Attainability Analyses to degenerate into arguments among the experts over how to interpret the data.
The process often appears arbitrary and vulnerable to non-scientific (read: political) influences. More
guidance is necessary to make Use Attainability Analysis a useful tool for watershed management.
The Water Environment Research Foundation (WERF), under grant from the EPA, commissioned a
group of select scientists to develop better guidance for Use Attainability Analysis. Their recently
published work provides more detail for how to design scientifically-sound UAA's. In particular, they
reviewed dozens of successful UAA's conducted throughout the country and synthesized a model to
guide other researchers.
Just as every waterbody is unique, so must every Use Attainability Analysis be designed on a site-
-------
specific basis. General models provide an excellent starting point but, success depends on customizing
the model to local conditions, local stakeholders and local decisionmakers. There is no "cookbook"
recipe for designing UAA. And, the absence of a standard formula frequently frustrates those who want
to apply Use Attainability Analysis to their situation.
Recognizing the need to customize their model, the Water Environment Research Foundation
commissioned a companion volume to their UAA Guidance. This is the companion volume. It was
written by a team of UAA practitioners who have considerable "real-world" experience designing,
executing, interpreting the structured scientific assessments called Use Attainability Analysis.
In addition, the authors have come to recognize that having good science is only half the battle.
Convincing others that the science is good enough to justify a certain action is the other half. As a rule,
successful UAA's do not wait until the end of the process to find out what's convincing. The process must
begin with very hard questions to all of the stakeholders (including the regulators).
The questions should derive from the regulatory requirements and specific evidentiary demonstrations
needed to meet those requirements. There is a strong tendency by everyone involved in UAA to avoid the
tough questions. They may defer but never duck the responsibility. Ultimately, the questions must be
answered in order to make a decision for or against designating or subclassifying a waterbody.
What questions? Questions like: when is a use "impaired?" When is a use "fully attained?" How do you
resolve evidentiary conflicts (e.g., chemical exceedences but biology looks good)? How much adverse
economic impact is too much? When is water quality "better than necessary to protect the use?" Like
trying to define the difference between art and obscenity, Use Attainability Analysis can become a
terribly subjective activity.
This document is structured to identify the key concerns which arise during a UAA and to suggest
questions which should be asked, and answered, BEFORE the Use Attainability Analysis begins. This
volume also contains recommended "critical values," called Decision Criteria, to help researchers and
regulators design a study which will focus on the real policy issues. These decision criteria are intended
to start the debate, not end it.
No one should consider initiating a Use Attainability Analysis without first understanding that the
process will be long, expensive and frustrating. But, considering the stakes (on both sides), that's as it
should be. Compared to the cost of installing advanced waste treatment where it may provide no benefit,
Use Attainability Analysis is still the most cost-effective tool for developing regulatory alternatives
despite the overall expense. Even though UAA's may run into hundreds of thousands (sometimes
millions) of dollars, the approach can save up to $1000 for every $1 invested in comprehensive chemical
and biological review of the watershed.
The secret is getting all the stakeholders (including the regulators) to participate in the design and
conduct of the UAA from day one. From the outset, the participants must be willing to draw a line
-------
between acceptable and unacceptable proof. The issue of what constitutes "sound scientific evidence" is
the focus of WERFs Practical Guidance Document for Planning and Conducting Use-Attainability
Analysis (GUIDE).
The GUIDE is written to assist those who are considering whether and how to conduct a Use-
Attainability Analysis. It is not so much a cookbook as it is a manual for asking the right questions. All
existing UAA guidance is, unavoidably, too generic. Because a Use-Attainability Analysis focuses on
highly sensitive environmental protection issues, they can generate considerable controversy. Minimizing
the hostility depends on defining the decision process very early in the process. To do that, on a site-
specific basis, requires that the participants ask and answer the right questions.
The GUIDE is divided into four sections. An introductory section lays out the rationale for doing Use-
Attainability Analysis. Section two describes the planning process which governs the development of a
UAA. The third section provides a hypertext system for defining the crucial regulatory requirements and
scientific burdens-of-proof in a format which will facilitate the development of interagency groundrules
for conducting UAA. In the final section, WERFs other UAA guidance document is summarized and
indexed.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Framework For Watershed Management
Trevor Clements, Senior Associate
Clayton Creager, Vice President
Jon Butcher, Senior Associate
Cadmus Group, Inc., Waltham, MA
Tom Schueler, Executive Director
The Center for Watershed Management, Silver Spring, MD
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Background and Project Purpose
Federal, state, and local governments have spent billions of dollars over the past quarter century to
establish criteria, tools, and programs for protecting and restoring our nation's water resources. Despite
tremendous effort and corresponding successes in many areas, including reduction in point source
pollution and remediation of sites contaminated by hazardous wastes, national assessments indicate that
numerous problems and threats to public health and ecosystem integrity remain. The indicators are many,
ranging from Pacific salmon population declines in the northwest to Giardia and Cryptosporidium
outbreaks in public water supplies throughout the country.
Agencies and additional stakeholders in the management process are searching for alternative ways to
use existing means to solve remaining problems, rather than creating even more regulations and
programs. Many programs are giving renewed emphasis to watersheds as functional, hydrologically
defined geographic management units for coordinating management efforts. Watersheds work well for
organizing management because they are readily identifiable landscape units that integrate terrestrial,
aquatic, geologic, and atmospheric processes. Numerous initiatives of several government agencies,
however, have produced a myriad of watershed management protocols that are not entirely consistent
and have led to confusion and difficulty in implementation. For the Water Environment Research
-------
Foundation (WERF), the Cadmus Group, Inc. and the Center for Watershed Protection (Cadmus team)
proposed a framework for coordinating and integrating watershed management among local, state, and
federal participants.
Recommended Framework Elements
Nine essential elements are recommended for a unifying watershed management framework: (1)
geographic management units, (2) stakeholder involvement, (3) a basin management cycle, (4) strategic
monitoring, (5) basin assessment, (6) a priority ranking and resource targeting system, (7) capability for
developing management strategies, (8) management plan documentation, and (9) implementation (Figure
1).
Bas-in Management
.... Cycle ....
7T
Strategic
Munituring
\
Implementation
Basin
Assessment
Basin
and
Watershed
Manage merit
Plans

Under the proposed
framework, a state is
divided into large,
hydrologically delineated
geographic management
units called basins to
provide a functional
spatial unit for integrating
watershed management
efforts in a state. Smaller
geographic units (e.g., sub- /
basins and watersheds)
that nest within basin
boundaries can be 1
delineated to support f
coordination of activities 1
at varying scales. Next,
stakeholders are defined
as any entity involved in
or affected by watershed
management activities
within a basin
management unit.
Stakeholder roles and
responsibilities are *' ¦¦•--- _ —
identified and coordinated ^
for six core activities: ~~ —
strategic monitoring, basin Figure 1. Nine essential elements of a watershed management
assessment, prioritization framework.
and targeting, developing management strategies, management plan documentation, and implementation.
A fixed time schedule for sequencing activities across basins throughout the state, called the basin
Involvement
Developing
Management
Strategies
Prioritization
and
Targeting
-------
management cycle, is determined by partners in the framework. The basin management cycle balances
workloads for stakeholders over time, while still maintaining spatial focus. The cycle is repeated for each
basin at fixed intervals to ensure that management goals, priorities, and strategies are routinely updated
and progressively implemented.
Although the recommended framework is developed at the state level, the approach is not limited to state
water quality programs. Rather, statewide watershed management frameworks should link all local, state,
and federal efforts at the state level. The rationale for organizing framework development at the state
level is based on a combination of factors, including legal structure, efficiency, effectiveness, and
practicality.
The Process for Developing a Statewide Framework
The recommended process for developing and implementing a statewide framework is divided into four
stages: (1) organizing statewide framework development, (2) tailoring statewide framework elements, (3)
making the transition, and (4) operating under the statewide framework. The final WERF project report
(Clements et al., 1995) lists a series of milestones recommended for each stage. Practitioners can use
these milestones to plan their approach and measure progress toward implementation. Initial milestones
reflect achievement of an understanding of underlying concepts of watershed and basin management, a
step that is critical for recruiting partners and establishing a common purpose. Participants are then
encouraged to build the foundation of the framework determining who will lead, what methods will be
used for building elements, how to maintain communication, and how resources will be directed toward
the effort. The agreed-upon process should involve the definition of anticipated roles and responsibilities
for each stakeholder in all six core activities (i.e, monitoring, assessment, prioritization, strategy
development, plan documentation, and implementation), along with the organizational and administrative
structures (i.e., management units, management cycle, and mechanisms for stakeholder involvement) for
scheduling and carrying out those activities. Finally, recommendations for implementing the tailored
statewide framework include developing a plan for transition from current operations and resolving
issues that pose barriers to implementation.
Watershed Management Using the Framework Elements
A statewide framework should define and formalize teams or other organizational forums to facilitate
stakeholder collaboration on the development and implementation of individual basin and watershed
plans including, for example, a technical basin team, local watershed management teams, and a citizen
advisory committee. Stakeholder groups are encouraged to work together through a series of steps, which
are defined during statewide framework development (Figure 2). Steps are translated from the essential
watershed elements, then tailored to meet specific needs. Stakeholders reach consensus on specific roles
and responsibilities for each watershed planning and management step. The watershed planning cycle is
iterative and establishes a long-term management structure within which local, state, and federal
activities can be integrated.
-------
Successful
Collaboration
Among Local,
State, and
Federal
Stakeholders
Bringing key stakeholders
to the bargaining table is
often very challenging
because of a historical
lack of trust among many
participants. Successful
collaboration among
responsible and impacted
parties requires some form
of incentives (e.g.,
flexibility in application of
regulations, funding, and
promise of progress on
joint objectives).
Adequate outreach should
precede efforts to secure
commitment to the
framework. Emphasis
should be placed on
balanced participation and
adherence to an agreed-
upon structure and
scientific, resource-driven
planning process to
determine priorities and
implement solutions.
Targeting
Management
Resources to
Priority
Concerns

1. Conduct Initial Outreach and Organize Basin
and Watershed Teams/Committees

2. Collect Relevant Basin Information
(includes strategic monitoring)

3. Analyze and Evaluate Information
(initial assessment)

4. Prioritize Concerns and Issues I
I

5. Perform Detailed Assessments of Priority Issues
(involves targeting decisions)
1

6. Develop Management Strategies
I

7. Prepare/Update Draft Basin and Watershed Plans
1
t

8. Finalize/Distribute Basin and Watershed Plans |
1

9. Implement Basin and Watershed Plans 1

10. Repeat Cycle
Figure 2. Operating steps under the statewide approach
-------
A fundamental purpose of the framework is to distinguish during each cycle iteration which watersheds
or issues within major river basins merit the most attention, because attempting to address all problems
simultaneously is impractical in light of program resource constraints. Targeting resources to high-
priority issues is a cost-effective management strategy that provides the largest overall environmental
benefits. Targeting may, however, require additional flexibility from funding agencies and ultimately
from legislative sources to achieve greater participation and coordination among nontraditional
stakeholders.
Defining Local Roles Within the Framework
The most significant contribution of the framework to local implementation is the structure, guidance,
and forum that it provides for coordinating discussions among stakeholders. The proposed framework
calls for a nested approach to planning and documentation in which local watershed efforts are integrated
with state and federal efforts. Local stakeholders must take the lead role in specifying local watershed
management activities and implementation schedules, especially in sensitive areas such as land-use
zoning and growth management planning.
Integrating Efforts Over Large Geographic Areas
The difference in scale between basin management units and local watersheds is typically large,
sometimes exceeding two orders of magnitude. The proposed framework involves the use of entities such
as basin coordinators, basin management teams, and basin stakeholder advisory committees to achieve
integration. The flexible nature of the framework elements makes it possible to apply the principles at
any geographic scale. A state agency may be in the best position to lead basin management efforts,
whereas local or regional agencies will often be better suited to lead watershed management efforts.
Federal agencies have a natural coordination role when basins cross state or national boundaries.
Technical Credibility of the Process
Local stakeholders are more likely to participate in activities if they believe that the process will result in
more objective management plans than are currently produced. The environmental information that
drives the watershed planning process must be comprehensive, of the best possible technical quality, and
understandable to stakeholders. Pooling or leveraging of resources through the framework should create
more opportunities for greater use of tools, such as geographic information systems (GIS), that enhance
capabilities and lend greater credibility to decisions.
The Role of Legislative Action
The statewide watershed management framework should not become overly burdened with planning
requirements mandated by legislation; rather, flexibility will allow for incremental and phased
implementation so that activities with consensus support can get underway. Legislation can help clarify
-------
performance standards, but solutions should not be prescribed in the law. The framework should allow
partners to establish the most cost-effective solutions for meeting performance standards. Legislatively
approved flexibility should also extend to funding allocations; that is, let resource protection or
restoration priorities drive allocation of resources to planning and implementation activities rather than
restricting funds to specific, isolated activities under the purview of a single program.
Current Status and Future Direction of Statewide Frameworks
An increasing number of states (currently 17) are developing or have implemented statewide
frameworks. Momentum is substantial at all levels of government for more coordinated action and
stronger partnerships with a broader range of stakeholders. The public has clearly responded in a positive
manner when the opportunity to participate meaningfully has been extended to them. Legislative barriers
have not prevented the implementation of successful statewide frameworks. Many federal and state
regulatory agencies have demonstrated a willingness to extend direct assistance and flexibility to
promote watershed approaches. Furthermore, framework development in several states is beginning to
emphasize multi-objective goals, whereby both natural resource and economic sustainability are
recognized. There has never been a better time for local agencies to consider the use of a comprehensive
watershed management framework.
Several next steps are recommended for facilitating watershed management framework development and
implementation. Given the current economic climate in which additional infusion of capital resources is
unlikely, partners in the watershed management process should focus on practical, cost-effective actions
that will engage the public directly to increase confidence and commitment:
Stakeholders should not wait for legislative mandate or solution. Stakeholder participation is not based
on regulatory requirement. Rather, the statewide framework depends on its ability to successfully
promote collaboration based on complementary objectives and cost-effectiveness. The first step is to
begin scoping the configuration for a framework in your state.
Managers can commit to support new functional relationships. Implementing a statewide framework will
require many government agencies to move from a traditional guidance-based, program-centered
approach to a system that requires greater flexibility. Agencies will need to recognize resource protection
and restoration priorities and opportunities and respond accordingly to achieve buy-in and participation
of local partners that want management efforts tied to tangible natural resource benefits. Commitment
from top-level managers will encourage state and federal agency staff to support the team concept and
operate cooperatively with local partners rather than from a top-down approach.
Local partners can implement regional-scale watershed planning and implementation programs. Local
governments can initiate local or regional watershed forums that operate in tandem with a statewide
framework. Local activities can be synchronized with any existing basin management cycle; in the
absence of an existing statewide framework, a local management cycle can be developed, which would
demonstrate the benefits of the approach to potential statewide partners.
-------
Agency stakeholders can revise guidance to encourage statewide watershed management framework
development. All agency stakeholders should review guidance or policies that restrict or impede
stakeholder participation or any other aspect of watershed management framework development and
implementation. Identifying areas where flexibility can be enhanced will likely encourage others to
support the approach.
These steps can serve as catalysts for more detailed framework development. The authors hope that this
paper restores and supports the vision of those frustrated with the current status of our ability to balance
protecting the environment and meeting other community needs.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Establishing Watershed Management Process and
Goals
Vladimir Novotny
Marquette University, Milwaukee, WI
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
In the United States, water quality goals are defined in terms of the designated use of the water body
based on which water quality standards for the water body are defined. The statutory water body uses
specified by the CWA include aquatic life protection and propagation, recreation in the water body, and
human health. When states designate water body uses such as the statutory uses of aquatic life protection
and propagation and recreation as well as special uses such as drinking water supply, irrigation, etc.
considerations must be given to whether such uses can be attained. If the state does not intend to
designate uses that would comply with the goals of the Clean Water Act, the Use Attainability Analysis
(UAA) must be performed to justify the downgrade of the use. The same study can and should be used to
select the watersheds needed watershed management and to establish water quality goals.
Water Quality and Watershed Management
Even though point source control programs defined by the BAT effluent standards have been essenti-ally
completed, an appreciable number of surface water bodies and coastal waters are still not meeting water
quality goals. This portion may actually increase when recently issued standards for toxic contaminants
(US EPA, 1992, 1993 and 1994) in water and sediments are fully enforced. One reason for this situation
is the fact that many water bodies are impacted by unregulated mostly nonpoint sources of pollution, by
past discharges which contaminated the sediments, by changes in hydrology of the watershed as a result
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
of urbanization, drainage and development and by physical alteration of the aquatic habitat. In a situation
where the water quality goals are and/or will not be met after implementation of mandated point source
controls, water quality and watershed management and protection should be considered. The watershed
management approach "provides the framework to evaluate a natural resource problem using a natural
system approach. It is well suited to track holistic cause-and-effect water quality relationships since it can
link upstream uses with downstream effects."
Integrated Approach
Although many environmental factors have been instrumental in the evolution of an aquatic ecosystem,
Karr et al. (1986) have documented that these factors can be grouped into five major classes: chemical,
biological, hydrological, habitat, and energy. Altering any of these factors and parameters will have an
impact on the ecosystem and the biota which is its integral component. This obviously leads to an
integrated approach to point and nonpoint pollution abatement. The integrated approach to pollution
abatement must be emphasized; sole reliance on control of some sources and leaving other sources
unregulated and uncontrolled is counter-productive and may lead to inefficient and sometimes unrealistic
solutions. To the biota residing in the receiving water body it does not matter whether the pollutant
originates from a single source, multiple sources, point or nonpoint sources. A control of a single factor
as well as a simplistic approach may fail an attempt to remedy water quality and ecological integrity of
the aquatic system. The ecosystem integrated approach differs from past technology driven approaches
(Committee on Wastewater Management, 1993).
Use Attainability Analysis and the Planning Process
If a water body has been classified as partially supporting or not supporting the designated use the States
or designated agencies perform an Use Attainability Analysis (UAA) to determine the proper use of a
waterbody. The Use Attainability Analysis is a structured scientific assessment of the factors affecting
the attainment of the use which may include physical, chemical, biological, and socio-economic factors.
A manual on the Use Attainability Analysis has been published by the Water Environment Research
Foundation (Novotny et al., 1996).
The process of the Use Attainability Analysis is the most important planning component of the integrated
approach to environmental protection of water resources and their most important beneficial uses
(aquatic life and human health protection). The logical steps evolved from the Clean Water Act and
subsequent regulations (for example, 40 CFR 131). Based on the UAA it is possible to modify or change
non-existing designated water use or establish subcategories within the designated uses. There are six
reasons listed in the regulations (US EPA, 1983, 40 CFR 131(g)) which allow a downgrade and/or a
modification of the use which include natural and/or irreversible man-made causes as well as
socioeconomic reasons (wide spread adverse socioeconomic impact due to the cost and/or other
socioeconomic consequences of remediation).
A Use Attainability Analysis has three components (U.S. EPA, 1983; Novotny et al, 1996): (1) Water
-------
Body Assess-ment; (2) the Total Maximal Daily Load (TMDL) process; and (3) Socio econo-mic Impact
Analysis. Figure 1 shows schematically UAA steps as they would be used in targeting watersheds for
management.
If nonattainment of the use is caused by natural water quality contamination and/or past untraceable
pollution discharges and/or unregulated nonpoint sources and/or irreversible physical alteration of the
habitat, then the society (i.e, government at all levels or public management institutions) may be
responsible for remediation. The management agency can make the following decisions:
1. Improve the waste assimilative capacity and restore the water body and its habitat (typically when
nonattainment is caused by past physical alteration of the habitat or by sediment discharges from
unregulated sources); and/or
2. Expand the regulation of discharges to include presently unregulated nonpoint sources; and/or
3. Use economic incentives and pollution load trade-offs to induce abatement of unregulated
sources; and/or.
4. Accept the fact that the designated use is not attainable and downgrade or modify the use; and/or
5. Rely completely on mandated point source controls.
Alternatives 1-3 will require a Watershed Management Plan and establishment of the Watershed
Management Unit. Alternative 4 is acceptable only if natural causes are such that the designated uses can
not be attained or when all possible remedial actions were found as being technically unacceptable and/or
causing wide spread adverse socio-economic impact on the population. A downgrade of the designated
water body use would essentially convert a water quality limited water body to that which is effluent
limited. Alternative 5 for water quality limited water bodies, though still common and preferred by some
state regulators, is also not acceptable since it would force expenditures upon the regulated dischargers
that might not bring about the expected water quality benefits and the resources on clean-up would be
used inefficiently.
Watershed and water quality management using public funds makes sense only if for the water body in
question, water quality and ecological integrity goals can not be achieved by application of mandated
effluent treatment technologies (BATs) pursuant to Sections 301 and 306 of the Act for point sources and
application of enforceable Best Management Practices for nonpoint sources. Such water bodies are
classified as water quality limited. For effluent limited water bodies, water quality goals can be achieved
by enforcing NPDES permits and enforceable BMPs with subsequent monitoring of compliance.
The impaired waters definition introduced by the EPA specifies water bodies at which water quality
goals cannot be achieved and uses attained without additional actions to control nonpoint pollution.
According to the proposed Water Pollution Prevention and Control Act State may expand the impaired
-------
watershed to include waters (a) threatened with impairment; or (2) an Outstanding National Resources
Water (ONRW) body. An impaired watershed includes all land areas contributing to the water body
which has been declared as impaired.
In the water quality-watershed management planning process the following alternatives approaches
should be considered concurrently by the UAA:
1. The entire burden of abatement is achieved by reduction of loads from regulated point sources
only, by implementing further reductions over those mandated by effluent (technology based)
limitations. This alternative will mostly rely on "discharger pays" principle, i.e., the dischargers
are made responsible for the additional cost of the pollution load reduction. Point - point source
waste load trading (transferable waste load allocation) may provide the most optimal allocation of
allowable waste loads among the regulated point sources.
Due to the fact that reduction of nonpoint loads is difficult to enforce and requires generally
public funds to be given as incentives to nonpoint dischargers, the alternative of putting the entire
burden of clean-up on regulated point dischargers is favored by the regulators.
2. The required pollution load reduction is achieved by an additional control of both point
(regulated) and nonpoint (unregulated) sources. This approach will require a mix of "discharger
pays" and "benefits received" payments and economic incentives. The planning process should
consider trading of allocated waste loads between the point and nonpoint sources.
The "benefits received" funding approach is feasible when there is a "willingness to pay" by the
beneficiaries of the improved water quality. Such groups range from general taxpayers who are
willing to accept increased taxes and fees for water quality improvement to riparian property
owners on a particular water body.
3. Water Body Restoration which includes enhancement of Waste Assimilative Capacity and/or
riparian land (wetland) acquisition and restoration. This approach again requires mostly funding
which is based on the "benefits received" rather than "discharger pays." However, in cases where
a point source of past contamination of sediments has been identified and the site has been
declared as hazardous the discharger can be made responsible for the cost of the water body
restoration and in-situ clean-up.
Figure 2 shows a concept of optimal allocation of the three categories of abatement in a watershed plan.
It should be emphasized that for point sources abatement only incremental costs over the BAT
technology based mandated abatement should be considered. It was already established that the BAT
point source controls are affordable and, according to the "discharger pays" principle, the point source
dischargers are responsible, within their economic means, for the cost of abatement.
On Figure 2 the point WAC(O) represents the waste assimilative capacity of the receiving water body
-------
adjusted by considering the nonpoint (unregulated) discharges. If no watershed management is
considered the mandated (BAT) point discharges would cause the total daily load to be EWQ(O). The
solid line from EWQ(O) represents the cost of further reduction of regulated point discharges. To reach
WAC(O) would require additional expenses on point source clean-up, mostly borne by the dischargers,
corresponding to the point EWQ(m). The dashed line starting from WAC(O) represents the cost of WAC
enhancement and/or clean-up of unregulated nonpoint sources. This cost is borne by public and/or by
regulated dischargers in a form of point-nonpoint trade-offs. If the WAC is increased WAC(i) or
unregulated nonpoint source loads reduced by the same amount at a cost to the beneficiaries represented
by the point C(wac) the additional point source control can be accomplished at a cost C(ps)and a total
cost of C(t). An optimum allocation of resources may be reached when both public and private financing
as well as point-nonpoint trade-offs are considered.
A watershed management plan should consider innovative funding and seek additional funding sources.
An example of the small increase of automobile license fees in Wisconsin for funding of abatement of
nonpoint sources is an innovative funding approach that retains the characteristics of "discharger pays"
principle and provides sufficient financial resources for nonpoint source abatement, including
remediation and restoration of water bodies impacted by nonpoint sources. In Florida, funds for riparian
land acquisition along several important water bodies are derived from a fee on land transactions. Over
$300 million were generated for wetland restoration and flood plain buffer zones in the St. John River
Water Management District.
Acknowledgment
Research on which this paper is based was partially sponsored by the Water Environment Research
Foundation by a grant to AquaNova International, Ltd., Mequon, WI. The views expressed in this paper
are those of the author and not of the foundation.
References
Committee of Wastewater Management for Coastal Urban Areas (1993) Managing Wastewater in
Coastal Urban Areas, National Academy Press, Washington, DC.
Karr, J.R., K.D. Fausch, P.L. Angermeier, P.R. Yant and I.J. Schlosser (1986)" Assessing
Biological Integrity in running water: A method and its rationale." Illinois Natural History
Survey, Champaign IL. Special Publication 5.
Novotny, V. et al. (1996) Identification and Evaluation of Use Attainability Analysis
Methodologies. RP91-NPS-1, Water Environment Research Foundation, Alexandria, VA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1983) Water Quality Standards Handbook, Office of
Water Regulations and Standards, Washington, DC.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1992) "Water quality standards; Establishment of
numeric criteria for priority toxic pollutants: State compliance," Fed. Register, 57(246):60848.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1993 and 1994) Water Quality Standards Handbook, 2nd
Edition, EPA-823-B-94-005a, Office of Water, Washington, DC.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Use of Watershed Concepts to Address Sanitary
Sewer Overflowsl
Kevin Weiss, Special Assistant
Office of Wastewater Management, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC
Ben Lesser, Environmental Protection Specialist
Office of Wastewater Management, United States Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
A sanitary sewer overflow (SSO) is a spill of raw sewage from a separate sanitary sewer collection
system that occurs before the sewage can reach a treatment plant. SSO types include basement backups,
and discharges from manholes onto streets or into streams.
Sanitary sewers are intended to carry all of the wastewater put into them to a treatment plant. Chronic
SSOs, therefore, are often symptoms of sewer collection system deterioration, improper pipe
connections, or inadequate size. Chronic SSOs often occur during wet weather conditions when rain,
snow melt or ground water enter and overfill a system through improper connections to houses and
businesses, and breaks in sewers and manholes. Undersized pipes and pumps, and blockages from roots
and debris can also cause SSOs.
SSOs can present health and environmental risks. They can also damage property including home
-------
basements, and cause utility customer complaints. While the national scope of this problem is not well
known, many sewer systems are believed to overflow. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
is examining the problem of SSOs, both because they are prohibited under the Clean Water Act, and
because the combined SSOs from many communities could affect public health and water quality.
Considering SSOs as an urban watershed pollution control problem offers the potential to manage SSOs
from many sources and communities in a coordinated and cost-effective way.
Sanitary sewer collection systems represent a significant portion of the nation's investment in urban
wastewater management. The collection system of a single large municipality is an asset worth billions
of dollars and that of a smaller system could cost many millions to replace. Rehabilitating sewers to
reduce or eliminate SSOs can be expensive, but the cost must be weighed against the value of the asset
and the added costs if the collection system is allowed to deteriorate further. Ongoing maintenance and
rehabilitation add value to the original investment by maintaining the system's capacity and extending its
life. The costs of rehabilitation and other measures to correct SSOs can vary widely by community size,
and the type and condition of the system. Those being equal, however, cost will be highest in
communities that have not put regular preventive maintenance or asset protection programs in place.
SSO Policy Dialogue
In recent years the Agency has improved its traditional process of developing policies and regulations by
increasing the use of consultation and consensus-building with people and groups outside the Agency.
These collaborative efforts improve EPA program effectiveness and foster better public understanding
and acceptance. "Policy dialogues" are one kind of consensus-building process. The objective of a policy
dialogue is to obtain advice, and sometimes consensus recommendations, on policy issues through a
series of public meetings involving a balanced group of affected interests, or, "stakeholders." If a
consensus recommendation is achieved, the Agency gives it the highest possible consideration.
A number of interested stakeholders have asked the EPA to develop a national policy to ensure that SSOs
are addressed more consistently and effectively under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. In December 1994, EPA established an advisory committee and initiated a
policy dialogue to address these issues.
The policy dialogue is exploring ways to enhance the performance of sanitary sewer collection systems
and thereby reduce SSOs. The Agency will evaluate and incorporate watershed approaches into these
efforts. The policy dialogue has already recommended an outline approach attached as Figure 1. While
details of the diagram will be refined, it suggests several concepts, including:
¦ Minimum Operational Principles - Operational principles appropriate to collection systems can be
identified. These will help prevent system deterioration and other causes of SSOs.
¦ Screening Process - When SSOs occur and are reported, a screening process can identify the
appropriate response. In the approach suggested by Figure 1 an evaluation of health and
-------
environmental risks with other factors is used to identify two classes of SSOs. The first calls for a
short-term response, while the second class is evaluated in the context of additional planning.
¦ Short-term Response - SSOs presenting an immediate risk to human health or the environment, or
that can be addressed by modifying operating procedures without large capital costs are addressed
through a comprehensive site-specific remediation plan.
¦ Long-term Planning - SSOs presenting no immediate risk to human health or the environment, or
which cannot be addressed without incurring large capital costs, can be evaluated and ranked in
the context of detailed and long-term remediation plans. The approach provides two options for
developing a long-term plan to address SSO problems. Under the first option, the long-term plan
is developed in context of a comprehensive wet weather watershed evaluation. Under the second
option, a long-term plan is developed independently of watershed considerations.
Watershed Considerations
In the United States, urban watersheds play an important role in pollution control because of population
density. About two-thirds of the nation's population lives in urban settings, yet urban lands account for
only 2 to 4 percent of the nation's land area. Also, much of the nation's urban population is found near
oceans or the Great Lakes. Polluted urban drainage to these valued water bodies can significantly impair
their quality, and the high population in these areas subjects urban waters to significant contact and use.
Since urban watersheds are subjected to several pollutant sources, urban municipalities are faced with
multiple water pollution control objectives, particularly during wet weather. The municipalities may need
to control discharges from sewage treatment plants, sanitary sewer overflows, storm drains, and
overflows from "combined sewers" which carry mixed sanitary sewage and storm runoff. Challenges
associated with applying watershed principals to these discharges include:
¦ Using regulatory and non-regulatory tools to optimize coordination among urban municipalities.
¦ Providing a framework for identifying control priorities among the various urban discharges in a
watershed.
¦ Providing the regulatory flexibility to ensure that resource uses correspond to priorities.
¦ Ensuring that municipalities have adequate institutional frameworks (e.g., funding, legal
authorities, and staffing) to address priority pollutant sources.
Applying Watershed Principles to SSO Controls
Although watershed planning may increase the planning cost and start-up time required to implement
-------
control strategies, its appropriate use can improve cost-effectiveness and bring greater environmental and
health benefits. The policy dialogue has agreed to introduce watershed concepts into several key SSO
areas, including:
¦ Monitoring.
¦ Discharge Locations.
¦ Discharge Standards.
¦ Operational Partnerships.
Monitoring
While the location of some SSOs is well known, others are hidden underground and discharge only under
wet weather conditions. This is particularly true of some older sewer designs such as "common trench"
systems, which have a high potential for overflows. Watershed management fosters coordination of
water quality monitoring efforts. As an example, storm sewers and sanitary sewers usually serve the
same areas. Efforts to find and characterize storm sewer discharges can also find SSOs. This is doubly
important because SSOs leaking into storm sewers can cause high levels of fecal coliform and bacteria.
The shifting emphasis from traditional end-of-pipe water quality monitoring to ambient monitoring and
other performance measures applies to SSO programs, too. Ambient monitoring combined with
performance measures, such as beach and shellfish bed closures and restricted recreational and
commercial activities, can provide a more thorough picture of water quality conditions and related health
risks. Ambient monitoring can help identify priority water pollution control projects.
Discharge Locations
One proven approach to environmental risk management is to move discharges from high-risk areas to
lower risk areas. This principal can be applied to SSO management by providing relief discharge points
to relatively low-risk locations during emergency and other anticipated overflow conditions. The policy
dialogue is considering the use of such constructed discharge points called "wet weather facilities" to
reduce basement backups and SSOs to streets and other public areas, and sensitive receiving waters.
Discharge Standards
Remediation of severely deteriorated collection systems can be expensive since, typically,
comprehensive remediation aims to reduce peak flows and to manage overflows. Several large
municipalities with such systems have estimated that comprehensive remediation will cost each more
than $1 billion. Other municipalities estimate these costs to be hundreds of millions of dollars. One
-------
significant project cost factor is the required level of treatment for any discharges authorized from "wet
weather facilities." Selection of the level of treatment as part of a watershed planning process will be
important in determining how some municipalities use limited funds for water quality improvement
projects. A goal of the NPDES program is to allow the use of limited funds to correspond to water
quality priorities.
Operational Partnerships
In many urban sewerage systems, the ownership and responsibility for operating and maintaining the
collection system is split among several municipal entities and the public. Often a special district or other
municipal entity has responsibility for operating treatment plants and major components of the collection
system, such as interceptors and pumps stations. The municipal entity with land use authority often
retains responsibility for collection and connecting sewers. Typically, however, "service laterals" which
connect sewers to privately-owned buildings are privately owned. Loose, badly-designed and broken
building laterals can allow large flows of ground water and rain water to enter the sewers during wet
weather, causing SSOs. Municipalities often report that more than 50 percent of the leakage into their
collection systems is from building laterals. The policy dialogue is exploring ways to encourage
partnerships among collection system owners to encourage public programs to address problems with
service laterals, which could include maintenance standards and oversight.
Further, municipalities will benefit from coordinating monitoring and remediation efforts. The policy
dialogue is exploring ways in which to encourage effective partnerships between the different owners of
a collection system to ensure that adequate preventive maintenance occurs and, where rehabilitation
efforts are necessary, the most cost-effective solutions are employed.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Managing Stormwater Runoff: A New Direction
Thomas D. Tapley, Chief, GIS and Computer Modeling Division
Wayne H. Jenkins, Water Resources Engineer
Technical and Regulatory Services Administration, Maryland Dept. of the
Environment, Baltimore, MD
Ronald C. Gardner, Environmental Planner
Maryland Dept. of Natural Resources, Annapolis, MD
Introduction
It is easy to see, as watersheds are converted from natural and agricultural areas to urban developments,
that changes in land use and hydrology can trigger a corresponding cascade of adjustments that occur
downstream. Because of more efficient delivery systems that are part of the urban development
infrastructure (e.g., curbs and gutters, and storm sewer systems), an increased volume of stormwater
runoff reaches receiving streams quicker and with greater velocity. This increased runoff can cause severe
degradation, including stream channel erosion, sedimentation, flooding, physical destruction of biota, and
loss of stream and riparian habitat. Because the hydrology of a watershed is a closed system, with
increased surface runoff there must be a decrease in the amount of baseflow. The stream and its aquatic
habitat are therefore subjected to larger and more frequent high flows, and lower baseflows.
The intent of most stormwater management laws are to control the hydrologic peak of storm events to
prevent flooding and protect the physical and biological integrity of receiving streams. This paper
addresses two major concerns with the present method of implementing stormwater management
measures: where impacts to streams are measured and what factors are considered in the design process.
Concerns with Existing Stormwater Management Programs
-------
Presently, the point of investigation for modeling the effects of stormwater management structures is
usually at the property line of the site under consideration. A problem with this methodology is that
potential impacts to the stream are rarely, if ever, considered. In fact, there is no provision in most
stormwater regulations to identify the stream that will be receiving the stormwater. It is not clear how
individual streams can be protected under the current regulations if they are not investigated during the
planning and design phases of management.
The second concern is the focus on controlling the hydrologic peak of storm runoff. This design criteria
does not normally result in practices that reduce runoff volume and can still result in bank full flows in
the active stream channel for protracted periods. These high flows can result in the erosion of the channel
and stream banks. Channel morphology can change very rapidly, often resulting in deep channels with
very steep banks, the loss of ripples and natural meanders, and, in some cases, a complete loss of habitat.
Based on the above observations, we must conclude that many existing stormwater management
programs do not always meet the objectives of stream protection and water quality enhancement. In fact,
there is evidence that current programs can adversely effect stream channel erosion rates and produce
additional sediment pollution. McCuen (1979) found that, even when the decrease in natural storage
capacity of watersheds (infiltration, interception, and depression storage) was offset by stormwater
quantity control measures, there is an increased volume of direct runoff that remains uncontrolled.
In recent years, due to the focus on restoring the Chesapeake Bay, water quality concerns have been
addressed in Maryland's stormwater management program. The problem with focusing on water quality
control is that there is no comprehensive definition of what exactly it means. Therefore, it is difficult, if
not impossible, to construct water quality goals for stormwater management. Traditionally, water quality
control has meant one of two approaches: the use of a particular removal efficiency met with specified
design standards or the adoption of "rule of thumb" practices that are assumed to provide some level of
pollutant removal.
An example of the first approach can be found in the EPA guidance on management measures for use in
meeting the requirements of Section 6217(g) of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization of 1990. This
guidance document (which originates from Delaware's regulation) requires a design standard of 80%
average annual removal of total suspended solids (TSS). And example of the second approach is the
requirement for infiltrating the first half inch of runoff over the impervious area of the drainage area of
concern. This criteria is used quite often in Maryland where natural wetlands are receiving stormwater
runoff. Unfortunately, there is little or no direct relationship between these design standards and the
protection of streams impacted by development. According to EPA (1993), 80% removal of TSS was
selected because it "is assumed to control heavy metals, phosphorus, and other pollutants." As far as the
use of "rule of thumb" methods, there is only the assumption that the use of a particular practice will
control the hydrology to a point that mitigates impacts. There is no proof that this is the case. A procedure
is needed that focuses on the receiving stream rather than on design criteria. This approach would be
better suited to meet the intent of stormwater management laws.
-------
Proposed Modifications to Stormwater Management Programs
The current nationwide focus on comprehensive watershed management, cumulative impacts, and
biological criteria for water quality standards, presents an opportunity to re-examine the basic
assumptions and intent of stormwater management regulations and to recommend broad based changes
that will refocus stormwater management programs. To truly manage stormwater runoff and protect
streams, we must adopt an approach that considers the watershed as a system and focus on the total
impact runoff will have on the streams. This approach starts with a greater consideration of watershed
hydrology and of the point at where the hydrology and stream impacts are measured. The primary goal of
managing stormwater runoff should include the protection of natural stream and biological
characteristics. With this new approach, physical characteristics of streams would be used as limiting
factors that would determine how stormwater management practices are designed at a development site.
This method would also demonstrate that non-structural practices can be tightly woven into the same
design framework and have the potential to result in lower implementation and maintenance costs.
The newly proposed goal of stormwater management should be to limit the post development, bankfull
flow frequency, duration, and depth to pre-development values. These criteria replace the control of the 1-
year storm which is a surrogate for controlling channel erosion. The new goal could also just be used as a
check to verify compliance with bankfull flow requirements, once the stormwater management design for
a development is completed.
Two terms, bankfull flow and active channel, should be defined before proceeding. For bankfull flow, a
definition similar to that by Wolman and Miller (1960) can be adopted. Their definition for bankfull flow
is the flow event that controls the geometry of the channel which would relate to flows that result in the
covering of unconsolidated point bars. An active channel is a short-term geomorphic feature subject to
change by prevailing discharges. The active channel must be the primary factor in stream analysis in
watersheds that have undergone periodic urbanization events, since the geometry of the stream channel
may be quite complex and have numerous benches.
Consideration must be given to where the criteria will be evaluated. The idea is to protect the channel
downstream from the development site as well as at the immediate point of discharge from the property to
the receiving water. To accomplish this, some point downstream of the development site must be selected
for the evaluation. This location should be chosen based on the relationship of the flow in the receiving
water to the flow from the site in its developed condition (without any controls). For now, we propose a
10:1 ratio of peak discharge from the 1-year storm for the developed site to the discharge in the stream for
the same frequency storm. This means that the point of investigation would be a location downstream of
the development site at which the peak discharge from the 1-year storm would be equal to 10% of the
peak discharge in the stream. Bankfull flow would be determined at this downstream point and at the
point of discharge from the property into the receiving stream. This would give two locations at which to
meet the above bankfull flow volume criteria. If the discharge is less than 10 % at the site, then only one
point of investigation is needed. Once the criterions are set, stormwater management controls at the site
would be designed to meet the goals at these two locations.
-------
The components of a stormwater management program (design criteria, environmental site design
practices, waivers . . .) cannot be modified independently of one another. They are all integral to
successful implementation of the program. The goal is to control the volume and timing of flow from the
developed site so that it does not degrade the stream channel and habitat. Measures such as forest buffers,
open section roads and swales all effect the volume of runoff that leaves a site and the timing of
hydrographs. Currently, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) methods are the required
design tools in many states. We may need to re-examine the capabilities of these methods to meet our
goals. The rule of thumb with the NRCS methods are that they predict peak flow more accurately than
volume. A number of methods exist that integrate both water quantity and water quality. The EPA
SWWM model and PSRM-Qual, the latest version of the Penn State Runoff Model, are good examples.
Economic Considerations
During this time of fiscal restraint and anti-regulatory attitudes, any newly proposed regulation is
regarded with suspicion, if not hostility. However, we believe that this proposal, if implemented, will
benefit both developers and local jurisdictions in a variety of ways. It will produce a win-win situation for
both the economy and the environment.
The initial economic benefit of the proposed regulation will go to developers and their customers. Once
the stormwater management designers learn how to apply the new regulations, design costs should
decrease as the focus of the program shifts away from structural BMPs. In addition, the developers will
realize significant savings on construction costs. The use of traditional, more expensive stormwater
practices will be discouraged. These practices include closed section roads with curb and gutter; storm
drain systems with concrete pipes, manholes and outlets, and detention, retention and infiltration ponds.
Practices such as riparian buffers, proper grading, surface roughening, open section roads, and clustering
will instead be used to reach stormwater management goals.
Local jurisdictions will also benefit financially. Many of these jurisdictions currently have long-term
burdens of inspecting and maintaining ever-growing numbers of structural BMPs. These costs can be
substantial but are frequently under funded by public works departments with tight budgets and limited
personnel. As a result, these costs are being passed on to the future. In addition, if maintenance is not
performed, there may be a serious threat to public safety as these ponds begin to fail. Using non-
structural, environmental site design practices can produce a sharp reduction in growth of these
maintenance activities. The use of natural systems to augment or replace the current stormwater
management structures will significantly reduce the cost and magnitude of required maintenance for
future stormwater management structures. For example, forested buffers will only improve over time with
little or no maintenance. Prince George's County, Maryland is now conducting a low impact development
project because they have reached the conclusion that they cannot afford the maintenance on stormwater
management structures now in place, much less the new structures needed for future development.
Conclusion
-------
In summary, this proposed methodology will make on-site stormwater management dependant upon the
impact of runoff on the receiving stream. If the increase in runoff is substantial enough to raise
streamflow above the erosion rate for the stream, then stormwater controls will be adjusted at the site to
reduce the runoff going to the stream. This approach would also give impetus to stormwater management
designers to use environmentally sensitive, nonstructural practices in their plans. Using this new
approach, sites would be designed so as to reduce runoff, and developments would be produced that are
less intrusive to the environment and more appealing to home buyers. The economic benefits of this
approach would extend to the private and public sectors alike as fewer stormwater management structures
would have to be constructed and maintained.
References
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. (January, 1993) Guidance Specifying Management
Measures for Sources of Nonpoint Pollution in Coastal Waters.
McCuen, R.H. (November 1979) Downstream Effects of Stormwater Management Basins. Journal
of the Hydraulics Division, American Society of Civil Engineers, Vol. 105, HY11.
Williams, G.P. (November 1978) Bank-Full Discharges of Rivers. Water Resources Research,
Vol. 14.
Wolman, M.G. and J.P. Miller. (January 1960) Magnitude and Frequency of Forces in
Geomorphic Processes. Journal of Geology, Vol. 68, No. 1.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Funding Regional Flood Control Improvements in
Fort Bend County, Texas
Carolyn Gilligan, P.E., Senior Hydrologist
RUST Lichliter/Jameson, Houston, TX
The greatest obstacle to implementing a storm drainage, or flood control plan is often funding. Of course,
many types of regional utility projects have difficulty finding financial support. But the sporadic nature
of flood flows creates additional issues. A public outcry for improved service during wet periods may die
away during dry years. Many drainage and flood control agencies can offer examples of flooding
problems that became nonexistent when the cost of an improvement plan of was presented, especially if
several years of dry weather occurred during the planning and design period. It is usually when a
regulatory agency places restrictions, or even a moratorium, on new development that the search for
funding options begins in earnest.
This was basically the situation facing those wishing to develop in Fort Bend County's Middle Oyster
Creek watershed during the mid- and late-1980's. Located southwest of Houston, Fort Bend County
ranks among the fastest-growing counties in the nation. Even with the downturn in the petroleum
industry in the early 1980's, the population of Fort Bend County experienced a growth rate of almost 250
percent resulting in a population of 179,732 by 1986. Population projections indicate more than one
million people will call Fort Bend County "home" by the year 2030.
The Oyster Creek watershed in Fort Bend County is a very complex watershed. The creek parallels the
Brazos River from Jones Creek in the northwest corner of the county almost to the southwest county line.
At that point Oyster Creek is blocked by a levee (Sienna Plantation development) and has been diverted
to the Brazos River. The Galveston County Water Authority owns a flowage easement on Oyster Creek
and uses three dams on the channel to store water in the reach from Jones Creek to the beginning of the
reach discussed in this paper. The water stored in the creek is sold for industrial and agricultural uses.
Portions of the Oyster Creek flow are diverted to the Brazos at two additional points, one upstream of the
-------
three dams, and at Flat Bank Creek which is between the third dam and the Sienna levee. The total area
of the Middle Oyster Creek watershed, including the Flat Bank Creek diversion and Stafford Run
tributary sub-watersheds, is almost 13,350 acres.
In 1986 approximately 25 percent of the Middle Oyster Creek watershed was developed, with a
population of 23,300 dispersed among several master planned communities. Unfortunately, although
Middle Oyster Creek was an improved channel throughout most of its reach, there was not enough
capacity for the additional storm water runoff that more development would generate. Several
subdivisions had been built close to portions of both Stafford Run and Middle Oyster Creek, limiting the
land available for right-of-way to widen the channel. The Flat Bank Creek diversion, which directed
flows to the Brazos River, crossed undeveloped pasture and range land and no right-of-way existed to
allow for construction of any drainage improvements except by the landowner.
Therefore, Fort Bend County, through platting requirements enforced by the County Engineer and the
Drainage District Engineer, required new development to provide on-site detention limiting developed
runoff to the pre-development rate, or c cfs/acre. These restrictions were supported by the cities having
jurisdiction over portions of the watershed: Sugar Land, Missouri City, and Stafford. Even with these
restrictions, the frequency and severity of nuisance street ponding was increasing, leading to public
concern for drainage improvements. In July 1987, water, up to three feet deep in places, remained in
residential streets for more than 36 hours after an intense summer storm followed several days of wet
weather.
By that time several efforts had already been started with the goal of improving the drainage for the
existing residents, as well as providing additional drainage capacity needed for future development.
Stafford and Missouri City had jointly sponsored a drainage study for Stafford Run that recommended a
combination of channel improvements and regional detention and provided a phasing plan for the
improvements. Local developers, through the utility improvement district, had also established a plan for
widening Middle Oyster Creek. Fort Bend County planned channel improvements to Flat Bank Creek
and had started negotiations with the landowners for easements.
All these efforts were thwarted, however, because the funds required for such a massive regional
drainage project were not available. Neither the cities, nor Fort Bend County could fund capital
improvements through bond sales without taxpayer approval. Since the majority of the voters in Fort
Bend County would not derive any benefit from the project, passage of a bond election was doubtful.
None of the smaller government jurisdictions (utility improvement districts) were capable of funding the
entire project.
State legislation provided the vehicles to fund and implement this regional project. Article 1434a,
Vernon's Texas Civil Statutes ("Article 1434a") authorizes creation of a nonprofit water supply
corporation to provide for, among other things, flood control and drainage. Therefore, Fort Bend County
created the Fort Bend Flood Control Water Supply Corporation (WSC) to be "operated for the benefit of
Fort Bend County, having the specific and primary purposes of providing a flood control and drainage
-------
system for towns, cities, counties, other political subdivisions, private corporations, individuals and other
persons of Fort Bend County. "1 Although a "duly constituted authority of Fort Bend County2," the WSC
is not a political subdivision. Article 1434a essentially authorizes the WSC to finance drainage
improvements by issuing tax-exempt revenue bonds "on behalf of Fort Bend County.
The total construction cost of the regional flood control improvements to Middle Oyster Creek, Stafford
Run and Flat Bank Creek was estimated to be $21,219540. The Fort Bend County Drainage District
agreed to fund $1,000,000 and $1,000,000 was obtained from the prepayment of impact fees. The WSC
then applied to the Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) for $20,325,000 in financial assistance to
fund the balance of the construction, and the bond issuance costs. The WSC bond issue was purchased by
the TWDB which used funds allocated to them by the State of Texas. Since the WSC had only recently
been created and organized; it had no credit history. The cost of issuing bonds to the public, if possible at
all, would have been substantially greater than the cost obtained through the TWDB.
The WSC cannot levy taxes. To make sure the TWDB would recover its investment an "Installment
Sales Agreement" was executed between the WSC, Fort Bend County and the Fort Bend County
Drainage District. This agreement provided that payment of the principal of and interest on the WSC
bonds would be from collection of taxes levied by the Fort Bend County Commissioner's Court and
developer impact fees collected by the Drainage District.
Chapter 395 of the Texas Administrative Code (TAC) governs financing capital improvements required
by new development through impact fees. By definition, an impact fee is a "charge or assessment
imposed by a political subdivision against new development in order to generate revenue for funding or
recouping the costs of capital improvements or facility expansions necessitated by and attributable to the
new development3." Dedication of right-of-way or easements, or construction of on-site drainage
facilities are not considered impact fees. For example, the acreage dedicated for the channel right-of-way
is not included in the calculation of the acreage subject to the impact fee.
The items payable by the impact fee are limited by the legislation to the following:
¦ the construction contract price;
¦ surveying and engineering fees;
¦ land acquisition costs, including land purchases, court awards and costs, attorneys' fees, and
expert witness fees; and
¦ fees paid to a financial consultant, or an independent engineer, who is not an employee of the
political subdivision, for preparing or updating the capital improvements plan.
If the impact fees are used for the payment of principal and interest on bonds or notes, the projected
interest charges and other finance costs may be included in determining the amount of the impact fee.
-------
Impact fees cannot be used to pay for:
¦ any improvements or facilities not identified in the capital improvements plan;
¦ repair, operation, or expansion of any existing or new facilities;
¦ upgrading, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to serve existing development
in order to meet stricter standards; and
¦ upgrading, expanding, or replacing existing capital improvements to better serve existing
development.
Impact fees may be collected before the capital improvement plan is implemented, but when a political
subdivision begins collecting impact fees, it commits to begin construction within two years, and have
the service available within a reasonable period of time, but no longer than five years.
The maximum impact fee is determined by dividing the costs of the capital improvements that will serve
new development by the number of projected service units. For the Middle Oyster Creek, Stafford Run,
Flat Bank Creek Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) the impact fee was calculated by dividing the
$12,391,000 projected cost of the improvements attributable to new development by the 6241 acres of
additional land that would, be served by the project. The initial impact fee was $1,985. In the
developments that were already providing detention, the impact fees were prorated based on the
effectiveness of the detention in reducing the developed flows entering Middle Oyster Creek. The Fort
Bend County Commissioner's Court passed a resolution adopting the impact fee in September 1988,
allowing the Drainage District to begin collecting the fee.
After the bonds were issued July 5, 1989, interest began accruing. The impact fee has been escalated
monthly in order to recoup the finance charges, also. The current impact fee (as of January 5, 1996) is
$2,291. On February 5, it will increase to $2,933. Including the prepaid impact fees, more than
$2,560,000 has been collected from almost 1500 acres since the impact fee was established.
In 1995, the WSC reviewed their budget for the CIP and determined that an additional $5,000,000 would
be needed to complete the project as originally presented. Several factors contributed to the need for
these additional funds:
¦ and acquisition costs were substantially greater than originally estimated;
¦ changes in the state sales tax laws resulted in contractors having to pay more sales tax on their
transient equipment used in construction. This increased the cost of construction;
¦ the scope of the channel for Flat Bank Creek originally proposed increasing the capacity to only
-------
60 percent of the ultimate requirement. This scope was revised and the channel was constructed to
100 percent of the ultimate capacity;
¦ utility relocations within subdivisions that were not anticipated; and
¦ unforeseen soil conditions that required specialized construction method.
The WSC obtained an additional loan from the TWDB to cover the shortfall. The average debt service
payment by Fort Bend County was estimated to be approximately $490,000, which equates to $0.0054
per $100 valuation based on the current assessed valuation. If impact fee payments, or assessed
valuations increase, the tax rate necessary to pay the debt service will decrease.
Chapter 395 also specifies the elements of the capital improvement plan. The capital improvements or
facility expansions must have a life expectancy of three or more years and be owned and operated by, or
on behalf of a political subdivision. A developer cannot be required to construct or dedicate facilities and
to pay impact fees for those facilities. However, a developer may construct or finance the capital
improvements or facility expansion and the costs incurred can be credited against the impact fees that
would otherwise be due.
The capital improvements plan must be prepared by a licensed professional engineer and contain specific
enumeration of the following items:
¦ a description of the existing capital improvements with the service area and the costs to upgrade,
improve, expand, or replace the improvements to meet existing needs;
¦ an analysis of the total capacity, the level of current usage and commitments for usage of the
capacity of the existing capital improvements;
¦ a description of the portion of the capital improvements and their costs necessitated by and
attributable to new development in the service area;
¦ the specific level or quantity of use, consumption, generation, or discharge of a service unit;
¦ the total number of service units necessitated by and attributable to new development within the
service area;
¦ the projected demand for capital improvements required by new development projected over a
reasonable period of time, not to exceed 10 years.
The engineering studies that were already completed were combined to form the CIP for the Middle
Oyster Creek watershed. Construction of the initial phase of the project began in September 1989 and is
substantially complete. As-built drawings of the 150-acre detention pond site are being finalized and
-------
construction is nearly complete along the most upstream reach of the Stafford Run portion of the project.
With the channel construction and as-built surveys completed, final computer models of the project will
be generated and final project costs tabulated. When this information is available, the actual costs to new
development can be calculated and the CIP and impact fee will be revised accordingly. Preliminary
calculations indicate the updated impact fee could be almost $2,500, based on the revised construction
costs. Portions of the project are already being maintained by the Drainage District pursuant to the
Installment Sales Agreement. In a separate agreement, Stafford and Missouri City agreed to maintain the
detention area as a park while the Drainage District maintains and operates the drainage and flood control
improvements.
Fort Bend County has already begun to realize substantial economic benefit from the portions of the CIP
that have been constructed. The completed improvements have provided drainage capacity for a
significant portion of the master planned community of First Colony, which would not have been
possible without the Middle Oyster Creek improvements. The continued development in First Colony has
added more than $106,300,000 in taxable assessed value providing in excess of $700,000 in annual
county tax revenue. Using the estimated increased assessed value of $400,000 per acre realized in First
Colony, the full 6,241 acres of development that will have drainage capacity will generate a total of
$2,500,000,000 in assessed values and $16,500,000 in annual tax revenues, based on the current tax rate.
Using the current tax rate of $0.66 and these values, development of only 1,000 acres will be sufficient to
service the WSC bonds.
References
1. Articles of Incorporation of Fort Bend Flood Control Water Supply Corporation.
2. Resolution Authorizing the Creation of Fort Bend Flood Control Water Supply Corporation;
Approving the Articles of Incorporation Thereof; and Containing Other Provisions Relating
Thereto.
3. Section 395.001 TAC.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Development of Cost-Effective Stormwater
T reatment Alternatives
Thomas R. Sear, P.E., Senior Water Resources Engineer
CH2M HILL, Orlando, FL
James S. Bays, Senior Ecologist
CH2M HILL, Tampa, FL
Gene W. Medley, Supervisor of Lakes and Environmental Programs
City of Lakeland Department of Public Works, Lakeland, FL
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
In recent years, much effort has been expended in the State of Florida to create innovative stormwater
treatment facilities. In addition, much has been learned about the effectiveness of various best
management practices (BMPs) in removing stormwater pollutants. This expanded body of knowledge
provides the facility designer with a wide range of potential stormwater treatment options, and allows the
prediction of pollutant removal, given the chosen BMP and resulting design. This information is
particularly important for the design of retrofit stormwater treatment facilities, since more traditional
methods of design, as related to new development, are generally less appropriate.
-------
What has been lacking in the design of retrofit facilities, however, is a framework that allows the
selection of one or more BMPs that results in the creation of the most cost-effective stormwater treatment
alternative, as defined by minimizing cost for a fixed pollutant removal goal or maximizing pollutant
removal for a fixed budget. Production theory provides a framework for this process, which includes the
creation of BMP production functions that compare technology effort (e.g., sweeping frequency, pond
volume) to the fraction of pollutants removed over an extended time period, and cost functions that
compare technology effort to the cost of implementation. Production and cost functions allow the unit
cost of pollutant removal to be determined for each BMP alternative, and the most cost-effective
alternative to be chosen.
The use of production and cost functions is demonstrated by a project completed by CH2M HILL for the
City of Lakeland in February 1995, called the Lake Hollingsworth Watershed Management Plan. This
study involved the evaluation of five stormwater treatment technologies, including street sweeping, dry
bottom retention ponds, curb-cut swales, wet detention ponds, and wetlands. Four production functions
were developed for this study, which are described in the following paragraphs.
Use of the production and cost functions for the Lake Hollingsworth Project allowed the evaluation of
nine BMP alternatives, including three alternatives each for three total suspended solids (TSS) removal
goals (20, 50 and 80 percent). The resulting analysis presented the unit cost of TSS removal for each of
the nine alternatives, which allowed the most cost-effective alternative to be identified for each TSS
removal goal. This approach allows the facility manager to make fiscally responsible decisions regarding
stormwater treatment, particularly when creating retrofit facilities for areas with existing development.
Production and Cost Function Development
The street sweeping analysis was performed with the RUNOFF Block of the Storm Water Management
Model (SWMM), which allows simulation of pollutant deposition and washoff and pollutant removal by
street sweeping, as defined by sweeping frequency and sweeper pickup efficiency. The test sub-basin
defined for this analysis was an urban street 300 feet long by 14 feet wide that is directly connected to a
stormwater collection system. Sweeping intervals and the corresponding level of effort (sweeping
frequency, expressed in sweeper passes per day) ranged from once per year (0.00274 passes per day) to
once per day. Street sweeper pollutant pick up efficiency is defined as the fraction of available street
gutter pollutants removed by a single pass of the street sweeper. Efficiencies of 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 and
0.6 were used in the simulations.
Given the simulated pollutant removals, a regression analysis was completed for each of the six street
sweeper efficiencies, and street sweeping production functions were created that relate the street
sweeping pollutant removal fraction (PRF) to sweeping frequency (Xsw) and sweeper pick-up efficiency
(Eff). Street sweeping costs were estimated using information obtained from the City of Lakeland
Construction and Maintenance Department. Street sweeping costs totaled approximately $33.38 per curb-
mile.
-------
Storage/infiltration technologies include dry bottom ponds and swales. Their analysis began with the
simulation of 10-year runoff arrays using SWMM for three sample sub-basins that represent a range of
hydrologic conditions. The CH2M HILL computer program Wet-Weather Facilities (WWFAC) was then
executed using the three runoff arrays as input. Given a particular combination of storage volume and
infiltration rate, WWFAC determines the long-term average capture and treatment (infiltration) of the
storage/infiltration system. System storage volume (Vs) was reported as a normalized storage volume
ratio (Vs/Vr), where Vr is the average annual runoff volume discharging to the facility. The annual
infiltration volume (Qi) was reported as a normalized infiltration volume ratio (Qi/Vr), where Qi is the
volume of water that will infiltrate in a one-year period, given an average infiltration rate (qi) and a
constant supply of water. The purpose of the normalizing Vs and Qi is to develop dimensionless ratios
that allow the resulting production functions to be applied to storage/infiltration systems of varying sizes
and locations.
Regression analyses were then used to develop storage/infiltration system production functions (Figure
1), where the storm water capture fraction (SCF) is presented as a function of Vs/Vr and Qi/Vr. SCF is
the fraction of Vr that the facility will annually store and infiltrate. Construction cost estimates were
created for a range of dry bottom pond sizes and curb-cut swale lengths, using an appropriate list of
quantities and unit prices and typical pond/swale cross-sections. The relationship between Vs and
construction cost was then analyzed using linear regression, which produced the following cost
functions: dry bottom pond (cost = $4,700 + [Vs x $41,145/acre-feet]) and curb-cut swale (cost = $3,450
+ [Vs x $112,300/acre-feet]). These cost functions do not include property costs or annual operation and
maintenance (O&M) costs.
Wet detention systems include wet detention ponds and wetlands. These systems were analyzed in a
manner similar to storage/infiltration systems. The three runoff arrays were input to the CH2M HILL
WETPOND computer program, which simulates long-term removal of TSS achieved by dynamic and
quiescent sedimentation processes. Dynamic sedimentation occurs during a runoff event when there is
flow through the wet detention system. Quiescent sedimentation occurs during dry inter-event periods,
when there is no flow through the system. The WETPOND simulation calculates the dynamic and
quiescent TSS removal achieved during each event and inter-event period, and tracks long-term solids
removal for a range of wet detention system storage volumes and depths. Pond water surface area (Ap)
was reported as a normalized pond area ratio (Ap/Aws), where Aws is the watershed drainage area.
The wet detention system dynamic removal production functions were created that relate the dynamic
TSS removal fraction (Rd) to Ap/Aws and Vr (inches). In addition, wet detention system quiescent
removal production functions were created that relate the quiescent TSS removal fraction (Rq) to Vs/Vr
and pond depth. The total TSS removal fraction (Rt) for a specified wet detention facility is equal to the
sum of Rd and Rq. The relationship between Vs and construction cost was analyzed, producing the
following cost functions: wet detention pond (cost = $20,500 + [Vs x j], where j = $56,030, $35,900, and
$30,330 per acre-foot for pond depths of 2, 4, and 6 feet, respectively) and wetland (cost = $19,000 + [Vs
x $95,250/acre-feet] for a 1-foot pond depth). These cost functions do not include property costs or
annual O&M costs.
-------
Application Of Production And Cost Functions
A review of field conditions and the existing storm water infrastructure allowed the delineation of 16
potential stormwater pond sites within the Lake Hollingsworth watershed, as related to the construction
of dry bottom retention ponds, wet detention ponds, and wetlands. The length of street curb in each sub-
basin was also determined, as related to the construction of curb-cut swales and the application of street
sweeping. Each BMP was evaluated over a range of efforts. Street sweeping within each sub-basin was
evaluated using nine different sweeping intervals (from daily through once per year). Dry bottom ponds,
wet detention ponds, and wetlands were evaluated over a range of site development fractions (SDF),
which describe the fraction of potential pond site that is used for the construction of a stormwater
treatment pond or wetland. Curb-cut swales were evaluated over a range of curb fractions that describe
the fraction of the total curb length in the sub-basin that is assigned an adjacent curb-cut swale.
The production functions were used to determine the fraction of TSS removed for each BMP level of
effort. Each of these removal fractions was multiplied by the average annual TSS load available to the
BMP, which provided the average annual TSS load removed by the BMP for a particular level of effort
(TSS removed = available TSS x PRF, SCF or Rt). Cost functions were used to estimate the present
worth cost associated with a particular BMP and an identified level of effort. Finally, the present worth
unit cost of TSS removal (cost per pound of TSS removed) was determined for each BMP level of effort,
as summarized in Figure 2.
Summary Observations And Alternative Evaluation
1. Production functions are not watershed- or site-specific because normalized values are used to
identify level of effort and can be used throughout the planning area.
2. Figure 2 allows the comparison of the unit costs of TSS removal for the selected BMPs, which
rank as follows (least to most expensive): wet detention ponds (6 feet depth), wetlands, dry
bottom retention ponds, curb-cut swales, and street sweeping.
3. The relative unit cost of street sweeping would be less if land and O&M costs were added to the
other unit costs presented in Figure 2.
4. The production functions demonstrated that retention ponds and curb-cut swales require
significantly more land area than wet detention ponds or wetlands for the same fraction of TSS
removal. If land costs are included, wet detention ponds and wetlands become even more cost-
effective than dry bottom ponds and curb-cut swales. For example, given a TSS removal fraction
of 0.75, the corresponding ratio of retention pond site area to wet detention pond site area is
approximately 7:1.
These observations were used to create three alternatives for each of the three pollutant removal goals
-------
(20-, 50-, and 80-percent TSS removal). TSS removal was related to the removal of other pollutant types
through the use of regression formulas. Each of the three alternative categories emphasized a different
BMP approach, including wet detention ponds (Category A), infiltration ponds (Category B), and curb-
cut swales with street sweeping (Category C). The lowest and highest unit cost of TSS removal in each
alternative group were provided by the "A" and "C" category, respectively. The total present worth cost
estimated for each of the TSS removal goals for each alternative category is provided in Table 1.
As provided by Table 1, the present worth cost of a storm water retrofit alternative can vary dramatically,
depending on the desired fraction of pollutant to be removed and the selected combination of stormwater
treatment technologies.
Wastewater and water treatment plant managers have long been required to provide cost-effective facility
designs. Stormwater facility managers must now demonstrate the same fiscal responsibility when
designing stormwater treatment alternatives. Production and cost functions allow the facility manager to
identify the most cost-effective stormwater treatment alternative for a given pollutant removal goal.
References
CH2M HILL. (1995) Lake Hollingsworth Watershed Management Plan. Prepared for the City of
Lakeland Department of Public Works.
Wycoff, R.L. Application of Production Theory to Watershed Planning. Proceedings of the 3rd
Biennial Stormwater Research Conference, Tampa, Florida. Sponsored by SWFWMD. October 7-
8, 1993.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A National Non-Point Source Pollution Monitoring
Program for the National Estuarine Research
Reserve System
Dwight D. Trueblood, Science Coordinator
Alice Stratton, Ecologist
NOAA, Sanctuaries and Reserves Division, Silver Spring, MD
NERRS Research Coordinators 1
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Estuaries are dynamic ecosystems that respond readily to large scale perturbations from natural and
anthropogenic events. The wetlands associated with estuaries are often the ultimate receiving waters and
catchment basins for both point and non-point source pollution runoff. Estuaries are therefore model
systems for tracking pollutant levels and for assessing the effectiveness of management practices
designed to curb runoff and environmental degradation (Albert, 1988). The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration's (NOAA's) National Estuarine Research Reserve System (NERRS),
comprised of over 400,000 acres of estuarine waters, wetlands and upland habitat, is a national system of
wetlands research sites that provide a stage for monitoring changes in the health, integrity and
biodiversity of the Nation's coastal ecosystems and their living resources. The NERRS is a system of 22
estuarine ecosystems located around the United States (Figure 1). Each NERRS site was selected to serve
as a natural estuarine laboratory for conducting field and monitoring research while protecting the
ecological, economic, recreational and aesthetic values of the selected estuarine ecosystems.
-------
January, 1995
Padilla Bay, WA st. Lawrence
_ Old Woman Creek. OH
—i \ 7——
south Slough, QP^ ^ ^ (_ _j f
San Francisco Bay, CAJfc ,
Elkhorn Slough, CA* \ /-
Tijuana River, CA*"-^...

Wairnanu Val
ey, HI
• DESIGNATED
~ SITESPROPOSED
River, NY
ujison River, NY
Wells, ME
Great Bay, NH
Waquoit E3a^ MA
Narragari sett "Bay, Rl
Mullica River, NJ
Delaware
Chesapeake Bay, Maryland
Chesapeake Bay, Virginia
North Carolina
"""-North Inlet/Winyah Bay, SC
r AC E B as i n, S C
Vm 'Sapelo Island, GA
East Coast of Florida
Rookery Bay, FL Jobos Bay, PR
Apalachicola Bay, FL
Figure 1. Map of the National Estuarine Research Reserve System.
This paper presents an overview of the NERRS National Monitoring Program and highlight two
examples of the monitoring data and their utility for managing non-point source pollution in estuarine
ecosystems. The programmatic goal of the NERRS national monitoring program is to "...identify and
track short-term variability and long-term changes in the integrity and biodiversity of representative
estuarine ecosystems and coastal watersheds for the purposes of contributing to effective national,
regional, and site-specific coastal zone management." Critical baseline data and integrated monitoring
records are not yet available to many coastal zone managers in a format that allows them to evaluate the
importance of large- and small-scale changes in water quality parameters. New databases are needed
from a nationally coordinated system of reference sites in order to track instantaneous variability among
physico-chemical and biological variables over a meaningful range of spatial scales (local, regional,
national) and temporal scales (minutes, hours, days, months, years) that are appropriate for coastal zone
decision making. The NERRS national monitoring program is designed to describe and document
changes in the health, integrity, and biodiversity of the Nation's coastal ecosystems and their living
resources.
Phase I Methods
Each NERR is deploying a minimum of two YSI Model 6000 dataloggers. One datalogger is deployed as
a long-term control in a "pristine" location within each NERR. All additional dataloggers are deployed at
each site to test specific non-point source pollution questions within each reserve (Table 1). At every site,
water temperature, conductivity (salinity), pressure (depth), pH, and turbidity are collected. Nutrients
(nitrogen, phosphorous) and other ancillary data (e.g. fecal coliform) are collected at specific sites where
this information addresses specific non-point source pollution questions. Beginning in 1996, weather data
(wind speed and direction, air temperature, relative humidity, rainfall, barometric pressure,
photo synthetically active radiation) will be collected at each Reserve allowing local weather events to be
-------
related to runoff observations.
Following data collection, the raw data is processed using a rigorous Quality Assurance-Quality Control
procedure at each site. The processed data is then transmitted to the NERRS Centralized Data
Management Office (CDMO) housed at the North Inlet-Winyah Bay NERR, Belle W. Baruch Institute of
Marine Biology and Coastal Science, SC. The CDMO summarizes the processed data into standard
graphical products which are made available over the internet to researchers, coastal zone managers, and
the general public. Site-specific data files will be available upon request. The CDMO home page address
is http://inlet.geol. scarolina.edu/nerrscdmo.html.
Example 1: Important Estuarine Baseline Data for Restoration Efforts
and Water Quality Model
At the South Slough NERR, YSI-6000 dataloggers are currently collecting baseline information on the
water quality and hydraulic flushing patterns through tidal wetlands. This information is being collected
to characterize the flushing cycles of the semidiuranl tides between a reference and management-
treatment monitoring stations prior to initiation of marsh restoration efforts in 1996. Data from late May
and early June at South Slough illustrate strongly periodic temperature, salinity, pH, and dissolved
oxygen values that fluctuate in synchrony with the ebb and flood of daily tidal cycles. Bottom
temperatures, salinity and pH values all decrease with falling tides and increase with flooding tides. In
contrast, dissolved oxygen values (both DO % saturation and mg/1) are highest during low tides and
decrease during high tides. These cyclic and synchronous fluctuations can be readily explained by the
warming of shallow estuarine waters as they flow into the upper regions of the South Slough, and they
provide a characteristic signature and understanding for the dynamics of bottom waters in the tidal
channels during late spring and early summer. The South Slough water quality data provide a valuable
record of tidal amplitude and timing differences between the reverence and management-treatment sites,
and document unexpected temporal patterns and a strong autocorrelation between DO, temperature, and
tides.
Example 2: Coastal Development Pressure in South Carolina
The ACE Basin NERR's monitoring program is focusing on documenting the effects of urban runoff on
this Reserve. Development pressure is increasing, largely from residential and resort development in
areas surrounding the Reserve. Increased expansion of high and low-density development dispersed
throughout the area will likely fragment existing natural habitat. Depletion of groundwater by increased
development may also result in destruction of saltmarsh. Hydrologic modifications have already occurred
to a limited extent within portions of the Reserve through construction of small access canals,
impoundments, and the Intracoastal Waterway. Increased boat traffic through these manmade canals
could result in increased erosion of marsh vegetation. Population trends in the more developed portions
of the Reserve are indicative of rapid population growth and resultant demands for residential,
commercial and industrial development being experienced n other parts of coastal South Carolina. This
contrasts with areas of the Reserve that are undergoing little or no development pressure. Comparisons
-------
between the developed and undeveloped wetlands at ACE Basin NERR will allow the effects of
commercial development on water quality to be quantified within the Reserve.
Future Monitoring in the NERRS
Phase II of the NERRS National Monitoring Program, which is scheduled for implementation in 1996-
97, will begin monitoring changes in ecological conditions such as biodiversity and the abundance or
percent cover of key wetland species. Phase III of the monitoring plan will couple coastal watershed
landuse patterns to the NPS pollution data collected at each Reserve. For this phase we will make use of
satellite imagery, aerial photography, in situ monitoring and research data, and other collateral data
organized within the context of a Geographic Information System.
A major goal of the NERRS monitoring program is to serve as the baseline from which the effectiveness
of different coastal watershed management practices within the NERRS will be gauged. Additionally, the
NERRS Monitoring Program aims to collect data that is directly relevant to addressing cross-cutting
coastal management issues related to non-point source pollution. Successful integrated coastal
management requires several essential characteristics: 1) effective communications, coordination, and
interaction among disciplines and programs relating to coastal and ocean management, 2) ongoing
monitoring, evaluation, and adaptive management, 3) application and sharing of fiscal, human, and
technical resources, and 4) effective interaction between science and policy development (NOAA/NOS,
1995). The NERRS monitoring program is specifically designed to include all of the elements of
successful integrated coastal management within the NERRS and state-based CZM efforts.
References
Albert, R. C. (1988) The historical context of water quality management for the Delaware
Estuary. Estuaries 11: 99-107.
NOAA/NOS (1995) Healthy coastal ecosystems and the role of integrated coastal management.
30 pp.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Water Quality Data Evaluation and Analysis for the
Florida Everglades
Michael P. Sullivan
Zhida Song-James
Gregory Prelewicz
Limno-Tech, Inc., Washington, DC
Joanne Chamberlain
South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
The Florida Everglades are a unique watershed in southern Florida. The Everglades provide extensive
habitat and serve many other purposes including water supply, flood control, and recreation. These
competing needs are often in conflict. In 1994, the Everglades Forever Act (EFA) was adopted to restore
and protect the ecological integrity of this threatened wetland resource (State of Florida, 1994). In order
to address specific goals defined in the EFA, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD)
and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) developed an Everglades Program
Implementation Plan (SFWMD and FDEP, 1994). The plan consists of fifty-five individual projects
within eight elements, and includes research and monitoring (RAM) projects targeted at key questions
and issues regarding water quality, water quantity, and the invasion of exotic species. The first RAM
project (RAM-1) addressed the EFA requirement to review and evaluate available water quality data in
-------
the Everglades and tributary waters. The purpose of this paper is to report on the results of this
comprehensive review and evaluation (Limno-Tech, 1995). The results of this watershed-based analysis
of the Everglades have been used to guide other RAM activities and projects.
Study Methodology
The technical approach consisted of a data search and compilation followed by a three-tiered data
evaluation focused upon State of Florida Class III parameters and water quality criteria. The time period
examined was extended over fourteen water years from 1979 through 1993.
The study area covered eight subwatersheds within the Everglades (Figure 1).
Figure 1+ Sub watersheds, omuls, and monitoring stations*
-------
The subwatersheds and water quality monitoring stations are described below:
¦ Select stations within the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA).
¦ All stations within Water Conservation Areas 1 (WC1), 2A (W2A), 2B (W2B), 3 A (W3A) and
3B (W3B).
¦ All stations within the Everglades National Park (ENP).
¦ Select stations in eastern Collier County (COL).
Data Management
Water quality data was retrieved from the central data base at the SFWMD. Several data management
activities were required to prepare the data for review and analysis, including:
¦ GIS coverages for subwatershed boundaries, water quality stations, and canals and structures were
used to confirm station locations and station names within the study area. Stations were evaluated
according to station names, aliases, and reported latitude and longitude in order to identify unique
station locations and to assign a dominant station name where more than one name had been used.
¦ Data was screened to ensure consistency with the boundary of the study area and period of
interest, to search for obviously spurious values, and to eliminate records identified as data base
duplicates (not field duplicates).
Procedures were applied to estimate values reported as "nondetects" in order to include this
information in the statistical analysis. For parameters that do not have numeric water quality
criterion, one-half of the reported detection level was used as an estimate of the concentration for
-------
values reported as nondetects. For parameters that do have numeric water quality criterion, one-
half of the reported detection level or one-half of the criterion, which ever was less, was used as
an estimate of the concentration for values reported as nondetects.
¦ Logical groupings of stations were developed in order to compare spatial and functional
differences in water quality within the study area. Groupings subdivided the study area into units
smaller than sub watersheds. Two types of groupings were defined: interior stations where water
movement was typically slow; and structural stations where water movement was controlled and
typically more rapid.
Parameter specific data files were produced following the data management activities. In certain
instances it was necessary to extract and associate concurrent hardness, pH, and temperature data with
other parameters in order to facilitate a comparison of observed values with water quality criteria.
Data Evaluation
The data analysis involved three levels of complexity corresponding to the significance of the data with
respect to characterizing environmental conditions in the study area.
1. Level 1 analysis consisted of developing station summaries on the occurrence and characteristics
of data at individual stations by parameter, including a comparison with water quality criteria
where applicable. Summaries for subwatersheds, groupings, and for all stations were also
developed.
2. Level 2 analysis consisted of more detailed statistical and graphical analysis of a subset of
parameters. The subset included all of those parameters where the percent of excursions from
water quality criterion equaled or exceeded one percent. Total phosphorus and total nitrogen were
included because of widespread interest in these parameters. Level 2 included development of
percentile analyses of station median values by subwatershed; map graph analyses showing the
location and relative percent of excursions from water quality criterion; and time plots of
excursions.
3. Level 3 analysis consisted of trend analysis for total phosphorus and total nitrogen for select
stations and groupings at the interface of the EAA and the Water Conservation Areas, and at the
interface of the Water Conservation Areas and the ENP.
Comparisons with Water Quality Criteria
The comparison of water quality data with water quality criteria was an important aspect of the study as
it provided a means to identify potential problems. Several caveats regarding this comparison are:
-------
¦ The comparison of pH was based upon criterion for fresh water except for a select grouping of
stations located in the southeast panhandle of ENP, where brackish conditions existed, and
comparison with criterion for marine waters was appropriate.
¦ The comparison of specific conductance was based upon the maximum criterion of 1,275 umhos.
The water quality criterion states that conductance shall not be increased more than 50 percent
above background or to 1275, whichever is greater. Use of the 25th quartile value for each
subwatershed as a conservative approximation of background produced values lower than 1,275
when increased by 50 percent, making 1,275 umhos the appropriate criterion.
¦ The water quality criterion for turbidity states that turbidity should be less than or equal to 29
NTUs above natural background conditions. In order to approximate natural background
conditions, the 25th quartile value for each subwatershed was used as a conservative
approximation for the comparison with water quality criterion.
¦ The analysis of ammonia and the comparison of unionized ammonia with water quality criterion
was complicated because the conversion of ammonia to its unionized fraction requires concurrent
pH and temperature data. A direct comparison of unionized ammonia with water quality criterion
was conducted for the data where concurrent pH and temperature values were available
(approximately 65 percent of the ammonia data). A separate comparison of all of the ammonia
data utilizing a conservative estimate for missing pH and temperature data (95th percentile by
subwatershed) was also conducted.
¦ For most of the metals data, including arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper, lead, nickel and zinc,
the data base contained only the total fraction of these metals, with no information on the total
recoverable fraction. Florida water quality criteria for metals are expressed as the total
recoverable fraction. Therefore, the comparisons were not true comparisons, but were conducted
in order utilize the existing data in a constructive manner.
Results and Conclusions
The SFWMD data base contains a vast amount of historical water quality data, and the data were found
to be generally quite adequate for characterizing water quality. Nearly 500 water quality stations were
identified. Data for 121 water quality parameters including conventional water quality measures,
nutrients, metals, pesticides and organic compounds were analyzed. All of the outstanding questions
about the existing data base were addressed in this review and analysis. While it would be impossible to
document all of the results and conclusions herein, highlights and examples from each of the three levels
of analysis are presented.
A summary of Level 1 results for select parameters is presented in Table 1. The results of the Level 1
analysis quantified and determined:
-------
¦ The amount of data available by parameter and by station.
¦ The spatial and temporal coverage of the available data.
¦ The statistical characteristics of the available data.
¦ The number and percent of excursions from water quality criterion.
The results of the Level 2 analysis for specific parameters determined that:
¦ The lowest pH values were found in the WC1 subwatershed, where 9 percent of the observations
were below the criterion of 6.0 to 8.5 units.
¦ Excursions below the dissolved oxygen criterion of 5.0 mg/1 were common (65 percent) and
widespread throughout the study area, suggesting temperature and other natural conditions as
contributing factors.
¦ Excursions above the turbidity criterion occurred primarily at structures and in canals, suggesting
pumping and other operations as contributing factors.
¦ For ammonia data associated with concurrent pH and temperature data, excursions above the
criterion for unionized ammonia (1.5 percent of the observations) occurred primarily in canals and
structures, and were broadly scattered throughout the study area.
¦ Excursions above metals criteria were generally infrequent (less than 1 percent) and exhibited a
different spatial pattern for each parameter.
The results of the Level 3 analysis were limited to trend analysis. The trend analysis over the period of
interest detected a negative trend for total phosphorus at Station S5, the northern inflow point to WC1.
No other positive or negative trends for total phosphorus were detected. For total nitrogen, negative
trends were detected at all stations or groupings at the interface of the EAA with the Water Conservation
Areas, and the interface of the Water Conservation Areas with the ENP.
In summary, the comprehensive watershed approach utilized to analyze the spatial and temporal
characteristics of water quality data in the Florida proved to be very effective. The results from this
analysis provide a solid platform for future Everglades research and management activities.
References
State of Florida. (1994). The Everglades Forever Act of 1994. Tallahassee, FL.
-------
South Florida Water Management District and Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
(1994). Everglades Program Implementation Plan. Preliminary Draft, Sept. 13, 1994. West Palm
Beach, FL.
Limno-Tech, Inc. (1995) Data Analysis in Support of the Everglades Forever Act. Washington,
DC.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only. Although the
information provided here was accurate and current when first created, it is now
outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily represent official
positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Water and Weather Monitoring System for an Urban
Watershed
Derek Carby, Vanessa Greebe, David Malcolm, Monitoring Consultants
Forest Technology Systems Inc., Bellingham WA
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session o f the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
The water supply for the City of Vancouver, B.C., Canada is drawn from the nearby Capilano, Seymour and Coquitlam
watersheds which total 225 square miles.
In 1992, the Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) contracted Forest Technology Systems to develop and install a
network of hydro-meteorological monitoring stations (currently 14), to monitor continuously a wide range of water and weather
parameters throughout the watersheds. The system measures and records all parameters every 15 minutes, and automatically
transmits data back to GVRD headquarters.
Vancouver's continuous monitoring system provides comprehensive information regarding water availability and water quality.
The system's data also assists in water supply forecasting and in planning and monitoring for erosion control works. Special
features include automatic sampling triggered by turbidity, quick graphing, archiving and data analysis with specialized
software. Meteorological parameters are monitored to assess fire hazard in the area and study the impact of rainfall and snow
pack on the quantity and quality of water in the city's water supply.
Introduction
The Greater Vancouver Regional District (GVRD) serves a rapidly growing, water consuming population of 1.7 million people;
the average daily consumption is over 264 million gallons per day, with a record maximum of double that amount. Two
watersheds within the access-restricted area, Capilano and Seymour, supply the bulk of the GVRD's water, while a third,
Coquitlam, is primarily used to generate hydro-electric power.
Raw water from these watersheds is not filtered; it is just coarsely screened and lightly chlorinated before entering the
distribution system. Thus watershed management is of critical concern. In the late 1980s a series of storms resulted in turbid
drinking water in the city, arousing public concern about logging impacts on water quality. A panel of technical experts and a
series of public meetings resulted in a logging ban except for specific forest management situations.
These watersheds are located within the Pacific Coastal Range. The mountainous watershed terrain is steep and subject to
-------
periods of heavy precipitation, primarily from October to January. The rugged topography varies in height from just over 500 to
5,800 feet above sea level, with annual precipitation up to 200 inches at higher elevations. Winter snow accumulation often
exceeds 10 meters. The soils in the Capilano watershed are particularly erodible and constitute a substantial source of turbidity,
requiring significant soil conservation measures. Compounding the problems of the rugged topography, much of the watershed
lands are accessible by helicopter only, making a traditional monitoring program highly tedious, time consuming and expensive.
The network now totals 14 monitoring stations and tracks the following parameters:
¦ water level
¦ water flow
¦ wind direction
¦ turbidity
¦ air temperature
¦ precipitation
¦ water temperature
¦ humidity
¦ rainfall
¦ auto sampler
¦ wind speed
¦ snow pillow (water equivalent)
Remote, Continuous Hydro-Meteorological Monitoring
Continuous monitoring, achieved through electronic sensors and dataloggers, forms one component of a complete watershed
monitoring program. Continuous monitoring captures transient (aperiodic) events which are often missed in traditional grab
sample programs. In the GVRD watersheds, during periods of heavy rain, clear peaceful streams can swell into raging rivers. In
just 24 hours streams have been known to rise over 18 feet.
Knowing the exact nature, extent, and sources of changes in water quality, whether from natural causes such as storms and
landslides or from human causes such as road building and timber harvesting, required extensive and frequent sampling. As
well, sampling frequencies needed to be consistent and tied to natural events (a heavy rainfall or high turbidity levels) to ensure
an accurate profile of changes in the watershed. For this reason meteorological sensors are used to determine if an extreme
reading can be explained by a localized storm, for example. The danger of fire in the watersheds is also of critical concern
because of the severe after-effects a fire can have on water quality.
The GVRD required a more comprehensive monitoring program and more immediate information than could be obtained by
periodic site visits. Data had to include the extremes or 'highs and lows' of water quality for appropriate decisions to be made
and action to be taken. All 14 electronic monitoring stations embody a rugged datalogger, designed for year-round deployment
and a radio modem. Each station has a different sensor configuration. GVRD personnel have immediate access to the
-------
hydrological data in the dataloggers through the use of radio telecommunications which 'calls' for the data at preset times and
converts the data to information displayed in a spreadsheet or graph format using specialized data analysis software.
Monitoring Stations and Sensors
Hydrological data are monitored continuously and automatically downloaded to the GVRD's head offices, 10 miles away, at
predetermined times every day. During severe weather systems (or when otherwise required), data are instantly accessible. All
sites are solar powered as no AC power exists in the watershed area. Some sites monitor water parameters only, some monitor
water and weather, and some measure weather only. Terrestrial radio communication was chosen because mountains obstruct
the most appropriate stream side monitoring locations from geostationary satellites. Furthermore, the two-way communications
capability or radio is preferred.
The information garnered from these automatic monitoring stations is vital when making decisions as to whether to switch
between watershed sources to supply drinking water during periods of turbidity. It also allows the GVRD to track movement of
silt in the watershed in order to plan ahead for erosion control activities. A discussion of the key monitored parameters follows.
Turbidity
The GVRD adheres to federal drinking water quality guidelines for turbidity and treatment, as well as provincial regulations
governing health concerns such as bacteria levels in the water. Turbidity, measured at five sites, acts as an indication of water
quality entering the drinking water system.
Turbidity is a major concern for the watershed management staff and the public. Turbid drinking water is aesthetically
unpleasant and when drinking water is turbid the GVRD offices receive hundreds of calls from the public inquiring about the
safety of the water. Being able to anticipate high levels of turbidity enables the GVRD to proactively launch public awareness
campaigns, accurately explain the causes of the 'dirty water' and, of course, increase chlorination of the unfiltered water to
appropriate levels.
Another role of continuous monitoring is to assess whether the 'cause' of turbidity events are human-based or are part of the
watershed's natural processes. The GVRD can track stream flow, temperature and turbidity against rainfall. By monitoring air
temperature and precipitation, managers know whether it's raining or snowing in the watershed; this is important for estimating
summer water supply.
Grab sample programs, while long a standard tool for tracking turbidity, sediment loading, and other parameters, do suffer
several basic difficulties. Grab sample programs, which require significant staffing levels, are particularly critical during severe
storm events-precisely when access is most difficult, dangerous and expensive. Yet this is exactly when turbidity and sediment
are most likely introduced into streams and rivers.
Autosampler
To address this issue of taking samples during extreme conditions, the datalogger takes samples automatically when turbidity
exceeds certain predetermined levels.
Five of the streamside sites were equipped with 24 bottle autosamplers. Water samples are either triggered by certain aperiodic
events or at preset timed intervals. When the turbidity exceeds specific NTU levels (5, 15, 25, 35, etc.) the autosampler draws a
sample. Once a trigger point had been "used", it was disabled until either an increasing or decreasing critical turbidity point had
been reached. A value below 2 NTUs was used to re-enable the 5 NTU point when turbidity was decreasing. Every time the
autosampler was triggered the datalogger recorded the exact date and time of the sample, which autosampler bottle number was
filled and what turbidity reading caused the sample.
By using radio modem telemetry, GVRD staff could keep track of how many bottles had been filled and arrange a timely visit
-------
to exchange a new rack of empty bottles. The autosampler goes through long periods without drawing a sample, but when a
storm event results in increasing turbidity and sediment, the autosampler draws representative samples on both the rising and
falling edge of the hydrograph. Plans are underway to develop a measurement technique to produce flow rating tables to
produce a sediment rating curve.
Water Level
Water level is the most basic of water monitoring parameters. It is measured using a variety of techniques at different sites-float
gauges, bubbler systems and submersible pressure transducers. Water level is recorded frequently (every 15 minutes) to track
the rapid water level changes associated with steep mountain streams. For each of the stream and river sites, data analysis
software collects data by radio modem, and also provides the ability to enter equations or rating tables in order to automatically
calculate flow. It also has unit conversions built-in to allow depth to be shown as feet or inches, or flow shown as cubic feet per
second, cubic feet per day, million gallons per day, etc.
Weather Monitoring
As previously noted, the GVRD uses meteorological sensors to automatically monitor fire hazard. During fire season, the
monitoring stations are polled daily and Canadian Fire Weather Indices automatically calculated and made available to fire
managers. Forest fires in a watershed can impair water quality, for several reasons:
¦ Wildfires can greatly increase the amounts of nitrogen and phosphorus entering the water. In great enough quantities,
these can cause a community's water supply to become undrinkable.
¦ Wildfires can alter water temperatures for several years in streams draining from burned areas.
Rain and snowfall data are important for long-term planning and can be used to monitor the effectiveness of erosion control
work as well as determining forest fire hazard levels. Snow water equivalent is also measured at two sites using snow pillows.
Data Analysis: Converting Data into Useful Information
With 14 sites, and a variety of sensors at each site, keeping track of the data alone could be challenging. However, the GVRD
needs to not only keep track of this data, they have to have it instantly available to help them make resource allocation decisions
in a timely fashion. Both facets of data management are covered by specialized data analysis software.
Data are collected from each station daily. Further calculations are performed and the results of these calculations are also
stored in the data files. GVRD staff can also call the stations at other than preset times.
Table 1 depicts a partial listing of parameters collected from this site. The data show the onset of a storm event. The Rn_l
column shows the hourly precipitation, derived from the Precip column showing water accumulation inside the gauge. The
precipitation is probably rain or wet snow (air temperature 0.4_C). It has not yet started to cause a rise in water level, so it is
probably being stored as the snow. Note there is a turbidity spike at 3:00 and 4:00 AM, but this does not continue during the
5:00 AM readings and only has a minimal effect on the average turbidity. Hence the 4:00 AM spike was probably some floating
debris passing by the turbidity sensor lens during one of its 'once-a-minute' readings. The final column, Volts, displays the
battery voltage level of the datalogger; this information is returned with every call to the datalogger.
Graphing constitutes another aid to clarity-trends and exceptions 'leap out' to a viewer. Graphs can include several parameters
from one station or the same parameter from several stations. Indeed, as Figure 1 illustrates, such a comparison helped the
GVRD quickly theorize a small landslide may have occurred between two monitoring sites by graphing and comparing their
turbidities. The upstream site had very low turbidities, while the downstream site suddenly had turbidities over 18 NTU. This
data would be used when making decisions concerning erosion control works for that area. GVRD staff also graph water level,
-------
precipitation and turbidity for single sites to characterize the natural processes occurring in a particular watershed.
20
15
10
5
0
Jan 15 Jan 16 Jan 17 Jan 13 Jan 19 Jan 20
Figure 1. Turbidity Comparison on Capilano River.
GVRD personnel also specify critical criteria. When the computer program identifies a value beyond a user-specified limit, the
value is 'flagged' and brought to the attention of the user. Equations and rating tables are also automatically calculated. Water
flow, derived from water level measurements are built in and calculate automatically. The flow data is stored together with the
rest of a site's data. NOTE: Recently two landslides in the Capilano and Seymour watersheds have resulted in highly turbid
drinking water for the citizen's of Vancouver. Turbidity readings and water quality indicators were aired as part of the local,
nightly newscasts.
Summary
The network of hydro-meteorology stations that the GVRD operates has helped different divisions plan and monitor erosion
control works, forecast water supply information and track raw drinking water quality. Remote, continuous water quality
monitoring combined with real time radio access has provided better information on a more timely basis for the GVRD.
Offshoots of the system has permitted more effective staff and resource allocation and made the decision-making process in
support of the GVRD's primary mandate more effective. Their mandate remains, to manage their protected lands to provide a
continuous supply of clean, fresh water. Accuracy, durability and reliability remain key components of this mountainous, urban
watershed monitoring system.
Turbidity Comparison^ 2 sites on CapiLano River
CAFSiy
OftPIL flvgl rfc
\Dounstream Station /
-V:.-"
3
"Upstream Statiort; Jc,
Q
w;;
V
t) %
*¦ i

-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department's
Interactive Weather Radar and Virtual Watershed
Management
Marc P. Walch, P.E., Kathleen S. Leo, E.I.
Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., Winter Park, FL
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' ^
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
The impetus for acceleration of improvements to the Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department's
(MDWASD) sewer transmission and collection system is the result of a negotiated settlement contained
within a Consent Decree issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Regulations and enforcement actions are driven by Dade County's environmentally sensitive features
such as the Everglades National Park to the west and Biscayne Bay, an "Outstanding Florida Water", to
its east. Dade County is 608,907 hectares (2,350 square miles) in area, of which is 15% water and 16,842
hectares (650 square miles) of Everglades. There are many watersheds which comprise Dade County.
Moreover, within Dade County lies the entire MDWASD wastewater collection and transmission system.
In a parallel development, the State of Florida has undertaken its "Ecosystems" initiative which seeks to
manage an entire watershed's water quality through an interrelated set of regulatory and planning
programs. The concept calls for setting watershed wide environmental goals including water quality
objectives and then integrating these goals and objectives into the regulations of all pollutant sources
within the watershed.
-------
MDWASD has undertaken an improvement program to assure the long-term adequate capacity of the
transmission system, including a study to determine rainfall-dependent infiltration and inflow, and
procedures for the management of peak flows resulting from rainfall. The County is currently restricted
in its ability to issue new building permits when the additional flow contributed by the new sewer
connection would result a the pump station violating its operating criteria. Through the use of metered
data at representative pump stations, realistic, unique unit influent hydrographs have been developed for
each of MDWASD's approximately 900 pump station service areas (PSAs), each PSA acting as a
separate subwatershed. Combining the unique pump station hydrographs, a hydraulic model of
MDWASD's sewer collection and transmission system, and interactive weather radar/rain gauge results
in the ability to predict and prevent sanitary sewer overflows. The goal of the hydrographs, model and
radar is to predict and prevent the watershed point source contributions from sanitary sewer overflows.
Collection and Transmission System
MDWASD's sewer system is expansive, providing sewer service to all of Dade County (with the
exception of septic systems), 13 volume customers and over 329,000 retail customers. The sewer service
area itself covers approximately 104,000 hectare (400 acres) and includes approximately 900 pump
stations and 2,414 kilometers (1,500 miles) of force main. The total 1995 plant wastewater treatment
plant capacity was approximately 1.34 x 106 m3/day (355.5 MGD). Wastewater from the collection and
transmission system flows to one of three wastewater treatment plants. The wastewater treatment plant
locations and the forcemain network are shown in Figure 1. Flow has the ability to be diverted between
plants using several of its major booster and repump stations. The ability to transfer flow to different
areas in the system is critical in preventing sanitary sewer overflows.
Existing Conditions
There are two major aquifer systems in Dade County: the Florida Aquifer System and the Surficial
Aquifer System. The Surficial Aquifer is composed of sediments from the water table down to a
confining unit. The Floridan Aquifer is found below this confining unit. The Biscayne Aquifer, part of
the Surficial Aquifer System, occurs at or near the land surface and is one of the most permeable aquifers
in the world. The Biscayne is recharged throughout Dade County by rainfall. Base on a water balance for
Dade County, rainfall constitutes the main inflow (73 percent) of the water budget while
evapotranspiration and canal discharges represent the main outflows (respectively 38 percent and 35
percent)(SFWMD, 1994).
Hydrographs
Historically, MDWASD's sewer system has experienced surcharging and overflows during wet-weather.
Flow monitoring and Sewer System Evaluation Surveys (SSES) performed within the system have
determined that the cause of these overflows is excessive infiltration and inflow (I/I) entering the system
during wet-weather, as well as, insufficient conveyance and/or system storage capacity. The result of the
-------
Rainfall Dependent Peak Flow Management Study was unique, unit influent hydrographs for the
collection and transmission system model, used to perform an evaluation of the adequacy and additional
needs of the pump station systems to store and/or convey peak wet-weather flows without system
overflows. The 900 pump stations throughout MDWASD's sewer collection and transmission system
were grouped into representatively similar categories. The basis for grouping the pump station areas were
watershed and collection system characteristics such as: average age of the system, soil type and
permeability, groundwater elevations and tidal influence, proximity to surface water bodies, density of
service connections, ratio of pervious to non-pervious surface area, land use, historical infiltration/inflow
data, system rehabilitation data, seasonal population patterns, and collection system constructions
materials.
Development of the hydrographs was based on the above groupings. Dry weather hydrographs were
developed for each of the pump station area groupings based on nighttime flows. Rainfall dependent
inflow and infiltration (RDI/I) hydrographs were developed for each of the pump station area groupings
as well. The composition of the RDI/I hydrograph is shown in Figure 2. The wastewater flow
components include: base wastewater flow, groundwater infiltration, and rainfall-dependent
infiltration/inflow. The unit hydrograph methodology applied to the systems is based on fitting three
triangular unit hydrographs to the actual RDI/I hydrograph. An analysis was performed to determine
recession constants and time to peak for three triangular hydrographs which are summed to develop a
synthetic hydrograph shape. As a result, the hydrographs for each grouping of PSA's was based on
watershed characteristics had similarly shaped hydrographs.
Model Operation
The computer model selected for use by MDWASD was XP-SWMM (developed by XP Software, Inc.),
which uses unit hydrographs as input to the model. XP-SWMM is based on EPA's Storm Water
Management Model (SWMM) solution module. XP-SWMM is capable of simulating pressures and
flows throughout the system, while also having the ability to model gravity and pressure pipe systems
simultaneously. The results are real-time flows and pressures. Multiple pumping scenarios can be run
prior to implementation to determine effects downstream.
In XP-SWMM, potential overflows can be seen both visually and dynamically. Figure 3 shows a
simplified model cross-section of gravity, wetwell, pump, and discharge forcemain which flows to a
gravity discharge. The results are played out (in time) in a movie format. When an overflow occurs,
water levels at a wetwell will rise above the manhole invert elevation. As Figure 3 illustrates, the pump is
currently pumping at a head of approximately 25 meters. Wastewater flows by gravity into the wetwell,
and is then pumped into a forcemain which discharges to gravity. The driving force for predicting this
sanitary sewer overflow are the inflow hydrographs.
Virtual Rain Gauge (VRG)
Determining the volume of rain within the pump station watershed basin is critical to watershed
-------
management and successful operation MDWASD's collection and transmission system. Quantifying the
volume of precipitation within the watershed each minute, day, month, or year is necessary. MDWASD,
located in South Florida, is susceptible to intense, localized non-uniform tropical storms. Under these
conditions, the accuracy of rain gauges is reduced dramatically. Rain gauges measure the rainfall in a
small area; however, this data is often taken to be representative of a much larger area. The average size
of a rain gauge is eight inches in diameter. There is a general misconception with standard rain gauges
that what they measure is representative of what is happening on a much larger scale. Rain gauge
accuracy is related to two factors: type of precipitation and rain gauge density (D'Aleo, 1993). Achieving
the desired accuracy using rain gauges often becomes cost-prohibitive and impractical. The lack of
accuracy is compounded when data from rain gauges is used as input to hydraulic/hydrologic models
with inflow assumptions based on gauged information. The watershed approach is not only concerned
with what happens in the eight-inch bucket, but what falls over many square miles.
MDWASD is trying an innovative approach by using an interactive weather radar system and Virtual
Rain Gauge (VRG). The system used to quantify rainfall is called the VRG, produced by WSI
Corporation. VRG is a Windows software which links directly to a satellite and NEXRad radar imagery,
then data is downloaded. The VRG operates based on the newest NEXRad filtered satellite imagery with
satellite locations at major airports and military installation across the country. The VRG uses filtered
radar data to determine the amount of rainfall and intensities within a two kilometer by two kilometer
area. The VRG is used by other companies such as the National Weather Service, the National Severe
Storms Forecasting Center, and the Weather Channel. Rainfall and intensity data are obtained and used
in computer models. As part of an EPA mandated Consent Decree, a hydraulic sewer model was
developed for MDWASD which will use the virtual rain gauge data as input. To assist with the model, a
virtual rain gauge system is being implemented by Miami-Dade water and Sewer Department to
supplement and ultimately replace conventional rain gauges. For large watersheds, the number of rain
gauges is no longer a limiting factor.
The output from the VRG can also be used as a direct input to other hydraulic and hydrologic computer
models. With input of real hydrologic data into computer models, the predictive capabilities are extensive
for fields such as sanitary sewer analysis, stormwater management, water supply, flood plain
management, pollutant load studies, and hurricane preparedness studies. Radar is proving to be a more
effective and accurate means of determining average rainfall, because it senses average areal conditions
as opposed to point data. To operate the system, boundaries of the MDWASD 900 pump station areas are
overlayed in Geographic Information Systems (GIS) with the VRG two kilometer by two kilometer
grids, as shown in Figure 4. The quantity of rainfall is then proportioned to each PSA watershed. At this
point, decisions can be made for each storm event of how to manage flows within the system. When a
storm event with overflow potential enters the sewer service area, MDWASD personnel will be able to
shift and divert flow with the help of major booster pump stations, to one of its three wastewater
treatment plants. A uniform intensity and duration storm throughout the county may require no action.
However, localized intense storms may require diverting flow to lines with more capacity.
Watershed Management
-------
Dry and wet weather hydrographs were used as input into the peak flow model. With the data obtained
from the VRG and the Model, flow transfer options can be addressed. MDWASD's sewer collection and
transmission system has the ability to shift flows between three of its wastewater treatment plants using a
combination of pumping scenarios with its major booster and repump stations throughout the system.
Preventing sanitary sewer overflows requires predicting the volume of rainfall per each subwatershed
(PSA) and determining best management practices based on prior experience and Model results.
MDWASD's current application for the VRG is to predict and prevent sanitary sewer overflows;
however, this technology may be used to assist in other areas of watershed management as well. The
Metropolitan Dade County's Department of Environmental Resource Management (DERM), as part of its
continuing stormwater management plan, is developing an approach to establish watershed stormwater
quality level of service criteria (Vazquez et al., 1995). However, no criteria is currently imposed.
Conclusions
The complex nature of prevention and management of sanitary sewer overflows requires a watershed
approach. Although still in the infancy stage, establishing limits based on total maximum daily loading
levels would impose stricter limits on the entire watershed. Imposing watershed limits would allow
greater flexibility for sewershed management. The VRG and hydraulic models are innovate management
techniques used for watershed management. The technology attained by combination of satellite imagery
and on-line computer models can be applied to control other components in the watershed. By combining
the VRG and XP-SWMM computer model, MDWASD will have "virtual" watershed management
capabilities.
References
Vazquez, Alex, et al., "Establishing Watershed Water Quality Level of Service Criteria for Dade
County, Florida." WEFTEC '95.
D'Aleo, Joseph and Pirone, Maria. "Real-Time, High Resolution Precipitation From Mosaic
Radar", WSI Corporation, Billerica, MA, 1995.
Miami-Dade Water and Sewer Department Wastewater Facilities Plan Amendment, Volume 1.
Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc., March 1995.
South Florida Water Management District. (1994) Draft Water Management Plan. South Florida
Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Planning System: A Tool for Integrated
Management of Land Use and Non-Point Source
Pollution
Deborah Weller, Joseph F. Tassone, Dawn M. DiStefano, and Nevitt S.
Edwards
Maryland Office of Planning (OP)
Introduction
The Watershed Planning System (WPS) is a geographically based decision support system designed to
help local governments and State agencies develop coordinated land use and non-point source (NPS)
pollution management strategies. The system facilitates a systematic and detailed examination of NPS and
land use management issues by (sub) watershed. Managing growth and development, preserving natural
areas and agricultural land, and controlling NPS pollution are the primary issues examined in the WPS.
The system can be used to select a feasible mix of growth and NPS management alternatives that can be
implemented through program changes and best management practices (BMPs). Changes to
comprehensive plans, zoning, subdivision regulations, sewer plans, soil conservation and water quality
plans, and implementation programs would be achieved by working with local governments and state
agencies.
Overview of The Watershed Planning System
The WPS consists of three computer models: the Baseline Inventory Model, the Growth Management
Simulation Model (GMS), and the NPS Management Simulation Model (Figure 1). The models use data
from composite geographic information system (GIS) overlays. The composite GIS database includes
information on land use, soils, streams, watersheds and county boundaries, zoning, sewer service, and
agricultural land preservation. Each model combines the basic landscape data with additional watershed
-------
information, such as census data and management practices, compiled in cooperation with local
governments.
Land Use, Sails, Wetlamls,
Sliu arris, Nairn a I BuIIms
Zonint|, Sevier Seivice.
transportation fin -a lysis /ones.
Cuurily & SuIjwhLwishml
Rnundnrlis, Infill Arnas,
11 rmvlft FnwelnpRS
Figure 1 :The Watershed Planning System
fcl\| L.
fetor
¦ I fci *
-------
Figure 1 :The Watershed Planning System
The Watershed Planning System estimates the relative nutrient loads from on-site disposal systems
(OSDS), land use, and animal facilities. Total nitrogen (TN) and phosphorus (TP) loads from land use
sources are calculated using loading coefficients representing the relative potential for small watersheds to
discharge TN and TP. Nutrient export coefficients for each land use source are based on a distribution of
values that characterized a range of rates that could be reasonably expected in Maryland. To decrease
uncertainty and improve reliability, only nutrient export coefficients from locations with climatic
conditions, land uses, and soils similar to Maryland are used. Loads from animal facilities are calculated
from manure acres (OP, 1994b). Nitrogen loads generated from OSDSs are calculated from the census
inventory of septic systems (OP, 1994a), average household size, and the assumption that a percent of the
nitrogen leaving the septic tank reaches the subsurface water (Personal Communication,Tom Simpson,
Md. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1980). It is also assumed that
nitrogen from OSDS will undergo additional reductions prior to reaching surface waters as it moves
through subsurface pathways. It is assumed that these reductions are similar to reductions observed for
nitrogen leaving agricultural fields (Reneau, R.B., 1979; OP, 1994b).
The estimated TN and TP loads from each source are partitioned among three flow pathways: surface
runoff, subsurface flow and groundwater flow. This important feature of the WPS facilitates a more
realistic evaluation of the effects of management practices, which act on loads moving through the three
pathways in different ways. The models link the effects of management practices and land use alternatives
directly to sources, as defined through the GIS. Existing or future management practices are linked to
nutrient loading estimates from source categories through their estimated effects on loads moving through
one or more of the transport pathways.
Baseline Inventory Model
The Baseline Inventory Model estimates the nutrient loads generated from the current landscape by source
category. The landscape is divided into source categories based on OP's 1990 land use and soils (OP,
1973). Data compiled from NPS management programs, research, monitoring, and modeling are then
applied to estimate the Baseline Inventory (OP, 1993; OP, 1994b). For each source category the Baseline
Inventory estimates the relative pollution loads; the effects of existing management systems and pollution
buffers (forest and wetlands); and the loads from reaching surface waters.
Growth Management Simulation Model
The GMS model projects the existing land inventory into a series of possible "future" landscapes, each a
function of different land use management alternatives. Land use changes and the loss or gain of pollution
-------
buffers depend on the individual county plans, regulations, and management procedures simulated.
Changes in land uses and environmentally sensitive areas are estimated using population projections and
growth management factors as independent variables. The model evaluates different possible land use
scenarios by changing assumptions about comprehensive plans, zoning plans, sewer service, subdivision
and environmental regulations. New development is then calculated as a function of household demand,
existing or hypothetical management choices (such as, clustering, transfer of development rights, growth
areas, and agricultural land preservation) and user-defined considerations. User-defined considerations
allow local concerns, and policies that may influence the type and locations of development to be
represented in the model.
Nonpoint Source Management Simulation Model
The Nonpoint Source Management Simulation model estimates the potential impacts of NPS management
alternatives (urban and agricultural BMPs) on NPS loads when applied to current land use conditions
(Baseline Inventory) or to possible future land use conditions (Growth Management Simulations). The
model allows the user to evaluate the relative values of NPS management alternatives under various land
use patterns and the importance of the land use alternatives. Thus, a county proposing to use different
stormwater management practices can examine the effects on pollution for different possible planning and
zoning schemes (such as, traditional versus clustering land use patterns). The effects of stormwater
management alternatives can be reviewed in relation to different GMS land use patterns and other NPS
controls, such as agricultural controls or pollution buffers. The result is a relatively comprehensive context
for watershed planning and decision making.
Conclusion
The key utility of the Watershed Planning System as a planning tool is its ability to readily represent
realistic alternatives and management programs. The management scenarios represent the effects of
traditional and innovative BMPs, and land management tools. This approach can be applied in any part of
the state because the models use standardized GIS layers to characterize important features. The models
can also be customized to use more detailed data, where it exists. The requirements and constraints of state
and local plans, programs, and regulations are used in the models to determine the potential for
development and conservation of resource land and sensitive areas in each (sub) watershed. Following
coordination with local jurisdictions and State and local programs, the alternatives evaluated through the
models represent feasible program and BMP options.
The WPS is designed to easily incorporate ongoing NPS research and modeling, and can be updated and
improved to incorporate new NPS knowledge. To date, the WPS has been applied in the Patuxent River
Watershed (OP, 1994c) which covers parts of seven counties, Piney and Alloway Watersheds in Carroll
County (OP, 1994b), and in Winter's Run in Harford County (OP and Harford County, in preparation).
References
-------
Maryland Office of Planning, (1973). Natural soil Groups Technical Report, Baltimore, MD.
Maryland Office of Planning, (1993). Nonpoint Source Assessment and Accounting System: Final
Report for FFY '91 Section 319 Grant, Baltimore, Maryland.
Maryland Office of Planning, (1994a). 1990 Census Data. Baltimore, MD.
Maryland Office of Planning, (1994b). Development and Application of the Nonpoint Source
Assessment and Accounting System Final Report for FFY '92 Section 319 Grant, Baltimore,
Maryland.
Maryland Office of Planning, (1994c). Patuxent Watershed Demonstration Project I Interim
Guidance Document, Baltimore, Maryland.
Maryland Office of Planning and Harford County (In preparation). Sensitive Areas Protection:
Winters Run, Harford County Maryland Final Report for CZM Section 306 Grant, Baltimore,
Maryland.
Personal Communication: Septic System Contribution to Groundwater. Tom Simpson, University
of Maryland and Maryland Department of Agriculture, 1992.
Reneau, R.B., (1979). "Changes in Concentration of Selected Chemical Pollutants in Wet, Tile-
Drained Soil Systems As Influenced by Disposal of Septic Tank Effluent." J. Environ. Qual., 6:189-
196.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1980). Design Manual: Onsite Wastewater Treatment and
Disposal System. Technical Transfer. EPA 625/1-80-012.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Comprehensive Watershed Analysis Tools: The
Rouge Project_A Case Study
Gary Mercer
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Cambridge, MA
Kelly Cave
Camp Dresser & McKee Inc., Detroit, MI
Vyto Kaunelis
Wayne County Department of Environment, MI
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
The Rouge River Watershed spans approximately 457 square miles in three counties in south east
Michigan and is home to more than 1.5 million residents. Sources of pollution to the river include
municipal and industrial permitted point sources, combined sewer overflows (CSOs), storm water runoff
and interflow from abandoned dumps. The watershed analysis effort has developed and applied
comprehensive computer model of the Rouge Watershed to simulate the water quantity and quality
response of the Rouge River system to wet weather events.
Modeling Objectives
The objectives of the modeling work are to:
-------
¦ Develop comprehensive models of the Rouge River watershed capable of predicting the water
quantity and quality response of the Rouge River in response to wet-weather events for existing
and future conditions in the watershed, and under various CSO and NPS control alternatives.
¦ Simulate the Rouge River watershed, using the model, for existing and future conditions, and
under various CSO and NPS pollution control alternatives.
¦ Provide a suite of modeling tools, documentation, and training for future watershed planning.
The models can predict the rainfall-runoff relationship and the water quality response of the river from
combined sewer outfalls, non-point source, and point source discharges. Validation of the models use
flow and water quality data collected during the Rouge Project.
Approach to Modeling
The approach to simulating the Rouge Watershed with computer models has three tiers. This multi-level
approach allows the project to examine and understand, in detail, the various pollutant generation,
transport, removal and treatment processes on a small scale and translate the findings to a watershed-
wide model. The three tiers are examined below.
The purposes of the Small Area Models (Tier I) are to 1) examine the physical processes of pollution
accumulation and transport through simulation and analysis of flows and pollutant loads and
concentrations from pilot areas; 2) examine the processes associated with pollution treatment
technologies through simulation and analysis of flows and pollutant loads through pilot pollution control
projects and 3) develop methodologies for extrapolating the results to the subarea analysis (Tier II).
There are two components to the Subarea Models (Tier II): 1) a simple pollutant loading model, Camp
Dresser & McKee's Watershed Management Model (WMM), for screening watershed management
alternatives and 2) a complex subarea model, the RUNOFF block of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM), used to develop flows and loads for
input into the riverine water quantity and quality models.
There are two components to the Riverine Models (Tier III). The TRANSPORT block of SWMM is used
to define river hydraulics to determine river flow, depth velocity, and volume. The U.S. EPA's Water
Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) model is used in Tier III to determine river water quality
and the fate of pollutants in the river.
Monitoring Program
A comprehensive monitoring and sampling program were designed and carried out to support the Rouge
River Watershed analysis activities. This program supports the computer simulation required for
-------
watershed analysis and the region's long-term management of the watershed. The monitoring and
sampling program are subdivided into three major categories: source characterization, pollution control,
and instream characterization. An important tool developed for the Rouge Project was DataView.
DataView, a Windows (TM) program, allows display and analysis of the extensive monitoring data
collected during the project.
Source Characterization
Flow monitoring and sampling was done at storm drain outfalls and CSO outfalls to characterize the
discharge. Sampling was designed and carried out to determine the presence and strength of a first flush
and provide guidance on variability of pollutants.
Pollution Control
The influent and effluent of CSO treatment basins were sampled to help determine the pollutant
treatment efficiencies. Storm water treatment devices: wetlands, dry and wet basins, swales and others,
were also sampled to help determine the pollutant treatment efficiencies.
Instream Characterization
Water Quantity Monitoring. The components of the water quantity monitoring consisted of twenty-three
rain gages recording 15 minute precipitation in the watershed. The watershed has seven U.S. Geological
Service (USGS) flow gages. For the project, USGS established flow rating curves at ten additional
stations on the four rivers.
Water Quality Monitoring. Seventeen continuously recording stations were established that recorded
dissolved oxygen, temperature, pH, and conductivity in the Rouge River system. In addition, 16 water
quality sampling stations were established. Seven wet weather and two dry weather samplings were done
in 1994, and two wet weather and one dry sampling were done in 1995 to established baseline water
quality conditions, and to validate the Tier II and Tier III models.
Tier l_Small Area Analysis Modeling Tools
Tier I modeling examine the physical processes of pollution accumulation and transport on the land
surface and the processes associated with pollution treatment technologies. The source characterization
and pollution control monitoring programs provide data for model validation for Tier I models. Several
models have been used for the Tier I analysis. Models included the Program for Predicting Polluting
Particle Passage Thru Pits, Puddles & Ponds (P8)_Urban Catchment Model was developed by Dr.
William W. Walker for the Narragansett Bay Project (Walker, 1990). The model predicts pollutant load
generation and transport in stormwater runoff for urban watersheds assuming contaminants are adsorbed
to up to five particle classes. The model was used to predict the pollutants in storm water runoff and to
-------
predict the removal efficiency of BMPs. In addition for Tier I, the RUNOFF and TRANSPORT blocks of
SWMM were used to examine the buildup and washoff of pollutants on urban land surfaces in combined
sewer areas, mix with sanitary flow in sewer lines to determine the characterization of combined sewer
overflows (Huber 1988). TRANSPORT and later the STORAGE/TREATMENT block of SWMM
simulated the treatment efficiencies of CSO basins. The findings of the Tier I analyses and simulations
are a fundamental understanding of the pollutant generation, transport, and removal during treatment
process, which can be extrapolated to Tier II analyses.
Tier ll_Subarea Analysis
The simple pollutant loading model, WMM, uses event mean concentration (EMC) and annual runoff to
predict the load of ten selected pollutants. The EMC for each pollutant was developed for each of the ten
different land uses in the watershed (CDM, 1992). The pollutant load model allows many alternatives to
be evaluated and permits many users to do the simulations.
A second Subarea Analysis model used is the RUNOFF block of SWMM that simulated the pollutant
buildup and washoff in the 460 square mile watershed. More than 350 subareas were developed, varying
in size from 50 acres for some small combined sewer areas to more than 2 miles in the undeveloped west
portion of the watershed. Flow and pollutant loads for each subarea are simulated using the RUNOFF
block for a six-month simulation. Initially, an EMC approach was used to simulate the pollutant
generation. This was changed to buildup and washoff after analysis of the source characterization
sampling data. For model validation, a six-month continuous simulation was used. In the combined
sewer areas, detailed EXTRAN and TRANSPORT models have been developed of the combined sewer
collection system by the Detroit Water and Sewer Department for their CSO abatement program. The
combined sewer models are called the Greater Detroit Regional Sewer (GDRS) Model. The Rouge
Project used the TRANSPORT GDRS model to simulate the combined sewer collection system. In the
separate sewer areas (storm water areas) the flow and pollutant time series from RUNOFF is used to
provide input to the Tier III riverine TRANSPORT and WASP models. In the combined sewer areas, the
flow and pollutant time series from RUNOFF was input into the TRANSPORT combined sewer model,
which in turn, provide flow and pollutant time series data to the TRANSPORT riverine model.
Tier lll_Riverine Models
The Tier II and Tier III models makeup the watershed models. River cross section data provided the
physical data for the TRANSPORT riverine model. An extensive model validation process was
undertaken to simulate the hydraulics in the river system accurately. The validation of the models
included comparing six months of flow data at 17 flow gaging stations.
The pollutant loads generated by RUNOFF, in the storm drain areas, and by TRANSPORT in the
combined sewer areas, are input into the WASP model. WASP also has hydraulic input from the
TRANSPORT riverine model. The result is a six-month time series of flow and quality from the WASP
model.
-------
Findings
The monitoring data, analysis tools, and subsequent simulation models have allowed insight into the
complexities of the sources, processes, and responses in the Rouge watershed. The analysis has
uncovered the following findings:
¦ The poorest water quality occurs in the Rouge River during short intense rainfalls of moderate
storm volumes. During these short intense storms, CSO discharges to the Rouge River, which has
a low base flow. Larger storm events produce storm water runoff, which "dilutes" the combined
sewer discharges in the Rouge River. The dissolved oxygen concentration can drop several mg/1
in a matter of hours in the river, and then recover quickly during these storm events.
¦ The Detroit combined sewer system displays a "first flush" for many pollutants during storm
events. The first flush is most pronounced for total suspended solids. Further analysis is underway
to discern the causes of first flush in the combined system, land surface runoff or solids'
resuspension in the combined sewer or both. The Project is evaluating the effectiveness of CSO
treatment basins to store and treat CSO discharges to meet uses in the Rouge River.
¦ Increasing river peak flows in the Rouge River system from further urbanization of the watershed
contributes to many problems. These problems include bank erosion along all branches, high
velocity change that severely limits the fish and macroinvertabrate community. Effective
watershed management includes not only source and structural water quality controls for storm
water areas, but must also include flow controls to restore the uses to the Rouge River.
References
Camp Dresser & McKee (1992), Watershed Management Model WMM/NPDES User's Manual.
Huber, Wayne and Dickerson, Robert (1988), Storm Water Management Model, Version 4: User's
Manual, U.S. EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens, Georgia.
Walker, William (1990) P8 Urban Catchment Model User's Manual, Version 1.1, Narragansett
Bay Project, Providence, RI.
-------
—r—n=^—
fjfV 4 <»¦ ! i
' \ ,
, ¦*+*.* • * •-
)-iX :
JC.--K " >l,
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Development and Application of a Coupled GIS-
Modeling System for Watershed Analysis
Joseph V. DePinto
Joseph F. Atkinson
Jieyuan Song
Chen-Yu Cheng
Great Lakes Program, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY
Tad Slawecki
Paul W. Rodgers
Limno-Tech, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Introduction
In order to facilitate the site-specific, problem-specific development and application of water quality
models in Great Lakes watersheds, a modeling support system that links water quality models with a
geographic information system (GIS) (ARC/INFO) has been developed. This system, which is called
Geo-WAMS (Geographically-based Watershed Analysis and Modeling System), automates such
modeling tasks as: spatial and temporal exploratory analysis of watershed data; model scenario
management; model input configuration; model input data editing and conversion to appropriate model
input structure; model processing; model output interpretation, reporting and display; transfer of model
-------
output data between models; and model calibration, confirmation, and application. The design of Geo-
WAMS and its feasibility and utility are demonstrated by a prototype application to the Buffalo River
(Buffalo, NY) watershed. The prototype provides a modeling framework for addressing watershed
management questions that require quantification of the relationship between sources of oxygen
demanding materials (biochemical oxygen demand, BOD) in the watershed and distribution of dissolved
oxygen in the Buffalo River. It includes a watershed loading model, the output from which is
automatically converted to input for a modified version of EPA's WASP4/EUTR04 model for simulation
of dissolved oxygen in the river. In this way the impact of regulatory or remedial actions in the watershed
on the dissolved oxygen resources in the lower river can be examined.
The Geo-WAMS Concept
Geo-WAMS was designed by carefully considering the process a modeler goes through in developing
and applying a surface water quality model on a site-specific basis. Generally, this process involves a
series of steps that include: problem specification, theoretical/conceptual construct, numerical construct,
model code development and implementation, model calibration, model confirmation, and diagnostic or
management application. In reviewing the modeling process as applied to watershed analysis, two major
needs stand out. First, regardless of the level of sophistication, application of water quality models on a
watershed basis requires efficient acquisition, storage, organization, reduction and analysis of model
input data accompanied by manipulation, interpretation, reporting, and display of model output data.
Second, application of mathematical models for analysis of water quality on a watershed scale usually
requires a cascading linkage of several models. For example, in the analysis of the impact of land use in a
watershed on dissolved oxygen resources in a river that drains the watershed, one might have to run a
hydrologic runoff model, a pollutant loading model, and a river dissolved oxygen model in series.
Converting output from one model to appropriate format and spatial/temporal scale for use as input for
the next model can be a very tedious task.
The Geo-WAMS Modeling Support System was design to facilitate the job of the water quality modeler
in accomplishing the various data-interactive and model-application tasks necessary to develop and apply
a site-specific, problem-specific, process-oriented mathematical modeling framework. The features built
into Geo-WAMS to accomplish these goals include:
¦ Familiar User Interface;
¦ Geographic Information System (ARC/INFO);
¦ Relational Database Management System;
¦ Process Models and Model-Data Linkages;
¦ Model Input and Model Linkage Assistance Tools;
-------
¦ Model Scenario Manager;
¦ Model Application Toolscalibration, sensitivity analysis, diagnostics, management analysis, etc.;
¦ Model Output and Field Data Query Module;
¦ Model Output and Field Data Visualization Tools.
The above features have been built into a software package that integrates five major components as
depicted in Figure 1:
¦ Spatial/temporal database a database management system that allows modelers to input, store,
analyze, retrieve, and display all spatially and temporally referenced data.
¦ Data-Model management interface (DMMI) a software interface for the data conversion between
spatial database and process models and for the user to access the database, the process models,
and the toolkit utilities.
¦ User interface (UI)_a window and screen menu program written in macro language for the user to
visually examine the spatial and temporal data sets and to interactively manage and analyze them
through the DMMI. A series of help/explanation windows is also a part of this interface.
¦ Process models a group of existing and newly developed mathematical models for aquatic system
analysis and management. These models could range from relatively simple conservative
substance transport models to complex, high resolution ecosystem food web models.
¦ Analyst Toolkit Utilities a library of utilities used for data manipulation, data analysis, model
development, and model application.
The conceptualization and functioning of Geo-WAMS is presented in more detail in DePinto, et al.
(1994).
Description of Buffalo River Watershed
The Buffalo River watershed is comprised of 430 square miles of mixed land use drainage area
contributing flow and pollutants into the lower portion of the river (a Great Lakes "Area of Concern"),
which flows through the city of Buffalo and discharges into Lake Erie. The Buffalo River receives BOD
loading from point sources, combined sewer overflows (CSOs) discharging directly into the lower six
mile urban portion of the Buffalo River, and nonpoint runoff from various types of land use in the
watershed. As shown in Figure 2, forest and agricultural land dominate the watershed, with urban land
uses concentrated near the city of Buffalo.
-------
There is a long history of industrial activity within the Buffalo River watershed. Although much of this
activity has diminished in recent years, low levels of dissolved oxygen (.1 mg/L) are still observed during
summer low flow conditions. The extent to which this low dissolved oxygen condition is the result of
various ongoing land uses in the watershed is the subject of this demonstration project for the Geo-
WAMS concept.
Model Description
The Buffalo River application of Geo-WAMS consists of two linked models (Watershed Pollutant
Loading Model (WLM) and WASP4/EUTR04), the data base necesssary to configure and apply the
models, and a number of analysis tools that facilitate the configuration and application of the models.
Taken as an integrated unit this program permits analysis of the loading of oxygen-demanding materials
from the Buffalo River watershed and its impact on the dissolved oxygen resources in the lower portion
of the Buffalo River.
Watershed Pollutant Loading Model
The Watershed Pollutant Loading Model (WLM) makes extensive use of ARC/INFO (a GIS) in storing,
generating, and retrieving input data, in calculating pollutant loadings as a function of spatial data and
associated attributes, and in displaying spatial distributions of pollutant loadings in a given watershed. In
short, the WLM is intimately coupled with, indeed operates within, the ARC/INFO environment. The
model functions by first estimating areal distributed precipitation and then calculating runoff quantity
and quality; specified point source loading information is also included in model output. The three major
elements of the WLM operate as follows (more detail can be found in Sullivan and Song-James, 1995):
¦ Estimation of Watershed Precipitation: Precipitation is the driving force behind the generation of
runoff and associated pollutant loads. Estimation of precipitation across the watershed is based on
available precipitation data from rain gages located either within the watershed or in nearby areas.
Spatially distributed precipitation or mean areal precipitation is generated using GIS information
on the location of rain gages, elevation, and other contributing factors.
¦ Hydrologic Submodel: The hydrologic submodel of WLM generates runoff flow within the
watershed. To fully utilize the power of a GIS and spatially distributed data, a distributed
parameter modeling approach based on the USDA's Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Curve
Number Model was selected for our prototype application on the Buffalo River watershed. The
SCS Curve Number Model requires spatially distributed soils and land use data that was readily
available for the Buffalo River watershed.
Pollutant Loading Submodel: The loading submodel allows for the generation and/or specification
of pollutant loadings and their transport and fate within the watershed. Loading sources include
point sources, nonpoint sources from rural as well as urban areas, and CSOs. Point source loads
-------
are regulated by NYS SPDES permits; therefore, discharge and loading information is reported
regularly. Pollution loads from nonpoint and CSO sources will vary depending on precipitation
quantity, land-use activities, storage capacities, and watershed topographic features. With this
model nonpoint source exports of BOD, TSS, TN (total nitrogen) and TP (total phosphorus) are
determined on a daily basis for individual polygons in the watershed based upon runoff calculated
by the hydrologic submodel and land use-specific event mean concentrations (EMCs) for the
pollutants of interest. To determine the actual loading to the lower river, delivery ratios are
applied on the basis of distance from the lower river to account for in-stream losses.
BREUTRO
EUTR04 is a sub-model of WASP4, the updated version of the Water Quality Analysis Program
(WASP), developed in 1981 by Hydroscience, Inc. (Ambrose, et al. 1987). EUTR04 is a dynamic mass
balance model designed to analyze a variety of eutrophication and/or dissolved oxygen problems in
surface waters. Because this model is supported by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and has
been widely used, it was an excellent candidate for integration into Geo-WAMS. BREUTRO refers to
the EUTR04 model configured to address the dissolved oxygen problem in the lower Buffalo River.
Geo-WAMS Application
The linked models described above were run for the growing season (April 1 to October 31) of 1990.
This period represented the best data set for precipitation, flow, and water quality data pertinent to our
problem. After calibration, the watershed model was used to evaluate the combined and individual
effects of various sources within the watershed on BOD and DO in the Buffalo River. The model was
also used to determine the impact of changes in land use or implementation of pollution abatement
practices (e.g.,Best Management Practices in agricultural areas) on the dissolved oxygen in the lower
river.
A very useful analysis that is facilitated by GIS allows the analyst to visualize the spatial distribution of
loading of a pollutant of concern througout the entire watershed. Such a visualization for the seasonal
yield of BOD5 to the river for the April-October, 1990 period is presented in Figure 3. This display
allows one to use the GIS to rapidly determine the relative contributions from different classes of sources
during a given period. For example, the model output for this period indicates an average BOD5 loading
to the river of 6,850 kg/day, with 53%, 9%, 35%, and 3% coming from CSOs, urban runoff, rural runoff,
and point sources, respectively.
Another post-processing capability of GEO-WAMS was used to analyze the output of BREUTRO for the
lower Buffalo River. This module also takes advantage of the GIS capabilities of the system to display
the model output as a spatial animation. This AML program allows time-dependent simulation model
output to be transferred to the GIS for display in two-dimensional map form on the screen. At each time
step the spatial variation of any given parameter may be displayed. Dynamic changes with time can then
be illustrated by sequentially displaying maps at different time steps. This provides a valuable means of
-------
viewing model output.
The Buffalo River watershed analysis performed with Geo-WAMS allows us to make assessments about
the relative impact of source management on dissolved oxygen in the river. For example, although CSOs
represent the biggest loading of BOD to the river, their impact on dissolved oxygen resources are not as
significant as upstream loadings because of their discharge location (lower river) and the fact that they
contribute loads only during high flow periods when the BOD does not have much time to exert itself
before being discharged into Lake Erie.
Acknowledgments
This work was funded through an Environmental Protection Agency cooperative agreement (No.
CR818560) issued through the EPA, Environmental Research Laboratory-Duluth, Large Lakes and
Rivers Research Station, Grosse lie, Michigan. William L. Richardson was the project officer.
References
Ambrose, R.B.Jr.P.E., T.A. Wool, J.L.Martin, J.P. Connolly, and R.W.Schanz, WASP4, a
Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model Model Theory, User's Manual, and Programmer's
Guide (revision for WASP4.3x). Environmental Research Laboratory, Office of Research and
Development, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Athens, GA, 1987.
DePinto, J.V., H. Lin, W. Guan, J.F. Atkinson, P.J. Densham, H.W. Calkins, P.W. Rodgers, 1994.
"Development of GEO-WAMS: An Approach to the Integration of GIS and Great Lakes
Watershed Analysis Models." Special issue of Microcomputers in Civil Engineering, 9:251-262.
Sullivan, M.P. and Z. Song-James. 1995. Geo-WAMS, Final Report: Documentation of Level 1
Watershed Pollutant Loading Model. Limno-Tech, Inc. Ann Arbor, MI, 30 pp.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
A Wasteload Allocation Modeling Tool for
Watershed Management
Wu-Seng Lung, Professor
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA
Introduction
A numerical tagging technique has been developed to address eutrophication control in watershed
management. One of the most recurrent questions in eutrophication control is the fate and transport of
nutrients from wastewater discharges. For example, nutrients from point and nonpoint sources could be
incorporated into the biomass of phytoplankton, deposited into the sediments, or transported
downstream. This tagging technique is developed to address the question: How much nutrients in the
algal biomass at a certain location in the receiving water is from a given source?
In BOD/DO modeling, component analyses are routinely performed to quantify the contribution of
individual BOD sources to dissolved oxygen deficits (Thomann and Mueller, 1987). The analysis
procedure is straightforward: a particular BOD load is removed from the model, the model is rerun, and
the resulting DO concentrations are compared to the original results. The difference in dissolved oxygen
concentrations between the two model results, before and after removing the BOD load, represents the
portion of the overall dissolved oxygen depression in the receiving water attributable to this specific
component of the BOD loadings. Such a procedure is not applicable to eutrophication modeling simply
because of the nonlinear formulations in the eutrophication models (e.g., algal growth and nutrient
dynamics). Removing individual phosphorus sources might result in proportional reductions in river
nutrient concentrations but unproportional reductions in chlorophyll a concentrations. Thus, if the
sources of a nutrient (phosphorus or nitrogen) were removed one at a time and the reductions in biomass
(presumably chlorophyll a associated with that nutrient source) were added together, the sum would not
be equal to (most likely, much lower than) the biomass resulting from the analysis in which all nutrient
sources are included (Lung, 1996).
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
The numerical tagging procedure is quite similar to the 32P04 technique that limnologists used in
tracking phosphorus in the natural water system by measuring the amount of 32P04 in various
phosphorus compartments in the system. Instead of a radioactive tracer, a numerical tracer is injected to
one of the nutrient sources in the eutrophication model. The model, which is based on the mass balance
principle, is used to track the concentrations of this nutrient in the receiving water. The numerical tagging
technique has been applied to the Upper Mississippi River and Lake Pepin, MN to track the fate and
transport of major phosphorus sources and to the James Estuary, VA to track phosphorus and nitrogen
from point and nonpoint sources. Successful applications have demonstrate that the technique is
particularly useful in quantifying the contribution of an individual nutrient source or a group of sources
to the phytoplankton biomass in the receiving water. This paper presents the concept behind the
procedure and displays results from these model applications.
Modeling Framework and Technical Approach
The modeling framework used for developing this tagging technique is the EPA's Water Quality
Analysis Simulation Program (WASP). WASP5 is the latest version available from the EPA's Center for
Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM) in Athens, GA (Ambrose et al., 1993). EUTR05 is the
eutrophication module of WASP, modeling eight water quality constituents in the water column and
sediment bed and is probably one of the most commonly used modeling framework used in wasteload
allocation studies of nutrients to date (Lung and Larson, 1995; Lung, 1996). Phosphorus is present in
three interlinked compartments in the EUTR05 model: orthophosphate, nonliving organic phosphorus,
and phosphorus in the phytoplankton. To track these components in the receiving water, three additional
system variables have been added: labeled orthophosphate (variable No. 9), labeled nonliving organic
phosphorus (No. 10), and labeled phytoplankton (No. 11). Special care is needed to preserve the
nonlinear relationship between algal growth rate and phosphorus concentrations. While the kinetic
interrelationships among these labeled compartments are separate, but the same as those for the
unlabeled, algal growth rates are calculated based on the total concentration of labeled and unlabeled
orthophosphate. When either labeled or unlabeled orthophosphate is exhausted, algal growth and
associated phosphorus uptake should shift to the other compartment to maintain the mass balance and
avoid negative orthophosphate concentrations. Labeled phosphorus is tracked separately and cycled
within the labeled compartment (i.e., variables No. 9-11). Carbon in both labeled and unlabeled
phytoplankton biomass is recycled to the common CBOD pool. In tracking phosphorus alone, ammonia
and nitrite/nitrate are utilized by both labeled and unlabeled phytoplankton. Nitrogen in the
phytoplankton biomass (both labeled and unlabeled) is also recycled to the common nonliving organic
nitrogen pool. Although the orthophosphate concentration has been divided into two compartments,
labeled and unlabeled, the phytoplankton growth rate must be calculated based on the combined
concentrations of these two components, because the phytoplankton should not discriminate between
these two phosphorus sources. The phytoplankton growth rate (in day-1) is calculated accounting for the
effects of water temperature, light, and the levels of nutrients (phosphorus and nitrogen) in the water
column (Thomann and Mueller, 1987). A complete description of the formulations of the equations for
the numerical tagging model and the testing of the model can be found in Lung (1996).
-------
Application to Upper Mississippi River and Lake Pepin
The Metropolitan Wastewater Treatment Plant (Metro Plant) is located in St. Paul, MN on the Upper
Mississippi River and is approximately 50 miles upstream of Lake Pepin. A recent wasteload allocation
modeling study by Lung and Larson (1995) showed that phosphorus load reductions at the Metro Plant
would have a minimum effect on reducing the algal biomass in Lake Pepin. The next question is: To
what extent is phosphorus from the Metro Plant transported to Lake Pepin under both existing and
potential reduced loading conditions? More specifically, how much phosphorus in the algal biomass in
Lake Pepin is from the Metro Plant?
Results of the numerical tagging analysis for the summer 1988 condition are presented in Figure 1,
showing the fate of different phosphorus sources in longitudinal concentration profiles of total
phosphorus, orthophosphate, and phytoplankton concentrations in the river under two loading scenarios:
the 1988 loads and the reduced phosphorus (effluent concentration = 0.4 mg/L) loads at the Metro Plant.
Figure 1 shows the dominating effect of the Metro Plant discharge on the phosphorus concentrations in
the water column during the summer months of 1988. In general, total phosphorus and orthophosphate
concentrations are reduced in the downstream direction, indicating loss of phosphorus along the river
(due to algal uptake and settling) in addition to dilution by the St. Croix River. Although the Metro Plant
effluent contains no phytoplankton biomass, phosphorus from the effluent is gradually taken up by the
phytoplankton in the river, leading to the band of phosphorus in algal biomass attributed to the Metro
Plant in the lower panels of Figure 1. Results from another model run to quantify the phosphorus
components under a reduced Metro Plant phosphorus load are also shown in Figure 1. The reduced
loading rates reflect a 10-fold reduction of phosphorus loads at the treatment plant. Total phosphorus and
orthophosphate concentrations in the receiving water would be reduced significantly under this scenario.
Subsequently, the uptake of this phosphorus by the algal biomass in the water column would be
considerably reduced compared with the summer 1988 condition. However, despite the significant
reduction of phosphorus loads from the Metro Plant, the phytoplankton biomass reduction would amount
to only 10 (ig/L of chlorophyll a behind Lock and Dam No. 2 and even less (about 5 (ig/L) in Lake Pepin,
in agreement with the original modeling results (Lung and Larson, 1995).
-------
1318 Phosphorus Leeds el the Metro Plant
Reduced Pho&ptxvus Loads at the Metro Pfor:t
E <
B1
o!
'feo 850 840 830 820 810 SOD 790 7B0 770 ?§§
* ' *
| Uj^Mippi JfcOve LMk & £»S« Nfr !
C: Mel r 800 790 7®0 770 760
Ill
-¥
JS
*3
o
a
if
a.
3
Sl60 850 840 830 820 810 800'

mfMi

K «
g« uuwa lak he ro-fi io. i
C: Utiro Ptorrt
0: Othtf WOM
£ : S*tff«s
-------
average monthly limit of 2 mg/L of total phosphorus in the effluent of about 40 wastewater treatment
plants in the Chesapeake Bay drainage basin. A modeling study by Lung (1986a) indicated that a
reduction of nutrient inputs by removing phosphorus at municipal wastewater treatment plants would
lead to a phosphorus limiting condition in the James Estuary, thereby lowering the phytoplankton
biomass levels.
The numerical tagging was applied to the James Estuary to assess the impact of point source phosphorus
controls on eutrophication in the context of the fate and transport of phosphorus from major point
sources. The model runs were conducted under the river condition of September 1983 (Lung and
Testerman, 1989), which data were available to calibrate the EUTR05 model. Results of the modeling
analysis showing total phosphorus, orthophosphate, and chlorophyll a concentration profile in the James
Estuary from Richmond to the mouth of the river under no point source control and point source control
scenarios can be found in Lung and Testerman (1989). Due to the significant phosphorus loads from the
point sources in the James River basin, reducing the point source loads by removing phosphorus at
wastewater treatment plants to an effluent concentration of 2 mg/L would reduce the peak chlorophyll a
levels in the estuary by a factor of two. Unlike the case in the Upper Mississippi River and Lake Pepin
where nonpoint phosphorus loads are more significant than the point sources, controlling point sources in
the James River basin would have a significant impact on eutrophication. This result is consistent with
the earlier finding by Lung (1986b) that prior to implementing the control measures, the James River
basin was dominated by point source nutrient loads.
The numerical tagging model was also modified to track nitrogen components: nonliving organic
nitrogen, ammonium, and nitrite/nitrate nitrogen in the James Estuary (Brown, 1994). The nitrogen
tagging model was run under a 7-day 10-year (7Q10) low flow condition with the point source
phosphorus and nitrogen loads reduced to levels at concentrations of 2 mg/L. Model results showed that
the nitrogen reduction yielded no further reduction in the algal biomass levels, suggesting that the estuary
was phosphorus limited. In addition, the results showed that the nonpoint source impact on the
chlorophyll a concentrations in the estuary is minor under the 7Q10 low flow condition.
Summary and Conclusions
Results from this numerical tagging analysis demonstrate that the technique is very useful in providing
additional insight into the phytoplankton-nutrient dynamics in the Upper Mississippi River and Lake
Pepin and the James Estuary in terms of water quality management. The model results are particularly
useful in quantifying the contribution of an individual nutrient source or a group of sources to the
phytoplankton biomass in the receiving water. Applying the technique on a watershed basis would yield
information for developing a sound water quality management strategy, particularly in terms of the trade-
off between point and nonpoint loads. It has been demonstrated that the numerical tagging analysis can
be instrumental in improving the overall TMDL (total maximum daily load) development of a particular
watershed. By adding a sediment system to the model, one could identify the origin(s) of phosphorus in
the sediment by quantifying the shares of the contributing sources. Such an analysis would complement
field work on finger-printing phosphorus in the sediment. Finally, the principles behind the procedure are
-------
not site specific to the Upper Mississippi River or James Estuary, but rather generic enough to apply to
any water quality-limited waterbody that requires TMDL development.
References
Ambrose, R.B., Wool, T.A., and Martin, J.L. (1993) The water quality analysis simulation
program, WASP5; Part A: model documentation. EPA/600/3-87/039, Environ. Res. Lab., EPA,
Athens, GA.
Brown, E.W. (1994) Developing a nitrogen tagging technique for TMDL calculations. MS thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22903.
Lung, W.S. (1986a) Assessing phosphorus control in the James River basin. Journal of
Environmental Engineering, Vol 112, No. 1, pp.44-60.
Lung, W.S. (1986b) Phosphorus loads to the Chesapeake Bay: a perspective. Journal of Water
Pollution Control Federation, Vol. 58, No. 7, pp.749-756.
Lung, W.S. and Testerman, N. (1989) Modeling fate and transport of nutrients in the James
Estuary. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 115, No. 5, pp.978-991.
Lung, W.S. and Larson, C.E. (1995) Water quality modeling of the upper Mississippi River and
Lake Pepin. Journal of Environmental Engineering, Vol. 121, No. 10, pp.691-699.
Lung, W.S. (1996) Fate and transport modeling using a numerical tracer. Water Resources
Research, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 171-178.
Thomann, R.V. and Mueller, J.A. (1987) Principles of surface water quality modeling and control.
Harper & Row Publishers, New York, NY.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Based Source Screening Model_An
Analytical Tool for Watershed Management in
Urban Environments
Terence Cooke, Senior Project Scientist
Phillip Mineart, Senior Project Engineer
Sujatha Singh, Senior Staff Engineer
Woodward-Clyde, Oakland, CA
James Scanlin
Alameda County Flood Control and Resource Conservation District, Hayward,
CA
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
As specified in the 1988 Storm Water Management Plan (SWMP), the Alameda Countywide Clean
Water Program (Program) has actively researched urban storm water runoff, the pollution problems it
causes and control measures that can be implemented to address the problems. Activities and
investigations have included monitoring of water quality in streams and storm inlets; literature reviews to
evaluate sources of urban storm water pollution (e.g., pollution in roof runoff and street runoff); pilot
studies to optimize solutions for urban storm water problems; development of Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to control storm water problems; and evaluation of natural treatment facilities, such as
marshes, to cleanse storm water (e.g., DUST Marsh). These investigations have provided the Program
with an understanding of urban storm water issues and the effectiveness of treatment measures
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
The Regional Water Quality Control Board and the EPA are now encouraging urban runoff programs to
pursue a watershed-based solution approach, the intent of which is to develop and implement an
integrated, holistic strategy to effectively restore and protect aquatic ecosystems and human health. As a
result, the Program plans to integrate a Watershed Management Approach (WMA) into the SWMP. One
of the elements of the WMA is to assess watershed needs which includes
¦ Characterization of aquatic resources and beneficial uses
¦ Identification of existing and potential threats to the resources
¦ Prioritization of the beneficial uses and threats
As a first step towards assessing the needs of the watersheds in Alameda County, the Program has
developed a 'Source Evaluation Method' (SEM), designed to identify satisfy a portion of the watershed
needs assessment evaluate basin-wide sources of water quality problems. As part of the SEM a
Watershed Screening Model was developed and tested on a pilot watershed in the City of Oakland
(Sausal Creek).
Source Evaluation Method
The objective of the SEM is to qualitatively evaluate basin-wide water quality problems. The method
consists of five clearly defined and separable steps which are described below.
Step 1. Compile Known Water Quality Problems In Watershed
This is a critical component in the SEM. The objective is to compile known, direct or indirect impacts on
water quality in the watershed. These may include the effects of toxic pollutants such as fish kills,
impacts associated with nutrients and eutrophication such as algae blooms or taste and odor problems in
reservoirs, and others. Determination of the water quality impacts in the watershed will serve as a road
map in conducting the remaining tasks in the SEM.
Sources of information on known water quality impacts include: local regulators (Regional Water
Quality Control Board), city and county water quality managers, environmental groups, and local and
citizen groups.
Step 2. Characterize the Physical Properties of the Watershed
The physical nature of the watershed such as size, topographic relief, and local hydrologic conditions
will determine the runoff and erosion from the watershed. Characteristics such as land use, creeks and
storm drainage system in the watershed may be used to delineate sub-watersheds, so that different
-------
attributes of the watershed may be clearly differentiated and addressed. Evaluation at a sub-watershed
scale is more meaningful for two reasons. First, not all sub-watersheds within an urban watershed will
have the same level of development. Second, it is easier to identify water quality problems at a sub-
watershed level.
Sources of information on watershed characteristics included available material such as: maps (USGS,
city storm drainage, RCDC soils map), aerial photographs, photographs, and previous reports.
Step 3. Inventory Watershed Activities
The objective of this step is to identify activities in the watershed that are potential sources of water
quality problems. Such activities include those typically associated with urbanization such as industrial
and construction practices; agricultural practices such as herbicide and pesticide application; recreational
activities, and transportation. Because identifying every pollutant source-activity is often difficult and
time-consuming, an alternative is to use watershed land uses as a surrogate. The advantage of using land
use as a surrogate for activity is that data are available for different land uses and many activities are
concentrated within certain land uses. The disadvantage is that many sources are lumped together which
necessitate further analysis to differentiate between specific sources, and that many activities (e.g.,
vehicle use) occur in many different land uses.
Sources of watershed activity information include interviews with knowledgeable stakeholders and
jurisdictional agencies such as: city and county planning departments, Department of Parks and
Recreation, Department of Fish and Game, Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, and Department
of Water Resources.
Step 4. Link Watershed Activities to Impacts
The objective of this task is to provide the physical link between the activities identified in Step 3 and
water quality impacts. The ideal approach would be to use a physically-based model to simulate the
effects of the activity on water quality. For example, the impacts to water quality from parking lot runoff
would be estimated by physical relationships between pollutants, runoff and the period and intensity of
rainfall, the antecedent dry period, the parking lot surface material plus other factors. However, except
for a few activities, the relationship between the activity and water quality is either not very well
understood or is too complicated and data intensive to use in a screening model. Therefore, empirical
relationships are used to relate activities (or land use) to water quality impacts.
Model Description. The screening level model developed for this task is a simple spreadsheet model
which uses empirical relationships to estimate annual pollutant loads. The model is not designed to be
used for loads assessment since it only uses loads as a surrogate for water quality impact.
For most activities the relationship between the activity (land use) and the water quality impact is the
concentration of pollutants in the runoff. This concentration is not estimated from watershed specific data
-------
but is the average from land use specific data collected by the Program and other urban runoff programs
The model compares the loads from the different land use-activities to a baseline value and ranks the
severity of the water quality problem into a high, medium or low impact. Input into the model includes
watershed reach parameters, soil parameters, land-use breakdown, and precipitation. Figure 1 is a flow-
chart of the model-layout.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the model layout.
Model Calculations. Runoff and Erosion - The model estimates the erosion from the unurbanized areas
using the Universal Soil Loss Equation developed by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS). These areas
include the agricultural, forest land, open space, parks, single family residential and construction land use
activities. Annual runoff is estimated for each land-use activity as the annual runoff coefficient times the
annual rainfall for the subarea. The storm runoff for the ten-year 24-hour storm is calculated using the
-------
SCS method. A curve number is automatically assigned to each land use activity from a lookup table
based upon the soil number input by the user. The runoff is given in acre-feet.
The erosion potential for each land use activity is ranked relative to a baseline value (see discussion of
model output for description of baseline value). The ranking is based upon a pseudo-average annual
concentration calculated as the total erosion mass (i.e., tons) divided by the annual runoff (acre-feet). If
this value is greater than two times the baseline value, the land use activity is assigned a high (H)
ranking. If it is less than the baseline value it is assigned a low (L) ranking, otherwise it is assigned a
medium (M) ranking.
Pollutant Loads - The model calculates the load of nitrogen, phosphorous, copper, lead and zinc for each
land use activity. For each of these constituents for each land use activity, both a dissolved and
particulate concentration has been assigned in a lookup table based on historical monitoring data. The
total load is calculated as the total sediment load times the particulate concentration plus the annual
runoff times the dissolved concentration. For the nutrients and metals, the load per unit area is compared
to a baseline unit area value (Alameda annual pollutant load per unit area, (WCC 1992)). If either one is
greater twice the baseline value the land use activity is assigned a high (H) rank, if both are lower than
the baseline value the land use activity is assigned a low (L) rank.
Model Output. Model output is contained on the subarea specific pages and the main output page. On
each subarea page a L, M or H is assigned to each land use activity for erosion, nutrients and metals.
These are based on the calculations discussed above.
Step 5. Evaluate Pollutant Sources in Watershed
After reviewing model results the user needs to compare these results to the perceived water quality
problems in the watershed. The screening model is not designed to determine if a particular land use
activity is causing a water quality problem, only if the land use activity is contributing greater than a
baseline amount.
Implementation Example Sausal Creek Watershed
The model was used to develop the water quality impacts from land use activities in the Sausal Creek
watershed in Oakland California. An impact ranking was developed by comparing the load per unit area
for each sub-watershed with the baseline value. If this value is greater than twice the baseline value, the
land use activity is assigned a high priority. Conversely, if the value is lower than the baseline value the
land use activity is assigned a low priority. For erosion, ranks were assigned by comparing average
annual concentrations to a baseline value.
Table 1 shows the sub-watershed characteristics and land-use breakdown for the Sausal Creek watershed.
The first two sub-watersheds (Shepherd Canyon and Palo Seco) both drain to Diamond Canyon which
drains to MacArthur and Fruitvale. The land-use distribution is typical of watersheds in Alameda County
-------
where the upper sub-watersheds are largely open space or parks with increasing residential land-use in
the middle sub-watersheds and industrial areas in the lower sub-water sheds.
Table 2 shows the severity or impact ranking for each of Sausal Creek's sub-watersheds and for the
watershed measured at the base of each sub-watershed.
The results for each sub-watershed indicate activities related to residential, commercial and industrial
land uses show a low priority for nutrients and erosion and medium to high priority for heavy metals.
Conclusions and Recommendations
A process for identifying potential sources of urban storm water pollution was developed. As presented
in this paper, an integral part of the process is a screening level model that ranks each land use activity
from low to high based on its estimated impact on water quality.
Some possible improvements to the model include using concentrations rather than loads to assess short
term impacts to creeks using event specific rather than annual average conditions to evaluate the effects
of specific storm events. However, more investigation is needed on how this information can be used to
direct implementation of Best Management Practices before these effects are incorporated into the
model.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Successful Restoration of Shellfish Habitat by
Control of Watershed Pollution Sources
David R. Bingham, Vice President
Francis X. Dougherty, Senior Project Engineer
Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., Wakefield, MA
Sandra L. MacFarlane, Conservation Commission
Town of Orleans, MA
Web Note: Plesae note that images for this session of the Watershed
96 Proceedings are not available at this time, but will be available
soon.
Like many coastal communities, the town of Orleans, Massachusetts, has had its shellfish habitats
affected by nonpoint source runoff. Elevated levels of fecal coliform bacteria forced the Cape Cod
community to close over 2,500 acres of shellfish habitat during the 1980's. In 1987, the town formed a
Water Quality Task Force to identify marine problem areas, determine the causes of the water quality
degradation that had necessitated shellfish closures and recommend solutions. A municipal water quality
monitoring laboratory was established, staffed by trained volunteers, to test for fecal coliform bacteria
using the membrane filtration technique. The volunteers were primarily members of an environmentally
active neighborhood association. The task force assumed, and subsequent water sample analyses
confirmed, that stormwater runoff was a major factor in shellfish closures.
Pollution Assessment
The town of Orleans is located at the "elbow" of Cape Cod. It has extensive marine shellfishing resources
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
-------
including Town Cove and Meetinghouse Pond (Figure 1). The assessment involved identifying and
mapping all existing surface drainage systems which were then prioritized according to the size of the
drainage area and the resources affected. Areas were categorized according to shellfish productivity,
swimming, and anadromous fish runs. Drainage pipes that discharged into shellfish habitat areas with
more than one type of activity or very high productivity were given the highest priority and were
recommended for remediation.
The town hired Metcalf & Eddy, Inc. to delineate the watersheds and drainage systems, develop
remediation alternatives, design the new retrofit systems selected by the town, and oversee their
implementation. The town funded the engineering and construction of the control facilities by a special
appropriation of $400,000 approved by the voters, despite difficult economic conditions. Additional
support was provided by the Friends of Meetinghouse Pond, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts which
retrofitted existing drains with leaching catch basins during a road resurfacing program, and a private
corporation that constructed the innovative filter dam system (designed by Metcalf & Eddy) on their
property at Jeremiah's Gutter.
Five of the largest drainage systems were identified as having the most severe impact on high priority
areas. Remediation projects were recommended for these systems: two in Meetinghouse Pond in the
Pleasant Bay estuary and the three in the Town Cove portion of the Nauset estuary (Figure 1). The
combined drainage area of the three pipes emptying into the Town Cove encompassed the majority of the
business district and impacted some of the town's most valuable shellfish habitats. The other two areas
were primarily residential uses.
Remediation Design
The analysis and design process considered a number of factors in selecting the most appropriate method
to remediate the bacteria contamination. The process consisted of collecting base data and information;
alternative identification and analysis; and detail design.
Bacteria contamination is most effectively treated by filtration. That filtration can be accomplished by
subsurface soils (infiltration) or through a surface filter (sand filter). Since filtration in either scenario
would be adversely effected by clogging of sediments and debris, those materials must be captured
before the filtration occurs. An additional benefit of the sediment capture is that many pollutants are
attached to the sediments and are also removed from the stormwater runoff. That pre-treatment process is
typically accomplished with the use of settling tanks, or water quality inlets, installed upgradient of the
treatment area. If hydraulic conditions would preclude the installation of the tanks, then alternative
treatment areas such as a settling pond with baffles would be effective.
Once the priority watersheds and stormwater discharge pipes were selected, base information was
obtained and potential treatment areas identified. Site and hydraulic conditions were studied to determine
the most appropriate location to construct the treatment systems. The initial site screening conditions
were depth to groundwater (must be greater than 10 feet), suitable soils (medium to highly permeable
-------
with no confining layers within 15 feet of the surface), and nearby storm water collection system
hydraulics. Secondary considerations were topographic and access conditions which would impact
construction costs. Treatment area property ownership (town versus private) was also considered. The
groundwater and soil conditions were necessary to ensure that the filtration system would consistently
operate with minimum maintenance. Borings and soil testing were utilized to identify suitable soil strata
treatment areas. The stormwater collection system hydraulics criteria required the acceptable treatment
area to be at least ten feet below the drainage pipe invert. This allows the system to be gravity operated
and eliminates the costly capital, operation, and maintenance costs associated with utilizing pumps in the
treatment system. The general stormwater system mapping was supplemented with detailed survey to
obtain system hydraulic information.
The alternative analysis involved evaluating the base information and determining the most effective
treatment system for each watershed. Four acceptable areas were identified for installation of subsurface
filtration systems. The systems consist of leaching chambers surrounded by stone. The stormwater
entering the leaching chamber percolates through the gravel and sand to the groundwater, where it enters
the estuary as underflow in a more diffuse manner. Pretreatment to collect sediments and debris was
accomplished with the use of water quality inlet precast concrete tanks. The tanks were designed with a
minimum detention time of 2 minutes and ranged in size from 2,500 gallons to 10,000 gallons. Since the
majority of the rain events and pollutant generation occurs in the "first flush" or 1 inch of runoff, the
systems were designed to treat that stormwater volume. Rain events with greater runoff volumes bypass
the filtration system via an overflow weir and discharge directly to the estuaries. The infiltration systems
consisted of leaching galleys and drywells. The systems each treated up to 150,000 gallons for the design
storm.
A fifth area requiring treatment, Jeremiah's Gutter, has high groundwater (less than 4 feet below the
ground surface) and unacceptable system hydraulics to install a treatment system similar to the other four
sites. At this location a surface sand filter installed in precast concrete tanks was utilized for stormwater
treatment. An existing upstream pond was retrofitted with steel sheeting to encourage sediment settling
and trapping of floating debris. Since the treatment area was previously subject to fuel spills, a
hydrocarbon containment boon was installed in the pond to further protect the estuaries. The filtration
system provided treatment for over 300,000 gallons of stormwater, consisted of five concrete tanks with
a 12 inch thick sand and geotextile filter media. An under drain system was designed to discharge the
treated stormwater downstream and allow for convenient water sampling. If the stormwater runoff
exceeded the design event or the filter was not properly maintained, excess runoff would discharge
directly to the downstream areas via an overflow weir.
System Construction
Because Orleans experiences tremendous tourist activity between April 1 and October 1 each year, no
construction could occur during those periods. The design and permitting was completed in the fall of
1992, therefore bidding and construction had to be completed between December 1992 and April, 1993.
The construction program consisted of the completion of four treatment systems at three sites: Academy
-------
Place, Main Street and Tonset Road, and Meeting House Pond areas. The fifth area, Jeremiah's Gutter,
was constructed by a private corporation at no cost to the town.
The project for the four sites was awarded to the contractor in February 1993 and the work was
essentially completed by the April 1, 1993 deadline at a cost of approximately $282,000. Jeremiah's
Gutter treatment system was conducted on private property and therefore not subject to the April 1, 1993
deadline.
Operation and Maintenance
Each project included an operation and maintenance program that the town or the private corporation has
adopted. The program consists of periodic inspection of key components and removal of sediment and
debris which has accumulated in the water quality inlets. Maintenance on the sand filter at Jeremiah's
Gutter involves periodic removal of the filter media and is conducted by a private corporation.
Water quality monitoring is continuing to determine the efficiency of the systems. Data from the source
monitoring program, four sites constructed by the town, is shown in Table 1. The effectiveness of the
stormwater treatment systems are apparent, with substantial reductions in fecal coliform bacteria. Within
15 months of completing construction, all of the shellfish habitat acreage was either successfully
reopened or has not been subject to temporary closures.
The filtration system at Jeremiah's Gutter was constructed by a private corporation and initially was not
operating correctly. After construction the geotextile on top of the sand filter and through which the
stormwater has to percolate was clogged with iron algae. Recently the geotextile was removed as
recommended in the operation and maintenance plan and the filter was operable. The town will initiate
water quality sampling and analysis of the filter system effluent to determine the effectiveness.
Future Remediation
The town has investigated remaining drains and prioritized them for future remediation based on the
success thus far. A grant from the Environmental Protection Agency and Massachusetts Department of
Environmental Protection was received from the nonpoint source pollution program. With these funds,
an additional four drains will be remediated. Additional work is being undertaken by the town to prevent
future contamination problems and avoid the need for additional pollution control retrofits. Actions
include preparation of a groundwater table map, flushing analysis of two estuaries, preparation of
comprehensive land use and resource management plans and an assessment of nonstructural best
management practices for stormwater control. This assessment includes a review of ordinances that
would encourage on-site handling of stormwater and discourage direct drainage to marine resources.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Restoration in Deer Creek, Washington-
A Ten Year Review
James E. Doyle, Senior Biologist, Greta Movassaghi, Michelle Fisher, Roger
Nichols
Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest, US Forest Service, Mountlake Terrace,
WA
Deer Creek is a tributary to the North Fork Stillaguamish River located in the North Cascades of
Washington State. The watershed encompasses approximately 67 square miles. Approximately half of
the watershed is National Forest land, the rest is in state and private ownership. The major land use is
forestry. The topography is characterized by glaciated valleys separated by sharp ridges, with elevations
ranging from 1600 to 4900 feet in the headwaters to near 200 feet at the mouth. The mainstem of Deer
Creek has a length of 24 miles while 23 individual tributaries total an additional 56 miles of stream
channel.. The effect of glaciation, in particular the deposition of lacustrine clays and silts, has strongly
influenced the morphology and sediment production of the watershed. These glacial sediments in the
steep lower slopes of the valleys of Deer Creek and its tributaries are prone to mass wasting and erosion
(Collins et al 1994). Most of the watershed is classified as a temperate evergreen forest with a western
hemlock and silver fir vegetation series dominating. Within these two vegetation series the dominant tree
species include western hemlock, silver fir, western red cedar, and Douglas fir (Henderson et al 1992).
The average annual precipitation ranges from 75 inches in the lower watershed to 110 inches or more at
the higher elevations. Precipitation occurs throughout the year, 75 % falls between October and March.
In the Washington Cascades, elevation influences whether winter precipitation occurs as rain or snow.
Middle watershed elevations (1600-2600 feet) are transitional rain-on-snow zones; snow may build up
and melt several times during a winter. Winter storms, often accompanied by heavy rains and wind may
melt snow at these elevations causing high flows and subsequent flood damage.
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
About two thirds of the Deer Creek stream channel network is accessible by anadromous fish and has
-------
historically supported runs of steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss), coho salmon (O. kisutch) and
native char (Salvelinus malmo). Based on historical accounts, Deer Creek fish habitat consisted of a
variety of riffles and high quality pools formed by a multitude of huge boulders with deep, clear cold
water. The wild steelhead run in Deer Creek has evoked strong emotions among past and present
generations of anglers and writers. In 1918, while passing through Seattle on his way to the Campbell
River in British Columbia, the famous western novelist, Zane Gray fished Deer Creek. His second day on
the stream, he hooked his first steelhead. It was the beginning of a long association with steelhead fishing
about which Gray wrote extensively about later. In 1937 the Washington State Game Commission closed
Deer Creek to all fishing to protect and maintain the natural production of steelhead within the
watershed. In 1943, the N.F. Stillaguamish River, downstream from Deer Creek, was designated for fly
fishing only. This was probably the first time a western river was restricted to fly fishing (Raymond
1973).
Major timber harvesting began in the watershed in the 1950's. By the mid 1980's the Deer Creek fishery
was in decline due to the cumulative effects of the timber harvesting which caused increased land slides,
channel sedimentation, and loss of fish habitat The majority of the lower watershed and approximately
one third of the federal land has been timber harvested.
The declining fish populations coupled with habitat loss and degradation in Deer Creek made protection
and restoration of the remaining habitat a high management priority. The Deer Creek Group was formed
in 1984 in response to these concerns. The Group was composed of local landowners and managers, state
agencies. Fishing groups and local Indian tribes. Mixed land ownership in the watershed and conflicting
mandates of resource management agencies made it imperative that a forum be created where all
concerned parties could begin a dialog to address resource issues.
All these efforts still didn't do much to stop or reverse the decline in the adult and juvenile summer-run
steelhead populations in Deer Creek; in the fall of 1993 Washington Trout formally petitioned the
National Marine Fisheries Service to consider Deer Creek summer-run steelhead as a federally
endangered species.
Watershed Assessment and Restoration Strategy Development
Starting in 1984 the US Forest Service and other resource management agencies began to address the
concerns in Deer Creek through watershed-wide inventory, monitoring, and identification or restoration
opportunities. This major assessment and planning effort led to the identification of the natural landscape
interactions (climate, hydrologic response, erosional processes) that had been altered by management
activities and subsequently led to the development of the restoration strategy. The scope of this
watershed scale assessment was focused mainly on the aquatic ecosystem and was not as broad in scope
as is the present federal watershed analysis efforts.
This assessment documented that the various land management activities throughout the watershed over
time had contributed to a loss of historic aquatic habitat and became one of the main factors for the
-------
decline of the native fish runs, including the watershed's famous summer-run steelhead. In particular,
concentrated timber harvest and the associated road building had modified the hydrologic regime that in
turn resulted in a increase of mass wasting (landslides) and channel degradation. This was most evident
in steep gradient, first and second order channels where these sub-watersheds were usually clear-cut
harvested and the heavy density or roads altered the natural drainage pattern. This channels flushed
repeatedly during storms and became a chronic source of coarse sediment input to the downstream
channel network.
The focus of federal restoration in Deer Creek, over the past 10 years has been to reduce the impact that
management activities throughout the watershed and to promote the return to the natural hydrologic and
erosional regimes. The ultimate goal has been to restore major portions of the historic aquatic habitat.
The restoration strategy had a dual thrust; first employ long term aquatic resource protection followed by
a comprehensive restoration program. Resource protection, in particular timber harvest and road building
prescriptions and standards, was an early key step of the restoration strategy. Timber harvesting and
planning continued during the early phases of watershed assessment and initial restoration
implementation. Recognition of the cause and effect relationships of management activities and resource
conditions led watershed specialists to identify and study ways to quantify these relationships. The
concept of hydrologic cumulative effects was employed to assess and explain conditions across the
watershed that contributed to stream channel degradation and fish habitat loss. Thresholds were
developed using these cumulative effects models in order for management decision making; based on
such thresholds, the US Forest Service in 1986 and again in 1990 deferred any future timber harvesting
on federal land in the watershed until aquatic habitat conditions were improved. With natural watershed
recovery possible now through these management decisions, the restoration component of the strategy
could be developed and implemented. The restoration focused on the erosional process and
sedimentation. The general objective was to reduce coarse sediment delivery and to mechanically
stabilize hill slopes and streambanks; this would promote stream channel recovery, natural revegetation
of riparian and flood plain areas, and to ultimately restored fish habitat. The ultimate goal was the
recovery of the depressed native fish stocks, with a particular emphasis on summer-run steelhead trout.
The restoration program had 2 elements; (1) implement restoration that involved three categories of
treatment (roads, hill slope, and in-channel), (2) carry out these treatments over a multi-year period of
time. The restoration treatment objectives were:
¦ reduce coarse sediment input from road and hill slopes to the downstream channel system
¦ reduce the risk of catastrophic failure (major landslides from roads and hill slopes)
¦ reduce sediment recruitment from the stream channel banks
¦ promote a return to the natural stream channel sediment regime (transport and deposition)
Projects were developed from the watershed assessment and coordinated with other agencies and
landowners through the Deer Creek Group. US Forest Service projects were prioritized by treating the
-------
sediment source areas (current and potential) first. Individual sites were prioritized by an informal risk
assessment looking at the probability of failure and the potential resource impacts if failure occurred.
Other site scale factors considered were accessibility to the site, success potential for the treatment, and
project cost. With this prioritization of treatments, roads and hill slopes projects were implemented
before most of the in-channel work.
Watershed Restoration Implementation
Once the processes were identified through watershed assessment and a restoration strategy was
developed, the implementation team had to design and implement specific treatments throughout the
watershed which were intended to meet the overall restoration goals through more narrowly defined
project site treatment objectives.
Road treatments were one of three types (road obliteration, road storm proofing, road upgrading) and
typical treatments included:
¦ installation of larger or additional culverts, or hardened dipped crossings (concrete fords or open
box culverts)
¦ bridges installed to replace ineffective culverts
¦ removal of culverts from inactive roads and restoration of the natural drainage
¦ construction of effective drainage ditches and insloping/outsloping of roads to direct water and
reduce road fill saturation that causes road fill failure
¦ installation of waterbars to intercept water and provide a controlled flow in a drainage ditch
¦ removal of sidecast or settling road fill materials to reduce the risk of mass wasting
¦ revegetation of cut banks, fill slopes and or obliterated road beds to reduce surface erosion and to
stabilize the soil and ground cover.
Generally hill slope treatments occurred on bare, eroding slopes with the intent of stabilizing and
revegetating the site. Typical treatments included installation of retaining structures such as sediment
fences and check dams, revetments, drains and trenches on unstable areas to reduce the risk of mass
wasting and seeding, mulching and planting of native trees and shrubs. In-channel treatments focused on
the location and position of woody debris in the stream channel. The majority of the treatments either
featured the repositioning of wood on the lateral margins of the active channel or efforts to decrease the
mobility or rapid transport of this wood out of the active channel. Treatments were designed to add
structural diversity (roughness) missing from the channel system and then allow time for the channel to
-------
adjust. Little mechanical reshaping or regrading of the channel was employed.
Monitoring and Maintenance
Prior to 1984 there were only a few habitat and fish population surveys of a limited nature were
conducted in Deer Creek. When concerns about the effects of management activities on fish habitat were
raised in the early 1980's, it became clear that there was a need to develop an integrated strategy to
monitor key watershed parameters on national forest land and to promote a similar approach by other
downstream landowners and resource managers. The US Forest Service initiated the development of a
watershed scale interagency multi-resource monitoring program beginning in the summer of 1984. The
main objective of this monitoring was to determine avenues for correcting current aquatic resource
problems and improving future resource management decisions. Inventories and surveys were
coordinated by the US Forest Service and included state agency and tribal fishery personnel; these
included stream, fish population surveys, spawning gravel and stream channel morphology assessments,
stream temperature monitoring, road and landslide inventories. An initial report was prepared following
the first year of monitoring recommending (1) the monitoring effort should be continued and expanded to
include the whole watershed, (2) pilot restoration projects be identified, (3) and a hydrologic cumulative
effects assessment be conducted for the watershed.
The most intensive monitoring effort in Deer Creek has been on specific project effectiveness. A regular
review of site treatment effectiveness aided the scheduling of annual project maintenance. This allowed
for the modification of existing projects and adjustments in future project design. Project modifications
were common, particularly in the early years of the restoration program; when techniques had to be
adjusted to local site conditions or unfamiliar methods required minor redesign. Most projects required
annual maintenance since implementation.
Results and Conclusions
Implementation of watershed restoration in Deer Creek has been a major undertaking. The treatment
results listed here are general in nature because even with detailed or statistical analysis, it would be
difficult to obtain definitive results without conducting cost prohibitive long term research oriented
studies. Even with such studies, the complexity and dynamic nature of aquatic ecological interactions at a
watershed scale would make it difficult to link the observed results with management actions. Most
federal watershed restoration programs, including the Deer Creek restoration have restricted monitoring
budgets; monitoring is usually restricted to comparing qualitative data and information. This type of
monitoring known as implementation and effectiveness monitoring, is limited to producing trend type
information. At a watershed scale, this level of monitoring is intended to show the trend or change in the
amount of landslide activity, coarse sediment transport and deposition, road failures, stream channel
stability, habitat loss or degradation, stream temperatures, and ultimately, change or trend in fish
population status.
The watershed restoration program in Deer Creek is considered successful for the following reasons:
-------
¦ The program assisted in the development of a watershed restoration strategy now embodied as a
component in the aquatic conservation strategy in the Northwest Forest Plan.
¦ The Forest Service was the initial partner in developing and maintaining working relationships
within the Deer Creek Group which became a model for the Washington State Timber, Fish, and
Wildlife Program.
¦ Deer Creek has remained a federal restoration priority for 10 years and a new phase of restoration
assessment, planning, and a revised restoration strategy developed on past success is underway.
¦ The Forest Service has responded with many regional and international requests to share
knowledge and skills through numerous field trips and workshops.
¦ Since the Forest Service declared a moratorium on timber harvest in 1986, significant
revegetation of timber stands has occurred, with a resultant partial recovery of the watershed's
natural hydrologic function.
¦ Restoration treatments survived the 1990 and 1995 flood events, some estimated to be 50-year
events.
¦ Relatively high quality fish habitat has been maintained in the upper watershed and is currently
serving as refugia habitat for summer-run steelhead, coho salmon, and native char.
¦ Fish populations in Deer Creek have increased significantly in the last two years. The increase in
juvenile fish densities is reversal of a decade long decline. This is in part, attributed to an
improvement of the habitat during the past five years.
It may be difficult to view this work as ecological restoration because the intent was not to actually
restore the watershed to its pre-management condition. The US Forest Service with its multiple use
mandate had the responsibility to develop a restoration strategy that would strike a balance between land
use and resource protection and recovery. The emphasis of restoration in Deer Creek has been to
accelerate natural recovery through a scope of work that was accessible, affordable, and achievable.
The Deer Creek story is a success story largely due to cooperative efforts both within the US Forest
Service and with external partners in the Deer Creek Group. Efforts in Deer Creek served as a model for
development of the strategies and techniques necessary to implement a successful multi-year watershed
restoration program.
References
-------
Collins, B.D., T.J. Beechie, L.E. Benda, P.T. Kennard, C.N. Veldhuisen, V.S. Anderson, andD.R.
Berg. 1994. Watershed assessment and salmonid habitat restoration strategy for Deer Creek,
North Cascades of Washington. Report to the Stillaguamish Tribe and Washington Department of
Ecology. Seattle, WA.
Henderson, Jan A., R.D. Lescher, D.H. Peter, D.C. Shaw. 1992. Field guide to the forested plant
associations of the Mt. Baker Snoqualmie National Forest. USDA Forest Service PNW Technical
Paper: R6-ECOL-TP028-91.
Raymond, S. 1973. The Year of the Angler. Winchester Press, Piscataway, NJ.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed Management of Coral Reef Communities
Kennard W. Potts, Biologist
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, Washington, DC
Deborah R. Lebow, Environmental Protection Specialist
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Oceans and Coastal Protection Division, Washington, DC
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
Introduction
Coral reefs are among the worlds richest ecosystems. They are second only to rainforests in the diversity
of plants and animals. Reefs exist in an environment that is narrowly defined by factors of temperature,
salinity, light, available oxygen and nutrient regimes. The health of a coral community can be severely
disrupted If environmental conditions fall above or below the acceptable range of these parameters.
Coral communities adapt well to acute (short term) disturbances such as tropical storms and hurricanes.
The tremendous destruction that can occur to reefs from severe storms is well documented (Woodly,
1981). Recolonization and recovery are a natural process absent any other ongoing stress (Rogers, 1993).
However, corals are not faring well where increasing coastal populations and development apply more
chronic pressures. It is estimated that some ten percent of the worlds reefs are degraded beyond recovery.
Another thirty percent could be lost in the next decade without proper management (Wilkinson, 1993).
Solutions to managing these pressures are often found locally. All contributing stressors to the coral
ecosystem need to be considered in development of a management plan. It must look beyond the reef
proper consider all sources of a watershed which can impact a coral community. Coral reef management
plans should be integrated into the planning process of coastal community planners. The goal is to reduce
the impacts of coastal watershed activities on reefs. These plans should identify problems and provide
-------
solutions which have the commitment of all local interested parties. Developing local partnerships and
cooperation are one of the most challenging tasks of ecosystem management. Development of these
partnerships are key to the success of coral reef management.
Problems and Threats
Coral reefs exist in zones where powerful storms occur. Reefs are also subjected to adverse conditions
which result from seasonality and fluctuating water temperatures. All of these can result in death to
corals. However, just as with terrestrial systems this death opens a hole which allows for recolonization
and increased diversity. This type of change is natural in biological systems. Corals do not as easily
rebound from the impacts of mans activities.
Threats to corals are quite varied. Sources range from alteration of the environmental parameters (Light,
temperature, salinity, oxygen,nutrient enrichment), to exposure to toxics and pathogens or the all to
common mechanical damage that can result from recreational activities (diving) and boating
(groundings, anchor damage). Most of these impacts occur to nearshore, easily accessible reefs. Rarely is
just a single stressor involved.
One of the leading causes of nearshore coral decline can be related to land and near shore construction
which is not environmentally sensitive. While these activities are removed from the reef proper they are
detrimental to the associated communities of mangroves, mudflats and seagrasses. These communities
are vital to chemical and energy cycling and also provide important nursery and habitat for a wide array
of organisms. Mangroves trap sediment and organic material and allow a slow progressive breakdown.
The mudflats act as a storage battery by retaining dissolved nutrients and periodically releasing them. If
these communities are altered too much they expose the reef to stress in the form of sedimentation,
nutrient enrichment, low oxygen levels or toxics from runoff, as well as the overall decrease in
biodiversity.
Looking Beyond the Reef
Reefs have always been recognized as areas of high biological productivity which warrant special
protection. Protective measures were often directed solely on the reef with little recognization of
pollutant impacts from distant sources. Establishment of National Parks, sanctuaries and biosphere
reserves began as a way to gain control over degrading reefs. While this did much to control impacts
from recreational activities and fisheries; it did not address pollutants which arrive from distant waters.
The establishment of parks and reserves was an important step in managing reefs, but it did little more
than establish "coral islands". Some were large biosphere reserves, established through United Nation
activities, or through state activities such as John Pennecamp Coral Reef State Park , in the northern
Florida Keys. Others were small like Looe Key Sanctuary in the lower Florida Keys. But large or small
they were managed in isolation. What is needed is an integrated approach to gain control over pollutants
from distant sources. The biosphere reserves began the process of zonation (Clark, 1996). This consisted
-------
of three or more concentric zones that made up the reserve. The least disturbed area is the core. This is
adjoined by the buffer zone. The buffer zone surrounds the core and manages activities in this zone so as
to buffer the core area from adverse impacts. The transition zone is the outer most area and surrounds the
buffer zone. This zone may contain settlements, pastures, forests or any area that contains economic
activities which influence the reserve. The transition zone is where efforts of cooperation occur to
incorporate the needs of the reserve in the regional planning process. This is a form of integrated coastal
zone management. While the success of these reserves may be debated, the plans of incorporating source
pollution control is key to the success of any coral reef management.
Watershed Management
Coral reef management must move away from the reef proper and consider all waters and activities
which have influence on the system. It is necessary to work at the ground level and form partnerships and
cooperation with local communities if we are to integrate the needs and activities of these communities
with the needs of the coral ecosystem.
It is noted that in the Florida Keys, reefs only exist in the shadow of islands. They do not occur where the
"green water" of Florida Bay flow between the islands. This bay water effects essential environmental
parameters that were mentioned early. The bay water is too saline, too turbid, too high in nutrients and
too low in available oxygen to sustain reefs. To remove or decrease this stress will require changes in
activities which affect water quality. These activities generally occur in communities far from the reef
proper.
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary plan (NOAA, 1995) is a vehicle that will attempt to control
some of these stressors. This plan was developed in cooperation with state and federal agencies. One of
the most important components of the plan, as well will be the development and implementation of a
water quality plan for South Florida. This plan will address the difficult water use issues which involve
the agricultural and urban communities of South Florida.
Building understanding, cooperation and partnerships with various stakeholders is not easy, however, it
is paramount to the final success of any management plan. The Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) National Estuary Program (NEP) can provide examples of success in developing partnerships.
They have published these as NEP success stories (EPA, 1994). The EPA's Ocean and Coastal Protection
Division has developed a guidance document on coral reef protection through watershed management
(EPA, in prep.). This document is directed toward the non technical user and presents a framework for
coral reef management which can be used at the local level.
The heavy rains of 1993 which flooded America's heartland brought large loads of sediment to the Gulf
of Mexico. Tons of these sediments were deposited on Florida reefs. This huge freshwater inflow caused
the temporary appearance of a freshwater river that pushed northward, with the Gulf Stream, to Maine. It
has been suggested that under this scenario Kansas could be considered a coastal state. This natural event
would not be as significant if the reefs were not also under stress from anthropogenic sources. As stated
-------
earlier with severe storms, reefs can sustain themselves in the face of major perturbations, when other
stressors are not present. The Florida reefs may not as easily rebound from this natural disaster since they
are under constant stress from other multiple sources. We may not be able to control the weather, but we
can direct our actions. We need to build upon the earlier efforts of ecosystem management of reefs and
develop integrated management plans which are based upon cooperation and partnership.
References
Woodly, J. D. et al,1981, Hurricane Allen's Impact on Jamacian Coral Reefs, Science 214(4522):
749-755.
Rogers, Caroline S., 1993, Hurricanes and Anchors: Preliminary Results From The National Park
Service Regional Reef Assessment Program; in Proceedings of the Colloquium on Global Aspects
of Coral Reefs, Health, Hazards, and History, University of Miami, Rosensteil School of Marine
and Atmospheric Science.
Wilkinson, C.R., 1993, Cited in the Report of the Global Task Team on Coral Reefs and Climate
Change, UNEP Publication, in preperation.
Clark, John R., 1996, Coastal Zone Management Handbook, Lewis Publishers, CRC Press,pp247-
248.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, March 1995, Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary, Draft Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement, Vols. 1,2,3.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, November 1994, Office of Water, Innovations in Coastal
Protection: Searching For Uncommon Solutions to Common Problems, EPA 842-F-94-002.
U.S. Enviromental Protection Agency, in preperation, Oceans and Coastal Protection Division,
Watershed Management of Coral Reef Communities: A Framework for Protection.
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed '96
Contents - Table Topics
TABLE TOPICS
Watershed Planning in an Urban Area to Address Multiple Water Quality
Objectives
Guy Apicella, Francisco Brilhante, Michael Lorenzo, Vincent J. DeSantis
A Watershed Management Flight Simulator
Samuel H. Austin
Evaluation of Federal Agency/Nonprofit Organization Partnerships
Jennifer Bing, Amy Doll, Christine Ruf
Collateral Planning of Habitat for Humans and Other Species
Ben W. Breedlove, David M. Taylor
Targeting Criteria and Assessment Information Goals for Diffuse Pollution in
Mined Watersheds
Brian S. Caruso
Public Drinking Water Supply and Self-Supporting Passive Recreation on
Watershed Land and Reservoirs
Thomas V. Chaplik
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
917
921
925
929
932
936
-------
Dredged Material Management from a Watershed Perspective 939
Thomas J. Chase, John Lishman, Craig Vogt
Multi-Objective Planning for an Urbanizing Watershed 942
Catherine Collis, Eric Machorro, John Davis
Development and Utilization of a Special Area Management Plan for Regulatory
Water Resources Management in Eastern Baltimore County, Maryland
Mark Colosimo, Jeff Thompson
Modeling the Impact of Macrophytes for a Wasteload Allocation Study in the
North Branch Rancocas Watershed
James F. Cosgrove, Jr., Peter H. Israelsson
Full GIS/Watershed Modeling Automation 952
Paul A. DeBarry
Water Quality of the Clearwater River « Effect of Nonpoint Sources and a
Strategy for Improvement
MarkR. Deutschman, David Fink
Analytical Approaches in a Watershed-Based CSO Control Plan 955
Daniel W. Donahue, Cheryl A. Breen, David A. Kubiak
Natural Resource Systems Analysis & Design for the City of Madison, Mississippi
(A Watershed Approach for Addressing Multiple Issues)
Ernie E. Dorrill III
Platte Watershed Program: Promoting Common Goals in a Diverse Watershed 961
Michael T. Eckert, Thomas G. Franti
Use of Wetlands and Riparian Protection for Improving Water Quality in Upper
Klamath Lake, Oregon — A Watershed Approach
R. A. Gearheart, Jeff Anderson, Margaret George Forbes
Recent Experiences Implementing Watershed Rules and Regulations in New York
State 968
Kenneth J. Goldstein, Justin D. Mahon, Jr., Russell C. Mt. Pleasant
Integrated Watershed Management Mode ~ User Interface and Model Description 972
L. E. Gomez, C. L. Chen, C. M. Wu, I. L. Cheng
Development of a Watershed-Level Model for Use as a Management Tool to Assess ^ ^
Fecal Coliform Pollution Potential from Various Land Uses
John J. Gregoire, Scott Horsley
Water Quality Trends of the Mid-Atlantic and Northeast Watersheds Over the Q„„
Past 100 Years
Norbert A. Jaworski, Leo J. Hetling
-------
The Development of a Statewide Database of Urban Stormwater Best
Management Practices
Wayne H. Jenkins
Stakeholder Involvement in Watershed Planning: The New Melones Lake Success noo
Story 988
Karen E. Johnson, Mike Petrinovich, Denise Rousseau, Kevin Butterbaugh
Percent Treated Analysis of Demonstration Combined Sewer Overflow Control QQ1
Facilities
Edward Kluitenberg, Vyto Kaunelis
Tools to Manage Watersheds in the 90's and After 995
Mehmet "DJ" Kutsal
Filling the Watershed Toolbox 999
MohammedLahlou, Leslie L. Shoemaker, Dipmani Kumar, Mark Bryer
Aquatic Chemistry/Toxicology in Watershed-Based Water Quality 1003
G. Fred Lee, Anne Jones-Lee
Watershed Management Master Plan for the City of Falls Church, Virginia 1007
Hunter Loftin, Dave Sobers, Wayne French
Storm Water Pollution Prevention in Urban Watersheds: Action Plans for
Industrial Participation
Daniel E. Medina, Mary Roman, Tieh Yin
Justification of Certain Land Acquisition Criteria for Water Quality Protection 1012
Sean Murphy, Paul Schwartzberg, J. Wolfe Tone
Pesticide Occurrence in Ground and Surface Waters in a Coastal Plain Watershed 1016
J. M. Novak, D. W. Watts, K. C. Stone, M. H. Johnson, P. G. Hunt, S. W. Coffey
Institutional Framework for Water Quality Over the Past Century 1019
Katherine O'Connor
A Watershed Approach to Total Water Management 1023
Carolyn Hardy Olsen, RaymondMatasci
BMP for Stormwater Polluted Base Flows 1026
William C. Pisano, Gabriel Novae, Nick Grande, George Zukovs
An Innovative Approach to Watershed Restoration: Baltimore County's \W19
Comprehensive Bird River Watershed Water Quality Management Project
Robert R. Ryan
Making the Most of Internet: Lake Michigan Mass Balance Outreach Program 1033
Carie Schaffer, Philip S. Strobel
-------
The Delaware Estuary Program's Regional Information Management Service .
(RIMS) 1036
Stephen B. Schlags, Deborah J. Kratzer
A Multidisciplinary Course for Environmental Professionals 1039
Charles Schrader, James Koelliker
Transboundary Water-Supply Optimization for Lower Cape Cod, Massachusetts:
Embedding Management Goals Within Hydrogeologic Models
Bob Sobczak, Thomas Cambareri
Active Watershed Education 1045
Charlotte F. Spang, Vicky J. O'Neal
Value of the Watershed Approach with Regard to Impacts on Municipal Water
„ 104o
Supplies
Roland C. Steiner
Assessment of the Impact of Cuyahoga River Watershed Sources on Receiving
Water Quality
Richard Steinhart, Dennis Long, Daniel Markowitz, Michael McGlinchy, Wendy Reust,
Mark Moore
Environmental Effectiveness of the Secondary Treatment Requirements of the ^ ^
1972 Clean Water Act: National and Watershed-Based Perspectives
A. Stoddard, J. R. Pagenkopf J. Harcum, J. Fitzpatrick, W. Lung, R. Bastion
Using the Omni Diurnal Model to Develop a Watershed Wasteload Allocation for
Phosphorus
Scott T. Taylor, James F. Cosgrove
Rouge River Watershed Illicit Sewer Connection Detection Program: A GIS .
a l* x* 1U62
Application
Dean Tuomari
The MSEA Project ~ Integrating Research and Education for Cleaner Water 1065
Nathan L. Watermeier, Scott Killpack, Bruce Giebink, Margaret Smith, Kelly Wertz,
Mitch Woodward
Rational Regulation to Support Watershed Management 1069
Nancy J. Wheatley
From Command and Control to Cooperation and Consensus: An Environmental ^ ^
Partnership Model
Sheila A. Williamson, Dan Bruinsma, David W. Tucker
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed '96
Contents - Software
SOFTWARE
A Modular Database-Centered Decision Support System for Water and Power
Management
G. H. Leavesley, S. L. Markstrom, M. S. Brewer, R. J. Viger, D. L. King, T. J. Fulp
The Difficult Run Watershed GIS
John W. Jones
Getting To Watershed Information on Internet
Karen Klima
GIS-Based HSPF Modeling System
Leslie L. Shoemaker, Mow-Soung Cheng, Frank Xia, Robert Elmer, Mohammed Lahlou
An Integrated Watershed and BMP Assessment Model
Mohammed Lahlou, Larry Coffman, Zhen Chen, Leslie L. Shoemaker
Decision Analysis and Ranking with the Watershed Screening and Targeting Tool
(WSTT)
Leslie L. Shoemaker, Mohammed Lahlou, John Craig
Watershed BMP Evaluation Using PSRM-QUAL and ARCInfo GIS
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
1076
1077
1078
1079
1080
1081
1082
-------
Ronald Ragan, Elizabeth Bolt, Michele Adams, John Cassels, Jeffrey Bodo
Generation and Comparison of Watershed Management Scenarios Patuxent 1083
Brian R. Bicknell, Stephen D. Preston, Tom Tapley
Full GIS/Watershed Modeling Automation 1084
Paul A. DeBarry
Computer Software that Involves Publics in Watershed Decisionmaking: An
Oregon Prototype
David Duncan, Bruce Bartow
A Watershed Management Decision Support System for Local Officials 1086
Ed Frye
An Application of a Decision Support System for Water Quality in the Deep Loess t „„
Hills of Western Iowa
Philip Heilman, Leonard J. Lane, Diana S. Yakowitz, JeffryJ. Stone, Larry A. Kramer,
Bisher Imam, John Masterson II
Assessing Pesticide Leaching in Watersheds in a Generic GIS Environment 1088
Cornelis G. Hoogeweg, Arthur G. Homsby
Optimal BMP Selection and Watershed Siting Software, BMPOPT 1089
Keith Little
Watershed Planning Made "ECO-EASY" 1090
Ridgley Robinson, Kenneth Orth
Innovative Display of Water Quality Data Using RPO DataView 1091
Stephen G. Rood, Charles R. Bristol
S.I.M. Watershed (Software Instructional Material About Watershed(s)): A
Multimedia Software Package to Educate High-School Students About Watershed 1092
Management
Scott Rybarczyk, Joseph V. DePinto, Helen Domske
Water System Modernization: Demonstration of the Modernized STORET 1093
Robert King, Lee J. Manning, Carie Schaffer
Geo-WAMS: A Geographically-Based Watershed Analysis and Modeling System 1094
Theodore A. D. Slawecki, Paul W. Rodgers, Michael P. Sullivan, Joseph V. DePinto
Land Use and Watershed Impacts: An Educational Computer Simulation 1095
Jack Wilbur, Stephen E. Poe, Kathryn Farrell-Poe
-------
Note: This information is provided for reference purposes only.
Although the information provided here was accurate and current
when first created, it is now outdated.
Papers included in Watershed 96 proceedings reflect the opinions of the authors and do not necessarily
represent official positions of the Environmental Protection Agency.
Watershed '96
Contents - Posters
POSTERS
Watershed Evaluation Requirements to Manage Growth-Driven Water Quality
Impacts
William A. Kreutzberger, Elizabeth Krousel, Judy Bowers
Watershed Modeling Using GIS Applications
Glenn Dukes, Susan Lewis, David Wood, Jeff Buckalew
The Mattabesset River Watershed Pollution Management Project
Ann C. H. Hadley, Jane L. Brawerman
The Rouge River National Wet Weather Demonstration Project: Managing a
Comprehensive Urban Watershed Program
James Ridgway, Amy Hamann
The Development of a Regional Policy for Non-Indigenous Aquatic Species in the
Chesapeake Bay Watershed
John Christmas, Ronald Klauda, Daniel Terlizzi
The MSEA Water Quality Projects ~ A Model for Protecting Water Quality
Through Successful Integration of Research and Education
—r——
ffV 4 <3F ! i
!-r' V
1096
1097
1098
1099
1100
1101
-------
Scott Killpack, Nathan L. Watermeier, Margaret A. Smith, Bruce Giebink
Status of an Urban Watershed: The People, Pollution Loads, and Natural H02
Resources of the Anacostia
Andrew Warner, Kathy Corish
The Anacostia River Restoration Effort ~ Before and Now 1130
Brian K. Jordan
Roles and Responsibilities of the Darby Partners 1104
H. Wesley Beery
Countywide Household Water Quality Testing and Information Program:
Implications for Watershed Management Projects
Blake Ross, Tamim Younos, Kathy Parrott, Theo Dillaha
Promoting Environmental Awareness Through Target-Marketed Publications 1106
Brian M. LeCouteur
The Great Texas River Run: The Ultimate in Adventure in Water 1107
Richard E. Tillman, Sue Brush, Therese J. Clark, Debra L. Duffy, Jeff R. Duffy, William
R. Younger
EPA's Volunteer Stream Monitoring Manual: Encouraging a Watershed 11 no
A . llUo
Approach
Alice Mayio
Ground-Water Flow Analysis to Estimate Contributing Areas Surrounding the 11 ftQ
City of Salisbury Well Fields, Wicomico County, Maryland
David C. Andreasen
A World Wide Web Module for Teaching Watershed Delineation 1110
Richard A. Cooke
Cooperative Extension Service National Water Quality Database 1111
C. E. Burwell, E. Fredericks, R. Subramanan
Caring for Planet Earth: Education and Visibility Through an Interactive Exhibit 1113
Billie Chambers, Kevin Shelton, Mitch Fram, Marley Beem, Mike Smolen, Gerrit
Cuperus
Test Your Watershed Knowledge: Using Cost-Effective Interactive Public IH4
Outreach Tools in the Delaware Bay Watershed
Charlie MacPherson, John Hines
The Pesticide Environmental Stewardship Program 1115
Paul L. Zubkoff Janet L. Andersen
Reaching Minority Populations Concerning Health Aspects of Environmental
Hazards Through HBCUs/MIs
-------
Michael Hubbard, Rose Foster, Melvin L. Spann, Maurice E. Knuckles
Scientific Consensus and Public Policy: Dissolved Oxygen in the Chesapeake Bay 1117
Gail B. Mackiernan, Merrill Leffler, Thomas C. Malone
Wisconsin Sea Grant's "Zebra Mussel Watch" « A Multi-Institutional State, ^^^
Great Lakes and National Nonindigenous Species Outreach Effort
Stephen Wittman
North Carolina Big Sweep ~ Building Partnerships to Rid North Carolina \\\9
Watersheds of Aquatic Debris
Kathy Hart
Watersheds as Groundwater Guardians 1120
Robert D. Kuzelka, Susan S. Seacres
Watershed Management at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 11/yi
Protection
Andrew Gottlieb
Lake Bloomington Cooperative Water Quality Program 1122
Kenneth D. Smiciklas, Aaron S. Moore
Balancing Recovery of Endangered Species and Economic Development in the
Truckee River Basin in the Context of Global Change
Y. Luo, K. Raffiee, S. Song
Decision Support for Water Quality Management of TVA's Holston Watershed 1124
C. W. Chen, J. Herr, R. A. Goldstein, F. J. Sagona, G. Hauser
Computer Simulation in Ecological Risk Assessment: A Model to Predict Risk and
Body Burden for Mink from Exposure to Aroclor 1254, TCE, and Mercury in 1125
Water and Fish
Mark Dilley, Deborah Gray, Gary Thornhill
Development of a GIS-Based Spatial Decision Support System for Evaluating \\26
Nonpoint Source Pollution in Pennsylvania
B. M. Evans, M. C. Anderson, E. Nizeyimana, G. W. Petersen, J. M. Hamlett, R. L. Day,
G. M. Baumer
Expert GIS and Model Based Guidance for Protection and Enhancement of Water
Quality in Agricultural Watersheds
Michael A. Foster, Paul D. Robillard, David Lehning, DidierMasson
Identifying Causes and Sources of Water Quality Impairment at the National 11
t i 1128
Level
Randall Dodd, Peter Iliev, William Cooter, Tim Bondelid, Leslie Shoemaker, Charles
Spooner
-------
Relations Among Watershed, Riparian, and Instream Habitat in an Agricultural
Watershed
1129
1130
1132
1133
1134
John A. Young, Craig D. Snyder, Rita F. Villella, David P. Lemarie
APAC Budgeting System: Enterprise and Rotation Budget Generator for
Environmental Analysis
Stephen P. Slinsky, Daryll E. Ray, Daniel G. De La Torre Ugarte, John Hamrick,
Robert Pendergrass, Scott Bush
GIS and Hydrologic Modeling in Watershed Management 1131
Rod Denning
Watershed Characterization Utilizing Geographic Information Systems for the
Whippany River Watershed, Morris County, New Jersey
Kimberly A. Cenno, Joseph Kocy, Nancy Rubin, Sandra Cohen
Water Quality Geographic Information System (GIS) Model of the Los Angeles
River
Ana Corado
Combining a Biogeochemical Model and GIS Databases to Evaluate Fluxes of N,
P, Si, and C to South San Francisco Bay from the Urban Watershed
Philippe Hanset, James E. Cloern, Laurence E. Schemel
Use of Kriging Surface Interpolation Techniques, Nonparametric Statistics, and
GIS to Measure Dry and Wet Seasons, and Climatic Oscillations in the Amazon 1135
Basin
Elson D. Silva, Gary W. Petersen
An Integrated Approach to Ecological Restoration Using GIS 1136
Eric Dohner, Sean Donahoe, Patrick Solomon
The Chesapeake Bay Program Airshed, Watershed, and Estuarine Models: The
Use of Geographic Information Systems and Visualization to Display 1137
Environmental Data
Katherine E. Bennett, Lewis C. Linker
BASINS — a GIS-linked Watershed Analysis and Modeling Tool 1138
GeraldLaVeck, Marjorie Coombs, Marilyn Fonseca
The Use of Geographic Information Systems to Prioritize, Target and Develop
Watershed-based Educational Programs
Heather L. Nelson, T. Joel, W. Stocker, Chester L. Arnold, Sandy Prisloe
Training Local Officials in User-Friendly Geographic Information System
Software and Applications for Watershed Management
Alyson McCann, Lorraine Joubert, Aimee Mandeville, Arthur Gold, Peter August
The New Hampshire Resource Protection Project 1141
1139
1140
-------
Joel Zimmerman, Rosemary Monahan, Ailing Hsu
Basin-scale Pollutant Routing and Attenuation Models in North Carolina 1142
Timothy Bondelid, Randall Dodd, Stephen Bevington
Watershed Based Community Natural Resource Inventories: A Holistic Resource
Protection Approach
Jeffrey A. Schloss
WATERSHEDSS: A Decision Support System for Watershed-scale Nonpoint H44
Source Pollution Control
Daniel Line, Deanna Osmond, Judith Gale, Jean Spooner, Mike Foster
A Cost Effective System for Ecosystem Design 1145
Kelly A. Burks, Michael F. Passmore
Analytical Tools for the Watershed Approach ~ FoxProTM and MARPLOTTM 1146
Corinne Severn, Al Hielscher
Hydrologic Modeling to Aid in Locating Monitoring Sites 1147
IV. D. Rosenthal, D. W. Hoffman
Automated Early Warning of Pollution Using Bivalve Mollusk Behavior 1148
Robert T. Morgan, Frederick M. Williams, Donald G. Morgan
Inexpensive and Effective Water Sensors for Use in Watershed Management 1149
James A. Zollweg
Evaluation of Conflicting Demands Within a Watershed: Hydroelectric Project 11 „
fk 1 * * A X ^ V
Relicensing
Stephen P. Schreiner, William A. Richkus
Subregionalization of Maryland's Mid-Atlantic Coastal Plain Ecoregion as a ^ ^
Technique for Linking Watersheds
Jeffrey S. White, Michael L. Bowman, James B. Stribling
Natural Resource Characterization and Mapping for Land Use Planning in Urban
Watersheds
Laura K. Mataraza, Elizabeth L. Buchanan, Kenneth A. Joehlin, Robert J. Laverne, Jay
Abercrombie, Todd A. Crandall
The Impact of Geochemical Processes in Sediments on Water Quality and ^ ^ ^
Wetland Management in South Florida
William H. Orem, Anne L. Bates, Larry P. Gough, Charles W. Holmes, Rama K. Kotra,
Harry E. Lerch, Elliott C. Spiker, Vicki C. Weintraub
A Watershed-Based Approach for Monitoring the Hydrochemical Linkage ^ ^ ^
Between Ground Water and Surface Water in the Suwannee River Basin, Florida
Brian G. Katz, Rodney S. DeHan, Joshua J. Hirten, John S. Catches
-------
Nitrogen Loading to Wellhead Protection Areas: A User-Friendly Model 1156
Mark E. Nelson
Protecting Wells From Contamination: Results From The Little River (Georgia) 11
Watershed
William I. Segars
Wolf Creek Hydrologic Unit Area 1158
Brian Ehlert, Laura Pomnitz, Julie Clemes
A Decision Support System for Stream Classification and Restoration 1159
MohammedLahlou, Dipmani Kumar, Mow-Soung Cheng, Mark Symborski
Advanced Flow Measurement Techniques in Sensitive Watershed Areas 1160
Thomas J. Day
Restoration of a Western Maryland Watershed Degraded by Acid Deposition 1161
Paul T. Jacobson, Ronald Klauda, Paul F. Kazyak, Scott Stranko
Management Measures to Control Agriculture and Forestry Sources of Nonpoint 11
Pollution
John Kosco, Kristen Martin
Management Practices to Control Urban and Marina Nonpoint Sources of 11
Pollution
Edwin F. Drabkowski
Filling the Watershed Toolbox 1164
Leslie L. Shoemaker, Mohammed Lahlou, Dipmani Kumar, Mark Bryer
EPA GATF '95 Project: Modeling, Monitoring and Restoring Water Quality and ^^
Habitat in Pacific Northwestern Watersheds
Douglas J. Norton, Mark A. Flood, Vinh Duong, Randall Karalis, Harry Puffenberger,
Bruce A. Mcintosh, Nathan Poage, Chris Torgerson, Peter LaPlaca, John P. Craig,
Leslie Shoemaker, Y. David Chen, Steven McCutcheon, Chris Eberly
-------