Building Capacity
for Nonpoint Source
Management
Case Studies Report
September 2003
I .. fili %
\t naซsf United States Environmental Protection Agency
-------
-------
Building Capacity
for Nonpoint Source
Management
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Contract #68-000-169
-------
-------
Contents
ISSUES AND LOCAL NEEDS FACED BY LOCAL WATERSHED OR
CAPACITY BUILDING GROUPS Hi
INTRODUCTION 1
LOCAL WATERSHED GROUPS BUILDING CAPACITY
ALASKA
Duck Creek Watershed Management Project 2
COLORADO
North Fork of the Gunnison 3
CONNECTICUT
IMonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officers (NEMO) 5
GEORGIA
City of Griffin Stormwater Utility 6
ILLINOIS
Lake County Stormwater Management Commission 8
INDIANA
Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance 9
KANSAS
Cheney Lake Water Quality Project 11
Hillsdale Water Quality Project 13
LOUISIANA
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation 16
MASSACHUSETTS
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
MINNESOTA
Chain of Lakes Clean Water Partnership 20
NEW JERSEY
Spruce Run Reservoir Initiative 21
NEW MEXICO
Santa Fe Watershed Association 23
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management i
-------
NEW YORK
Boquet River Association (BRASS)
24
NORTH CAROLINA
Haywood Waterways Association 27
Upper Broad River Watershed Protection Program 29
OHIO
Sugar Creek Watershed Farmers 30
SOUTH CAROLINA
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
VIRGINIA
Friends of the Rappahannock 33
ORGANIZATIONS THAT ASSIST WATERSHED GROUPS IN BUILDING CAPACITY
CALIFORNIA
California Coordinated Resource Management and Planning Council 35
MARYLAND
Watershed Restoration Action Strategies Partnership 36
MONTANA
Montana Watershed Coordination Council 37
OHIO
The Ohio Environmental Council 39
Ohio Watershed Network 40
OREGON
For the Sake of the Salmon 41
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 43
OREGON (NATIONAL OFFICE), DC, VERMONT
River Network 44
PENNSYLVANIA
Growing Greener 47
RHODE ISLAND
Grow Smart Rhode Island 48
Rhode Island Rivers Council 49
INDEX 51
ii Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
Issues and Local
Needs Faced by
Local Watershed or
Capacity Building
Groups
/ 2 '-"r
/ m &
- /
r
fi i
ฃ
hi' ..Is
! -9-
f ป"
;= /
? i -I
I 3
/ "to i
' -0 '
f BE ,
/1'I ;?'/=
/ .?! / /i^ " -
/ S /Jf /.fit/ f /mm WSi
I S ' :-S i;/ '
~ ; -T ^
m
liJi
z: =\ , cT
r ^5 > ป-
f
f i
j -Sr / ฃ2 / C
#/#/!
c / ^ i --
Sฎ / 5 /1ซ i
? / I
: s ,'i ii
LmrKCieeH Watershed
Mj:wc,uf>sfeiit Proifi:!
fjo'tfi fink of th" Oiiiri slซi
MoiiLiy.nl Swtixe Uhc.it.Kii
ijk Cut r.ci- (NfMOi
i'livnlGt-fliiiS^Ofinvvator
rtsihiiltnt-'il
"
rm"
9
j
!
UI>K CdUIlK' S:0l!!MilW
M.iri.i'iftiiKtnl Ci.ip.mih'Mf/ii
WMc.'iiC;eeป Wdtershed
AHiMf.s1
l.tltiif v I til'? W UP'Q.i.llllV
P'topr1.
.r
4
!
HlilfiCtflhf Wal(
lake- liwi
Fr,und;t!.i>n
Nashua River Waieislied
i\\'ou,H,t,n
Chii(i ofLafcrsC'ivn Wotei
t-'^lUkHshlj!
R'lti
f> W-iteMirtd
Aisw.ialmii
Boquei Rii'i'i Association
m^Assj
Hfiywiซ:ซiS KmUm-iv <
A-Wl.Ml'WI
U;riii'f Rr)ซrmm;ป':t<
a,
~
g
o
2
! u
& a.
2 u
s ?
51
"6 =
Si
ฃฃ
o
m
S
e
Cdlifullh.i Ofillh.totrld
Sซ3nini,e .im'i
Ph!l!.Tl^ C'llHU", I
V.'ji '
!fSW|I
!
,n.-> Wrilsr-hcd
C.uiid rjiiur CniiiiG I
F1!)1 Ohin f iv-A'pa^-riiSl
I (Ml,)i 0
i.W.i -".p ii
foi tr m S si-i- 'if Sqt-' iii.'H
I tV'lll-T'-ll Is
I mi m.'i'if. lit B' Jul
_i
! #
-f
Ki> i'i M> n> wi.
he' uii-i h^i
i'hw Siii.tI *">d-"' ^-.l i'hI
i ind KarfS Ccimh; i
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
111
-------
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
Introduction
Capacity building means establishing resources needed to fulfill a mission or achieve a
goal. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) recognizes that watershed groups
and local governments need a range of tools to effectively manage their local land and
water resources. Local and state governments and watershed groups around the nation are
employing innovative approaches to capacity building.
In an effort to provide another resource and tool to assist watershed groups and local gov-
ernments as they build organizations that have strong foundations of adequate resources
and technical tools, the EPA developed the State/EPA Nonpoint Source Partnership. The
Capacity Building and Funding Workgroup has set out to help watershed organizations
build strong foundations for managing nonpoint source pollution at the watershed scale.
The case studies included in this document highlight watershed groups, local governments,
and organizations engaged in innovative approaches to group building and organization
(establishing partnerships, soliciting volunteers), organizing capital resources and fiscal
management (obtaining private grants and federal funding), and using technical and spe-
cialized resources (using experts, developing innovative projects, procuring office space
and equipment).
The workgroup has also developed a web site (www.epa.gov/owow/nps/capacity/index.htm)
to assist groups in developing knowledge by providing a compendium of web-based and
printed resources and tools.
The organizations profiled here were suggested by watershed practitioners around the
country. These organizations are only a few of the many groups working to manage
nonpoint source pollution at the watershed scale. These case studies are not necessarily
intended as a "Best Of" review; instead, they are presented as a diverse mix of groups from
around the country, with the intent of stimulating ideas for building local capacity for
watershed management."
Local watershed groups and state and federal program managers can use this document to
get ideas on how others are building their capacity for successful watershed management.
The first section of this document highlights local watershed groups and governments that
have successfully built capacity. The second section highlights organizations that provide
the tools for local watershed groups and governments to achieve their mission or goal.
The Internet was the primary resource for the information provided about each organiza-
tion. In some cases, additional information was provided by the contacts listed for each
group. An asterisk after a group's name indicates that only Internet information has been
provided.
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
1
-------
Local Watershed Groups Building Capacity
ALASKA
Duck Creek is a small stream once important for salmon ฆ*ซป-*
production but now adversely affected by urban development.
Group Building and Organization
In 1993 the Duck Creek Advisory Group (DCAG) was formed to coordinate activities for
planning, initiating, and implementing a program to restore water quality and anadromous
fish habitat in Duck Creek. The DCAG provides education and facilities to work with more
than 25 organizations, including the City and Borough of Juneau, state and federal agen-
cies, private businesses, conservation organizations, and homeowners, in the design of
restoration projects and pollution control activities throughout the watershed. The DCAG
holds monthly meetings and publishes a newsletter. Recently, it completed the Duck Creek
Watershed Management Plan, which uses a watershed approach to focus on enforcement,
management, and restoration.
Because of the substantial loss of aquatic resources in the watershed, the Duck Creek
Watershed Management Plan recommends several restoration projects that will achieve
community benefits beyond the statutory environmental standards.
Technical and Specialized Resources
The DCAG use a science-based approach to accomplish and evaluate its restoration efforts
and to ensure that Duck Creek will be an effective demonstration site for developing restora-
tion technology. Restoration efforts have included performing streambank revegetation and
channel modification, planting willow stakes and marsh vegetation, and restoring salmon
spawning habitat by reconfiguring the stream channel, removing fine sediment, and
increasing the dissolved oxygen level.
A stormwater treatment marsh (wetland) was created from a 2-acre borrow pit near the
Church of the Nazarene on the East Fork of Duck Creek. The purpose of creating the wet-
land was to improve water quality and fish habitat by using aquatic plants to filter the
heavy load of suspended sediment and iron floe to protect the pond and main channel
downstream. In addition, the fill material used to create the wetland also acted as a cap
over the source of iron-rich groundwater coming into the pond.
Duck Creek Watershed Management Project*
Keywords: fish habitat restoration, stream restoration,
federal/state/local agency partnerships
2
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
Over the years improvements were made on stream crossings, and an experimental "snow
fence" designed to limit plowing of snow and road sand into Duck Creek was installed on
the Nancy Street Crossing. More stream crossings and snow fences are planned.
Contact: Robert Tribelhorn, Duck Creek Advisory Group, do Southeast Conference, 213 3rd
Street, Juneau, AK 99801; 907-463-3445; http://www.epa.gov/owow/showcase/duckcreek/
dcsummary.html
COLORADO I
Worth Fork of the Gunnison i
Keywords: federal/state/local agency partnerships, agriculture 3 1
partnerships, industry partnerships, stream restoration, community
outreach, watershed planning
In 1996, a group of local landowners were losing their land to erosion. These landowners
joined forces with the Colorado Soil Conservation Board and the Delta Conservation District
to obtain nonprofit 501(c)(3) status. A morphological assessment was then performed on the
river to find reaches that were in critical condition, and restoration projects began shortly
thereafter.
Group Building and Organization
Established in 1996, the North Fork River Improvement Association (NFRIA) empowers a
broad-based coalition of riverfront landowners, farmers and ranchers, environmentalists,
irrigation companies, outdoor enthusiasts, instream gravel mining companies, and con-
cerned members of the community as the driving force behind resource restoration efforts.
Originally formed to research alternative methods to reduce extreme and accelerated bank
erosion along the North Fork of the Gunnison River in Colorado, NFRIA quickly trans-
formed into an innovative local watershed group aimed at rehabilitating the ecology of the
river corridor while working closely with all river interests to develop consensus and col-
laborative efforts.
By enhancing and restoring the river, NFRIA protects health, ensures economic viabil-
ity, and serves as a steward of the natural world. NFRIA strives to be a model watershed
organization, working hard to develop consensus, collaboration, and local participation on
watershed issues in the North Fork Basin. The community is encouraged to participate in
monthly board meetings and the annual membership meeting in March. Staff are regularly
invited to speak to local schools, civic groups, and organizations about ongoing efforts to
improve resource management and enhance the overall quality of life in the valley.
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
3
-------
NFRIA's goals include the following:
Encourage the community to build consensus and develop collaborative solutions to
complex resource problems
Restore proper riverine function to damaged stretches of the river
Enhance fish and wildlife habitat
Improve and monitor water quality
Disseminate information on ecosystem protection and conservation to the community,
government agencies, and other watershed groups
Educate the community on the value of the river's natural resources and their
responsible use
Engage local farmers and ranchers in riparian enhancement and agricultural
conservation
Improve water conservation through innovative and sustainable irrigation practices
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
EPA, National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, National Forest Foundation, Colorado Water
Conservation Board, and other state and federal government agencies have provided most of
the funding for NFRIA's restoration projects thus far. These funds have been used to hire a
local engineer and contractor for restoration. NFRIA is also partnering with Delta Sand and
Gravel and the Town of Paonia to create a public riverfront park.
Technical and Specialized Resources
NFRIA has educated the community on the value of the river's natural resources and their
responsible use, improved water conservation through innovative and sustainable irrigation
practices, invited experts to conduct technical workshops on specific resource issues, and
restored proper riverine function to 6 miles of damaged river. They have partnered with the
Army Corps of Engineers, University of Colorado, and local towns and counties to conduct
their programs. In addition, NFRIA developed a Watershed Restoration Action Strategy for
long-range planning (2000), and reconstructed three irrigation diversions to conserve water,
improve irrigation efficiency, and enhance
habitat. NFRIA coordinates a volunteer
water quality monitoring program and
organizes the "Annual River Awareness
Float," which connects 150 people down
the river each year.
Contact: Teresa Steely,
2917 L50 Lane, I lot ch kiss, CO 81419;
970-872-2433; teresasteely@tds.net;
http://www.nfria.paonia.com/
4
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
CONNECTICUT
Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officers
(NEMOJ
Keywords: federal/state agency partnership, university partnership,
municipal official education, educational materials
Group Building and Organization
NEMO is a University of Connecticut (UConn) response to the nonpoint source pollution
issues brought to light by the Long Island Sound National Estuary Program. Recognizing
the educational potential of land cover information for local regulators, and with fund-
ing from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Water Quality Initiative, NEMO
was created in 1991-1992 as a collaboration between three branches of the University of
Connecticut: the Cooperative Extension System, the Natural Resources Management and
Engineering Department, and the Connecticut Sea Grant College Program. As of 2002
NEMO had worked with almost two-thirds of the 169 municipalities in Connecticut. NEMO
staff in Connecticut conduct about 150 educational workshops a year. The National NEMO
Network now has 33 funded projects in 30 states, and issued its first Network progress
report in March 2003.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
Initial funding for the Connecticut project came in the form of a 3-year grant from the
USDA Water Quality Initiative. At present funding is from the Connecticut Department
of Environmental Protection Clean Water Act Section 319 nonpoint source program, the
Connecticut Sea Grant College Program, and additional grants for specific projects. NEMO
Network projects are largely dependent on state and federal grant funds. Funding comes
from a wide variety of sources, including EPA, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), USDA, and many types of state programs. Some of the more com-
mon sources are the Clean Water Act Section 319 nonpoint source program, the coastal
nonpoint source program under section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act Reauthorization
Amendments, the Sea Grant Coastal Community Development Program, and internal
University funds. Typically, technical resources are provided by one or more of the consor-
tium partners. Technical work is occasionally done on a contractual basis.
Technical and Specialized Resources
Technical resources are largely contained within the group. An original and continuing
NEMO partner is the UConn Lab for Earth Resource Information Systems, which provides
remote sensing information and expertise.
The project offers presentations and materials to help communities move forward on the
two major aspects of natural resource-based planningplanning for areas to be preserved
and planning for developed or developing areas. NEMO also provides educational videos,
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
5
-------
technical papers, and fact sheets, such as How To Get Started; Protecting Your Town From
Polluted Runoff, Asking the Right Questions About Polluted Runoff, and Open Space
Developments: A Better Way to Protect Water Quality, Retain Wildlife, and Preserve Rural
Character. The project maintains an extensive Web site with a publication downloading
page, case studies, a National Network section, and special features like the Reducing
Runoff section, at http://nemo,uconn.edu.
Contact: Chester Arnold, Water Quality Educator, Project Director, Middlesex County
Extension Center, 1066 Saybrook Rd., Box 70, Haddam, CT 06438; 860-345-4511;
carnold@canr.uconn.edu
GEORGIA
City of Griffin Stormwater Utility
Keywords: federal/state/local agency partnership, stormwater management,
user fees, community outreach, educational materials
Group Building and Organization
In anticipation of the regulations the City of Griffin would face under EPA's National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Phase II project, the Director of Public
Works and Utilities began research on the creation of a Stormwater Utility. After research-
ing alternative funding mechanisms for several years, in 1997 the City of Griffin began
a comprehensive watershed management program implementing the Stormwater Utility
to address its aging infrastructure and improve the quality of stormwater runoff. The
Stormwater Utility's mission is to provide a comprehensive watershed management program
that includes seeking out alternative funding mechanisms to enhance Griffin's stormwater
management system, establishing programs to address infrastructure problems, providing
cost-effective design and construction of the necessary improvements, providing leader-
ship through the implementation of best management practices (BMPs) that will enhance
water quality throughout the region, and improving the overall quality of life for the city
and its citizens. The Stormwater Utility addresses the issue of stormwater pollutants and
their removal or elimination before they enter the stormwater system. The Utility also pro-
vides the opportunity to integrate various
technologies to manage stormwater, waste-
water, and water using a holistic approach.
The City's Water and Wastewater
Department has agreed to assist the
Stormwater Utility in its water quality
improvement projects by providing water
quality analysis services for two major
studies. The Potato Creek Wastewater
6
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
Plant on County Line Road is conducting analyses of stormwater and surface water. The
facility laboratory and scientists are providing assistance in analyzing field samples from
the Potato Creek Watershed Assessment and the TEA-21 urban stormwater study (funded by
the Georgia Department of Transportation), and they have been instrumental in providing
crucial data for both studies.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
The Stormwater Utility generates user fees based on impervious surface. The utility divides
the fees among owners of developed properties so that each owner pays for only the demand
that owner puts on the system. The amount of impervious area on all properties for non-
single-family parcels is derived using aerial topography and field measurements. Aerial
photography is also used to determine the median amount of impervious area. Owners of
non-single-family residences are eligible for a credit if they have and maintain a stormwater
detention or retention facility on their property in accordance with the City's policies.
Funding sources for the Stormwater Department's projects are as follows:
Project Funding Source
Stormwater and Transportation improvement Program
State Revolving Fund Loan for stormwater improvement
Hazardous Mitigation Grant to design and construct drainage
improvements in Lyndon Basin
Construction and monitoring of retrofitted stormwater
detention ponds
Special-purpose local option sales tax
Georgia Environmental Facilities Authority
Georgia Emergency Management Agency
Georgia Department of Natural Resources
319 grant
Evaluation of pollutant removal efficiencies of BMPs off a state
highway system
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
TEA-21 Georgia Department of Transportation
and the Federal Highway Administration
Protocol verification on storm drain insert devices
National Science Foundation/Environmental
Technology Verification Pilots
Technical and Specialized Resources
The objective of the Stormwater Utility is to deliver a higher level of service in stormwater
management through watershed management; stormwater quality; and public education,
public involvement, and public participation.
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
7
-------
Some of the Stormwater Utility's outreach projects are listed below:
O EnviroScape nonpoint source pollution
o Storm drain stenciling program
o Road signage at tributary crossing locations
o Hazardous materials recycling programs
o Georgia Adopt-A-Strearn Program
o Local media notifications
o Erosion/sedimentation and BMP training
o Scholarship/work program
teaching module
o Classroom education
o Stormwater Utility's Web site at
www.griffinstorm.com
o Flyers included in utility bills and other mailouts
o Stormwater newsletter
o Project brochures
o Stormwater resident surveys
Contact: Brant D. Keller, Ph.D., Director, Stormwater Department,
134 North Hill Street, Griffin, GA 30224; 770-233-4138; hkeller@cityofgriffin.com;
http://www.griffinstorm.com
watershed restoration, comprehensive watershed plan /
In Lake County, Illinois, the combination of growth and topography (nearly 20 per-
cent of the surface area is composed of streams, lakes, wetlands, and floodplains) has long
underscored the need for careful stormwater management. As far back as 1982, the Lake
County Department of Planning, Zoning, and Environmental Quality was conducting sur-
veys to assess the degree of municipal, township, and special district involvement in county
flood, drainage, and stormwater control issues. In 1987, following two Presidential declara-
tions for massive flooding, state legislators passed legislation enabling Lake County to create
the Stormwater Management Commission (SMC). The legislation provided the framework to
address comprehensive stormwater issues in all of the six counties in northeastern Illinois.
The legislation required that stormwater agency boards be a municipal and county partner-
ship. Consequently, the SMC Board of Commissioners is made up of six municipal repre-
sentatives and six county board members. It is this partnership that made implementation
and coordination of effective and comprehensive stormwater management possible in Lake
County. The programmatic structure and defined role of SMC was outlined in the 1990 Lake
County Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan. The Plan was updated in 2002 and
will serve as a guide for projects and programs for the next ten years.
Group Building and Organization
The SMC is responsible for implementing the Comprehensive Stormwater Management
Plan. The plan establishes a framework to coordinate the stormwater activities of more than
90 jurisdictions in the county. The Watershed Development Ordinance (WDO), which regu-
lates new development countywide, is one component of the plan.
ILLINOIS
Lake County Stormwater Management Commission
Keywords: stormwater management, local ordinance, community outreach,
8
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
The goal of the WDO is to ensure that new development does not increase existing storm-
water problems or create new ones. The WDO establishes countywide standards for runoff
maintenance, detention sites, erosion control, water quality, wetlands, and floodplains. In
addition to the regulatory function, SMC also works on projects to reduce existing flooding
and water pollution problems; rehabilitation of the existing drainage system; flood hazard
mitigation; multipurpose use of open space, natural floodplains, and other natural resources
through appropriate land use planning; interjurisdictional coordination and technical
assistance; and public education.
SMC encourages public participation in everything they do. They involve stakeholders in
watershed planning efforts, the ordinance amendment process, and the decision-making of
the SMC board. A stakeholder is anyone with an interest or "stake" in an issue. Stakeholders
can include municipalities; townships; drainage districts; homeowner associations;
developers; county agencies; lakes management groups; landowners; and local, state,
and federal agencies. SMC would not be as successful without the input, interest, and
commitment of stakeholders. Ultimately, to successfully protect or restore resources in Lake
County, residents and communities of the watersheds have to work together, sharing the
costs and reaping the benefits of watershed improvements.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
SMC's property tax-based 2003 budget of $2.1 million reflects over 60 major projects. The
FY'03 tax rate is $.009 per $100 of assessed valuation. A median priced home ($198,000) in
Lake County pays $5.68 per year for SMC services. SMC's FY'03 budget is enhanced by over
$6 million in grants.
Contact: Lake County Stormwater Management Commission, 333 Peterson Road, Libertyville,
IL 60048-1085; 847-918-5260; http://www.co.lake.il.us/smc
INDIANA |
Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance
Keywords: stream restoration, watershed planning, state/local agency { <
partnerships /
The Wildcat Creek watershed has diverse land uses, several urban centers,
extensive rural and agricultural areas, and streams that fail to meet the state's water quality
standards.
Group Building and Organization
The Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance is a partnership of concerned citizens dedicated to
developing and implementing a successful watershed plan to improve and protect water
resources in the Wildcat Creek watershed.
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
t
-------
The Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance is a watershed-based organization that includes
stakeholders from the Wildcat Creek watershed. Watershed stakeholders are represented by
local city, town, and county governments; water providers; utilities; industry; agriculture;
environmental protection groups; and citizens living in the Wildcat Creek watershed.
In spring 2000 the Wildcat Creek Watershed Network, an organization assembled by the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management (IDEM), submitted a Clean Water Act
Section 319 project proposal through the Indiana Association of Soil and Water Conservation
Districts (IASWCD) to address water quality issues in the Wildcat Creek watershed. The
section 319 project proposal included the following goals: (1) hire an executive director or
watershed coordinator, (2) build upon recommendations of the Wildcat Creek Watershed
Restoration Action Strategy (WRAS), (3) coordinate planning efforts throughout watershed,
and (4) develop two subwatershed management plans in the Wildcat Creek watershed.
In fall 2001 the Wildcat Creek Watershed Network reorganized, drafted by-laws, elected
officers, and officially became the Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance, Inc.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
The Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance was funded from July 2001 through June 2003
through a section 319 grant. EPA awarded this grant for $109,500 to the IASWCD through
IDEM. The Alliance is in the process of pursuing private and public funding. The Alliance
has successfully obtained additional funds locally: $1,000 from Indiana-American Water
Company, $5,000 from Delphi Delco Electronics, and $2,500 from Cinergy Corporation. In
addition, the City of Kokomo Wastewater Treatment Plant donated approximately $4,500 in
in-kind contributions for analysis of water quality samples over a 6-month period.
Technical and Specialized Resources
With the help of the watershed coordinator, the Alliance produced two 14-digit subwater-
shed plans and water quality-related programs to improve the quality of life in the Wildcat
Creek watershed. The Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance conducts quarterly public meet-
ings to gather input and information from the citizen stakeholders in the watershed. The
Alliance uses this information to develop subwatershed plans and other water quality
improvement projects.
The Alliance invited Bob McCormick, "Planning With POWER" State Coordinator, to
participate as a member of the Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance Land Use Subcommittee.
The "Planning with POWER" project is coordinated by the Illinois-Indiana Sea Grant
College Program and the Purdue University Cooperative Extension Service. It is a statewide
educational program that links land use planning with watershed planning at the local
level. The project is designed to empower communities to prevent and solve natural resource
problems resulting from changing land use in growing watersheds and to empower local
officials to incorporate watershed protection measures into comprehensive land use plans.
10
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
The "Planning With POWER" presentation provided a foundation and background informa-
tion in natural resource and water quality protection in land use planning. The guidance and
support by "Planning With POWER" continues with the Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance to
address land use issues in two subwatersheds of Howard, Tipton, and Clinton Counties.
Contact: Sheila McKinley, Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance, c/o Goode and Associates,
P.O. Box 501, Kokomo, IN, 46903; smckinley@goode-associates.com; 317-254-8235;
http:/lwww.howard-county.net/detail.asp?RECORD_KEY=ID&ID=387,
http://www.planningwithpower.org/ongoing.htm
Cheney Lake Water Quality Project i
Keywords: watershed planning, federal/state/local agency i
partnerships, drinking water protection, community outreach,
agriculture partnerships, stream restoration, educational materials
In the early 1990s, streambank erosion on the North Fork Ninnescah was a growing con-
cern among landowners near the Cheney Reservoir. One farmer, who was displaced dur-
ing the construction of the reservoir in the 1960s, recognized the connection between the
streambank loss and sedimentation in the reservoir. About the same time, algal blooms in
the reservoir were causing taste and odor problems in the City of Wichita's drinking water.
Members of the Reno County and Sedgwick County Conservation Districts were able to
establish a task force that included these interested farmers and representatives from the
City of Wichita. This began a unique rural/urban partnership. The farmers recognized
their part in protecting the quality of water moving through the watershed, and the City of
Wichita saw the value in supporting farmers to protect a vital drinking water source.
Group Building and Organization
A task force representing stakeholders was formed in 1992 to study water quality in the
North Fork Ninnescah and prepare a plan to identify and alleviate potential sources of
pollution in the watershed and Cheney Reservoir. The task force was initiated through
conversations among individual Conservation District board members in Reno and
Sedgwick Counties. The task force members were a committee of landowners, members of
the Reno County Conservation District and Sedgwick County Conservation District, Reno
County Farm Service Agency, Reno County Health Department, Wichita Water & Sewer
Department, Reno County Extension Service, Kansas Department of Wildlife & Parks, Kansas
Department of Health & Environment, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS),
State Conservation Commission, Equus Beds & Big Bend Groundwater Management Districts,
Bureau of Reclamation, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and EPA.
KANSAS
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
11
-------
After the Task Force had completed an assessment of the watershed and developed a plan
of work, a management committee was established under the Reno County Conservation
District to operate the watershed project. The Citizen's Management Committee is made up
of watershed farmers that actively lead the project. They have worked with other agencies
and organizations to set the goals and understand the potential for remediation. Because the
watershed involves a major drinking water source, this project has received cooperation and
support that might not be typical of every watershed.
Community outreach is a priority of the Cheney Watershed Program because it supports
implementation of the best management practices (BMPs) used to curtail identified pollu-
tion sources. Those BMPs include (but are not limited to) terracing, stubble mulch, grassed
waterways, relocation of feedlots, proper fertilizer application, animal waste treatment,
improved grazing management, and filter strips.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
The NRCS District Conservationist and the Reno County Conservation District manager sup-
plied the staffing and other support during the task force phase. An EPA Clean Water Act
Section 319 grant in 1994 provided the support to begin work on the project (e.g., clerical
salary, part of project coordinator's salary, office expenses, demonstration projects, educa-
tional program). A $200,000 direct congressional appropriation administered through EPA
allowed the Committee to conduct further educational programs and demonstration projects,
and helped pay office rent. The Water and Sewer Department of the City of Wichita provided
funding for an additional staff person. The project relied heavily on state and federal cost-
share programs to implement BMPs. The City of Wichita agreed to pay the farmers' share so
that farmers could implement practices without making a major financial commitment.
The Project continues to operate with EPA funds from the section 319 programs and support
from the City of Wichita, the Reno County Conservation District, NRCS, and several smaller
project grants from various sources. Farmers and landowners in the watershed provide vol-
unteer hours and commitments of time and labor on projects.
Technical and Specialized Resources
The Cheney Watershed Program uses innovative, nonregulatory action to accomplish its
goals and objectives. When Conservation Reserve Program contracts expire, landowners
are encouraged to convert the grassland to pasture instead of cropping the acreage. The
Committee provides partial funding for perimeter fence as an incentive. The Committee is
also developing a program that will encourage farmers to plant grass filters along blue line
streams within their cropland. By seeking input from local farmers, the Committee hopes to
craft a program that will address farmers' concerns while treating one of the greatest poten-
tial contributors of nutrients and sediment in the watershed.
Another important emphasis of the watershed project is the improvement of household
waste treatment and the construction of livestock waste systems for small dairies and
12
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
feedlots. The Committee also provides technical assistance to landowners and operators on
nutrient management, conservation tillage, and crop rotation.
The task force conducts other community outreach by providing information and education.
The Program produced a video to update producers on watershed improvement projects
and educate downstream consumers about the watershed program. The Committee has
implemented a program of one-on-one contact with local farmers to promote livestock waste
utilization and nutrient management. Funding has been provided to area high schools for
equipment and training for instructors and students, who will collect and analyze water
samples as part of their course of study. The Committee is working with other agencies on
the delivery and implementation of a program that promotes self-assessment for environ-
mental issues on farmsteads and homesites.
Progress toward the Program's goals is reported quarterly. The Committee continually mea-
sures project management, one-on-one contacts, technical assistance, and financial assistance
to ensure that the Cheney Watershed Program is on track with its program delivery strategy.
Contact: Lisa French, Project Coordinator, Cheney Watershed Citizens Management
Committee, 18 East 7th Ave., South Hutchinson, KS 67505; 620-665-0231;
http://www.cheneylakewatershed.org
Hillsdale Water Quality Project
Keywords: community outreach; agricultural partners; developer partners; industry part-
ners; commercial business partners; utility partners; municipal partners; county partners;
stormwater management; point source, nonpoint source, and conservation educational mate-
rials; utilizing volunteers.
In the 1940s, area landowners began lobbying for a flood control device. In 1954, the United
State Congress authorized the Hillsdale Lake Project, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
completed the dam in 1982. Hillsdale Lake contributes to flood protection on the Mara is
des Cygnes, Osage, and Missouri rivers and provides recreational opportunities for nearly 2
million visitors annually.
More than 30,000 residents of southern Johnson County and northern Miami County rely on
Hillsdale Lake as their primary source of drinking water. The lake can provide 17.3 million
gallons daily for municipal and industrial needs of surrounding communities. By 2002,
Miami County Rural Water District No. 2, Johnson County Rural Water District No. 7, Spring
Hill, and the City of Gardner were using water from Hillsdale Lake.
Group Building and Organization:
Hillsdale Lake watershed covers about 144 square miles in Miami, Johnson, Douglas, and
Franklin counties. Phosphorous, nitrogen, pesticides, and wastewater treatment discharges
from throughout the watershed threaten Hillsdale Lake's water quality. Phosphorous levels
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
13
-------
have promoted unwanted plant growth robbing the water of dissolved oxygen needed
to support aquatic life. This process, known as eutrophication, can also cause the water
to have an undesirable odor and taste. Typical problems associated with eutrophication
include increased fish kills, shortages of the dissolved oxygen needed to support aquatic
life, and algae blooms.
In 1991, citizens residing in the watershed initiated the Hillsdale Lake Water Quality
Protection Project out of concern for the future of the reservoir as a drinking water supply
and recreation area. The Project was established for the long-term protection of the lake and
its watershed. Project goals include:
Educating the public about point and nonpoint sources of pollution.
Introducing pollution control practices in agricultural areas, construction sites, and
neighborhoods.
Reducing sediment entering the lake by 30 percent, a reduction of about 39,750 tons/year.
Reducing the phosphorus load by 30 percent, a reduction of approximately 21,000 kg/vear.
The Project's volunteer-based board of directors created committees to provide technical
assistance. The Citizens Management Committee (CMC) and six implementation commit-
tees were formed. Each implementation committee is composed of seven people. The desig-
nated chairperson of each committee is also a member of the CMC. The original committees
included: Institutionalization, Agricultural Pollutant Sources, Pollution Control Practices,
Urban and Industrial Pollutant Sources, Water Quality and Information, and Education. By
2002, the committees had evolved to include: Information and Education for project promo-
tion; Water Quality Committee for monitoring issues, and Pollution Control Committee for
best management practices.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
The Hillsdale Water Quality Project incorporated in 1998 as a 501(c)(3) corporation in order
to carry on efforts the Project initiated after funds from the EPA expire.
EPA funds the Project's initiation of a plan of action to protect water quality in the water-
shed through the Kansas Department
of Health and Environment Section 319
grant program. Additional grants through
the EPA's 104(b) 3 program have also
been used. The Lake Region's Resource,
Conservation, and Development office
(RC&D) served as the local sponsor. By
2002, more than $1.9 million has been
received through the Project and used to
assist in the efforts to improve, monitor,
14
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
and restore the water quality in Hillsdale Lake. Additional funds are generated by member-
ship fees, ranging in cost from $15 to $250.
The work of the Hillsdale Water Quality Project is enhanced by partnerships with many
agencies. Individuals from these organizations provide technical support to the Project
ranging from the design of a livestock waste system to suggestions for reducing sedimenta-
tion from a construction site. This assistance allows local people to make decisions based
on sound science. Providing a non-threatening arena for the exchange of ideas has encour-
aged many diverse groups to become involved in the protection of water quality. This
increased understanding with the public has resulted in been better communication among
agencies for the improvement of water quality.
Technical and Specialized Resources
The Hillsdale Water Quality Project was a pilot program using the Total Resource
Management System planning process to achieve improved water quality and conservation
of all resources. It was the first watershed in Kansas to use this planning process to actively
involve local communities and gather local input through problem identification and devel-
opment of alternative solutions.
Along with using the plan as a tool for natural resources protection, the Project also enlists
a Geographic Information System (GIS). GIS can analyze and display geographic informa-
tion for land resource planning and has been an excellent tool to demonstrate the imple-
mentation of pollution control practices to landowners. Currently GIS is being used to iden-
tify priority areas for pollution control practices and storm drain locations in the watershed.
As an organization with no regulatory authority, the Hillsdale Water Quality Project has
successfully initiated the implementation of pollution control practices on a voluntary basis
through educational programs. For example, the Project's 2001-2002 stormwater pollution
prevention program developed a new community-based watershed approach to educate
developers, builders, Planning Commission members, lawn chemical applicators, and resi-
dents about the detrimental effects of polluted stormwater runoff. The program included
holding educational workshops, developing a public display on stormwater issues, and
developing and implementing a public outreach storm drain stenciling program.
Since the beginning, the Hillsdale Project has conducted a monitoring study on the lake
and tributary streams. The data collected from this study has assisted in determining the
extent of pollutants entering the streams and lake. With the implementation of pollution
control practices in the watershed to reduce nonpoint source pollution, the monitoring
study remains a continuous source to track the effectiveness of all pollution control, best
management, and educational efforts.
Over the years, Project volunteers and staff received the following national awards: CF
Industries National Award in 1998 for outstanding leadership in protecting America's
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
15
-------
water resources and the National Association of Counties Acts of Caring Award in 2002
for Environmental projects. In 1999, the Project received the Kansas Department of Health
and Environment's Pollution Prevention Award for Excellence in Cooperative Efforts
and Certificates of Appreciation from: the Environmental Protection Agency, Blue River
Watershed Association, Spring Hill Chamber of Commerce, Kansas Department of Health
and Environment, and many more.
For more information contact: Hillsdale Water Quality Project, One New Century Parkway,
Suite 115, New Century, KS 66031; 913-829-9414; http://www.hwqp.org
LOUISIANA I
Group Building and Organization
The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation (LPBF) was established in 1989 by an Act of the
Louisiana State Legislature in response to public outcry over the preservation and restora-
tion of the Basin's ecosystem. The Foundation is a non-profit organization with a citizen-
elected board. In partnership with over 90 government agencies and organizations, LPBF
identifies and resolves major environmental issues in the watershed.
Technical and Specialized Resources
Through its partnership with the EPA, LPBF developed a grassroots, consensus-driven,
Comprehensive Management Plan (CMP) to identify major environmental problems in the
watershed in the early 1990's. LPBF fulfills the tasks outlined in the CMP through four core
programs: Water Monitoring, Habitat Protection, Public Access, and Education.
Water Monitoring Program
LPBF, in cooperation with the New Orleans and north shore chapters of the U.S. Power
Squadron and the Louisiana Department of Health and Hospitals (LDHH), began monthly
water quality monitoring of up to 35 sites along the shore of Lake Pontchartrain in 1994. The
Lake had not been monitored by LDHH since the early 1980's when fecal coliform bacteria
counts typically ranged around 10,000 MPN (most probable number)/100 ml water, 50
times higher than the acceptable limit for swimming. Due to the encouraging results of this
monitoring, LPBF began a Recreational Water Quality Monitoring Project in 2001. Through
this project, LPBF monitors recreation sites around the Basin weekly for fecal coliform
bacteria and physiochemical parameters and shares the data with the public via television,
radio, newspaper, and LPBF's website. Additional sites are monitored bi-weekly for fecal
coliform screening. Using this monitoring, LPBF is working to have LDHH re-examine and
revise current swimming advisories for sites that now show improved water quality.
The Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation
Keywords: lake restoration, state/local agency partnerships,
community outreach, educational materials, utilizing volunteers
16
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
For sites with poor water quality, LPBF established a Sub-Basin Pollution Source Tracking
Project in 2002. This project examines the relationship between water quality, land use
patterns, and the input of the individual wastewater treatment plants within a targeted
watershed. The objectives of this project include identifying sources that contribute fecal
pollution to the selected sub-watershed, assessing ambient fecal coliform trends along the
selected waterway over time, developing relationships with other environmental organiza-
tions, and educating the public on their role in preventing pollution. Project objectives
are accomplished by conducting a water quality reconnaissance survey of the selected
watershed, sampling the river and its tributaries for ambient conditions, investigating the
relationship between water quality and land use through Geographic Information Systems
(GIS), and offering no cost technical advice and support to small community (i.e. subdivi-
sion), private, and public wastewater treatment systems. LPBF partners with Louisiana
Department of Environmental Quality, LDHH. and local environmental agencies and orga-
nizations to achieve these goals.
Habitat Protection Program
As development pressures continue to intensify basin-wide, LPBF's Habitat Protection
Program works to conserve land and involve citizens in protecting local resources. The
program educates and engages decision-makers and the public in land conservation efforts,
develops and implements advocacy-based projects, coordinates with other conservation
groups to build local partnerships, supports environmentally sustainable land use, partici-
pates in the regulatory process, and gathers related data.
The Habitat Protection Program uses three specific tools to address land use and develop-
ment issues. From a regulatory standpoint, these include monitoring and responding to
local environmental permits, attending or organizing public meetings and hearings, and
providing technical assistance to citizens on habitat and land use issues. Further, the pro-
gram educates and involves citizens and communities in land conservation efforts through
the development and distribution of educational materials and presentations. More recently,
LPBF is playing a more central role in leading local land conservation efforts through the
habitat program.
Public Access Program
As water quality improves and habitat is protected, LPBF is working toward developing
new recreation sites for public access to the Basin's natural areas. LPBF conducted a geo-
graphic assessment of the public access points in the Basin as part of a planning process to
determine current public access opportunities and plan for new ones. The planning process
addresses issues such as the amount and location of public access points within the Basin
and their condition, the facilities available at each site, and their intended user groups.
Other issues considered include assessing local environmental resources in need of protec-
tion and methods to protect them. Through this process, LPBF has prioritized several areas
for public access improvements/development including beaches, bike/walking paths, and
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
17
-------
river corridors. As this new program continues to grow, LBPF will be involved in preserving
targeted areas and work toward developing new recreational opportunities in the Basin.
Education Program
While public education is a component of all LPBF programs, the Education Program serves
to introduce the Basin to it youngest members. Objectives of this program are to develop
and distribute environmental information through educational materials, provide learning
venues such as workshops and presentations, and promote grassroots public participation in
the cleanup of the Basin. These objectives are accomplished by producing curricula specific
to the Basin, distributing it to area teachers, and performing teacher workshops; providing
presentations on water quality, habitat, and land use issues to Basin teachers, students, and
others; coordinating a student water quality monitoring project; and conducting beach sweeps
and other events for public participation.
Contact: Carlton F. Dufrechou, Executive Director, Three Lakeway, Ste. 2070, Metairie, LA
70002; 504-836-2215; lpbfinfo@saveourlake.org; http://www.saveourlake.org
MASSACHUSETTS
Nashua River Watershed Association
Keywords: federal/state/local agency partnerships, stream
restoration, watershed planning, community outreach, resource center,
educational materials, utilizing volunteers
The Nashua River Watershed Association (NRWA) was formed because of a crisis: the River
was deemed unfit to carry anything at all. A citizen leader brought the Clean Up Committee
together and then partnered with businesses and all levels of government, leading to the for-
mation of the Association in 1969. The mission of the NRWA is to work for a healthy ecosys-
tem with clean water and open spaces for human and wildlife communities, where people
work together to sustain mutual economic and environmental well-being in the Nashua
River watershed.
Group Building and Organization
The Nashua River watershed comprises all or part of 31 communities in central
Massachusetts and southern New Hampshire. The NRWA serves as educator, steward,
advocate, and provider of technical assistance. It works cooperatively with land trusts, other
conservation groups, municipalities, and state and federal agencies and interested citizens
to achieve its goals. Among its accomplishments, the NRWA has helped protect 85 miles of
riverfront land and more than 8,000 acres.
The NRWAs long-range plan, 1995 to 2020: Vision for the Nashua Paver Watershed, estab-
lishes a road map for the watershed in the next quarter-century, with goals and strategies
18
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
for achieving the vision. The Association developed the plan with input from watershed
communities and many local groups, agencies, and individuals. The "2020 Plan" recom-
mends four basic strategic actions: environmental education, advocacy for resource steward-
ship, resource-based community planning, and working together for cooperative watershed
management. In 2003, the Association partnered with the former Massachusetts Watershed
Initiative Nashua Team to release a detailed "Five Year Plan" for the watershed on a sub-
basin basis.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
The NRWA depends on membership fees and donations as an essential part of its $450,000
annual operating budget. All members receive the NRWA's quarterly newsletter, and vot-
ing privileges at the NRWA Annual Meeting. The NRWA has more than 150 business and
organizational members along with its individual members. It also receives funds through
grants, contracts, and some events. The Association receives about $100,000 in in-kind
goods and services each year.
Technical and Specialized Resources
The NRWA has a River Resource Center in Groton, Massachusetts, which houses the Bill
Farnsworth Conservation Clearinghouse. The center provides public access to a wide vari-
ety of information about the Nashua River watershed; the NRWA's (GIS), providing map-
ping capabilities as part of the Clearinghouse; a large room for programs or meetings; and a
nature trail on the River Resource Center property.
The Association assists towns with open space and recreational plans and a wide variety
of land protection and land-use planning projects. In 2003 the Association published a
CD-ROM on Resource Protection Bylaws, Ordinances & Regulations for the Nashua River
Watershed. The Association conducts habitat inventories, and in 2003 published a CD-ROM
on Wildlife Habitat and Natural Resource Inventories in the Nashua River Watershed: A
Citizen's "How-to Guide". The Association has also published a Canoe Guide and a Greenway
Guide for the Nashua River watershed. During the year the NRWA conducts numerous
watershed education programs for more than 6,500 youth and adults. It works with schools
throughout the watershed to offer a variety of programs, all designed to promote active, sci-
ence-based learning. The Association's "River Classroom" program provides canoe-based
learning opportunities. The NRWA's adult programs offer speakers and workshops on tech-
nical issues and topics of interest to the public, such as sense of place, living with suburban
wildlife, plant communities and rare plants, beavers, birds, and butterflies.
The NRWA has conducted a volunteer water quality monitoring program since 1993 with
the intent of building baseline information to track trends and identify "hot spots" for reme-
diation. Volunteer monitors collect up to 40 water samples monthly from April through
October. In addition, the Association holds one or two training sessions for monitors, some
including a laboratory session. The Association has an EPA and Massachusetts Department
of Environmental Protection-approved Quality Assurance and Performance Plan.
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
It
-------
Contact: Elizabeth Ainsley Campbell, Executive Director, Nashua River Watershed
Association, 592 Main Street, Groton, MA 01450; 978-448-0299; e.ainsley.campbell@
NashuaRiverWatershed.org; http://www.nashuariverwatershed.org/index.html
MINNESOTA
Chain of Lakes Clean Water Partnership
Keywords: federal/state/local agency partnerships, community
outreach, educational materials, stormwater management
Chain of Lakes Clean Water Partnership is one of the largest urban
watershed restoration initiatives in the nation.
Group Building and Organization
A partnership of six government agencies and cities is funding and managing the proj-
ect. Partners include the City of Minneapolis, Minnehaha Creek Watershed District,
Minneapolis Parks and Recreation Board, City of St. Lois Park, Hennepin County, and
Minnesota Pollution Control Agency.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
This project is one of the largest and most ambitious projects ever undertaken in the
Minneapolis metropolitan area. The implementation phase of the project was begun in 1997
with a $250,000 grant from the Clean Water Partnership program. In total, the contributions
of the many partners in this project to date are $3,378,200 in cash and in-kind services.
Technical and Specialized Resources
Among the program's notable successes is the homeowner education program. The program
targets homeowners through a variety of outreach methods to convey messages about the
importance of water quality and steps citizens can take to improve and protect watershed.
Several of these materials have been duplicated and modified for use by other watersheds
in Minnesota and other parts of the nation. Through the program's assertive efforts to cre-
ate wetlands, restore degraded shorelines, and improve stormwater management practices,
water quality monitoring results from
Cedar Lake have shown the highest
quality documented in 30 years.
Contact: Jeff Lee, City of Minneapolis,
3800 Bryant Avenue, Minneapolis, MN
55409; 612-313-7765; jeffrey.t.lee@
ci.minneapolis.mn.us
20
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
NEW JERSEY
Spruce Run Reservoir Initiative
Keywords: drinking water protection, federal/state/local agency partnerships,
watershed planning, local ordinance, utilizing volunteers, user fees
The Spruce Run Reservoir Initiative was developed by the New Jersey Water
Supply Authority (NJWSA) to help protect its reservoir. The goal of the Spruce
Run Reservoir Initiative is to prevent water quality degradation and the loss of water supply
safe yields from this reservoir, New Jersey's third largest at 11 billion gallons.
Group Building and Organization
In 2001, the Townships of Bethlehem, Lebanon, and Union and the Boroughs of Glen
Gardner and High Bridge each signed a Memorandum of Understanding with NJWSA to
cooperate in meeting the Initiative's goal, in ways that benefit all partners and result in no
loss of home rule.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
The NJWSA pays for the involvement of its staff in the project, including its portion of the
work to help municipalities develop master plans, ordinances, and project review proce-
dures. NJWSA also provides funding to cover administrative, legal, and property and land
acquisition costs along with the cost of a nonpoint source loading model for the watershed
and most of the matching costs for several grants.
The Authority provides all services as fiscal agent to the Initiative, through its business
office for contracts and a comptroller for fiscal tracking and audits. Depending on the
project, the Authority uses in-house staff or consultants for its work on the Initiative. The
municipalities use volunteer local officials and consulting professionals (planners, engi-
neers, hydrologists) for their Initiative efforts. The Initiative members use their funds and
local volunteer time as matching funds for grants. One grant from the U.S. Forest Service
resulted in the Critical Areas Preservation Plan. A Clean Water Act Section 319 grant will
result in a watershed-based stormwater management plan for one tributary to the reservoir.
The New Jersey Green Acres Program has committed $2 million for actual land acquisition,
and the local county and municipalities are also involved in land acquisition.
Stream corridors will be acquired wherever possible. Acquisition efforts are under way
with the cooperation of the Initiative members, the County of Hunterdon, and the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection's Green Acres Program. A contract should
be signed soon on a major property along one of the reservoir tributaries, and negotiations
are in progress with a number of other landowners. The Initiative has drafted a Critical
Areas Preservation Plan as one component of its open space preservation process. The plan
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
21
-------
identifies a need to more than double the amount of dedicated open space in the watershed,
adding approximately 6,900 acres.
The Initiative members are cooperating in grant applications to achieve some of these
purposes. Two new grants have been received in 2003. One will help the municipalities
improve their control of development and redevelopment of highway corridors through the
reservoir watersheds, to reduce pollutant loadings while sustaining local economies and
community character. EPA provided another grant under the Watershed Protection Initiative
that includes the Spruce Run Reservoir watersheds, among others. The NJWSA also com-
mitted annual funding to protect the reservoir. NJWSA customers pay $5 per million gal-
lons to a Source Water Protection Fund that covers "soft costs" for land acquisition (essen-
tially any cost other than the land itself), contractual work, and matching funds for grants.
As of July 1, 2003, another $5 per million gallons is committed to actual land acquisition
costs, mostly in the Spruce Run Reservoir watersheds, using bonds supported by the State
Revolving Fund and Environmental Infrastructure Trust. In addition, NJWSA customers
support staff costs for the seven-person Watershed Protection Programs unit.
Technical and Specialized Resources
The Initiative conducts watershed management activities to control the impacts of new
and existing land uses in the area. Initiative members are working with county and state
governments to improve local land use ordinances and cooperative development controls to
minimize the adverse effects from new development. NJWSA works closely with watershed
municipalities to develop master plan updates, draft ordinances, and review development
proposals.
Information from NJWSA's Raritan Basin Watershed Management Project is being used to
identify additional needs. NJWSA has also received a major section 319 grant to develop a
sophisticated stormwater management model and plan for the Mulhockaway Creek water-
shed, a 12-square-mile tributary to the reservoir that is dissected by a major interstate
highway (1-78).
Best management practices are being implemented to reduce the impacts of existing land
uses, both suburban and rural. NJWSA has contracted with a private consultant for a water-
shed-based nonpoint source loading model covering all streams flowing into the reservoir,
as a way of identifying key areas for remedial work. NJWSA is also planning a comprehen-
sive stream corridor assessment in 2003.
Contact: Daniel J. Van Abs, Manager, Watershed Protection Programs, New Jersey Water
Supply Authority, P.O. Box 287, South Bound Brook, NJ 08880; 732-356-9344, Ext. 22;
dvanabs@raritanbasin.org; www.raritanbasin.org
22
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
NEW MEXICO
Santa Fe Watershed Association i
Keywords: stream restoration, forest management, watershed research, i
university partnerships, state/local agency partnerships t
The mission of the Santa Fe Watershed Association is to restore the Santa
Fe River to a living river and to balance human use with natural resource
protection within the Santa Fe River watershed.
Group Building and Organization
The Santa Fe Watershed Association is a membership-based organization of approximately
200 members that strives to find the common ground in managing the landscape of the
Santa Fe River for long-term sustainability.
The first exercise in this kind of "adaptive management" for the watershed emerged from
the burning of thinned demonstration plots in an area visited on guided walking tours by
many Santa Feans. The slash, or woody debris remaining from the thinning activity on
these demo plots, was handled in two different ways. On one plot the slash was scattered;
on the other plot the slash was collected in small piles. Both plots were burned in spring
2002. Preliminary data on the demo plots collected by the College of Santa Fe indicated that
a number of trees in the "pile" plot were killed by the heat generated from burning the piles,
whereas tree mortality on the "scatter" plot was much lower and limited primarily to a few
small-diameter trees. This information was used to evaluate plans for burning slash in the
areas of the watershed proposed for treatment in the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The Association continues coordinate the monitoring of the implementation of the EIS.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
The work of the Santa Fe Watershed Association is funded by a Clean Water Act Section 319
grant and challenge grants from the Thaw Charitable Trust, Brindle Foundation, and New
Mexico Community Foundation. The Association receives further funding from the U.S.
Forest Service and line item funding secured by a Senate delegation for the coordination of
the monitoring program.
Technical and Specialized Resources
In January 2002 Santa Fe National Forest issued the Record of Decision on the EIS
finalizing plans to thin and burn portions of the forested watershed east of the city of
Santa Fe. Monitoring of ecological conditions in the watershed began more than 2 years
before the start of management actions, which are intended to reduce the potential for a
Cerro Grande-scale fire in the city's municipal watershed. The monitoring continues to be
implemented through an unprecedented collaboration between government agencies and
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
23
-------
non-governmental organizations, with third-party review by a volunteer scientific panel, the
Technical Advisory Group.
To date, participants have collected data on water quality, riparian health, active beaver
colonies, and fish populations. The number and condition of trees have been inventoried
in areas that might later be thinned and burned. Stream gauges have been installed on the
outlet streams of two adjacent subbasins at the east end of the upper reservoir. Almost two
and one-half years of flow data from the two drainages has been collected. In spring 2004,
one of the basins will be subjected to some combination of thinning and burning while the
other will remain untreated, allowing a before-and-after and side-by-side comparison of the
effects of the treatments on flow and erosion.
Contact: Paige Grant, Executive Director, Santa Fe Watershed Association, P.O. Box 31160,
Santa Fe, NM 87594-1160; 505-820-1696; paigeg@santafewatershed.org
MEW YORK
Boquet River Association (BRASSJ
Keywords: stream restoration, water testing laboratory,
agricultural partners, federal/state/local agency partnerships,
membership fees, community education, industry partnerships,
utilizing volunteers, educational materials
In the questionnaire of riparian landowners for the Boquet River, participants were asked
about major river resources and issues, as well as how problems should be resolved. BRASS
was formed after an overwhelming majority of respondents wanted more local control and
believed that impacts should be minimized and problems should be solved through coop-
eration.
There was no crisis or serious pollution merely a number of issues everyone agreed were
(or could be) problematic: littering, noisy parties along the river, flooding, streambank
erosion, sedimentation of the river, water quality testing, and an unclear stack of riparian
regulations.
Group Building and Organization
BRASS is a 200-member, grassroots nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing the qual-
ity of water and life in the Boquet watershed. The group discusses and acts on issues related
to land uses, point and nonpoint source pollution, in-stream and riparian species and habi-
tats, recreation, and the economy.
Board members include appointees from each town in the watershed and those elected from
the membership at large. The towns and the county "contract" yearly to the association for a
modest amount of money (total of $3,000 to 5,000) to work on the identified issues.
24
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
The executive director is a full-time employee, and two laboratory employees work part-
time. There isn't sufficient laboratory business for full-time operation; in fact, the lab is a
"for-debt" operation that provides needed services to the community. The executive director
is also the bookkeeper and is expected to raise a good part of their salaries through writing
grant proposals.
BRASS works with various groups, such as farmers, local road departments, schools, librar-
ies, museums, and local groups. BRASS also works with state agencies, like the New York
State Department of Environmental Conservation's (NYSDEC) Fisheries Department; gov-
ernment agencies in Vermont and New York; and federal agencies, including EPA and the
Federal Emergency Management Agency, to implement projects to educate and coordinate
the skills and services of these diverse organizations.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
BRASS'S key funding sources come from a small amount of "contracted" money from water-
shed towns and the county, about an equal amount from membership fees to the associa-
tion; an annual campaign fund; and funding from successful proposals to federal or state
grant programs or to foundations. The association owns and operates the only certified
water testing facility in the county.
A strong factor in BRASS'S capacity-building equation is local donations of materials and
service. On a log crib erosion control project, for example, the county forest or a riparian
landowner might provide cedar logs, a mining business in the watershed might provide
large stones, and highway department trucks might transport all the materials. The material
cost for a 150-linear-foot cribbing project would therefore apply only to hardware. BRASS
once received a tractor-trailer load of seedlings to plant following an acid rain study. The
association also uses every type of volunteer it can find: landowners, association mem-
bers, Americorps and Student Conservation Association workers, international volunteers
from Volunteers for Peace, offenders serving community service time, and local inmates.
Volunteers sample water, plant trees, organize cleanups, build structures, work on exhibits,
and assist when appropriate in grant studies on macroinvertebrates, sediment embedded-
ness, and invasive plant species.
BRASS conducted studies in sediment embeddedness, aquatic insects, native mussels, buf-
fer zones, and semi-aquatic invasive plants with funding from the Lake Champlain Basin
Program under the auspices of EPA. Through funding from the New York State Council
on the Arts, BRASS designed the Elizabethtown River Walk, the Thrall Dam Park at the
County Forest in Lewis, and the Noblewood Park on Lake Champlain at the mouth of the
Boquet River. Through a World Wildlife Fund grant, BRASS worked with other local envi-
ronmental, historic, and economic development groups to develop strategies for sustainable
tourism that would use while protecting the area's natural and historic resources. BRASS
also received an environmental education grant from EPA to introduce the raising of brook
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
25
-------
trout and landlocked salmon from eggs into middle school classrooms as an exciting adven-
ture in environmental studies.
Technical and Specialized Resources
BRASS has engineering and agricultural professionals, teachers, farmers, a land trust
employee, and the owner of a hydroelectric plant on its board. Towns often provide
resources or services.
Since its inception BRASS has planted 250,000 seedlings and trees on more than 10 stream-
bank miles for erosion control; worked with farmers to stem erosion and increase buffer
zones and wildlife habitat; pioneered the planting of large, native willow tree cuttings for
streambank erosion control in the Lake Champlain Basin; built more than 1,400 feet of
low-cost log cribbing and log terrace structures for erosion control; and produced, wrote,
and published a stream erosion control booklet titled How to Hold Up Banks: Using All the
Assets, and produced a 24-minute video titled Looking For Answers: Developing Partnerships
for the Control of Sediment Runoff from Rural Roads. BRASS conducted studies in water
quality, sediment embeddedness, aquatic insects, native mussels, riparian buffer zones, and
stream morphology. The research into sediment embeddedness, with assistance from the
Fisheries Department of NYSDEC, is one of the most complete long-term studies conducted
in the Northeast.
One BRASS project built on a previous interdisciplinary middle school curriculum titled
"Adopt-A-Salmon Family" (AASF). Developed by a consortium of persons from the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service in New Hampshire, the New Hampshire/Main Sea Grant program, and
the New England Salmon Association), the curriculum, which uses the Atlantic salmon, is
now used in more than 100 schools in the Northeast. It is organized around monthly themes
with a pre-prepared newsletter for student use; it also contains a teacher's guide, vocabulary,
activities and demonstrations, references and resources, and the AASF Web site. BRASS
added curricular materials about the Landlocked Atlantic Salmon and trout to expand the
use of this valuable resource to classrooms throughout most of the nation.
BRASS has also established Essex County's only water testing laboratory certified by the
Department of Health, helped redesign FEMA flood zones, designed riverside public access
parks totaling over 600 acres, turned an industrial waste area into an attractive salmon
fishing access, and implemented runoff controls with local road departments. Through its
quarterly newsletter, the Association also has provided project information to members and
to more than 100 agencies, schools, libraries, museums, and local governments.
Contact: Robin Ulmer, Executive Director, Boquet River Association, c/o Essex County
Government Center, P.O. Box 217, Elizabethtown, NY 12932; rulmer@co.essex.ny.us;
www. boquetri ver. org.
26
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
Haywood Waterways Association
Keywords: stream restoration, utilizing volunteers, community
outreach, membership fees, federal/state/local agency partnerships, university
partnerships, watershed planning
In 1994 the Pigeon River Fund (PRF) was established by Carolina Power & Light (now
Progress Energy) as part of the FERC re-licensing agreement for the Walters hydroelectric
plant located on the Haywood County side of the North Carolina/Tennessee state line.
Under the agreement, the PRF was to provide priority funding water quality projects in
Haywood County. To ensure the development and submittal of worthwhile projects from
Haywood County, a group of local citizens, including the Carolina Power & Light vice
president, formed the beginnings of the Haywood Waterways Association (HWA).
Group Building and Organization
The HWA is a nonprofit association dedicated to maintaining and improving the water
quality of the Pigeon River with a main focus on reducing nonpoint source pollution. HWA
works toward this goal through a variety of voluntary initiatives, including conducting
educational programs, gathering water resource information, sharing information to
increase public awareness, supporting greenway efforts, sponsoring litter removal and
stream clean-up days, and obtaining grants and other resources to address nonpoint source
pollution problems. HWA is funded by contributions from members, grants, and donations.
Much of its work is guided by a Technical Advisory Committee with representatives from
federal, state, and local agencies, as well as many volunteers with a variety of backgrounds
and experiences.
HWA was selected to receive the "Water Conservationist of the Year" award in the 1999
Governor's Conservation Achievement Awards Program. This award was in recognition of
several initiatives HWA has undertaken in recent years. These include an annual Kids in
the Creek educational program, the Volunteer Water Information Network stream monitor-
ing program, a geographic information system (GIS) database of the sources of nonpoint
source pollution on the Pigeon River in Haywood County (through a partnership with the
Tennessee Valley Authority), greenway planning and implementation, stream clean-up days,
public workshops, and several other public information and awareness efforts.
Capitol Resources and Fiscal Management
HWA became a nonprofit, member corporation on September 23, 1998 and received its
501(c)(3) tax-exempt status from the Internal Revenue Service on January 29, 1999. The
Association is expanding its efforts with new members, additional staff, and additional
programs. With Pigeon River Fund grant assistance, memberships, and donations, HWA has
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
27
-------
hired a director and a project manager. They both provide support to the HWA committees,
which in turn provide opportunities for direct citizen involvement. HWA and its partners
have written 30 successful grant applications and received almost $2,000,000 in state, fed-
eral, and other funding.
Technical and Specialized Resources
Water quality data are fundamental to understanding the conditions in local watersheds.
Chemical and physical information about the water in streams is essential for maintaining
and improving water quality. To be useful, this information must be gathered over a long
period of time and in a very consistent manner. It was this basic need that led to the forma-
tion of the Volunteer Water Information Network. The network is a partnership of groups
and individuals dedicated to preserving water quality in western North Carolina. The
University of North Carolina (UNC)-Asheville Environmental Quality Institute provides
technical assistance through laboratory analysis of water samples, statistical analysis of
results, and written interpretation of data. HWA initiated a sediment monitoring program in
2002 and currently has 6 monitoring stations in Haywood County.
HWA published a comprehensive Watershed Action Plan for Haywood County in 2001.
Starting with the 1999 GIS database and public forums conducted in May 2000, the Water-
shed Action Plan for the Pigeon River Watershed has evolved to the present document.
This plan is a cooperative effort between the 23 members of the HWA Technical Advisory
Committee. These members have brought hundreds of years of experience and strong pro-
fessional backgrounds to the issue of how to reduce nonpoint source pollution in the Pigeon
River Watershed.
The plan includes natural and historical perspectives on
the watershed. It summarizes the available water qual-
ity data for the watershed. Using the latest GIS data, it
identifies the sources of nonpoint pollution and quantifies
the impacts. The watershed conditions of four subwater-
sheds (Upper Pigeon, Lower Pigeon, Richland Creek, and
Jonathan Creek) are outlined. The plan then identifies
possible ways to address the issues and selects a number of
recommended strategies. These strategies are more fully
developed in an addendum to the plan.
Contact: Ron Moser, P.O. Box 389, Waynesville, NC 28786;
828-452-9077 or 828-456-5195; ronmoser@charter.net;
h ttp://www.haywoodwa terways. orgjindex.htm
28
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
Upper Broad River Watershed Protection Program
Keywords: stream restoration, state/local agency partnerships, watershed planning,
community outreach
Group Building and Organization
In 1996 Hickory Nut Gorge experienced a catastrophic flood that dropped nearly 11 inches
of rain in 2 hours (17 inches in the 24 hour period). The resulting runoff and erosion
severely impaired Lake Lure, where sediment was deposited. This also resulted in the
loss of tourism revenue vital for local business and landowners. The Upper Broad River
Watershed Protection (UBRWP) committee was formed to identify the sources of ero-
sion and find a solution to the sedimentation problem. The committee is affiliated with
Mountain Valleys RC&D, composed of residents of Hickory Nut Gorge, representatives from
the local governments, and soil and water conservation specialists.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
The Clean Water Management Trust Fund approved grant funding of $641,000, which was
used to initiate an erosion control and riparian protection program in October 1999. The
UBRWP Committee began program start-up and implementation in October 1999 by hiring an
erosion control specialist to administer the project. Since Mountain Valleys RC&D received
the initial grant from the Clean Water Management Trust Fund, it has received two more
grants to continue conservation work providing riparian easements and erosion control.
The grants are funded through grants from the North Carolina Clean Water Act Section 319
nonpoint source grant program and the North Carolina Clean Water Management Trust
Fund.
Technical and Specialized Resources
After months of preliminary study and deliberation by the Natural Resources Conservation
Service, Isothermal Planning and Development Commission, local Soil Conservation
District personnel, and members of Lake Advisory Committee for the Town of Lake Lure
held a meeting on October 2, 1997, for technical water and soil conservation specialists from
across North Carolina to discuss water quality issues in the Upper Broad River watershed.
Preliminary studies indicated that there are more than 500 sites in the 94-square-mile
watershed that dump between 50,000 and 200,000 tons of sediment into the Broad River
Basin each year.
The Committee provides technical assistance and written Conservation Plans detailing
treatments to stabilize existing eroding sites, as well as financial reimbursements to prop-
erty owners to monitor the installation of approved Natural Resources Conservation Service
practices.
The Committee also provides Riparian Conservation Easements to property owners desiring
to protect water quality permanently with the sale or donation of their development rights
and riparian trees for stream buffers and offers printed material to educate property owners
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
29
-------
about the value of riparian buffers and watershed protection. A total of 63.33 acres are in
riparian protection, protecting 9,770 linear feet of stream, creeks, and branches within the
foothills of the Blue Ridge Mountains. Easements are held by the State of North Carolina
and funded by the Clean Water Management Trust Fund
The UBRWP Committee conducts educational workshops to increase stakeholder participa-
tion and understanding and has developed an ArcView GIS watershed plan to assist in pre-
dicting future watershed protection needs.
They continue to provide water quality monitoring for long-term evaluation of sediment
and pollutant sources in the Upper Broad River watershed. Since July 1996 the Town of
Lake Lure has paid the cost for water quality monitoring managed through Volunteer Water
Information Network collecting water samples from designated sites along streams and riv-
ers in the watershed. Since August 1999 the Environmental Quality Institute has been col-
lecting sediment samples from 25 sediment-monitoring stations in the watershed.
Contact: Clint Calhoun, Erosion Control Specialist; 828-625-9983, ext. 123;
clintcalhoun @blueridge.net
Sugar Creek Watershed Farmers j
Keywords: agriculture partners, stakeholder facilitation, stream
restoration, nutrient management plans, state/local agency partnerships v. ,<
The Sugar Creek Watershed Farmers are receiving much attention in Ohio because of their
selection process and farmer control of the group process. They have about one-third of
the land in the subwatershed and potentially 8 miles of contiguous Conservation Reserve
Program (CRP) buffer (3 miles in place now). The approach is holistic, and several new farm
enterprises (dairy, low-input soybeans for sale to Japan, mushrooms, and free-ranging chick-
ens) are planned as part of the project. The 2-year-old project concentrates on the headwater
streams of the Muskingum watershed. It is an example of a landgrant college working very
closely with local Soil and Water Conservation Districts (SWCDs).
Group Building and Organization
Team formation is key to the project. One key lead farmer chose several neighbors, who in
turn chose several more. The approach worked very effectively because the farmers had a
common purpose.
The farmers were already motivated by fear that because their watershed had been labeled
the second worst in Ohio (following the burning Cuyahoga), the finger of blame would be
pointed at them.
OHIO
30
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
Although conflict resolution has not
been important to date, it might become
more important as the project develops
further. One area of contention will be
between the heavy polluter farmers once
they have been clearly identified (which
will be soon). The scale differences
between large and small farmers might
also result in conflict.
The farmers set the meeting agendas;
facilitators try to provide opportunities
to meet the agenda items. The farmers have said they don't want to waste words, and a meet-
ing that moves point by point centering on finding the problems and fixing them is critical.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
Even before the project's U.S. Department of Agriculture grant and EPA Clean Water
Act Section 319 grant started, the farmers had 3 miles of conservation reserve program
buffer in place. The grants were important but not the determining factor in the farmers'
participation in the project.
Technical and Specialized Resources
The farmers needed to have two people from the land grant college experiment station
trained so they could help the SWCDs do their evaluations of NRCS Comprehensive
Nutrient Management Plans and Conservation Plans. This step was necessary to speed up
implementation of best management practices. They also had to help teach the local SWCDs
how to use CIS in their work and for planning.
EPA data can be hard to understand, so the farmers need to bring everything down to the
field level. Stemming from a strong value of social responsibility and land stewardship,
the farmers needed to have water quality results they could relate to their own farms.
Previously the Ohio EPA had 4 mains I em sites in their subwatershed of 26 square miles
so the farmers and university raised this to 22 sites with samples taken bi-weekly. The
intensive data resulted in a "hot spot" approach to pollution remediation because some sites
were usually much higher than others.
Contact: Richard Moore, Sugar Creek WatershedResearchers Team Leader, Associate
Professor, Dept. of Human and Community Resource Development, OARDC/OSU, 201B
Thome Hall, 1680 Madison Ave., Wooster, OH 44691; moore.ll@osu.edu; 330-202-3538;
http://amp.oardc.ohio-state.edu/betha/index.html
Building Capacity for Nonpoirit Source Management
31
-------
SOUTH CAROLINA
Friends of Lake Keowee Society
Keywords: utilizing volunteers, educational materials, community \
outreach, industry partnerships
The Friends of Lake Keowee Society (FOLKS) is an all-volunteer, not-for-profit organization
dedicated to the conservation and enlightened management of Lake Keowee and its water-
shed to preserve the beauty, enjoyment, and economic benefit for property owners, lake
users, visitors, area businesses, and future generations.
Group Building and Organization
More than 3,000 residents of Oconee and Pickens Counties compose the membership of
FOLKS. Members have diverse backgrounds and include scientists, agriculturists, marine
and landscape professionals, outdoor enthusiasts, former professionals, and CEOs. Many are
active in local civic and community affairs and closely follow state and national issues that
might affect their quality of life.
To achieve its goals, FOLKS intends to do the following:
Seek and make available reliable information that inspires appreciation of the lake and
its watershed, defines their condition and value, reveals trends and outcomes of related
impacts, and fosters the use of best management practices.
Study and collect data on the impact of buffers and setbacks of septic systems in the
Lake Keowee watershed.
Promote local, state, and national policies that motivate and facilitate enlightened lake
and river management.
Sponsor local conservation projects and support other groups that are in harmony with
the aims of FOLKS.
Create public awareness of, support for, and involvement in conservation of the lake
and watershed.
Capitol Resources and Fiscal Management
In July 1999 FOLKS was awarded a $240,000 matching funds grant from EPA and the South
Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control (DHEC) to help fund a range of
remedial programs over the next 5 years to find and fix problems related to excessive fecal
coliform bacteria, metals, and siltation.
Technical and Specialized Resources
FOLKS measures 89 sites for water clarity each month throughout the year using Secchi
disks, a technique developed in 1865 and still in common use today. The organization has
analyzed and charted the data from 1994 to the present to determine trends and to point out
32
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
areas of concern. Since 1998 ceramic tiles have been pulled monthly from seven locations,
and the algae collected are analyzed in a laboratory for chlorophyll content and total weight.
Again, the effort is to identify trends and specific areas of concern.
Information from the Secchi disk program and sediment stage bottles placed in streams
flowing into the lake is used for the measurement of sediment. Ongoing studies by Duke
scientist Dr. David Braatz show that Little River alone contributes about 4 tons of sediment
each day during normal flow and thousands of times that during peak storm events.
Volunteers and citizens on the lake report abuses, ranging from septic overflows to unpro-
tected construction activity, to FOLKS ombudsmen. The ombudsmen than follow up with
local contractors or authorities and attempt to correct the abuses.
Each spring and fall hundreds of volunteers in more than 110 boats cover the 300 miles of
shoreline to pick up trash left by unthinking lake users. Scuba divers pick up batteries, deck
chairs, and television sets from the bottom in highly used areas. More than 12,000 bags of
debris, mostly plastic bottles and cans, were collected since 1994. Duke Power assists with
objects too heavy for the volunteers.
Informational materials are displayed in libraries and at area fairs. Talks are given to local
organizations. FOLKS provides boats and support for the annual pontoon classroom run
by the Clemson Extension Service to teach children about the science and ecology of the
lake. FOLKS also hosts quarterly forums, with well-known guest speakers, and publishes a
monthly newsletter.
Contact: A1 Babiriicz, Executive Director, Friends of Lake Keowee Society; 864-710-6968,
al@kfmaps.com, or walker@thehappyberry.com, 864-868-2946;
http://www.keoweefolks. org
VIRGINIA
Friends of the Rappahannock
Keywords: federal/state/local agency partnerships, construction
industry partnerships, watershed planning, utilizing volunteers,
community outreach, education materials
Group Building and Organization
Friends of the Rappahannock (FOR) initially formed by a group of interested citizens who
felt a need to have ongoing advocacy on behalf of the river. FOR's mission is to promote the
conservation, protection, and enjoyment of the natural, cultural, recreational, scenic, and
historical values of the Rappahannock River and its tributaries. A number of project exam-
ples are provided here.
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
33
-------
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
FOR obtains its funding through the annual "Riverfest" fundraiser, corporate donations,
federal grants, state grants, membership dues, interpretive trips, and small fundraisers.
Technical and Specialized Resources
To demonstrate the cost-effectiveness of low-impact development (LID) approaches, five
existing commercial projects in the Fredericksburg, Virginia, area were redesigned on paper
to incorporate LID practices, focusing particularly on incorporating stormwater "integrated
management practices" (IMPs) throughout the landscape. These redesigns were performed
at the request of FOR and the LID Center by engineering staff at the Silver Companies and
Williamsburg Environmental Group in order to assess the cost and practicality of incorpo-
rating LID practices into various types of commercial designs. The resulting cost assessment
led to the developer's willingness to use the LID approach in his subsequent projects.
FOR and the Center for Watershed Protection conducted an intensive 1-year project to
promote consensus among diverse stakeholders for code changes that facilitate more river-
friendly site design on development sites. The resulting document, Model Development
Principles for the Central Rappahannock, is the basis for code revisions currently in the
review stage for Stafford and Spotsylvania Counties.
FOR and Stafford County are currently implementing a comprehensive plan to guide
the restoration of water quality and habitat on Stafford County's tributaries to the
Rappahannock. Activities include global positioning system (GPS)-based assessment of
more than 80 miles of streams to inventory erosion areas, migratory fish blockages, and pol-
lutant sources. A comprehensive assessment of impervious cover is also being conducted to
prioritize subwatersheds for future LID retrofit activities.
FOR also conducts river stewardship education projects, such as At the River's Edge, a sum-
mer environmental education program conducted in partnership with local school systems,
scout groups, and other youth groups; riverside kiosks; education and recreation events;
water quality monitoring; and cleanups.
Contact: Friends of the Rappahannock, P.O. Box 7254, Fredericksburg, VA 22404;
540-373-3448; cleanriver@pobox.com; h t tp:!If or. com muni typ oint. org
34
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
Organizations That Assist Watershed Groups
in Building Capacity
This second section highlights organizations that foster and provide the tools for local
watershed groups and governments to achieve their mission or goal. The goal of this section
is to spur ideas for new and existing organizations to help other organizations to manage
nonpoint source pollution at the watershed scale.
CALIFORNIA
California Coordinated Resource Management and
Planning Council* L
Keywords: federal/state/local agency partnerships, agriculture
partnerships, industry partnerships /
The Coordinated Resource Management and Planning (CRMP) Council
is a statewide partnership of 15 state and federal natural resource agencies. The partner-
ship also includes 14 organization sponsors: California Chamber of Commerce, California
Agricultural Commissioners Association, California Cattlemen's Association, California
Farm Bureau Federation, California Trout Inc., Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Planning
and Conservation League, Society for Range Management, Society of American Foresters,
Soil and Water Conservation Society - California Chapter, Heritage Trails Fund, America
Farmland Trust, National Audubon Society, and California State Grange.
Providing Group Building and Organization
The mission of the Council is to promote locally led planning for watershed management
and watershed restoration efforts. The Council also promotes and fosters partnerships
between locally led initiatives and participating agencies that have resources, funding and
technical expertise.
Council participants share their expertise
in the process of local level organiza-
tion as well as technical approaches and
methodologies that groups can use to be
effective watershed stewards or restorers.
The local organizations include water-
shed councils, groups, conservancies,
and the like.
Building Capacity for Nonpoirit Source Management
35
-------
Providing Technical and Specialized Resources
The CRMP Council supports its mission by facilitating workshops to promote locally led
planning. It also offers a handbook that lays out step-by-step instructions for CRMP groups,
from getting organized to monitoring results. In addition to the handbook, the CRMP
Council's Web site provides links to other organizations that can assist local groups, copies of
newsletters, funding sources, and other helpful documents.
A Technical Advisory Council (TAC) deals with the specifics of the CRMP elements. The
TAC is composed of technical representatives from the state and federal agencies whose role
is as follows:
Identify and support the best watershed management approaches
Monitor the process for weaknesses and strengths
Identify and resolve field problems
A program director plays a dedicated administrative and coordinating role. The program
director also organizes the workshops that are the hallmark of the CRMP process, acts as an
ad hoc information clearinghouse, and provides direct assistance to organizations attempt-
ing to use the CRMP process.
Contact: Mondy Lariz, Program Director, 801 KStreet, Suite 1318, Sacramento, CA 95814;
916-447-7237, cacrmp@ca.nacdnet.org
Providing Group Building and Organization
The goal of the Watershed Restoration Action Strategies (WRAS) Partnership is to focus and
coordinate federal, state, local, and private resources in identified priority watersheds
those areas most in need of restoration or protection. Partners work with local governments
to build planning capacity and to help develop the Watershed Restoration Strategy for the
watershed.
The Partnership aims to develop strategies that incorporate large-scale basin planning
efforts like those of Maryland's Chesapeake Bay Tributary Teams and the Coastal Bays
Program, with individual watershed concerns for the following:
Maintaining key environmental resources
Reducing water quality impairment
Watershed Restoration Action Strategies Partnership
Keywords: watershed planning, federal/state/local agency
partnerships, agriculture partnerships, community outreach
MARYLAND
36
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
Protecting wildlife habitat
Addressing specific problems
The Partnership also works within the Chesapeake Bay Program, to which Maryland is a
key signatory. Under that program, watershed plans must be developed and implemented in
two-thirds of the multistate Chesapeake Bay watershed.
The responsibility for the Strategy rests primarily with local governments. In the process of
developing and implementing it, however, myriad stakeholders and partners are involved,
including nonprofit organizations, local Natural Resources Conservation Service offices,
watershed associations, schools, farmers, local corporate citizens, and city and town gov-
ernments. The Partnership recognizes that stakeholder input into the watershed planning
process (for example, in developing measurable milestones and a time frame for reaching
them or identifying individual water quality/habitat protection and restoration activities) is
fundamental to the eventual success of the Strategy.
Providing Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
In terms of financial resources, the WRAS Partnership identifies state monies from Clean
Water Act Section 319 and Coastal Zone Management Act Section 309 that can be used
through grants for each watershed's Strategy or restoration effort. In addition, it coordinates
targeted assessment efforts and state agency services, resources, and technical assistance.
The Task Force has identified a "Tools, Training, Marketing and Incentives" Workgroup
that is developing various tools and resources for use at the local level. To help watersheds
benefit from other examples, the Task Force has compiled a survey of community watershed
organizations' efforts to develop watershed plans.
Contact: Daniell Lucid, Watershed Strategies Program Manager, Maryland Department of
Natural Resources, Coastal Zone Management Division; 410-260-8726;
dlucid@dnr.state.md.us; http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/czm/wras/;
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/bay/czm/wras/wras_rfp.pdf
MONTANA l~ H
Montana Watershed Coordination Council* /
Keywords: resource identification assistance, partner i
identification assistance, educational materials, volunteer
training, technical document review
The mission of the Montana Watershed Coordination Council (MWCC) is to serve as a
forum to link local watershed groups both with each other, and with channels of access to
state natural resource agencies and legislative processes. Its mission is to share resources
and disseminate information efficiently so that watershed groups can benefit from each
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
37
-------
other's experiences and gain knowledge on conducting the technical aspects of their work
and on participating in legislative processes where the legislation is related to watersheds in
the state.
Providing Group Building and Organization
The MWCC fosters coordination, communication, and cooperation rather than setting policy
or usurping any other organization's authority or responsibility. It meets quarterly to hear
from watershed groups and to provide informational updates from various sources.
Providing Technical and Specialized Resources
Several workgroups oversee different topic areas, with the aim of keeping watershed groups
up-to-date on information and offering helpful ways to work on and address issues that
those groups face. The workgroups have developed guidances, made recommendations to
key agencies, performed a study on forest BMP effectiveness, provided volunteer monitor
training, coordinated activities among different nonprofits and agencies, provided technical
review for documents, and even sponsored an award program that recognizes innovative,
locally led watershed approaches.
Watershed Linking Work Group: Aims to develop a Watershed Information Link that
allows people to learn about watershed activities and to help link watershed groups
with sources of financial and structural assistance.
Watershed Recognition Work Group: Formally recognizes innovative, locally led
approaches to restoring Montana's watersheds at a high political level.
Grazing Practices Work Group: Focuses on promoting one set of minimum grazing
management measures that can be adapted to meet site-specific conditions to maintain
and protect water quality on all grazing lands in Montana; the measures are to be
voluntarily implemented without affecting private property rights.
Ground Water Work Group: Responsible for promoting coordination and cooperation
in implementing ground water protection programs, plans, and projects in Montana.
Information and Education Work Group: reviews proposals for possible inclusion
in Montana's annual 319 nonpoint source pollution grant. The state Department of
Environmental Quality uses recommendations from the subcommittee to promote
information and education activities addressing nonpoint sources.
Montana Wetlands Council: An open membership Council that meets with the MWCC
to promote stewardship of wetlands.
Water Activities Work Group: Provides recommendations on watershed planning
projects and activities.
Water Quality Monitoring Work Group: Serves as a collaborative body to facilitate
more effective collection, interpretation, and dissemination of aquatic resource
monitoring data.
38
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
Reference Condition Subgroup: A group composed of members of state agencies, along
with watershed groups, that are tasked with using a strong QA/QC processed method to
collect and share chemical, physical, and biological data being collected from reference
streams in Montana.
The MWCC Web site provides a clearinghouse for tools provided by state agencies or par-
ticular watershed groups for technical activities such as stream corridor assessment, as well
as announcements of interest to the watershed community.
Contact: Amy Miller, Montana Watershed Coordination Council; amy.miller@mt.usda.gov;
http://water.mon tana.edu/wa tersheds/mwcc/defa ult. asp
The Ohio Environmental Council j
Keywords: watershed group formation assistance, volunteer training,
building and retaining membership, resource identification assistance, > . ,< "
legal assistance, partner identification assistance, educational materials
The Ohio Environmental Council (OEC) has helped to form Watershed Councils in both
central and northeast Ohio. Currently, the Central Ohio Watershed Council is a collection of
local groups that meet quarterly to discuss their work and compare notes on organizational
development. These meetings offer groups the opportunity to brainstorm and share ideas on
combating problems peculiar to their region. They also give the OEC feedback on the types
of training necessary for the organizations to grow as organizations.
Providing Technical and Specialized Resources
The OEC has worked with local citizens to form watershed groups in their areas. The OEC
has also held workshops and training, targeting both capacity-building and technical pro-
cess issues where groups have needed assistance. Typical topics for workshops and training
include the following:
Building and retaining membership.
Innovative sources of funding for watershed restoration.
Legal hurdles for nonprofits (definitions of lobbying for 501(c)(3) organizations).
Clean Water Act conferences to teach local groups about Clean Water Act mechanisms
through which they can participate, e.g., TMDL watershed restoration plans;
commenting on section 401 certification and section 404 permits; nonpoint source
pollution, e.g., nutrients, septic tanks; playing a watchdog role in permitting situations
(issuance of a new permit or permit renewal).
OHIO
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
39
-------
Water monitoring/photo monitoring training so that groups can establish their own
monitoring programs.
The OEC has created "assistance directories" for different parts of the state with contact
information for agencies and other groups that can be of assistance to a watershed group.
The OEC has also distributed information to local watershed groups in the form of fact
sheets. Examples include A Citizen's Guide to 401/404 Permits; A Citizen's Guide to Drafting
Bylaws; and When First Starting Up (which details the process of becoming a 501(c)(3) or
other options for groups).
The OEC has worked closely with River Network and the Clean Water Network to put
together training and has used their materials to draft its own citizen guides and resource
lists for local groups.
With the help of the Institute for Conservation Leadership, the OEC is planning a "Board
Development Workshop."
Contact: Molly Flannagin, Clean Water Program Associate; molly@theoec.org; or Keith
Dimoff, Assistant Director; keith@theoec.org; 614-487-7506; http://www.theoec.org.
Ohio Watershed Network
Keywords: watershed group formation assistance, partnership identification assistance,
resource identification assistance, technical training
The Ohio Watershed Network (OWN) is a project of Ohio State University Extension. The
purpose of the OWN is to support local watershed protection efforts by
Providing educational programs in organizational development and watershed
management principles and practices for new and existing watershed partnerships.
Creating a statewide information network serving watershed groups and their agency
partners.
The intended audience of OWN's outreach is community members and natural resource
professionals working to protect their watershed resources.
Providing Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
Funding for the OWN is provided by the state and a grant from the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency.
Providing Technical and Specialized Resources
The OWN's principal outreach tool is a Web site that offers users the following resources:
The Watershed Toolshed contains articles on topical issues related to watershed
management.
40
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
Community-Based Watershed Management outlines how individuals, groups, and
institutions with a stake in watershed management outcomes can participate in
identifying and addressing issues that affect or are affected by watershed functions.
This section of the Web site includes OWN's popular Virtual Watershed Tour, as well as
other information for those just getting started.
Watershed Groups in Ohio offers a directory of watershed groups across the state.
A map of Ohio allows a user to click on any county in Ohio and view a list of watershed
groups in the area.
Resources & Reference links to watershed-related Web sites, funding opportunities, and
contact information for people and state agencies involved in watershed protection.
Of particular note, contact information for Ohio State University Extension agents
specializing in watershed management and members of the multiagency Area
Assistance Teams is highlighted. The Web site also maintains a compendium of links,
such as well-used references, publications, curriculum materials, videos, software, and
a glossary of frequently used watershed terms.
The Ohio Watershed Academy (OWA) is a non-credit, distance-education course led
by university-based instructors from the Ohio State University Extension Service. Its
purpose is to develop the knowledge and skills of watershed group leaders in Ohio
so that they can develop community-based watershed Action Plans. This Web-based
course is offered on a semi-regular basis, but the lessons and library materials are
available at all times.
Contact: Joe Bonn ell; bonnell.8@osu.edu; http://ohiowatersheds.osu.edu
OREGON
For the Sake of the Salmon*
Keywords: fish habitat restoration, technical training, watershed
group formation assistance, volunteer training, outreach material
development assistance, resource identification assistance, building
and retaining membership
For the Sake of the Salmon (FSOS) is a capacity-building organization that aims to protect
and restore salmon in the Pacific region by building consensus on salmon management
issues, supporting efforts to restore and protect watersheds, and establishing a Pacific
Salmon Fund.
Providing Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
FSOS's funding comes from the states of Oregon and California, National Marine Fisheries
Service, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, and PacifiCorp Foundation. Its regional cover-
age focuses on Washington, Oregon, and California.
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
41
-------
Providing Technical Resources and Specialized Resources
The FSOS Web site is an informational clearinghouse as well as a source of tools for water-
shed groups. Information is provided on forming and running a watershed group, as well
as the technical work of watershed planning and outreach in the watershed. Links are pro-
vided to books, articles, guides, legal issues, Web resources, technical assistance, and other
documents. A key tool is sample template documents that watershed groups can download
and use with their own local references.
One of the key challenges that a watershed group faces is communicating with landowners,
the public, and reporters. The "Getting Your Message Out" section of the Web site includes
the following:
Outreach materials on communicating with landowners and the public
Material on working effectively with reporters
Downloadable clipart
Resources on recruiting, motivating, and training volunteers
The FSOS Web site provides information on funding sources. Organizations can find infor-
mation on grant announcements, articles about funding sources and fund raising, and an
extensive list of funding programs offered by federal and state governments and private
foundations. The list is intended to give watershed groups an idea of various available fund-
ing sources.
FSOS designs outreach processes and facilitates multi-stakeholder meetings and workshops.
Under its Regional Facilitation Program the meetings are designed to bring federal, state,
and private agencies together with watershed groups, the public, and other salmon recov-
ery stakeholders. Agencies represented include the National Marine Fisheries Service, U.S.
Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, EPA, and the states of Washington, Oregon,
and California. The meetings enable better communication among parties whose number
and scattered geographic distribution raise barriers to effective cooperation. FSOS often
partners with its member organizations in delivering these facilitation services.
Under its Watershed and Community
Support Program, FSOS offers timely
and relevant information, resources,
and assistance to watershed organiza-
tions, public agencies, tribes, and other
partners that are working to protect and
restore fish habitat and improve water
quality. The program includes an elec-
tronic newsletter, periodic workshops,
t
42
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
and networking forums to help share information, avoid duplication of effort, and extract
lessons learned.
Contact FSOS, 319 Southwest Washington, Suite. 706, Portland, OR 97204; 503-223-8511;
http :Hwww. 4s os. org
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board
Keywords: watershed planning, fish habitat restoration, grant giving, watershed group for-
mation, technical training, volunteer training, educational materials
The Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) is a state agency. It consists of 17
members drawn from state natural resource agency commissions, federal agencies, and the
public at large. This policy oversight board brings together a diverse range of interests to
decide on applications for grant awards and set the vision for watershed restoration efforts
in Oregon. Its strategic plan, A Strategy for Achieving Healthy Watersheds in Oregon explains
OWEB's goals, which are to restore salmon runs, improve water quality, and strengthen
ecosystems that are critical to healthy watersheds and sustainable communities through
promoting and funding voluntary actions. To this end, the Board fosters the collaboration of
citizens, agencies, and local interests.
Providing Technical Resources and Specialized Resources
OWEB awards more than $20 million annually. OWEB's "capacity-building" grants assist
watershed groups as they equip themselves with the planning, human resources, project
management, and technical skills necessary to carry out complex restoration projects. The
following are some items covered by these grants:
Watershed assessment
Data gathering
Monitoring of conditions
Action plans
Waterhed Council support
Workshops
Outreach materials
Student programs
OWEB provides grants to carry out "on-
the-ground" restoration projects that might
include working with citizen groups and
Building Capacity for Nonpoirit Source Management
43
-------
landowners on efforts like instream habitat improvement or management of upland areas.
Examples of such projects follow:
Planting
Reseeding
Fencing
Weed control
Culvert replacement
Wetland restoration
Livestock watering
Fish habitat
Land and water purchases
Conservation easements
OWEB also offers a small grant program to support landowner projects that improve water-
shed health. Under this program, soil and water conservation districts and watershed coun-
cils may apply for funds for small projects without going through the full application cycle.
OWEB provides technical assistance to landowners and local volunteer groups through
manuals on how to undertake restoration projects and a biennial statewide conference to
share ideas and expertise.
OWEB supports programs that teach students and adults about the importance of watershed
health. With the aim of improving citizens' understanding of both urban and rural water-
shed issues, OWEB undertakes educational projects in schools, the field, and backyards
through grants and staff assistance.
OWEB coordinates the collection, sorting, and analysis of data about watershed and natu-
ral resource conditions throughout Oregon. OWEB monitors the effectiveness of restora-
tion efforts and OWEB also reports on the progress of the Oregon Plan for Salmon and
Watersheds.
Contact: Geoff Huntington, Executive Director, Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board,
775 Summer Street, NE, Suite 360, Salem, OR 97301-1290; 503-986-0178;
geoffrey.m.huntington@state.or. us; http://www.oweb.state.or.us
OREGON (NATIONAL OFFICE), DC, VERMONT
River Network*
Keywords: watershed group formation assistance, grant giving, technical training, educa-
tional materials, building and retaining membership, outreach material development assis-
tance, partner identification assistance, volunteer training
44
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
River Network is a formal nonprofit organization with a $5 million budget and 34 staff
working in offices across the United States. It has more than 500 partners working through
its watershed-based programs, including individuals, organizations, agencies, tribal govern-
ments, and others. A significant achievement of River Network's River Conservancy Program
is that it has acquired and protected more than 40,000 acres of key riverlands to date.
River Network has four watershed programs that correspond to the organization's areas of
expertise and form the main themes of assistance offered to partners:
Organizational Development
River Watch
River Protection and Restoration Tools
Networking
Providing Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
River Network provides financial assistance through several grant programs. These include
Re-grants, through funds provided by regional foundations, and Watershed Assistance
Grants, through funds provided by EPA.
Providing Technical and Specialized Resources
River Network provides services and support to its partners through the River Source
Information Center, training, consultation, and financial assistance in the following areas.
Organizational Development. Focuses its assistance on capacity building and helps partners to
Decide what kind of organizing approach is best for their situation
Form long-term goals and plans
Develop and sustain leadership
Raise the money they need to do their work
Communicate effectively with their public
Take other actions necessary to build strong, effective, stable organizations
River Watch. Focuses on baseline information gathering and helps partners to
Understand the natural forces that shape their watersheds and make them unique;
Determine how clean and healthy their rivers and streams are;
Identify watershed problems and their sources;
Take stock of the social, political and economic contexts for their work; and
Evaluate the effectiveness of watershed protection and restoration activities.
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
45
-------
River Protection and Restoration Tools. Focuses on techniques, programs, and laws, particu-
larly the Clean Water Act, that they can employ or adapt and helps partners to
Learn about available river conservation techniques, programs, and laws
Decide how best to apply or adapt them to their situation
Use them to greatest effect
Networking. Focuses on coalition-building for greater effect and wider, national-level impact.
The organization itself
Spreads the word about emerging issues and strategies
Convenes parties with similar interests, strategies, or concerns
Helps develop partnerships, build coalitions, and organize campaigns
Organizes regional and national networking events, like as the Annual National
River Rally
Helps create a favorable national climate for watershed work
The River Source Information Center is the organization's primary vehicle for delivering ser-
vices and support to its partners. Source Center services are available to all River Network
partners at any time. Source Center staff respond to requests for assistance through a 1-800
hot line and keep people abreast of issues via e-mail lists and Web-based communication.
They develop and distribute publications useful to partners, update the Web site contents,
maintain an extensive resource library, conduct research, and offer referrals to other
sources of assistance.
Training. River Network organizes some training programs directly; it also assists other
organizations with the regional and statewide training events they organize. River
Network's training services range from 1-hour workshops to week-long programs. They
include standardized programs developed through years of evolution and customized pro-
grams developed in response to special requests.
Consultation services. River Network provides consultation services to a large and growing
number of organizations each year. It works directly with specific organizations on consult-
ing projects that range in duration from a half-day to 3 years. When setting up these proj-
ects, River Network works with the client group's staff and volunteer leadership to assess
needs, establish project goals, and determine the scope and duration of the project. Goals for
such projects may be organizational, programmatic, or both.
Contact: River Network National Office, 520 Southwest 6th Avenue #1130, Portland, OR
97204; 503-241-3506 or 1-800-423-6747; info@rivernetwork.org;
http://www.ri vern e twork. org/index, cfm
46
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
PENNSYLVANIA
Growing Greener
Keywords: grant giving, BMP funding, watershed plan funding,
legal assistance, technical assistance
The Environmental Stewardship & Watershed Protection Act in Pennsylvania signed the
Growing Greener Program into law in 1999. The program's purpose is to preserve farmland
and protect open space, eliminate the maintenance backlog in State Parks, clean up
abandoned mines and restore watersheds, and provide new and upgraded water and sewer
systems.
Four different agencies are involved in implementing the program: the Departments of
Environmental Protection, Agriculture, and Conservation and Natural Resources and
PENNVEST. Its financial obligations are $650 million over a period of 5 years.
The Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) alone is allocated nearly $240 mil-
lion in grants for acid mine drainage abatement, mine cleanup efforts, abandoned oil and
gas well plugging, and local watershed-based conservation projects. Growing Greener
Watershed Grants provide funds for watershed assessments and development of watershed
restoration or protection plans, as well as the implementation of watershed restoration or
protection projects including a variety of nonpoint source mitigation activities. Example
projects include stormwater management wetlands, riparian buffer fencing and planting,
streambank restoration, and agricultural BMPs. Also included are construction of mine
drainage remediation systems, reclamation of previously mined lands, and demonstration
and education projects and outreach activities.
Providing Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
Grants are available to a variety of eligible applicants, including counties, authorities, and
other municipalities; county conservation districts; watershed organizations; and other
organizations involved in the restoration and protection of Pennsylvania's environment.
Providing Technical and Specialized
Resources
Growing Greener Technical Assistance
Grants can pay for legal assistance
between various associations and
organizations to achieve a team-based
approach to delivering assistance through
Memorandums of Understanding. Other
legal assistance includes land transactions,
formalization of organizational standing
Building Capacity for Nonpoirit Source Management
47
-------
for watershed associations, Good Samaritan status, administration of grants, and one-on-one
assistance.
The Pennsylvania DEP has established a growing network of technical assistance providers
to help watershed organizations effectively and efficiently achieve their watershed protec-
tion goals. With funding from the Growing Greener program, these providers offer engineer-
ing, data management, program management, science mentoring, and technical services at
no cost to eligible organizations for Growing Greener-type projects.
Contact: DEP Grants Center, RCSOB, 15th Floor, 400 Market Street, P.O. Box 8776, Harrisburg,
PA 17105-8776; 717-705-5400; GrowingGreener@state.pa.us;
http://www.dep.state.pa.us/growgreen/defaultdep.htm
RHODE ISLAND
Grow Smart Rhode Island
Keywords: outreach materials, technical training
Following a statewide conference on suburban sprawl held in the spring
of 1997, Grow Smart Rhode Island's founding Chairman James Dodge (then the CEO
of Providence Energy Corp.) worked with a broad range of organizations, agencies, and busi-
ness leaders to establish Grow Smart as a statewide non-profit organization. Grow Smart
works with a coalition of state agencies and nonprofit organizations to develop and present
training programs for municipal councils, boards and commissions, and other audiences
such as citizen groups and builders.
Providing Technical and Specialized Resources
The first training program, "Making Good Land-Use Decisions," debuted in the late fall of
2001. It provides 9 hours of training, presented on three evenings, by land use attorneys
and professional planners. Participants receive a training manual to accompany the
program. By the end of 2002, 200 officials from 21 different communities had attended the
training. Grow Smart will offer "Making Good Land-Use Decisions" again in the spring
and fall of 2003, and it is developing additional programs on site plan review, affordable
housing, and conservation subdivisions for presentation in 2003. The coalition's intent is
to identify means to institutionalize the training as an ongoing resource for Rhode Island
municipalities and citizens.
Capital Resources and Fiscal Management
The Doris Duke Charitable Foundation, the Blackstone River Valley National Heritage
Corridor Commission, EPA, the Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program, Rhode Island
Department of Transportation, Rhode Island Housing, and the Rhode Island Builders
Association provided the bulk of the funding for development and delivery of training
48
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
programs in 2002 and 2003. In addition, municipalities pay a small registration fee for each
participant. Grow Smart and its allies are seeking government and private underwriting to
continue the training programs in 2004.
Contact: Sheila Deming Brush, Director of Programs, Grow Smart Rhode Island, 345 South
Main Street, Providence, 111 02903; 401-273-5711, ext. 3, sbrush@growsmartri.com;
http://www.growsmartri. com
Rhode Island Rivers Council
Keywords: watershed plan funding, watershed group formation assistance, technical assis-
tance, outreach material development assistance
The Rhode Island Rivers Council is a government agency within the Rhode Island
Department of Administration. It was created by the Rhode Island General Assembly in
1991 to coordinate, oversee, and review efforts to improve and preserve the quality of
the state's rivers and water bodies. It consists of 15 members who serve 3-year terms. The
Council works with state legislators, state agencies, local government, and community mem-
bers to develop and implement policies to clean, monitor, improve, and protect the state's
rivers and watershed areas. With public input, the Council created the state's first Rhode
Island Rivers Policy and Classification Plan.
Technical and Specialized Resources
The Council's functions are planning, coordination, and empowerment. The main vehicles
to implement and monitor the policies in each watershed area are officially designated local
watershed associations, which work cooperatively with the Rhode Island Rivers Council.
The Council hopes to designate one local watershed association for each Rhode Island
watershed, and it will accept applications for new local councils in early 2003. The basic
duties of the Council are as follows:
Develop a Rhode Island State Rivers Policy and Classification Plan (Rivers Plan).
Advise state agencies and municipalities concerning programs and measures to
improve and protect river and watershed quality and to promote river use consistent
with the Rivers Plan.
Foster public involvement in river planning and decision-making through public
education and promotional activities.
Designate watershed councils as bodies corporate and politic with specific powers,
duties, and responsibilities.
Contact: Meg Kerr, University of Rhode Island, Coastal Institute/Sea Grant, Program and
Chairperson; mkerr@gso.uri.edu; http://www.planning.state.ri.us/rivers/default.htm
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
49
-------
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
Index
AGRICULTURAL RUNOFF
Boquet River Association 24
Cheney Lake Water Quality Project 11
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Haywood Waterways Association 27
Hillsdale Water Quality Project 13
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation 16
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
Sugar Creek Watershed Farmers 30
Upper Broad River Watershed Protection Program 29
Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance 9
ATMOSHPERIC DEPOSITION
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
COASTAL RESOURCE PROTECTION
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials 5
COMPREHENSIVE WATERSHED PLANNING AMD MANAGEMENT
Cheney Lake Water Quality Project 11
City of Griffin Stormwater Utility 6
For the Sake of the Salmon 41
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Friends of the Rappahannock 33
Grow Smart Rhode Island 48
Growing Greener 47
Haywood Waterways Association 27
Hillsdale Water Quality Project 13
Lake County Stormwater Management Commission 8
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation 16
Montana Watershed Coordination Council 37
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials 5
North Fork of the Gunnison 3
Ohio Environmental Council 39
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 43
Rhode Island Rivers Council 49
River Network 44
Santa Fe Watershed Association 23
Spruce Run Reservoir Initiative 21
Upper Broad River Watershed Protection Program 29
Watershed Restoration Action Strategies Partnership 36
Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance 9
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management 51
-------
DRINKING WATER/SOURCE WATER PROTECTION
Cheney Lake Water Quality Project 11
City of Griffin Stormwater Utility 6
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Hillsdale Water Quality Project 13
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
Spruce Run Reservoir Initiative 21
ENDANGERED SPECIES PROTECTION
Duck Creek Watershed Management Project 2
For the Sake of the Salmon 41
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Lake County Stormwater Management Commission 8
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 43
FORESTRY RUNOFF
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
Santa Fe Watershed Association 23
Upper Broad River Watershed Protection Program 29
HABITAT AMD HYDROLOGICAL RESTORATION
Boquet River Association 24
Chain of Lakes Clean Water Partnership 20
City of Griffin Stormwater Utility 6
Duck Creek Watershed Management Project 2
For the Sake of the Salmon 41
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Friends of the Rappahannock 33
Haywood Waterways Association 27
Hillsdale Water Quality Project 13
Lake County Stormwater Management Commission 8
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation 16
Montana Watershed Coordination Council 37
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
North Fork of the Gunnison 3
Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board 43
River Network 44
Sugar Creek Watershed Farmers 30
Upper Broad River Watershed Protection Program 29
Watershed Restoration Action Strategies Partnership 36
MINING
Boquet River Association 24
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Growing Greener 47
North Fork of the Gunnison 3
52
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
-------
MUNICIPAL WASTEWATER DISCHARGES
City of Griffin Stormwater Utility 6
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Growing Greener 47
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
ONSITE WASTEWATER MANAGEMENT
Cheney Lake Water Quality Project 11
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Hillsdale Water Quality Project 13
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
POINT SOURCE INDUSTRIAL DISCHARGES
Boquet River Association 24
City of Griffin Stormwater Utility 6
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Hillsdale Water Quality Project 13
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND BRIDGES
Boquet River Association 24
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
SOLID OR HAZARDOUS WASTES
Duck Creek Watershed Management Project 2
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Hillsdale Water Quality Project 13
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
URBAN STORMWATER RUNOFF
Boquet River Association 24
Chain of Lakes Clean Water Partnership 20
City of Griffin Stormwater Utility 6
Duck Creek Watershed Management Project 2
Friends of Lake Keowee Society 32
Friends of the Rappahannock 33
Haywood Waterways Association 27
Hillsdale Water Quality Project 13
Lake County Stormwater Management Commission 8
Lake Pontchartrain Basin Foundation 16
Nashua River Watershed Association 18
Nonpoint Source Education for Municipal Officials 5
Spruce Run Reservoir Initiative 21
Upper Broad River Watershed Protection Program 29
Wildcat Creek Watershed Alliance 9
Building Capacity for Nonpoint Source Management
53
------- |